If 10% of your wealth going to charity is "standard," then why did Obama give less than 1% of his?

[Clintonista2]

So now we know. The Clinton's gave 10 million, or about 10% of their earnings to charity. Let's compare with Obama. From http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D8VL707O0

EDIT: The title of this post refers to an Obama supporters comment that: "No offense, but giving 10% of your wealth is pretty standard."

"Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004.

Their income jumped to $1.6 million in 2005, Obama's first year in the Senate, with the rerelease of his first book, "Dreams from My Father." They made nearly $1 million in 2006, half of it from his second book, "The Audacity of Hope."

The Obamas' charitable giving also increased with their newfound wealth.

From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. In 2005, they gave $77,315, including donations to literacy and anti-poverty campaigns and their church. In 2006, they gave $60,307 to charity."

Ok so lets assume that from 1998-2004, they earned about $180,000. And lets give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they gave 3,400 every year. That would be 1% AT BEST. GOBAMA! In 2006, they made a million, and donated 60,000 to charity,and Obama decided to run for prez, shooting the percentage up to... 6%. GOBAMA!!!!

To all of you who have bitched for the past few months about Hillary not releasing this information. Be careful what you wish for... it might just come true and make Obama look like Scrooge on steroids.

[loveangelc]

1. REMEMBER WHEN YOU THOUGHT HILLARY WOULD WIN THE NOMINATON?

lol. ~random~

[JuniperLea]

2. Has someone won the nomination yet?

Has it been announced? What did I miss?

[loveangelc]

8. Do you really think Hillary will be the nominee? Answer honestly now...

[emilyg]

16. Why not.

[loveangelc]

52. because superdelegates are likely going to go with the pledged delegate winner.

and unless she wins the rest of the states, I think her hopes are done.

[Mezzo]

92. unless she is the popular vote winner, which is still very possible. nt

[Cant trust em]

17. Who? What's that? Ok, I'll be right there.

Sorry, I've got to go.

[griffi94]

21. maybe in 2012

[JuniperLea]

27. I don't know any more than you do...

No one knows for sure who will be the nom... speculation doesn't count... counting the wishy washy delegates doesn't count either... it ain't over 'til it's over...

[loveangelc]

48. You keep telling yourself that :-).

I'll bet you 500 dollars Hillary doesn't win. Through paypal. Deal or no deal?

[Mezzo]

91. Pretty presumptuous to assume this thing is decided. nt

[ampad]

15. LOL

So transparent, you are not fooling anyone with your "I'm not supporting Hillary" No need to be ashamed, might as well come out with it. Not that everyone here doesn't know that you support her, geesh.

[JuniperLea]

38. Just because there are more dumbass Obama supporters to fuck with here

Than there are Hillary supporters, it's no sign I support anyone!

I guess you missed my posts today wherein I helped someone do a song parody to bash Hillary...

:eyes:

So transparent. You aren't fooling anyone. NO one will believe you really think things out.


:eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5382141

[roguevalley]

98. scrooge on steroids? When is someone with nearly 110m$ somehow

a hero in this poverty stricken shit ball we call a world? You would get in someone's face when they make a mill, have school debts and the rest and still manage to donate twice what I make in retirement? If BIll and Hill gave half their fucking money to charity, it wouldn't be enough. No one deserves to have that much dough in this world. NO ONE. Fuck rich people. They all need to give until it hurts. you can only drive one car, eat one meal and wear one pair of pants at a time. Why the hell should I be glad that a gucci-clad ANYONE gives a buncha dough when they still could fund a country with their personal wealth. Fuck that.

[Boz]

76. Obamas 1% is the same as Clintons 10% by your own numbers

Averaging Obama into your 180 000 thats 10 percent (with the same rounding average as you used lirwin) of the 16-18 million the Clintons made.

So if O income is 10% of C income then use the same math whats 10% of 10% C equals 1%

Oh and the fact that there isn't an Obama foundation to donate to might have had something to do with it to.

10% is common at the 16 million income level not the 1.8 million level

and since we are talking percentages it is interesting to note that percentage the income levels for the Clintons is in the TOP 1% of American incomes

[TK421]

83. DAMN...did I miss that?

Shit...I'm always the last to know...:cry:

[blogslut]

3. I beleive the average is more like 3.5%

PS: The proper pejorative would be cheapskate - not cheapscape.

[Clintonista2]

4. Well, if the average is 3.5%, then at least Obama is only about 35X cheaper than the average person

[blogslut]

11. Will you fix the overestimate in your original OP

?

[Clintonista2]

30. Read my edit. An OBAMA SUPPORTER said that 10% is standard, in order to denigrate Clinton

Which is why I made this OP in the first place.

[blogslut]

47. Okay

Sorry.

These kinds of sums are completely out of my realm.

I give to charity when I can but I don't declare on it because I think it's kind of a crappy thing to do. Then again, I don't make meellions of dollars.

[Texas Hill Country]

5. obama's is less than 1% according to the releases i have seen too...

[blogslut]

10. I meant the average of charitable donations for all Americans

:)

[Texas Hill Country]

61. i gave about 8%, dunno what the avg is.

[Cant trust em]

63. that was 2000-2004

for the more recent period since they've been making more money it's been 6.

"The Obamas gave $60,307 to charitable organizations in 2006, about 6 percent of their $991,296 in total income that year (the most recent year for which his campaign provided tax returns)."

http://www.philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=4219

[jefferson_dem]

6. How much did ClintonInc contribute in ... say ... 2002?

Uh oh...

1%.

Fucking cheapskates.

[Clintonista2]

7. 1%? 10 times more than Obama? Uh oh!

[Texas Hill Country]

9. source?

[jefferson_dem]

34. Look it up, silly.

[Texas Hill Country]

42. ignored.

[GarbagemanLB]

12. I didn't know the Clintons had two small children to care for, gigantic college debts, and had to

save for the enormous cost of college for their two daughters...

It is fucking ridiculous to compare the two situations.

[emilyg]

24. They could do all that on her salary alone.

[Hepburn]

44. Care to offer some proof....

...or is this just your usual anti-Obama bullshit unsupported by any factual content of any nature whatsoever.

Just curious....:eyes:

[emilyg]

93. You can look up how much Michelle makes.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. they had legal fees

that dwarfed Obama's student loans.

[IsItJustMe]

95. That's what they do though. LOL

[jean627]

13. Maybe he needed the money.

Maybe to pay for his home and set up college funds for his children.

The Clinton's have no dependent children and are quite well established in a home.

Sometimes, charity starts at home.

And, it's cheapskates.

[GarbagemanLB]

19. Don't bring logic into a Hillbot thread.

[Clintonista2]

35. God knows nobody can live off 180 grand a year

:eyes:

[flor de jasmim]

14. Does anyone else find this post offensive?

There is no law which determines how much people should give to charity. I don't care whether they gave nothing or 20%. It won't determine how I vote, and it doesn't necessarily say anything about their policies or abilities to carry them through.

[ruggerson]

25. I find it a little less offensive than "Hillary is a whore" or "White people are fucks"

but then that's just me.

[flor de jasmim]

33. True, but then I have some people on ignore, so I haven't "heard" it

[Auntie Bush]

81. Ahhhh!

Pearls of wisdom still exist! Even by white fucks.

[TomBall Democrat]

49. Offensive smensive - it's a lie!

Completely absent facts is the OP.

[DemVet]

51. You're right, there is no law about giving....

...but the Obama's are still stingy.

[anigbrowl]

18. Stop fucking with the numbers

60,000 of 1,00,000 = 0.06 or 6%, NOT 0.06%. You've done this before and it's misleading.

[Cant trust em]

67. I gave the benefit of the doubt since numbers are scary to some people

but if there's a pattern here then we're in trouble.

[azmouse]

20. ...

[MonkeyFunk]

22. Ten percent is not standard

not even close. The average American contribution is 3.1%

[joshcryer]

31. My mom and oldest brother still contribute 10%. My mom lives on $630 a month.

My brother on $1075.

They're Christians.

[dbonds]

46. Churches have quite the racket going.

[joshcryer]

72. I know. I am ardently against it. But what can you do.

Some people find a way though.

[blogslut]

60. But isn't that church tithing?

Is that deductible?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of that tithing thing. I have a brother that would borrow money from my folks so he could pay his utility bills, yet that never stopped him from tithing to that damned Wierwille cult.

[joshcryer]

74. Pretty much.

And then they tithe whatever extra money you help with. I usually go "I tithed already!"

[jefferson_dem]

45. I wonder how much the average would be if we all "earned" $20 million a year...

and had our own private foundation to stuff funds into.

[MonkeyFunk]

59. The Clinton Foundation

is not his own "private foundation".

And the Clintons gave more than the average contributions for people at their income level.

Face it, they're generous. That just kills you, doesn't it?

[jefferson_dem]

64. So the "Clinton Foundation" is not the "Clinton Foundation"?

Ok.

He's an ex-president. She's a senator seeking the presidency. They damn well better give at least 10% of their gross double-digit million dollar annual "earnings" (much of it collected from dubious foreign and domestic sources) to charity.

[MonkeyFunk]

65. It's not his private slush fund

It's the Clinton Global Initiative. It's a registered charity. It has oversight and audits, and a Board of Directors.

[jefferson_dem]

68. Point well-taken.

I do not disparage the good work the Foundation does.

Have a good weekend.

[EffieBlack]

23. Because when you have less money you have less disposable income, especially

when you're using a big portion of your take-home pay to pay off student loans and save for your children's college?

Because it's much, much easier for a couple with no dependent children earning $10 million per year to donate 10% of THEIR money to charity than it is for a couple earning just 1/5 of that amount to donate 10% of THEIR money to charity?

You know, the very essence of the justification for sliding tax rates for wealthier individuals?

[LulaMay]

80. Sure, you really have to pinch pennies when you're making a million dollars.

[Faygo Kid]

26. So you've returned?

Figured it had to happen sooner or later.

Thank God for the three post limit.

[bunnies]

28. Didnt they donate $240,000 last year?

Anyway... I only donated $250.00 last year myself. It's all I could afford. So, I dont get the luxury of judging anyone.

[TomBall Democrat]

39. Yes, they did donate $240,000 last year

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5675708.html

[mudesi]

29. LOL! I guess it is true that Hillary supporters can't do math

Take the percentage signs off or multiply by 100.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[GarbagemanLB]

32. wow, the OP is a dumbass. LOL

[mudesi]

37. No, just a Clinton supporter!

No wonder they think she is "still in it" even though she has mathematically lost the nomination.

[TK421]

90. Butthead...is that you?

[Clintonista2]

50. Oh gee, off by less than 1%. My bad. Still doesn't change the fact that Obama is a scrooge

[mudesi]

55. OK now you're just playing

No, you're not off by less than 1%. Try again.

[TomBall Democrat]

36. Lirwin2, you ignorant HRC supporter

kidding with the rough language - having a SNL moment.

Seriously, though


your source differs significantly from mine - the Houston Chronicle. It states that

"In 2006, Obama reported income of nearly $1 million, with nearly half of it coming from the publication of his second book, The Audacity of Hope. Last week, the campaign disclosed that Obama and his wife, Michelle, gave $240,000 to charity last year."

That's 24% by my math.

Here's the URL for article

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5675708.html


Seems like a rough math patch for HRC. Can't add delegates, can't add votes, can't, can't can't

[dbonds]

40. First learn how to calculate percentage

Ok so lets assume that from 1998-2004, they earned about $180,000. And lets give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they gave 3,400 every year. That would be 0.01%. GOBAMA! In 2006, they made a million, and donated 60,000 to charity, shooting up their donation percentage to... 0.06%. GOBAMA!!!!

The first number would be 1.8% instead of 0.01%. The second number would be 6% instead of .06%. I don't know where you get the 10% standard number though. Look here for average charity contributions http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/638_charity_contributions_average_dollar_amount_and.html and you will see they are average.

[Cant trust em]

41. You're mixing up your decimals.

That .06 you got on your calculator when you divide 60,000 into 1,000,000 is 6 hundreths, also known as 6 percent. That is not the same as .06% which would be 6 ten-thousandsths. Your post really confused me for a second.I'm a liberal arts major, so maybe I'm the one that's wrong here.

[bigwillq]

53. Who the hell cares?

:mad:

Just b/c he didn't give more, or as much as Clinton doesn't make him a bad person.

Just because the Clintons earned 109,000,000 doesn't make them bad people or corrupt because they waited so long to report their finances.

Who are we fighting against? :shrug: It seems like each other (other DEMS) from many of the posts here on DU and it really pisses me off.

There are much better things to fight about, imo.

[MrSlayer]

54. Why does this matter?

I wouldn't care if they gave all of their money or none. What has this got to do with the primary or who will better lead the country?

[Skidmore]

56. Care to share the percentage you give?

[shaniqua6392]

57. While I think all charitable giving is awesome,

I have to give special credit to the Clinton's. They gave 10% of their pre-taxed income to charity. I don't think any Obama supporter can criticize that. Similarly, I would never criticize Obama for his percentage of giving. Yes, it is lower than the Clinton's but that is what they were comfortable giving. The generosity of the Clinton's is pretty amazing. That can not be denied.

[Jed Dilligan]

58. Money is worth less to you the more you have of it.

I had a boss once who got two or three parking tickets a week. Part of my job was paying them. I was going to talk to him about it but then I realized that a $25 ticket literally meant less to him than the 25 cents I put in meters meant to me.

A million dollars from a book is a windfall, and it's nothing like being able to regularly depend on multimillion dollar earnings year in and year out. If I made a million dollars off a book I would probably give less than 6% to charity.

Also, have you considered the difference in the sizes of the candidates' tax write-offs?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

62. indeed be careful with your wishes O peeps

[jordi_fanclub]

66. Guess... MATH is not your favorite lessons

When you say:
"In 2006, they made a million, and donated 60,000 to charity, shooting up their donation percentage to... 0.06%."
It's a basic math ERROR... 60,000 in 1,000,000 is 6% not yours 0.06%!!!

BTW,
"1998-2004, they earned about $180,000... and assume that they gave 3,400 every year. That would be 0.01%."
Seems you did not take any math lessons at all because... 3,400 in 180,000 is 1.88% not yours 0.01%!!!

[Clintonista2]

69. I guess READING isn't one of yours

I fixed that error over 10 minutes ago.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

73. Not in the headline.

[AZBlue]

70. Did you give at least 10% of your income to charity last year?

[Cant trust em]

71. When are you going to change your subject line?

Now that, you know, the math has been totally debunked.

[Duder]

75. It would be nice to donate to your own charity

The Clintons donated $10,256,741 to the CFF between 2000 & 2006.

In 2005 and before Bill Clinton was the CFF president, Hillary the secretary/treasurer, and Chelsea was a director. In 2006 Gloria Clinton was the CEO and was paid $252,500.

GOBAMA! :)

[Clintonista2]

85. Proof?

Proof that they donated it all to the CFF?


Didn't think so.

[Duder]

97. Think again...

"Information about the Clinton Family Foundation, including a list of charities to which the Clintons contributed through the Foundation, is available online in the Foundation's publicly available tax returns (www.foundationcenter.org)." http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/returns/

Or if you're too lazy to follow through with Hillary's site here's the conservative spin:
Clinton Charitable Giving is to Clinton Charity
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/04/clinton_charitable_giving_is_to_clinton_charity

Check multiple sources and you'll perhaps find the proof you seek.

Happy hunting. :)

[IsItJustMe]

96. Yep, all the relatives get paid. Usually quit handsomely I might add. This is Why many charities

are a scam in this country.

[nichomachus]

77. That's not my criterion for voting for a president

If we're supposed to vote for the person who gave the most to charity, isn't that just another form of buying the White House?

"Oooooh, let's donate $20 million to charity and then everyone will vote for me."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

78. If you're a career politician, how do you "earn" $109,000,000?

:think:

[johnnydrama]

79. do you know the difference?

Between gross income and net income.

If I make $100,000 in a year, and my expenses including taxes, student loans, etc.. are $95,000 giving me $5,000 extra on the year, i'm supposed to give 10% of the $100,000 to charity, putting me $5,000 in the red?


There's a big difference between somebody making 12 million a year and giving 10%, and somebody making 120,000 a year and giving 10%., but i'm sure you know that.

[LulaMay]

82. We make under 70,000 and mangage to donate more than 1%, on top of student loans & college 4 our son

We live in CA where that doesn't buy much security.


We're just lucky to have been able to buy a home 20 years ago.

I don't know how my kids will ever afford it.


Oh wait....yes I do....by electing Hillary Clinton.

[Pisces]

84. THat is standard for church tithing which he is being criticized for doing

[Spider Jerusalem]

86. This rather proves the point that Clinton supporters tend to suck at math.

[DemsUnited]

87. I'm sure that Obama will give $10 mil to the Obama Foundation

when he's a beloved former president and makes $100 million.

I remember reading a few years ago that the Clinton Family Foundation does some great things, so I am not in any way dissing the fact that the Clintons donated their $10 million to their own Foundation.

Good on them and good on the Obamas for donating what they could afford to donate.

[Bonobo]

88. When you have less money, you have less of a margin dummy.

[DerekJ]

89. self-delete

self-delte

[truedelphi]

94. Bill's business is a charity

I would have trouble believeing that any of the money ever really went to any homeless or hungry or even illiterate people.
Probably Bill and Poppy Bush just exchange sacks of laundered cash!