posted March 16, 2009 07:15 AM            

Ann Coulter

Are you sitting down? Obama plans to pay for his $3.6 trillion-dollar spending bill by raising taxes on "the rich." I know, I know ... I was pretty shocked, too.

The bad news is, by hiking taxes in a recession, Obama will turn a disaster into a catastrophe. But there's good news, too. The "rich" include most of Obama's biggest supporters!

While liberals love being praised for their looks, their style, their brilliance and their courage, the one quality they don't want talked about is their money. To the contrary, Democrats are constantly boasting about how poor they are -- as if that's a virtue in a capitalist society with no class barriers.

No matter how much money they have, liberals will be damned if they're giving up the poor's mantle of angry self-righteousness. This is especially true if their wealth came by inheritance, marriage or the taxpayer, the preferred sources of income for Liberalus Americanus.

Democrats' claims of poverty merely serve to show how out of touch elected Democrats are with actual incomes in America.

At the Democratic National Convention, for example, there were heartfelt tributes to the daunting self-sacrifice of both Barack and Michelle Obama for passing up lucrative jobs to work in "public service" -- which apparently is now defined, such as in Michelle Obama's case, as "working as a 'diversity coordinator' at a big city hospital for $300,000 a year."

Seriously, even with a company car, full medical benefits and six weeks' paid vacation thrown in, how do people live on that?

Meanwhile, the average salary for a lawyer with 20 years or more experience in the U.S. is a little more than $100,000. If Michelle Obama doesn't lay off all this "giving back" stuff pretty soon, she's going to find herself in Warren Buffett's tax bracket.

During the campaign, Joe Biden was also praised by the Democrats for being the poorest U.S. senator -- as if that were a major accomplishment.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, touted Biden as "a good example of a working-class kid," adding that, to this day, Biden was "one of the least wealthy members of the U.S. Senate." Only a Democrat would list "never really made anything of myself" on his resume.

On the Huffington Post, operated by a woman who acquired her wealth by marrying a rich gay guy connected to Big Oil, liberal blogger Steven Clemons gloated that, unlike John McCain, Biden wouldn't "forget the number of houses he owns," adding that, in 2006, Biden was ranked the poorest U.S. senator.

And at his high school reunion Biden was voted "most likely to try to bum a ride off of somebody." Vote Biden!

According to tax returns for Biden and his public schoolteacher wife, in 2006, their total income was $248,459; in 2007, it was $319,853 -- putting the couple in the top 1 percent of all earners in the U..S.

This, my friends, is the face of poverty in America. At least in the Democratic Party. It's located just below that row of hair plugs. The Bidens are yet another heart-rending example of America's "hidden poor" -- desperately needy families hidden behind annual incomes of a quarter million dollars or more paid by the taxpayer. My fellow Americans, we can do better.

The national median household income was $48,201 in 2006 and $50,233 in 2007. Working for the government pays well.

If liberals are going to show how in touch they are with normal Americans by demanding a Marxist revolution against the rich every time they control the government, how about taking a peek at the charitable giving of these champions of the little guy?

According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

posted March 16, 2009 11:15 AM            

No matter how devastated our country is financially and every other way, these men and women on the right are what they are. Republicans. When you say that you say everything. These ideologues who spent all these years giving Bush everything no matter how outrageous, how unlawful, will not give this Presidency (or the Rep party) logical help in re-structuring what they have torn down.

The current mouthpiece of the Party says "I hope he fails"

Biggest Charitable contribution? Tax Cuts.

posted March 16, 2009 11:28 AM            

Further, Republicans and especially Conservatives give more of their time to charitable causes helping others than leftists.

Simple facts.

I understand your angst but attempting to suggest as the thrust of the piece you posted suggests that the rich...who supposedly benefited overly from Bush tax cuts ARE REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES is horseshiiit...in keeping with the picture you posted. Many of the very wealthy in America are demoscats and the richest members of the House and Senate are mostly demoscats.

Are you entertained...yet?

posted March 16, 2009 12:11 PM            

the rockefellers did this too. big money usually does. it is a way of sloughing off tax obligations and though giving the money away, retaining control over where it goes. and we all know that foundations PAY THE PEOPLE who run them as well.

the thing is jwhop, rich people don't necessarily have mammoth "incomes". bush's "meagre" income does not represent the half of what he is worth. he COMES FROM MONEY whereas the obama's EARN THEIRS. if you don't know the difference by now you are not paying attention.

posted March 16, 2009 01:02 PM            

writesomething, so now you're into mind reading to determine why people donate to charity?

You should take your mind reading act on the road.

Now, I notice no one challenged my statements that Republicans and especially Conservative Republicans donate more to charity...and give more of their time to charitable causes as well.

posted March 16, 2009 11:52 PM            

quote:

---

The only reason that most wealthy people(especially Republicans) donate is because of the tax write off. Most people dont do it because theyre giving and charitable. Sad but true.

---

That would be sad if it were true, writesomething. It's just not although I'd like to see your sources. Most conservatives donate for religious reasons and/or to religious organizations. And we're not talking about the wealthiest conservatives here, just average families who tithe every week at church or temple or mosque or wherever ... and as those donations are often made anonymously, ime, there is no record kept for you to submit the necessary paper trail for a tax break. Secondly, a lot of the wealthiest Americans are liberals and they are particularly notorious for their low levels of giving. Even when they do give, statistics have shown that they donate more to causes like the arts than to actually feeding and sheltering needy people.

quote:

---

Conservative vs. Liberal Charity Donations
Filed under: Talking Points memo — talkingpoints @ 3:23 pm

A recently published book outlines the difference between Conservative and Liberals who donate to Charity – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

So what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30% more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called “Who Really Cares” by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives.

The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about “nurturing” people who need help. The “tax the rich” crew can’t yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money.

That may be unfair, but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is “income redistribution;” that is, big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well-off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed “economic justice,” things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security.

But a funny thing happened on the way to liberalism. Americans who believe in “income redistribution” give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks. That is a stunning differential. I believe this is a religious thing. Liberals believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and that vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it’s all about you, then you are thinking about you, not about poor Dave down the street.

But devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in scripture. Jesus was a huge “help your neighbor” guy. For Christians, it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession.

The statistics say that religious Americans give four times as much money to charity each year than secular people, and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here’s another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation’s blood supply would rise 45%.

So in this season of giving, Christmas, a word some liberals don’t like to say, it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portrays conservatives as mean, sexist, racist, bigoted homophobes who are cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden.

But, as the tax returns of multi-millionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The Vice President gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little.

So the next time you hear a big government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned Dr. Brooks book. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing.

What’s left is – well, liberalism.

And that’s the memo.

---

Talking Points

quote:

---

People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.

It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families.

You may recall a flap during the 2000 election campaign when the fact came out that Al Gore donated a smaller percentage of his income to charity than the national average. That was perfectly consistent with his liberalism.

So is the fact that most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush.

Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.

According to Professor Brooks: "If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent."

Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the opposite of what he expected to find -- so much so that he went back and checked these facts again, to make sure there was no mistake.

---

Human Events

posted March 17, 2009 12:09 AM            

A recently published book outlines the difference between Conservative and Liberals who donate to Charity – that’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

So what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30% more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called “Who Really Cares” by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives.

The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about “nurturing” people who need help. The “tax the rich” crew can’t yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money.

That may be unfair, but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is “income redistribution;” that is, big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well-off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed “economic justice,” things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security.