It was mentioned in another thread that greedy Americans do not give enough to charity, and it was also mentioned that rich republicans vote against tax increases that would have built 22 fire stations.

Rush Limbaugh recently matched a bid on an attack letter sent to Clear Channel from several Democratic Senators, based on lies that he attacked service personnel, the winning bid was $2,100,100, he is the one who auctioned off the letter and he matched the winning bid, so Rush Limbaugh an evil Republican gave $2,100,100 to charity.

Because of Rush Limbaugh's auction just from the letter sale $4,200,200 was raised for the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation Inc., a nonprofit organization in New Jersey that provides scholarships and other assistance to families of marines and federal law enforcement officials who die or are wounded in the line of duty.

I wonder how much money Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, John Edwards, Al Gore, John Kerry or any of the other compassionate Democrats have donated to charity, any charity.

I seriously doubt one of them has donated 2.1 Million Dollars this year if ever.

Is this a General Spearfishing Topic?

I hadn't heard that Rush was a spearfisherman, but I bet he needs a ton of weight.

Is this a General Spearfishing Topic?

I hadn't heard that Rush was a spearfisherman, but I bet he needs a ton of weight.

Moving day!

Is this a General Spearfishing Topic?

I hadn't heard that Rush was a spearfisherman, but I bet he needs a ton of weight.

Apparently it was put in the wrong section, how about finding out how much money the Democrats I named gave to charity?

You are the one saying republicans are greedy, I think it is the other way around, Democrats are greedy and want to give other peoples money away.

A shining example of what the Republicans can and do produce on a consistent basis:D They all suck, get over it Bret.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/26/craig/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new campaign finance report filed with the Senate shows Sen. Larry Craig spent about $23,000 in campaign money on lawyers in his ethics investigation. Sen. Larry Craig faces an investigation of his actions after his June arrest in a sex sting in a public restroom.

The Idaho Republican faces a Senate Ethics Committee investigation of his actions after his June arrest in a sex sting in a public restroom at Minneapolis International Airport in Minnesota.

He pleaded guilty in writing two months later to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, and a soliciting charge was dropped. Craig wants the Minnesota Court of Appeals to overturn a judge's decision refusing to let him withdraw his guilty plea.

The campaign finance report did not indicate money spent from his campaign coffers on his criminal defense, but Craig spokesman Dan Whiting said Friday the three-term Republican would use that money on various aspects of his criminal defense.

Campaign finance laws generally ban using such funds on items not directly related to one's official duties as an officeholder or candidate, but Whiting said the senator's spending was legal. "There is well-established case law at the FEC demonstrating it is allowable," he said, referring to the Federal Election Commission.

One election law expert disagreed to some extent. "It's pretty clear he can use his campaign funds for his defense in the ethics committee probe since it is related to his being an officeholder," said Larry Noble, former general counsel for the FEC.

"The criminal proceeding is a closer call. The alleged act in question was not related to his official duties, so there is an argument it is a personal expense and he cannot use campaign funds." Noble is now an election law attorney with the Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom law firm in Washington.

The Senate Ethics Committee wants to determine whether Craig violated Senate ethics rules by engaging in behavior that reflects poorly on the institution. It will also examine the arresting officer's allegation that Craig showed his Senate business card and said, "What do you think of that?" in a presumed effort to use his position to avoid prosecution.

In the criminal case, Craig's lawyers will argue that a state law related to his misdemeanor conviction is unconstitutional and that it would be "manifest injustice" not to allow the lawmaker to withdraw his guilty plea.

The legal strategy was revealed Friday in a filing with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which is expected to hear his case sometime next year.

Craig's lawyers last week announced their intention to appeal after a state judge refused on October 4 to allow the senator to withdraw his earlier plea. Judge Charles Porter said the plea "was accurate, voluntary and intelligent, and ... supported by the evidence."

Craig had earlier promised to resign if the judge ruled against his motion, but he changed his mind and vowed to stay in office until his term expires in early 2009. He is not seeking re-election.

In his most recent filing, Craig's lawyers claimed "the plea was not supported by the evidence" and "was defective because it was not accepted by the sentencing judge." They also said the facts of the case make the disorderly conduct charge unconstitutional. Porter had earlier dismissed all those arguments.

The state appeals court has not said when or whether it would hold oral arguments, but Craig's attorneys in their motion made no request for an expedited hearing, meaning the case may not be heard for months.

The court will not retry the case, only focus on whether the state trial judge made legal errors. Three of the court's 16 judges will either sit for arguments or review the facts of the case in private. They then will have 90 days to make a ruling.

Craig was not allowed to appeal directly to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which could eventually be the final arbiter of the case.

Depending on the outcome of the latest appeals, the state's high court has the option of accepting or rejecting any further consideration of the case. The state Supreme Court accepts only about 5 percent of appeals for further review, according to court officials.

The case is Craig v. Minnesota (A07-1949).

what do Craig's legal problems have to do with charitable giving?

A shining example of what the Republicans can and do produce on a consistent basis:D They all suck, get over it Bret.

How much did he donate to cahrity?

what do Craig's legal problems have to do with charitable giving?

Absolutely nothing, but then Bret never lets himself be confined by the title of a thread when he wants to get it all off his chest about Democrats.

How about the fact that most of these people when they retire form office get a pension check and insurance for life. Most of them could pay there own way several times over. They're all scumbags and it pisses me off to know that I am paying the retirement fund to people that do not need it. They call them selves decent people who care about their fellow man. I call BS.

Just like some folks we know like to preach about how bad or uncaring other people are but have no problem padding there income with a check from the government (aka we the people) even though they don't need it either.

That money could be used for charitable work.



Junior there are plenty of things like that from both sides, All of them suck.

Absolutely nothing, but then Bret never lets himself be confined by the title of a thread when he wants to get it all off his chest about Democrats.


Bill,

You are the one who started bitching about Americans not giving enough and greedy Republicans voting against new taxes so they could build new fire stations.

I didn't realize they could tell how Republicans voted, but apparently in California you know how they vote.

I absolutely need those checks from the government. They are the only income I have.

Keep them coming. I'm not a bit bashful about taking them.

How much did he donate to cahrity?

Not too sure, don't really care. No amount of giving can undo the hypocrisy if the charges are indeed true. I don't care if the man is gay. I do care that he is an absolute POS hypocrite, if the charges are true.

Bret, giving to charity is not what makes someone a good person or a good politician. It does make someone look good on paper. Much like Bush, who amazingly has a degree from Harvard and Yale, was the Governor of Texas, ran an oil business, managed a Major League Baseball team...and yet can't accomplish diddley-squat with his voter mandate:confused:

I guess Rush may get a chance to be relevant again after Hillary wins the White House:D Don't choke bro...

I absolutely need those checks from the government. They are the only income I have.

Keep them coming. I'm not a bit bashful about taking them.

Bill,

I don't think Roland was talking about Veterans like you who earned their pension.

I guess Rush may get a chance to be relevant again after Hillary wins the White House:D Don't choke bro...

I will bet you a case of beer she does not win the Presidency, you on?

I will bet you a case of beer she does not win the Presidency, you on?

I don't know if she will win and honestly don't care either way. For all my confidence in the political system these days, they could elect Ronald McDonald and the Ham-burglar and it would be a step up.

But, I'd be willing to bet she could win. Don't know that I will vote for her, but how bad could her chances really be?

I don't know if she will win and honestly don't care either way. For all my confidence in the political system these days, they could elect Ronald McDonald and the Ham-burglar and it would be a step up.

But, I'd be willing to bet she could win. Don't know that I will vote for her, but how bad could her chances really be?

I guess we are on then.

I guess we are on then.

See you back here in a year or so:toast:

I guess Rush may get a chance to be relevant again after Hillary wins the White House:D Don't choke bro...
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Rush is popular no matter who is in office, if he wasn't relevant now, why the big push to get rid of talk radio with the fairness doctrine the democrats are pushing?

Rush is popular no matter who is in office, if he wasn't relevant now, why the big push to get rid of talk radio with the fairness doctrine the democrats are pushing?

I thought air america was supposed to bring ballance?

Can someone list out the L vs R radio personalities?

Rush is popular no matter who is in office

I've often wondered why he is so popular. I honestly can't stand the sound of his voice so I guess I will never know. He reminds me of a right-wing self-righteous Michael Moore. Hell, they're both fat, white and pasty. They could practically be brothers.

I thought air america was supposed to bring ballance?

Can someone list out the L vs R radio personalities?

The problem is, no one listens to the "L" radio, it sucks, not even the Democrats will listen to it.

You put on a crappy product and no one listens, do you blame the people producing the product, or do you try and shut down the people who are getting the ratings?

I guess if you are a Democrat, you try and stifle free speech and shut down the competition.

I've often wondered why he is so popular. I honestly can't stand the sound of his voice so I guess I will never know. He reminds me of a right-wing self-righteous Michael Moore. Hell, they're both fat, white and pasty. They could practically be brothers.

I don't listen to him much unless I happen to be in my truck driving around while he is on.

IMO Sean Hannity is much better.

But Rush gets record numbers on ratings, so he must be doing something right.

Getting back to the subject, I think Bill Gates is a Democrat, and no one has ever given more to charity.

I'm not certain he is a Democrat, but I just checked and saw that he has given more to Democratic candidates than to Republicans.

And he has certainly taken some un-Republican positions such as opposing repeal of the estate tax.

Warren Buffett is a Democrat, and last year he gave damn near his entire fortune to the Gates foundation.

And Buffet made sure that the money was to be protected from taxation.

John Stossel wrote a couple of article on the subject of Americans & charitable giving last year. Here's one:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/are_americans_cheap.html

November 29, 2006
Are Americans Cheap?
By John Stossel

The New York Times and Washington Post editorialize about America's "stinginess." Former President Jimmy Carter says when it comes to helping others, "The rich states don't give a damn." Standing outside the White House, the singer Bono told the press that America doesn't do enough to help the needy:

"It's the crumbs off our tables that we offer these countries."

It seems obvious to Bono and President Carter that America offers "crumbs" because the governments of most other wealthy countries distribute a larger percentage of their nations' wealth in foreign aid. Yes, the U.S. government gave out $20 billion last year, much more than other countries give, but that's only because we are so stupendously wealthy. If you calculate foreign aid as a percentage of our wealth, the United States gives much less than others.

Actress Angelina Jolie calls that "really disgusting" in my new TV special, titled "Cheap in America." "ABC News" will broadcast it tonight (Wednesday, Nov. 29 at 10 p.m. -- sorry -- I know some of you are reading this column after that). Jolie goes on to say, "I think most American people, you know, really do think we give more. And I know that they would if they could understand how little they give and how much more we can afford to give, absolutely, without even noticing."

But wait a second ... when talking aid, why do Jolie and the others talk just about what the government gives? Why conflate America with our government? America is the people.

Jolie could look to herself as an example of the generous American. She gives weeks of her time and millions of her own dollars to charities. America is 300 million private individuals, and their contributions far exceed what government gives. When you include those, America is anything but cheap.

After the Asian Tsunami two years ago, the U.S. government pledged $900 million to tsunami relief. American individuals donated $2 billion -- three times what government gave -- in food, clothing, and cash. Private charities could barely keep up with the donations.

Americans' preference for voluntary contributions over forced giving through government is one way in which Americans differ from other people. (Don't think it's forced? See what happens if you don't pay your taxes.)

Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks's new book, "Who Really Cares", points out that Americans give more than the citizens of any other country. Individually, Americans give seven times more money than people in Germany and 14 times more than Italians give. We also volunteer more.

And thank goodness we do, because charity does things better. I notice the difference on my way to work. In my neighborhood the "Men in Blue" -- that's what they call themselves -- clean streets. I wondered who the "Men in Blue" were. Day after day they did menial work energetically ... even enthusiastically.

It turns out that they are mostly former street people, ex-alcoholics, and drug addicts. A private charity, the Doe Fund, puts them to work while trying to teach them to be responsible and stay clean.

One year later, 54 percent of the "Men in Blue" are drug-free and employed. That's twice the success rate of other city shelters.

I'm still not sure exactly what makes Doe Fund successful, but they clearly have discovered something. I never see government workers clean anything with enthusiasm. Doe Fund workers do. It's why I voluntarily give them some of my money.

Charity almost always does it better.

America is a uniquely charitable country. So when you hear that "Americans are cheap," just remember: We gave $260 billion in charity last year. That's almost $900 for every man, woman, and child.

Of course some people give nothing. Some people are cheap. Which raises the question: Who gives and who doesn't? I'll report on that in my next column.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

and the follow up:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/who_gives_to_charity.html

December 06, 2006
Who Gives to Charity?
By John Stossel

Americans are pretty generous. Three-quarters of American families give to charity -- and those who do, give an average of $1,800. Of course that means one-quarter of us don't give at all. What distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.

To test them, ABC's "20/20" went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco. We asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities. Which bucket would get more money? I'll get to that in a minute.

San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to church every week.

San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and since liberals are said to "care more" about the poor, you might assume people in San Francisco would give a lot.

But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.

"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

Researching his book, "Who Really Cares", Brooks found that the conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:

"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."

Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood.

The second myth is that people with the most money are the most generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income.

Says Brooks: "The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."

We saw that in Sioux Falls, S.D. The workers at the meat packing plant make about $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees there than anywhere else.

Note that Brooks said the "working" poor. The nonworking poor -- people on welfare -- are very different, even though they have the same income. The nonworking poor don't give much at all.

What about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, when compared to both the rich and working poor in America, Brooks says, "They give less."

When asked why, many say, "I don't have enough money to spare." But it's telling that the working poor manage to give.

And the rich? What about America's 400 billionaires? I'll report on them in next week's column.

Finally, Brooks says one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: "their religious participation." Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much.

But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?

"No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."

And what happened in our little test? Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier -- three times as many people were within reach of the bucket -- by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money.

Another myth bites the dust.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

and last, what he found about billionaires:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/are_the_rich_cheap.html

December 13, 2006
Are the Rich Cheap?
By John Stossel

I've pointed out in recent weeks that the American people are the most generous in the world.

But I was surprised to learn the working poor give a larger percentage of their income than the rich. Last week I did a TV special, "Cheap in America," in which I playfully gave some billionaires a hard time about what they don't give to charity.

Ted Turner is giving $1 billion to the United Nations. He got lots of great publicity for that, and he told me that he'd like to give away more, but he was too poor. "I've given away so much, and lost so much. It's all I can do. I'm doing all I can. I'm worried about the viability of our Social Security. I want to be sure that I have enough money to make it through, you know, my old age, when I finally do retire, at about 95."

But he still has $2 billion left. Isn't that enough? "Not enough! Not in the way inflation -- you know, I was worth $10 billion about four, five years ago, and I lost eight of it, so the other two could evaporate overnight."

Dan Duncan had a different excuse. He's made $7 billion by finding cheaper ways to pipe natural gas and oil from place to place. He and his wife have given millions to charity, but their gifts are only about 2 percent of his net worth.

I suggested that maybe he was "cheap," and he answered: "Sometimes you're better off to hold on to that money longer and make it bigger." His wife, Jan, added, "It takes money to make money so that we'll have more to give away."

That may have sounded cheap to my TV audience, but it's actually a pretty good reason for Duncan not to give to charity. Great business creators like Duncan and Turner waste their skills if they just give money away. They do more for the world by creating businesses. Turner started with 12 employees. By the time he merged CNN with Time Warner, he employed 12,000 people.

Is there a better way to help the poor than by creating jobs -- opportunities for self-improvement? And when businesses make useful products cheaper and more plentiful, that helps the poor more than charity. Discount retailers like Wal-Mart help low-income people tremendously. Would Sam Walton have done as much for the poor by giving all his money to charity? I don't think so.

That's what T.J. Rodgers, founder of Cypress Semiconductor, thought when Turner gave $1billion to the United Nations, a bureaucracy famous for squandering money. "What he said is patently stupid," Rodgers told me. "What he should do is take his money and invest it. And to have the companies and buildings and plants that are created with his investment create jobs and wealth and products for other people. So running around giving his money away is a way to maybe make himself feel good. But it sure as hell isn't a good way to help people!"

It's a shocking comment in this season of giving, but it's also a good point. We lavish praise on the philanthropist, but you can't give away what hasn't been created.

Philosopher David Kelley put it this way. "Why do we think that giving away money is better than making money? Giving away money is a lot easier than building a new business or a new industry where you've created something that didn't exist before. I have a lot more respect for Ted Turner for building CNN at a time when no one thought it was possible than I have for any possible good he could do as a philanthropist."

I'll still give 20 percent of my income to charity, because I'm not good at building businesses. But for those of you who are, no need to apologize for creating wealth.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate