Obama Releases His 2000-2006 Tax Returns, Demands Hillary Release Hers
This is pretty funny. Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer blasted out an email at 11:23 insisting that Obama release his tax returns for back years,
Exactly two minutes later, at 11:25, Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor emailed out word that Obama had posted his tax returns for 2000-2006 on his campaign web site. Turns out the Obama camp has been planning this for some time.
You can view them here.
In pure political terms, this will obviously give more political potency to the Obama camp's efforts to make Hillary's failure to release her returns a key issue in the campaign. The Obama camp is now free to beat this drum between now and mid-April, when the Hillary camp has promised to release hers.
Indeed, the Obama campaign is already calling on Hillary to follow suit. “Senator Clinton can’t claim to be vetted until she allows the public the opportunity to see her finances," Obama spokesperson Robert Gibbs says, in a reference to the Hillary camp's frequent claim that Obama has not been thoroughly "vetted" in advance of the general election.
Comments (138)
Here's the pitch... here's the swing
Homerun.
March 25, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Penn at the track... at the wall... that issue IIIIIIIIS... OUTTA HERE!!!
March 25, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Home Run?
What is surprising, given the recent controversy over Obama's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ, is how little the Obamas apparently gave to charity -- well short of the bibllical 10% tithe for all seven years. In two of the years, the Obamas gave far less than 1% of their income to charity; in three of the years, they gave around 1% of their income to charity. Only in the last two years have they given substantially more as their income skyrocketed -- 4.7% in 2005 and 6.1% in 2006.
He could have at least given some of the money the slumlord Rezco gave him.
March 25, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
VERY RELEVANT POINT! And certainly pertinent to my decision as to who will be ready at 3AM on day one. Let's see how much Hillary donated....oh, that's right....hmmmm....I'll just wait....surely since she was able to donate $5 million to her own campaign it should be quite an impressive number...
March 25, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop sidestepping the issue. The Obamas don't have to donate 10% of their income to charity in order to look like upstanding citizens. Hillary, however, does have to release her tax returns if she wants to. Although, I'm afraid, she's gonna have to do some serious disfiguring of those forms in order to hide its certain scandalous nature.
March 27, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is funny, but I think his tax returns have been out there in the public domain since the 90's, as he has been running for elective office off and on since that time. I recall seeing some type of report to that effect.
March 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now let's see that vaunted media bias in action....
March 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now let's see that vaunted media bias in action....
March 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Latest Rasmussen poll, Obama is now within 10 points.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html
March 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, interesting poll. Clinton lost 3% and obama gained 2% after the wright controversy. If he can keep it within 10 on election day, then he will be in good shape.
March 25, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. That is just the sort of movement that I want to see.
March 25, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No matter how good the polls start to look, we should all be wary of any attempts to set expectations.
March 25, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
RCP Average 03/10 - 03/24 - 52.3 36.3 Clinton +16.0
March 25, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not know who will win but in every contest so far he has gained as the day drew near and voters got to see the candidates. Expect that average to trend downward (from Hillary's POV).
March 25, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahahaha. That's freaking funny.
March 25, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Rambo Clinton has no time for these silly paper work distractions. She is busy engaging the enemy and ducking incoming sniper fire.
Hillary Rambo Clinton needs a Commander in Chief of Her Tax Records!!!!
March 25, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary Rambo Clinton needs a Commander in Chief of Her Tax Records!!!!"
Best. Line. Ever.
March 25, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read somewhere that her tax records are being held in an underground bunker guarded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and that she was waiting for Sinbad to get in shape before they could attack and recover them.
The mission will be lead, of course, by Jessica Lynch.
March 25, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
that is awesome.
If it wouldn't date itself INSTANTLY, I would use it as a signature, with your permission, of course.
March 25, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be honored to donate my battle-tested name to a true warrior:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/jjr-on-hrc-tuzla-under-fire.php
March 25, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fantastic line - what, you didn't see the snipers hiding in the bushes? No, no, it must have been the little girl that she kissed that had the sniper rifle... my mistake.
March 27, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Way to go, Obama!
March 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 25, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Voters couldn't care less about tax returns.
What they do care about is patriotism.
Someone should demand that Obama withdraw from his hate-whitey church, stop coddling terrorists (ie Iranian Guard), and uphold democratic principals (ie free and fair elections).
March 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize that a lot of whites go to that "hate whitey church"...oh hell why am I bothering?
March 25, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You trolls get funnier every day.
March 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it about time that Americans matured enough to stop falling for the silly Patriotism gambit:
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw
March 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what should we make of the fact that you said this:
?March 25, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its not about what I think.
American voters are as dumb as dirt. If voters see Obama as unpatriotic they will opt for the tortured war hero, no matter how much you hang George W. Bush around his old, flappy neck.
That's why I'm not surprised today to see that
BHO 41% vs McCain 50%
Clinton 43% vs McCain 48%
BHO favorable 46% (3/13 52%)
BHO unfavorable 52% (3/13 44%)
What was that about a well-praised speech? Come again? That is a dramatic switch. I doubt the media will cover these numbers, but they truly are dramatic.
And I'll beat you to the punch:
HRC favorable 45% (3/13 47%)
HRC unfavorable 52% (3/13 50%)
And what was that about Hillary being too polarizing? Come again?
I was never absolute in my thinking Obama couldn't win the nomination. I think, once you look at the track record of candidates nominated by the Democratic Party, you quickly see we don't know how to pick them.
Only ONE (UNO!) Democrat since FDR (who was elected in 1932) has been reelected as president. Of course, you all know who that is, right. For those that don't: its Big Bill Clinton.
Why anyone could still support Obama is beyond me. Clearly, we have a lemon on our hands. I just pray to God that Clinton sweeps the remaining contests and proves that Obama and the media have been playing the Obama inevitability card non-stop.
She can still do it, no matter what the memos coming out of the Obama camp (and repeated on tv news and blogs) say. I will admit, though, the task seems daunting and the track record of the Democratic Party - from miserable John Kerry to p*ssy Jimmy Carter to snoring Mondale - doesn't inspire confidence.
The Dems may opt for the poison, they've done it before.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
March 25, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course she can do it, and in the process destroy the Democratic party for her own personal gain.
Clinton's negatives haven't moved in years. They're not going to, either. Obama's negative took a big jump, but we'll see what they are in a week. In any event, Clinton will be crushed against McCain, if she's the nominee. Talk about a lemon!
March 25, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes she can?! Yes she can?! Puh-lease. This thing has been over since march 4th. will someone please tell "Hillary Rambo Clinton" that she has-in fact- LOST? Davidson beats Georgetown and Obama beats Clinton. Goliath goes down twice in the same year. Nice.
March 25, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
She could have until this week. There was a posibility that the Obama campaign would implode and she would win the remaining contests by default. That was before her Dukakis video of her being greeted with flowers in bosnea when she had claimed to have been fired upon. It is all down hill from here.
March 25, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, most americans wouldn't care how the private conduct of candidate finances may color a candidate's perspective or handling of national policy matters. That's because (all in a chorus here)we all know that a candidate's private life has no role in these wee-little matters like government, public policy, legislation, and national defense. I can't believe Obama is pandering to the 'transparency' and 'clean government' wing-nuts. I'd rather just keep fishin'... Where's my rebate check?
By the way, I applaud your keen ability to read and distill for all of us the public sentiment of the nation.
March 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And someone should learn to spell.
March 25, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "What they do care about is patriotism."
I think the word you are looking for is jingoism.
March 25, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." -- Oscar Wilde
I never thought of Americans as particularly vicious.
March 25, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things that I learned about America when I came back from Vietnam is that some Americans just don't value the service of our veterans. Veterans like HRC:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/jjr-on-hrc-tuzla-under-fire.php
March 25, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's retort: Obama = Ken Starr.
I am waiting...
March 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, to my mind this is a really big deal. Granted, I suppose that it does not matter what strikes me as a really big deal, because I live in MO, not PA or some upcoming state. Still, I would like to think that I am not so wildly unique that there are no folks in upcoming states who would share my view of what is important. Yesterday I was disgusted by (what I viewed as the) distractions of Clinton's "mis-statement." I am glad to see the focus shift back to the actual substance of the campaign. "Who is getting what from whom" is a very important question to ask about those to whom we entrust positions of very senior leadership, and there is no way not to conclude that Obama has been much more transparent about these issues than has Clinton.
For all her talk of being "vetted," there are many important details which we know about Obama but not about her. All such talk of "vetting" rings rather hollow in my ear so long as this remains the case. Sen Obama rightly should beat the drums on this issue, because it is (unlike so much else in the last few weeks) a matter of real and substantial merit that should matter to voters.
March 25, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Greg,
I think the Clinton camp is playing these calls for their records like a fiddle (and I should know, I play one).
I think they plan to allow the howls for transparency to grow to a fever pitch for weeks, release said return (a neatly manicured one at that, groomed to appear spotless) 3 days before the primary, and then blast PA with "witch hunt" and "Media Bias" rhetoric 24/7 for a few days.
The victim charade is the one tactic that's been a proven winner for them this campaign. Its brought the campaign back to life twice (NH, OH) and I'd lay some pretty steep odds that they're planning to use it again.
March 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. You might be right. I still think that would be good news for Obama supporters. After all, Clinton seems to win among those who decide late anyway. The game for Obama should be to move folks off the fence before then, and hitting this issue is probably as strong a way to do that as any. Tax returns are at least an issue that most everyone can understand (unlike the details of mortgage industry restructuring or suchlike).
March 25, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Expect the Clint-nits to complain he only released his taxes going back to 2000. WHAT'S HE HIDING FROM THE '90s?
Then expect Bill to "spontaneously" make a comment praising McCain and Hillary for not cheating on their taxes.
Then expect someone in the Obama campaign to finally get pissed enough to say the Clintons are lying scumbags and the Clinton campaign to scream that Obama's playing the race card again.
Sheesh, this is getting as predictable as a bad sitcom.
March 25, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wanted to be President since he was in Kindergarten. Where's his grade school transcripts!!!
March 25, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jasyin Hussein - You must be clairvoyant. That's exactly what they did, per Boston Globe.
“Senator Clinton recently claimed that she’s ‘the most transparent figure in public life,’ yet she’s dragging her feet in releasing something as basic as her annual tax returns,” Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said in a statement. “Senator Clinton can’t claim to be vetted until she allows the public the opportunity to see her finances—particularly with respect to any investment in tax shelters.”
The Clinton campaign immediately responded with a memo arguing that Obama has not been forthcoming about his record in the Illinois state senate.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/obama_releases_his_20002006_ta.php
March 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, once again, I hope that everyone who has been berating Greg Sargent as a "hack" or a "shill" or a "flunky" for Clinton reads this thread.
March 25, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Greg, Your namesake has been posting slightly anti-Obama comments while Clinton talking points have been posted without any comments.
For example, this post here. The Clinton camp has the hypocritical temerity to ask for Obama's returns while tossing around other people's (not Obama's) demands for her returns and how does Greg spin it - "This is pretty funny."
Sorry, I will continue to hold TPM's bias in its posts until I see something to the contrary.
March 25, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Obama already released them. Are you sure you're not just getting the late memo, Greg?
March 25, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice.
Now we can see how much Barack's money over the years went to Rev. Wright's church so that they could spew hatred and intolerance and print those nice Hammas pamphlets for thir congregation and beyond.
March 25, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And to think, we get to see you spew hatred for free!
March 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would Obama's tithe payments be in his tax returns? I do not list my tithe payments in my tax returns. Does anyone else here list money which they give to their churches in the tax returns.
I have always figured that the line "when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing" (Mt 6:3) meant that you did not take public credit for such donations by (for instance) listing them on your tax return. If my left hand should not know, then why should the IRS?
March 25, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you itemize, then you usually list your charitable contributions. He's already said he's given roughly $20M over the course of 20+ years as a member. Not exactly tithing (in the 10% of gross earnings).
March 25, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woah, Woah, Woah...
Time Out!
This is just a wholesale distortion of the facts. I can say, without equivocation, that Barack Obama has not made $20,000,000 in his LIFE, let alone given that much to the church.
Looking at his tax returns you see a steady increase in their income. They start around $175,000 a year between he and his wife. That's upper-middle class, but in Chicago, it's nowhere near wealthy.
It peaks when Barack signed his book deal at just over $1M that year.
Obama has said a number of times that their student loans weren't paid off until that book deal.
You're either lying deliberately, or you're GROSSLY misinformed.
March 25, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, $20M = 20 Mille, that's latin for "Thousand"
March 25, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tax deductions?
March 25, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of us hope that our tax returns are not public information, and so we are not taking public credit for properly itemizing our charitable contributions.
March 25, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was Phil Singer thinking? Why would they call for Obama to release taxes?
March 25, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well played, Obama.
March 25, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-camp-in-lockdown-mode-over-bosnia-flap-2008-03-25.html
Let see if this tactic works for them. Her statement to the Philadelphia Daily News did her more harm than good and their answer is to shut down.
Media bias at its finest!
March 25, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies in advance for the snark - but isn't this "change you can Xerox?"
HRC's claim that she's too busy to get her tax records out is completely ridiculous - how hard is it to make copies? It isn't as if she needs to do this herself - presumably she has an accountant - right?
March 25, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first thing that leaps out at me here is the Obama family's charitable deductions. They hover at or below 1% never exceeding $4k, until 2005 when they suddenly soar to $77k.
Obama's critics will point to this as shameless cynicism - that a man who constantly speaks of all the ways in which America has blessed him, and of the power of Americans working together, was unwilling to donate more than a trivial portion of his family's considerable earnings to those less fortunate than himself. Unwilling, that is, until he was elected to the United State Senate and began to harbor presidential ambitions.
Obama's defenders are likely to note that in the period covered by these returns, Obama had just ascended to real prosperity for the first time in his life, that his grip on that prosperity was fragile at best, and that his first priority was to establish financial security for himself and his growing family. Prior to filing his 2005 returns, Obama received his enormous book advance and secured his place on the national stage, granting him for the first time in his life meaningful financial security, and enabling him to commence donating a greater proportion of his income to charitable causes. They might also note that Obama wasn't a hedge-fund manager - he and his wife earned their money by working for state and nonprofit institutions, sacrificing the potential for even greater earnings through their public service.
I flag this inevitable debate because media organizations always, always focus in on charitable donations. Remember, you read it here first.
March 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thansk for the heads-up flyonthewall. Yes, I can see Clinton camp clinging on to that.
However, Boston Globes has taken the positive aspect about his charities (as you rightly said) and noted he had donated $ 60,000 gainst a combined income of over a million.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/obama_posts_tax.html
March 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARIOUS!!! Especially: "So far, Clinton has pledged to disclose hers at least three days before the Pennsylvania primary on April 22."
Have we learned nothing from FL and MI but that a pledge by HRC means nothing???
March 25, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm betting this gets little media notice.
Right now the radio and TV is all over the Bosnia trip.
Prominent politicians making a bold-faced lie makes the front pages.
Politicians upping their charitable contributions as their own income increases isn't very news-worthy. Unless there's sniper-fire involved...
March 25, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You lose.
Here's the NYT coverage:
Obamas’ Tax Returns Show Donation Spike By LESLIE WAYNE
Published: March 26, 2008
Senator Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, sharply increased their charitable donations as Mr. Obama began to run for president and the family’s income increased from book sales, according to tax returns that the couple released on Tuesday.
March 26, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg
I don't think majority of voters is as percerceptive or nuanced as you are. Most of them will go the drama of the day. I agree it should not be, but it is.
March 25, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary where are your tax returns, and while you are at it explain why you wanted to block the Nixon impeachment!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jerry_ze_080325_1974_3a_hillary_lost_j.htm
March 25, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is pretty funny.
Every day that goes by without Clinton releasing hers means every day that the Obama campaign can raise the question "What is the Clinton campaign trying to hide"?
And that theme is going to be picked up in the media and reinforced. The Clinton campaign isn't handling this well. And they didn't handle the Bosnia incident well, either.
March 25, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only is it a day that the Obama campaign can raise that question; it is a day that the Obama campaign should raise that question. This is a matter of legitimate import, unlike so much else which has lately occupied the limelight. Obama would only rise in my estimation if he insisted on this sort of transparency in an election of such worldwide importance; I expect (or at least I hope) that more than a few people think the same way.
March 25, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg
See my reply above @ 12.26
March 25, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, was that addressed to me? I thought you were saying something to Greg Sargent.
Perhaps you are right. I suppose that we will see in time.
March 25, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link to the memo that accompanied the call, for anyone interested.
http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-on-tax-returns-release/
March 25, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So all this time Obama has been criticizing Hill for not releasing her tax retruns (even though more of her records are public knowledge) and he JUST released his tax returns? Talk about the kitchen sink strategy. One again the hypocrisy is HUGE.
Hillary already indicated she'd release them in advance of the PA vote - what's the big deal? I haven't done my taxes yet - does that mean I have something to hide? He is just trying to play gutter politics trying to pull a Ken Starr fishing for any damaging information possible and implying that Hillary is corrupt without any evidence. Does he have a specific allegation about wrongdoing? If not, the analogy to Ken Starr is particularly apt.
I guess his new poltiics of hope is "I Hope Hillary has something to hide - otherwise people might begin to notice that I am getting done in the polls of the swing states against McCain in the general election like Ohio and Missouri and I have done serious damage to my electbility with the whole Wright Controversy.
March 25, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
He released them to the Chicago press LONG AGO. He just recently put them up on his website.
March 25, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I haven't done my taxes yet - does that mean I have something to hide?"
I assume you have already filed your 2006 taxes, which is what we're talking about here. Not 2007.
Try and keep up.
March 25, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems you are, um, a little misinformed. His 2006 tax returns have been out for over a year. He's been calling for her 2006 return every since she loaned herself $5MM from a joint account.
Now he's upped the ante.
There's no need to delay releasing prior year tax returns. They should be complete unless she/they filed an extension.
I'm sure we'll get 2007 in 2012.
Now you are caught up.
March 25, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking for myself, and perhaps others here, I personally do not trust Clinton to run honest government. So, the tax return is another piece in the puzzle. Maybe she has nothing to hide, maybe she does. But we can't know until its released. But if she's going to reach out to those like me, who are very skeptical of her record, then she may improve her credibility if she released them. It appears from your post that you need no further convincing. I do.
On the matter of timing, yes, I agree that its unfortunate that he didn't release these sooner. But I don't believe for a minute that she 'needs' more time to prepare them- she's not sitting in front of turbo-tax with her W-2 like the rest of us. She's running for the nation's highest office, and both candidates should have been prepared for this routine.
Sincerely,
Little Fish.
March 25, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the second time they have been released. He did this, so she couldn't say his were not out there.
March 25, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone else here list money which they give to their churches in the tax returns.
Yes, if you itemize deductions.
March 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really? I mean, I itemize deductions, but I do not list money that I gave to my parish. I suppose that I could, but as I said, it seems like it would violate the spirit of the gospel to take some sort of tax credit for such donations.
Am I the only one who thinks like this? I will have to ask my friends in my parish. It had never occurred to me that people might list such donations on their tax returns.
March 25, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always assumed that people who had enough deductions to itemize would itemize their charitable deductions. After all, Jesus said to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's; not any more.
That said, there's nothing requiring you to do it, if you feel that it would violate your beliefs. One thing you might consider doing is calculating how much you would save by taking the deduction and using that amount for additional donations.
March 25, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
But not a penny more.
March 25, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
taking a tax credit would not be proper.
but most people will list it in their itemized deductions.
you can give $7.50, or taking the deduction you can give $10 and give $2.50 less to Uncle Sam. It is the same to you. Who would you rather have that $2.50? Your parish, or GWB?
March 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, we list our tithe as an itemized deduction, but I never thought about it quite that way before and I have to say I am deeply impressed. Most people abide by the letter of the law only when it benefits them. Something for me and my husband to think about.
March 25, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, by listing your tithe as a deduction you have more money available to give to the church.
Also, why is it less evangelically legitimate for you to count your church contribution as untaxable income than for the church itself to be untaxable?
March 25, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Transparency we can believe in!!!!
March 25, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh wait, you mean Obama has been demanding Hillary release her returns for months and he had not released his? Seems like something someone who has the press in his pocket and the limosine liberals would do. Can you say Hypocrite? Demand something of your opponent that you will not do yourself. Why not disenfranchise Florida and Michigan as well. Way to go to Obama and the limosine liberal members of the party, guarentee the loss of the general election.
March 25, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said to a poster above, he released his returns to the Chicago press long ago. Yesterday he put them on his website.
March 25, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. He just released MORE today.
March 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction.
He's been demanding Hillary's MOST RECENT tax records.
The ones that Obama's had publicly available for quite some time now.
She then demanded that Obama reveal his taxes from his past years in elected service.
So now he's released taxes from 2000 - up.
She's released...
March 25, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, demanding someone else do something that you would not do would be hypocrisy. Of course, the fact that Obama has released his tax returns indicates that he is not demanding any more of her than he would do himself.
Clinton's campaign, however, has called on Obama to release his returns, while Clinton has not released hers. As such, if there is a charge of hypocrisy to be leveled here, it would appear to pertain to Clinton, not Obama.
March 25, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, ok Obama just started demanding Hillary release hers today? BS. He has been carping on it for months.
March 25, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are too funny.
Seriously.
March 25, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go!
I think she said that the dog ate her taxes...lol
As much as I want her to drop out I can't help but want her to stay so I can see she is going to self destruct...hahaha!!!
March 25, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 25, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack and Michelle did their own taxes until 2002. One more reason to vote for him in my book. At least he has a vague idea of what the rest of us are up against come April.
March 25, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amateur hour.
March 25, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but you're argument doesn't work. Obama released his 2007 tax files already. Maybe you didn't notice that.
She won't even release her tax returns and then turns around and starts telling Obama to release 2000 to 2006? He does so in 2 minutes.
How the hell can you call him a hypocrite?
March 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply |