Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Let's talk tax returns! (Repost)

We’ve heard rants for months about the Clinton’s tax returns, even while Obama had not released his.  Okay, Obama finally released his, less his 2007 returns, to minimal fanfare March 25th and now Clinton has release hers, including 2007 estimates.  So, where are we at?

  1. The Obamas needs to release his 2007 estimates or returns.
  2. The Clintons have made a lot of money over the past several years.
  3. The Obamas have cashed in upon arriving in the U.S. Senate.
  4. The Clintons have a sustained record of high charitable giving.
  5. The Obamas have a paltry record for charitable giving.

I’m sure folks will want to read every single line of each tax return for something controversial—maybe the Clinton’s foreign investments, maybe Obama’s not-so-blind trusts, maybe Michelle’s ties to Treehouse Foods, who’s primary customer is Wal-Mart, maybe her nearly 300% raise from her employer once Obama won his senate seat, maybe the money Obama’s give to Trinity or lack of on other years, maybe Clinton’s donations to his presidential library… 

For me, I figure that at least for the Clinton’s they have around 30 years of tax returns in the public domain and likely have some of the best accountants and attorneys preparing and scrutinizing them on their behalf.  I seriously doubt there is an error or controversy in them.  Obama’s history, by comparison, is very, very short.  I have no reason to suspect his returns and I am sure his latest ones are as equally well prepared as are the Clinton’s returns.  In the end, the returns of both candidates is a non-issue, just as with McCain’s.

The returns do allow some reflection.  First, both candidates make more money than me.  I need to work harder and smarter.  Importantly, I need to finish my books that I’ve been writing for several years.  Second, regarding charitable contributions, I can stand proud that we give more percentage wise that Obama and on a few years, even the Clintons.  In absolute dollars, I’m actually surprised that except for the last two years, even with lower income, we have given far more to charity in actual dollars than have the Obamas.  Yes, the only real walk away from reviewing the tax returns is that Obama apparently doesn’t walk the talk.  Until joining the senate, he’s never given back to the community.

So, where are Obama’s 2007 returns or data?

Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com


Comments (19)

You've left out the important point: Bill Clinton has ties to controversial business sources, an issue made more relevant by his refusal to disclose donors to his library. Voters understand that Clinton history of "special favors." This is not going away. It may not be earth-shattering, but it still is news.

Hillary says "NO DUBAI PORTS DEAL!!!"
Bill says "GIMME GIMME GIMME THAT DUBAI MONEY!!!"

What America hears: 100% Hypocrisy.

avatar

Was there a significant point you were trying to make?
Other than that two people with children and tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, weren't as charitable as another couple with an adult child and tens of millions of debt free money?
(BTW, their favorite charity; a Clinton "Family" Foundation that mainly became charitable after she started running.)

Also in the same post you say, "the returns are a non-issue," yet you close with "where are Obama's 2007 returns or data?" Pick your point.

And the fact that you give Sen. McCain a pass tells me everything I need to know about you and your most likely extremely myopic and malicious website.

Neither of the remaining candidates are perfect. Yet wouldn't we be better served if we highlighted the courage and sacrifice of Sen. McCain, the tenacity and service of Sen. Clinton, or the optimism and inspiration of Sen. Obama.

You are obviously bent on the politics of destruction instead of the policies needed for a better America.

Good luck to you.

Good Grief!

Has it occured to you that the donors wish to remain anonymous?

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The fact is the Clintons have the most scrutinized tax returns in the history of America. They aren't under any legal obligation to release them, yet they did. Their "business relationships" have also been gone over by a determined partisan funded with six million taxpayer dollars and it went NOWHERE. Pity you all didn't insist on this level of scrutiny with Bush and Cheney.

I understand that Obama fans are disappointed this club they've been wielding has become a toothpick, but really.

Less hysteria, please. You're all beginning to sound like Freepers.

Rather than blame Obama supporters, perhaps you should listen to news analysts on this issue. And suggesting that Obama supporters aren't worried about Bush and Cheney is downright silly.

I said "weren't."

It is a pity. Where were all you CPA's and armchair critics in 2004?

I love that the Hillary trolls are out in full force this morning, touting Hillary's charitable contributions. I'm going to say this slowly in the hopes you'll be able to comprehend it: The. Contributions. Were. Made. To. The. Clintons'. Own. Charity.

And of that $10 million given by the Clintons, only $5 million has been given away. Where is the other $5 million? And has anyone ever done a specific analysis of what the Clinton Foundation actually accomplishes, charity-wise?

There's a reason the Clintons did this on a Friday, a week ahead of their own self-imposed deadline: It's called taking out the trash. Release something heading into the weekend and hope it gets buried.

http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html

Notice it gets an A rating. People that are actually familiar with charitablle giving likely know all about AIP. Why don't you?

With so many actual substantial things to go after the Clintons on, what do you people do?

Go after their charitable contributions and SCHIP.

I'm no Hillary fan, but really, your focus makes me want to gag.

I'm convinced the so-called Obama supporters on TPM are really GOPUSA trolls.

Either that, or you can't really go after Clinton on too many issues as she's actually to the left of Obama on many of them.

Then you end up looking silly and shallow, just like you have over these tax returns.


No liberal is so petty.

You're no Hillary fan? That's one of the biggest loads of bullshit I've ever read on here.

The rest of your statement isn't even worthy of a reply, troll.

Evidentally, you can't reply, since WorkerBee refuted everything you wrote.

Workerbee, you've got to be kidding here:

I'm no Hillary fan...

Well Jan, here is a pro-Obama post you, yourself thanked me for:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/rebuke-steve-king.php#comment-2641945

The only thing that is obvious to me is that I haven't changed much.. I appreciate the Clintons, but would have rather Hillary didn't run. I'm not enthused with Obama, as he's to the right of Hillary on everything but transparancy issues, which is something I do like about him.

What has changed is the utter venom that is thrown the Clintons way. I find it self-destructive and idiotic. I think it hurts the chances of getting the GOP out and have said so. I I say so again.

I understand you don't agree, and respect you as we tend to agree on everything else, but don't dis me as a Clinton troll. You should know better than that.

avatar

By saying you're not a Hillary fan doesn't make it so Workerbee. If one were to go back and read every post by Workerbee they will see an obvious Obama bias.

Which is fine. It's just that I've yet to see you say anything remotely critical about the Clintons. Overwhelming you bash Obama and Obama supporters. So outside of a parrot for FOX Noise, what does that make you?

I'm a Republican for Obama. Pretty darn proud of it.

You, my friend, are disingenuous.

And you, sir, are ignorant. I won't hold it against you, though. I would just hope you take the rose-colored glasses off. The Republican Party is a party of ultra-right zealots. I wouldn'ytbe proud to associate with such as that, but then, I've always leaned Green.

Plenty of Clinton bashing trolls here from GOPUSA. Perhaps you'd know more about that then I would.

avatar

here's a hint as to what is of significance here:

A. "speeches don't put food on the table"

B. 100k, 200k, even 400k speeches - that's 5 to 15 times what poor people make in a year, obtained in an hour, and for what? there's certainly no possible economic justification for such a fee. I ask again, for what? my answers:

1. for transferring the prestige of the US Presidency to whoever has the money to buy it

2. for direct lobbying to one of the most influential US senators (if you don't believe she's influential, check her earmarks)

I would agree that "pay to play" is a major part of our problem.

I would also suggest they're all guilty of it, so be careful that that tar brush you're wielding doesn't stick to your candidate.

avatar

In the future, I would be disappointed if some 10 years from now, then former president Obama (assumed to have assured his family with an excellent living standard through some expected book deal and a presidential pension) would start amassing hundreds of thousand of dollars from meaningless speech tours.

But right now, I don't know what you are talking about. Can you please either give an example, or retract your words?

Why did Michelle Obama's salary from the University of Chicago Hospital increase over 250% the year after Barak was elected to the Senate?

I like Obama but looks to me like he's working from the same playbook.

And how did she get that directorship at WalMart supplier Treeehouse Foods?

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address