User Rating: / 9
PoorBest 

Sunday, 12 February 2012 06:00

Regarding the letter "Dickensian Mitt" (Feb. 8) from William E. Wells: How much did he give to charity in the last two years? Mitt Romney gave 15 percent to government and 15 percent to charity -- 30 percent is not very Scrooge-ish! So Tiny Tim surely got a farthing in his stocking.

Compared to the $7 million cheerfully given to charity by Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich gave about 1 percent to 2 percent. How cheerful they were is questionable. God loveth a cheerful giver!

NANCY McCLELLAN
Ross

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOP obstruction

Well, well. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum -- the Three Musketeers by way of the Three Stooges. Forget Ron Paul. Among the four of them, Mr. Paul's observations and proposals carry more weight than the other three combined, but I'm afraid his reasoning is smothered by the cacophony of the other clowns. When they are not castigating each other, these three are peddling their doomsday prophecies, which, distilled, all mean one thing: "President Obama is the Antichrist."

I think the public tends to ignore or forget that there are few monumental changes the president can institute without the cooperation of the House and Senate, and both of these bodies are dominated by Republicans, an impossible handicap for a president to bear. If the walls of your house caved in, do you think you could rebuild it all by yourself? Positively not, and that mindset is what the president faces concerning the majority of his proposals.

If you believe the Republican-dominated Congress does this for the benefit of the masses, then I have some Howdy Doody records I would like to sell to you at a discount. The Republicans circle the wagons in a solidified effort to make the president seem unfit for the job and to hell with the way it affects us, the people whose taxes pay their salaries.

I suggest that the people who are so anxious to believe that the president is the cause of all this nation's problems go back and review President George W. Bush's eight years in office to understand fully why this country is striving to climb out of a deep hole.

I am a regular voter, and if I harbored the slightest doubt that President Obama was up to the job, I would face no doubt about voting against him, but with what this man has had to face in office, the vitriol from a bunch of bought-and-paid-for politicians, I would vote for him at least twice if I could.

TROY M. LINDSAY
Brighton Heights

Comments (30)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by UMOC, February 12, 2012 - 07:36 AM

Well, the first letter writer is wrong on Obama's charitable giving. In 2010 he gave 14.1% of his income to charity, about the same percentage as Romney.

And, though there's nothing wrong with this, Romney's Mormon church strongly suggests tithing 10% of income. So what he gives above that percentage is not extraordinary compared to people who give without feeling that obligation.

But giving is giving and is to be commended.

But somehow poor little Romney seems to get sympathy because with two year income of $45 million after charity and taxes he was left with "only" about $32 million. At least he didn't have to work for it.

• 
• +11
• 
• 

...
written by Bingram, February 12, 2012 - 07:49 AM

UMOC, you have correctly identifies that Romney's church requests of it's members a tithe of 10%. It is noteworthy that many of Romney's additional charitable contributions are to the Hertiage Foundation and the Federalist Society.

Romney also contributes to more mainstream and useful charities, but the figures are clearly skewed.

The Christian Science Monitor has a very interesting piece regarding Romney's charitable giving. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/E...mon-church

• 
• +4
• 
• 

...
written by bigmack, February 12, 2012 - 08:03 AM

Although the dollar amount per person cannot compare to that of high income individuals, the people I commend are those whose income is much less but who still give between 5% to 10% or more to their church and other charities.

• 
• +13
• 
• 

...
written by KDHunter, February 12, 2012 - 08:05 AM

From 2000 to 2004 the Obuma's donated just over $10K to charity of the more than $1.2M they earned, around 1%.

It was only after Obuma became a public figure that his donations increased. Their 2010 donations included money received from the sham Nobel prize "awarded" to the pretender-in-chief and, as the adage goes, you can't lose something you never had (or deserved).

Liberals are all about appearances. Before any scrutiny was directed towards the Obumas they were typical greedy types, clinging to their lust of mammon.

• 
• -8
• 
• 

...
written by LeBro, February 12, 2012 - 08:49 AM

KDHunter:

Are you in?

Join Michelle and tell Barack you're in.

Go to: www.barackobama.com

• 
• +8
• 
• 

...
written by KDHunter, February 12, 2012 - 09:24 AM

Oh yeah, I'm ALL in 'bro. I sent my donation to buy one way tickets to Chi-town for the Obuma's.

That IS what you meant, correct?

• 
• -6
• 
• 

...
written by GBRetired, February 12, 2012 - 10:08 AM

I would vote for him at least twice

Hmmm....another loyal ACORN member.

• 
• -9
• 
• 

...
written by Racer, February 12, 2012 - 10:43 AM

Hmmm....another loyal ACORN member.

Brett Feese, (R-Lycoming County, the former Republican majority whip and appropriations chairman and chief counsel for House Republicans) will report to prison to begin serving a four- to 12-year term and must pay more than $1 million for stealing from taxpayers on 40 felony counts.

Brett Feese (R-Lycoming County the former Republican majority whip and appropriations chairman and chief counsel for House Republicans) used public resources for campaigns and trying to cover it up.

Jurors convicted Feese (R-Lycoming County, the former Republican majority whip and appropriations chairman and chief counsel for House Republicans) of theft, conflict of interest, conspiracy and hindering an investigation.

Witnesses and documents showed he participated in a scheme to divert at least $10 million in tax money for sophisticated computer programs and equipment to help the GOP win elections.

- page 2 -

February 04, 2012 - Indiana's top elections official, Secretary of State Charlie White (R), has been found guilty of six of seven voter fraud-related charges and faces removal from office.

White was accused of lying about where he lived when he registered to vote in the May 2010 Republican primary. Prosecutors said he used his ex-wife's address instead of a condo he had with his fiancée despite moving out of his council district.

• 
• +12
• 
• 

...
written by JohnnyB, February 12, 2012 - 10:57 AM

2 Corinthians 9:7 - "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

Matthew 6:2 - "when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."

• 
• +14
• 
• 

...
written by ABC123, February 12, 2012 - 11:07 AM

Racer, thank you. I had NO IDEA that there are corrupt Republicans in all levels of government. Thank goodness you have nothing about Democrats, since obviously no one from the left has ever cheated their way to winning an election. That is great news. Now I can keep the faith, knowing that at least one party is sparkling clean. All we have to do is elect 536 Democrats on the national level, and all Democrats on the state and local levels and we shall never again have any corruption of any kind in any level of government.

• 
• -2
• 
• 

...
written by graywolf, February 12, 2012 - 12:05 PM

Troy Lindsay:"would vote for him at least twice if I could"

You just may realize your dream Troy. Because if there ever was a more power obsessed president who would attempt to fix an election than Barack Obama, I haven't seen him.

• 
• -9
• 
• 

...
written by GBRetired, February 12, 2012 - 12:15 PM

Do you REALLY want a litany of D-rat slimes and their crimes? Start with Bonusgate--25 arrests, 21 convictions and 3 pending trials. How about Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne, how about Bawnie Fwank and his pimp Stephen Gobie. The list could fill columns--and that does not even include Slick Willie Clinton.

• 
• -9
• 
• 

...
written by Spock, February 12, 2012 - 12:22 PM

Split fairly evenly across the aisle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ...ed_States

• 
• +10
• 
• 

...
written by ABC123, February 12, 2012 - 12:51 PM

My point exactly, Spock. Arguing over convicted politicians and which party has committed more crimes is an argument with no end, and one that knows no party lines. It's as foolish as arguing over big money donors. The right will whine about Soros while ignoring Koch, and vice versa. Same with bin Laden, and whether Bush deserves any credit. The fact is we don't know. Everyone can pretend they know exactly how info was obtained that led to his capture, but, realistically, we do not know. But I guarantee that some will jump all over these three things, claiming their side is far less criminal, takes far less big donor money, and that they DO, in fact, know every shred of intelligence and info on the bin Laden killing.

• 
• +4
• 
• 

...
written by Ironman, February 12, 2012 - 04:18 PM

Racer - What? No mention of Billy DeWeese and Mikey Veon.

I would vote for him atleast twice

Vote early, vote often.

• 
• -10
• 
• 

...
written by Spock, February 12, 2012 - 05:46 PM

ABC, I'd find your last post more convincing if the bulk of your other posts made assertions based on evidence far more equivocal than the OBL assassination.

• 
• +8
• 
• 

...
written by Zebrahead, February 12, 2012 - 06:51 PM

JohnnyB, if you're going to accuse others of being intolerant as you did on Geb 11, it is not a good idea on Feb 12 to cite a passage which Jews are hypoctrites

Your Feb 11 quote in response to Sally:

written by JohnnyB, February 11, 2012 - 06:34 PM

Here's the dictionary.com definition of "intolerant":


intolerant

adjective

1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.

----------------------

Your Feb 12 post:

Matthew 6:2 - "when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."

• 
• +5
• 
• 

...
written by Zebrahead, February 12, 2012 - 08:07 PM

Couple of corrections:

JohnnyB, if you're going to accuse others of being intolerant as you did on Feb 11, it is not a good idea on Feb 12 to cite a passage which states Jews are hypoctrites

• 
• +8
• 
• 

...
written by JohnnyB, February 12, 2012 - 08:38 PM

Zebrahead, that has to be one of the most ignorant things I've yet read on these blogs.

Yes, Jesus was being intolerant of fellow Jews who openly advertised their charity in order to gain admiration.

Here's the full passage:

-----

Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

-----

Yes, I think sally is intolerant of other people's religious beliefs when they get in the way of her hopes for unlimited government.

What exactly does that have to do with Jesus calling someone a hypocrite for putting on a show with charity & prayer to look good to others?

• 
• -7
• 
• 

...
written by Fred_PA_2000, February 12, 2012 - 10:25 PM

Mr. Lindsay's letter is a little strange.

He maintains that a Republican-dominated House has been powerful enough to thwart the efforts of President Obama and a Democrat-dominated Senate. Yet apparently a Democrat-dominated House plus a Democrat-dominated Senate were not powerful enough to thwart the misguided efforts of George Bush.

So when you've got a Democratic Congress and a Republican President, and things go badly, then it's the Republican President's fault? But when you've got a Republican Congress (sort-of) and a Democratic President, and things go badly, then it's the Republican Congress's fault?

Isn't that rather conveniently partisan? Sort of "Heads I win, Tails you lose"?

• 
• -9
• 
• 

...
written by Fred_PA_2000, February 13, 2012 - 12:23 AM

Mr. Lindsay suggests we go back and review the Bush years, which I did. But my view emphasized something his (I suspect) does not: Namely that we are a democracy and thus the people, through their representatives in Congress, rule. Even more specifically that, under Article One of the Constitution, the House of Representatives effectively controls the purse strings.

Examined from this perspective, we see Republican's controlling the Congress from January, 2001 through January, 2007, and Real GDP per-capita growing from $39,800 to $43,300. This gain in purchasing power equated to roughly +1.5% per year.

With the elections of 2006, the Democrats took control of both houses in January 2007. In their two year tenure (2007 & 200 Real GDP per-capita fell $500, or about -1.1%. Democrats tightened their control of Congress at the next election. And Real GDP per-capita continued to dropped another $1000; extending the 1.1% per year decline begun under the 110th (Democratic) Congress.

Thus gains & losses appear to match up more closely with who controls Congress than with who controls the Presidency (at least in the limited period examined here). Which is what one might expect given the assignments made in the Constitution.

For a man who obviously favors President Obama over any of the likely Republican challengers, it's odd to hear Mr. Lindsay arguing that he (Obama) has been singularly ineffective. I suspect that the truth, instead, is that if Mr. Obama wins re-election it will be because the economy improves by November.

And I suspect such improvement might be more sensibly attributed to Republican control of the House since January 2011, than to anything the Administration has attempted since then. (Which will be ironic.)

• 
• -10
• 
• 

...
written by Spock, February 13, 2012 - 06:00 AM

And I suspect such improvement might be more sensibly attributed to Republican control of the House since January 2011, than to anything the Administration has attempted since then. (Which will be ironic.)

What the House has done is, well,nothing.
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-...by-numbers
And they (rather openly) plan more of the same for this year:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...ructionism
Which seems a great strategy, at least from my perspective, as their own polling shows extraordinarily negative approval numbers with the public:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...-GOP-sucks

• 
• +8
• 
• 

...
written by Joe Bunda, February 13, 2012 - 06:33 AM

written by Spock, February 13, 2012 - 07:00 AM What the House has done is, well,nothing

No, Spock you have it wrong, as usual: it is the "Real Party of No" Democrat-controlled Senate that has done nothing. As in not passing a budget now for over three years and by not taking up any of the bills passed by the House.

And your links to left-wing bloggers is quite risible given that you have summarily dismissed conservative bloggers in the past.

• 
• -9
• 
• 

...
written by Spock, February 13, 2012 - 08:36 AM

As usual, Joe, you fail to click through to the original work. While I cited dailykos and crooksandliars, both based their articles on mainstream reporting. I have a tendency to dismiss any opinion piece that doesn't base its conclusions on some factual ground (cf: the various global warming denial scribblings that folks generally cite on that topic). If you have an opinion piece on redstate that's ground in fact, I'm happy to entertain it.

• 
• +9
• 
• 

...
written by mjf218, February 13, 2012 - 08:45 AM

I think the public tends to ignore or forget that there are few monumental changes the president can institute without the cooperation of the House and Senate, and both of these bodies are dominated by Republicans.

Actually, the Senate is controlled by the democrats (51-47), and for the first 2 years of Obama's presidency he controlled BOTH the Senate (57-41) and the House (256-17. 2 years of total control of Congress and what monumental changes did he institue? It was his failure to institute much of anything that led to the Dems loosing control of the House.

I suggest that the people who are so anxious to believe that the president is the cause of all this nation's problems go back and review President George W. Bush's eight years in office to understand fully why this country is striving to climb out of a deep hole.

You can't have a double standard here. Bush's last 2 years in office he dealt with a House and Senate BOTH controlled by the Democrats, so under your logic how could Bush have institued any monumental changes in his final 2 years? Take it a step farther, and the deep hole that Obama has had to climb out of, the Democrats were just as, if not more complict in creating than Bush. The Dem's had complete control of Congress from 2007-2011 and control of the Presidency for teh final 2 of those years.

• 
• -9
• 
• 

...
written by Spock, February 13, 2012 - 08:57 AM

Bush's last 2 years in office he dealt with a House and Senate BOTH controlled by the Democrats, so under your logic how could Bush have institued any monumental changes in his final 2 years?

Here's how:

It's true that there has been a decades-long uptick in the use of cloture filings -- often to overcome filibuster threats -- by whichever party is in the majority, but the best measurement of that trend shows an explosion since Republicans were consigned to minority status after the 2006 election.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...senate.php
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010...libusters/

• 
• +12
• 
• 

...
written by sally, February 13, 2012 - 03:00 PM

You can't have a double standard here. Bush's last 2 years in office he dealt with a House and Senate BOTH controlled by the Democrats

Because democrats are willing to compromise. The current crop of republicans are not. They have dug in their heels and made it abundantly clear that their goal is to defeat Pres. Obama -not help this country or economy, therefore they have no intention of compromising on those things that would help - fearing it would look like a victory for Pres. Obama and they can't have that. Horrors.

• 
• +7
• 
• 

...
written by sally, February 13, 2012 - 03:02 PM

Actually, the Senate is controlled by the democrats (51-47),

Doesn't matter, the obstructionist republicans have used cloture and record breaking filibusters to stop anything from getting done. You need 60 votes to stop it.

• 
• +10
• 
• 

...
written by Fred_PA_2000, February 13, 2012 - 08:57 PM

Sally wrote;

Because democrats are willing to compromise.

Nearly fell off my chair laughing.
My dear, you have a future in comedy!

• 
• -4
• 
• 

...
written by Fred_PA_2000, February 13, 2012 - 10:21 PM

Spock; You wrote;

What the House has done is, well, nothing.

Right there, you revealed a good part of the difference in our perspectives.

You believe that there are useful & productive things that can be done, that we know what they are and how to proceed, and that we merely lack the will (esp., the consensus) to do them.

I suspect there might be some things that might help. But I also suspect we generally don't know what they are nor how to best proceed.

Critics have pointed out that Liberal policy often seems to achieve the opposite of what it said it was aiming for. (Consider the currently realized effects on home ownership from twenty years of policy to encourage it, for example.)

I don't attribute that to evil hidden agendas among Liberals: Most of the Liberals I know are, instead, quite sincere. But I believe they seriously over-estimate their understanding of societal & economic situations and their causal drivers. I think the flaw in Liberalism isn't intentional evilness (although some days it can look like that), but rather it is good intentions coupled with a towering vanity that throttles all caution.

Liberals will see a problem, settle on a solution, and push to boldly implement that solution. But acting boldly when you don't really know what you're doing is a recipe for disaster. If you can stomach a metaphor, it seems to me that Liberals are often insistent on doing brain surgery with a chain saw.

I suspect our reality is so deucedly complex, and so beyond our feeble powers to fully comprehend that often the best thing we could do would be to leave the patient alone.

It frustrates you that the House has done nothing. It cheers me.

Or as Mark Twain said;

No man's life, liberty, or property is safe, while Congress is in session.

• 
• -3
• 
•