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.

better than Che Guevara tee shirts..he was a mass murderer

ummm...that's only a portion of his statements, is it out of context?... and you didn't source it properly...practice what you preach:uhuh:

About the tea party movement...

Let me ask a question.

In Rhode Island, the number of participants at the Tax day Rally last yearand this years rally was estimated to roughly be the same. I'm not sure about Boston.

Does that have any significance (i.e. because there were not significantly more people there after a year as a 'movement')?

Not a dig at the tea party. Just curious what you guys think.

I think the movement is losing steam. People are feeling like they don't matter. They are being misrepresented and the media has portrayed them poorly. Bashing the Tea Party movement is the new "cool thing" to do if your on the left. Bush bashing is so 2009.

I think come election time, the true feelings of the American people will come out. People who support the Tea Party vote.

well, when the president spends his time impuning you and prodding you for reactions, and the former president is trying to link you to domestic terrorism and the media is misrepresenting you by highlighting whatever fringe element they can drum up, I suppose you become a bit wary as a loosely affiliated "member" of such a "movement"..bottom line, these are not pot smoking hippies that don't have jobs or need showers and can just hang around for days ...and they aren't Union rent-a-mobs that show up on a moments notice...they're average Americans, most who have never done this stuff before and would prefer to be working and taking care of their families but see very clearly where the country is headed and decided this is an outlet for their voices...it's a strange obsession with Palin, Tea Parties and the like for some...can't stomp them into the dirt enough...do you feel threatened ??? they can't affect your life, they aren't on your lawn with their crazy signs and hats...Obama is taking care of everything now, you have nothing to fear....just chant "hope and change" and leave poor Sarah and the Tea Baggers alone will ya? JD...I'm talking to YOU !

Why would there be more people at the Tax Day Rally? A majority of Tea Party participants believe the taxes that they pay is fair.


They aren't being misrepresented... they're portraying themselves poorly.

sarah palin will sink the effort

I love it, blame the media :jester:

I thought Republicans were the party of self responsibility?

-spence

That's like me saying everyone on StriperTalk are arrogant, know it all, Obama lovers because of a select few:biglaugh:

How does being "self responsible" stop someone else from portraying you poorly?

Who proved they did?

-spence