I guess he just wants everybody else to give away more of their money to other people, while he himself is a cheapskate:
Hypocritical too. Seeing as though he wants many people here to give more of their money to other people, though he personally does not practice what he preaches. Hypocritical cocksucker.
In 2001-2004, when their giving was low, the Obamas were young parents paying back student loans. Obama gave up to 6.1% of his income in 2006 to charity. That is really not bad for his income bracket and stage in life. After his lucrative book deal, he gave $240,000 to charity last year. McCain is a multi-multi millionaire. He could many, many millions more and still remain many millions richer than the Obamas.
But, yes, Biden is a cheapskate. No doubt about it. He’s given less than .2% of his income to charity over the last 10 years. He’s old and well-established and comfortable and has been for some time. Palin makes less and gives more.
politicians of both parties are hypocritical ?
HOLY SHIT STOP THE PRESSES
I don’t know… I don’t think it’s any of my business what other people give to charity. I don’t wander around my neighborhood trying to figure out who does what for society.
It would be nice if Joe gave more, but to tell you the truth, it certainly isn’t something I’d put ahead of policies and issues.
However, if you are desperate to hate him, I’m sure it gives you something to cling to…
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know… I don’t think it’s any of my business what other people give to charity. I don’t wander around my neighborhood trying to figure out who does what for society.
It would be nice if Joe gave more, but to tell you the truth, it certainly isn’t something I’d put ahead of policies and issues.
However, if you are desperate to hate him, I’m sure it gives you something to cling to…[/quote]
this would be fine and dandy and all if they weren’t proposing stealing from people to give handouts to others.
[quote]vroom wrote:
However, if you are desperate to hate him, I’m sure it gives you something to cling to…[/quote]
Nah, I’ve got my hands full bitterly clinging to my guns.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
this would be fine and dandy and all if they weren’t proposing stealing from people to give handouts to others.[/quote]
I just don’t see the need to conflate the issues.
Your feelings about taxation stand perfectly well on their own without trying to confuse the issue with charitable donations.
However, at the same time, when the hell hasn’t the government been involved in progressive taxation and redistribution. This isn’t some bold new evil idea like everyone pretends it is.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
vroom wrote:
I don’t know… I don’t think it’s any of my business what other people give to charity. I don’t wander around my neighborhood trying to figure out who does what for society.
It would be nice if Joe gave more, but to tell you the truth, it certainly isn’t something I’d put ahead of policies and issues.
However, if you are desperate to hate him, I’m sure it gives you something to cling to…
this would be fine and dandy and all if they weren’t proposing stealing from people to give handouts to others.[/quote]
That is the elephant in the room vroom is pretending not to see.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
That is the elephant in the room vroom is pretending not to see.[/quote]
Yeah, look up one post.
It’s called taxation Zap. We can talk about taxes and how they should be done and what policies they should fund without confusing the issue with canards like who gave more to charity.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
That is the elephant in the room vroom is pretending not to see.
Yeah, look up one post.
It’s called taxation Zap. We can talk about taxes and how they should be done and what policies they should fund without confusing the issue with canards like who gave more to charity.[/quote]
One fucking TRILLION dollars in new spending. ONE TRILLION!!!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
One fucking TRILLION dollars in new spending. ONE TRILLION!!![/quote]
I didn’t hear you wailing when Bush was busy whacking the trillions button on the old deficit calculator.
However, back to the current, I’m a little leery of where you are getting your numbers and what they include. Just consider it another war… that will excuse any degree of spending, right?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
One fucking TRILLION dollars in new spending. ONE TRILLION!!!
I didn’t hear you wailing when Bush was busy whacking the trillions button on the old deficit calculator.
However, back to the current, I’m a little leery of where you are getting your numbers and what they include. Just consider it another war… that will excuse any degree of spending, right?[/quote]
Bush wasn’t doing it to spread the wealth.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush wasn’t doing it to spread the wealth. [/quote]
Wow. How sad. Look at it this way, at least this time the money will help your own citizens and your own economy. Cold comfort?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush wasn’t doing it to spread the wealth.
Wow. How sad. Look at it this way, at least this time the money will help your own citizens and your own economy. Cold comfort?[/quote]
Except it doesn’t help me, working 20 hours a week putting lots of that away for college while already earling several college credits in highschool so I can have a good job and take care of MYSELF AND MY OWN. I’m NOT being responsible so I can bail out some fuckups ass based on me being sucessful because I worked for it.
I am (will be) joe the plumber.
NOBAMA.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush wasn’t doing it to spread the wealth.
Wow. How sad. Look at it this way, at least this time the money will help your own citizens and your own economy. Cold comfort?[/quote]
It’ll hurt our citizens and our economy.
[quote]Zappy the Pinhead wrote:
Bush wasn’t doing it to spread the wealth. [/quote]
Really? You can say that with a straight face even? Because companies like Haliburton and KBR didn’t get any of that wealth, did they? But borrowing it from China to redistrubute to 'merican companies is cool, it’s the taxing the rich and giving it to poor folks that you have an issue with.
Trickle down.
[quote]tme wrote:
Zappy the Pinhead wrote:
Bush wasn’t doing it to spread the wealth.
Really? You can say that with a straight face even? Because companies like Haliburton and KBR didn’t get any of that wealth, did they? But borrowing it from China to redistrubute to 'merican companies is cool, it’s the taxing the rich and giving it to poor folks that you have an issue with.
Trickle down.
[/quote]
good thing we haven’t seen reaganomics since uh… Ronald Reagan. Everything else has been a crappy knockoff trying to gain support of the republican base by talking about it.
Some people just don’t get it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush wasn’t doing it to spread the wealth.
Wow. How sad. Look at it this way, at least this time the money will help your own citizens and your own economy. Cold comfort?[/quote]
Wrong. It will damage our economy and make our citizens dependent on handouts. How can you not see this?