Obamas Gave Less Than 1 Percent of 2000-2004 Income to Charity
(Bloomberg) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than one percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.
The couple earned more than $2.6 million in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book in 2005. They donated $137,622 over those two years and made their church, Trinity United Church of Christ, one of the biggest beneficiaries of their philanthropy, donating $27,500. Obama is under scrutiny for his ties to the church because of comments made by its senior pastor.
The Obamas' charitable giving history was revealed as he became the first presidential candidate to release his tax returns for the decade and called on his rival for the Democratic nomination, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, to do the same. Obama didn't release his 2007 return today.
``Releasing tax returns is a matter of routine and we believe that the Clinton campaign should meet that standard and meet that routine standard now,'' said Robert Gibbs, Obama's communication director.
Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, said the campaign would release her tax information before April 15, the filing deadline for individuals. Arizona Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, hasn't released his tax returns.
Presidential candidates aren't required to release their tax returns, which by law are confidential. Most have chosen to do so since the early 1970s.
The couple earned more than $2.6 million in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book in 2005. They donated $137,622 over those two years and made their church, Trinity United Church of Christ, one of the biggest beneficiaries of their philanthropy, donating $27,500. Obama is under scrutiny for his ties to the church because of comments made by its senior pastor.
The Obamas' charitable giving history was revealed as he became the first presidential candidate to release his tax returns for the decade and called on his rival for the Democratic nomination, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, to do the same. Obama didn't release his 2007 return today.
``Releasing tax returns is a matter of routine and we believe that the Clinton campaign should meet that standard and meet that routine standard now,'' said Robert Gibbs, Obama's communication director.
Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, said the campaign would release her tax information before April 15, the filing deadline for individuals. Arizona Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, hasn't released his tax returns.
Presidential candidates aren't required to release their tax returns, which by law are confidential. Most have chosen to do so since the early 1970s.
posted by BP News Bureau | 3:00 PM
14 Comments:
This begs the question, "So?"
Well, for one thing, there's the whole walking the walk if you're going to talk the talk thing. It's pretty hard to take someone seriously with regard to his "concern" for the poor and downtrodden when he makes this much money and gives so little of it to charity. Oh wait, I know, he'd rather steal it from me at the point of government's guns.
And for another, it's pretty much a glaring hypocrisy when he engages in the Democrats' favorite pastime: class warfare.
Obama is just another wealthy liberal who thinks his status gives him the right to leech my earnings in order to satisfy his egotistical urges to dispense largesse. He is no different than the worst of the country club pubbies.
Whatever. I see nothing to criticize here. If you don't like his platform, criticize that.
From 2000 to 2004, Mr. and Mrs. Obama made approx. $300k per year between the two of them. They gave about $2500 per year to charities. Then they made $1.3 mil per year in 2005 and 2006, and donated nearly $70k per year to charities. $70k! Sounds to me like he's doing his "part," whatever that means.
As I've said before, Obama's critics are really scratching for negative material. If you've got something to say, just come out and say it, folks, cause criticizing someone because they ONLY give more than 5 percent of $2.6 mil to charity is petty.
Sounds like Strother is drinking the Obama kool-aid.
No kool-aid sipping here. I just find it funny that Obama critics can't do any better than quibbling over crap that his preacher says and how many thousands of dollars he and his wife give to charity. When anybody wants to have a discussion about real issues separating this final three (Obama, Hillary, and 'the Maverick,') I'm all ears.
I believe the issue of Obama and his preacher does matter because it goes to the heart of Obama's campaign which is judgement. With Obama's lack of experience, he believes that judgement, not experience, is what matters in this campaign. I don't believe for a second that if John McCain or any other Republican were members of a church where the pastor used such hateful rhetoric that Obama's supporters and others would consider the matter trivial and brush it aside.
I just find it funny that Obama critics can't do any better than quibbling over crap that his preacher says...
Hello pot, have you met kettle? Do we need to go back in the archives and find examples of Strother throwing Republicans in general under the bus for comments made by Pat Robertson? You won't fare well in that comparison, Strother. Obama has expressed a deep personal admiration for his preacher many times. Most Republicans have expressed public wishes that Pat Robertson would just go away.
When anybody wants to have a discussion about real issues separating this final three (Obama, Hillary, and 'the Maverick,') I'm all ears.
You'll be waiting a long time. The reason they pick at one another over petty crap is exactly because they are all identical.
This is a direct criticism of Obama's platform. Obama plays the class warfare game all the time. He plays the have-nots against the haves in order to boost his personal standing. He believes his sanctimonious stance gives him the right to come and rob me at the point of a government gun and hand over the fruits of my labors to someone else. When he has given everything he has to the poor, then I might find his position at least understandable. Until then, he's just another rich liberal playing at Robin Hood.
And just for the record, giving lots of money to your church is not necessarily the same as giving it to charity. If Trinity UCC used the money to build shiny new edifices, that amounts to nothing more than broadening their phylacteries.
Obama is a typical liberal: He wants to use other peoples money for causes he believes in but is not willing to cut a check on his own. If his family is making six figures and only giving less than 1 percent to charity shows him & his family are misers.
The reason they pick at one another over petty crap is exactly because they are all identical.
Now you're on to something. Why not spend time on that subject? Otherwise we're left with trite discussions and 'Hillary is a woman, Obama is black, and McCain is old' kind of stuff.
And just for the record, giving lots of money to your church is not necessarily the same as giving it to charity. If Trinity UCC used the money to build shiny new edifices, that amounts to nothing more than broadening their phylacteries.
Oh, I agree. But I would guess that most churchgoers' favorite charity is their own church (which, for the record, is fine by me). Still, subtract what Obama gave to his church and he still gave a lot of money to charity. And I digress. The amount of someone's charitable gifts according to their tax returns has nothing to do with their ability to act as president of the United States.
Obama is a typical liberal: He wants to use other peoples money for causes he believes in but is not willing to cut a check on his own.
If giving over $150,000 in six years to charity equals "not willing to cut a check," what would classify as willing to cut a check? Anonymous, your 'typical liberal' sounds pretty generous. But that's not what you're trying to say, is it?
Don't forget, guys — throughout this wholly disappointing campaign, I've repeatedly given props to innovative, interesting candidates such as Ron Paul. But my defending Obama here is based on the fact that it's crazy to what lengths his opponents are going to dig some dirt on him. If he's such a bad candidate, his opponents should be clever enough to beat him using his own platform, not using this kind of BS. But I guess you have to play to what your audience wants to hear, huh?
But my defending Obama here is based on the fact that it's crazy to what lengths his opponents are going to dig some dirt on him. If he's such a bad candidate, his opponents should be clever enough to beat him using his own platform, not using this kind of BS. But I guess you have to play to what your audience wants to hear, huh?
I don't think it's digging up dirt on Obama though. It's not like this was hidden; the video of his pastor in action came from tapes purchased at his church. Besides, what's wrong with vetting a candidate? Obama is running for the highest office in the land, and yet, we don't know all that much about him personally. He's only been on the national stage for three years. Like Steve said, there's not really a difference between Obama & Hillary, so the issue of Rev. Wright and Hillary's episode with phantom snipers can make a difference on who wins and who loses.
Otherwise we're left with trite discussions...
Ok, maybe we need a topic. Here's one:
It would be better for the long-term health of the republic for Hillary to be elected President this Fall.
The amount of someone's charitable gifts according to their tax returns has nothing to do with their ability to act as president of the United States.
It does if the someone has plans to use the office and its associated power of coercion to enforce his ideas about "charity" on me. Not that it will make much of a difference, but at least some people will be aware that a vote for Obama is a vote for hypocrisy.
It would be better for the long-term health of the republic for Hillary to be elected President this Fall.
Do you believe that? Between both Obama and McCain? If so, why?
From NewsMax.com:
Rev. Wright’s hate speech, combined with Michelle Obama’s statements about “this is the first time I have been proud of my country,” make Obama look either like he is incredibly clever at fronting for this anti-Americanism or else he is so naive that he knows not what his wife and pastor stand for!
Do you believe that? Between both Obama and McCain? If so, why?
You supplied the answer earlier, Strother. No one likes Hillary. As I mentioned, that won't stop her from getting to the White House, but it will have one helluva dampening effect on how much damage she can do when she gets there.
Our system only works well when there is a strong opposition party in place. Right now, we have no opposition party. George Bush destroyed the GOP and the remnants are spending all their time triangulating the Democrats' issues. If McCain gets to the White House, we'll have another four to eight years of weak Republicans rubber-stamping whatever he does, all to the applause of the so-called rightward media. If Obama gets there, the remnants of the GOP are not in any shape to provide an opposition, and once again, we end up with a rubber-stamp Congress.
If we are truthful with ourselves, Bill Clinton operated closer to the center than George Bush has (Bush being pretty far left). This was mostly because he had to deal with a Congress that hated him. Putting Hillary in the White House would very likely resurrect the GOP and its coalition of libertarians and social conservatives. George H. W. Bush was well on the road to wiping out what Reagan built and along comes Bill Clinton and the result was 1994.
We are headed toward an authoritarian regime of one flavor or another. I believe Hillary's occupation of the Oval Office will either restore some form of balance to Washington, or it will enrage the populace so badly they'll march on Washington, hang all the politicians, and burn the place down. Either way, the path we are on toward destruction is changed, most likely for the better.
Post a Comment
<< Home