Is this an Editorial or an article?
According to the NY Times "President Obama, a Protestant whose most recent
church membership was a mainline congregation, Trinity United Church of Christ
in Chicago, gave relatively little to charity a decade ago, but steadily
increased his giving as he became more prominent." I think Mitt was kinda
the opposite of this, and he doesn't wish to sound a trumpet before after
he donates....kudos. :) And, contrary to what detractors claim, Mitt's
donations weren't simply "tithing" but even if they were, tithing
goes to educate, feed, build, etc. it's a good thing. Watch "Why
How much did Tom Monson and the other board members of the lads church donate to
charity last year? Bet they won't tell. This was an attempt by a right wing
paper to attack the President.
I'm as conservative as they come but I am impressed that the President put
out over ten percent of his income to charity. You would be hard-pressed to
find other Democrats that live by what they preach.
At least Obama discloses; more than I can say for Romney during the last
Hey Riverton Cougar..... low information voter here. You want to talk
facts... lets talk facts.From 1945 until 1981, the national debt as
a percentage of national GDP dropped during each presidency, even during the
Vietnam and Korean war periods. It went from 117% of GDP just following the
close of WWII all the way down to 32% at the end of the Carter administration.
Then you know what happened? That all changed under the Reagan
administration. Reagan took over with national debt at 32% of gdp... and left
office with national debt at 53% of gdp. Bush II took over with the national
debt at 56% of GDP, and soared it up to just over 84%. Since then, under
Obama, it has risen to 102%... but is projected to come back off that number by
the CBO.Using raw numbers means nothing... and most
"informed" people know. Non-inflation adjusted numbers will always be
exponentially higher.. its just math.. no matter what administration you
barry's way of helping the chickens come home to roost. thanks barry
"pointing out what has been done with Obama since taking office, and not
even mentioning GWB's contribution to that escalation of the debt is a
double standard."Here's a fact:In March 2012,
having only been in office for little more than 3 years, the amount of debt
Obama has added matched the amount Bush added in all his 8 years as president.
It took Obama 3 years and 2 months to match Bush's 8 years of debt-adding,
yet liberals want to make it sound like Obama's spending is nothing
compared to Bush's spending.Here's some math: It took 8
years for Bush to add as much debt as Obama did in 3.16666 years. If
Obama's rate of debt increase were to remain constant, that means that by
the time he leaves office he would have added about 2.5 TIMES as much debt as
Bush did. Bush added about 5 trillion; at Obama's rate he will have added
about 13 trillion. Ouch!----"This country has 20% of the
population that refuses to objectively educate themselves on the issues."That can't be right. If the number were that low, Obama
wouldn't have been re-elected. Obama thrives on low-information voters.
@OtisBDon't get all worked up by the most outspoken posters on the
blog. This country has 20% of the population that refuses to objectively
educate themselves on the issues. Unfortunaltely 80% of them blog here.
"How much did President Obama donate to his local church?"What's it matter?
Really, Deseret News, is there a need to publish how much he donates to his
church. We all know his religious tendencies when he said that when people get
bitter they cling to guns and religion. Nothing he has done since is
inconsistent with that statement.
"If the government ran like the church you bash, things would be so much
better."Care to point out where you feel I "bashed" the
LDS church? I actually agree that if all charityorganizations ran like
the LDS charitable arm, things would be run very good. And I stated exactly
that in my post."It' a separate donation outside the
10%."Actually, it sounds as if you have substantiated my post.
Which took exception to ones claim that " 100% of my donation will actually
go to those in need?"
Oh but, Outside-View, Mr. Obama DOES claim to be a Christian, and his
brothers' keeper, and yet these numbers reflect otherwise.Then,
consider how in 2011 Mr. Obama chose to make charitable contributions of 22% of
gross income; a far, far greater amount than he'd ever before given. Of
course Barack knew that he would likely be running against the very charitable
Mitt Romney, who historically gives at least 10% of his income to his church,
not to mention other charities. Lastly, the Obamas' returns
show that the couple made very few charitable contributions, sometimes less than
1 percent of taxable income, until Mr. Obama began his run for the White House.
In 2004, before Mr. Obama entered the Senate, he and his wife gave $2,500 to
charity, just 1.2 percent of their taxable income. The next year, the donations
jumped to $77,315, or nearly 5 percent of their taxable income. Their
charitable giving only went up when it looked like he was campaigning for the
presidential office. (from a NY Times article dated March 26, 2008 by Leslie
It is nice to see that Obama has given to charity. And technically it might be
accurate to claim the amount given is 12% of his income. However, He does not
pay rent. Vacations at taxpayer expense. Of the 6 years he has been in office
1/2 year has been spent on the golf course. His family vacation to Hawaii last
year, though Obama and friends picked up the tab for the rental, cost the
taxpayers over $3 million.So many of the American people unemployed
and struggling financially and we have a President that Parties like its
1999.I don't see how anyone can argue to defend this kind of
spending. It is not political, it is just not right.
This is tabloid journalism.DN, please try to retain some dignity.
He's giving quite a bit. At least he's not wasting it all on religion.
A test question for you:" the economy crashed nearly 2 years
before he was elected."A. since than, the economy has
worsenedB. since than, the economy has progressively improvedC. the
economy hasn't worsened, or improvedD. if Obama can't strengthen
the economy, nobody could have
I dont see the relevance of how much Obama donated to a church that he rarely
attends. He doesnt proclaim to be "religious" and certainly is not
inclined to support Religious Freedom over a more secular view. With that being
the case, what would you expect?Also,as someone else said, do you
really think that donattions to a church are more honorable that donating to a
relief agency?Kind of a tacky article to focus on his church
donations. Sounds like a little bit of "holier than thou" empahsis.
Good gosh this has gotten silly where just about every discussion devolves into
either anti-Obama or anti-religion debates. Neither are as good, nor as bad as
most make both out to be.And no - the church doesn't disclose
its financials, no - Romney doesn't need to disclose anything, and no -
Obama isn't the anti-Christ, and yes, the economy crashed nearly 2 years
before he was elected.Lets get a little sanity back to these
@ JoeBlowIt's called Fast Offerings. Those funds are used to
feed the hungry, pay their utility bills and help with health care.It' a separate donation outside the 10%.If the government ran
like the church you bash, things would be so much better.Just
@Furry1993- your info is flawed.@OtisBDriftwood- with our country
declining, eighty percent increase to the debt, and over half our people on
their knees for a variety of welfare,--Anti Obama is expected of those who love
The word "charity" means love. The salvation of individuals is the
highest expression of love. Therefore, I am very comfortable that tithing is a
worthy means toward that lofty end. The LDS church owns many buildings (paid
and maintained through tithing funds), and those buildings are used for
ordinances that are essential for salvation. They are expensive because they
are built to last. Our Savior definitely approves.
I sit here smiling because I have first hand knowledge of the money my church
donates and the good it does locally because I have been in leadership positions
which oversaw donations and a very close relative works for one of the
church's many entities. To tell you that you are so wrong would be such an
understatement that it would seem pointless. The LDS church is in a lose/lose
situation from such folks. They would be accused of tooting their own horn if
they disclosed their donations. So the church takes the high road and
doesn't say anything, because it's none of these nattering
nabob's business, and just accepts their groundless criticism.
As with looking at Mitt Romney's charitable donations, that is not
need-to-know, it is voyeurism.
@Liberal Ted;It isn't 'his church', it is man-made
and a money making enterprise (as are the majority of other churches out
there).No, 100% of your tithes and offerings do not go to the poor
and needy (not even close). You can look at the financials your church
publishes in England and Canada to verify that if you're actually
Desnews 2012 - Mitt shouldn't have to disclose his charitable giving and
tax information because it's a private matter.Desnews 2014 -
Does Obama contribute enough to his local church? Let's check his
taxes...The dissonance of this paper is becoming more and more
palpable. How about a bit of consistency? Why does it matter if a president has
a local church to begin with?
Ken wrote: Can you imagine if Mitt Romney had given so little a percentage at
any point?Too bad we will not know since he refused to release his
@worf 11:26 a.m. April 16, 2014How much taxes did Obama pay on the
hundreds of millions taken from the American people for vacations, and gifts for
Michelle?---------------------Since the President
personally paid for the gifts to his wife, and the President and First Lady
personally paid for their vacations, your comment has no merit.
As Ted should have known, my comparison between Obama and Romney was strictly on
the basis of personal finances. Obama and family have not had government
largesse that hasn't been available to other presidents, which Ted also
"Where as in my church 100% of my donation is used to help those in
need."NO! It doesn't! You know that 10% that you pay in
addition to the church humanitarian causes you donate to? That is where
administrative costs come from. The Church is not more efficient than most
charities, nor are they equipped to deal with many development issues. That is
why they partner with organizations that can effectively deal with certain
"Why give my money there, when I know 100% of my donation will actually go
to those in need?"So, 100% of tithing to the LDS church
"goes to those in need?"I commend the LDS church for its
charity. They do much better than many. But I dont consider paying the
electric bill as charity to those in need. There is certainly overhead in any
charitable endeavor. I would have to think that much less than 75%
of LDS tithes actually go to feed or clothe the poor, sick or hungry.Sincerely. Think about what Jesus might say upon seeing some of the large
religions churches and temples. Wouldn't his teachings suggest that he
might say "very nice, but the money could have been much better
spent. Why the need for such opulence?"
@Liberal TedSo owning a TV Station, Newspaper, radio stations, farms,
malls, universities, restaurants, a Hawaiian theme park and book stores
isn't big business?
@Mark B-Obama has spent $7 Trillion. That isn't small potatoes
to someone like Mitt. That's not even small potatoes for the government.The only thing we have to show for it is, well nothing. Unemployment is
still high, GM knowingly built cars that killed people and we still lost
billions. The green energy revolution that was going to end oil, still is
nowhere to be seen. The infrastructure of shovel ready projects are no where.
The transparent presidency is missing. Gitmo is open for business. We're
still in Afghanistan, Iraq and we added more African countries to fight. Obama
has traveled more and spent more on his vacations than most other presidents.
The obummers live rent free in the White House. Travel on our dime. Party on our
dime. Vacation on our dime. And still made $500,000. Of which he paid just 20%
in taxes. He's wealthy enough, he could afford to pay 60% in taxes and
still make 2-3 times or more than most households.
Re:Otis"JP...Romney only provided a tax return because by not doing so
was hurting him politically. I actually respected him for holding back on
it....he obviously took a lot of criticism for not providing it initially, but
even further criticism because of the amounts of money he donated to the LDS
Church. It was a Catch 22 for him."Romney received flack for not
releasing several years of his tax returns as other presidents/candidates have.
When he did, it revealed he paid an effective tax rate equal to the average
American on an exponentially higher income, as well as a Swiss bank acct. In
fact one one year he didn't take the full deduction for charitable
contributions in order to inflate the tax rate.The LDS Church does
not publically disclose its financial statements. One would think they could at
least disclose yearly fast offerings and humanitarian financial statements as
many charities do.
@happy2bhereThe LDS Church has not publicly disclosed its financial
statements in the United States since 1959. The church does disclose its
financials in the United Kingdom and Canada where it is required to do so by
law. Sorry it's not about my faith, I prefer facts.How can he be destroying religion and donating to it at the same time?
Well it makes sense, .3%:10% is a similar ratio to Obama showing up to church 2
out of 52 weeks. (Heh, I think you're all slipping if I'm the one who
had to come up with that one).
Comparing Obama's donations to Romney's makes no sense since
Obama's best year would be small potatoes for Mitt. The only thing they
have in common was that they were candidates for the same elective office. I
also think they are both good individuals in this respect.
Corporate organized 501c tax exempt religions and their churches are self
serving political business, Their clergy and favored hierarchy are well
compensated and bask in the profits and power of the business of religion.
Happy Valley HereticThe LDS church does disclose how it uses tithes
and offerings. Now you may think they are lying, but then that is your problem,
Liberal Ted said: "I doubt Christ would think of his church as a "big
business". Not only would he not recognize any church as his,
even the ones with his name on them, they would not recognize him and throw him
out for heresy the moment he began to speak.A religion has a
scripture about giving money to the keepers of the scriptures, how
...predictable."Where as in my church 100% of my donation is
used to help those in need." how would you know?, churches don't have
to disclose their accounting, and don't. Faith I guess is good enough for
@OtisBDriftwoodRomney did provide his tax returns silly. In the 2010 and
2011 years, he donated $7 million to charity, of which about $4 million was to
I think most liberals look at charitable donations and think "Why donate,
when it can be paid as taxes instead? Isn't it government's job to
help the poor/needy/get them to vote democrat?" And they see charity and
churches as competition, and thus, try to stamp out charitable works and
especially churches. Especially Christian churches, since a good Christian
really has little need of government--he or she governs themselves.Which is against the law in liberal utopia--just look at poor Julia, the ideal
Democrat woman. With no husband, and married to the state, pretty much.
@ RanchI doubt Christ would think of his church as a "big
business". After all He gave the commandment to bring your Tithes &
Offerings to the church. A Tithe meaning 10% of your increase. It just
wouldn't make sense to have a commandment, and then not expect people to
follow it.As far as other causes I agree. But, I do have a problem
when 25 cents of every dollar pays for the Administrative salaries of those
charities. Why give my money there, when I know 100% of my donation will
actually go to those in need? I think a big business typically wants a profit
margin of 25% or more, which is what secular charities pull in. Where as in my
church 100% of my donation is used to help those in need. In fact we use
volunteers that donate their time to serve and the administration also donates
their time.I'll accept that some churches operate differently,
but, for the vast majority they put far more of the resources they receive back
to the people.
Personally, I think it's admirable to donate to causes other than religion.
Religion is nothing more than "big business", out to make tremendous
amounts of money these days. They are the ones Christ would throw out today as
Per the title "How much does President Obama donate to his local
church?"An attempted slight perhaps?Is giving to a
"local church" better/worse/different than giving to secular charitable
organizations?Certainly, organized religions put forth the notion
that the money should be given to them. Self serving, Perhaps?
I look forward to hearing all the Obama critics jump on this as just for show
since he knows this will all become public as opposed to Romney who gives 10%+
to charity, never mind that it's all to his church, which requires a 10%
donation to remain in good standing.Obama may (may being the
operative word here) be in over his head but he continues to demonstrate
he's a good guy. I wholeheartedly believe Romney is a good guy as well but
let's give Obama his due occasionally.
Good to see him finally practicing what he preaches. Interesting that before his
fame he wasn't so generous Per his tax returns. 2002: .4%. Or
less than half of one percent 2003: 1.4%2004: 1.2%Says a lot.
Can you imagine if Mitt Romney had given so little a percentage at any point?