VP Joe Biden & Wife Donate Less than $4,900 to Charity in 2009
Original post made
by Reader, Danville,
on Apr 15, 2010
VP Joe Biden, who the Democrats use as their front person to attack the Republicans on everything, holds himself out as a caring, compassionate fighter for the poor and disadvantated. Biden repeatedly rips the Republicans as being the party of selfish, wealthy snobs, who do not care about the "little guy". However, as reported today, liberal Joe Biden & his wife donated less than $4,900 in 2009 to charity! Thats right, the self proclaimed "Robin Hood" of D.C., donated less money to charity last year, than most parents in Danville "donate" to their local public schools alone each year. If he is donating so little to charity while in office, when he knows everyone is watching him, what do you think he will do when he is out of office? Hopefully, we will learn that next election, when common sense prevails, and Obama and his liberal side kick Biden is sent packing!
Like this comment
Posted by Matt
a resident of Alamo
on Apr 16, 2010 at 10:08 am
I found this interesting, I thought you all might as well.
"Who gives the most in America: conservatives or liberals?
A. There is a persistent stereotype about charitable giving in politically progressive regions of America: while people on the political right may be hardworking and family-oriented, they tend not to be very charitable toward the less fortunate. In contrast, those on the political left care about vulnerable members of society, and are thus the charitable ones. Understanding âcharity" in terms of voluntary gifts of money (instead of government income redistribution), this stereotype is wrong.
The fact is that self-described âconservatives" in America are more likely to giveâ"and give more moneyâ"than self-described âliberals." In the year 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more dollars to charity than households headed by a liberal. And this discrepancy in monetary donations is not simply an artifact of income differences. On the contrary, liberal families in these data earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families.
These differences go beyond money. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. People who said they were âconservative" or âextremely conservative" made up less than one-fifth of the population, but donated more than a quarter of the blood. To put this in perspective, if political liberals and moderates gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the United States would surge by nearly half.
One major explanation for the giving discrepancy between conservatives and liberals is religion. In 2004, conservatives were more than twice as likely as liberals to attend a house of worship weekly, whereas liberals were twice as likely as conservatives to attend seldom or never. There are indeed religious liberals in America, but they are currently outnumbered by religious conservatives by about four to one.
Q. Aren't people who favor social spending just as charitable as people who give money to charities?
A. It depends. Many Europeans feel that they âgive" through their taxes, and in some European countries they have the high taxes and generous social welfare benefits to show for it. This argument doesn't work so well in America, however, because we don't have the same redistributive policies.
In America, $1 given privately tends to increase GDP by about $15â"an excellent rate of return by any standard.
About 80 percent of American liberals say they think the government should âdo more" to reduce income inequality, versus just 27 percent of American conservatives. This is another reason, besides religion, liberals in America give less than conservatives. For example, in 1996, people who believed the government should not take greater measures to reduce income inequality gave, on average, four times as much money to charity each year as those who believed the government should equalize incomes more. This result persists even after correcting for other demographics. It even holds for all sorts of nonmonetary giving. For example, people who stated in 2002 that they thought the government was âspending too little money on welfare" were less likely than those saying the government is âspending too much money on welfare" to give food or money to a homeless person.
Q. Why shouldn't the government expand to cover our current charitable giving through taxes, as is done in Europe?
A. First, there is evidence that giving makes people happy. A number of studies have concluded that giving affects our brain chemistry. People who give often report feelings of euphoria, which psychologists have referred to as the âHelper's High." They believe that charitable activity induces endorphins that produce a very mild version of the sensations people get from drugs like morphine and heroin.
Second, there is evidence that private giving is implicated in economic growth. Per-capita charity and per-capita GDP in America have moved together over the years. Evidence that the two forces cause each other comes from an analysis of how past values of one variable affect future values of the other. This analysis shows that a 10 percent increase in current GDP per American would lead to a 9 percent rise in charitable giving. At the same time, a 10 percent increase in giving per person would provoke a 3 percent increase in GDP. Given the size of our economy, this means $1 given privately would increase GDP by about $15.
In sum, if we substituted our private charitable giving for government redistributive programs, we would pay a price in terms of economic growth, personal prosperity, and even happiness. Charitable giving should be seen not just as a nice detail about American life, and even less as a mere tax deduction. It should be seen as a national priority."
Arthur C. Brooks, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of âWho Really Cares" (Basic Books, 2006), will publish two more books this year: âSocial Entrepreneurship" (Prentice-Hall) and âGross National Happiness" (Basic Books).