Clinton and Obama's charity donations. Who takes action and who just talks?

The Clinton's donated 10% of their income to charity- $10,256,741 while the Obama's donated 1% of their income to charity 148,394. Both candidates pledge to bring about change and help those less fortunate. Does these figures show that Hillary takes action to help while Obama is just all talk?


CuriousinMN- how's this for statistics you have answered 600 questions with only 7% being best answers. Yes, I see you are an Obama delegate. How do you feel about excluding the voices and FL in MI voters? The race is far from over and don't CHEAT 2 states from being heard and by the way I'm not your "babe"!

Update 2:

Brian O'Leary- I understand taxes very well thank you. But, it looks like Obama doesn't given he could have donated more than 1% to reduce his taxes.

Update 3:

Vera W- Once again another ignorant rant on one of my questions. I am so glad you are a fan of mine. I am not running for political office so my charity donations are none of your business. Once again you miss the point!

24 Answers

  • jenx
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago
    Favourite answer

    People are so blinded by the obama light. You are right, she does take action, she doesn't hem haw around about a pastor and defend his racist, hate and anti- American rhetoric. She doesn't go to that kind of church for close to twenty years and then say she didn't know what was said. She would have taken action, and left.

    The ones who are saying that they gave more because they made more, listen, obama only gave 1% of his total income to charity. Wheras Hillary gave 10% of her total income. You get the difference. And to the ones who are saying that they were not legitamate charities, I suppose you are smarter than the IRS. They require receipts for charitable contributions. If they were not real, they would have found them out. You obama followers are so blinded by the obama light you will never be able to see straight again.

  • canam
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Clintons have also donated much time to charity, unlike obama who is his own charity. The 1% he donated probably went to the very wrong Rev. Wrights church of antiamerican, racist propaganda output. There is no hope for the obamaites, they either cant read, cant think, or have no common sense. Along with that they obviously dont care about this country. The only change they will see is an increase in taxes, and a decrease in services. The only campaign promise they will see him keep is the one where he says they will have to sacrifice. They will be bleeding through there paycheck. Remember that big sucking sound Ross Perot talked about? That will be the sound of obama picking your pockets.

  • 1 decade ago

    Good point but I see from many of the answers people are so far out of touch. Charity is not given for show as most tax records are private and not for public viewing as one answered. Not only did the Clinton's give to charities but they also paid over 30% back in federal taxes when their actual tax rate is around 22%. The Clinton's are definitely good citizens with charitable hearts and the Obama people are just fooling themselves and are being taken in by a con, there is no doubt in my mind!

  • 1 decade ago

    It's a valid point.

    Those with tens of millions in the bank are in a better position to help the poor, whose suffering their campaigns constantly bemoan, when hypocritically, they have the ability to help a lot of people.

    Ignoring that Hillary has a much larger personal fortune, 10% vs. 1 % is considerably more generous and socially conscious.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    In my opinion, I think both could have afforded to donate more to charity considering their still enormous pay checks. So in my book, untill I see more action, they are still both just politicians.

  • 1 decade ago

    All this shows is the Hilldog is capable of writing a check. If I wanted someone who would just throw money at America's problems, I would elect Bill Gates. Unfortunately for Hillary, we need leadership that thinks in terms of the people, not just dollars.

  • John H
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    "Charitable giving", you really think that old slick Willy and Hilly would be absolutely totally honest and ethical? Did you realize that their own family foundation is considered a charity? The New York Times is reporting,

    "The Clintons took a tax deduction in 2004 for $2.5 million in charitable gifts, $2 million of which went to their family foundation, which as a tax-exempt nonprofit is considered a charity under the tax code. That same year, the foundation gave away just $221,000 to charitable groups, according to its tax return."

    (And she can't pay her campaign bills to regular hard-working people who don't have offshore tax shelters stuffed with millions of dollars? puh-lease!)

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Actually Clinton finally released her tax returns and they made 200 million and that means a 10 million donation is half of the 10% you tried to calculate. The Clintons do everything for show and have no interest in anything other than satisfying their lust for power by grabbing the white house once again. They are corrupt.

  • Deb M
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Obama is a lot of hot air...just like his wife...people are soo gullible! I bet if Obama told them to jump off the Empire State Building in New York they would!

    Obama is for Obama...

  • 1 decade ago

    The clintons charities are as fake as they are,for instance the Chelsey clinton wants it fund,the billy golf fund or the hillary got it fund.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.