Liberals Give ‘Til It Hurts (You)

Pages: 1 2

Liberals never tire of discussing their own generosity, particularly when demanding that the government take your money by force to fund shiftless government employees overseeing counterproductive government programs.

They seem to have replaced “God” with “Government” in scriptural phrases such as “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37)

This week, we’ll take a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the poor.

In 2009, the Obamas gave 5.9 percent of their income to charity, about the same as they gave in 2006 and 2007. In the eight years before he became president, Obama gave an average of 3.5 percent of his income to charity, upping that to 6.5 percent in 2008.

The Obamas’ charitable giving is equally divided between “hope” and “change.”

George W. Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year he was president, as he did before becoming president.

Thus, in 2005, Obama gave about the same dollar amount to charity as President George Bush did, on an income of $1.7 million — more than twice as much as President Bush’s $735,180. Again in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama’s.

In the decade before Joe Biden became vice president, the Bidens gave a total — all 10 years combined — of $3,690 to charity, or 0.2 percent of their income. They gave in a decade what most Americans in their tax bracket give in an average year, or about one row of hair plugs.

Of course, even in Biden’s stingiest years, he gave more to charity than Sen. John Kerry did in 1995, which was a big fat goose egg. Kerry did, however, spend half a million dollars on a 17th-century Dutch seascape painting that year, as Peter Schweizer reports in his 2008 book, “Makers and Takers.”

To be fair, 1995 was an off-year for Kerry’s charitable giving. The year before, he gave $2,039 to charity, and the year before that a staggering $175.

He also dropped a $5 bill in the Salvation Army pail and almost didn’t ask for change.

In 1998, Al Gore gave $353 to charity — about a day’s take for a lemonade stand in his neighborhood. That was 10 percent of the national average for charitable giving by people in the $100,000-$200,000 income bracket. Gore was at the very top of that bracket, with an income of $197,729.

When Sen. Ted Kennedy released his tax returns to run for president in the ’70s, they showed that Kennedy gave a bare 1 percent of his income to charity — or, as Schweizer says, “about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his 50-foot sailing sloop Curragh.” (Cash tips to bartenders and cocktail waitresses are not considered charitable donations.)

Pages: 1 2

  • BS77

    Ann Coulter. Brigitte Gabriel. Michelle Malkin. Heroes of our time.

  • paul

    Yes I agree a true hero of our time, if only more people would pay attention when she puts pen to paper.

    • Guest

      Actually if people did pay attention they would note that there are no sources sited and its simply random out of context quotes and comparisons that add up to nothing. For example she states Bush and Obama gave the same amount to charity despite Bush having only half the income. Of course Bushs net worth is 4x Obama so overall gives less. Same with Cheney and McCain when you look at income versus net worth ( Further a CNN article from 4/15/98 commenting on Al Gores giving notes the previous year he gave $35,530 and in 1992 $52,558. These correction do not prove Republican or Democratic leaders are more giving one over the other. Rather it demonstrates the article is nothing more than random facts designed to create an emotional response from ideologues (like all good propaganda left or right). I submit Ideologues are not hero's, our country is better served by critical thinking on both sides of the aisle. Agreeing uncritically is sheepish and the believers deserve the right or left wing totalitarianism it eventually leads to.

      • Michelle

        Actually it is a fact from MANY sources that Republicans on average including leaders and members give a SIGNIFICANTLY higher amount of money. You obviously combed through this article for ridiculous details and completely missed the point. Republicans give without being asked and democrats think the government should take care of it. Not to mention the few democrats who do give "charitable" contributions like Nancy Pelosi who donated to the San Francisco ballet.

  • Victor Laslow

    And once the Liberal Progressives run out of other peoples money they will eat each other. I would say I cant wait to see the feast but by then Obama will have his wish and we will have become a third world nation. And hunger hurts.

  • Rifleman

    The left naturally assumes everyone else is as greedy and crooked as they are.

    "He also shot a lawyer in the face, which I think should count for something." LOL.

  • Ron

    Another spot-on article from the queen. Libs are phonys, liars, cheats, and traitors!

  • sflbib


    I don't think those of the Left actually believe they are greedy and crooked. They have repeated their bleeding heart propaganda so often they have come to believe it themselves.

    • Rifleman

      They may not believe they're AS greedy and crooked as everybody else, but they know their crooked business deals are crooked, and they know how little they give to charity.

  • sflbib

    "I'm for you against the rich and powerful." — Presidential candidate Al Gore

  • gorpreebley

    While think Buffett is wrong about taxes, I disagree lumping the man in same boat as the stalwarts of the democratic party.

    Buffett and Gates took the most enormous fortunes even made and put them to the betterment of mankind using the business methods that made them wealthy. This is pure selfless decency and should be beyond such harsh criticism.

    Gates in particular has shown the way- scientifically attacking the issues that matter most to the most miserable on this earth.

    All this raises the question for Ms. Coulter: what is your percentage of giving? I have no doubt it is higher than Obama's so shout it out girlfriend!

    • Guest

      As I recall Gates' charitable giving shot up after he was hauled before Big Brother on a monpoly beef. It was the Dem's 'subtle' way of telling him they wanted more of his money and would get it one way or another. He settled.

  • Michael

    The Donkeys are the real Nazis of this Nation. They have no morality . Will say and do anything to stay in power eternally. It is sad . We are losing our Nation to criminals. There is nowhere to go once America has morphed into a third world Nation.
    American Christian Infidel
    Michael Canzano

  • Stephen_Brady

    As I heard a current candidate for Mayor of Chicago say, several years ago … Carol Mosley Braun … "We on the left side of the ailse need to hold on to what money we have earned so that we can use it to come to power, making the changes needed by the people."

    Bunch of hypocrites.

    If they get what they want, the only "rich" in America will be them, in their Zil-limousines (like the Soviet "leaders" of old), while everyone else gets bicycles. Of course, that will be healthy!

    By the way, have you read that the Obama's vacation in Hawaii is costing US $1.47 million?

  • aspacia

    Beck also gives a huge amount to charity.

  • sflbib

    In all fairness to liberals, they don't give much because they believe it is the function of government to take care of "the poor".

    • Rifleman

      That's a big part of it.

  • tagalog

    I once had a friend who prided himself on the superiority of his moral stance because he always voted for the politico who would be in favor of tax increases for welfare programs.

    Then when it came to tax time, he cheated on his taxes, saying (and I quote verbatim), "it's un-American not to cheat on your taxes."

    • Neil

      Was that individual Tim "Turbo Tax" Geithner?

  • redac ted

    Gates and Buffet "donated' money to tax-free foundations that they control. Their money grows tax free and they distribute a portion to causes they champion. Both of these foundations have goals to reduce the population of earth. Gates says that by providing vaccines to the third world, it will cause their population to be reduced. Some have speculated that the vaccines are causing sterility. The charity that both Gates and Buffet are dedicated to is eugenics.

    Traditionally, Americans gave money to their church and/or civic associations to build a safety net for themselves or their offspring. Those getting the assistance would be humbled as they met their benefactors to say thank you. They would also see that they have made mistakes in their lives that others did not. They viewed the successful people as a roll models. Those who donated, were repaid by the knowledge of changing the course of the lives who needed their help. Today, those receiving assistance say where is my g*d d*mmed money. They don't realized that they have made mistakes in their lives. Of course, they don't see a need to change the way that they are living. And the 'rich' say it is the governments responsibility to help the poor and that their responsibility is to pay as little tax as possible.