missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
Zach (not verified) says:
Obama has previously stated that he and his wife's $1.6 million home purchase, in 2005, was a stretch for his family. In other words, Obama is implying that the couple couldn't afford the home.
Since Obama has released the couples' income documents from the years, 2000 through 2006, his previous statement doesn't collaborate what he's been saying.
Here's a few numbers:
2000.
The combined family income was $240,505.
2005
The combined family income was $1,650,000.
2006
The combined family income was $983,826.
In only a five-year time period the Obama's income had increased seven-fold. I think it goes without saying that the 2005 home purchase was NOT a stretch for Obama. His previous statement was an obvious misrepresentation.
My question is this: why would Obama rely on the shady Resko's to buy a plot of land, when they appear to be a good financial position to buy it themselves?
Obama has previously stated that he and his wife's $1.6 million home purchase, in 2005, was a stretch for his family. In other words, Obama is implying that the couple couldn't afford the home.
Since Obama has released the couples' income documents from the years, 2000 through 2006, his previous statement doesn't collaborate what he's been saying.
Here's a few numbers:
2000.
The combined family income was $240,505.
2005
The combined family income was $1,650,000.
2006
The combined family income was $983,826.
In only a five-year time period the Obama's income had increased seven-fold. I think it goes without saying that the 2005 home purchase was NOT a stretch for Obama. His previous statement was an obvious misrepresentation.
My question is this: why would Obama rely on the shady Resko's to buy a plot of land, when they appear to be a good financial position to buy it themselves?