Conservatives Donate More Than Liberals

[soonercruiser]

So, as usual Liberal talk is cheap....so cheap it is nearly free for them.
Liberals tend to believe in giving tax dollars through gobment programs to help the needy and poor as the best way to help them.
GOD forbid that they have to give some of their contraceptive or abortion $$ to help the needy!


Conservatives Donate More Than Liberals
Monday, 10 Sep 2012 02:12 PM
By Thomas Sowell

The theme that most seemed to rouse the enthusiasm of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte was that we are all responsible for one another — and that Republicans don't want to help the poor, the sick, and the helpless.

All of us should be on guard against beliefs that flatter ourselves. At the very least, we should check such beliefs against facts.

Yet the notion that people who prefer economic decisions to be made by individuals in the market are not as compassionate as people who prefer those decisions to be made collectively by politicians is seldom even thought of as a belief that should be checked against facts.

Nor is this notion confined to Democrats in America today. Belief in the superior compassion of the political left is a worldwide phenomenon that goes back at least as far as the 18th century. But in all that time, and in all those places, there has been little, if any, effort on the left to check this crucial assumption against facts.

When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities.

http://www.newsmax.com/ThomasSowell/Conservatives-Donate-Liberals-compassion/2012/09/10/id/451295?s=al&promo_code=1005D-1

[diverdog]

So, as usual Liberal talk is cheap....so cheap it is nearly free for them.
Liberals tend to believe in giving tax dollars through gobment programs to help the needy and poor as the best way to help them.
GOD forbid that they have to give some of their contraceptive or abortion $$ to help the needy!



http://www.newsmax.com/ThomasSowell/Conservatives-Donate-Liberals-compassion/2012/09/10/id/451295?s=al&promo_code=1005D-1

I will see your Ronald Reagan with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Thomas Sowell is that the best you got?

[soonercruiser]

Correct!
Bill and Melind Gates put millions into Planned Parentless.
And, Buffet brags about paying more taxes than his personal secretary.
(Buffet could take care of that problem as well as he takes care of his $Billions)

[TitoMorelli]

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347337472&sr=8-1&keywords=Who+Really+Cares

Study's been done. Verdict is in. Conservatives give more. Much more. More of their time, too. Conservatives win, hands down.


But hey, libs are strong in other areas. According to recent polls, libs are at least twice as likely to "unfriend" someone on Facebook over political differences.

Democrats - The Party of Caring. The Party of Tolerance. The Party of "God Help Us if People Ever Figure Out what Hypocrites We Really Are."

(oops! my bad! forgot that you're no longer supposed to use "God" and "democrat" in the same post)

[diverdog]

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347337472&sr=8-1&keywords=Who+Really+Cares

Study's been done. Verdict is in. Conservatives give more. Much more. More of their time, too. Conservatives win, hands down.


But hey, libs are strong in other areas. According to recent polls, libs are at least twice as likely to "unfriend" someone on Facebook over political differences.

Democrats - The Party of Caring. The Party of Tolerance. The Party of "God Help Us if People Ever Figure Out what Hypocrites We Really Are."

(oops! my bad! forgot that you're no longer supposed to use "God" and "democrat" in the same post)


So you are going to point to a book whose statistical conclusions have been highly criticizeds and one that is highly political as your evidence?

I would agree that if you include religion as charity then the study might be right. However, I would not include just giving to ones local church as charity. Money that goes to things like soup kitchens should be included. Money to build a mega church and the support of salaries and benefits should not be included.

In my area and in my life I do not see much of a difference between giving and donation of time between liberals and conservatives.

1 in 8 of all charitable dollars comes from California.

[cleller]

Of course conservatives give more. They have more money. It fits with a conservative lifestyle. Conservatives are also more likely to be involved in religious activities.
All very logical.

[sappstuf]

I remember that Biden gave on average of $370 a year to charity over a decade sometimes giving as low as .1% of his income.. Sad.

[XingTheRubicon]

To be fair, liberals give to the poor more, overall.



It's just not their money.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

What do we hear from the Lame Street Media? How the Repubs will spend more money than the dems on strippers at the respective conventions. I doubt that, i heard the titty floppers were beelining to Charlotte...

[diverdog]

I remember that Biden gave on average of $370 a year to charity over a decade sometimes giving as low as .1% of his income.. Sad.

Biden also had a negative networth until very recently. He was the poorest member of the Senate. I would also suggest tax returns do not always reflect accurate levels of charitable giving.

[diverdog]

Of course conservatives give more. They have more money. It fits with a conservative lifestyle. Conservatives are also more likely to be involved in religious activities.
All very logical.

When you take religion out of the equation the numbers flip. The top givers are then the blue states.

I honestly do not think you can accurately make a statement on who gives more. There are so many components to charity that it would be impossible to track.

[LiveLaughLove]

Biden also had a negative networth until very recently. He was the poorest member of the Senate. I would also suggest tax returns do not always reflect accurate levels of charitable giving.

You're reaching. Biden makes plenty enough to have given more.

They preach at us about being selfish and not aiding the poor, yet they don't aid the poor outside of some political act that aids them in getting more power.

Clinton itemized his used underwear for crying out loud. Lord knows what you could have caught from those things. Disgusting.

Giving other peoples money at the point of the gun of law is not caring for the poor, its caring for the vote of the poor.

[cleller]

When you take religion out of the equation the numbers flip. The top givers are then the blue states.



That is an interesting point to ponder; and its implications.

[sappstuf]

Biden also had a negative networth until very recently. He was the poorest member of the Senate. I would also suggest tax returns do not always reflect accurate levels of charitable giving.

Live is right... You are reaching. In 1999 he gave $120.... How long has he been in the Senate?

You are correct he could have been donating his time instead... But as a Senator that is all politics and not volunteering.

[LiveLaughLove]

When you take religion out of the equation the numbers flip. The top givers are then the blue states.

I honestly do not think you can accurately make a statement on who gives more. There are so many components to charity that it would be impossible to track.
Bunk. Churches use money for tons of charity work. Its not all used to build megachurches. In fact, that claim is ignorant all together.

Our church gives money to poor people all over the world. You don't get to separate it out just cause it doesn't fit your narrative. Obviously, the lesson here is the left needs to go to church more instead of being godless, hedonistic, hypocrites.

That last sentence was sarcasm for the sarcasm illiterate.

[Skysooner]

Bunk. Churches use money for tons of charity work. Its not all used to build megachurches. In fact, that claim is ignorant all together.

Our church gives money to poor people all over the world. You don't get to separate it out just cause it doesn't fit your narrative. Obviously, the lesson here is the left needs to go to church more instead of being godless, hedonistic, hypocrites.

That last sentence was sarcasm for the sarcasm illiterate.

Most of the money given to churches goes to infrastructure, salaries and buildings. You are looking at 5-15% at most churches that goes to outside charities. The caveat to this is that most churches will donate to a fund at the higher level denomination and that usually feeds a more worldwide audience. This, though, is usually counted among the 5-15% of fees that flow into the church.

I administered two different churches in Oklahoma City during my time there and have been through budgets for at least a dozen more.

[badger]

I find this a bit deceptive, because people can give of themselves in other ways than money --- volunteer work, for example. I've found Democrats and Republicans to both be avid volunteers, but perhaps it's just an Oklahoma thing?

[TitoMorelli]

When you take religion out of the equation the numbers flip. The top givers are then the blue states.

I honestly do not think you can accurately make a statement on who gives more. There are so many components to charity that it would be impossible to track.

Nope -


The religious giving sector is just as likely to give to secular programs as it is to religious causes. Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more. Finally, people who couple and raise children are more likely to give philanthropically than those who do not. The more children there are in a family, the more likely that a family will donate to charity. One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Brooks

Also, the author of the book was a college professor who considered himself to be liberal on social issues, and who admits that he expected (and probably hoped) to find the opposite.

Sure, some people criticized his work. They couldn't handle the truth.


Oh, and conservatives are much more likely to donate blood, too. Not sure how much of that giving includes what they put into the offering plate on Sunday, though.

[TitoMorelli]

I find this a bit deceptive, because people can give of themselves in other ways than money --- volunteer work, for example. I've found Democrats and Republicans to both be avid volunteers, but perhaps it's just an Oklahoma thing?

Brooks found that conservatives also give more of their time. But yeah, Okies on all sides are mostly good-hearted and willing to pitch in.

[Skysooner]

Nope -


The religious giving sector is just as likely to give to secular programs as it is to religious causes. Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more. Finally, people who couple and raise children are more likely to give philanthropically than those who do not. The more children there are in a family, the more likely that a family will donate to charity. One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Brooks

Also, the author of the book was a college professor who considered himself to be liberal on social issues, and who admits that he expected (and probably hoped) to find the opposite.

Sure, some people criticized his work. They couldn't handle the truth.


Oh, and conservatives are much more likely to donate blood, too. Not sure how much of that giving includes what they put into the offering plate on Sunday, though.

That fits with my experience about monetary giving. I'm not sure if that also applies to volunteering. I don't tend to give away money. Instead I donate lots of items and time.

Edit: It appears he answered the time thing as well.

[Soonerjeepman]

So you are going to point to a book whose statistical conclusions have been highly criticizeds and one that is highly political as your evidence?

I would agree that if you include religion as charity then the study might be right. However, I would not include just giving to ones local church as charity. Money that goes to things like soup kitchens should be included. Money to build a mega church and the support of salaries and benefits should not be included.

In my area and in my life I do not see much of a difference between giving and donation of time between liberals and conservatives.

1 in 8 of all charitable dollars comes from California.

The Catholic church here in KC gives a ton to homeless shelters, teenage preg, Catholic Charities does a ton of stuff for EVERYONE...so yes I do believe my donations to my church ARE charitable.

[TitoMorelli]

That fits with my experience about monetary giving. I'm not sure if that also applies to volunteering. I don't tend to give away money. Instead I donate lots of items and time.


Gifts of time and effort can be even more valuable than monetary gifts.

DD has given thousands of hours to encouraging and helping young men through scouting. Also, many medical professionals donate a day or more a month working in free clinics, accountants donate time to help small non-profits, and people from many different backgrounds serve on various non-profit boards.

[sappstuf]

Gifts of time and effort can be even more valuable than monetary gifts.

DD has given thousands of hours to encouraging and helping young men through scouting. Also, many medical professionals donate a day or more a month working in free clinics, accountants donate time to help small non-profits, and people from many different backgrounds serve on various non-profit boards.

It would be hundreds of hours, but he keeps getting lost on the hikes... ;)

[TitoMorelli]

It would be hundreds of hours, but he keeps getting lost on the hikes... ;)

LOL - that'll make his day.

[diverdog]

The Catholic church here in KC gives a ton to homeless shelters, teenage preg, Catholic Charities does a ton of stuff for EVERYONE...so yes I do believe my donations to my church ARE charitable.

No doubt these are charitable donations. I think Catholic Charities does a great job.

[diverdog]

It would be hundreds of hours, but he keeps getting lost on the hikes... ;)

You have no idea. We took a wrong path and hiked all the way around a mountain only to end up at our original starting point. 15 miles for nothing and we had 12 more to do.

[badger]

Gifts of time and effort can be even more valuable than monetary gifts.

Word. It is getting be almost easier to give money than time

[diverdog]

Word. It is getting be almost easier to give money than time

A lot of companies are doing this very thing. ING in Delaware will literally swarm a project with hundreds of volunteers. The results are amazing.

[sappstuf]

You have no idea. We took a wrong path and hiked all the way around a mountain only to end up at our original starting point. 15 miles for nothing and we had 12 more to do.

Maybe I overestimated... 10s of hours! :)

[landrun]

Biden also had a negative networth until very recently. He was the poorest member of the Senate. I would also suggest tax returns do not always reflect accurate levels of charitable giving.

Senators make in excess of $150,000 a year -easily. If I remember right, that puts them in the top 10% of all American's wealth. Go look at the census data. Relative to the rest of the US citizens, they have a nice comfortable life style.

I've heard libs point to Biden before. That fact that this guy, who makes more money than 90% of all US citizens, and has a negative self worth, shows just how ignorant and incompetent he is.

Do you really expect us to feel sorry for this guy?? If you do, you're not thinking critically about the nonsense you hear from the democrat party.

Its pretty telling that guy who is wealthier than 90% of the rest of the people in the US - and has a negative self worth - believes in the financial principles held by the democrat party.

Do yourselves a favor, hide from this guy. He's an embarrassment to the left.

[landrun]

In fairness to the left, I don't really have a problem with them not giving as much to charities as conservatives do. For the people I know personally, this is without question true. The lefties give very little, if anything, to the needy. And I know of no libs who give their time to charities either. However, they honestly feel that paying taxes to the government to distribute to the pool for health care etc... is a moral thing to do.

I think it is a true difference in mentality and our views of what the government's role is. The left really do give to charity by paying more taxes. The right gives to a wide range of charities directly by donating both time and money.

I just think the government is a worthless corrupt institution and wouldn't trust them to take care of the poor. I'd think they exploit the poor for more power. My liberal friends disagree strongly.

... just a different perspective I believe.

[diverdog]

Senators make in excess of $150,000 a year -easily. If I remember right, that puts them in the top 10% of all American's wealth. Go look at the census data. Relative to the rest of the US citizens, they have a nice comfortable life style.

I've heard libs point to Biden before. That fact that this guy, who makes more money than 90% of all US citizens, and has a negative self worth, shows just how ignorant and incompetent he is.

Do you really expect us to feel sorry for this guy?? If you do, you're not thinking critically about the nonsense you hear from the democrat party.

Its pretty telling that guy who is wealthier than 90% of the rest of the people in the US - and has a negative self worth - believes in the financial principles held by the democrat party.

Do yourselves a favor, hide from this guy. He's an embarrassment to the left.

Biden commuted from Delaware to Washington DC almost everyday. That alone cost a lot of money. Secondly, clearly you have no clue the types of obligations Senators have and how much it cost. You could not pay me $150,000 to do that job. Maybe by Oklahoma standards $150,000 is a lot of money but it ain't a lot if you are spending your time between Washington DC and Wilmington Delaware.

[SCOUT]

Biden commuted from Delaware to Washington DC almost everyday. That alone cost a lot of money. Secondly, clearly you have no clue the types of obligations Senators have and how much it cost. You could not pay me $150,000 to do that job. Maybe by Oklahoma standards $150,000 is a lot of money but it ain't a lot if you are spending your time between Washington DC and Wilmington Delaware.

Are you sure a 109 mile commute is really all that much money? I know a nurse who commutes from southern OK to Dallas several times a week. It is about 75 miles and she sure as heck doesn't make $150,000. Let's also not forget that there a "perks" associated with his kind of DC gig.

[diverdog]

In fairness to the left, I don't really have a problem with them not giving as much to charities as conservatives do. For the people I know personally, this is without question true. The lefties give very little, if anything, to the needy. And I know of no libs who give their time to charities either. However, they honestly feel that paying taxes to the government to distribute to the pool for health care etc... is a moral thing to do.

I think it is a true difference in mentality and our views of what the government's role is. The left really do give to charity by paying more taxes. The right gives to a wide range of charities directly by donating both time and money.

I just think the government is a worthless corrupt institution and wouldn't trust them to take care of the poor. I'd think they exploit the poor for more power. My liberal friends disagree strongly.

... just a different perspective I believe.

Your observations are not backed up by facts. When you subtract out religious giving then liberals give more.

However, I am going to reiterate that this is a hard argument to make. I spend a lot of time working with charities and evaluating donations made by the company I work for and you really have to get down to the program level to make a definitive statement on giving.

For instance, a conservative may give to their church and think they are doing charitable work. A liberal could give to an art museum and make the same claim. However, you have to see where this money is going to. Suppose both the museum and the church use the money for a building fund. Would you say that is charitable giving? I would not. Now if the church is using the money for a soup kitchen and the museum is using it for a day program for poor and disadvantage children with a meal then I would say both are charitable giving.

Another way to look at is that Utah is the number one red state for giving. This is because of the large Mormon population with a requirement to tithe at a very high level. When you look at the money is going a lot of it is for buying property, building and supporting the infrastructure of the church. Again I would not count this as charitable giving. Nor would I count the mission that is required of all Mormons. On the other hand the church feeds the poor, does great work in Africa and assisted in Hurricane Katrina. All of it very charitable.

The problem is tracking dollars and matching them to programs. And then you have to take those dollars and track them to political affiliations to make the argument stick. I do not think any one can do it. On top of all this is figuring out what the true definition of charity is and what it means. That can vary widely.

I know people on the right and left who give a lot of money to charity. I am thankful that they all give.

[diverdog]

Are you sure a 109 mile commute is really all that much money? I know a nurse who commutes from southern OK to Dallas several times a week. It is about 75 miles and she sure as heck doesn't make $150,000. Let's also not forget that there a "perks" associated with his kind of DC gig.

He commutes by rail. Your calculations are wrong as well. The round trip is 210 miles. That is a hundred dollars a day in commuting cost. I think he also maintained an apartment in DC.

All I know is that it is super expensive to be a Representative or Senator in DC. If you are not wealthy you live like a pauper.

BTW I have never voted for Biden. But I think this is a unfair attack. He has been a true public servant and not gotten rich from his job.

[marfacowboy]

When you take religion out of the equation the numbers flip. The top givers are then the blue states.

I honestly do not think you can accurately make a statement on who gives more. There are so many components to charity that it would be impossible to track.

This is precisely correct. Take out that good old fashioned tithing, most of which I suspect never touches a poor man's hands, and I bet the story is vastly different. And take away the tax advantages of philanthropic giving, and I bet it spirals to an even lower level.

[marfacowboy]

In fairness to the left, I don't really have a problem with them not giving as much to charities as conservatives do. For the people I know personally, this is without question true. The lefties give very little, if anything, to the needy. And I know of no libs who give their time to charities either. However, they honestly feel that paying taxes to the government to distribute to the pool for health care etc... is a moral thing to do.

I think it is a true difference in mentality and our views of what the government's role is. The left really do give to charity by paying more taxes. The right gives to a wide range of charities directly by donating both time and money.

I just think the government is a worthless corrupt institution and wouldn't trust them to take care of the poor. I'd think they exploit the poor for more power. My liberal friends disagree strongly.

... just a different perspective I believe.

I tend to give money away directly. I don't use it as a tax deduction. I don't give it to churches. I give it straight to the people that need it. And to say that government is a "worthless, corrupt institution" is ridiculous. There's corruption, but there's even more in the private sector. Government programs saved this nation in the Great Depression, particularly Oklahoma.
Do you really believe everyone in government is trying to exploit the poor for more power?
Why do you really hate your government? Do you hate our military, as well? How do you propose we secure our borders without a government?

[cleller]

The Bidens reported $379,000 income for 2011. Biden has also said he is middle class. This is at odds with Obama's "tax the rich" mantra, which targets those making over $250,000.
If he claims to have a negative net worth with that kind of income, at his age, he must be a complete incompetent at money management.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/13/president-obama-and-vice-president-biden-s-2011-tax-returns

[LiveLaughLove]

I just read the article and it doesn't state that church tithing was part of the giving it was talking about. It didn't say one way or the other. I googled the 2006 study but couldn't find it.

From what I read, the study said that conservatives also gave more time and donated more blood. I'm not sure the charge that it was mostly church giving is accurate at all. In fact, now I don't think it was part of it at all.

Could have been, but it certainly doesn't say that. I wonder where you guys got that it did? Hmm?

[cleller]

I searched around some and found Biden's 2012 financial disclosure statement. To begin with, it is misleading because for some reason he is not required to list his home as an asset, yet he does list his mortgage as a liability. Pretty inaccurate right off the bat. What he does reveal does not look like he is a very astute money manager.

He has two deferred comp plans, but only between $16,000-50,000 in total invested. At his age and income level, this seems very low.
He has 5 whole life insurance policies. Generally term life policies would be a better value. Whole life policies are rarely a good investment.
He has a smattering of mutual funds, but the bulk of his portfolio seems to be in CDs
He lists his mortgage as between $500,000-1,000,000. Don't know why it isn't more specific.
He has 3 Lines of Credit out, totaling around $150,000-250,000
He has also borrowed against his life insurance policies.

Its kind of a mess. I wouldn't want any decisions on handling money left to him.
See for yourself:

http://www.davemanuel.com/pols/joe-biden/

[TitoMorelli]

This is precisely correct. Take out that good old fashioned tithing, most of which I suspect never touches a poor man's hands, and I bet the story is vastly different. And take away the tax advantages of philanthropic giving, and I bet it spirals to an even lower level.

Maybe it's so, but that's not the impression I've gotten from reading various articles and reviews of the Brooks book. Apparently those who are religious or conservative were found to be more likely to contribute not only to religious institutions or causes, but to secular charities as well.

The deduction for charitable contributions only saves a small fraction in tax dollars of what one contributes. So, tax deduction or not, people are willing to share a portion of what they've earned. Being able to claim it as a deduction doesn't automatically make a giver less charitable.

[diverdog]

The Bidens reported $379,000 income for 2011. Biden has also said he is middle class. This is at odds with Obama's "tax the rich" mantra, which targets those making over $250,000.
If he claims to have a negative net worth with that kind of income, at his age, he must be a complete incompetent at money management.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/13/president-obama-and-vice-president-biden-s-2011-tax-returns

Clellar he started making that as a VP. Now if he is not giving with that kind of income then you guys have a legitimate beef.

I think he gave around $5100 in 2011 which is on the low side. So yeah he is a cheap bastard. Lol

[diverdog]

Maybe it's so, but that's not the impression I've gotten from reading various articles and reviews of the Brooks book. Apparently those who are religious or conservative were found to be more likely to contribute not only to religious institutions or causes, but to secular charities as well.

The deduction for charitable contributions only saves a small fraction in tax dollars of what one contributes. So, tax deduction or not, people are willing to share a portion of what they've earned. Being able to claim it as a deduction doesn't automatically make a giver less charitable.


For the most part your last paragraph is true for the vast majority of people. However there are ways to give to charity like a charitable lead trust that really reduces taxes.

[SCOUT]

He commutes by rail. Your calculations are wrong as well. The round trip is 210 miles. That is a hundred dollars a day in commuting cost. I think he also maintained an apartment in DC.

All I know is that it is super expensive to be a Representative or Senator in DC. If you are not wealthy you live like a pauper.

BTW I have never voted for Biden. But I think this is a unfair attack. He has been a true public servant and not gotten rich from his job.

So he commutes round trip by train every day AND has an apartment there. His financial acumen is indeed staggering.

[marfacowboy]

I guess the bottom line is this. Giving shouldn't be a competition. Any giving is good, and we should all give more.

[TitoMorelli]

I guess the bottom line is this. Giving shouldn't be a competition. Any giving is good, and we should all give more.

Great point, marfa.

[soonercruiser]

I guess the bottom line is this. Giving shouldn't be a competition. Any giving is good, and we should all give more.

May be a good point....but....
Sounds like a good way to cut off a loosing bit of statistics.

Anybody got data on Obama?
Seems like I heard that he gave less tha 1% to charity a few years before he got to be POTUS.

[diverdog]

So he commutes round trip by train every day AND has an apartment there. His financial acumen is indeed staggering.

He stays in DC on days they have long sessions or votes. He chooses to return to Delaware to work for his constituency. Biden is fairly accessible and meets with the public quite a bit. He has spoken to my Rotary Club 4 or 5 times. Of course in a little state like Delaware that makes it much easier. You may not like him but he is re-elected in Delaware by landslides because he does take care of his voters.

[diverdog]

May be a good point....but....
Sounds like a good way to cut off a loosing bit of statistics.

Anybody got data on Obama?
Seems like I heard that he gave less tha 1% to charity a few years before he got to be POTUS.

I think that is about right. It has jumped considerably over the last 3-4 years.

[SCOUT]

He stays in DC on days they have long sessions or votes. He chooses to return to Delaware to work for his constituency. Biden is fairly accessible and meets with the public quite a bit. He has spoken to my Rotary Club 4 or 5 times. Of course in a little state like Delaware that makes it much easier. You may not like him but he is re-elected in Delaware by landslides because he does take care of his voters.
I only know him from my time working in Wilmington years ago, and his stint as VP. Cordial as he may be, he is a buffoon.

My reason for replying was less to indict him, but more of an effort to at least draw a little reality towards his financial "difficulties."

[diverdog]

I only know him from my time working in Wilmington years ago, and his stint as VP. Cordial as he may be, he is a buffoon.

My reason for replying was less to indict him, but more of an effort to at least draw a little reality towards his financial "difficulties."

Like I said I never voted for him. There was a third party candidate in Delaware whom I liked.

The biggest thing that I do not like about Biden is that he never take on a leadership role in the Senate. Bill Roth would buck his party when he thought it was the right thing to do. Biden never strays from the party line.

Where did you work in Wilmington?

[SCOUT]

Like I said I never voted for him. There was a third party candidate in Delaware whom I liked.

The biggest thing that I do not like about Biden is that he never take on a leadership role in the Senate. Bill Roth would buck his party when he thought it was the right thing to do. Biden never strays from the party line.

Where did you work in Wilmington?Check you PM

[StoopTroup]

I remember the days of luxury taxes and if you bought anything over $30,000 I think it was you'd have to pay a luxury tax right then and there. There weren't any write offs or at least not very many. Later on down the road Republicans wanted a Flat Tax and to privatize Social Security. The number of ideas that they were willing to spill blood over have now turned into help me get rid of Government. Our Founding Fathers never wanted this! I shouldn't have to pay taxes! I'll be charitable...1st I will set up a Foundation (Tax Shelter) and I will take $13,000,000 a year plus perks and a G5 jet with a crew available in case I need to do something really important like personally meet a Donor. I hate when they express mail or wire cash.