Tag Archives: gore

Actions have consequences: Al Gore got rich doing the opposite of what he claimed to want

Al’s promotion of ethanol wasn’t just horribly counterproductive because it is so inefficient and it increased the price of food.  It was evil because he did it for personal gain.

“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”

via Gore: On second thought, I was just pandering to the farm vote on ethanol « Hot Air.

Follow the money, people.

It isn’t generosity when you give away the money of others

Most Liberals assume that they are more generous.  They come from Stereotype Land and read the script just like the media and entertainment complexes tell them to.  But studies show that by any measure — giving time, money or even blood donations — conservatives are more generous.  They just don’t lobby Caesar to “give” your money and count it as a good deed on their part.  See Who Really Cares.

And consider how these Liberal heroes want to take your money to “give” to others but can’t manage any real and significant giving themselves.  If Joe Biden, for example, can’t afford to give more than 0.2% over his roughly quarter-million dollar income (that is point-two percent, not two percent — only $369 per year), then how could he possibly afford to pay increased taxes?  Oh yeah, there will be loopholes for him and those who vote for the tax increase bills.

His 0.2% giving and the percentages below are even worse than they look because they are based on Adjusted Gross Income, which is typically much less than gross income.

The Palins gave over 10 times what Biden did, percentage-wise, though that was still just 2% in 2007 and 3.8% in 2006.  They donated much more money than the Bidens with only half the income.

Too bad the media didn’t lead with that story in 2008.

A truly inconvenient truth: Al & Tipper Gore donated $353 of their 1997 income of $197,729, or 0.18%.  That is a fraction of 1%.  I wonder if he’s making real donations now that he’s getting rich off the AGW fraud?

More Liberal Scrooges (read the whole article at the link – it is priceless).

Andrew Cuomo

Cuomo was a homeless advocate throughout the 1990s, but according to his own tax returns he made no charitable contributions between 1996 and 1999. In 2000 he donated a whopping $2,750. In 2004 and 2005, Cuomo had more than $1.5 million in adjusted gross income but gave a paltry $2,000 to charity.

Cuomo made no charitable contributions in 2003, when his income was a bit less than $300,000.

Barack Obama — wow, a whole percent!  Hope and change, baby.

Barack Obama has a rather poor track record when it comes to charitable contributions. He consistently gave 1 percent of his income to charity. In his most charitable year, 2005, he earned $1.7 million (two and a half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the same dollar amount as the President.

John Kerry

Senator John Kerry likewise has a poor record. In 1995 he gave zero to charity, but did spend $500,000 to buy a half stake in a seventeenth century painting. In 1993, he gave $175 to the needy.

Ted Kennedy, champion of the poor

Senator Ted Kennedy has clearly relished his role over the years as a liberal Robin Hood. He once told Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, “I come from an advantaged life, and I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to get re-elected to the U.S. Senate by taking food out of the mouths of needy children.” But this should not be confused with Senator Kennedy actually giving much money to needy children.

. . . With a net worth of more than $8 million in the early 1970s and an income of $461,444 from a series of family trusts, Senator Robin Hood gave barely 1 percent of his income to charity. The sum is about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his fifty-foot sailing sloop Curragh.

But the poverty pimps give loads, right?  Uh, not exactly:

Jesse Jackson has often claimed that he operates from a “liberal spirit of compassion and love” while conservatives are “heartless and uncaring toward the silent poor.” But according to his publicly-released tax returns, he regularly donates less than 1 percent to charity.

Not surprisingly, while the political ideology of conservatives isn’t driven by redistributing the wealth of others, they are far more generous.  Even FDR was a cheap giver:

This evidence of liberal hypocrisy is damning enough, but what really amazes is how poorly these liberals do in comparison to so-called “heartless conservatives.” President Ronald Reagan, for instance, was often called heartless and callous by liberals. Unlike Roosevelt or JFK, Reagan was not a wealthy man when he became president. He had no family trust or investment portfolio to fall back on.

And yet, according to his tax returns, Reagan donated more than four times more to charity — both in terms of actual money and on a percentage basis — than Senator Ted Kennedy. And he gave more to charities with less income than FDR did. In 1985, for example, he gave away 6 percent of his income.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have continued this Reagan record. During the early 1990s, George W. Bush regularly gave away more than 10 percent of his income. In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney gave away 77 percent of his income to charity. He was actually criticized by some liberal bloggers for this, who claimed he was getting too much of a tax deduction.

These Liberal leaders preach about generosity but they are hypocrites and fakes.  They want to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B — while taking their commission, of course — and consider it charity on their part.  And they have plenty of confused and/or fake religious folks helping them, including the Methodist leader who thinks the proposed health care bill — which includes taxpayer-funded abortions — is in the spirit of the Good Samaritan.

Save this link to show those who claim that Liberal leaders really care about others.

Hat tip: The Sisyphus Files