Because many will grand stand about wanting to help the down trodden or see some forced to pay more but when it comes to opening their own check books they seem to misplace their pen. If you don't think their is anything wrong with that, ok, but a lot of people, myself included, think it's hypocritical.
Not at all but so many texans were that year. That storm brought out the best in people. And louisianans too.
Giving to charity is something to be treated with derision. I guess I've seen it all on ClutchFans now.
As I'd argued in the Sanders thread, conservatives assign value to philanthropy because it is the free market mechanism for helping the poor, promoting the arts, and doing every other uneconomic thing in our society. Big government liberals use government for that stuff. Liberals are shaking their fingers at billionaires because they don't donate more. I wouldn't call it 'hypocrisy' because they aren't asking people to pay more to help other people, they're telling them and telling themselves in the process, by raising taxes. What I'd think hypocritical would be if Beto dodged his taxes while advocating for more government spending. So, I don't think it's hypocrisy but maybe one would want a candidate to be charitable anyway. And I'd say sure, its not a requirement but it would speak well of his character if he also had charity bonafides. At this point though, I'll be content if he can just refrain from grabbing women by the p***y.
But it was nowhere close to meeting the actual cost. Philanthropy is great but it’s not a replacement for governmental aid to the poor.
The hypocrisy is that it's a big free world. Bernie/Beto and whoever else can give whatever percentage of their income away to help people or to help fund the federal government. They don't. They pay the minimum in taxes and we've seen big time Democrats give almost nothing to charity. They represent themselves as the party of compassion and humanity but when it comes to personal financial sacrifice to help fund programs (private or public) that would serve their fellow man, it's an "uh, pass". I'm not sure what exact % of his income Bernie believes the federal government should be taking but I'm sure it's much more than 26%. Well, Bernie, you can write a check to the United States Treasury any day now for any amount. Oh, you don't want to do that? Big shocker.
I think conservatives think is what Democrats say about themselves. They hear the bleeding hearts say, 'oh we've got to help this poor man!' and assume the means are irrelevant to the Democrat. And maybe that's true of some. But when I hear the 'we' in that sentence, I think it means 'we, the people, through our collective action in government.' That's not a position of compassion. That's a position of mutual accountability. Honestly, I do not want the poor (or the government) to exist only at the beneficence of and in debt to rich men.
Good for you... charitable giving is important. I do commend those who give of their time as well. Our family believes in the importance of tithes and offerings but there have been times when the situation made it difficult to and in those times I try to give more of my time. And the fact you can slight O'Rourke's charitable giving like this is a good reason why trump should have and then should continue to release his taxes.
pretty nitpicky **** when we are talking about our identity as a Nation. Talk policy... tax policy, defense policy, immigration policy, education policy, voting rights and electoral policy, bureaucratic policy like actually approving Department heads
On the other hand... sometimes it would be good for those who only whip out the pen but don't personally invest in helping others. I think those who donate their time are being very generous... especially when there are so many other demands on their time.
I don't know that claiming you gave somewhere around $4,500.00 to charity is "boasting" - It's a fairly modest amount and appropriate for a middle class income. It only highlights how little Beto gave. Which is an embarrassment for Beto. Treating that person's charitable contributions with derision is pathetic.
I think the financial support probably produces a greater benefit but I agree that donating time has value.
Both are important, but I really admire people that go on mission trips to help with their time and skills. Or even more locally, donating time at food banks, or old age homes, or work with children.
[Premium Post] The importance of charity cannot be overstated. That is why I spend so much time on Clutchfans donating my talents and very valuable insights to each of you. All of this is done on a purely pro bono basis without any expectation of compensation. A greater example of generosity, I cannot fathom. GOOD DAY
I agree and encourage those activities as well. Money cannot replace human interactions. I mean, it's difficult to quantify what is "more valuable" monetary contributions or time contributions. It depends. I think, practically speaking though, if you can help someone who lives in financial insecurity by say paying a months rent/mortgage, replacing their brakes, helping them with a new set of tires, some other pressing financial concern etc.. etc.. these are more beneficial activities than the donation of time (maybe not very skilled specific labor such as doctors/lawyers/dentist.. etc..)