Monday, September 15, 2008

This says alot...

I'll let you decide what this says about the candidates:

Biden's Average Annual Charitable-Gift Total: $369
(The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Sept. 12, 2008)

Sen. Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, have given an average of $369 per year to charities during the past decade, according to tax returns posted today to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign Web site.

Senator Biden, the Democratic nominee for vice president, claimed $995 in charitable gifts in 2007 on the joint return with his wife. That figure is 0.3 percent of the couple’s claimed income of nearly $320,000.

The 2007 contributions were significantly higher than the couple’s gifts in previous years, which ranged from $120 to $380.

By comparison, Sen. John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee, in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.
Sen. McCain files a separate return from his wife, Cindy. The totals do not include Ms. McCain’s income or charitable contributions.

Sen. Obama, and his wife, Michelle, donated $240,000 in 2007, or about 5.7 percent of the couple’s $4.2-million in reported income.

Mr. Biden has been rated as the least wealthy U.S. Senator.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Mr. McCain’s running mate, has not yet made public her tax returns.

— Peter Panepento

HT: Susannah

12 comments:

Frontier Forest said...

No doubt, these next 50 days are going to get real nasty!

Rick Calohan said...

It says that Senator Biden may have donated to charities but did not claim them on his taxes, or that he has three children in college, or a parent with no income has move into his household. It also explains why he takes AMTRAK, and wants to raise your taxes to support Social Security, Education, and Transportation.

To be fair I am sure many of us give more than we report on our taxes, just that they may not be considered tax deductable, i.e. such as remittance to family members overseas, or cash in the deacons’ fund, or we don’t make enough money therefore we have to take a standard deduction.

I am sure that Senator Biden, as practicing Roman Catholic who supports abortion rights is probably giving the bulk of his income to Rome in the form of indulgences and to my knowledge indulgences is not tax deductable.

In the words of Johann Tetzel who is quoted as saying, “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”

Allow us reform people to remind Senator Biden that Salvation is by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone, as revealed in the Scripture alone to the Glory of God alone! Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria!

Reepicheep said...

Giving to Rome would be tax deductible.

Zach said...

Come on, Rick, my good man. You were sorta all over the map with your comments.

On one hand, you want to "be fair" to Biden in assuming the best about his paltry level of charitable giving. (hey, it's possible that he made it up to tithing level by dropping $35K worth of Lincolns and Benjamins into the local deacon's fund--yeah right!)

On the other hand, you demonstrate a distinct lack of charity yourself by taking cheap shots at the Catholic Church and somehow trying to connect Biden's avarice to 16th century excesses in the granting of indulgences.

If you use tactics like that, Catholics (whether orthodox or not) aren't likely to listen to any advice "you reform people" offer, even when you couch it in ecclesiastical Latin. :)

Reepicheep said...

Zach's points are well taken.

No reason to make Biden's lack of charity a RC isue, it's not.

Rick Calohan said...

Zach,

Peace and grace to you in the name of the Lord! Amen.

I realize my comments on a blog may have been taken the wrong way, however the “indulgence” remark was primarily to show that Senator Biden and any other practicing Catholics who engages in the political arena with a pro-abortion policy stance should be ex-communicated by Rome, but since none of them have been officially ex-communicated I can only conclude they are paying indulgences to Rome, or the Church is not enforcing it’s discipline via Papal Bull.

Besides, why should anyone really know the tax records or charitable contribution of any candidate, when I worked for the IRS, we were never to disclose such information. We all know liberal Democrats know how to spend other peoples’ money and not their own money.

Besides as a Protestant who denies the dogmas and teaching of Rome, I am a heretic and schismatic in the eyes of Rome in fact an anathema if I read my Council of Trent correctly, so my comments I am sure will fall on deaf ears.

Zach said...

Rick,

Without taking us too far afield from Tony's original post, let me just point out the following:

1)Excommunication is a censure that is most often imposed by a local bishop, and that only in accord with the code of canon law. To be imposed on someone like Joe Biden, his pro-abortion votes would have to be tied to a particular abortion--difficult to do.

However, there are other medicinal penalties specified by canon law for just these situations, namely the witholding of Communion under Canon 915. Happily, many bishops have done this--all should.

2)If Biden were sending money to Rome to fend off penalties, that would be bribery, not an indulgence. Besides, in the 16th century, Pope Pius V outlawed all indulgences involving financial donations. And of course, Tony is right that he could deduct any donations to the Vatican.

3)If the candidates are revealing their own tax returns, what's the problem? That's qualitatively different from the breach of confidentiality and privacy that would be involved if the IRS leaked their returns.

4)You may be surprised to find that there are many Catholics who enjoy friendly conversation with our Reformed brethren. In fact, I promise not to hurl anathemas on you if you promise not to call me Romish (Papist, however, is okay by me) :¬)

M. Jay Bennett said...

But as a Democrat, he counts his tax money as charity. Right?

Reepicheep said...

Zach,

I appreciate your comments and presence on this blog. I encourage people to check your blog out also. You are a gifted artist and cartoonist.

I also appreciate that you referred to us as "brethren". That is unusual, given Trent's strong statement against us.

As a former Roman Catholic I welcome such dialogue.

Rick Calohan said...

Zach,

Peace and grace to you in the name of the Lord! Amen.

I am not surprised in fact at my son’s Covenant Baptism I had more Catholics guest then Protestants attend. My wife is a former a Catholic; her entire mother’s side of the family is Roman Catholic, her father’s side Seven Day Adventist. Majority of the people I play Battlefield 2 online are Catholic friends of my cousin a former Catholic now a Southern Baptist. Unlike some Protestants, I do not believe Catholics are not Christian, or that the Pope is the anti-Christ. Without going into a theological debate, I too count you as a brother in the body of Christ and leave it at that. Even among us Protestants there are divides among Calvinist, Arminianist, Anabaptist, and snake charmers : ) At every meal in my house when we say grace, we begin In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Bless us O Lord, for these Thy gifts, from Thy bounty, through Christ our Lord, Amen. In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. On a side note I do enjoy your input it is very informative and I know it is offered in the spirit of peace.

Roger Mann said...

I also appreciate that you referred to us as "brethren". That is unusual, given Trent's strong statement against us.

It’s not “unusual” -- it’s false! We are not “brethren” since we believe and teach justification by faith alone and stand under Rome’s anathema. Likewise, Roman Catholics are not our “brethren” since they believe and teach justification by faith and works (and a host of other blasphemous doctrines, such as transubstantiation) and stand under Scripture’s anathema:

“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” -- Galatians 1:6-9

The only appropriate response to the false “gospel” of Rome is a monologue -- repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ alone for justification! “For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10). The one true gospel of God’s grace is really quite simple, and it is completely opposed to the false “gospel” of Rome:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith [simple belief alone], and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” -- Ephesians 2:8-9

Zach said...

Thanks for your kind words, Tony Rick, and Roger.

Although we have strong and important disagreements, I always feel at home among Reformed folk--because I think Catholics and the Reformed stand apart from the herd of Christendom in proclaiming that there is truth, and it's worth defending.