Santorum: "Charity, not government, is the solution to poverty." He's a hypocrite

Santorum only gave 2.2% of his income to charity over the last 4 years, which is well below most religious individuals and most wealthy individuals.

Is it any surprise that this man is so stingy in his giving? He doesn't walk the walk, he only talks the talk.



http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/16/news/economy/santorum_charity/index.htm?source=cnn_bin

 

Charity does go a longer way than government entitlements in alleviating poverty. We have hundreds if not thousands of charitable organizations and NGO's that provide ample services to the poor. Now, Rick Santorum is certainly hypocritical if that statistic of 2.2% to charity is correct. However, I do not believe his possible hypocrisy is a reason for invalidating the tremendous role of charity in American society. Unlike the unstable funding capacity for entitlements, charitable contributions usually increase significantly each year.

http://www.nptrends.com/nonprofit-trends/giving-usa-2011-report.htm

 

I don't think he's wrong on a philosophical level. But practically speaking, how's he gonna make that work? He's not.

 

Really? 45% of the money a charity HE started makes it to the people who it's supposed to serve.

"Santorum has also come under fire for the giving practices of a charity called Operation Good Neighbor that he started more than a decade ago.

In his "founder's letter," Santorum wrote that one of the charity's goals was to help "break the cycle of poverty that sours the lives of too many men, women and children in our nation."

The group collected at least $2.3 million in contributions between 2001 and its termination in 2007, but only spent around 45% of total revenue on beneficiaries, according to IRS documents."



Just the model of efficiency, eh?

 

There they go again attacking the person and not the message. It's not going to work this time around you liberal hacks. A million red flags went up for Obama and you mother (*)(*)(*)(*)ers and the media backing you wouldn't bleep a word. Tough (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

His message seems to be that people have to depend on other private citizens for their welfare and not on the government. Isn't it?

It's a reasonable hypothesis but nobody has ever made it work on the scale that Santorum (and modern conservatives in general) proposes. If you're going to get rid of welfare with the idea that there's another, better way to see to the needs of the people, then great. But I want to hear the other, better way, first. 'Cause I'm skeptical that there is one in his head. I don't think he's thought it through.

 

Santorum isn't going to "get rid of welfare", don't be a typical liberal deceiving hack. He just won't expand it further and implement unconstitutional legislation such as the individual mandate.

 

Factor in the proportion of his taxes that go to assist people in the U.S. and I would suggest his percentage of income going to help people is well above and beyond 10%.

 

If you're right about what he means, then fine.

 

By the way OP, that quote (as far as I can see) cannot be found in your link. This is what he says: "We should be proactive in finding ways to more fully engage the American public in charitable giving,"

 

Republicans want Americans dependent on religious charities so they can try to convert and control them. It should be obvious to people by now.

 

Your post is ridiculous.

 

Democrats want Americans dependent on welfare so they can try to convert and control them. It should be obvious to people by now.

You are so absolutely correct.

 

Considering all the other places this guy does practice what he preaches (moreso than probably 99% of the people in the political arena), I don't think this is a fair statement to make. It also doesn't disprove what he is saying about charity being the better solution. All it means is that he needs to step up his own game and deliver a little better.

 

Practices what he preaches? You mean, like starting a charity that's 53% money-making scheme?

 

The people who benefit the most from charity are the folks who run the charities. They get rich off of them.

 

I mean like actually living in alignment with his moral and religious values instead of the typical "do as I say not as I do" lifestyle that is practiced by most of Washington.

 

Compared to Al Gore and Joe Biden and John Kerry and
Barack & Michelle Obama that is more than 3 x times what they gave.
DO THE MATH or Shut UP.

 

Nope..You need to realize that some less than honest men and low life's can exist as republicans as well as democrats.

A sweater vest..a pickup truck and a few kids does Not make you the perfect republican.

ALL things must be taken into context..including the image of a person who is portraying something he is not.
You wanted a true vetting Of Romney..guess what?

Santorum will get his too.

 

Smearing someone is not vetting them. Santorum made it quite clear he is NOT a libertarian. That means all his views don't have to be hardline to the right and he can still be a conservative. He is more trustworthy than Obama. He is more trustworthy than Romney (and in fact, Obama is more trustworthy than Romney, I don't believe a word that robot says). The truth will win out and your cronies and the media with them will all suffer severe consequences because of their misbehavior.

 

The solution to poverty is to get overreaching government out of the way and for people to not reproduce when they have not the economic capacity to support kids, AROUND THE WORLD.

China is a perfect example of a MASSIVE culprit on BOTH of those things. It's MASSIVELY overpopulated, and it's government is downright tyrannical. I don't hate Chinese people, but I do hate China.

 

Yes, real ridiculous that the right wing has been trying to institute religious rule for decades, but we're supposed to believe there's no relation with all their pushing for getting everyone onto religious charity- even having the government fund it.

Tell us why it's wrong for government to help people, but it's not wrong for government to pay religion to help people?

 

Learn how to read or "shut up." Obama gives 14% of his income, SEVEN TIMES what Santorum gives.

 

Surely limiting access to contraception is the best way to make sure people can plan their pregnancies, right?

I mean, that kind of backward thinking IS the Republican way.

 

Doesn't surprise me that the Republicans/Tea Partiers won't touch this story.