Who is the real "phony"? Tax returns reveal compassion isn't just words for Clintons, Edwardses

[jackson_dem]

They both give a large amount of their income to charity. They practice what they preach. For some others it is just words. The Clintons gave 10% of their income to charity last year. For the Edwardses, from 1994-2004, they averaged 9% http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/03/edwards.tax.returns/ and their latest public tax return had it close to one third. The Obamas (until Barack began running for president)? 0.4%. Yes. 0.4%. Ironic given how much Obama implicitly attacks Clinton and before him Edwards as "phony" and how directly Obama supporters attacked the two Obama rivals as that. Yes, Obamanation Edwards got a haircut. However, Edwards, like the Clintons, practices what he preaches. We now know who the real "phony" is.

-snip-

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0704250022apr25,1,1209388.story

[Mezzo]

1. The Obamas did not have as much to give?

:shrug:

[jackson_dem]

6. That has nothing to do with percentages

The average American gives 2.2%. The hypocrital "phony" gave 0.4%--despite making far more than the average American...

[RoadRage]

15. Well.. i'm a horrible person then,

because I make far more then the "average" person - and I can tell you that I didn't give near 2.2% this year. I suppose I'm just another latte liberal snob.. wanting to put my kids through college, live in a nice house in a nice neighborhood and go on vacation once a year. I suppose I should be guilt tripped into giving away a lot more of what I work my ass of to make (nevermind that I get royally screwed on taxes due to my "great" salary).

Ohh wait. That's right - I have a father with horrible medical issues that I supported and I suppose he shouldn't have taken precedence over some stranger, right?

And Obama - doesn't he have a poor relative or two that I believe he's helped out from time to time? Somehow I don't think that kind of thing appears on his taxes as a charitable deduction. Probably more like "Helping Grandma out".. but I guess if it isn't documented, it doesn't count - right?

[jackson_dem]

17. Do you go on television, speak in front of crowds calling for more compassion?

The problem, as it often is, is Obama's hypocrisy and the disconnect between his public rhetoric and private action.

Ironic to see the same people who savaged Edwards for getting his hair cut as being the ultimate act of hypocrisy not batting an eye at Obama's blatant hypocrisy. 0.4%? :eyes:

[Blue State Bandit]

50. It's called "sweat equity", They never had the opportunity to make such large donations.

I doubt that the Obama's have ever had the accumulative wealth that the Clinton's or the Edwards' enjoy. It's nice that, while they had a few tens of millions at there disposal, it would do good to "share the wealth".

One problem with this, Obama hasn't had that wealth to share. $259,394 is not 50+ million in speeches. And I'm sure that, after his student loans are paid, and he has set a new course for the next American Century, he will do the speeches, and donate tens of millions to charity.

[Skittles]

55. "$259,394 is not 50+ million"

:rofl:

[Kittycat]

46. They also had student loans up until recently that they were still paying off.

Law school doesn't come cheap.

[ProSense]

2. If I gave $10 and you gave $10 million, but you

lied about encountering sniper fire in Bosnia, lied about NAFTA, lied about creating SCHIP and the FMLA, you are the phony.

[jackson_dem]

11. Google

"Obama lies", "Obama lied"

[ProSense]

14. That's pathetic. The sources, except the first, are RW and

then there is this: "The Media Repeats Stream of Lies About Obama"

So what the hell does that stupid exercise prove?

Hillary's lies are on video, you can see her lips forming the lies and hear them coming out of her mouth. They are her lies and very real.

[jackson_dem]

16. PS how do you defend Obama--once again--saying one thing, doing another?

[PBS Poll-435]

23. So sad...

NT!

[Skittles]

24. LOLOL

OMG THAT IS JUST FUCKING PITIFUL

[QC]

34. Pathological hatred does sad things to people.

It's really more worthy of pity than scorn, I'm afraid.

[papau]

38. Pathological hatred from Obama - I don't understand - he is just proven cheap and uncaring

[Skittles]

45. it's not Obama

it's his fucking rabid fans and then there's HRC zealots too - something terribly disturbing about all of this - neither candidste is worthy of idolization

[ProSense]

53. Oh look a little group denial pow wow! Hillary got caught telling lies. Hillary is losing

Ridiculing people and calling them "fucking rabid fans" will not change her campaign from one of the worst ever to a winning one.

Deal with it.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ORDagnabbit]

3. didnt the clintons donate most of their money to themselves?

[rodeodance]

40. You know that money went to good causes but you choose to mock the Clintons anyway!!

[ORDagnabbit]

41. please detail where exactly the money went.

[rodeodance]

44. log onto the Clinton foundation.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

56. what if we all opened up our own personal charities?

we could each write off these donations to ourselves on our tax returns.

[ORDem]

58. Yes. And 75% of it hasn't yet been disbursed, so they get to look charitable while

keeping the money.

[Yael]

4. And what % did you give?

Oh, and while we are on the topic of tax returns, this one is a don't miss!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5422190

[anonymous171]

5. Only 5 million went to any charity use.

There rest was kept by the Clinton Foundation.

[jackson_dem]

7. Your argument is they "only" give 12.5x more than the Obamas instead of 25x more in percentage terms

What does the Clinton Foundation do anyway? Jimmy Carter surely gives money to the Carter Foundation. Does that count as a charitable contribution?

[godai]

27. For every $1M charitable deduction, they saved about $300K in taxes.

At those high tax brackets, the large contributions save a lot of taxes. Still a large charitable donation but the tax savings and the fact that half went to the Clinton Foundation makes it a bit less philanthropic.

[sniffa]

8. I think I'm ready to run for President on day one

as I hive even more than the Clintons to charity, as I donate 100% to myself.

Vote Sniffa.

[L0oniX]

32. U got my vote.

:evilgrin:

[Diane R]

9. What a crappy thread. The Obamas were still paying off school loans.

[jackson_dem]

10. They were real paupers at $259,394 a year

:rofl:

[QC]

33. And don't forget $10k a year for the kiddies' dance lessons!

I don't know how those poor souls got by on a mere quarter-million bucks a year!

[RoadRage]

12. Back in 2002...

Weren't the Obama's with their "HUGE" $250,000 salary still paying off Harvard Law School loans, trying to raise 2 girls, etc.?

I'm sorry - but How much did the Clinton's make in 2002.. $10,000,000? So after their "donation" of 10% - they still had what, $9,000,000 left to play around with? And the Obama's with 2 young daughters to support and at that time certainly no knowledge that in the future he would give an awesome speech in 2004, write & sell another book worth millions and easily pay off those college bills, and still save for his daughters education as well. Anyway - with their $1,000 donation - they had $249,000 left to live on. "Just getting by"? No - not hardly.. but making what an average doctor would make.

So, the difference between the Clinton's $9,000,000 and the Obama's $249,000 is ummm.. quite a difference in lifestyle. So get off on throwing the Obama's under the bus for not "giving" enough. If Hillary really wanted to show how philanthipic she is - she could have donated $9,800,000 and lived on the same net income as the Obama's.. but she didn't.

So stop typing this crap!

[jackson_dem]

13. The average American makes about $30,000 and gives 2.2%

What is Obama's excuse? He made more than 98% of Americans and gave only 0.4%. He is a hypocrite. He says one thing in public, does another. Where was the compassion he claims he desires others to show?

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. After he got in the Senate, wifey was given a job paying a lot more than

250K at a Hospital. So now they have no excuses.

[Aussie leftie]

39. If it was the Clintons who only gave 0.4%

and if Obama gave about 10% of his income to charity, I'm sure that it would make the headlines. I think that a lot of Obama supporters lost a lot of credibility when they accused Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro of being racist.

[Catherine Vincent]

18. Let it go. This is silly.

No one cares how much who gave to charity.

[jackson_dem]

21. Hypocrisy is no big deal for Obamanation--except when they used it to savage Edwards and attack Hill

Even though it is manifestly obvious Obama is the a hypocrite/phony...

[L0oniX]

19. The Clintons gave 10 million to their own charity org which spent very little of it.

Another phony show from the Clinton lie machine.

-Clinton Charitable Contributions Went To Clinton Foundation-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/05/clintons-charitable-contr_n_95216.html

[jackson_dem]

20. So your argument is the Clintons "only" gave 12.5x more in percentage terms?

[L0oniX]

25. No argument at all. Just saying that they gave the money to their own charity which spent...

very little of it. Seems like a convenient tax write off of which they get to control the money anyway. Not much of a real charity IMO.

[jackson_dem]

26. Half of their charity went to that. Where did Obama's 0.4% go?

[L0oniX]

30. I'm sorry. Did Obama make 109 million during the same time?

BTW half of that 10 million was spent just before her campaign started.

[jackson_dem]

31. That has nothing to do with percentages. Obama made about 10x more than the average American

Yet he gave about one-sixth what the average American gives...

[L0oniX]

35. So you are more concerned with the percentage when 100% of the Clintons donations went to their ....

own foundation. OK Whatever.

[democrattotheend]

28. Do you ever post positive threads about Hillary?

I have noticed at least 4 threads from you in the last 48 hours, and they were all hit pieces on Obama. Do you ever post anything about why you support Hillary?

[PoliticalAmazon]

36. Well there's the charity thing...and...and...well, nothing else, really. n/t

[madrchsod]

49. very few of them do...

[Duder]

29. Inflated biographies

'In 1998, then-vice president Al Gore reported a total of $353 in charitable donations. After being duly criticized, the Gores in 1999 donated $15,197 to charities, and these days he has become a major benefactor of the environment, contributing all the profits from his DVD, all of his Nobel Prize money and a substantial part of the million he made as an investor in Google. And Bill and Hillary Clinton, who by 1999 contributed almost $162,000 to charity, also had their lean years: The former president once claimed a $75 deduction for donating a suit with ripped pants to the Salvation Army, as well as $2 for a pair of used underwear and $9 for six pairs of used socks.'

http://www.forward.com/articles/13060/

[Skip Intro]

37. K&R.

truth vs spin

[rodeodance]

42. Thanks and REC

[Thickasabrick]

43. This whole discussion is beyond tacky. Charitable giving should

be a personal thing - not a freaking contest.

[Levgreee]

47. Yes, but what about all the other years where they gave up to 6.1%?

and 260k, minus 70k, equals only 190k in income. And they were paying off student loans for two people, raising two young children, and at an age where you are buying a house, and making investments for the future, for retirement, and the kids.

so they donated 148000 over 7 years, or 21000 per year on average.
Their income over that time was a total of 3,857,000 or an average of 551,000.
551,000/21,000 = 3.8% of their income(including taxes) over that time. The 3.8% is a larger percentage of non-taxed income than the 2.2% for the low-income Americans, as they get a lesser % taken away.

So perhaps I am biased, but I don't see them as being misers, when they were going through a time with lots of expenses. I am curious to the typical charity donation amount when people are buying houses and paying off loans. I would venture that peoples 2.2% donation amount spikes up and down greatly over their life.

[jackson_dem]

51. So he he was a hypocrite until he began running for president?

Even when he made the one speech his entire stardom is based on in 2004 in which he talked about how we are all tied together...

[madrchsod]

48. oh no another post about obama being a cheap ass

like this was`t beat to death when this came up last week or the week before...dam when there`s nothing new to say just drag up old news...

please find something new to complain about barack....

[emilyg]

52. k/r

[ORDem]

57. Oh yeah, they're generous all right. $10M to their OWN foundation of which they've only

disbursed about 25%. I'm sure there are many many benefits to controlling all the foundation money as well. Oh, and they probably didn't think Hillary would be running for President either, and that they wouldn't have their contributions in the public eye, so of course they were just being altruistically generous.

Gimme a break!