Obama thinks Jesus backs his tax plans?

[Cow Poke]

If you were to look at my tax returns, you'd see that I donated 0% of my income to charitable giving.

Sorry, Sam, I was trying to edit my post, and yours showed up instead.

Here's the deal -- YOU'RE not using your political office to preach Jesus to me to guilt me into paying more taxes, and it's NOT because Obamas were NOT putting their charitable contributions on their income tax --- they WERE! LESS than 1%, increasing as they became more "public".

THAT, Sam, smacks of hypocrisy!

[Ansgar Seraph]

Sorry, Sam, I was trying to edit my post, and yours showed up instead.

Here's the deal -- YOU'RE not using your political office to preach Jesus to me to guilt me into paying more taxes, and it's NOT because Obamas were NOT putting their charitable contributions on their income tax --- they WERE! LESS than 1%, increasing as they became more "public".

THAT, Sam, smacks of hypocrisy!

Well, it would be hypocritical if Obama was classifying himself in 2004 as the same group he is today. It is disingenuous if his tax returns match his actual giving.

If I were to run for political office, I'd probably keep my charitable tax deductions at 0%, anyhow. So while I'm not set up with the information necessary to judge Obama's true levels of giving or his character, I am set up to say that not reporting charitable giving is politically stupid.

Even if he were being hypocritical, however, it wouldn't change the issue at hand. No more than Gingrich harping on about the sacrament of marriage changes the public issue.

—Sam

[Cow Poke]

Well, it would be hypocritical if Obama was classifying himself in 2004 as the same group he is today. It is disingenuous if his tax returns match his actual giving.

No, Sam, it's WORSE than that.... he was a member of the Liberation Theology church of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years -- he was NOT a "new convert" to "giving". When eyes were not on him, he was giving LESS THAN 1% ---- the more "public" he became, he began to increase his percentage of giving.

If I were to run for political office, I'd probably keep my charitable tax deductions at 0%, anyhow. So while I'm not set up with the information necessary to judge Obama's true levels of giving or his character, I am set up to say that not reporting charitable giving is politically stupid.

Sam --- it would not really matter if your charitable contributions, reported or otherwise, were ZERO ---- UNLESS you were preaching the gospel of GIVING as a reason for raising TAXES!

Even if he were being hypocritical

HOW can you POSSIBLY say ye was NOT?

however, it wouldn't change the issue at hand. No more than Gingrich harping on about the sacrament of marriage changes the public issue.

—Sam

Does it make liberals FEEL BETTER to throw a (professed) conservitve under the bus when they lose the moral high ground?

Let's say Newt is the scourge of the planet and he eats babies for breakfast and stomps on baby kittens. Does THAT excuse Obama's hyporcrisy?

[Ansgar Seraph]

No, Sam, it's WORSE than that.... he was a member of the Liberation Theology church of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years -- he was NOT a "new convert" to "giving". When eyes were not on him, he was giving LESS THAN 1% ---- the more "public" he became, he began to increase his percentage of giving.

And it's hypocritical to his point if he was among the group of people he was pointing his comments toward. I'm not saying that Obama is in any way off the hook if his giving was indeed that low — but being hypocritical on this point is a very narrow road. We would both agree, at least, that he was being hypocritical regarding the precepts of his faith.

Sam --- it would not really matter if your charitable contributions, reported or otherwise, were ZERO ---- UNLESS you were preaching the gospel of GIVING as a reason for raising TAXES!

What if I were? Let's say that I'm a public official who cites Christian precepts as an element of my plan to raise taxes. You read that my charitable giving, as recorded on tax records, is 0%. Where do we go from there?

HOW can you POSSIBLY say ye was NOT?

In the specific context of what he said, he wasn't. If we want to broaden it out to general Christian precepts, he might have been. Like I wrote, I don't have the information necessary to decide if he was being hypocritical regarding Christian charity. I feel the same way towards all politicians listing their charitable giving — I'm inclined to believe that Romney gives more than 15%, for example.

Does it make liberals FEEL BETTER to throw a (professed) conservitve under the bus when they lose the moral high ground?

Let's say Newt is the scourge of the planet and he eats babies for breakfast and stomps on baby kittens. Does THAT excuse Obama's hyporcrisy?

That wasn't my point. My point was that even if Obama is personally hypocritical, it doesn't really affect the issue. Does Gingrich's hypocrisy change the marriage issue? Is the issue severely compromised because of Gingrich? If you answer "no," then you have to apply the same logic to this issue.

And I don't know why I'm being accused of losing the moral high ground or throwing anyone under a bus.

—Sam

[Cow Poke]

And it's hypocritical to his point if he was among the group of people he was pointing his comments toward. I'm not saying that Obama is in any way off the hook if his giving was indeed that low — but being hypocritical on this point is a very narrow road. We would both agree, at least, that he was being hypocritical regarding the precepts of his faith.

Wait just as second, Sam ... what are you trying to pull? Are we ... AGREEING?

What if I were? Let's say that I'm a public official who cites Christian precepts as an element of my plan to raise taxes. You read that my charitable giving, as recorded on tax records, is 0%. Where do we go from there?

You're being a little vague, there, Sam ---- if you were preaching Biblical "giving" to me (10% tithe?), and YOUR "giving" was 1%, I'd say you were a fraud. Now, when you say "as recorded on tax records" --- is that a dodge? Am I to assume that you were giving a lot OTHERWISE, and not reporting it? That doesn't seem to be what the Obamas were doing at all.

In the specific context of what he said, he wasn't. If we want to broaden it out to general Christian precepts, he might have been. Like I wrote, I don't have the information necessary to decide if he was being hypocritical regarding Christian charity. I feel the same way towards all politicians listing their charitable giving — I'm inclined to believe that Romney gives more than 15%, for example.

Ya lost me.

That wasn't my point. My point was that even if Obama is personally hypocritical, it doesn't really affect the issue. Does Gingrich's hypocrisy change the marriage issue? Is the issue severely compromised because of Gingrich? If you answer "no," then you have to apply the same logic to this issue.

Come on, Sam -- if Gingrich were using "fidelity" as a part of his campaign, of COURSE he'd be a hypocrite!

And I don't know why I'm being accused of losing the moral high ground or throwing anyone under a bus.

—Sam

I was kidding, Sam --- I'll try to be more clear about that in the future. Obama was pandering (IMO) to the Christians at a National Prayer Breakfast, using thier "common Christianity" (cough, sputter) as the basis for his justifying TAXING more to support the poor.

Come on, Sam --- If I were guilting you about GIVING, and you found out I was a CHEAPSKATE in that arena, wouldn't you be a bit wary of me?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Wait just as second, Sam ... what are you trying to pull? Are we ... AGREEING?

Largely, yes. So long as you're not applying "hypocritical" to Obama's tax policy by citing his giving at a time when he wouldn't be in the relevant tax bracket.

You're being a little vague, there, Sam ---- if you were preaching Biblical "giving" to me (10% tithe?), and YOUR "giving" was 1%, I'd say you were a fraud. Now, when you say "as recorded on tax records" --- is that a dodge? Am I to assume that you were giving a lot OTHERWISE, and not reporting it? That doesn't seem to be what the Obamas were doing at all.

It's an important distinction. If I'm preaching tithing 10% publicly, and you looked at my tax records, you could take that 0% to mean I'm a fraud. You'd be wrong, of course, due to a lack of information. We're not to assume one way or another when it comes to character issues. I agree that it doesn't appear to be what the Obamas were doing — but I also know that appearances can be incredibly deceiving in circumstances like these. As I wrote, the appearance of my own tax records would be very deceiving.

Come on, Sam -- if Gingrich were using "fidelity" as a part of his campaign, of COURSE he'd be a hypocrite!

But whether he's a hypocrite or not isn't the point — I'm asking if the issue still has any meaning. If Gingrich is a marital hypocrite, it doesn't affect the issue about traditional marriage, right? That issue stands apart from whatever Gingrich personally does. The same is true about this issue and Obama.

I was kidding, Sam --- I'll try to be more clear about that in the future. Obama was pandering (IMO) to the Christians at a National Prayer Breakfast, using thier "common Christianity" (cough, sputter) as the basis for his justifying TAXING more to support the poor.

Ah, gotcha. My humor font must not be installed

Come on, Sam --- If I were guilting you about GIVING, and you found out I was a CHEAPSKATE in that arena, wouldn't you be a bit wary of me?

Sure. But would I think that your point was invalid because of that? Nope — the messenger is distinct from the message . . . a point we Christians take comfort in all too often, right?

—Sam

[Jedidiah]

If you were to look at my tax returns, you'd see that I donated 0% of my income to charitable giving.

As an aside.

You do realize that if you claimed your charitable giving, you would have more to give, eh?

[Cow Poke]

It's an important distinction. If I'm preaching tithing 10% publicly, and you looked at my tax records, you could take that 0% to mean I'm a fraud. You'd be wrong, of course, due to a lack of information.

Sam, Sam, Sam.... you're really reaching here... Obama fights back on anything negative about him that he can correct. This was a New York Times article - published. There is ZERO evidence that there were ANY contributions OTHER than what was reported on his taxes. And if he reported 1% worth, why would he not report any OTHER contributions he made?

Also, he reported donations on his 2006 tax return as "charitable" even though they were POLITICAL contributions to the Congressional Black Caucus. (this is illegal, by the way)

You're being very charitable in your defense of Obama, Sam, but I'm telling you, it's misplaced.

We're not to assume one way or another when it comes to character issues. I agree that it doesn't appear to be what the Obamas were doing — but I also know that appearances can be incredibly deceiving in circumstances like these. As I wrote, the appearance of my own tax records would be very deceiving.

I honestly sincerely mean no aspersion on you whatesoever, Sam, but in 40+ years in the ministry, I have encountered VERY FEW people who were substantial charitable contributors who did NOT list it on their taxes. It's LEGAL, beneficial, and it gives them MORE available income to donate even more.

Obamas were reporting their contributions, Sam --- few though they may have been.

But whether he's a hypocrite or not isn't the point — I'm asking if the issue still has any meaning. If Gingrich is a marital hypocrite, it doesn't affect the issue about traditional marriage, right? That issue stands apart from whatever Gingrich personally does. The same is true about this issue and Obama.

I TOTALLY disagree with you, Sam --- If Gingrich were ADVOCATING fidelity in Marriage -- unless he could demonstrate a genuine "come to Jesus" moment, I'd say he's every bit as hypocritical as Obama.

Obama was preaching the CHARITY TO THE POOR thing -- he was TALKING THE TALK, Sam, and not WALKING THE WALK.

Ah, gotcha. My humor font must not be installed

I'm actually starting to enjoy exchanges with you, and have lightened up considerably since my first few posts with you. I honestly think I confuse you, from time to time, with a much less ... um... "charitable" ... liberal. (I have purposely "poked" you with that "liberal" tag just to see if you fought back on it -- so far, you haven't. )

Sure. But would I think that your point was invalid because of that? Nope — the messenger is distinct from the message . . . a point we Christians take comfort in all too often, right?

—Sam

I disagree, Sam --- the messenger needs to be sounding a clear trumpet. If he's preaching one message, but not living it, there's a problem on the planet.

[Ansgar Seraph]

As an aside.

You do realize that if you claimed your charitable giving, you would have more to give, eh?

It's a delicate balance, to be sure. I don't think that I'm deficient in giving and I do believe the government needs more revenue for social programs and I do take seriously the idea that we're to be "sojourners" in the land.

—Sam

[Cow Poke]

As an aside.

You do realize that if you claimed your charitable giving, you would have more to give, eh?

Great minds think alike!

... It's LEGAL, beneficial, and it gives them MORE available income to donate even more.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Sam, Sam, Sam.... you're really reaching here... Obama fights back on anything negative about him that he can correct. This was a New York Times article - published. There is ZERO evidence that there were ANY contributions OTHER than what was reported on his taxes. And if he reported 1% worth, why would he not report any OTHER contributions he made?

Also, he reported donations on his 2006 tax return as "charitable" even though they were POLITICAL contributions to the Congressional Black Caucus. (this is illegal, by the way)

You're being very charitable in your defense of Obama, Sam, but I'm telling you, it's misplaced.

Well, on this issue, at least, I've been uniformly charitable with all politicians. I don't very much like this scrutinizing of tax records we do . . . it feels like digging through the garbage. I'd make the same defense of a Republican president. But I've agreed that it appears hypocritical of Obama and, at best, he was very politically stupid regarding his tax returns.

I honestly sincerely mean no aspersion on you whatesoever, Sam, but in 40+ years in the ministry, I have encountered VERY FEW people who were substantial charitable contributors who did NOT list it on their taxes. It's LEGAL, beneficial, and it gives them MORE available income to donate even more.

I've known a few . . . in any event, we exist.

Obamas were reporting their contributions, Sam --- few though they may have been.

Yes, I agree. That's why I'm more skeptical of Obama than not; but I know others who have, for legal purposes inscrutable to me, listed certain donations as tax deductible even though they weren't in the habit of listing charitable deductions. I agree it's a long walk but it doesn't do harm, in this case, to be charitable.

I TOTALLY disagree with you, Sam --- If Gingrich were ADVOCATING fidelity in Marriage -- unless he could demonstrate a genuine "come to Jesus" moment, I'd say he's every bit as hypocritical as Obama.

Obama was preaching the CHARITY TO THE POOR thing -- he was TALKING THE TALK, Sam, and not WALKING THE WALK.

Again, that's not the point. I'm not talking about the character of the person talking about the issue here. I'm talking about the issue itself. I agree with Obama on this issue. Why should the issue be any less valid because of Obama's character?

I'm actually starting to enjoy exchanges with you, and have lightened up considerably since my first few posts with you. I honestly think I confuse you, from time to time, with a much less ... um... "charitable" ... liberal. (I have purposely "poked" you with that "liberal" tag just to see if you fought back on it -- so far, you haven't. )

I'm enjoying the conversation, as well. Honestly, I can't keep heads or tails on what makes a conservative or a liberal anymore. Somehow Andrew Sullivan and Sean Hannity are both conservatives. Obama and Olberman are both liberals. My history professor is an old-time conservative and passionately dislikes the current manifestation of the movement.

For better or worse, I'm something of a man without a country; whatever political ideology I adhere to, it's not easily mapped to any broad movement.

I disagree, Sam --- the messenger needs to be sounding a clear trumpet. If he's preaching one message, but not living it, there's a problem on the planet.

Well, certainly you don't disagree very much, right? Some of our very best leaders of the faith have come out of some morally questionable, if not abhorrent, lives. Look at Augustine: was his message of piety tainted by his past?

Again, I'm not trying to excuse Obama for any uncharity in his past. But we've definitely strayed from what the messenger actually said to the quality of the message and now to the character of the messenger. Those are three distinct things.

—Sam

[Cow Poke]

Well, on this issue, at least, I've been uniformly charitable with all politicians. I don't very much like this scrutinizing of tax records we do . . . it feels like digging through the garbage. I'd make the same defense of a Republican president. But I've agreed that it appears hypocritical of Obama and, at best, he was very politically stupid regarding his tax returns.

I've known a few . . . in any event, we exist.

Why would you not take the deduction, Sam? As Jed and I pointed out, it gives you more money with which to be charitable.

Yes, I agree. That's why I'm more skeptical of Obama than not; but I know others who have, for legal purposes inscrutable to me, listed certain donations as tax deductible even though they weren't in the habit of listing charitable deductions. I agree it's a long walk but it doesn't do harm, in this case, to be charitable.

You're doing that agreeable thing again!

Again, that's not the point. I'm not talking about the character of the person talking about the issue here. I'm talking about the issue itself. I agree with Obama on this issue. Why should the issue be any less valid because of Obama's character?

I think we may be talking past each other here ---- I agree we need to care for the poor --- is THAT the issue? I DISAGREE that we need to RAISE TAXES to do it, and I DISAGREE that Obama is the poster child of charity! (I don't think you were proposing that, though)

I'm enjoying the conversation, as well. Honestly, I can't keep heads or tails on what makes a conservative or a liberal anymore. Somehow Andrew Sullivan and Sean Hannity are both conservatives. Obama and Olberman are both liberals. My history professor is an old-time conservative and passionately dislikes the current manifestation of the movement.

Liberals like spending other peoples' money.

For better or worse, I'm something of a man without a country; whatever political ideology I adhere to, it's not easily mapped to any broad movement.

I'm much less solidly "any particular party" than I used to be.

Well, certainly you don't disagree very much, right? Some of our very best leaders of the faith have come out of some morally questionable, if not abhorrent, lives. Look at Augustine: was his message of piety tainted by his past?

As I stated, when there's an honest "come to Jesus" moment AFTER the "tainted past", like the Apostle Paul --- who has a more tainted past than a man who rounded up Christians for executions"....

Again, I'm not trying to excuse Obama for any uncharity in his past. But we've definitely strayed from what the messenger actually said to the quality of the message and now to the character of the messenger. Those are three distinct things.

If a man tries to sell me on investing in a parituclar business, and I find out he has not, himself, invested in the business -- or invested at a very low rate, while trying to convince me to be a stakeholder --- I'm skeptical, Sam.

I honestly was unaware of Obama's charitable giving history -- it's all YOUR fault that I felt I needed to do more homework. There appears to be a pretty clear record of Obama's hypocrisy on this issue.

And, I think we've nearly beaten this poor horse to death. But that's Tweb!

[Ansgar Seraph]

Why would you not take the deduction, Sam? As Jed and I pointed out, it gives you more money with which to be charitable.

Well, as I wrote before, it's a delicate balance. I do believe that there are government programs essential for social welfare, my own giving doesn't cover many of those areas and I am more than a little leery of regarding my personal obligation to taxation as much more than "giving unto Caesar." Make no mistake: at this point in my life, it doesn't make a great deal of monetary difference — but I'll continue the regardless of my income level, I think.

You're doing that agreeable thing again!

Erp — sorry

I think we may be talking past each other here ---- I agree we need to care for the poor --- is THAT the issue? I DISAGREE that we need to RAISE TAXES to do it, and I DISAGREE that Obama is the poster child of charity! (I don't think you were proposing that, though)

Right: we've got two primary issues: what Obama actually said or implied in his speech and whether raising taxes is an acceptable part of caring for the poor. Those two issues stand on their own merits, independent of this new issue regarding Obama's character.

Liberals like spending other peoples' money.

But it was Bush's term that turned government surplus into deficit.

I'm much less solidly "any particular party" than I used to be.

As I stated, when there's an honest "come to Jesus" moment AFTER the "tainted past", like the Apostle Paul --- who has a more tainted past than a man who rounded up Christians for executions"....

Right — but I'd argue that such "come to Jesus" moments need not be overt. And considering the other INTJs I know (Obama and I are both INTJ), it's not likely we're going to hear about those revelations.

If a man tries to sell me on investing in a parituclar business, and I find out he has not, himself, invested in the business -- or invested at a very low rate, while trying to convince me to be a stakeholder --- I'm skeptical, Sam.

I honestly was unaware of Obama's charitable giving history -- it's all YOUR fault that I felt I needed to do more homework. There appears to be a pretty clear record of Obama's hypocrisy on this issue.

And, I think we've nearly beaten this poor horse to death. But that's Tweb!

That is TWeb, indeed!

And skeptical is fair game — considering that Obama's giving is "public knowledge" at this point, people have every right to question him on the topic. All I know is what I myself would say — if I were in public office, I'd tell people that my giving was a private matter and not the subject of public knowledge or reflected in my tax returns. I'd understand if people were highly skeptical of that.

And if Obama's tax returns truly reflect the level of his charitable giving in the past, I'd be pretty accusatory, I think. I do know that graduate students are often living off of borrowed money and I'd be open to an argument of low tithing in such a period . . . but that's another long walk.

—Sam

*And the Giants won — with is making my three year-old nephew incredibly happy, I'm sure, as he was dancing around the whole day singing "Giants WIN!"

[Cow Poke]

Right — but I'd argue that such "come to Jesus" moments need not be overt. And considering the other INTJs I know (Obama and I are both INTJ), it's not likely we're going to hear about those revelations.

Obama is a book writer - he likes talking about himself. I think we'd know. I honestly it's safe to say that there has been no significant change in Obama's "religion" since his Jeremiah Wright days.

And skeptical is fair game — considering that Obama's giving is "public knowledge" at this point, people have every right to question him on the topic. All I know is what I myself would say — if I were in public office, I'd tell people that my giving was a private matter and not the subject of public knowledge or reflected in my tax returns. I'd understand if people were highly skeptical of that.

Yep -- if you were trying to guilt me into "giving", i'd want to know (to use one of Obama's favorite terms) that you had "skin in the game".

And if Obama's tax returns truly reflect the level of his charitable giving in the past, I'd be pretty accusatory, I think. I do know that graduate students are often living off of borrowed money and I'd be open to an argument of low tithing in such a period . . . but that's another long walk.

We're talking percentages, remember --- $5 is "tithing" if your income was only $50. I think you're coming around to agreeing that Obama's personal charitable giving (given no reason to doubt it is as reported on his tax returns) makes him a poor poster child for chiding the rest of us into "charity".

*And the Giants won — with is making my three year-old nephew incredibly happy, I'm sure, as he was dancing around the whole day singing "Giants WIN!"

There was a football game tonight?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Obama is a book writer - he likes talking about himself. I think we'd know. I honestly it's safe to say that there has been no significant change in Obama's "religion" since his Jeremiah Wright days.

I think it's unlikely we'd know. But there's not much to say either way.

We're talking percentages, remember --- $5 is "tithing" if your income was only $50. I think you're coming around to agreeing that Obama's personal charitable giving (given no reason to doubt it is as reported on his tax returns) makes him a poor poster child for chiding the rest of us into "charity".

I've never disagreed with that sentiment, as far as I can tell. Obama is in a good position, at the moment, to advance an argument for raising taxes based on economics, equity and the universal moral good. He's not, and never has been, the best mouthpiece for the cause of charity. I'd take Mother Theresa over Obama for that position any day of the week

There was a football game tonight?

I think it was on PBS or CSPAN or something.

—Sam