Yes, we can.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

I'm still not voting for Hillary if she wins.

Will you vote for Hillary if she loses?

[Alex]

That should counterbalance all of the Republicans who said, when that nominee was still up in the air, that they'd never ever in a million years -- better Clinton or Marx himself -- vote for McCain.

I don't view the current polls as any more meaningful in that regard than I did the McCain ones.

[scaeagles]

True. I will vote for McCain (though holding my nose as I do it), and it will also be the case that Hillary and Obama supporters will vote for the other in the general.

[Morrigoon]

If Hillary wins, it'll be a toss up between voting for McCain or the Libertarian candidate. I don't particularly hate McCain, but I feel like electing him will be mistaken as a vote of support for the repubs in congress to continue with the status quo. If we weren't just coming off a Bush presidency I might even have voted for the guy. I'll probably throw my vote away on my own (L) candidate and hunker down for 4-8 years of Hillary's nattering voice.

That is... IF she can get elected over McCain. Her electability is more and more in doubt every day.

[scaeagles]

I find this amazing, really.

Obama's charitable donations

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 1 percent

Even with increases in their giving in the next couple of years, they still only got up to about 5% charitable giving on over 2.6 million in income.

I don't begrudge them their wealth in the least. I'd love to make that much. But less than 1% on 1.2 million dollars in income? That's lame. Sorry, but for a couple to make that much and give so little is lame.

[Scrooge McSam]

You're easily amazed, obviously.

From the Bloomberg article source cited on Huffpo...

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman, said the Obamas gave as much as they could afford. He also said the Obamas gave $240,000 to charity in 2007, though they have yet to make last year's tax returns public.

``As new parents who were paying off their large student loans, giving $10,000 to charity was as generous as they could be at the time,'' Burton said. The tax returns don't reflect any donations for which they didn't or couldn't claim a deduction or any volunteer work they might have performed.

The Obamas' giving pattern is consistent with that of most other Americans, said University of Georgia Professor Russell James, who has studied the issue.

His analysis of more than 56,000 survey respondents from 1995-2005 found that 90 percent of donors give 2 percent or less of their pre-tax income to charities, including their churches. Americans who earn more than $150,000 on average gave about 2.2 percent of their income.

``It's not shocking,'' James said of the Obamas' philanthropy. ``It's about par for the course for Americans.''

Originally Posted by scaeagles

That's lame. Sorry, but for a couple to make that much and give so little is lame.

Hehehe What's amazing is you're saying you're "sorry" to say this. Good stuff, Leo.

You've done your hit piece for the day. Have a good one.

[Strangler Lewis]

And the recent trends more closely reflect true giving since, with their income, their ability to deduct that would be severely if not completely phased out.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

You've done your hit piece for the day. Have a good one.

And you've done your lame justification for the day.

At least they weren't giving lots of money to their church to promote the hate filled racist preaching of Reverend Wright.

Anything can be justified. I suppose it's only a hit piece if you don't like what's being presented. The facts are the facts, and I find it lame that someone making over 1.2 million over the course of four years could only find 10,000 to give to charity, and I make no apologies for that. I find it lame that someone making 2.6 million in a span of two years could only find 5% to give to charity. Most Americans may only give 2.2 percent. Most Americans don't make 300K/year, or 1.3 million/year.

With that comparison of giving, I propose anyone making over 1 million per year be allowed to pay the same percentage in taxes that the average income maker pays.

Lame.

[innerSpaceman]

That's fine. Do you think it's lame for the rest of Americans?Perhaps you do.

THEN SAY SO.


Don't single out one person, however high profile, if you have the same opinion of the other millions who don't get their tax returns made public.



Or do you think it's lame because they are so high profile? Or do you think it's lame only of the wealthy? ALL the wealthy? Or just your political opponents?

[BarTopDancer]

How much did McCain give? How much did the Hillary give? And for kicks, how much did Bush give?

And let's be sure none of that money was to "questionable" people or organizations.