To hear Barack Obama talk about helping those in need, you’d think he’s the most charitable guy on the planet. He just wants to help those who can’t help themselves, afterall… right? He advocates “spreading the wealth” and says it’s good for everyone. His running mate, Joe Biden tell us that paying higher taxes (so the government can decide who deserves your hard-earned money more than you) is “a patriotic act“.

Man, what a couple of selfless givers….

Or not.

Apparently while Barack Obama is saying things like:

“I think most people understand that if you’re not caring for your family, then you’re probably not the kind of person who’s going to be caring for other people.”

…his brother is living in a Kenyan shanty on less than $1 per month and his aunt is living in the projects in South Boston.

While Barack Obama is telling us that those who oppose higher taxes are “selfish“:

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

…he’s “selflessly” giving less than 1% of his own income to those in need (not including the last couple of years where his percentage of giving has increased to coincide with his political campaigns) and his running mate is giving less than half one percent of his income to those in need.

To compare Obama’s and Biden’s “selflessness”, it’s worth noting that 89% of Americans contribute to charity at an average rate of 3.1% of income. (Further studies also show that conservatives already give to charity at a rate of 3.5 times more than liberals)

The fundamental difference is clear.

Conservatives want the freedom to be voluntarily charitable with their own hard-earned money.

Liberals want the power to be forcefully charitable with others’ hard-earned money.

1. […] Charity Begins at Home With Others Posted in November 1st, 2008 by in Uncategorized Obama Campaign: Charity Begins at Home With Others His running mate, Joe Biden tell us that paying higher taxes (so the government can decide whodeserves your hard-earned money more than you) is “a patriotic act“. Man, what a couple of selfless givers…. Or not. … […]

   Pingback by » Obama Campaign: Charity Begins at Home With Others Joe Biden On Best Political Blogs: News And Info On Joe Biden — 12:04 pm
   

2. I wonder what a closer look at those charitable donations would teach. Some points to look at:
   - Donations to NPR are “charitable” contributions, although they are really just voluntary subscription fees. It’s difficult to see the support of a media organisation as charity.
   - Donations to a church are charitable, even if most of the donations simply pay for the services the church offers its members. More than 90 billion charitable dollars a year go to US churches, and a huge percentage (often more than 90%)of that money “sticks”, serving only the church community itself. I don’t see how paying ministers, church staff and church facilities is “charity”.
   - How many donations are done for tax reasons? The US tax code rewards charity much more than other countries. If anything, it’s surprising how little Americans give considering how low the tax rates are.

   In the end, all of these “charitable” donations amount to at most 2% of GDP - something like 260 billion dollars in 2005. Charity isn’t a substitute for government action, not just because it is small in size, but also because it is fragmented and prone to fraud. It is a decent way to support the churches but that’s the extent of it.

   Comment by endorendil — 5:29 pm
   

3. Typical. Excuse the folks who don’t voluntarily give while simultaneously trying to degrade those who do give as having some ulterior motive.

   More than 90 billion charitable dollars a year go to US churches, and a huge percentage (often more than 90%)of that money “sticks”, serving only the church community itself. I don’t see how paying ministers, church staff and church facilities is “charity”.

   Because you see churches and its staff and members as just a bunch of people meeting on Sundays to pray together instead of seeing all the community projects, programs and work churches and their members do. You ignore the mission trips, the disaster relief efforts, the food drives, the social programs, job training, etc that faith-based organizations provide.

   How many donations are done for tax reasons? The US tax code rewards charity much more than other countries. If anything, it’s surprising how little Americans give considering how low the tax rates are.

   Again, conservatives give 3.5 times more than liberals. So you can start by asking the question of your own friends. When they reach charitable parity, then we can talk about “everyone” increasing their contributions.

   Charity isn’t a substitute for government action, not just because it is small in size, but also because it is fragmented and prone to fraud.

   Ah yes, because we would never see fraud or inefficiency in a government program.

   Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 8:11 pm
   

4. Because you see churches and its staff and members as just a bunch of people meeting on Sundays to pray together instead of seeing all the community projects, programs and work churches and their members do. You ignore the mission trips, the disaster relief efforts, the food drives, the social programs, job training, etc that faith-based organizations provide.

   No, I see those. They are the outreach programs that make up a fraction of the churches’ budgets. In some churches, outreach makes up a larger percentage than others. But next time you go by your local church, ask yourself what it cost to build, heat and administer. That money doesn’t help anyone outside the community. If most of conservatives give to charity through their churches, I would not be surprised if they actually achieve less than those darned liberals.

   It all depends on the overhead of the churches. I’ve seen several church budgets that had less than 10% going to outreach programs, and many that have less than 20%. There are those churches that focus on missionary work, and they can reach outreach rates of 30% or even 60%. Unfortunately for most of those churches missionary work is largely religious (i.e. focused on saving souls, not alleviating poverty) and quite often international.

   Either way, all the money given to “charity” wouldn’t cover the cost of providing foodstamps and medicaid to the poor.

   Note also that charitable giving has run about 2% of GDP since the sixties. It doesn’t matter that taxes are cut: people don’t give significantly more to charity if they pay less taxes.

   Comment by endorendil — 7:09 pm
   

5. And if it wasn’t obvious, I don’t claim that fraud and inefficiency can’t plague government programs either. But since it’s only ONE organisation, that is explicitly publicly accountable and relatively transparent, it is easier to monitor.

   Comment by endorendil — 7:12 pm
   

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.