For Obamas, it was a very good year

For their income, their charitable donations were pretty darn skimpy. And while I only made about $60,000 last year, I gave about $2,000 to my church, only $3,000 less than they gave theirs, though they made in excess of $1.6 MILLION more than I did. My overall charitable donations exceeded $4,000. Very skimpy on the good works there, senator.

And the rich just keep getting richer. It's easy to get those company director salaries when some company is essentially appointing the Ohama name to the board. Tell us something we didn't already know. Yawn.

Mr. Obama is being heavily touted as a presidential candidate. He will need a lot of money. It is no surprise that just as these rumors begin to circulate, his income skyrockets. This is why I firmly belive that once you establish yourself in politics, you have to become a greedy, self-centered jerk who has no concern whatsoever for the people they are supposed to serve. So, church may be important, but not as important as collecting the funds needed to be corrupt.

$66,000 in total charity for 1 family is skimpy? Who are you to judge what portion of this families income should go to charity? Do you give as part of some competition or something? Doesn't what you are saying defeat the whole concept of charity? The Obama's have a home and two children to provide for. Are you the decider of how many meals they should eat? He also paid for them to take a very educational and important trip to Africa w/ him. Would you rather he charged that to Illinois tax payers. He also pays for his family to visit Washington when he is in session. Get off of your high horse.

John D. you have hit a new low.

John D $2,000 to your church ah ha you are a good person. shhh I won't tell nobody. Mine was about the same to veterans homeless shelters

As a Lutheran who has seen through history how use of "good works" as an enticement has been abused by both government and religious authorities I say however much Obama gives to charity is his own business.

What galls me more than the percentages that rich people supposedly "have to give" to charity because of societal demands, is the people in Hollywood who constantly taunt their own charitable giving.

If you show up on a red carpet to get your picture taken then the gift really isn't that charitable, now is it?

At least Obama had the decency to not send out a press release saying how great he was for giving to charity. Everyone knows that real charity is anonymous. Otherwise it's just self-aggrandisement.

John D,

You're toast. Break out the butter.

Ah the Left continues in its hilarity. Earlier this year when Dick Cheney's tax records were released and it was reported he gave millions (all the money his blind trust gets from Halliburton) the Left hated that charitable giving. Then the Left constantly cries that the rich Republicans don't do enough to help the downtrodden. Now, the Obama family's income rises so much that in one year they made more than they did in the previous seven years combined, charitable giving is a pittance, and we're told that managing two homes and feeding the family takes up all that extra money.

You folks are rich, really rich in your double standards, hysteria, ridiculousness and comic value.

Frankly, I could care less how much the Obama's gave to charity. It's the hypocrisy of the Left that I care about. When Republicans are rich, giving millions to charity is a joke or not enough. When Democrats are rich, what they give is no one's business and no matter how little they give, we'll that's OK.

Hey Jethro, how much do you donate? If a person making $1.7 million /year barely gives more than a middle income person, there is something wrong with that picture.
Obama cannot become president until he shifts his priorities from public servant to greedy, corrupt professional politician, FACT.

RKS,
I don't care how much or what percentage anyone gives to charities. It's a personal decision. I donate what I can and I don't ask for any of it back when I file my taxes. That's my personal decision.

RKS,

How is $75,000.00 barely more than a middle income person would give?

OK Jethro, I respect what you say about your donations. That comment was not necessary, and I apologize. I also donate what I can, and I do declare it as we are raising 3 kids, 1 close to college. But, with an income like there's one would just think they might do more.

How is $75,000.00 barely more than a middle income person would give?

Well Neil, this represents barely 4% of their total income. Catholics are urged to "Tithe" 10%. $75,000 would be a lot to many. However, using the 4% marker, this would be the equivalent of me donating maybe $1200 per year. It is not the amount! It is the amount in comparison to the income. Besides, if he wants to run for president, it is time for him to begin hypocritical donations, as he will not survive in politics without giving donations for his good, not the recipients.

Will anyone at the Tribune investigate how Mrs. Obama's salary magically tripled immediately after her husband got elected to the senate? The well-paying corporate directorships she suddenly received? Or investigate Obama's sweetheart book deal? Or ...

Of course they won't. This is the Tribune. "Thou shalt not speak ill of St. Barack" is their motto.

If the Tribune would devote 1/10th of the effort they spent investigating Obama's opponents Blair Hull and Jack Ryan, devote that to looking into Obama's African junket and this latest revelation... but they won't.

I can't believe you're going to nickel and dime the guy for not meeting an abritrary threshold. $75,000.00 is a lot of money to give to charity, period. Obama's not a poor man, but he's not Warren Buffet or Bill Gates either, and he donated something of a substancial portion of his income to chairty. That posters on this board are content to bash him based on the fact that he didn't donate enough money to charity is really shameless.

Bruce,
The University of Chicago is a private institution you stooge. Not for profit. What would be their motive for giving her a pay increase?

Bruce,
They don't have to investigate it. The Obama's are not trying to hide these facts at all. The article states why and how the promotion was given to Mrs. Obama as well as her qualifications for it. Beyond that, your issue is with her employer (a private institution that can do what it wishes with its money), not her. The problem seems to be jealousy and the only thing I can tell is that it is racially motivated. The fact that the article states the Obama's made more this year than in the previous 7 combined tells a lot. Maybe they used their money for debt relief? Maybe they socked a chunk away so they can afford to send their girls to college in the future? The bottom line is that's their choice to make.

To John D:

Regarding those millions that Cheney gave to charity, they came from stock options given to him from Halliburton. After he excised them, for a huge profit, he paid taxes from on the proceeds and donated the rest to 3 charities.

THOSE OPTIONS COST HIM NOTHING! And he got to use all of those millions as a charitable contribution on his 1040 form, thus allowing him to eliminate taxes on his other forms of income. HE MADE OUT LIKE A BANDIT!

It's easy to look like Robin Hood when you're doing it with other people's money and not one cent of your own.

Like I said in my earlier post I have no doubt that tons of charitable and for-profit organizations were just itching to send out a press release that said they'd added the "Obama" name to their board of directors after he got elected. Since company directors do little more than vote two or three times a year at annual meetings this means that $33,000 a year is a pittance for them to pay for some good PR.

Mrs. Obama was added to more than one BoD this year so that accounts for some of her uptick in income. And it's all, sadly, perfectly legal and on the up and up. Now, what can Mrs. Obama, a non-profit healthcare executive who collects a six-figure salary of her own, DO as a director of these companies?

Why vote for a pay raise for the CEOs that pushed to hire her of course! Those CEOs, also corporate execs, no doubt sit on other BoDs, themselves and if their salary goes up and the average executive salary goes up, then guess what? So does Mrs. Obama's! She can go back to the board and say other executives are making more than she is and that her compensation needs to be increased.

This is the dirty little secret of how executive salaries have increased so disproportionately with inflation during the last 20 years and when you inject politics into the equation it only makes brings more dirty money and boardroom deals to the table. If you think it's not happening in the non-profits than you're kidding yourself.

Once you're in the club you and your little friends can vote each other pay raises and sip champagne until retirement. That's the investigation the Tribune should do. And it's equally abused by republicans and democrats. The Tribune could also investigate how many of these politicians wives and husbands magically get named to these corporate boards in the years following their spouse's elections.

Bill...are you saying that this has happened to just Obama? or is this true with "every" politician?

Bill R. I mean ALL politicians wives and husbands. From the looks of this Obama's wife is a small, small fish in this pond.

That's why I put this in my original post:

"And it's equally abused by republicans and democrats. The Tribune could also investigate how many of these politicians wives and husbands magically get named to these corporate boards in the years following their spouse's elections."

In today's Tribune Mr. Dorning tries to whitewash the suspicious pay raises by quoting Michael Riordan, who was president of U of C Hospitals at the time, as saying how Mrs. Obama is the next bes thing to sliced bread.

I did 2 minutes research and discovered what Mr. Dorning didn't--or didn't want to. Michael Riordan, who tripled Mrs. Obama's salary, is a longtime Democrat Party moneybags and multi-bucks contributor to St. Barack. He contributed $1,000 to Obama on 3-31-2003, another $1,000 on 12-1-03, $2,000 on 3-5-2004 and $1,000 on 6-30-04. He's also contributed at least $1,250 to the Democrat Party of Illinois.

This information can be found at
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=riordan&txtState=IL&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&Order=N

Isn't it funny how Tribune political reporters miss these facts, facts which suggest that the raise was a disguised (and illegal) campaign contribution by one of Obama's biggest moneymen?

Hey all,

Check out Mary Schmich's riff on the senator:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0609270308sep27,1,6617817.column?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed

Very interesting news item today. Mike Madigan, the king of the democratic party in Illinois himself, said he was withholding any support for Dem treasurer candidate Giannolous until he comes clean on his family bank and its ties to the mob, gangsters, drug dealers, etc.

Hmmmm, I seem to recall the great Barack Obama filming commercials for Gianolous praising him as the finest man he ever met.

Barack + political hack = corruption.

Bruce, you were just plain mean by bringing facts into your discussion. And proof to support your contentin? That's really being mean. You just "swift-boated" St. Barack.

Now, regarding the Tribune reporters? NONE of them would know objectivity, fairness, news if it landed on top of them, slapped them in the face and screamed at them. Practically all Trib reporters, and especially the hacks that work in DC, are nothing more than corrupt liars.

BC, it is obvious you have never paid taxes. Whether money was easily earned or took great effort makes no difference. When you give it away, it is no longer yours. Your other comment about Cheney avoiding taxes on the non-charitable parts of his income by giving away large amounts is so stupid only a Democrat could believe it.

John D. and Bruce have you used "facts" to expose this story for what it is. Imagine a non-profit organization that is free to spend its money how it wishes and giving a very talented and qualifed woman a pay raise.

P.S. I'm sure the Bush twins earned their salaries on merits alone, right guys?

BC, it is obvious you have never paid taxes. Whether money was easily earned or took great effort makes no difference. When you give it away, it is no longer yours. Your other comment about Cheney avoiding taxes on the non-charitable parts of his income by giving away large amounts is so stupid only a Democrat could believe it.
Posted by: Joel | Sep 27, 2006 12:19:36 PM

Joel:

I have been paying taxes on my income since I started my first job at 16 years of age, and have been paying them ever since.

The rest of your post is just clueless drivel.

Are you denying the reality that Cheney wrote off over $6 million in charitable contributions, thus allowing him to greatly reduce taxes on his income?

If "how money is earned" is not important, than why is the Bush administration pushing to reduce taxes ONLY on unearned income, i.e., income received through dividends and stock and option gains? Why isn't he pushing to reduce taxes FOR ALL TYPES of income?

Duh. So what should he do, not take a deduction for charitable deductions? Is this what you do? When you give away most of your income, your taxes go down. Talk about drivel.

How can Obama claim to know the black struggle he is a rich man and his wifes raise to almost 3 times the amount prior to him being elected should be looked into they claim to know black america they know nothing about black america other than they are black by color try living in a project or a poor neibhorhood for a year before you speak (OBAMA)