Obama Income for 2009 is: Gross, $6,114,931; Adjusted, $5,505,409; Links to U.S., Illinois Returns, Donations
Image from 3CSCom.com
It's nice to know that while Obama and the gang are putting our country into a historic debt spiral while they are destroying economic opportunity, and jobs - Obama's get'n his.
One would think (if gullible enough) that Obama - who insistently claimed that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody - would be ... well...spreading his wealth around.
Yet the Obamas donated $329,100 to charity in 2009. Sound like a lot?
$329,100 is just 5% of their gross income of $6,114,931,
and just 6% of their adjusted income of $5,505,409.
The Obama's could have spread $3,450,000 more in 2009 and still had a comfortable $262,995 (free and clear) left over, which is well above there $250,000 definition of rich for a couples gross income.
This lack of wealth spread by the Obama's is actually impressive compared to their dismal track record.
Here is Obama's 2000-2006 Tax Returns.
As you can see from the numbers yourself - the Obama's average adjusted gross income (AGI) from 2000 - 2004 (5 years) was $243,729. Their average charitable contributions from 2000 - 2004 was %0.9.
Like the rest of the Leftist Hypocrats, whether they be on Capitol Hill, the Hollywood Hills, in Massachusetts, or if their name is Joe No Charity Biden, the Obama's are not only full of cash - they're full'a crap.
Did the Obama's gladly pay the higher 39% Clinton income tax rate for the rich that they claim the rich need to start paying again? um...NO.
They decided to pay the dastardly 36% so called Bush tax-cut for the rich rate, which Obama has been condemning over - and over - and over again.
He called it selfishness during the 2008 presidential race.
The Obama's could have payed any rate above 36%. They didn't.
The Obama's can still write that $3,450,000 check to the IRS today. They won't.
(Actually, Obama said when you spread the wealth around, not when I spread the wealth around. So, I guess he's being consistent after all. This sounds like a MediaMatters.org defense.)
By the way - remember those two Republicans running for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency in 2008 - who wanted to make selfishness a virtue? Ever wonder how their charitable givings compared to Obama's and Biden's?
Apparently, Obama also believes in change when it comes to the definition of charity too. Under charitable donations, Obama claimed more than $27,000 given to his (Marxist Black Liberation Theology) United Trinity Church of Christ and $13,107 to the Congressional Black Caucus.
(For those of you who - despite all evidence to the contrary - believe that United Trinity Church of Christ is actually a Christian church - this point will surely escape you. Maybe you believe the Congressional Black Caucus is a Christian church too? You might as well.)
Finally, lets compare Obama's personal wealth spread to Bush,
...Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.
For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.
That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about 'change' he's referring to his charitable contributions...
Any one who truly believes in charity or in wealth spread does not need a tax law to force them to act.
Actions speak louder than words - right?
If one is going to publicly state that when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody, that everyone must have some skin in the game, and publicly accuse Americans of selfishness - THAT PERSONS ACTIONS BETTER SPEAK LOUDER THAN THEIR WORDS.