"For Obama, charity really began in the U.S. Senate"

dex

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
5,105
For Obama, charity really began in the U.S. Senate -- National Government, The White House, University of Chicago -- chicagotribune.com

" Obama has enjoyed a robust household income throughout his political career in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate. But for most of that time he has reported comparatively little by national standards in charitable contributions on his tax returns, records released by Obama show."

Why is this important? In and of itself it might not be. But when you combine it with his
1. 20 year association and employment of the Rev. Wright
2. "Typical white person" remark
3. representing himself as concerned with the poor
4. when the increase in contributions began
the charitable contributions give another insight into the character of the man.

Newsmax.com - Obama Stingy with Charities

Tax returns released by the Barack Obama presidential campaign show that Obama and his wife Michelle gave less than 1 percent of their total $1.2 million income to charity from 2000 through 2004.
The Obamas reported that they gave $2,350 to charity in 2000 — 1 percent of their $240,505 adjusted gross income — $1,470 (.5 percent) in 2001, $1,050 (.4 percent) in 2002, $3,400 (1.4 percent) in 2003, and $2,500 (1.2 percent) in 2004.
........
The Obamas increased their charitable contributions to $77,315 in 2005, when their adjusted gross income was $1.65 million — including $1.2 million from Barack Obama’s book royalties.
And in 2006, the Obamas contributed $60,307 — 6.1 percent of their $983,826 AGI — including $22,500 to controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ and $13,107 to the Congressional Black Caucus.
 
No big deal unless ya'll want to post what percentage of your incomes you give to charity.
 
I thought this forum was for early retirement discussions, but given the number of threads started for the sole purpose of bashing Obama I'm beginning to wonder what this forum is about.

Oh moderator, enough is enough. I'm beginning to feel like I'm attending a KKK meeting when I visit this forum.

Anyone else tiring of this agenda?
 
Obama is the only candidate to release his tax returns. One of the reasons I support him is because of his commitment to more open transparent government. See Obama's plan here and here for PDF version

There are plenty of reasons to vote for McCain over Obama but the discussion here has been scant on the real issues.
 
I thought this forum was for early retirement discussions, but given the number of threads started for the sole purpose of bashing Obama I'm beginning to wonder what this forum is about.

Oh moderator, enough is enough. I'm beginning to feel like I'm attending a KKK meeting when I visit this forum.

Anyone else tiring of this agenda?


Look at the forum topics.
 
Dex, I don't know about you, but if I suddenly had an extra $500,000 disposable income I'd probably increase my charitable contributions to respectable levels, too.

You do realize that congresspersons have to spend a lot of their income maintaining 2 residences and traveling back and forth, so there is not a lot extra for philanthropy. I am sure most other senators have the same low percentage of giving, maybe they give more in dollar amount, but that isn't much of their income because most senators are quite wealthy in their own right.

I guess I don't really see your point in posting this.

Donating to churches most often goes toward their outreach programs in the community or overseas. What good works does your church do with its funds? I am sure there's not much difference. Donating to the CBC is probably expected of someone in Obama's position.

What sinister motives are you supposedly uncovering?

This whole post is like a newguy thread where he throws random news items against a wall with no context added or thoughtful points, just to see which ones will stick up there the longest. And, no, that wasn't intended as a compliment.
 
I thought this forum was for early retirement discussions, but given the number of threads started for the sole purpose of bashing Obama I'm beginning to wonder what this forum is about.

Oh moderator, enough is enough. I'm beginning to feel like I'm attending a KKK meeting when I visit this forum.

Anyone else tiring of this agenda?

I'm white, but will vote for Obama not out of (white) guilt, but because I believe he will make a far better president.

I don't believe that you need to be a battleaxe, like Hillary Clinton, in order to be effective. In fact, her in-your-face approach is exactly why she failed to reform healthcare in all of the years she had the opportunity to do so while tasked with that challenge when her husband was president.

McCain just plain scares me. He is such a warmonger that it is frightening to think he is even running for president.

I think Obama will do a great job with foreign policy and make the much needed changes domestically.

I disagree that's it's Obama's responsibility to change the minds and hearts of his minister and grandmother. First of all, bigoted views are rarely, if ever, changed. Not really. You may get a relative to change his/her behavior in your presence, so they don't have to hear "it" from you, but to change their true, deep down feelings and beliefs is another thing.

To liken this issue to how effective Obama will be in political circles is to attempt to draw a correlation where there is none.Which president do I want? Obama.
zoey


Definitely NOT Hillary.

And certainly not McCain who refers to Asians as gooks. It's interesting that many in this thread are quick to fry the black man for saying the word "typical" and not a peep is said about the white candidate who makes a racist comment. Or is it that some are just looking for any excuse to fry the black man? Kind of seems that way to me.
zoey

zoey,

Are you asking the moderators to disallow remarks that are not favorably to your choice of the 3 candidates, but it is okay for you to post remarks less than favorably about the other 2? :confused:
 
Are you asking the moderators to disallow remarks that are not favorably to your choice of the 3 candidates, but it is okay for you to post remarks less than favorably about the other 2? :confused:

No offense, Packrat, but she was complaining about the number of bashing "threads", not complaining about the remarks on the threads. Once someone puts a thread up there, you have to allow responses, but I don't believe zoey has started any bashing threads.
 
Obama is the only candidate to release his tax returns. One of the reasons I support him is because of his commitment to more open transparent government. See Obama's plan here and here for PDF version

There are plenty of reasons to vote for McCain over Obama but the discussion here has been scant on the real issues.

I think you can do both - talk about the issues and discuss what the person did in the past to shape them as individuals and hopefully get an insight into how they might behave if elected. Too often presidents said one thing and did another while in office

Johnson - said he was for the poor but sent many poor black men to their deaths in Vietnam; his guns and butter policies set up for the punnishing bad economic times in the 70s

Nixon - law and order - commited crimes and tried to subvert the constitution

Reagan - for smaller government but increased it and expanded the federal deficite

Clinton - felt the pain of the people but dismantled the security net of welfare and killed womens lib with his actions

So it appears with Senator Obama - he says he is for the poor but he has not made a personal commitment to it (as reflected in his chariatable contributions). And when he did it was just before he was to run for president. Also, one of the largest contributions was to the Congressional Black Caucus - not to the poor.

Again, by itself it might not appear to be anything but taken together with the other items it does give you insights into the man's character. And it is not flattering. His actions clash with some of his public positions
 
I agree that this article just reflects that people are staring at the needles and not seeing the forest - if they start comparing body fat i'm going to hurl on my tv.

clinton and obama agree on most policy issues - woo hoo i'm happy with either on that front

they have a different approach to politics - that is where they vary - clinton is tradional politician - built lots of alliances and is cashing them in - obama went out and built a great vision and campaign that touched the hearts of americans who were dozing off at the couch, long ago forgotten.

now people are just looking for those needles in the haystack to find something wronger with one over the other - it's getting really annoying.

big picture big picture big picture!

mcain has said himself he doesn't understand the economy and frankly his travels around the world have confirmed that he will not be an adept diplomat or representative - and aside from that bored me to tears in his remarks about various foreign policy issues over the past few weeks. we can build a statue in his honor for his military and public service, he doesn't get to be president for it.
 
I thought this forum was for early retirement discussions, but given the number of threads started for the sole purpose of bashing Obama I'm beginning to wonder what this forum is about.

Oh moderator, enough is enough. I'm beginning to feel like I'm attending a KKK meeting when I visit this forum.

Anyone else tiring of this agenda?

zoey i very much understand your frustration - but the crowd here is only a reflection of america - if anything the folks here are more thoughtful and open minded. it's unfair to hurl such a vitriolic attack when nobody has even ever said anything as blatantly awful as that organization.

sure, i'm surprised at some of the reaction around some of the recent threads on obama - but more reflective of where we are at as a country on these issues...

if you want a forum that only supports your point of view there are many places on the net that provide that for you - personally i find it boring and can create myopia in its own right. but i have a diverse group of very progressive friends who provide that outlet for me.
 
Last edited:
I believe it is relevant. One thing that bugs me about liberal politicians is how they want to spend our money on their causes, but come up short in supporting those same causes with their money. You want to help the poor, or whatever, open your wallet. If hypocrisy does not bother you, then you have found your candidate.
 
sure, i'm surprised at some of the reaction around some of the recent threads on obama - but more reflective of where we are at as a country on these issues...

Could be; but it also could be that these are meaningful questions, and that conservatives might have a point. Act in haste; repent at leisure. :)

I am permanently out of these discussions, but I am (mildly) surprised that the liberals mostly want to tar the conservatives, rather than debate their points.

Ha
 
Could be; but it also could be that these are meaningful questions, and that conservatives might have a point. Act in haste; repent at leisure. :)

I am permanently out of these discussions, but I am (mildly) surprised that the liberals mostly want to tar the conservatives, rather than debate their points.

Ha

care to elaborate on those meaningful questions - can't just say that to imply there are some - so far all i've heard is that Wright said things that were unpatriotic and obama should distance himself. obama denounced what wright said. then people questioned his judgement - he explained why he didn't leave. you can agree or disagree with his reasons.

anything i'm missing that is of meaning? the rest is just an attempt to frighten away possible supporters...imho
 
Could be; but it also could be that these are meaningful questions, and that conservatives might have a point. Act in haste; repent at leisure. :)

I am permanently out of these discussions, but I am (mildly) surprised that the liberals mostly want to tar the conservatives, rather than debate their points.

Ha

Nah, my take is that there's someone with an axe to grind against Obama, on some shaky and dubious grounds. I mean how many times can you basically say that you think Obama has major character flaws, while ignoring some of the obvious character flaws in the other candidates? Perhaps, the original poster has morphed Reverend Wright into Minister Farrakkan. There was an another thread that was later locked in which somehow Obama was linked to Farrakkan.
 
Back
Top Bottom