You don't see any hypocrisy in simultaneously stating that the wealthy (which by your own definition includes yourself) have an obligation to redistribute a portion of their wealth to the poor, and then utterly failing to do so yourself?

10% of his income, a modest $25,000 a year, would have been enough to make significant change in the lives of a many people. He could have, personally, by himself, bought health insurance for 5 families - not the cheap stuff either, the really good coverage. He could afford it - why didn't he do it?

I think there are only three explanations. I'm open to other possible explanations, if someone would like to suggest one:

1. Obama is interested in poverty as a issue, not actual poverty experienced by actual people.

2. Obama isn't interested in direct, personal solutions to poverty, the kind that involve people being compassionate, he is only interested in solutions that require increasing the power and presence of the federal government.

3. Obama didn't think of himself as "rich", and therefore it shouldn't be his responsibility to shoulder the burden of helping others. Being compassionate and giving, being charitable toward those who are in need, that is the noblesse oblige, but certainly not something the rest of us should feel constrained by.

I deeply distrust any person who claims poverty as an issue, and fails to do anything personally to alleviate its effects.

Maybe I missed it above, but is the issue that he did not use his money to help someone less fortunate, or that he didn't take a charitable tax donation? When people I know are having money troubles I give them money, but it doesn't show up on any official records.

Exactly, it only becomes a tax deduction when there's a registered middleman taking a cut.

Shawnee, I think you should know that classic has defended your position in the past when others here have been giving you shit.

It's up to you how to behave, but I think you're being a bit harsh. Honestly.

Oooh.. *shiver*... I've always loved that phrase.



I am being totally serious, by the way. Put it this way: I was easy in college, but only for guys who could talk like that to me. I also like "antediluvian."

Then they would show up as gifts, and the recipients would pay a gift tax on them. If that's the case, the campaign would be quick to point it out, "Hey, he may have only taken a 1% tax deduction, but he gave away $25,000 in gifts to people who needed it".

This seems very unlikely.

Get real, if I give you money you're going to pay tax on it? Bullshit. :eyebrow:

So we're at least agreed that the only honorable solution to his seeming hypocrisy is to assume that all of his charitable activity was off the record?

Not at all. We don't know what he did with his money. He didn't say, any anything we say is speculation.

Nope. Anything we say is based on publicly released tax records.

One possible, if unlikely, explanation is that he gives time more often than money. A lot of charitable organizations need hands as much as wallets. I'm ready to acknowlege that Obama is a polititcian, but is the Republican cabal ready to designate McCain as such? We will get screwed this election cycle but furthering the GOP agenda of socialism for the rich doesn't seem to be the way to go.

Yeah, I won't disagree with you about the harshness. However, things that have transpired...I'll just say I was reacting to more than the stupid election.

You know me, I feel backed into a corner and evil Shawnee rears her ugly head.

Anyway, I do apologize for being an ass. I have my moments.

No more politics for me, perhaps.

By law, that is what you are suppose to do but I don't think you actually have to claim it on amounts under 10k.

I am amazed that given the number of Americans who pay no income tax at all, there is any concern in America about social security, funding for schools, drug programmes, health programmes etc. At least when the Daily Mail spits about a waste of taxpayers' money in this country, you know that everyone is contributing to it.

I'd still rather live in a highly taxed country (in fact I'd be in favour of higher taxes and more support - I'd work Scadanavia if we had a common language). Although I admit, I'd do better in the US as I am now. Lower property prices, no income tax, cheaper eating out, and I have no dependants, no ties and could write off charitable giving and I might get laid because you're used to larger women and my accent would be a novelty?

Actually I started this just as a true post about how I prefer our way of life. But to be competely honest, I would bite the arm off someone who offered me a year in America, just for the experience. I'd love to see it first hand, really immerse myself in the culture, so I could talk knowledgably (albeit it on a small scale basis). It's about the only reason I'd want to be 18 again.

We have quite a few English and Irish Pubs around the US that would love an authentic gal like you to work for them. I think you should look into it a little more. The biggest problem is that you would likely not have benefits (insurance).