VP Joe Biden & Wife Donate Less than $4,900 to Charity in 2009 State, National, International, posted by Reader, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2010 at 2:10 pm
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!
Posted by Fair and balanced, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2010 at 9:31 pm
You don't,by chance, have the amount that your leader Sarah contributed to charity of the $12 MILLION she has earned by bilking hosts like the Tea Parties, Cal State Stanislaus University,et al, since she walked away from her elected Governership before completing her job? If you do,please share that as well.
Posted by katie, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 15, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Biden is a national disgrace for failing to redistribute his wealth to those less fortunate. Yet those of us in the middle class without his privileges are forced to redistribute our wealth through Obamacare. And yes, Fair and balanced, the Dems were on CNN the day after the "historic achievement" crowing about the "redistribution of wealth". Biden is a hypocrite.
Posted by Blue to the core, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2010 at 7:15 am
Get over it! Obama won the election by a good margin (remember W didn't even win the first election and his second had a close margin.). At least now we have a president that can think and speak intelligently. Bumbling W was a disgrace!
Yes Biden isn't anyone to brag about but Cheney, come on. If you like him so much move to Wyoming and go hunting with him, see how you feel after he shoots you!
And speaking of Veep candidates, that will teach you righty's to nominate a candidate who has a clue on picking a running mate. Choosing Palin (what a joke) is widely acknowledged to be one of the worst campaign moves in history! Cheney shoots his friend in the face and McCain shoots himself in the foot! Maybe your party can pick credible candidates someday?? How about Rush (who loved his Govt mandated health program when he was hospitalized in Hawaii) or one of his cronies???
Posted by jrm, a member of the Vista Grande Elementary School community, on Apr 16, 2010 at 7:51 am
With the midterm elections coming up "things are getting really weird" as the late great Hunter Thompson used to say. The fear and loathing is increasingly apparent. How about the new sign east of 680 just north of the El Cerro exit..."throw the bums out". Disenfranchised males packing heat in Walnut Creek...what is up with that? I understand the right to bear arms argument, but do you really need to strap on a holster to go get a cup of coffee in downtown Danville? And then we have the senior citizen taking his pistol to the fitness club at Sun Valley mall and it accidentally discharges into the wall. In my view all the vitriol spewed for years on talk radio (and now relentlessly on FOX) is bearing a malignant fruit in people's minds. I could care less how much Joe Biden, George Bush or Pres Obama donate to charity because it is none of my business. Don't you guys see that Glenn Beck, Rush Limpbaugh (post viagra bust) and the rest just want to sell you stuff? All this hatred and disrespect is spawning a dangerous militia most recently manifesting itself in the Oklahoma and Michigan arrests. It is ironic that the Tea Party folks have now become the "nattering nabobs of negativity" that Spiro Agnew derided years ago. And I'll bet most of them don't even know who he was. I respect the right to disagree in our country, that's what makes it great, but at the end of the day you have to move on. I work for a global company and I will tell you unanimously my colleagues in Ireland, France, Germany and Japan think Obama is doing a great job and our reputation in the world is far superior than it was a few years ago. And by the way, I voted for Bush both times.
Posted by John Tanner, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2010 at 9:06 am
Seriously, what has happened to those that adhere to the Republican line? They fear change, yet change has created the enormous wealth that our society enjoys. They hate regulation, but without regulation we would be choking on rancid air pollution, drinking polluted water, no longer have fish to feed on, preferring land / housing development that destroyed our open spaces... all in the name of "MONEY."
You wonder why the catholic religion has aligned itself with Republicans??? No regulation and oversight leads to secrets behind closed doors.
Like a senator said recently, how did Republican Party become the party of DUMB?
Posted by Matt, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, 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 “charity” in terms of voluntary gifts of money (instead of government income redistribution), this stereotype is wrong.
The fact is that self-described “conservatives” in America are more likely to give—and give more money—than self-described “liberals.” 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 “conservative” or “extremely 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 “give” 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 $15—an excellent rate of return by any standard.
About 80 percent of American liberals say they think the government should “do 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 “spending too little money on welfare” were less likely than those saying the government is “spending 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 “Helper’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 “Who Really Cares” (Basic Books, 2006), will publish two more books this year: “Social Entrepreneurship” (Prentice-Hall) and “Gross National Happiness” (Basic Books).
Posted by C. R. Mudgeon, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2010 at 11:39 am
JRM said (part of a post above):
"I work for a global company and I will tell you unanimously my colleagues in Ireland, France, Germany and Japan think Obama is doing a great job and our reputation in the world is far superior than it was a few years ago."
Of course your colleagues in Ireland, France, and Germany like what Obama is doing. Since much of what Obama is doing serves to weaken the US (especially economically), with respect to other nations, his actions are almost guaranteed to be viewed favorably by people in those other nations. "Leveling the playing field" is always a good idea to those who are having trouble competing.
Posted by Diane, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Blue to the core - refreshing and humorous post!
jrm - thanks, I always appreciate your perspective.
CR Mudgeon - that's a simplistic view of economics. the reality is, if the US economy doesn't improve, other countries will continue to slide as well. Think of it as a domino effect - the same principle applies to why we are all watching China's economic recovery. Our economic status is interdependent.
Most people in other nations consider Americans as finally waking up after years of being ruled by an arrogant bully. Now if we could just get our troops back home....
Posted by Collins, a member of the Vista Grande Elementary School community, on Apr 16, 2010 at 10:18 pm
How much did Cheney give? If you look at Biden's income, it wasn't all that much. As "Alamo Resident" said, many of the people in this Valley earn more than our VEEP. After all, Dr. Jill Biden is an educator, and we all know that they are not well paid in this country.
Yes, very well said, other member of the VG community. Couldn't agree more, Diane.
Instead of complaining so much about this country, why don't we celebrate our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal rights and all the other freedoms that we enjoy! It was also a beautiful day in wonderful Danville! We are truly blessed!
Posted by Taxes, a resident of the Walnut Creek neighborhood, on Apr 17, 2010 at 12:18 am
I can't understand why Obama picked him for VP. The man ran for his party's nomination TWICE and was rejected both times. He looks sneaky but then again so do most heterosexual men. All male politicians usually have something to hide. If we put women in charge like they did in Iceland, we could get rid of morally bankrupt industries like strip clubs. As long as men are in control, though, we'll always have strip joints. Heck if we got rid of lesbian bondage clubs where would the Republicans hang out?
Posted by askidoo, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Apr 22, 2010 at 9:47 am
Factually: Obama's 'landslide victory' was just under 53% and Bush's 2004 victory was just under 51%.
As to world opinion, some of the worst anti semitism is in France and Germany, Japan, Middle East, Russia and China all have significant problems with bigotry - even Italians have restrictive laws from an American viewpoint on immigrant limitations. What matters is how Americans want their lives to be. Villifying the opposition (hey lefty, righty and some of the nasty comments above) do not solve problems but do close ears.
ps Watching the various channels the most vitriol I have heard came not from Fox or Limbaugh or Beck but from Maddow, Matthews, Oberman and MSNBC.
ps2 You hear it from kids when one disagrees with another that one of them will respond with something that happened as an aside rather than stick to the subject. So Fair and balanced stick to politicians all revealing their financials when elected or those running for office. Even though knowing Oprah's charity, Britney's, Sean Penn's etc. might be fun it is beside the point except for your bent to prove that Palin/tea party/conservatives/repulicans, etc. are wrong rather than deal with the original what did Biden donate and is there any factual data as to donation amounts by party to charity? As Matt provided insight on some of that data above from Brooks I would also be curious about donations to political causes by party or other demographics.