Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
thanks cariad and I was watching FOX this morning and they reported the same figures but I wrote them down too:
Income:
2004: $207,000
2005: $1.6 million
2006: $991,000
Charity:
2004: $2,500
2005: $77,000
2006: $66,000
seems like 2004 was the leanest of the last 4 years and without the Random House advance/book sales in 2005 their income would have been half of what they made. The combined charitable contributions from 2004 to 2006 amounts to 5% of the Obama's income which is a respectable amount.
That's fair.... Now why is this specific to Obama then??? Did I miss the huge philanthropist tendencies of some of our past Presidents and current candidates that makes Obama somehow unusual for giving "only one percent" of his income???
If we want to say politicians are hypocrites (some more than others) then I'm sure we could start a good kumbaya thread where we'd all agree on that. Why we're singling out Obama here is beyond me however....
My original post was not specific to Obama. I don't care what he gives or doesn't give. That's between him and his conscience. But I used his charitable giving to illustrate the point that liberals are stingy with their own money but are very free when it comes to spending the hard-earned dollars of tax-payers. Here's another illustration. Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the nation, home state of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, has a check off box on their state income tax form that one can check to contribute more money to the state treasury in excess of what the law requires. Virtually no one does it. So they're all for government spending, as long as someone else foots the bill. I'm not singling out Obama. He's just your "typical" liberal.
Now let's hear the spin from the Hillary hacks on this forum.
If you read the story, he gave an average of $18,861.50 for the previous 8 years. One could claim that he only gave so much to charity in 2007 after knowing that he was going to run for president..
Why would he gave a huge chunk to African nations when as his pastor says that there are thousands of young American black kids who go hungry every day and do not know how to read or have the books to learn. If this is so then why is he giving money to other nations and not helping those same people that his pastor is whining about?
Guess he has his priorities in the "wrong" place again.
If there are young black kids going hungry then why would this man even think about sending his money overseas?
Next thing we will see him wanting us to donate our tax dollar to other nations instead of taking care of our own hungry kids.
By the way, there are just as many hungry white kids if not more who go hungry then black kids, but his pastor sees only one color. No child should go hungry no matter who they are in American.
So Obama needs to take care of his own hungry nations kids first and for once get his priorities right!
This man is a weak pathetic poor decision maker who wants to run ( ruin ) our country.
Yes his miserable wife thinks they have struggled, she does not know what struggling means.
So if any other person running for political office gave money to charity that helps foreign nations that need the help then would their priorities be put into question.
Helping people is helping people, the argument you state is ridiculous
If you read the story, he gave an average of $18,861.50 for the previous 8 years. One could claim that he only gave so much to charity in 2007 after knowing that he was going to run for president..
Not necessarily. It is more likely because his income was much higher in 2007 than in the previous 8 years. I'd be curious to see how much Hillary donated to charity in 2007. After all, she is much wealthier than the Obama's, so she should have exceeded $240,000. No wait....she did donate $5 million.....to her own floundering campaign.
Not necessarily. It is more likely because his income was much higher in 2007 than in the previous 8 years. I'd be curious to see how much Hillary donated to charity in 2007. After all, she is much wealthier than the Obama's, so she should have exceeded $240,000. No wait....she did donate $5 million.....to her own floundering campaign.
Well the OP (you) asked how the Clintons were going to spin this, I answered it by saying that he did it because he was going to run for president. We are answering as the "Clintons" here.
The original poster is the typical Obama supporter. He is willing to go any length to make Obama look good. If Obama was a murderer, they would probably say something like "No way" "He is a good man" or "It wasnt his fault". He is totally hypnotized, it is what I call the Obama trance, he can't even snap out of it. Obama is like Jim Jones. Obama is serving you the Kool Aid and you have not even questioned it "Give me more of that Kool Aid " he says.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
