« Nader Endorses and Predicts Clinton as Obama's VP | Main | Abortion, Cigars, Fidel Castro and GOP Congressional Candidate Mike Erickson »

The Rich Lifestyle of John McCain

Bumped and Updated: No wonder John McCain is the favorite of the rich and the hand-licking servants in the Republican party who love serving the interests of the rich.

Asked how many houses he owned, John McCain replied, "I think -- I'll have my staff get to you."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

"I think -- I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where -- I'll have them get to you."

The correct answer is at least four, located in Arizona, California and Virginia, according to his staff. Newsweek estimated this summer that the couple owns at least seven properties.

Now don't go whining, you Americans who don't own your homes or are facing foreclosure. Just buck up and join the middle-class like the McCains. They have millions in income, but life is so had they can't even keep track of how many houses they own.

That's rich!

Update II: McSame spin-meisters are on the defensive...

"The reality is they have some investment properties and stuff. It's not as if he lives in ten houses. That's just not the case," Rogers said. "The reality is they have four that actually could be considered houses they could use.

GUFAW! The smarmy smart-ass and his pill-popping wife only have four houses they live in - the rest are just investments, my bad!

I guess we'd know that already if the McCains weren't refusing to release their tax returns (see "Cindy McCain's Dirty Little Secrets")

Update III

----original post beings here----

The Rich Lifestyle of John McCain

published August 18, 2008

During Saturday night's forum in Saddleback, Senator John McCain was asked what income level constituted "rich" - and he answered $5 million or more. Other millionaires ($2 million... $3 million,... $4 million...) aren't rich, in McCain's view, and shouldn't be taxed as if they were...

It makes you wonder just how out of touch John McCain is with most of Americans.

So does this video:

McCain's rich wife inherited a fortune made from booze, and then became a drug-addicted pill popper - and high-flying flyboy McCain is flying just as high as she is if he thinks someone making $4 million is just getting by.

And about Cindy's millions -- keep in mind that while Obama (and Clinton for that matter) made a full release of their complete tax returns, John and Cindy McCain have not. I wonder what they are hiding from the American people?

But when you see McCain's lifestyle it's easy to understand just how twisted the McCains' priorities are.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 1.6/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 1.6/5 (13 votes cast)


Comments (17)

ke_future:

there is a big difference between "rich" and "just getting by". i've know several people who are "worth" $3-10M dollars. They have been small business owners, with their wealth tied up in their business(es) and so are hardly living the "high life"

your contemptable attempts to constantly smear mccain in favor of obama, after doing the same to obama in favor of clinton shows just how low, pathetic, and desperate you really are.

can't you at least trumpet the positive aspects of your candidate rather than continue with these lame hatchet jobs? or could it be that you correct earlier when you were down-talking the empty suit?

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"i've know several people who are "worth" $3-10M dollars."

I think the question was on "income" not "net wealth".

And your comment about positive information is a total joke in light of the McCain campaign's constant Obama-smearing. Every John McCain campaign TV ad spells out why Obama is wrong for America. I'm doing the same thing regards McCain.

Compared to Obama I preferred Clinton, but compared to McCain there is absolutely no question that John McCain is 100% wrong. We don't need four more years of Republican bungling and incompetence, and the only bright spot McCain can point to is General Petreus, who last time I checked isn't an elected Republican official.

And how many conservatives railed against McCain's liberalism during the primaries, and now support him over Obama in the presidential race?

ke_future:

you're right, it was about income level, not wealth. i'm still correct that there is a difference between "rich" and "just getting by".

i honestly don't know why you on the left are so upset when other people do well for themselves. oh, i get it if they have acquired their money through illegal means, but it seems that i am also seeing the left talk about people making or having too much money. regardless of how they came by it.

how about it, lee. what would you define as rich? what about poor? do you think we should take money from the rich til there are rich no more?

my comment is not a total joke, lee. you bitch and complain about the republicans alway trash talking, and smearing the democratic candidates. then you turn around and do it yourself. i'll own up, i see negative campaigning on both sides of the fence.

i just get so angry at the left which claims that they are only doing it because the republican's are doing it. that's such horseshit. every politician does it. it's one of the oldest tactics in the books. but to hypocritically claim that you're only doing it in response shows that you have no charactor or integrity in my book.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

I've haven't said I not a trash-talker, ke - in fact, I'm very much a trash talker.

but I'm not running for president - John McCain is.

John McCain promised to elevate the campaign and not stoop to smears.

John McCain is full of crap in that regard.

And I just find it hypocritical when I'm asked by a Republican why I trash talk McCain - especially these days in light of Johnny one-note trash-talking Obama left and right.

And I'm not telling lies, as McCain and his swiftboating attack dogs are.

"how about it, lee. what would you define as rich? what about poor? do you think we should take money from the rich til there are rich no more?"

I agree that an income of $200K or so puts you in the well off category. I think those folks should be paying into social security all the way up their income, for example.

ke_future:

i didn't say you weren't a trash talker. i said you were a hypercrit for saying you were doing it only because the republicans are.

compared to obama, his supports, the clinton campaign, et al? hell yes, mccain has elevated this campaign.

waht smears has mccain used against obama? what lies has he told? name them.

oh, and in regards to "swiftboating", a couple of facts are in order. first, when the swiftboat folks came out with their allegations, one of the first people to jump in to kerry's defense was mccain. secondly, they were never forced to retract any of the allegations they made against kerry.

you on the left are trying to make "swiftboating" to mean something that does not fit the actual history of what occured.

who do you agree with that $200k puts your well off? no one used that number that i am aware of. and depending on where you lived, and how many kids you had and what age they are, $200k may not be all that well off. montana, $200k is quite well off. new york city or san francisco, not so much so. and i love the irony of how two of the most liberal cities are also 2 of the most expensive to live in. explain that to me if you can.

question for you, lee. do you view social security as a safety net or a wealth distribution system?

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Do me a very big favor and show me where I said I only do it because republicans do...

Go to Obama's website they've got 40 pages of rebuttal to Corsi's lies - and the Media Matters site does a pretty good job of blowing up those lies also.

you on the left are trying to make "swiftboating" to mean something that does not fit the actual history of what occured.

swiftboating is the use of lies to smear a candidate - that's my definition anyway - and McCain agreed, right? And while $200 K isn't as well off in SF as it is in ID, it's still well off.

"who do you agree with that $200k puts your well off?"

I thought Obama did. Obama also said it depends on the area.

"i love the irony of how two of the most liberal cities are also 2 of the most expensive to live in. explain that to me if you can."

Both NY and SF are cities where smart people work, and they make big bucks. And smart people are more liberal than -- unsmart people. That's proven daily, right on this blog and on the blog next door.

That was a softball - I owe you one.... lol.

ke_future:

lee, i went back over this particular thread. you're right, you didn't explicitly come out and say that you were trash talking only because the republicans do it. that was merely my impression from reading what you wrote, coupled with previous posts and conversations.

i don't read media matters anymore. they are a partisan site that never presents the whole story. i never said that corsi was right about anything. to be honest, i really don't know what he's claiming. i object to the use of swiftboating the way you use it.

mccain denounced the nature of the attacks against kerry. i don't remember ever seeing anyplace where he said that they were lies.

as far as the $200k line, i hadn't made the leap you made to obama's comment at the forum. to be honest, i've only seen bits about it.

NY and SF are more expensive places to live because of the way the liberal governments in those places have high taxes and high levels of government regulation. not exactly what i would call smart.

and i'll considered myself well paid if you could make it even one week without attempting to smear republicans or conservatives with inuendo.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

I came across Obama's statement today , and he said $250,000 not $200,000 - my bad.

"NY and SF are more expensive places to live because of the way the liberal governments in those places have high taxes and high levels of government regulation. not exactly what i would call smart."

It's the high cost of living and the hot, competitive job markets in these areas that contribute to the higher salaries. I've lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for 40 years. There is no basis in fact in your statement that it's government that creates high salaries in this area - that's actually kind of a ludicrous statement if you think about it.

"Liberal" government regulations like same-sex domestic partner health benefits, for example, may increase the cost of doing business, but how does that increase salaries? Hmmm?

No, it's a highly competitive job market in the major markets like NY, SF, LA, Chicago, etc, and you have to be at the top of your game to compete in those job markets, and you're rewarded for it with a higher salary (and higher housing prices too) when you succeed.

ke_future:

i said that government causes a high cost of living, not salaries.

i've lived in seattle for 20 years, and i would argue that it's the high taxes and government regulations are a cause, tho probably not the only one, of a high cost of living here.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Well, the cost of living does contribute to the higher salaries.

So how do liberal policies contribute to the high cost of living... that's what you said.

NY and SF are more expensive places to live because of the way the liberal governments in those places have high taxes and high levels of government regulation. not exactly what i would call smart.
ke_future:

1) higher sales taxes
2) higher property taxes
3) excessive regulation and permitting driving up costs of home purchases and improvements
4) increased business paperwork requiring additional support costs for businesses that raise their overhead, which they then pass on to consumers
5) increased business taxes

there's a start, and it only took me 10 seconds to come up with these five

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

You haven't established any connection, as I knew you couldn't, between liberal regulations and higher taxes.

for example, - "4) increased business paperwork requiring additional support costs for businesses that raise their overhead, which they then pass on to consumers"

That's about as vapid as it gets.

What liberal regulations result in increased paperwork requires business to spend more on "support costs"?

We'll need to know that to know the amount of the "costs" so we can then look at the "costs passed onto consumers" and equate that to the higher cost of living.

Don't wave your tin foil hat in the air and proclaim the usual empty conservobot talking points, give a specific example to back up your yak.

And then we'll move to debunking the other 4.

There, it only took me about 60 seconds to write that...

ke_future:

okay, here's a good one. in seattle, you have to buy your grocery bags. either the canvass ones or they charge you $.20/bag.

here's another. if you own an acre of land and want to do any development on more than a fraction of it, you have to go through an exception permitting process

sarbane's - oxley. yeah, it's "bi-partisan" but it fits the mold of government regulation in business. SOX doesn't really add much if any additional protection against those businesses that are doing illegal things. however, all businesses over a certain size have to go through expensive certification and auditing. many companies have teams of people that do nothing but deal with SOX compliance.

locally, anytime a business wants to make a change in the physical plant, they need to go through an extensive and expensive permitting process. even for minor changes.

personally, i think this is one of those issues we won't ever agree on, lee. i'm just too suspicious of government regulation, and you're too much of a government interventionalist on economic matters.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Rember that this is the point of contention: You said: "NY and SF are more expensive places to live because of the way the liberal governments in those places have high taxes and high levels of government regulation. not exactly what i would call smart."

None of the "liberal" cost items you listed in your last comment are taxes.

Let me help you... There most certainly are liberal regulations in San Francisco that impact taxes. Providing health insurance benefits for same sex domestic partners, for example, increases the city government benefit costs and that impacts taxes.

But the amount of increased taxes resulting from the "liberal" regulations doesn't amount to spit once you sort it all out, look at the total costs, divide it out among all taxpayers, etc.

Even if it raised taxes $50 a year, and I think that's waaaay generous, that isn't what's driving the high cost of living in San Francisco or other areas.

Take those increased taxes away, and you won't see housing prices drop an inch, you won't see the cost of gasoline (which is higher in SF than anyplace else in the US) drop, etc...

These Fox News/Wizbang blog talking points are just so much bullshit when you sort them out and do the math.

It's like raising the minimum wage, and the conservobots contention that it increases unemployment, increases infatiion, etc. When you plow through the lies and rhetoric it ends up raising of McDonald's french fries by 2 cents - if that.

But listen to the conservobots scream about how it's the end of the world if some poor working stiff gets an extra 25 cents an hour. Sheesh...

ttg:

An extra .25 an hour is a LOT for small business operating on start up budgets who are trying to tread water especially in their first few years in business. Costs and taxes are out of proportion to that of profit margins. It's difficult for an average American to start a business - there is more federal assistance for foreigners and minorities than the average Joe.

As far as the McCains go, they have kept their tax records separate for over 25 years and have a prenuptial agreement that I'm sure addresses these privacy issues. Yes she is an heiress but she is not seeking election, this was her (their) right and choice and they have been consistent with that for a long long time. What I have read about Cindy McCain, especially her charitable affiliations and work impresses me more than what I know about Michelle Obama.

In my opinion, people making up to 500K a year should be considered well off, not rich, yet they pay the same as those McCain refers to and when you take 40 - 50% off their nets (which incl. state and local taxes and fees)they end up under 200K. Average houses cost more than that today. I think the threshold should be over 500K when it comes to the highest tax bracket. I don't have a vendetta against people who are successful and reached the ultimate American dream however extraordinary the ways. This is rewards of capitalism. They earned it. Even Christ himself said "the poor will always be with you". Most rich people, and Cindy McCain is a great example, are very charitable (especially those who are christians) on top of all the taxes they pay.
Some make it, some struggle and some don't even try. This is what survival of the fittest is all about. When you take money from industrious people and give handouts and baleouts to the poor it rewards lack of motivation and bad judgment and just lowers the bar towards being a responsible citizen. It seems money is always an issue for the dems when it's not about another democrat.

ke_future:

lee, i'm going to call you on the carpet for your attempt to twist what i have said.

you called me out on the increased beuarcracy point i made, not on the tax issues. i gave several specific examples of increased regulations, and you then say they aren't taxes. you're right, they aren't. they weren't laid out as such.

you don't seem to understand that the government can increase the cost of doing business, or even just living, through regulartory actions, and not necessarily taxes.

$50/year increase? i should be so lucky. in property taxes alone, my taxes have gone up .5% in the past 3 years. note that i am not talking dollars, but in what the percentage of my property's value i pay in taxes. that may not seem like much, except for a $300,000 house (typical for seattle), that's $1500, just for the increase in property tax rate, not including any changes brought about by the change in property value.

Lee Ward:

Ke - You in #5 above:

"i love the irony of how two of the most liberal cities are also 2 of the most expensive to live in. explain that to me if you can."

I said it's housing costs and high salaries from a competitive job market.

You said it was liberal policies in those big cities....

"NY and SF are more expensive places to live because of the way the liberal governments in those places have high taxes and high levels of government regulation. not exactly what i would call smart.""

I asked you to show how the liberal policies and regulations contribute to high taxes and high cost of living. You haven't in my view, and if you'd like to call me on the carpet and quit trying that's fine.

"$50/year increase? i should be so lucky. in property taxes alone, my taxes have gone up .5% in the past 3 years. note that i am not talking dollars, but in what the percentage of my property's value i pay in taxes. that may not seem like much, except for a $300,000 house (typical for seattle), that's $1500, just for the increase in property tax rate, not including any changes brought about by the change in property value."

and all I'm saying is when you get down to specifics and looking at the increased cost of liberal policies you will have a hard time showing liberalism is to blame for a significant portion of the high cost of living in those areas.

I've shown that liberal health benefits in SF no doubt increase the cost of running the city government, but if you parse out the rhetoric and hysterics, it's not contributing to the high cost of living by any appreciable amount, despite your claims that it does.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.