jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (54 posts)

That stingy old Mitt paid over 4 mil in charity donations in 2011.

  1. JSChams profile image59
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rom … 52850.html

    Looks to me like to boy has taken care of what needed to be done and given generously.
    How sad he didn't do what the left wants us to believe.

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I was just reading a report about Romney's tax returns from his accountant. Looks like over the past 20 years, he averaged paying 20% in taxes.

      1. JSChams profile image59
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So he actually DOES pay taxes????????????????????????????????????????
        And charity?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          *rolls eyes*  Yep... he donates to all those charities that spend their money in POLITICAL causes like fighting gay marriage.

          I'm sure hungry people are very impressed.

          This is why "churches" shouldn't be counted as charity unless they actually do something other than trying to propagate their morals.  People get tax breaks for spreading their religion... effectively making every citizen pay for their propaganda.

          1. Jean Bakula profile image94
            Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I have been researching celebrities for an article on my blog and find that as soon as they begin making money, most of them donate millions of dollars to charities. Sandra Bullock donates about 5 million a year to all kinds of causes. Bill and Melinda Gates, along with Bono and Warren Buffett, have pledged to give away 95% of their lifetime wealth to various charities. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie give away much more than 4 million a year. So does George Clooney. It's not that much when you are that rich. But it doesn't make Mitt Romeny a Saint either.

            1. JSChams profile image59
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              None of those people are running for President either which seems to be the only place where all this matters.

              1. JSChams profile image59
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                While we are kinda on the subject...why do we pay so much attention to the opinions of our media celebrities? It's pretty much proven most of them have a pretty tenuous grip on reality to begin with.

                1. Jean Bakula profile image94
                  Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I only mentioned celebrities because many of them are so generous with their money. It's always Republicans who make the claim the public is so stupid they will vote for anyone a celebrity endorses. That's demeaning to the American public. I doubt anyone actually goes out and vote for a President based on a celebrity endorsement, and agree with you that many of them do seem to have a loose screw or two.

                  1. JSChams profile image59
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey Jean I was not really trying to be demeaning but there are a lot of folks who do just that because they take their life cues from these folks. Why in the world else would you listen to someone like Rosanne Barr or Rosie O'Donnell about current affairs? Don't get me started about Sean Penn.

          2. habee profile image90
            habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The LDS Church feeds and otherwise helps many, many needy families. Anyway, all the $ didn't go to the church.

            1. ptosis profile image80
              ptosisposted 4 years ago in reply to this



              Ack! Choke! They only help needy Mormons in Utah.
              They are really stiff about that 10% tithing.

              1. habee profile image90
                habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ever try researching? LDS Humanitarian Services has helped people in 163 nations, regardless of the religion or race of the recipients. They teach people to grow food, they provide vision care, they provide clean drinking water, they provide job training, and numerous other services. During natural disasters, the LDS is often "on the ball" even before groups like the Red Cross. By the way, Utah does not span 163 countries.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  AND they do it all while handing out their literature and preaching their beliefs.  They will build a village a well WHILE they are spreading their propaganda.  It actually works out great for them... the poor souls feel an obligation to convert because of the "kindness" of the church.

                  BTW... I find it repugnant to have that tit-for-tat arrangement no matter what the faith... Now if a church wants to build a well and NEVER mention anything about their faith or beliefs while they are doing it then they have my full support and respect.

                  1. habee profile image90
                    habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If a hurricane had just wiped out my village, and I was without food, water, shelter, or clothing, I honestly don't think I'd mind being handed a religious tract along with the help! lol

                2. PhoenixV profile image78
                  PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  LDS Humanitarian Services

                  From 1985 - 2009, $327.6 million in cash and $884.6 million in commodities of aid was given throughout 178 countries.

                  I couldn't find what charities Obama's Church supports although I am sure they probably or hopefully do, all I could find is that they want charitable contributions.

              2. Pamela Kinnaird W profile image87
                Pamela Kinnaird Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The tithing, the 10%, goes to build temples and chapels.  The humanitarian offerings go toward the humanitarian needs.  They are two separate offerings.

          3. JSChams profile image59
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Melissa...you don't think that goes on with the Democrat side of the ticket?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I thought all democrats were atheists and secularists... why would they be giving to churches?

              But in a serious response...  Does democrats doing it make it ok?  Do you think it makes it ok in my mind if my own party does it?  Do YOU think like that?

              1. JSChams profile image59
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No I don't think it makes it ok and never said a word about the church.
                My point is you can't seem to try and hold his feet to the fire without hearing something esoteric about Romney or someone else. If he can't handle it....which he can't....get out of the way.

  2. ptosis profile image80
    ptosisposted 4 years ago

    Mitty who is the smallest ranks of income at the top 0.01 percent of earners paid more than he had to because  he is running for president obviously. He paid 14.1% of his income. if had claimed the total amount of charity, plenty of people would be perpetually pissed off to know that a multi-millionaire paid a smaller amount of taxes than a person making in the"... the middle quintile of taxpayers – earning between $33,542 and $59,486 a year – had an effective direct federal tax rate of about 12 percent in 2011. ... Romney in July 2012 said “I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.”

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 … one-elses/

    So even Mittens is saying Mittens is not qualified!

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Another thing that is quite odd, wasn't he quoted as saying that a person who paid more than one penny of tax to the Government which he didn't have to, was not fit for office of the President of the United States. Yet, he appears to have paid more than one penny more than he had to, once he was running for office of course. This guy appears to have either a very short memory, or,  just isn't that bright.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        True. He didn't take the full charity deduction to which he was entitled, apparently because if he had his tax rate would have been lower than his previously announced 14.1%. Just a little electioneering sleight of hand.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm rubbish with economics, but I heard today that when Romney's tax contributions were adjusted in real terms, it meant he'd paid around 2% in taxes. I can't in all honesty offer any validity to this source, but it may perhaps be worth investigating. I'm still of the mind that R doesn't even want to president, he's being pushed.

          1. JSChams profile image59
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh well Hollie do you think our Socialist press is going to let the figures stand in a such a way that it looks like he did the right thing? Even if HE DID?
            You haven't been paying attention if you think that. The game isn't oh look he was fair, it's beat him with a stick no matter what.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              big_smile Socialist media big_smile
              fine ignore basic economics and psychology.

            2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              JS, you do not have any real socialist media in the US, not really. The left wing appears to be pressuring him, and they are. However, I think Mitten's main problem is the right, I do. I don't believe that he wants this job, he's been pushed into it. Any far something group can be ruthless, they'll use and push whoever they can to further their own agenda, I think Mittens is realising this, too.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, didn't see your post when I posted mine. Dup content!

    3. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why don't you deal in real dollars instead of 'talking point" percentages. Geez... the guy has paid MILLIONS in taxes, vs. hundreds, (maybe thousands), paid by non-rich taxpayers, but you ignore the dollars and focus on "talking point" percentages. Are you the type of person that would rather make 50% of a $1 sale of soda vs 10% of a $20 sale of a steak dinner?

      Come on... the guy has paid MILLIONS in taxes and you want to equate percentages to "fair share"?


      Or, are you implying he's a dummy for not taking advantage of ALL the loop holes  in the system? Or do you consider charitable donations unimportant? Do they only help when the government controls them?

      Geez... I love this.... two martinis at home and Hubpages political forums.... what could be better.

      GA

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Because taxes are decided by percentage not by total quantity. I paid a higher percentage than Romney.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And yet, he did more to fund all the federal programs that we have in one year than you will in your entire life...

          See how that works both ways?

          See... a flat percentage-based tax is a progressive tax. If everyone paid 10%, it would tax the wealthy more than the poor.

          It's really about dollars, in the end. Every bill the government pays, it pays with dollars. So the only thing that really matters, is how many dollars they bring in... not percentages.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well actually utterly no to both those things. Romney pays more but in raw sum than I do but certainly not that much more, not even close.

            Also no, it's not a progressive tax because it hurts the poor a lot more than the rich, when I was making coal miners wages %10 was the difference between being able to feed my family and not. The aim is not equality in number of dollars or even in percentage it's equality in impact on quality of life, I am happy to be taxed more because it won't affect my quality of life, at least not significantly I am very unhappy with the guy struggling to make his rent being forced to pay the same tax percentage as me, that makes no sense at all.

            Tax is about making a sacrifice for the good of the nation, it's the extent of that sacrifice that should be equal.

  3. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    I just knew a liberal would complain about Romney's not claiming all his charitable donations. Not all that long ago, on these very forums, some of you guys found it honorable that Biden didn't claim all his contributions to charity (supposedly). So...it's good and honorable when Biden does it, but it's baaaaad when Romney does it. Got it.

    Do you know why Romney did this? It's because he made a promise that he wouldn't pay below a certain % in taxes. He was keeping his promise.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Holle, I'm honestly not at Liberal, honestly.  He hasn't claimed all his charitable donations which means he has paid more than one penny tax that was due.(a fair bit more) So, why the speech about not paying more than one penny tax, what was that about? Was it just politicking, because he thought he'd get those on side who were opposed to higher taxes? What?  Wouldn't it have been better for him to say I will pay more than my dues in taxes, when obligated or required? Don't get it! Or did he not know what the situation was with regards his charitable donations and his taxes when he made that statement?

      This is where Mittens needs to come clean, was his speech just bravado, because he's been encouraged to bring on side those who don't like higher taxes? Or, is he more generous and duty bound? Philanthropic and has a strong commitment to civil society? He needs to clarify, how can people truly vote for him if they don't understand him?

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Lol. This is really trivial, especially when compared to many reversals and outright falsehoods Obama has committed, like promising no earmarks in the spending bill, promising to exclude lobbyists from policy-making, numerous lies about the ACA, etc, etc. Politifact has several pages of these "Obama facts," if you care to read them.

        Romney gave large donations to charities LONG before he decided to run for office. It's an important part of the Mormon doctrine. If he never donated before he threw his hat in the ring, then yeah, that would be pretty bad.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not comparing him to Obama, (for better or worse, sounds like a wedding ceremony ;lol;) I don't understand him. I don't understand why he would say something like that when the facts indicate differently. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if he really wants to be Prez or he's been manipulated into this situation. He comes across as not very bright, yet, I think there's more to it.

          1. habee profile image90
            habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Some people are having the same thoughts as you. I'll give him this: he's a terrible campaigner. lol

          2. ptosis profile image80
            ptosisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If idiot Bush43 could get elected and then REELECTED - any warm body as POTUS would be good enough for government work.

            Totally disgusted.No wonder voter turn out is low and get the gov't they deserve for not voting. It really does  count - I plan to write in a protest vote, I always do. no dems  - no reps only inds.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm a Green voter, of the socialist variety. I would never vote for the main parties in my country.

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I didn't complain about anything and I don't even remember the Biden thing.  I just don't think donations to Churches with political agendas - and this includes my own church that definitely has political agendas- should be allowed to be claimed as charitable donations... either on taxes or for brownie points.  I'll go even further and say that donations to ANY charity with a political agenda shouldn't count for either as well.

  4. Paul Wingert profile image77
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    I'm still not voting for Romney.

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's your right to vote for the candidate of your choice.

  5. kathleenkat profile image88
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    This is the first election where I don't like either of the main candidates, even one little bit.

    Romney can donate all the money he wants to LDS or other charities. Doesn't mean he knows how to lead.

    Obama can talk that talk, and move people with his very good public speaking skills. But it doesn't mean he's a good leader (clearly he isn't, with the country this divided).

  6. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Why?
    Why is doing this?
    It's confounding.
    Either release the actual returns -- and 10 years would be plenty (the years people really want to see are 2008 and 2009, although some others may wish to see them all).
    Or else continue with the previous stance of "We've given you people all we're going to" and stick by it.
    Does the "average" tax rate of 20% over 20 years mean anything? Prove anything?

    Why also put out there today his medical record?
    The timing of these seems extremely random and like a distraction tactic.
    Not to mention yet another flip-flop.

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I felt like he was doing it as a reply to Reid's claims that Mitt didn't pay ANY income taxes. I could be wrong, though. According to my husband, I've erred once or twice - but I think he's mistaken.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Has Harry Reid been making that claim again? I thought that was old news -- like so last month.
        Probably resurrected because of the 47% brouhaha.
        This still does not prove there were no years he paid no taxes.
        He just gave the average effective tax rate over 20 years.

        I'm not even going to speculate.
        There's a whole army of critics jumping all over the taxes.

        But I gotta say, I shake my head about his comment (being bandied about quite a bit tonight) that if he would not deserve to be president if he paid MORE than his fair share.
        And then releases his 2011 return where he did, in fact, overpay.

        Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't...
        roll

  7. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    I'm sorry... there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving something to people who need it and also offering to share a religious message.

    I've seen LDS giving, and never got the slightest hint of 'We're doing this for you, so you should/need to listen to us'.

    There's nothing wrong with offering to share a message.

 
working