Is Obama buying a $35Million place in Hawaii? If so How?

Not without any actual proof of corruption.

I am funny that way. I like to see some evidence before deciding the politicians that I oppose are corrupt.

 

The Times has an agenda. Te report what makes their guys look good, reject what does not and carry a specific parties water every day. That does not make their reporting untrue, just makes them no better than the source you blast.

Just because the folk reading a rag drink tea with their pinkies out does not make their opinions any better informed than Joe sixpack who reads what the Times will not print.

 

Less than credible? Perhaps you need to put down the Times and do a google search for "Rezko"....After all, it is not like Obama has no history of crooked real estate deals with shady folk.

 

The Story was simple and had very few things to consider

Is Obama Buying a house in Hawaii?
Is he paying $35 million for it?

Which led to my single question

Where is he getting the money?

 

The evidence is in the actual released disclosures...Can you name a way that anyone in the real world could turn a million into many in a short period without 'bending a few rules'?

It only became illegal for Congress to engage in insider grading in the last year or so.

 

The evidence is in the actual released disclosures...Can you name a way that anyone in the real world could turn a million into many in a short period without 'bending a few rules'?

It only became illegal for Congress to engage in insider grading in the last year or so. I seem to recall Pelosi exempting her tuna canneries from labor laws a few years ago.

 

What released disclosures? What are you talking about? Obama has released all of his income tax returns- his sources of income and the amount of income are public knowledge.

Here is a credible source(see credible sources matter)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincar...y-6-million-see-why-hes-down-since-last-year/

The President’s hefty book royalties from “The Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams From My Father,” a big source of his wealth, are decreasing at a faster rate than we had estimated. In 2009, Obama’s book sales peaked and he grossed nearly $5.7 million, according to his income tax statement; by 2010, gross book revenues had dropped to $1.6 million. This year the amount he’s taking home in book sales is even lower: between $150,000 and $1.1 million, according to Tuesday’s disclosure report. This figure is lower in part because Obama is giving away much of his new book money (after taxes), including a $133,000 advance and earnings of between $100,000 and $1 million (just disclosed on his latest financial form) for his third book, “Of Thee I Sing: A Letter To My Daughters,” published November 2010. Proceeds from that project are going to the Fisher House Foundation for scholarships for children of fallen and disabled soldiers.

One of the couple’s most valuable assets is their 6,200-square-foot, 6-bathroom, 3-fireplace home in Hyde Park, on the South Side of Chicago. The property was recently listed in public documents with a value at $1.65 million, same as what the Obamas paid for it back in 2005. The financial disclosure released Tuesday reveals a mortgage against the house of between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

All in all, that brings the Obamas up to nearly $6 million, not too bad for a pair of Harvard Law School grads who skipped the corporate track to become a community activist and a hospital communications director.

Here’s an approximated summary of where the Obamas hold their wealth:

Cash: $660,000
Mutual funds/ETFs: $625,000
Pension: $90,000
Treasuries: $3.4 million
Real estate: $900,000
TOTAL: $5.7 million

A NOTE ON METHODOLOGY
We embarked on this exercise at the same time we began looking into Mitt Romney’s finances. To figure out Obama’s albeit much smaller net worth, we applied the same methodology that we used for Romney’s net worth valuation. Specifically, we analyzed four years worth of Obama’s financial statements filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, including the one most recently filed on Tuesday. We also looked at his income tax statements, starting with the 2006 filing. While the disclosures appear purposefully vague, providing wide asset ranges stretching from $1 million to $5 million, we were able to add some logic to the estimates.

Assets that jumped to a higher bracket from one disclosure to the next were valued at the 25th percentile of the current range, while those that fell were valued at the 75th percentile of the current range. Assets that stayed within their bracket were appreciated at the market rate from their initial median value through May 14; benchmark indexes were used as proxies for nonmarketable assets. Real estate was valued based on current property values.

**Note: the current issue of Forbes magazine values the Obamas at a shared net worth of nearly $9 million, based on the May 16, 2011 financial disclosure, the most up-to-date as of press time. The day after our issue went to press, Obama released his new financial disclosure form, showing that: 1) the Obamas have taken money out of treasurys; 2) book money is decreasing; and 3) the family still owes on its mortgage, disclosed for the first time on Tuesday. The latest disclosure also gave new information on the family’s college savings plans, which allowed us to refine our valuation and bring the sum down. The above valuation takes all this into account.

 

If this is true, I can think of three ways he could do it:

1: He gets a rich friend who wants some kind of political favors to buy another piece of property from the owner at $30 million over asking price and in exchange, the owner sells this property to Obama at $30 million under asking price.
2: He gets a rich friend who wants some kind of political favors to put up $35 million in hard collateral - such as cash in the same bank - to back Obama's financing in case he defaults. As soon as he is out of office, he can stop paying his house payments and it will be his free and clear.
3: More likely, the rich friend will just buy the property outright, then cut Obama a great deal on it once he leaves office in exchange for favors during the presidency. This one leaves no paper trail until Obama leaves office, and since such transactions are largely ignored by the media and public once a new president is in office, most people will never know about it.

He did the first one once before he even took office. None of these would surprise me.

 

You quoted a post and treated it as though it was properly sources news.

 

Just about every article the times prints is backed up by heavily cited figures. I have not seen a news paper more devoted to accuracy than the New York Times.

 

You misread my point...I am not saying anyone is nefariously breaking laws to enrich themselves. I am saying they are overtly, in you face, using insider knowledge, connections and the tax laws to enrich themselves, all perfectly legal, for politicians.

 

A circular argument. The Times is credible because a host of sources, that use the Times as source data or who deeply in bed with the Times or politicians close to the Times say it is so....It is about as credible as letting the Justice dept investigate itself and then buying the final report because it comes from the Justice dept. With the Times you only get the data that supports the Times position.

 

No I didn't.

 

The single question: Why are conservatives so gullible?

 

Leftists viciously attacked Romney because he could afford a car elevator.

 

We watch the opposition and ask a similar question...why are they so blind? Why do they so dislike America?

 

Feel free to identify the claim or statement you feel I gullibly believed and why.

 

So....does that mean either:
a) it is okay for "Rightists" to viciously attack Obama for supposedly affording a mansion or
b) you are saying this thread is as wrong headed as the attacks on Romney?

 

How about your favorite! "Trickle down economy does not work" That's good one. Because you've yet to explain how "Trickle up economy" works. Also I just love Obama's new favorite "Middle Class Out" and how exactly will that work? ?

 

I didn't get that from another source I gullibly believed. That was my own analysis based upon data showing that the upper 1% have gotten more and more of the share of income and wealth over the past 30 years.

Do you contend that is false and that is what you contend I gullibly believed?

 

Followed by their paying an even greater portion of the taxes...