Allen's Blog
Andy's Blog
I, single handedly, have figured out how to end world hunger. I wish I could say this revelation came while in deep prayer, but alas, it did not. It came when analyzing Obama's recently released taxes from 2000-2006. The answer to world poverty: everybody should run for President...When a President releases his taxes, most of us are just curious what the leader of the free world makes. Not I. I go straight for the "Schedule A" and see how much they gave to charity. Seeing Obama's "Schedule A" intrigued me, so I went looking for as many of the presidential income tax returns as possible.
More than 20 years of Presidential Income Tax Returns + a conceited sense of superiority + Microsoft Excel = one fun afternoon for Andy Borgmann. You can view the result here.
The conclusion: George HW Bush and Bill Clinton were by far the most generous, each of them averaged giving over 30% of their income to charity. Ronald Reagan and would be President Barack Obama would be the least generous, averaging under 5%.
But before I judge Barack Obama too much, he at least made his taxes public when he didn't have to.1 And lets be honest. Do we really think George HW Bush and Bill Clinton were that generous before their taxes were public?
In 2002, Barack Obama made $259,394. Andy Borgmann made $6,863. In 2002, Barack Obama gave $1,050. Andy Borgmann gave $822.67. In 2002, Barack Obama gave .4% of his income. Andy Borgmann gave 11.99%.
Amazingly, Barack upped his giving to $77,315 by 2005.2
Now I could take this many different ways. But I'll leave the critique of the hyprocsiy of a man who claims to want change the world for the oppressed but has such a piss poor record on giving to Allen Hunt this weekend.
My two favorite biblical narratives about giving are Matthew 6:3 and Luke 2:1-4.
Matt 6:3
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing
Luke 2:1-4
As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.
While most within the church (including Pastors and "Giving Conferences") need to re-read Matthew 6:3 a bit more, thanks to the IRS, they don't really make that possible for the Presidential Candidates.
But giving isn't about the amount. It is about the percentage. Dropping $50 bucks in the offering plate or to Salvation Army might be incredibly generous according to Jesus. But if you dropped $5000 on QVC purchases in the same week...well...you are materialistic.
Likewise, you can give $500,000 and appear more generous than just about anyone, but if you make $10 million, you are in fact less generous than millions of Americans.
We are all blessed to different degrees. God's challenge for us is to give in accordance to what has been given to us. And those who have been given much, much more is expected.3 Now if only all of us would be given the most powerful job in the world, and consequently our taxes be made public, we would collectively give enough to make a difference.
Posts: 
1: You had a crack addiction, and writing in "Crack expenses" doesn't look good when filing a tax return.
2: You had a hard time holding a job, but that also might have had something to do with a crack addiction.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-GGtOmiyE2Y
Actually come to think of it, if you take my salary now, and divide over the number of hours I work...sadly, you probably have less than $7.25.
Ahh now I am sad. Think I'll go do some crack to pick up my spirits. On a related matter, do you want to come over tonight? ;)
I mean, if he only used Wright's church for his political career it is infinitely better than if he actually drank the Kool Aid. And I don't mean just the "white man created HIV in the lab" but also the "salvation in Jesus" and "walking the aisle" bits.
Also, I do not think church contributions should qualify as "charitable giving" anyway. Most of that money goes for pastor's salary and proselytizing efforts. Even ostensibly charitable events, such as a homeless mission, are far from being no-strings-attached affairs intended solely to help one's fellow man - no they always use such things to, to put it bluntly, sell Jesus. Far from being charitable, such efforts are really marketing tools - equivalent of a bank giving out toasters.
It gets better. A friend of a friend went to China for a year on a mission trip. She had to raise $30k to be able to go. Much of it was given to her by her church but she also hit a lot of her friends and acquaintances for money. I am sure those people that gave her money consider that "giving" in the sense of our discussion. But she did not go to China to help anyone. She went to proselytize for fundamentalist Christianity under the cover of being an international student.
So knowing where much of the "giving" Christians boast of ends up, color me unimpressed with your giving figures. Giving to Red Cross is one thing, but tithing to a church is quite different. It should not count.
The same could be said for just about any non-profit organization. How is it any better than paying the salaries of Planned Parenthood?
It's about balance. What good is feeding somebody if they don't share the message of eternal salvation. But to all my Christian brethren out there, it also does not display any love if all you do is preach salvation but don't meet any physical needs. After all, Jesus said we would be judged based on whether we fed the hungry and clothed the naked.
I have done this as well - although admittedly not very well and is usually why I just pay it myself. It isn't "hitting up" friends, it is asking them to join with you and partner in the endeavor. I.e. I have the time and abilities to go do something like this, but not the money. You don't have the time or abilities, but you do have the money. Let's partner and make this world a better place.
Ok, one last comment of my own (as oppose to just responding). Whether we like it or not, churches help people. I am not saying they never do any damage. But they help. They pull people out of addictions. They counsel marriages. They feed the hungry. I know this because I have seen it. I have done it. And mostly, I have experienced the help myself. I don't really care whether or not it is considered charitable giving. But the Church helps people.
If I am worth 200 Million, make 10 million a year, & donate 3 million a year to charity, to you I would appear a grand philanthropist. But what's 3mil/year, when I have so much already, and still clear 7 million a year? Nothing, chump change.
And as I mentioned in my email, Barack spent his every workday for nearly 20 years working to help people, at GREAT financial sacrifice, plus he has two young kids to raise, & his income only in the last couple years really shot up.
So, you compare apples & oranges, since your "percentage theory" is fatally flawed...
It would depend on if they gave 30% percent towards whatever building their net-worth to $200 million.
That is irrelevant. That is like saying becuase I chose to work in non-profit, instead of becoming the cardiologist like I was planning on, that I am somehow exempt from needing to give generously on what I do make. Because I turned down a 600k job a year to make 45k, I have done enough "good" in life that I don't need to give at least $4,500 a year.
PLEASE. The lowest amount he made was $207,000. How many middle class families only wish to have half that. If you can't raise kids on $207,000 and be generous, well then you shouldn't be talking about change.
Plus, the situational arguement is irrelevant. I have a friend who was fired two weeks ago. She is still giving off her severance pay (which she desperately needs).
I was a poor struggling college student in 2002 and I only made $8,500. I still gave $850 away. I could have easily used the excuse, ohh, giving isn't for me, it is for people with real jobs.
Listen. I am not saying that I truly think that McCain or Clinton or Bush or Reagan or any of them were particularly generous people. Trust me, I have been in politics to know two things: 1.) The average republican politician is pro-choice, despite what they might campaign on, and 2.) they are all greedy bastards so giving is still usually self-serving.
HOWEVER, Mr. Steven, none of them have campaigned on the platform of change and helping the poor. And that is what makes Obama a hypocrite in this situation, and your blind support of him is no better than Republicans who blindly support Bush because "he is a Christian." You can make the Apples/Oranges excuse all you want, it just doesn't apply here. It's a perfectly good apple-to-apple argument.
2. Jesus put the focus on money all the time? Really? So does that mean he & Mother Theresa were not very "generous or giving", since they weren't known for giving much in the way of money to charities?
3. You are still fundamentally flawed in your premise that somehow a raw percentage of earned income denotes "generosity", much less helping the poor, it simply doesn't, as there are far too many variables involved. Truly, all it measures is the amount they've deducted for charitable contributions, nothing more.
4. How is "hypocritical" for Obama to campaign on helping people & creating change, when that's what he's actually been doing his entire adult life, unlike the other career politicians, who've spent the same amount, if not more, years simply doing a lot of talking?
5. And further, he is hardly the only candidate who's ever campaigned on a promise to help people, seems the current one did that big time, and HE Is the real, & biggest hypocrite in this.
6. I think it quite disingenuous that you and the media & the right-wing spin machine has created this "god-like" image of Obama, one HE has never implied, nor sought, setting standards for him, unlike all the others, then bashing him for being what, even his minister said, he is, a politician!
Now, YOU in your limited years aware of politics, only know that as a dirty word, but there really did use to be a good number of politicians who were actual statesmen, honorable, and with integrity.
To elevate, via your own narration, Obama to some godly status, thus knocking his every move, as "beneath him", is pretty tacky, and not at all based on any facts...
7. More statements without facts, that I "blindly support Barack"! What bullsh*t, simply because I argue with flawed premises, faulty logic, lack of facts, & yes, hypocrisy, hardly implies anything of the sort! I don't know where you went to school, or if anyone ever taught you rules of logical reasoning/debate, but I'd love to hear you attempt to make a case for accusing me of "blind support"!
Again, it's become today's m.o. to simply attack & label those who see things differently, without there having to be any evidence, and in place of actually countering their views with logic, and facts....
For the record, I am no Democrat, nor is my current support for Obama set in stone, much less "blind".
Just as democracy may not be the absolute best form of government, but it's the best so far, so too, with Barack, he's hardly my perfect idea of a candidate, but so far, he beats the other two.....
Now, if McCain actually picks Huckabee as his running mate, that would surely raise his potential, in my eyes.......
And I am the one who makes personal attacks?
I don't understand a lot in life. But I understand politics and government.
As to your other points, you haven't said anything new, so I have no other responses.
P.S. To quote like you requested you do the following.
<blockquote>TEXT YOU WANT TO QUOTE</blockquote>Always let me know if you have any questions about how to use the website.My bringing up your age was hardly an "attack" but a statement of fact, that in your lifetime, politicians have been predominantly viewed as the "greedy bastards" you yourself labeled them!
And your dismissal of my entire point by point rebuttal as "nothing new" is a typical avoidance tactic, hardly revelatory of your vast self-professed political awareness. Other than telling me you've studied politics, where's the beef? I too studied politics, both in & out of the classrooms at UCLA, and I too, thought I knew a whole lot.
And I did, but it still was untempered by the wisdom that actual real-life experience brings. Some years later I saw that my broadening perspective (& willingness to explore other points of view) allowed me to have a wiser, more balanced & thus realistic view on many things (I had previously felt "so sure of").
So, bitch, rattle, and roll, but yeah, your age does belie your claim of political knowledge & understanding, and that's still not an attack...
[blockquote]they are all greedy bastards so giving is still usually self-serving.[/blockquote]
By the way, if you honestly believe what you say, why then do some dry, un-researched & unexplained statistics lead you to believe the Clintons (who've been in the game far longer), or McCain are far more generous in their giving? For obviously, they are doing whatever it takes to give the best impression.
And I won't restate many of my other objections to your various statements, for it's obvious you'd rather use attacks to discredit me, than actually come with a counter-argument, much less facts/evidence, since you are always right, cause hey, you've studied politics.....and you know all about politics & government.
It must be great to believe there's nothing more to learn....