I think it's messed up

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It doesn't meant that is all he gave to charity. It means that is all he claimed on his taxes.

As for Obama's brother, I doubt any of us know what he has or has not attempted to do with his brother. We don't know if he tried and his brother declined aid or what the situation is.

The broadest standard of judgment for Obama. The narrowest for Republicans.

That's how we roll.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It doesn't meant that is all he gave to charity. It means that is all he claimed on his taxes.

SUre, I know lots of well-educated people making large charitable donations that they choose not to declare. Makes sense to me. (of course, if he is giving coin to, say Hamas, then maybe it would make mroe sense)

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

Don't go there, Barbara. Honestly.

BlueHair got there before me, anyhow.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I would like to see what the numbers are if you take tithing out of the equation. To me, tithing isn't charity. Tithing is like taxes or membership dues. Fast offerings count in my book. I am interested in the feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. Tithing just pays for and maintains expensive underused buildings.

In Utah maybe. The ignorance of your post unbelievable.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I don't know the details about this, but speaking as a person with family who have financial problems, may I just say that it is usually much more complicated than the $$. Giving $$ can be like throwing it in the trash. They usually need more comprehensive help, and it can seem impossible to provide it when the recipient doesn't see it that way. I'd cut anybody slack on that one.

Fair enough, but his brother is living on twenty bucks a month. Double his standard of living for the cost of a movie and popcorn.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

BlueHair got there before me, anyhow.

You'd be wise not to stand with him on this one.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

You'd be wise not to stand with him on this one.

yeah. the underused buildings is a bit much. I don't question the use of the funds. The church is probably one of the most efficiently-run non-profits in the world. It's just a stretch to compare believers' giving to that of non-believers' when the former is compulsory.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

yeah. the underused buildings is a bit much. I don't question the use of the funds. The church is probably one of the most efficiently-run non-profits in the world. It's just a stretch to compare believers' giving to that of non-believers' when the former is compulsory.

It's not compulsory. Yes, I'm serious.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

yeah. the underused buildings is a bit much. I don't question the use of the funds. The church is probably one of the most efficiently-run non-profits in the world. It's just a stretch to compare believers' giving to that of non-believers' when the former is compulsory.

Compulsory? Or do you mean self-serving? Why is this different than a politician ('non-beleiver') giving $ to his pet cause? SHould we discount that due to its self-serving nature? Or if the donation is based on fervetn beleif, why is it different than anyone giving to a cause in which they fervently believe? This dichotomy is false.

[TripletDaddy]

This is all a moo point because it is highly unlikely that exie's claim is even accurate.

Where does he even get that statistic?

The sheer concentrations of wealth and population in states like California, Florida, New York, Illinois, Texas, Connecticut (wealth, not pops)....would make it highly unlikely that Utah leads the nation in any category.