In 2007, the Arizona senator reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.

In 2006, Mr. McCain said he had $358,414 in total income and donated $64,695, or 18 percent of his total income, to charity.

Mr. McCain’s campaign said he donates his royalties from his books to charities and that “this sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal.” The campaign said his book income added up to $256,898 for 2006 and 2007.

The senator’s campaign also said that Mr. McCain has donated to charity a total of $450,000 since 1991— money he received from increases in his Senate salary — “because he opposed the Con...

In 2007, the Arizona senator reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.

In 2006, Mr. McCain said he had $358,414 in total income and donated $64,695, or 18 percent of his total income, to charity.

Mr. McCain’s campaign said he donates his royalties from his books to charities and that “this sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal.” The campaign said his book income added up to $256,898 for 2006 and 2007.

The senator’s campaign also said that Mr. McCain has donated to charity a total of $450,000 since 1991— money he received from increases in his Senate salary — “because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises.”

http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/4437/john-mccain-discloses-data-on-his-charity-giving

Hey, I'll make your argument for you.
You could infer that the liberal agenda of increasing taxes on the rich will reduce contributions to charitable organizations. You could argue that federalizing service is a bad idea. You could argue that giving money is charity and giving time is not.

I might then respond that reducing taxes on the middle class might encourage them to donate more. I might argue that if a middle class citizen didn't have $200,000 in student loan debts for school, he/she might have donated cash instead of time. My tax return only shows 5% of my income goes to charity, but as a volunteer to Habitat for Humanity, Big Brothers/Sisters, and the American Red Cross, one...

Hey, I'll make your argument for you.
You could infer that the liberal agenda of increasing taxes on the rich will reduce contributions to charitable organizations. You could argue that federalizing service is a bad idea. You could argue that giving money is charity and giving time is not.

I might then respond that reducing taxes on the middle class might encourage them to donate more. I might argue that if a middle class citizen didn't have $200,000 in student loan debts for school, he/she might have donated cash instead of time. My tax return only shows 5% of my income goes to charity, but as a volunteer to Habitat for Humanity, Big Brothers/Sisters, and the American Red Cross, one might argue that I do enough for charity.

Neither side would be "wrong", it's simply a different set of priorities and perhaps values. I applaud that kind of debate. The majority wins.

I've always made that case, deb. Government does nothing to fix problems. Government creates problems. People fix problems through their monetary gifts, volunteerism, etc. This is NOT what Progressives support. Progressives support organic unity where society works together to solve problems ( Yes we can) and issues that some "philosopher king" says are important. Libertarians support a disarray of individual interests working alone or in small groups to fix problems. One group tells others what they must do while they sit on their ass and do nothing - That is most progressives.
I'm sorry you have such distorted view of my opinion or the facts, but they are what they are.

It isn't s...

I've always made that case, deb. Government does nothing to fix problems. Government creates problems. People fix problems through their monetary gifts, volunteerism, etc. This is NOT what Progressives support. Progressives support organic unity where society works together to solve problems ( Yes we can) and issues that some "philosopher king" says are important. Libertarians support a disarray of individual interests working alone or in small groups to fix problems. One group tells others what they must do while they sit on their ass and do nothing - That is most progressives.
I'm sorry you have such distorted view of my opinion or the facts, but they are what they are.

It isn't supported by his tax return, it isn't supported by his words,
it isn't supported by his actions as a community organizer, or as a
volunteer at his church.

Exactly right. He does not do his "fair share".

RecordSage-you might be surprised to learn I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I tend to look for the truth and have voted Republican many times. I have continually been disappointed with Republican administrations I have voted for. Why? They cut taxes and spend more than the Democrats. They deregulate in a way that harms the country. They have not reduced poverty, crime, or really any of our internal problems. Tax breaks to the rich have not stimulated the economy in the way they hoped. It did promote greed and an industry of financial products that produce nothing in real goods or gdp. Many democrats aren't rich and they give quietly in the form of time instead of mo...

RecordSage-you might be surprised to learn I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I tend to look for the truth and have voted Republican many times. I have continually been disappointed with Republican administrations I have voted for. Why? They cut taxes and spend more than the Democrats. They deregulate in a way that harms the country. They have not reduced poverty, crime, or really any of our internal problems. Tax breaks to the rich have not stimulated the economy in the way they hoped. It did promote greed and an industry of financial products that produce nothing in real goods or gdp. Many democrats aren't rich and they give quietly in the form of time instead of money, and you might be discounting that fact. It's easy to be weatlhy and give 10% of your income. It's not easy to be me and give 10% of my income, so I give my time. Why am I voting for Obama? He is the first of a new lineage of candidates who represent our youth-green-inclusive-wordly-and high tech. He's not a savior, but he is a shift. I welcome that.

Can't argue with you as to how the Republicans wasted their turn at the throne. Unfortunately on many other levels the Democrats are either as bad or worse. Certainly when it comes to the defense - there's no comparison, one of the main reasons I don't want to touch Obama. The personal charity thing is not a significant issue (for me), everyone does what they can, not for me to judge or otherwise. Where Obama miserably fails, IMO, is in his socialist views & approaches. I lived under socialism and I've lived for 30 years here and I can tell you from personal experience - you have no idea what you're getting yourself into. Socialism has NOT worked anywhere. Taking from the rich, by forc...

Can't argue with you as to how the Republicans wasted their turn at the throne. Unfortunately on many other levels the Democrats are either as bad or worse. Certainly when it comes to the defense - there's no comparison, one of the main reasons I don't want to touch Obama. The personal charity thing is not a significant issue (for me), everyone does what they can, not for me to judge or otherwise. Where Obama miserably fails, IMO, is in his socialist views & approaches. I lived under socialism and I've lived for 30 years here and I can tell you from personal experience - you have no idea what you're getting yourself into. Socialism has NOT worked anywhere. Taking from the rich, by force, and giving to poor is NOT a policy that would promote better life for all.

You say you're a fiscal conservative, which is great. Have you seen what kind of money Obama is planning to spend? Have you figured out where this money will come from? When uncle Joe says that you need to step up, be patriotic - he's essentially saying that he doesn't give a s**t how difficult it may have been for you to make the money, he's taking it and spending it as he sees fit.

As much as I share your concept of changing things and fixing what's broken (and I do) - Obama is NOT the answer. Is McCain? Probably not entirely, but certainly better on many levels (although clearly Obama can deliver a speech better). I am certainly glad he picked someone like Palin for VP - that's a fresh change and I think she'd be a positive addition to the White House as well as a step forward for women, which is always a positive thing.

In terms of Obama representing the youth, I'm sadly disappointed in youth of today... when they can't point to the USA on the map, but know what underwear Britney wore (or didn't) - there's something very wrong with such picture. Them flocking to Obama because he texts (or to be more accurate - attempts and fails) them the VP choice at night - that's nothing inspiring.

For 2006, the Palins paid $11,944 (LINE 63) in total taxes on gross income of $127,869 (LINE 37), which is a 9.3% tax rate.

For 2007, the Palins paid $24,738 (LINE 63) in total taxes on gross income of $166,080 (LINE 37), which is a 14.9% tax rate.

Charitable Contributions:

2006

In 2006, Sarah and Todd Palin donated $4,250 to charity in cash/check donations and $630 in non-cash/check donations, for a total of $4,880. This is 3.3% of their adjusted gross income.

2007

In 2007, Sarah and Todd Palin donated $2,500 to charity in cash/check donations and $825 in non-cash/check donations, for a total of $3,325. This is 1.5% of their adjusted gross income.

http://www.johnmccain....

For 2006, the Palins paid $11,944 (LINE 63) in total taxes on gross income of $127,869 (LINE 37), which is a 9.3% tax rate.

For 2007, the Palins paid $24,738 (LINE 63) in total taxes on gross income of $166,080 (LINE 37), which is a 14.9% tax rate.

Charitable Contributions:

2006

In 2006, Sarah and Todd Palin donated $4,250 to charity in cash/check donations and $630 in non-cash/check donations, for a total of $4,880. This is 3.3% of their adjusted gross income.

2007

In 2007, Sarah and Todd Palin donated $2,500 to charity in cash/check donations and $825 in non-cash/check donations, for a total of $3,325. This is 1.5% of their adjusted gross income.

http://www.johnmccain.com/palinfinancial/
I need to hire H and R Block. Both years I earned less than the Palins and paid more taxes.