[TheRealVille]

President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama paid $162,074 in taxes on $789,674 in adjusted gross income for 2011, the White House reported -- an effective tax rate of 20.5%.

The Obama also gave 22.5% of their income to 39 different charities, a little over $172,000.

Vice President Joe Biden and wife Jill, meanwhile, paid nearly $88,000 in federal tax on adjusted gross income of $379,035. The Bidens also paid $13,843 in Delaware state income tax and $3,615 in Virginia state income tax (related to Dr. Biden's work as a teacher).

The vice president's effective federal tax rate is 23.2%. The Bidens gave $5,540 to charity, a little less than 2% of income.

The Obamas' tax return can be found here.

The Bidens' tax information is here.

Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has requested an extension for filing his tax returns, aides said.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama supports changes that would require wealthy Americans like himself to pay higher tax rates.

"Under the President's own tax proposals, including the expiration of the high-income tax cuts and limitations on the value of tax preferences for high-income households, he would pay more in taxes while ensuring we cut taxes for the middle class and those trying to get in it," Carney said.

Obama's re-election team noted it has posted the tax returns of the president and vice president dating back t0 2000, and they are demanding that Romney do the same.

The president would not be subject to what he calls the Buffett Rule, a proposal that would require millionaires to pay at least the same tax rate as middle class Americans. Obama did not earn $1 million last year.

He would pay higher taxes if, as he has proposed, the George W. Bush-era tax cuts are repealed for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples who make more than $250,000 annually.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...4hI3e0xp4M

[Truth]

Interesting. With his income level, I'm sure all can see how he is just one of those beloved citizens who are referred to by the liberals as the "working man". Are both of them members of SEIU? After all, to earn the coveted title of "working man", one must be the member of some kind of union. Nonunion workers don't actually work. Still, he/she did pay at a lesser rate that Warren Buffett's secretary. Shot, come to think of it, it was a lesser rate than I paid. I'll bet a lot of you can say the same. And no one can say he/she deserves a tax break because he/she creates jobs, can they?

[TheRealVille]

Interesting. With his income level, I'm sure all can see how he is just one of those beloved citizens who are referred to by the liberals as the "working man". Are both of them members of SEIU? After all, to earn the coveted title of "working man", one must be the member of some kind of union. Nonunion workers don't actually work. Still, he/she did pay at a lesser rate that Warren Buffett's secretary. Shot, come to think of it, it was a lesser rate than I paid. I'll bet a lot of you can say the same. And no one can say he/she deserves a tax break because he/she creates jobs, can they?

Did you give 22% to charity? As to the bolded, I would say yes. Just look back at the last 4-5 months.

[Truth]

Did you give 22% to charity? As to the bolded, I would say yes. Just look back at the last 4-5 months.

No, I gave a lesser percentage but it was closer than you might think. I will say that I gave far, far more than the Bidens percentagewise and totalwise on a somewhat lesser income. Although it is not set forth on BO's return, it would be interesting to see a list of the "charities" to which he contributed and how much he gave each. I suspect that his list and my list don't overlap since most of mine were to Christian-based organizations.

As for the "jobs", do you also credit him with all those who have given up on finding a job and,thus, are no longer counted among the unemployed?

[TheRealVille]

No, I gave a lesser percentage but it was closer than you might think. I will say that I gave far, far more than the Bidens percentagewise and totalwise on a somewhat lesser income. Although it is not set forth on BO's return, it would be interesting to see a list of the "charities" to which he contributed and how much he gave each. I suspect that his list and my list don't overlap since most of mine were to Christian-based organizations.

As for the "jobs", do you also credit him with all those who have given up on finding a job and,thus, are no longer counted among the unemployed?

Bull shit, that's a conservative talking point, with no merit.

[Truth]

TheRealVille, your continual resorting to vulgarity reflects negatively on your level of intelligence. I would submit that my statement is at least as valid as is your claim that BO has created any jobs.

[TheRealVille]

TheRealVille, your continual resorting to vulgarity reflects negatively on your level of intelligence. I would submit that my statement is at least as valid as is your claim that BO has created any jobs.

Bullshit is a term that religious people might find revolting. I'm not religious. The word has no bearing on my intelligence, it only reflects what you call when you know what the person is saying/posting has no inclination of truth. Hearing right wing propaganda say over and over, doesn't make it so.

[laker20]

Bull shit, that's a conservative talking point, with no merit.

I agree, that is if you consider conservative talking points as being the truth. Unemployment is actually calculated through a monthly survey of 60,000 households. The survey does not specifically ask whether the person is employed or unemployed, but has questions designed to determine whether or not the residents of the household will be classified as 1) Employed, 2) Unemployed or 3) Not in the Labor Force. Any person not actively seeking employment falls into #3 and is not part of the calculation. Also, since the sample size is only 60,000 households there is a potential +- 3% margin for error.


http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.

[TheRealVille]

I agree, that is if you consider conservative talking points as being the truth. Unemployment is actually calculated through a monthly survey of 60,000 households. The survey does not specifically ask whether the person is employed or unemployed, but has questions designed to determine whether or not the residents of the household will be classified as 1) Employed, 2) Unemployed or 3) Not in the Labor Force. Any person not actively seeking employment falls into #3 and is not part of the calculation. Also, since the sample size is only 60,000 households there is a potential +- 3% margin for error.


http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?
The basic concepts involved in identifying the employed and unemployed are quite simple:

People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.

You think retirees and others that don't seek work might fall into #3? It really has no bearing on "people giving up finding a job". Numbers and statistics can be twisted any number of ways to make whatever side's point look valid, when in fact, it isn't.

[the other guy]

$120,000 for the purchase, renovation and construction of a Mountain Sports Hall of Fame, in Wayland

Read more: Floyd County Times (KY) - State budget lists 62 items for Floyd County
You tell me crap like this makes any sense at all. I know this is the state spending, but it's just a good example. And before someone yells you must be a republican, well Hal Rodgers is a republican and he one of the worst spenders of all time. I don't care about the party. THEY MUST STOP SPENDING ON CRAP.

[TheRealVille]

$120,000 for the purchase, renovation and construction of a Mountain Sports Hall of Fame, in Wayland

Read more: Floyd County Times (KY) - State budget lists 62 items for Floyd County
You tell me crap like this makes any sense at all. I know this is the state spending, but it's just a good example. And before someone yells you must be a republican, well Hal Rodgers is a republican and he one of the worst spenders of all time. I don't care about the party. THEY MUST STOP SPENDING ON CRAP.

That has what to do with this thread?

[Truth]

Bullshit is a term that religious people might find revolting. I'm not religious. The word has no bearing on my intelligence, it only reflects what you call when you know what the person is saying/posting has no inclination of truth. Hearing right wing propaganda say over and over, doesn't make it so.

How do you survive among all those Southern Baptists in Paintsville and Johnson County? It can't be easy.

[the other guy]

That has what to do with this thread?

Maybe I read you wrong but you seam to imply that raising taxes would be a solution. I do not think that would help at all. So if how much someone pays in taxes is important I wonder how much Bush paid.

[TheRealVille]

Maybe I read you wrong but you seam to imply that raising taxes would be a solution. I do not think that would help at all. So if how much someone pays in taxes is important I wonder how much Bush paid.

No, I was just posting what Obama paid in taxes last year.

[the other guy]

That has what to do with this thread?

PRESIDENT AND MRS. BUSH RELEASE 2007 TAX RETURN



President and Mrs. George W. Bush reported taxable income of $719, 274 for the tax year 2007. This resulted in a total of $221,635 in federal income taxes paid by President and Mrs. Bush.



The President's 2007 income included salary earned as President and investment income from the trusts in which the President and Mrs. Bush’s assets are held. The tax return also reports a $150,000 advance received by Mrs. Bush for the children’s book she co-authored with Jenna Bush. Mrs. Bush donated all net proceeds from the advance to Teach for America and the New Teacher’s Project.



President and Mrs. Bush contributed a total of $165,660 to churches and charitable organizations, including the Crawford Volunteer Fire Department, Susan G. Komen For the Cure, Malaria No More Fund, Martha’s Table, and St. John’s Church.

[laker20]

You think retirees and others that don't seek work might fall into #3? It really has no bearing on "people giving up finding a job". Numbers and statistics can be twisted any number of ways to make whatever side's point look valid, when in fact, it isn't.

There are a number of people who fall into #3, some not seeking work for legitimate reasons and some who have chosen to stop the search, etc. In fact, the rate has been calculated by the same means for 70 years or so. However, the survey itself can change and is somewhat secretive. So, while the process has remained unchanged for several decades. The questions being asked that determine placement could vary tremendously, and the rate can be effected based on the survey questions. (i.e. "Are you currently employed? If not, have you completed an application for employment within the past 30-days?" A "No" answer could be the determination that you aren't currently seeking employment) Now, I'm not saying that is on the survey, but one has to assume that the numbers are often swayed (by either party) by the questions being asked. My point, was that it wasn't BS or talking points. It is well known that those not actively seeking employment are not counted.

Every piece of information, data, etc. can be used to prove various points that may even be opposing (Spin). However, there is generally only one way that is accurate and it's seldom presented by any form of major media. So I agree with your last statement.

[the other guy]

No, I was just posting what Obama paid in taxes last year.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama supports changes that would require wealthy Americans like himself to pay higher tax rates.

Since this was in your post I thought ----nevermind

[the other guy]

There are a number of people who fall into #3, some not seeking work for legitimate reasons and some who have chosen to stop the search, etc. In fact, the rate has been calculated by the same means for 70 years or so. However, the survey itself can change and is somewhat secretive. So, while the process has remained unchanged for several decades. The questions being asked that determine placement could vary tremendously, and the rate can be effected based on the survey questions. (i.e. "Are you currently employed? If not, have you completed an application for employment within the past 30-days?" A "No" answer could be the determination that you aren't currently seeking employment) Now, I'm not saying that is on the survey, but one has to assume that the numbers are often swayed (by either party) by the questions being asked. My point, was that it wasn't BS or talking points. It is well known that those not actively seeking employment are not counted.

Every piece of information, data, etc. can be used to prove various points that may even be opposing (Spin). However, there is generally only one way that is accurate and it's seldom presented by any form of major media. So I agree with your last statement.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli (1804 - 1881)

Statistician: A man who believes figures don't lie, but admits that under analysis some of them won't stand up either.
Evan Esar (1899 - 1995), Esar's Comic Dictionary

Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions.
Evan Esar (1899 - 1995), Esar's Comic Dictionary

Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.
Fletcher Knebel

I could prove God statistically.
George Gallup (1901 - 1984)

A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.
Joseph Stalin (1879 - 1953)

[Hoot Gibson]

Obama ups his charitable donations entering an election year. So what? This is nothing but a campaign stunt. The Obamas historically have not been very charitable with their money. A couple of other things about Obama's tax return that are noteworthy:

1. [URL="http://freebeacon.com/obama-family-tax-shelter/"]OBAMA FAMILY TAX SHELTER
FIRST FAMILY TRANSFERS WEALTH, AVOIDS TAXES[/URL]

2. Obama's income conveniently falls short of the amount needed for his proposed "Buffett Rule" to apply.

Nothing illegal in either case, just a heaping helping of Obama hypocrisy.

[TheRealThing]

You think retirees and others that don't seek work might fall into #3? It really has no bearing on "people giving up finding a job". Numbers and statistics can be twisted any number of ways to make whatever side's point look valid, when in fact, it isn't.

Speaking of statements devoid of merit, your first sentence (bolded) is a good example. I know people get desperate and lapse into denial but, surely you're not trying to say the American unemployment crisis is a misrepresentation of statistics are you? For crying out loud RV, the reason Obama is screaming for higher tax rates is because the demand has exceeded the tax base. So many folks either don't work or don't pay taxes, we can't meet our bills anymore.

Spending cuts (the ONLY hope for America) will not happen until 'maybe' after the coming election, therefore it's no more complicated than this; since the folks in congress are so polarized when it comes to spending, they can't dream up any way to fill the coffers of the depleted US treasury other than using the same old cash cow that they, their fathers, and their forefathers used. That, of course, is to raise taxes on working folks be they rich or poor. To justify, or otherwise conceal the true nature of their own actions, they can haze the common man or dazzle him with language by calling the new tax by whatever name they dream up, replete with scales and progressive income bracketry, but, in the end it's just MORE taxes. Obama has used the "fair share" smoke screen to mesmerize the democratic faithful into declaring congress justified in a moral sense, to decree that the so called rich owe all the social slugs a more and better free ride. They (congressional dems and their staffers) are the ones that concieved of the "Occupy Wall Street Movement", organized and financed it, gave it credibility and painted a patriotic face on it to present to the American public via, the main stream media. The professionals employed by the likes of MSNBC, et-al, presented the story in a believable maner and thus, 'sold' a lot of the American public that the whole farce was valid. At any rate, if Obama is re-elected, we are poised to enact tax laws which will extort or strip away much of the wealth of those who have succeeded in the marketplace.

Anybody that wants to get a handle on the Obama administration's 'vision' for America, need only to study the politics of the FDR era. Our president is using his (FDR's) playbook, step by step. Folks back then pointed out the same flaws, as in present day Obama policies, in FDR's socialist tendencies and policies that were either not enacted or struck down by the Supreme Court. Thank God for checks and balances and the 3 branches of the federal govenrment. The founding fathers concept of a goverrnment of the people worked back then, maybe it will save us yet again.

But, back to my intitial point. The company I worked for is still in business, shocker!, I thought sure they'd shut their doors when I left, LOL. I had a long conversation with the owners only yesterday and there is nothing going on right now. It's the worst it's been since they have been in business, and in their case that's a long time. Very little expansion or new construction of any kind, commercial or industrial, is afoot right now. A SIZEABLE work force has been idled as a result. Maybe you could explain to the laidoff employees of my company that they are merely suffering from a statistical misapplication. I'm sure it would cheer them up.

[TheRealVille]

Speaking of statements devoid of merit, your first sentence (bolded) is a good example. I know people get desperate and lapse into denial but, surely you're not trying to say the American unemployment crisis is a misrepresentation of statistics are you? For crying out loud RV, the reason Obama is screaming for higher tax rates is because the demand has exceeded the tax base. So many folks either don't work or don't pay taxes, we can't meet our bills anymore.

Spending cuts (the ONLY hope for America) will not happen until 'maybe' after the coming election, therefore it's no more complicated than this; since the folks in congress are so polarized when it comes to spending, they can't dream up any way to fill the coffers of the depleted US treasury other than using the same old cash cow that they, their fathers, and their forefathers used. That, of course, is to raise taxes on working folks be they rich or poor. To justify, or otherwise conceal the true nature of their own actions, they can haze the common man or dazzle him with language by calling the new tax by whatever name they dream up, replete with scales and progressive income bracketry, but, in the end it's just MORE taxes. Obama has used the "fair share" smoke screen to mesmerize the democratic faithful into declaring congress justified in a moral sense, to decree that the so called rich owe all the social slugs a more and better free ride. They (congressional dems and their staffers) are the ones that concieved of the "Occupy Wall Street Movement", organized and financed it, gave it credibility and painted a patriotic face on it to present to the American public via, the main stream media. The professionals employed by the likes of MSNBC, et-al, presented the story in a believable maner and thus, 'sold' a lot of the American public that the whole farce was valid. At any rate, if Obama is re-elected, we are poised to enact tax laws which will extort or strip away much of the wealth of those who have succeeded in the marketplace.

Anybody that wants to get a handle on the Obama administration's 'vision' for America, need only to study the politics of the FDR era. Our president is using his (FDR's) playbook, step by step. Folks back then pointed out the same flaws, as in present day Obama policies, in FDR's socialist tendencies and policies that were either not enacted or struck down by the Supreme Court. Thank God for checks and balances and the 3 branches of the federal govenrment. The founding fathers concept of a goverrnment of the people worked back then, maybe it will save us yet again.

But, back to my intitial point. The company I worked for is still in business, shocker!, I thought sure they'd shut their doors when I left, LOL. I had a long conversation with the owners only yesterday and there is nothing going on right now. It's the worst it's been since they have been in business, and in their case that's a long time. Very little expansion or new construction of any kind, commercial or industrial, is afoot right now. A SIZEABLE work force has been idled as a result. Maybe you could explain to the laidoff employees of my company that they are merely suffering from a statistical misapplication. I'm sure it would cheer them up.

Get back to me after Obama wins his 2nd term. FDR was Americas greatest President. Right in front of JFK, and Clinton. Let's talk about all the republican crooks.

[TheRealThing]

Get back to me after Obama wins his 2nd term. FDR was Americas greatest President. Right in front of JFK, and Clinton. Let's talk about all the republican crooks.

That was pretty weak. Have to throw that out with the dishwater. I will say he led America through her darkest days during the depression and WWII. It was WWII however, that brought America up out of the bowels of the depression.

[Hoot Gibson]

That was pretty weak. Have to throw that out with the dishwater.

And he wonders why nobody takes him seriously. George Washington was our greatest president and there is a wide gap between him and the second greatest president. Yet, he didn't even make RY's top three. Can you even imagine Obama turning down a third, fourth, or fifth term? If Obama had been our first president, he would have insisted on being addressed as "Your Highness" and his successors would have been kings.

[TheRealThing]

And he wonders why nobody takes him seriously. George Washington was our greatest president and there is a wide gap between him and the second greatest president. Yet, he didn't even make RY's top three. Can you even imagine Obama turning down a third, fourth, or fifth term? If Obama had been our first president, he would have insisted on being addressed as "Your Highness" and his successors would have been kings.

LOL, hard to understand him. Regardless, one would be hard pressed to name any meaningful financial policies of the FDR era. An honest study of his administration outside of his wartime leadership reveals he was awash in controversy. Accused of strengthening the underpinnings of fascism and socialism with his policies on finance and bent toward central governmental industrial take overs. If you want a good read about the public concerns of the day try "The Roosevelt Myth" by John T. Flynn.

[tvtimeout]

And he wonders why nobody takes him seriously. George Washington was our greatest president and there is a wide gap between him and the second greatest president. Yet, he didn't even make RY's top three. Can you even imagine Obama turning down a third, fourth, or fifth term? If Obama had been our first president, he would have insisted on being addressed as "Your Highness" and his successors would have been kings.

Amen!

[the other guy]

Get back to me after Obama wins his 2nd term. FDR was Americas greatest President. Right in front of JFK, and Clinton. Let's talk about all the republican crooks.

Please tell me what JFK did that was so special? And Obama may very well be reelected, but he has been a joke.

[the other guy]

Get back to me after Obama wins his 2nd term. FDR was Americas greatest President. Right in front of JFK, and Clinton. Let's talk about all the republican crooks.

JFK was the first president to send a large number of troops (20.200) to Vietnam and it was only under his presidency that America started suffering large number of war casualties. Nearly 50,000 troops died in Vietnam under democrat leadership.

[BillyB]

Obama ups his charitable donations entering an election year. So what? This is nothing but a campaign stunt. The Obamas historically have not been very charitable with their money. A couple of other things about Obama's tax return that are noteworthy:

1. [URL="http://freebeacon.com/obama-family-tax-shelter/"]OBAMA FAMILY TAX SHELTER
FIRST FAMILY TRANSFERS WEALTH, AVOIDS TAXES[/URL]

2. Obama's income conveniently falls short of the amount needed for his proposed "Buffett Rule" to apply.

Nothing illegal in either case, just a heaping helping of Obama hypocrisy.

College savings is hypocrisy? Really?

[Bob Seger]

That was pretty weak. Have to throw that out with the dishwater. I will say he led America through her darkest days during the depression and WWII. It was WWII however, that brought America up out of the bowels of the depression.

Greatest American President???? Yeah Boy!!!! And it was also FDR whom exposed the United States Military to their unfathomable weaknesses that FDR was responsible for. If we were as strong militarily as we should have been, WWII may have been avoided altogether. You are right TRT, there was a will and strength among the American people at that time as they pulled together and made the necessary sacrifices to fight and win a war that stretched around the globe when the country was at an extremly vulnerable militarily. Would we as a country be able to pull together once again if faced with something similar? I really dont know, but am sure afraid to be put into the position of finding out the answer to that question. I sure would hate to have Barack Obama looking out for my backside in that event. Another thing, I am surprised that you would bring up FDR because of his human rights activites. He was the original race profiler with the Japanese internment camps after all, wasn't he?


The one thing I will give FDR credit for is the WPA era constuction works. If the government is going to be responsible for keeping up half the country, at least make em work for the money, instead of drawing all the freebies sitting on the couch. You'll not see that happen now, because you're liable to hurt someones feelings and have the ACLU or some other crackpot group all over you.

[Hoot Gibson]

College savings is hypocrisy? Really?

Taking a $48,000 deduction for "gifts" to his daughters in a single year while whining about other "millionaires and billionaires" taking advantage of tax deductions and promoting a tax hike on millionaires that would not hit him in the wallet? Yeah, that is what I call hypocritical. The lap dog media is too enamored with Obama to ask him why he did not pass the Buffett bill when his party controlled both houses of Congress. Why? Because very few Democrats really want this bill to pass. They just want to vote for for the bill, make sure that Republicans vote against it, and then crow to the socialists who support them about how serious they are about putting it to white rich men. (Knowing all the time that the white rich Democrats in Congress will not actually have to pony up one extra cent in federal taxes.)