Charitably Appreciating the President
One great strength of America is its charitable organizations. In other cultures, the poor are poor, and the rich are rich, because that is how the karma has destined them to be. Charitable giving is a Judeo-Christian concept which requires everyone, no matter how disadvantaged, to help those who are in more dire straits. For all the bad press our charitable organizations have received of late, they have enabled Americans, individually and collectively, to succeed and become great forces of responsibility in this world.
As mentioned in this Blog's 13 September 2011 post, my own family was helped by charitable giving, and now, having for the most part achieved a fair degree of financial stability if not affluence, has given back and continues to give back even more than we received in order that others might overcome their obstacles.
Barack Hussein Obama's tax legislation proposals have, over the past few years, included caps on itemized deductions. The Alliance for Charitable Giving is concerned (as am I ) that such restrictions might discourage charitable giving.
Sue Santa, the Senior Vice President of the Philanthropy Roundtable (which sponsors the Alliance for Charitable Giving) has commented on Obama's State of the Union Address as it pertains to charitable giving:
"We believe that our tax code should encourage and incentivize private charitable giving. We appreciate that the President seems to acknowledge the value of charitable giving but we remain cautious and won’t speculate until we see the details of the President’s plan."
Sue, methinks that you are being a bit overly charitable!
Barack Hussein Obama does acknowledge the value of charitable giving, but only to the extent that it enables the donee organizations to pay nice salaries, bonuses and perquisites to his allies, sycophants and cronies. [Can you say "ACORN"?]. In the ideal world envisioned by Obama, there are no charitable organizations, only instrumentalities of Big Brother's governing regime.
America, or any other society, is only as free as its charitable organizations.
As mentioned in this Blog's 13 September 2011 post, my own family was helped by charitable giving, and now, having for the most part achieved a fair degree of financial stability if not affluence, has given back and continues to give back even more than we received in order that others might overcome their obstacles.
Barack Hussein Obama's tax legislation proposals have, over the past few years, included caps on itemized deductions. The Alliance for Charitable Giving is concerned (as am I ) that such restrictions might discourage charitable giving.
Sue Santa, the Senior Vice President of the Philanthropy Roundtable (which sponsors the Alliance for Charitable Giving) has commented on Obama's State of the Union Address as it pertains to charitable giving:
"We believe that our tax code should encourage and incentivize private charitable giving. We appreciate that the President seems to acknowledge the value of charitable giving but we remain cautious and won’t speculate until we see the details of the President’s plan."
Sue, methinks that you are being a bit overly charitable!
Barack Hussein Obama does acknowledge the value of charitable giving, but only to the extent that it enables the donee organizations to pay nice salaries, bonuses and perquisites to his allies, sycophants and cronies. [Can you say "ACORN"?]. In the ideal world envisioned by Obama, there are no charitable organizations, only instrumentalities of Big Brother's governing regime.
America, or any other society, is only as free as its charitable organizations.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Big Brother, Charity, taxation
posted by Expatriate Owl @ 8:15 PM
4 Comments:
At 01 February, 2012 03:03,
Aaron said…
You're right about her being much too charitable towards Obama. He knows exactly what the consequences of this move will entail.
When you crowd out the charitable organizations by limiting their funding, more people will have to rely on help from the government.
The more people thus forced to be reliant on the government, the more reason for government to expand further and supplant the existing charities in their work. This creates both more people reliant on the government and a new supply of government workers who rely on the system for their livelihood and thus support its expansion.
Reducing charitable contributions is another deliberate attempt to expand government at the expense of the non-governmental sector.
At 01 February, 2012 03:22,
Expatriate Owl said…
Thanks, Aaron, you are absolutely on the money!
And please understand (as I'm sure you do) that the standard party line goes something to the effect that the very affluent and the people of faith would contribute to charity regardless of whether there are tax breaks.
This may well be true, but it misses the point you and I are making. Big Brother's "charity" is never very charitable because it comes at a price for the recipients. That price usually entails close adherence to, and with little or no deviation from, whatever the party line might be at any given time.
I repeat, America, or any other society, is only as free as its charitable organizations!
At 08 February, 2012 18:17,
Aaron said…
Its now my honor to bestow upon you the Liebster award:
http://shekel.blogspot.com/2012/02/got-liebstered.html
At 19 February, 2012 17:39,
Expatriate Owl said…
Thanks, Aaron. As reflected in today's posting, I have been quite preoccupied of late.
Post a Comment
<< Home