Obama: 20.5% to charity vs (faux) über-Christian Santorum < 2%

[LVZ]

Alleged Über-Christian Santorum: under 2% to charity

Obama: 20.5% to charity

Romney: 14% to charity (vast majority went to Mormon Church)

[Johnny Rico]

1. I've never considered any politician's charitable contributions (or lack thereof) relevant.

All that matters is how they vote and implement policy.

[Journeyman]

4. Very true. Who's to say what other obligations a person has that preclude charitable giving. . .

I give relatively little to charity, and what I do give goes mainly to food banks. But I provide substantial support for my invalid brother, and after this, and the cost of increasingly expensive medical insurance for my wife and I (we're self-employed so doubly screwed on that score), it's difficult to find the cash to give to all we'd like to support.

So I don't judge anyone on the strength of their giving (or not giving). As you say, JR, all it matters for politicians is how they vote and what they do to implement their policies.

[LVZ]

7. ... just comparing multimillionaires here ... if they do or don't practice what they preach. n/t

[LVZ]

2. a reasonable point of view but hypocrisy on the right needs to be highlighted (once again) n/t

[DCKit]

3. An impressive list. nt

[hughee99]

5. A great list from Obama, but can the quality of a candidate really be judged

by their charitable donations?

[Egalitarian Thug]

6. No, but it can certainly might be an indication of her humanity.

Of course it is not definitive and can be gamed, but it's a start.

[hughee99]

8. If Santorum gave 100% of his income to charity, would it make him a more acceptable candidate?

Did you not vote for Al Gore in 2000 because of his under $400 in charitable contributions in 1998? It tells you a very small bit about the candidate, but is only really useful for discussion purposes if the candidate you support gave more than the candidate you oppose.

[Egalitarian Thug]

11. Let him do that and we can talk. If you want to make an argument based on the most extreme,

even bizarre hypothetical, then what is the point of talking?

And I didn't vote for Gore.

[hughee99]

12. Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I'd like to meet someone

who is willing to overlook Santorum's positions on the issues and vote for him based on his charitable spending. Santorum could have donated $50 trillion dollars and wiped out world hunger, but I still wouldn't vote for a person who had his positions on the issues.

And out of curiosity, did you base your 2000 vote on Gore's charitable giving, some other factor, or did you not vote in that election?

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. Not at all.I voted against him because of his record as Senator Gore & as VPOTUS.

During his entire political life he compromised the principles he claimed in order to stay in office. We already have a surplus of those & we sure didn't need another in the White House.

In addition, he didn't lose the election but refused to stand up and call the coup a coup, again to preserve his petty reputation.

The charity thing is the topic of the OP, and I think it certainly can be an indication of a person's willingness to sacrifice, which is a prerequisite for leadership.

[C_U_L8R]

9. Rmoney's "charitable giving" is so self-serving

The George Bush Library
The Heritage Foundation
The Federalist Society
Citizens for Limited Taxation
blah blah blah
Not really helping the common good much with those gifts
- more like advancing his political career (even his LDS church
donations were designed to raise himself up among the ranks)

I believe Rmoney is a truly awful person
who on cares for his own gain and advancement.
A real greedy son of a bitch. Yeccch.

[renate]

10. with those donations, he was basically donating to himself

Trying to shore up his conservative bona fides. I don't know anything about donations to the Mormon church--whether they go towards new carpets for the church or for helping those in need or for earning Brownie points in the church's hierarchy--but unless they go towards helping those less fortunate, those donations don't impress me much, either.

[LVZ]

13. correction: Obama's charitable contributions for 2011 were actually 22% n/t