Always the unbiased positive thinker JD. :smash:

JD, I believe in a lot of what the Tea Party stands for, as well. I also feel that I pay more than enough in taxes, but it's still "fair" because I do get benefits from them. If I had to pay more taxes, I would start to no longer consider the amount fair.

I also support government programs paid for with taxes. If we didn't help the less fortunate, we'd fail to exist as a strong country. But, there has to be limits and/or requirements for these programs. As you've pointed out, people who benefit from the programs should have to contribute in some way to society to be eligible for the benefits. No sitting on the couch with a bag of weed and and an XBox 360 to play.

I'm not sure why anyone would be suprised at the lack of support for Palin. She didn't even complete one term as governor of Alaska. She's way too politically inexperienced to lead this country, much like the guy in the White House now.

Really! She is laughing all the way to the bank.:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

I regard the amount I'm spending now in income tax is at the very high end of fair. I would like to see it go down but current is sustainable. What is not sustainable for me is all the new taxes and fees. What is not sustainable is our country's spending right now. This spending is significantly greater than what it takes in. How can this be good?

Hey, what till VAT hits
Europe's VAT Lessons - WSJ.com

The Feds now spend more on employee pensions and benefits then on education. Vote them all out

We could say that for Mansfield too

Inheritance is how most wealth is acquired.
Frankly, I'd be careful about the parsing the semantics of 'hold or earn.' The Obama Admin might agree, and get the idea to tax investment income at the higher rate wages are taxed at.

I hope to become a vampire. compounded interest over 300 years should be fine.

JR, if you have money in the bank, eventually interest rates are going to soar. Good for the people who are prudent, not willing to gamble on the stock exchange.

well, according to Obama in his speech yesterday...you need to stop asking these amusing but rediculous questions and start thanking him :uhuh:

Didn't Joe Biden say it was good to pay taxes?

I heard that speach too. He is the most arrogant, insensitive, and classless President ever. He has nothing but disdain for "the opposition". He truly just doesn't get it.

He was just telling them to "Bring It On."

Joe Biden said "everyone has to have some skin in the game" and something else about paying taxes being patriotic.... the wealthy Joe Biden gave 1.44% of his income to charity last year...almost no skin in that game......Obama did a little better coming in just under 6%...although, his income 5.5 million was almost entirely derived from the fraud Nobel prize that he was handed and income from two fictional books that were written for him....don't know if Mrs. O had any income from her 300k no-show job....so much for "earned income" and charity...easy to spread the wealth around when you did/do little or nothing to earn it...I guess it explains their views on taxation and charity...:rotf2:

complete frauds:uhuh:

Obama donated 100% of his Nobel Prize money. I'm willing to give him props when he deserves it.

wouldn't you have been shocked if he'd kept a penny of it?

if anyone wants to give me a ton of money that I've done nothing to deserve...I'd also be happy to donate 100% of it to charity....and I'm not even a millionaire or living lavishly and having all of my daily expenses being paid for by campaign contributions, which is what he did for most of 2009...:uhuh:

Buck, I honestly would care if they hadn't given a penny to charity but for all of their rhetoric, the point is that for all of the lip flapping, these guys only practice what they preach with other people's money....

Buckman

this is the difference between somewhat reasonable (you) and blinded by hate (scottw)

The 5.5 was mostly book money, so the income was not including the nobel prize, which was donated 100%

And scott, if someone walked up to me and said here's 1.1 million "that I've done nothing to deserve" I'd donate some but you bet your ass I'd be fishing on a new boat this season :D. I guess you are more giving and liberal than you let on :D


***This is a cut and paste, 100%:***

WASHINGTON - The Tea Party was out railing against taxes on Tax Day on Thursday, but it's a safe bet few of them paid as much as President Obama.

Tax returns released by the White House show Obama's adjusted gross income was $5,505,409 in 2009 - mostly from best-selling book sales.

On that, he owed $1,792,414 in federal taxes, or a third of his income, but overpaid by $8,287. The Obamas applied the refund to next year's bill.

The Obamas' total gross income was $5,623,690, before adjustments.

The President offset his tab somewhat by being very generous, giving $329,100 to 40 different charities.

In addition, the Obamas donated his entire $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize income to charity and paid $163,303 in Illinois state income taxes.

Because Obama donated the entire Nobel award to charity, it didn't count as income and he wasn't able to claim a deduction for those gifts.

Joe and Jill Biden aren't nearly so well-off. The vice president and his wife's income was $333,182, on which they paid $71,147 to Uncle Sam. They gave away $4,820 to charity and paid $13,897 in state income taxes.

The returns show that the Obamas made about as much in charitable contributions as the Bidens earned in 2009.

Among the 10 charities who received contributions from Obama's Nobel cash are the Posse Foundation, a New York-based group that got $125,000 to provide scholarships for students with extraordinary academic and leadership potential.

The Obamas' income included $374,460 in wages, $13,473 in interest, $12,018 in dividends and $4,230 in other income. The overwhelming majority of their income - nearly $5.2 million - was from book royalties.

Like millions of Americans, the Obamas reduced their tax bite by contributing - in their case $49,000 - to a retirement plan.


mmcauliff@nydailynews.com

With Thomas M. DeFrank and Glenn Blain in Albany

Read more: President Obama tax return reveals he made $5.5M in 2009, largely from book sales

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;763011]Buckman


And scott, if someone walked up to me and said here's 1.1 million "that I've done nothing to deserve" I'd donate some but you bet your ass I'd be fishing on a new boat this season :D. I guess you are more giving and liberal than you let on :D

QUOTE]

so...if you happen to be awarded a prize and attached money around 1.5 million(or any amount for that matter) and there's absolutely no justification for you receiving the award and there are numerous other far more deserving people who actually did something that might earn them the prize...you'd go out and buy a boat??? that's really pathetic....:uhuh: not blinded by hate ...eyes wide open and just want a little honesty, decency and consistency from our dear leader....still waiting :uhuh:

and the cut and paste is as pathetic as Biden's 1.44% and I'd love to compare Obama's charity compared to that of other 5.5 millionaires and see how they rank being charitable with their easy money....


giving and liberal? that's funny...see...I am very "giving" with my own money...I would never feel "entitled" to such a sum of money that I didn't deserve for any reason and particularly if there were those more deserving.....I think we have a trend here with democrat leaders and their rhetoric and their pathetic showing when the numbers come out...the same thing was discovered of Al Gore(your hero) and the Kerry's were paying a miniscule amount in taxes and the Clinton's were deducting their dirty underwear.....nice people...:rotf2:

the perpetual quandry of the limousine liberal

Scott.
If someone walks up to you and said you've been randomly selected to win a million dollars based on having the exact number of posts on S-B, you'd say no?

You are in the minority my friend.


The point I was making is that you claimed a big chunk of the 5.5 he reported as income was Nobel prize money, I was pointing out it wasn't included, so technically, the Obama's donated 300+K + the 1million + of the Nobel money.

In full disclosure, I gave well less as a % than both the Pres and VP.
If you donated more than 10% of your after tax income, (339,000/(5.5Mil - 1.7Mil = ~9%) then you can stand on your soap box on this issue. I would wager that for everyone who has 5.5mil of 'easy' money and donated 10% after taxes to charity, there are at least 2 that don't. Did you give more than that? I didn't. Did you give more than 1.8% after taxes to charity? I didn't. I put what little extra money we had into my mortgage, college fund for jr. and construction on my second floor.

I guess I'm a hypocrite too then.

you completely miss the point ...if you pontificate constantly about "sacrafice" and "having skin in the game" and "paying taxes being patriotic" and deamonize others, earners...the evil rich, capitalism... for all sorts of reasons that really boil down to ideaology....then yes...you are a fing hypocrit if your tax return shows a paultry effort vs. a large and largely unearned income...when you are the "leader of the free world" ...you are hardly leading by example ....if you recall, during the primaries, Biden and Obama's previous returns showed the same for previous years....despite having the biggest mouth in Washington...Biden has the tightest wallet...and OBama barely gave squat till he hit it big with his book deals and then he gave the most to the Church of Hate that he attended.....funny that when you simply point out facts about this regime..you are considered blinded by hate....I don't hate..... I can't stand arrogance and hypocricy from these guys with so much power

hey Rock...you equated liberalism with giving recently...pretend O didn't with the Nobel..it's not hard to do...would 1.44% and 5.8% in "giving" from the super lib vice pres and pres be acceptable?

wait..maybe they are improving???

Delaware Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for vice president, and his wife reported giving a fraction of 1 percent of their income to charity during the past decade, below the national average, tax records show.
Over the past decade they reported giving an average of $369 to charity.

The Bidens' giving represents a smaller portion of their income than the $353 then-Vice President Al Gore was criticized for donating on an income of $197,729 in 1997.

The Bidens' deductions for charity ranged from a low of $120 in 1999 to $995 last year. Most were in the range of $260-$380 per year, their tax returns show.


The Obamas gave less than 1 percent of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 to 2004 to charities, their returns showed. They increased their giving to more than 5 percent when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a best-selling book.

Bill Clinton, the former president, earned $109 million from 2000 through 2007. They donated about $10.3 million of that to their own charitable foundation.

McCain released his own tax returns on April 18, which showed he reported $405,409 of income and gave $105,467 to charity, about 26 percent.

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:: rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

Scott - try using some current data - your "material" is from September 2008 and maybe also include the complete text and gives us your source:

McCain released his own tax returns on April 18, which showed he reported $405,409 of income and gave $105,467 to charity, about 26 percent. His wife, Cindy, who files separately, released a summary of her own returns on May 23, which showed she earned $6 million and paid $1.75 million in tax. She didn't release the schedule of her tax returns that discloses her charitable contributions.

is there a point?

c'mon now....Biden was out yesterday railing against the greedy...Obama is fighting with and impuning ...well...everyone..and seems more angry and nasty with every speech..and you want to talk about Cindy McCain "business woman and phoilanthropist" according to Wikipedia....first show me where she's ever lectured others regarding what they ought be doing with their lives and money as the Obama's and Biden do on a regular basis :uhuh:

Is Bryan right?..."the majority" will happily take credit for being quite charitable with money that fell into their lap and possibly more rightly belongs with someone else... and feel quite good about it...particularly if they keep a little for themselves to buy a boat (one of those "luxuries" that Spence told Jimmy ought to be highly taxed along with trucks...and what about Global Warming", is this a solar powered boat???) sooo...extremely charitable with found money but with earned money...ahhh....not so much....but anxious to tell you that you need to be doing more

Shouldn't the super libs be leading by example? or do they get credit for doing just enough...in Obama's case 5.8% is close enough to the 6% average for charitable giving despite all of the rhetoric? in Biden's case :wall:

these are the Progressives........your money is theirs and their money is theirs...first they deamonize you and impune you...then they take your money claiming to make your life better...they will tell you how to live and what is good for you but don't expect them to apply the same to their own lives...they are exempt from their pontifications and live very high at the public trough....and their defenders are working overtime:uhuh:

Scott, you win.
I don;t have time to go look up every politician's charitable givings and see how it relates to their stance on policy. I don't have the time so I'll throw up the white flag.

have fun

Bry...as I stated before...you don't need to...just the ones that are in your face constantly telling you what you ought to do...and the ones that impune and besmirch...ohhh...say...the "tea baggers" for instance because they oppose large oppressive government and higher taxation....the hypocricy is on a neon sign telling you "Warning...Danger Will Robinson"...with little arms flailing around....sorry...a little Lost in Space reference:uhuh:


is anyone looking into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Greedy Greedy Wall Street


top contributions to OBAMA

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

Despite the President’s rhetoric, his support for the Democrats’ bailout bills gives big Wall Street banks a permanent, taxpayer-funded safety net by designating them “too big to fail.” Just whose side is President Obama on? Here are the facts:

WALL STREET GIVES GENEROUSLY TO THEN-CANDIDATE OBAMA:

• Goldman Sachs, recently charged with defrauding investors, was President Obama’s top Wall Street contributor during the 2008 election cycle, donating nearly $1 million to his campaign.
• Securities & investment firms in general were the fifth largest contributor to President Obama’s 2008 campaign, donating nearly $15 million.
• Big banks also donated more than $3 million to Obama during the 2008 election cycle.

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S RHETORIC SAYS “GET TOUGH ON WALL STREET”:

“We will hold Wall Street accountable. We will protect and empower consumers in our financial system. That’s what reform is all about. That’s what we’re fighting for.” (Weekly Address, 4/17/10)

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ACTIONS PUSH PERMANENT BAILOUTS FOR HIS WALL STREET FRIENDS:

• The Dodd Gives Wall Street a Pre-Existing $50 Billion Bailout Slush Fund. Sen. Dodd’s financial bailout bill would create a $50 billion ‘orderly resolution fund’ ($150 billion in Rep. Barney Frank’s bill) that could be repeatedly replenished from industry assessment.
• The Dodd Bill Gives Wall Street a Treasury-Backed Credit Line. The FDIC would be authorized to borrow from Treasury up to the amount of cash left in the ‘resolution fund’ plus 90 percent of the value of the assets of any and all too-big-to-fail firms in its control.
• The Dodd Bill Provides a Government-Guaranteed to Wall Street Debt. The FDIC would be authorized to guarantee the debt of any solvent bank, bank holding company, or affiliate in any amount subject only to an aggregate debt limit set by the Treasury Department.
• The Dodd Bill Institutionalizes Unlimited Wall Street Bailouts. The FDIC, as the resolution agency for too-big-to-fail firms, would be given wide latitude to use resources to make payments to anyone in any amounts, at their own discretion.
• The Dodd Bill Gives Wall Street Bridge Bank Authority. The FDIC would be authorized to create a bridge institution as part of resolving a covered institution and vest the FDIC with broad authority to use the orderly resolution fund in connection with the bridge institution.

The Obama Administration is brought to you by Goldman Sachs.

Jide Zeitlin, Adam Storch, Mark Patterson, Tim the Tax Cheat Geithner, Neel Kashkari and Gary Gensler. Storch is of particular interest. He took a job Team Obama created for him as COO of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division. Obama’s SEC is the group now going after Goldman Sachs.

You don't have to when there are 1000 "unbiased, non-partisan":smash: websites to do it for you that you can selectively copy/paste from without providing any link back to the information.

no...you only need to investigate all of the other politicians if the only way to make the "ONE" look better and the "VICE ONE" look not so pathetic is to try to draw some kind of equivalent..can't they be judged individually on the content of their character and what they actually do versus their rhetoric? think I've heard that somewhere before....nope...this is the JD.."they all do it" so it's no big deal easy out, excuse......typical...but Bry is a scientist so he should just "wager" on the numbers as he did regarding the giving of other high earners...that's very scientific.. 2 for every 1 ...I think it was...

of course JD...your info is the only "credible info"...everything else is biased and partisan...he heh....

I haven't really provided any info... but when I do, you can bet that there's a link with it - especially when I copy/paste.

and that matters because?...you dismiss my c/p as quickly as you dismiss my opinion if it challenges your world view, this is just your intellectually weak method to change the subject :uhuh:....from now on just assume that everything I write and think is because Fox News told me and you will be quite satisfied and you won't have to keep repeating yourself....although...full disclosure...I've never watched Fox News in my life...we've never seen the need to have anything more than basic cable so I don't get the Fox News Channel and all of the programming that you abhor....of course, that means that I'm denying myself the enlightment from brainiacs like Maher, Matthews and the other cable channels....etc....

if you think about it..Obama's entire life and presidency is a cut and paste and he doesn't have to back anything up, he just keeps attacking anyone that does not play by his rules :uhuh:

did you write your letter yet?...you know...to "thank him"...he's waiting...

Nope. I dismiss your copy/paste and your opinion because you selectively leave information out, don't provide a link and then go "see, I told you". Like this gem where you decided to conveniently stop the copy/paste at the point right before there is mention that McCain's wife earned $6 million:
Also, I didn't bother writing a letter. I just sent an email.

incorrect, the source.......which I sourced(as you said there are thousands of sources)... only mentiond that Mrs. McCain's tax info had not been released...so... am I wrong for not posting info that was not there.... or am I wrong for you accusing me of not posting information that was not there?
and tell me why it matters? I posted what was written regarding McCain because it was a funny juxtaposition from Dear Leader and his Sidekick....you are stuck on it because it is a convenient diversion from the real issue...but that's why I love you...you ignore all of the salient points and find the insignificant point that allows you to say "gotcha"....have I ever said.."see I told you"?

Like your Tea Party report JD:rotf2:

What info about my observations of the Tea Party did I selectively leave out?

The truth

:jester: Such as? Being so outspoken about the government's waste, I'm sure you must have been there. So what "truths" did I leave out?

Let's just say you have a track record of distorting the facts as far as the Tea Party goes so as to belittle the movement. Why don't you explain your disdain for them.

No I wasn't at the rally. I was busy. There are other ways to voice ones opinion JD.
It's understood the whole thread was started by you as a means of discrediting not only the Tea Party, but also to challange those like myself. I guess it also could make you feel bigger.:rotf2:
Once again, why did you start this thread?

I don't know Buck, I just read it again and it sounds exactly like a mainstream media journalist's assessment(although, the last go round, a few of them actually seemed to wonder why these peaceful protesters were being so maligned) .... so he might have another career brewing...he walked around...probably sneering at everyone...didn't talk to anyone.....tried to count how many minorities were in attendance, confirmed all of his preconcieved biases in about 30 seconds and left to report his very scientific findings....:rotf2: Fox News, Hannity, Beck, Palin, Mexicans, clueless ingoramuses......fair and balanced reporting from JDNBC :rotf2:

When have I "distorted the facts"? It's fun to make accusations, but I'm curious as to any support for them.

I started the thread for two reasons: 1) A lot of people here continually boast about how big of a deal the tea parties are. That people should support them. Yet, none of those people went. 2) Because the people that I witnessed at the tea party are, for the most part, exactly as depicted by its critics. Old, white, conservative men.

Maybe you forgot this comment I made earlier:
The people Karl Rove talks about were there in full force and that's where my major criticisms originate - that and a large number of people wearing Palin 2012 shirts.