It's unethical if Rezko bought him lunch. We've already seen that Obama did do lots of political favors for Rezko and his cronies. I want my house to have a view. It'd sure be nice to have a Rezko buy the vacant lot in front of my house to prevent someone from building on it to block my view. I wouldn't benefit from that, right? /sarcasm /rhetorical question. More spin.
Do you pay taxes on favours people do for you? If someone let you stay at their place while you were out of town, would you choose to pay taxes on the market value of a hotel stay? And you claim to be against taxes. That's more liberal taxation policy than any Democrat ever dreamed of!
You would pay taxes on housing if it were provided to you as part of your job, or if were a gift from a friend. But you do point out that Rezko also incurred property taxes that benefited Obama, too. Investigate!
You would, yes. Obama didn't receive a house or land beyond what he bought. I assume he paid taxes on his purchase. If not, present the evidence and we'll investigate.
He received the BENEFIT of land he didn't purchase. Someone paid for that land so he could benefit. Let's investigate. This is far more serious than firing someone you have the right to fire for any reason.
I don't agree. A non-material benefit that hasn't been linked to any impropriety isn't really an issue. Abusing one's political power (as concluded by an investigation launched by a Republican-majority state congress) is an issue.
Nope. An opportunity to buy is what Rezko gave him. An opportunity is not "material." The land and house are material, which Obama paid for.
And doing so gave Obama the opportunity to purchase his own property. Opportunity is not material. I'm glad we agree that Obama received no material benefit. Rezko kept the property he bought.
Rezko wrote off the property he bought, since he's a land developer. Take Rezko out of the picture and what happens to Obama? Proof he received material benefit.
Doesn't prove anything of the sort. You're agreeing with me. He created the opportunity for Obama to purcahse property for himself. No Rezko, no opportunity. And opprtunity, as we know, is not material. But we're just going back and forth. Feel free to reinforce what I said one more time while insisting I'm wrong.
You are using semantics to avoid the truth. Nice try, but it isn't working. No Rezko, no material benefit as evidenced by Obama not having his house. EDIT: It was literally an interest free loan with no payback term. Rezko wrote a real check for $400K for no benefit to himself but the letters Obama wrote on his behalf that netted him $14M+ in govt. deals.
The Rezcos paid full price for a piece of land and the Obama's paid $300K less than the asking price for the house. Given that the house represented a little over 72% of the total transaction, the imputed discount transfer from Rezco to Obama was almost $83K. Of course, Chicago politics is so corrupt, this kind of thing barely raises an eyebrow. The Palins made phone calls that resulted in the guy they wanted gone not getting fired. Obama was able to afford a house he couldn't have otherwise purchased. It boggles my mind as to why you think the Palin's infraction was worse.
Buying a house that you want is a sensible goal. Getting your ex-brother-in-law fired is a stupid, petty goal. Palin's infraction is worse because of what it reveals about her. And failing to achieve a stupid, petty goal due to incompetence and overreaching reveals something more. barfo
Sweet. I want a new house. Send me $83K. Your post about what you think is worse--political graft vs. firing a suboordinate--tells me a ton about you.
You know as well as I do it wasn't about firing a subordinate. As for my post, if I didn't want you to know that, I wouldn't have posted it here. Whenever I have $83K that I don't want, I will send it to you. barfo
