Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: daniel49
Topic Title: If liberals care more for the little guy, why do conservatives give more to charity?
How old are you?
Still at home under the roof of rich Republican parents?
OK, I'll spell it out for those that have a lot of learning to do.
You're so called "generous" conservatives are rich beyond what normal people could possibly spend. They have so much and they hate to be taxed on it so they come up with "every imaginable way" to find ways to get out of paying their "fair share" in taxes.
So Charities do get some on their list of squirreling money away to look good on paper to the IRS but it is a fraction of what they really could give to charity if they weren't so greedy.
Hopefully you will never know what its like to really want to give to charity because you want to and have a true bounty of windfall but you can't because you are struggling just to make it check to check like most "liberal" Americans.
Guess what though, those struggling liberals tend to donate to charity in an even more important way, with their time and physical efforts.
Do you think those Charities run by themselves?
Let me know in 15 or so years what you learn.
Also, see this:Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Did the OP or any other defender of Cheney as a "kind hearted individual" take the time to do a simple google search about these "charitable" contributions?
The Cheney's had no choice but to make the "charitable" contributions. They were REQUIRED BY LAW because they were the result of stock options exercised from Haliburtion. He takes a one-time hit so that he is now under no obligations to donate another penny of Haliburton money. This isn't charity, it is a business arangement to ensure even more liquidity in the future. That is a major distinction that needs to be stressed upon the Freeper folk drooling over the absently kind heart of Cheney in the OP.
Cheney is no saint and he is about as charitable as he is courteous to Dem Senators on the floor of Congress.The Republican Congress sure knows how to take care of its friends. This is tax weekend in the United States and in celebration of the annual ritual, the White House released President Bush's and Vice-President Cheney's tax returns. The VP may be a lousy shot, but he sure can hit the target buried deep in the tax code. The VP was one of the prime beneficiaries...of the special provision in the Katrina legislation that suspended the 50% of adjusted gross income limitation on charitable contributions of cash for the 2005 tax year. And guess what, most, if not all, of the VP's charitable contributions went to causes unrelated Hurricane Katrina relief (unless of course, some of Tulane's students temporarily transferred to the University of Wyoming). The arrangement is ably described in a memorandum from the VP's lawyers, Williams and Connolly LLP. The relevant portion provides as follows:
The Cheneys' adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006 which was largely the result of the exercise by an independent gift administrator of stock options that had been irrevocably set aside in 2001 for charity. The Cheneys donated $6,869,655 to charity in 2005 from the exercise of these stock options under the terms of the Gift Administration Agreement and from Mrs. Cheney's book royalties from Simon & Schuster on her books America: A Patriotic Primer, A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing American Woman, and When Washington Crossed the Delaware: A Wintertime Story for Young Patriots. As provided in the Gift Administration Agreement, gifts were made to three designated charities named in that Agreement. The Cheneys' return was filed on March 20, 2006.
During the course of 2005 the Cheneys paid $2,468,566 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. Taxes were withheld from their salaries and from the net proceeds of stock options that were exercised under the Gift Administration Agreement. Given that the option proceeds were dedicated to charity, there was a substantial over withholding in 2005 from the income attributable to the exercise of the stock options, which reduced the amount available for charity in 2005
To enable the gift administrator to maximize the charitable gifts in 2005, the year in which the options were exercised, the Cheneys wrote a personal check in December 2005 to the gift administrator in the amount of $2,331,400. That amount, combined with the net proceeds from the stock options, was given to the three designated charities by the gift administrator. As a consequence, the Cheneys are entitled to a refund of $1,938,930. This refund returns the Cheneys to a neutral position of no personal financial benefit or financial detriment resulting from the transactions under the Gift Administration Agreement. Thus, the Cheneys received no financial benefit from the stock options. The transactions were tax neutral to the Cheneys. The amount of taxes paid by the Cheneys from their income, other than the income from the exercise of the stock options, was the equivalent of what they would have paid if the options had not been exercised.
In a press release of March 5, 2001, the Cheneys reported that they had established the Gift Administration Agreement on January 18, 2001 to donate all net after tax proceeds from various stock options that the Vice President had earned at Halliburton and for their service on the boards of directors of other companies to three designated charities--George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, Inc. for the benefit of the Cardiothoracic Institute, the University of Wyoming for the benefit of the University of Wyoming Foundation, and Capital Partners for Education for the benefit of low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C. area. By entering into the Gift Administration Agreement the Cheneys divested themselves of the economic benefit of the options and granted the gift administrator full discretion, power and control over the options. The Agreement directed the gift administrator to maximize the gifts to the three charities while avoiding financial or after tax benefit or detriment to the Cheneys.
Let see if the donations keep coming AFTER he is out of public office and is no longer constrained by rules that dictate that he cannot benefit financially while he is in the position that he is.
Vice-President Cheney?s $1.1 million tax cut in part reflected the lower regular tax rates and the 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends. Cheney also was able to take an additional $2.5 million in itemized deductions due to a tax-law change signed by Bush in 2005, which was ostensibly designed to encourage charitable donations to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Normally, charitable deductions cannot offset more than half of a taxpayer?s adjusted gross income. (Unused deductions can be carried forward for possible use in later years.) A special rule for 2005, however, allows unlimited charitable deductions if made after August 27, the date of the Katrina disaster. The law does not require that these
donations be linked in any way to hurricane relief.
None of Cheney?s charitable donations went to hurricane victims. Instead, they went to the Washington, D.C. hospital that takes care of his heart condition, the University of Wyoming (his alma mater), and Capital Partners for Education, which helps low-income Washington, D.C. students pay private school tuition.
Read what? Some drivel posted on Freeper central? Another link to a blog which then links to beliefnet.com? Could these so-called "sources" be any less biased? Freepers, bloggers, and some religious website? I think you set the bar WAY too low.Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: daniel49
cheney $6.87 million dollars to charity in 2005
Gore when he was VP in 1997? $367.00
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623660/posts
null
"Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable"
So you compare two people and then extrapolate out to cover all 300,000,000 Americans? Dude, your a statistical genius! :laugh:
Apparently you didn't bother to read about the studies linked...
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Tax write offs.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Lothar
Tax write offs...
My family donated about 12-16 bags of used clothes and 4 bags of shoes to the Salvation Army 2 years ago...
We got at least $2000 off our taxes...MUCH more than what those bag of "used" trash were worth.
I hope you don't get audited. An expert appraisal is required for donated goods valued in excess of $500.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Lothar
Tax write offs...
My family donated about 12-16 bags of used clothes and 4 bags of shoes to the Salvation Army 2 years ago...
We got at least $2000 off our taxes...MUCH more than what those bag of "used" trash were worth.
If that's true, you are a thief, a liar, and a criminal. The law says you must accurately represent the fair market value and not more.
Not only did you rob from your society, you also contributed to the pressure to remove the deductions for charities like this, since they are so abused.
If I were rich (which I am not), I'd much rather give to charity than pay it to our government in taxes, because at least I would know that my money is going to a reputable charity for a reputable cause, instead of going off to Washington to line the pockets of Nancy Pelosi, drug-addicts, and welfare moms with 6 kids.Originally posted by: dmcowen674
How old are you?
Still at home under the roof of rich Republican parents?
OK, I'll spell it out for those that have a lot of learning to do.
You're so called "generous" conservatives are rich beyond what normal people could possibly spend. They have so much and they hate to be taxed on it so they come up with "every imaginable way" to find ways to get out of paying their "fair share" in taxes.
So Charities do get some on their list of squirreling money away to look good on paper to the IRS but it is a fraction of what they really could give to charity if they weren't so greedy.
Hopefully you will never know what its like to really want to give to charity because you want to and have a true bounty of windfall but you can't because you are struggling just to make it check to check like most "liberal" Americans.
Guess what though, those struggling liberals tend to donate to charity in an even more important way, with their time and physical efforts.
Do you think those Charities run by themselves?
Let me know in 15 or so years what you learn.
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: cwjerome
"If liberals care more for the little guy, why do conservatives give more to charity?"
Because most libs don't care about the little guy nearly as much as they proclaim. They just hate the "big guy."
Typical right-wing ideology lie that the people fall for.
(In other words, I'm not saying cwj is intentionally lying, I'm saying he believes this lie).
Lefties are conservative with their money....liberal with yours.
No, we recognize that sometimes a government program is a lot more effective than private charity. (Other times, it's not).
Liberals have to pay the same taxes they pass, and liberals who pass the taxes on average pay more taxes than republicans; they're spending their own money.
The difference is not that republicans spend little; they talk the talk but don't walk the walk; the difference is that the liberals spend on useful things, republicans on corruption.
The 'ultra wealthy', of course, are another matter; they're republicans who give the bottom-feeder republicans the flag waving and bible thumping they want, to keep their votes and get their servants elected to serve the ultra-wealthy agenda which has kept 90% of Americans flat in income while the most wealthy's income has skyrocketed.
LOL, you sir are one angry person.
Oh, and please list one program that the government does "better" than a charity.
BTW, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet - all Liberals, and all getting wealthier. Where's the outrage?
Links?Originally posted by: ntdz
Liberals care about the little guy. Conservatives like to give their own money to charities and such, and Liberals like to make the government take it from the conservatives and give it to themselves.
Originally posted by: bobdelt
It makes perfect sense. Republicans beleive the gov't should be smaller and charities should have a more important role, so they are probably more willing to donate. They are also more religious.
Dems on the other hand, are very stuck up and pretentious and use feel good politics to make them feel better about themselves. So sure they are nicier on the surface but they are all hypocrits.
Did anyone catch that thing on abc the other night, talked about how americans donate much more money for foreign aid than our actuall gov't does and way more than any other nation? I thought that was pretty interesting.
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Lefties are conservative with their money....liberal with yours.
Haha, I think you just won the thread.
Whoa... I didn't think Bush was a lefty.Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Lefties are conservative with their money....liberal with yours.
Originally posted by: ntdz
Liberals care about the little guy. Conservatives like to give their own money to charities and such, and Liberals like to make the government take it from the conservatives and give it to themselves.
Originally posted by: teclado
Conservatives generally have more money, thereby giving more in terms of amount. However, the real question to ask is which group has a higher percentage of their members give money, and what percent of their net worth they give. To say that conservatives are more generous because they give a greater amount of money would be like saying you, who gives $1,000 are less generous than say Bill Gates giving $100,000. That 100K is a smaller percent of Mr. Gates' net worth than the 1K is of the average person.
Don't get me wrong, I do consider myself conservative. I'm just not one of the rich conservatives
EDIT: Hmmm, I guess this has already been said...my bad. Long thread, hehe. Oh, and as for the Cheney/Gore question, I would say neither...they're both politicians.
Taking care of one's parents is traditional in China.Originally posted by: Steeplerot
So, leeching off your family is ok
Originally posted by: Howard
Taking care of one's parents is traditional in China.Originally posted by: Steeplerot
So, leeching off your family is ok