Welcome to Blogster!
913,517 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts



Blog Traffic: 290543

Posts: 381

My Comments: 29071

User Comments: 19649

Photos: 173

Friends: 192

Following: 46

Followers: 70

Points: 32425

Last Online: 3 days ago



No Recent Visitors


Added: Sunday, February 5th 2012 at 10:47pm by Neo

Americans are remarkably charitable according to a 2008 article in The American, the on-line magazine of The American Enterprise Institute. From my own experiences, I would tend to agree. We've all seen neighbors, whether across the street or across the nation, who turn out to help others in need. Americans will open their hearts and wallets to donate time and money whenever they are aware of suffering, or if something tugs at their heartstrings from anywhere in the world.

There are always a few who shine a little brighter than the rest in service to our fellow man. It's notable that you don't have to be rich to be one of those bright lights of humanity. In fact, some of the wealthy individuals I've encountered in life are far less generous than the average Joe, but those stingy people, I wouldn’t call rich regardless how much money they have. The ones who are truly rich in my view, are those who enjoy life and give freely to others without regard to how rich or poor they are. If the charitable happen to also be financially well off, it’s not because of greed that they are wealthy, but more likely because they possess an abundance of character.

In the New Testament, Christ was observing rich men casting gifts into the treasury. When a poor widow put in a mere two mites, Jesus said, “This poor widow hath cast in more than they all.” The rich men had given from an abundance of wealth, but of the widow who had given from her meager possessions, Christ said she had, “cast in all the living that she had.” Does this parable suggest that offerings from the wealthy today are without merit? No, not at all, but it does tell us that the true value of anything we give is not in the quantity given, but in the willingness to give freely, not stingily, and certainly not because the government has mandated it.

As the Presidential Primary campaign trudges across the nation unraveling the mystery of who will represent the GOP against Barack Obama in our upcoming Presidential elections, we can expect to learn more about the character of our candidates, including Obama, and that's a good thing. After all, character does matter doesn't it? According to the article cited above, “No developed country approaches American giving.” I hope the magazine, neoconservative organ that it is, is correct in its assessment of America’s penchant for giving...I believe it’s true, and I also believe a forthright heart is one of many important qualities to consider in choosing the leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

So far we know for example, that Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are far more generous than Barack Obama, so either would be an improvement over him. Gingrich and Romney both have contributed to a variety of charities and non-profit groups, as well as to their churches. But what did the President give? According to FOX Nation, Barack and Michele Obama gave a paltry 1% of their earning from 2000 to 2004. Compare that to Mitt Romney’s 15% or even to Newt Gingrich’s 2.6%. I don’t know how much time and talent the candidates have given in service to our country and to their churches and communities, but I suspect Romney dwarfs anyone else in the field.

I would be surprised to hear that Rick Santorum and Ron Paul haven’t contributed significantly in compassionate service as well, but I am just as inclined to believe that Obama and Gingrich are at the bottom of the compassionate service list. But then I’m not willing to make that charge beyond opinion until I know for sure...and I actually hope I am wrong. I would prefer to discover that the entire field of candidates America has chosen to lift-up, are out from among the highest echelons of character in American society. Whatever the truth, I believe it is information we’re entitled to, and that it is worth knowing in the important vetting process that validates our self-governance as actually being self-governance.

Mitt Romney was 100% correct, and he reflected the Conservative ideal when he said, “I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.” In that regard, I’m disappointed that some Americans are so entrenched in the culture of greed and government dependency that they blatantly distort the truth in that basic Conservative tenet.

If you are criticizing Romney for the comment that the poor have a safety net, you are effectively revealing your own lack of character and understanding of Conservative values and charitable giving versus the cure-all liberal nanny state. In the nanny state, we attempt to guarantee life, health and leisure, but we know that idea is a failed delusion. We’ve tried it since the sixties, and all we’ve done is destroy families, increase out of wedlock pregnancies, and curse the needy with ghettos and slums where criminal opportunists flock to victimize generations of destitute denizens.

If we crush special interest cronyism, and restore opportunities for the middle class to hold jobs in prosperous non-union industries and make it profitable again for moms and pops to re-enter the business class, America’s economic tides will rise, and as Jack Kemp said, “A rising tide, lifts all ships.” We shouldn’t be criticizing Romney for that statement, but as Larry Kudlow said, we should be demanding Romney tell us more, to ensure that he gets it. We know Romney is a breath of fresh air compared to what we have now on the private opportunity side of the equation, but does he fully appreciate that the value of private opportunity must rise above the value of "the safety net" for that principle to work?

As long as Washington is a swamp, we will never pull out of our socialist plunge to the farthest reaches of the nanny state, and there’s only one way to clean the swamp. We must break our addiction to government largess. To do that, we have to stop sending career politicians and scoundrels to Washington, and we have to reject those who make lifelong careers of supplanting a reasonable safety net with a bloated nanny state by increasingly rewarding laziness, greed, and bitter class division. We must start lifting up moral representatives, leaders who know that charity belongs in the heart not in government mandates.

User Comments

Neo ?

"Compare that to Mitt Romney’s 15% or even to Newt Gingrich’s 2.6%. Idon’t know how much time and talent the candidates have given in service to our country and to their churches and communities, but I suspect Romney dwarfs anyone else in the field."

Did you mean to say dwarfs?

..."some of the wealthy individuals I've encountered in life are far less generous than the average Joe,"

MANY wealthy individuals I know are VERY "unflauntingly" generous, with their own money, food, assets, that have nothing to do with tax breaks or write offs.....who also happen to be Christians!

Yes, I meant to say dwarfs. I don't know for sure, since the candidates, to their credit, don't seem to brag about their charitable activity, but from what I have been able to find, Romney seems to be the most charitable with his time. I think Ron Paul and Rick Santorum would also be people who are loved very much by their friends and family, and probably are of very good character. Gingrich, I just don't know. I'm sure his current wife and daughters love him, but I get the feeling he's a very unhappy person. I hope you can prove me wrong in that assessment.

"...some of the wealthy individuals I've encountered in life are far less generous than the average Joe,"

Why did you take that out of its context? I agree with your point follow-up and also know many wealthy people who are very unflauntingly generous. In context, my point is that true generosity occurs without regard to the presence of wealth or lack of wealth. The reason I phrased it the way I did, is because some have dismissed and have even criticised Romney's charity because of his wealth. Jealousy at work perhaps? I don't know why else they would do that.

I also have no idea whether any of the candidates generosity is limited to things involving tax breaks or write offs. Do you have information I'm unaware of, or did I misunderstand your meaning? Almost any sane person who pays taxes will take at least some of the tax break afforded them. If you have a family, church, people you support or help through school, or any other substantial charitable service or donations you contribute to your fellow man, it would imprudent to give unnecessary tax revenue over to the government, and especially so if you've already paid millions.

Almost all of the generous people I know also happen to be Christians, but I also think a charitable heart can exist whether a person is Christian or not. If they aren't Christians now, maybe God loves them and has plans for their future. I wouldn't venture to judge in that regard.

What I'm really looking for Rachel, is anything positive about any of the candidates. I've seen a lot of bad information, mostly lies or frantically spun opinions about all of them. None are going to be perfect but I think people should know more about our candidates, including whether or not they stand a chance against Obama. Good character will certainly weigh into that equation. Thanks very much for your comment.

Sorry about all the smashed together text in this post. After correcting it about 50 times, I think it's finally right. :/

I have to agree with you Neo. Out of all those running/trying to run Romney seems to be the most generous. Obamahood IMO is the least. He seems to think that the US treasury-or what is left of it- and OUR money is his to spend on vacations and his run for re-election, which is against the law...no wonder he has said he will have a BILLION dollars to run. Every 'visit' he does to a state he pushes for his re-election, at OUR expense.

Do I trust Gingrich? No, nope, nad,nein, nee, na and NO in every language on earth.

I have to agree with you! Obama is the worst candidate and least charitable as well as the least honest! Thanks very much for your great comment Nota!

Its remarkable to remember that Jesus never carried money and yet he is worshipped by so many not for his wealth, his influence but rather his humanity, his love for all and his personal sacrifice. His message to all  was as John said: To Love one another as I have loved you

Thanks Al, a great comment, and a point we need to remember especially now.

Post A Comment

This user has disabled anonymous commenting.