When I lived out in Silicon Valley, a place where you couldn't throw a rock and not hit someone who made a half million or more, the annual giving rate was slightly less than 2 percent, nearly the worst in the nation. Some wealthy people are quite stingy.

I guess in Obama's case, his less than stellar giving could be attributed to "start-up costs" on his unimpeded jaunt to the White House.

The guy scares me. Really.

Devastating little tidbit.

Of course, I can imagine Obama and/or his supporters reframing this as street-smart wisdom: based on his voting record and campaign rhetoric, he is not stingy, but generous, with other peoples' money.

Wow - 78% in giving? That's amazingly generous.

There was an op-ed piece from George Will noting that conservatives have a tendency to give more to charity than liberals.

Here is a link to the piece:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/03/27/conservatives_really_are_more_compassionate?page=full&comments=true,

Cheney gave 78 percent of his income! Whoa, nelly. Shout that one from the rooftops.

I'll bet we won't hear the MSM report that one.

In my head, I can still hear Jeremiah Wright saying from the pulpit that Bush gives tax breaks to his wealthy campaign contributors.

Man, those with a liberal perspective really believe that republicans are nothing but a bunch of money-grubbers.

Maybe that's because people who make money pay taxes and become republicans. :) Of course, with Obama making $1 million, I guess that blows my theory. I wonder how many "tax breaks" and "loopholes" he took advantage of?

I consider this similar to the huge carbon footprint of Al Gore compared to the green, environmentally friendly ranch house that Bush, that destroyer of planets, has.

Yeah, Republicans are just pure evil.

:snark:

That op-ed piece was based on Brooks' work (the guy who wrote this one). I posted on this myself (with thanks to Jared), but I think the real key here is a little further on in the article:

[Many] political liberals simply don’t believe that redistribution is very effective at the voluntary level; rather, redistribution is so important that it should be undertaken at the large-group level as a matter of law.

From this perspective, private charity, while a lovely thing, is still a dispensable extravagance.

That Brooks article came out over a year ago, and I think it should be pointed out (even though it is often simply glossed over) that charitable given is much more highly correlated with religious association rather than political association.

It just happens that there are more religious people who are Republicans than there are religious democrats. A secular republican conservative is just as likely to be miserly as the atheist liberal democrat.

JDW--data?

By way of comparison, Hillary Clinton finally released her 2000-07 tax returns, and of the $109 million that she and Bill made over that period, they gave about 10% to charity.

It's good to see that Hillary and Bill have contributed, and contributed generously.

I'm a bit blown away by the 109 mill, (wow!) but still, it's an interesting contrast.

A.M.

You can find all that data on the internet. The linked George Will article above even alludes to that fact.

I'm no fan of the Clinton's, but it should be pointed out that Hillary is actually quite religious and is therefore not suprising that she adheres to some form of the principle of tithing.