Has anyone on this blog given more to charity or paid more taxes than Romney?

Detractors will never be happy, but Romney turns out is a generous man. The Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951. He gave $4,020,772 to charity, 30 percent of their income. (The Obamas gave 21.8 percent of their income to charities). So between charity and taxes, Romney gave out about 45% of his income. A little more than Obama did.

Romneys' tax preparer, PricewaterhouseCoopers, will provide a summary of the tax rates that the Romneys paid from 1990 to 2009. They paid an average Federal rate of 20.2%. (The Obamas paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent in 2011, a lower rate than the president's secretary, according to the White House.)

Has anyone on this blog given more to charity or paid more in taxes? Do you know anybody who has?

Posted by Christine & John at September 21, 2012 6:17 PM
Comments
Comment #353534

The spin is already out in the Huff Post and NY Times. They speculate that Romney deliberately didn’t take all the deductions he was entitled to in order to increase his effective tax rate. They further claim that he will probably refile and claim all his deductions after the election is over and get a nice refund.

Well…that’s speculation. But, the fact that he gave so much to charity didn’t even warrant a blip on their jaundiced radar screen. I expect Reid to be filmed eating his words on CNN.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 21, 2012 6:33 PM
Comment #353536

Royal

They will never be happy. But a guy who voluntarily gives away more than $4 million in charity CANNOT be motivated by greed and the desire to get even more.

Or liberal friends are too concerned with money. They are stingy themselves and think that everybody else is as bad as they are.

Posted by: C&J at September 21, 2012 6:40 PM
Comment #353537

Well C&J, you are exactly right. As you have pointed out repeatedly, the left believes charity comes from government under the “welfare” clause. In their minds I suppose they think one is a fool to be charitable on their own dime.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 21, 2012 6:46 PM
Comment #353543

Now lets see about six more years of tax returns.

Posted by: Jeff at September 21, 2012 8:12 PM
Comment #353544

Jeff

If he gave six, you would want six more. It will never end. Romney gave a pile a money in charity, more than Obama paid in taxes and a greater share of his income than Obama paid in taxes.

I understand that liberals dislike the element of choice in charity, but clearly the man paid his share.

Posted by: C&J at September 21, 2012 8:15 PM
Comment #353545

I don’t care what charity he give to that’s his business most of it whet to LDL that’s fine with me. Now you know if it was the other way around the right and you would be outraged and rightfully so.

Posted by: Jeff at September 21, 2012 8:23 PM
Comment #353546

“The spin is already out in the Huff Post and NY Times. They speculate that Romney deliberately didn’t take all the deductions he was entitled to in order to increase his effective tax rate.”

Royal,

It isn’t speculation.

“This move was to “conform” to the candidate’s statement in August that he paid a federal income tax rate of at least 13 percent of his income in each of the last 10 years, R. Bradford Malt, Romney’s trustee, said in a statement released by the campaign.”

Am I missing something about not taking deductions that would have led to a rate lower than 13%. It isn’t the Huff Post speculating, it is his own campaign.

Posted by: Rich at September 21, 2012 8:25 PM
Comment #353547

“(The Obamas paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent in 2011, a lower rate than the president’s secretary, according to the White House).”

Thank you, C&J, for illustrating what Obama and Buffet have been saying.

Posted by: Rich at September 21, 2012 8:28 PM
Comment #353550

Jeff

Re charity - you don’t care because you are a liberal. Liberals are generally just a bit stingy with their money but generous with that of others.

“Now you know if it was the other way around the right and you would be outraged and rightfully so.”

What other way around? Kerry never released his wife’s returns, which is where all his money came from. Nobody cared very much and he was a billionaire.

His accountant is releasing the summaries of Romney’s taxes back to 1990. The IRS accepted his returns, so there we have reasonable faith that he did things legally. Most people don’t even understand their own taxes.

But when Obama releases his transcripts, I will join you in calling for Romney to release his taxes.

Re deductions

If Romney was greedy, he could just not have given away that $4 million. So contention must be that Romney wanted to make more money so that he could give it away.

Rich

Obama paid a lower rate because of the nature of his income. He paid a lot more money than his secretary. Liberals are into punitive taxation. You are not interested in raising revenue as much as punishing success.

Posted by: C&J at September 21, 2012 9:00 PM
Comment #353551

C&J,

You are correct of course, the lower effective tax rate for many high income earners is a result of the “nature” of their income. Passive investment return is taxed at a lower rate than earned income. Think about that.


Posted by: Rich at September 21, 2012 9:09 PM
Comment #353552
But when Obama releases his transcripts, I will join you in calling for Romney to release his taxes.

http://www.barackobama.com/tax-returns/

Howe about when Obama releases his tax returns as both him and Biden have already done C&J?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 21, 2012 9:11 PM
Comment #353553

You really need to stop beating the same dead horse about charity I give what I can so what I don’t need to brag to justify somebody’s view of whats important. Did he not say If he paid more in taxes then what he owed he would not be fit to be president. Well at least we agree on one thing he is not fit to be president.

Posted by: Jeff at September 21, 2012 9:21 PM
Comment #353562

C&J has repeated that lie about rightwingers being generous and leftwingers being stingy for literally years now — he desperately wants to believe it, and thinks the constant repetition will somehow make it sound true.

As for Rmoney, I for one am not impressed by $4,020,772 of “charitable” giving to the cult of Mormon.
I know, I’m such a terrible bigot to call them cult, aren’t I? How come I don’t feel bad about that? Because of blatantly insane and cult-ish stuff like this:
Mormon church threatens to excommunicate member who criticized Romney

Mother Jones addresses the problems with Rmoney’s taxes thoroughly:
9 Things to Know About Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns

Posted by: Adrienne at September 21, 2012 9:39 PM
Comment #353564

Rich

I have thought about that.

Income you receive from corporate dividends is already been taxed at the corporate level, so it is taxed twice.

Capital gains can be influenced by inflation. Even in our low inflation times, a gain of 2-3% might not be a gain at all in real money.

j2t2

You think is it important to see Romney’s tax details. I really don’t care about that or Obama’s. The IRS says both are legal. I think it would be interesting what Obama studied and what grades he got. It is not my business, but then Romney’s taxes are not yours.

Jeff

“I give what I can” with all due respect, I doubt that. Frankly, I don’t give what I CAN. But some people make a point of giving more. Maybe they earn more or maybe they spend less.

In any case, you can be generous ONLY with your own money. IMO, liberals feel bad about their own behaviors and produce an ersatz feeling of goodness by demanding tax money be spent.

I also think it is our responsibility as humans and citizens to be charitable.

Re doing what you can - it is also your responsibility to increase your capacity so you can do more.

Adrienne

I have linked to many studies that show that conservatives give more than liberals. None of you have ever succeeded in counter them with anything but vitriol. I know it is embarrassing for liberals, which is why they call for taxing others so that they can get more from government.

John Kennedy said that we should ask not what our country can do for us but what we can do for our country. I don’t think he meant merely complaining that others should pick up more of the tab.

BTW - do you also hate Muslims? I suppose you do, because you are consistent in most of your hatreds (a good thing for integrity, I suppose), but I find it funny that many liberals are appalled by oblique attacks on Muslims but revel in frontal attacks on Mormons.

Posted by: C&J at September 21, 2012 9:54 PM
Comment #353574

C&J, Clinton also said “The age of big government is over.”

The Democratic Party has reverted back to George McGovern disguised as Obama as its new spokesman for old ideas.

The Democratic Party Clinton built in the 90s is dead.

After Clinton’s speak at the DNC, Obama might as well said “The age of big government being over is over.”

Posted by: Joseph Ragsdale at September 22, 2012 12:39 AM
Comment #353575
have linked to many studies that show that conservatives give more than liberals. None of you have ever succeeded in counter them with anything but vitriol.

The credibility of “studies” always depends on where they come from, does it not? j2t2 gave you an extremely credible study in the Blue Column very recently (and with no vitriol) — and you chose to ignored it because it doesn’t bolster that often repeated but dishonest claim:
Study Reveals The Geography of Charitable Giving

John Kennedy said that we should ask not what our country can do for us but what we can do for our country. I don’t think he meant merely complaining that others should pick up more of the tab.

Is this supposed to be some kind of defense or excuse for Romney’s snobbery and arrogance in despicably informing his wealthy Republican donors that he intends to write off half the American electorate in this nation should he be elected? If so, it’s as incredibly sad and pathetic as Mitt Romney’s very poorly managed campaign.

BTW - do you also hate Muslims?

No, I don’t hate Muslims. Do I hate Muslim Fundamentalist Extremists? Yes. I hate all forms of Authoritarianism.
Do I hate Christians? No. Do I hate Christian Extremists? Yes — again, I reject authoritarianism.
Astrology and New Age cults? No, they may be confused, but they’re harmless.
Cash Register, Human-Controlling Bogus-Mesianic Cults like the Cult of Mormon, or Scientology, or the Moonies? Yes, they are authoritarian, harmful and creepy and bizarre in the extreme.

I suppose you do, because you are consistent in most of your hatreds (a good thing for integrity, I suppose)

I’ve always been honest about what I think, and exactly why I think the things I do. Which is a lot more than you can say, as you twist and turn in any direction in order to serve all kinds of Republican political goals.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 22, 2012 12:41 AM
Comment #353576

Any of you Democrats regret not nominated Hillary?

I bet you do now.

If Romney is as bad as you say he is, what does that say of Obama? Obama can’t pull ahead for more than a few days in the polls against Romney who can’t go a week without saying something stupid.

Posted by: Joseph Ragsdale at September 22, 2012 12:51 AM
Comment #353577

Harry Reid not letting up on Romney after the release of his manipulated single tax return and selective incomplete summaries.

Any of you Democrats regret not nominated Hillary?

Not at all. And I think Sen. Clinton has done a very good job as Secretary of State.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 22, 2012 1:11 AM
Comment #353583

Joesph

The Clinton times were okay, at least after the Republicans took back the congress.

Obama is much to the left of Clinton to more importantly, Obama is much less competent than Clinton.


Adrienne

It doesn’t matter where the study comes from. What matters is the rigor of the analysis and the validity of the method and data. It also matters whether it is really a study of a polemic.

I sometimes “ignore” posts because I don’t see them all. The study you mention seems valid, but it doesn’t at all touch upon the conservative-liberal giving differences. It shows that rich (with incomes over 200,000)people give smaller % of their money when they live in communities w/o many poor people.

You probably aware of the anomaly that the poor whites vote Republican - “against their interest,” according to liberals, while the “rich” those making $200,000 or more (6% of the electorate) voted for Obama 52-46.

So your article may actually SUPPORT the idea that liberals give less, but generally it refers to a different subject.

If you go to the actual study (which I am 95% sure you did not) you find.

“Red states are more generous than blue states. The eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity went for John McCain in 2008. The seven-lowest ranking states supported Barack Obama.”

http://philanthropy.com/section/How-America-Gives/621

RE Kennedy - I am just saying that I believed what Kennedy said and I still do. Liberals have given up on this.

Re honesty - I feel hurt by your comment. I have always been honest with you. You sometimes just cannot understand the methodology and analysis so you think it “twists”. The search for truth is confusing for some people.

Re Clinton - I would not have supported Hilary with my vote, but I do believe she would have done a better job than Obama. In a race between Hilary Clinton and Obama, I would go for Clinton, as would most Democrats today, I bet.

RE Muslims - you only hate fundamentalist Muslims, but you seem to hate ALL Mormons and call it a cult. Do you feel that way about Muslim teachings, most of which are much farther from your (and probably my) values?

Posted by: C&J at September 22, 2012 6:45 AM
Comment #353585
It is not my business, but then Romney’s taxes are not yours.

Wow that was the fastest backpedaling I have seen in some time C&J. Seems Obama/Biden don’t have a problem with releasing this information. They must think the American people have the same vetting process as Romney does when selecting VP’s.
How do you spell hypocrisy? R-o-m-n-e-y.

C&J sites a biased conservative study used by many conservatives to wrongly characterize the enemy, us. It allows him to insult liberals by calling them stingy and such without merit. It is what conservatives need to do to feel good about themselves so don’t take it personally.

Here is some more information on the subject, which tells us the poor and middle class carry their weight when it comes to charitable giving.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/20/158947667/study-reveals-the-geography-of-charitable-giving

After Clinton’s speak at the DNC, Obama might as well said “The age of big government being over is over.”

Joseph the appropriate time to have said this was when GWB was president and the conservatives controlled Congress. The fact is government is smaller now than during the GWB era,so my question is where were you guys then and why were you not complaining about the size of government under your boy GWB? The conservative myth that Obama has increased the sized of government is wrong.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 22, 2012 9:22 AM
Comment #353600

C&J-
That’s nothing. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are going to give billions to charity over their lifetimes, which by your math will make them more virtuous than anybody here.

This is a rather elitist way to define virtue and charity. Who’s the more charitable, the poor people who give out of their poverty, or the rich man who gives out of his wealth and luxury?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 22, 2012 8:12 PM
Comment #353603

Stephen

I am just saying that it hard to say someone is stingy who gives millions away and hard to understand accusations that someone is greedy if he voluntarily pays more in charity than he would in taxes.

Re wealth and poverty - it depends. If someone is poor because of his poor decisions or behaviors and then cannot “afford” to give, I have little sympathy.

We have the duty both to help other AND build our capacity to do so. Failure at either makes you less able to do good.

I actually thought this through about ten years ago. Was it better to give away more money then or invest and have the capacity to give more later.

It is actually a classic investment decision. For example, you can give $10 today to charity or you can invest it and give more in future.

C&J have a donor advised fund. We put money in each year and cannot take it back, but we have the choice of giving it away now or later. If it sits in the fund, it gains in value (presumably). How long should you wait?

j2t2

Let’s see the Obama transcripts.

Re studies - the source may make you suspect the study, but the worth of a study is based on its methods and analysis. It is possible for Mother Jones to run a study that holds up to scrutiny. If the worst liar in the world tells you 2+2=4, it still does.

Re the poor giving to charity - I read that article and commented on it to Adrienne. I also followed the source material (which you guys are too lazy to do). It is an interesting study, but as I pointed out to Adrienne (read those comments) it says nothing particular about liberals or conservatives. In fact, it implies that conservatives are indeed more generous.

My comment was not that the poor and middle class are not generous; it was that liberals are not as generous as conservatives as a group. Your sources do not address that or (as I noted) tend to support the idea that conservatives are more generous.


Posted by: C&J at September 22, 2012 9:10 PM
Comment #353604

Stephen, I’d say the poor people who give from their heart and not for the Tax break. How much have you given to charity? Have you served in a soup kitchen? Have you been homeless? I’ve been homeless, and worked my way out, I’ve served in a soup kitchen, and gave hundreds to charity from the heart and not for the tax break.

Posted by: KAP at September 22, 2012 9:14 PM
Comment #353606

Romney is such a chronic liar. Remember when he said:
“Every year, I’ve paid at least 13%”?

Well, his lawyer has admitted that they manipulated his taxes in order to conform to that claim.

Remember when Romney said:
“I don’t pay more than are legally due, and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president.”

Well, Romney forfeited $2 million in deductions.
His tax rate would actually be 9% if he had not forfeited those deductions.
So, following his own claims, Romney is not qualified to be president.

Of course, if he loses the presidency, he does have three years to go back and claim those missed deductions…

Posted by: Adrienne at September 22, 2012 10:08 PM
Comment #353607

Adrienne

“Well, his lawyer has admitted that they manipulated his taxes in order to conform to that claim.”

Yeah, he didn’t take all the charity deductions he could have taken. Horrible thing to do, pay more in taxes than you have to.

Nothing he could have done would satisfy you.

It doesn’t make particular sense for him to go back and take deductions. He gave away more than $4million. If he wanted more money, he could just give less. He cannot actually make money by giving it away, you know.

Posted by: C&J at September 22, 2012 10:45 PM
Comment #353619

C&J-
Jesus felt it necessary in his time to caution against ostentatious giving, giving meant to draw approval, rather than satisfy some charitable impulse by itself.

Can you argue against the notion that Mitt Romney might just be giving to make himself look good, or to get the tax write-off? That’s the thing, isn’t it. People do a lot of things to look good. That doesn’t mean they are good.

But really, the whole reason you ask for multiple years of tax returns is to avoid just that kind of deception. A man like Romney might feel especially charitable for the years he’s required to inform people about, but how about the years before? We have no information from which to discern a real pattern of behavior.

Furthermore, I find the tone of your assertion rather disappointing. Many people give more of their time, a greater proportion of their wealth, than Romney does. He can spare the money four times over, and still make more money than most people do in their entire lifetimes.

It smacks of a certain elitist sensibility. Look at Romney, he gives millions, how about you, puny mortal?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 23, 2012 9:20 AM
Comment #353620

Romney: “I don’t pay more than are legally due, and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president.”

Or as the right likes to take things, that’s a PROMISE that if Romney paid more than he owed he’d drop out of the race. He paid more! He hasn’t dropped out! He’s a failure! FAILURE!

Frankly I don’t care about the taxes that much other than the humor of the gotcha moments on a super rich candidate contorting himself over how much he earns and how much he pays.

I think Romney is a good man. He’s a charitable man. He loves his wife and kids. We all see that. But after the 47% thing we know that Romney is one of those on the right that has complete disdain for the poor. They think the poor are lazy and poor of their own making. C&J is one. Most of the right on this blog are. They have little problem being charitable as long as they get to decide where their money goes so it doesn’t go to enable a bunch of parasites. Charity is essential in our communities. It’s just not enough.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 23, 2012 9:40 AM
Comment #353621

Joseph Ragsdale: “Obama can’t pull ahead for more than a few days in the polls against Romney who can’t go a week without saying something stupid.”

Actually in 17 of 20 polls in the last month Obama has lead Romney. The other 3 were ties. Romney has not lead in any poll since his “bounce” went away that had only brought him even or slightly ahead of Obama for a few days.

That’s just nationally. In the swing states so far Obama is moping the floor with Romney leading 7 out of 8 swing states. If the election were held today Obama would win the electoral college in a landslide.

I pulled for Clinton over Obama in the primary but I can list far more things I think President Obama has done right than I think he’s done wrong. When it comes to regretting candidates we’ll leave the what-ifs to those who backed Sarah Palin in that election.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 23, 2012 9:52 AM
Comment #353622

Stephen

Romney didn’t give ostentatiously. In fact, we only found out the extent of his generosity because his opponents pushed to find out more about his finances.

“to make himself look good, or to get the tax write-off?” You are showing your inexperience in life. If you write off even the maximum, you are still giving away much more.

So think of the simple example. You give away $100. You get a tax deduction of $35. How much money do you have? Is it more or less? The WORST you could say is that the person in question only gave $65 to charity. It is still generous.

Romney gave summaries of his taxes since 1990. That’s enough.

Re elitism - if it is elitism to do more good, we should all strive for that.

Re what Jesus said, I am not religious and you don’t really know yours, so we should not get into that field, but if we were to use the Bible, I would suggest Matthew 25:14-30.

Adam

Obama said that if he didn’t have the economy in order by now he should be a one term president. So in Romney we have a man who is too generous and in Obama we have one who is too incompetent.

Both Obama and Romney are not keeping their promise. I prefer generous Romney to incompetent Obama.

Re the poor - I do indeed believe that people affect their outcomes with their behaviors and attitudes. That is why I believe that the poor contribute to their outcomes.

One of the big divides between liberals and conservatives is the liberal believe people are victims and do not have the capacity to make meaningful decisions. A the bottom, liberals do not believe in freedom of choice. That is the primary reason why I reject liberalism. I like to make decision for myself and encourage others to do so, rather than follow the dictates of people who think they know what I need more than I do.

Re Sara Palin - she was running for vice president. She probably would have handled that role as well as Biden. Both are liable to say and do stupid things, but it doesn’t cause that much trouble.


Posted by: C&J at September 23, 2012 10:28 AM
Comment #353623

Joseph,

“If Romney is as bad as you say he is, what does that say of Obama? Obama can’t pull ahead for more than a few days in the polls against Romney who can’t go a week without saying something stupid.”

Let me think…

What is it that the right has been saying about Obama… oh yeah, worst President ever. The right here on these pages have been already been gloating about the pasting Romney will give the worst President ever. The right wing pundits are announcing the defeat of the worst President ever.
It’s like a mantra…
The worst President since, well…, ever, and Romney should be mopping the floor with this guy.

Yet…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 23, 2012 10:29 AM
Comment #353624

C&J: “Obama said that if he didn’t have the economy in order by now he should be a one term president.”

There’s more context to his quote than you give him credit for but it also just depends on what you call, “in order.” He hasn’t had the booming growth of Reagan so you call him a failure but unemployment is pretty much the only measure you can fault him on and that’s still dropped 2% from it’s high point. It will go even lower next year. I hope Obama’s still in office because we already know Romney thinks the economy will magically get better just because he won. He’s setting himself up to take credit for things that were put in motion well before the election.

“One of the big divides between liberals and conservatives is the liberal believe people are victims and do not have the capacity to make meaningful decisions.”

I agree. In order to justify greater expansion of free markets and to roll back workers rights and consumer protections you’ve settled for the idea that everything comes down to personal responsibility and if somebody fails in America it’s of their own doing. But life is messy and complicated and there are victims of many kinds. Only one side seems willing to admit to this complexity and the other just prefers to pretend it’s fine and if somebody suffers it’s their own fault.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 23, 2012 11:10 AM
Comment #353629

C&J-
The naive thing to suppose would be that he was automatically being charitable just because he’s so charitable. Yes, he could be charitable, but he could also be a politician looking just to look good.

As for the tax summary? Give me a break. There’s a reason we ask for tax returns, instead of just tax summaries. First, as my brother told me, just having your accountants hand the public a sheet of paper with effective tax rates on it is almost hearsay. There’s more to Romney’s finances than just effective percentages.

As for elitism? Oh, I like the doing good part. The elitist part is claiming that Romney is above criticism, just because he gave much more than many of us earn in a lifetime.

There’s always this attempt to hide Romney from scrutiny, remove him from accountability. Well, there’s a very good way for you to do that: let him lose. As a Private Citizen, unless he breaks the law, nobody will care what’s on his tax returns.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 23, 2012 1:34 PM
Comment #353631

Adam

The economy is recovering as economies do. Obama spent a lot of money which did little. Now we have to pay it back. If I borrow $1000 to do a project that yields me $900, I really cannot brag about my big success.

It does depend on what we call success. Do you really believe, however, that Obama or anybody else hoped for an economy with the slow growth and 8% plus unemployment?

But in any case, we have Obama who didn’t come through on his promise by producing poor growth; we have Romney who “broke his promise” by being too generous with his money. It is hard for me to understand why their is a question about this.

Re personal responsibility - I understand that life is complicated. Lots of thing happen to us by random chance. A wise person takes such things into account but even the best of us will miss sometimes. Any of us can be poor.

But if you continue to be poor for a long time, there is probably a reason that can be found in your choices, behaviors or attitudes.

There are some individuals who through very bad luck can stay poor despite their best efforts and doing the right things. But these individuals are not common.

We do have safety nets that protect people from the very bad effect of chance. But we cannot make those nets into floors that protect people from the consequences of all their bad decisions. Doing so is most cruel to the poor. It allows them to continue in their error.

The Welfare Reform signed by President Clinton was a great step forward. Liberals cried that it would increase the misery of the poor; instead it make most of them better off.

I understand in my own life that I have been lucky. I was not born into a rich family and both my parents with HS dropouts, but they were good people who gave me a good base of value. I was also lucky to be born smarter, healthier and taller than average, although below average in looks & “coolness”. We all have advantages and disadvantages in life; how we use them makes a difference. A good society gives up ample opportunities to develop our talents. It does not guarantee success, since that would deprive us of the great joy of accomplishing things.

Our society is fundamentally fair, but not equal, which would not be fair. We provide many opportunities. Some of them come from government. We have public schools, public roads, public libraries, state universities. The list is long. Other opportunities are provided by civil society. Good people like Romney volunteer money and time to help others. Our free market provides many opportunities. Books are inexpensive. Most of us can afford nutritious food because of the great productivity of our system.

With all these platforms to stand on, you really have no excuse to stay poor. Now let’s move to why one might indeed stay poor.

The biggest reason is bad attitudes and behavior. This may not be your “fault”. You may have learned bad attitudes from your parents. They may have a cultural heritage that is maladaptive to modern life. This things should change. How? We need to give incentives and help. This is what liberals are loath to do. Black ghetto culture is very bad at achieving success for anyone beyond athletes and musicians and only a small % of people can have these things. We should work hard to alter and perhaps eliminate most of the tenets of this culture. When someone like Bill Cosby says this, he is castigated by “the community”. When someone like I say this, we call called racists. It takes great courage to say such things in public. I am not brave enough to do it openly. But this is the truth.

If you are poor for a long time, you are doing something wrong. If you are intergenerationally poor you have be passing bad habits and behaviors to you kids. We need to break this circle.

Stephen

He had been charitable for many years. He gave his whole inheritance to charity. If he is doing this for venal reasons, we should find out how to make everybody else as venal.

Re taxes - your brother is mistaken. The accountant has a fiduciary responsibility to tell the truth. I know liar like Harry Reid think everyone else is a liar, but not all of us as that bad. Most of us are not that bad.

Re elitism - Romney gave more and he gave a larger % of is income. I am not as generous as he is. I doubt anybody on this blog is as generous. In fact, his generosity is so uncommon and exception that we would normally comment on it and praise it.

Now Romney has released summaries of his taxes. Perhaps Obama can release summaries of his transcripts, maybe just his GPA for each semester. Let’s see how smart he was as an undergrad and how it is that he got a free ride in school, while poor suckers like you and me had to pay ourselves.

Posted by: C&J at September 23, 2012 3:25 PM
Comment #353635

C&J: “If I borrow $1000 to do a project that yields me $900, I really cannot brag about my big success.”

It just depends on the goal. If you’re forced to spend $1000 or suffer ruin then you may be more than happy to get $900 back instead of nothing at all. The problem is the right has set imaginary expectations for what the stimulus should have accomplished so of course it falls way short.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 23, 2012 8:53 PM
Comment #353636

“Let’s see how smart he was as an undergrad and how it is that he got a free ride in school, while poor suckers like you and me had to pay ourselves.”

C&J,

What an annoying line of argument. The bottom line on his academic career has been disclosed for decades. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from the most competitive law school in the country. He was the president of Harvard Law Review. He competed and won. I thought you guys were all about merit.

Posted by: Rich at September 23, 2012 9:26 PM
Comment #353637

Rich

The same goes for Romney’s taxes. We know the result.

He graduated from the great school. I suspect he did not get in strictly on merit. It matters as much as Romney’s taxes (i.e. not much) but if you guys care about Romney’s tax, I care about Obama’s grade.

Posted by: C&J at September 23, 2012 9:34 PM
Comment #353649

No suprise that the ones who “say” they care are also the ones who give the least. That they define “fair share” by only what government takes.

There are two types of people: those who say they care, pays what the government says to pay and then actually helps those they say they care about.
AND
Those who “say” they care, pays what the government says to pay and then sits back and expects government to do the rest, while complaining about others not doing enough.

Apparently, TV and internet, cell phones, lattes and partying is more important than actually helping those you “say” you care about.

Liberalism at its best.

Posted by: kctim at September 24, 2012 11:02 AM
Comment #353653
My comment was not that the poor and middle class are not generous; it was that liberals are not as generous as conservatives as a group. Your sources do not address that or (as I noted) tend to support the idea that conservatives are more generous.

And my comment was and is the source you use to make this claim is biased. The Philanthropy.com link seems to be much more honest about the lack of date on charitable giving than the source you quote.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 24, 2012 1:29 PM
Comment #353654

Just as the title to this thread is biased and proves nothing neither does your claim, IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 24, 2012 1:31 PM
Comment #353668

j2t2

I did not quote that study. You did. I have quoted many studies in the past and suggest you go back to those earlier talks. Your study is great. I read it, which is more than you did. But it is not to the point.

Posted by: C&J at September 24, 2012 6:25 PM
Comment #353675

It is truly tragic that Mitt Romney has found himself in the position he is now. I am certain he is a very compassionate person; I already knew that from his efforts to pass universal health care in Massachusetts. It’s too bad that the Tea Party is preventing Mitt Romney from running a true “compassionate conservative” campaign. If Mitt were allowed to be Mitt, he’d be doing much better. Unlike Reagan, Romney is a terrible actor and cannot perform the role of Tea Party Conservative without making a caricature of himself.

Posted by: Warped Reality at September 24, 2012 8:43 PM
Comment #353677

Warped,

If you are correct about Romney, then he is truly unfit for the office of the presidency of the US. A person who disavows his own values for political gain is untrustworthy.

Posted by: Rich at September 24, 2012 9:26 PM
Comment #355217

It could have been much worse. An Coach Factory Outlet examination of the sabotage revealed why government officials Louis Vuitton Belts and computer experts found the attack disturbing.Aramco’s oil production Coach Factory Outlet operations are segregated from the company’s internal communications Gucci Belts network. Once executives were assured that only the internal communications network had Coach Factory Outlet been hit and that not a drop of oil had been spilled, they set to work Coach Factory Outlet replacing the hard drives of tens of thousands of its PCs and tracking Coach Factory Online down the parties responsible, according to two people close to the Coach Outlet Online investigation but who were not authorized to speak publicly about it.Aramco Coach Outlet Online flew in roughly a dozen American computer security experts. By Coach Online Outlet the time those specialists arrived, they already had a good handle on the Coach Factory Outlet Online virus. Within hours of the attack, researchers at Coach Outlet Online Symantec, a Silicon Valley security company, began analyzing a sample of Coach Outlet Online the virus.That virus called Shamoon after a word embedded in its code Coach Factory Outlet was designed to do two things: replace the data on hard drives with Hermes Belts an image of a burning American flag and report the addresses of infected computers Coach Outlet Online a bragging list of sorts back to a computer inside the company’s Coach Factory Online network.Shamoon’s code included a so-called kill switch, a timer Coach Factory Outlet set to attack at 11:08 a.m., the exact time that Aramco’s computers Hermes Belts were wiped of memory. Shamoon’s creators even gave the erasing mechanism a Coach Factory Online name: Wiper.Last May, researchers discovered that Flame had been siphoning data from computers, mainly in Iran, for several years.

Posted by: Gucci Belts at October 24, 2012 2:54 AM
Comment #355906

What, then, are the characteristics that make an MSA likely to spawn successful neologisms? It’s well established that Coach Outlet Twitter has a higher rate of adoption among African Americans than other ethnic groups, and so it perhaps isn’t Coach Outlet surprising that they now find that innovation centres, as well as being highly populated, have a higher proportion of Coach Outlet African Americans, and that similarity of racial demographic can make two urban centres more likely to be linked Coach Outlet in the influence network. There is a long history of adoption of African American slang (cool, dig, rip off) in mainstream Coach Outlet Online US culture, so these findings agree with what we might expect.Not only has he been sacked, but he now risks losing his Coach Factory Online home as well, situated almost next door to his former workplace, the Papal apartments on the top floor of the Coach Outlet Online Apostolic Palace.The Gendarmerie explained that this was done to prevent Gabriele from harming himself, Coach Outlet and that he himself had asked for the light to be left on at night and was given a sleeping mask.

Posted by: Coach Outlet at October 31, 2012 4:47 AM
Comment #358071

Dressesstore.net has been in business for more than 10 years, we are a professional US wedding dress and uk wedding dresses manufacturer, and our goal is to provide complete one-stop shopping for all brides, bridesmaids and all special occasion events. We strive to provide you with the most current selection in Mldress, the most complete size range, the best prices and the largest variety of styles. Each style was built around the concept of offering a complete dressok, suitable product assortment for your social moment. Each style includes the product and information necessary to help you create a memorable wedding ceremony or party.you can buy cheap handbags in our store

Posted by: dresss at December 4, 2012 4:00 AM
Post a comment