AMERICAblog: McCain says you're "rich" when you make $5m a year
sittenpretty
· 1 year ago
18 Aug 2008 01:17 pm
Hilzoy notes the latest:
No More Mr. Nice Blog points out that The Nightingale's Song, a 1995 book about five graduates of the Naval Academy, one of whom is McCain -- contains a chapter on, of all things, three Christmases McCain spent in captivity. (Thanks to Amazon's 'Search This Book' feature, and the fact that the chapter in question is only four pages long, I've read it, and you can too.) It contains no mention of this incident at all.
It seems to me that we err whenever we talk about raising taxes on wages - on the money people earn through work. I'd much rather see a tax increase on capital gains and earned (investment income) which is terribly undertaxed. Corporate CEO's don't earn their huge sums of money through salaries - they're paid in stock options which provide tremendous, low-taxed earned income.
Also, I agree with Obama that the so-called "payroll tax" for social security and medicare should be extended to earnings above the current $97,000 ceiling.
John is correct in that you can't measure a person's standard of living without taking into account geographic differences. A $4 million apartment in New York can be had for a tenth that cost in the midwest or south.
Nor should we be focusing on increasing corporate taxes. The result is nothing more than a pass-through of tax costs to consumers. Again, tax the investment income.
ron071
· 1 year ago
The topic of their riches seems to upset the Republicans very much. No taxes is their mantra. I'd call it pure greed and that is what would motivate a vote for McSame. He will protect them from evil taxes. That's the beginning and end to their story. Wars are to be paid for by??????? not by them. Infrastructure will also be paid for by ??????Schools, police and fire will also be paid for by??????Just say no more taxes and we'll vote for anyone even idiots.
mf_roe
· 1 year ago
In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00 according to the Census Bureau. that means McShame thinks that 100 times the median income is the definition of rich. Strange that he would set the bar so high? Not really, what he is really admitting to is that unless you make 5 Million/yr you aren't important to him. Like Barbara Bush, McShame has deep contempt for "those people".
scottinsf
· 1 year ago
You kind of summed that up in a tight little package.
Yup.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
You're "rich" when you don't fuss about it.
Chris From Maine
· 1 year ago
rich IMHO means you dont have to worry about paying the bills or worrying about being one catastrophe away from homelessness, etc.
You cant really put a number on it, a millionaire can be poor because he spends it all on drugs, or someone making 50,000 /yr could be rich because they save every penny and earn interest, etc.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
I don't know.
Maybe total personal assets is the way to go, but the federal government taxes income as opposed to wealth, so I'm not really sure why we'd measure wealth.
LisaLV711
· 1 year ago
So, we REALLY are the working poor, heh? As a matter of fact, most of America are the working poor! Oh Geez!
ZennButtKicker (tlhwraith)
· 1 year ago
It seems to me the definition isn't nearly as relative to your circumstances as John says it is. Of course standard of living is different in say NY or DC than say Topeka Kansas, but there is also the arguement that goes a person (to an extent) has the ability to control and decide what their standard of living is. Should we factor in someone who has a mortgage on a million dollar house, maybe, but shouldn't we also factor in the very real fact that that person DECIDED to make that purchase and could have gotten something cheaper (or lived in a cheaper area, etc, you get the picture).
That being said, it is a relative arguement, but it seems to me that the weight of the arguement should be on what people take in (all sources of income), and not so much on what they spend, simply because a lot of the expenses most people have are self-imposed (no, I'm not talking about unexpected bills and things like that). Now, if the average income for a person in this country is 32000 or so, and you are making 320,000 (or some other obviously larger number), it's pretty hard to feel too sorry for you if you choose to live in a brownstone in Manhattan and keep your BMW parked in a $300.00/month garage.
Sorry.
scottinsf
· 1 year ago
Relative? Really Zenn?
I try to support every good person but that sounds stupid.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
It'd be smart to buy a place soon.
Buying things that will increase in value is how to build wealth.
Warren's question is skewed and reveals a US obsession with wealth, an obsession that I'm always amazed at when I coe back to visit family in the NYC' burbs. Questions like what's your salary? What's your mortgage? What! You rent?, etc. Warren calls himself a Xtian, but his question is what is your definition of 'rich', instead of 'happy', 'contented', or even 'blessed'. There's plenty of people in the US who are not rich, but are content; there's plenty of people in the US who are not rich and they're scared. We need to have a new framework for questioning how people live their lives - that relegates people like Donald Trump, etc. to the back benches because their fixation on wealth is so damaging. I wish I was skilled enough to talk about this in terms of upper-class/working-class issues, but I'm not. But I'm just bewildered by how much rich people think they need to exist, while poor people carve out an existence from what they can afford.
Fireblazes(CheetohsandCatfood)
· 1 year ago
A person that takes in a million and spends a million is still wealthier than one that does likewise with32,000. Any other reasoning is pandering to your own self interest.
Lolis
· 1 year ago
I think Obama's answer was right on. Sure if you live in NYC and earn that money it's different than living in Kansas and bringing in that income. But nonetheless, that is still a good salary for NYC and that person can afford to pay higher taxes. McCain flubbed that answer horribly. He said that rich people were often very unhappy and then a breath later he said he wants everyone to be rich. So does McCain want me to be unhappy?
coolcatdaddy
· 1 year ago
Democrats often ignore the "rich middle class" and they need to stop it.
And while they're at it, they should stop yammering on endlessly like the Repugnicans about "families", "working families" and what they're doing "for the children" and pay some attention to a signficant part of the population that's living single.
According to some Pew stats I dug up, 56% are married or living as married in the same household, 44% have never been married, are divorced, widowed or separated. That's a big chunk of the American adult population that's just being ignored by both parties.
Fireblazes(CheetohsandCatfood)
· 1 year ago
Me, Me, Me!
Zoner
· 1 year ago
I'm not a frequent Americablog reader, though I feel I will start reading it more soon due to a post on the front page that summed up my feelings about Obama's campaign--that he's not hitting hard enough.
The last time I read Americablog, we were dealing with hundreds of comments per post. Occasionally Aravosis posted back to my replies even then (my username has changed, couldn't figure it out), and I appreciated that. I loved his and the rest of Americablog's coverage of gay issues, for the right reason, but really resisted way, way left coverage due to the fact that I live in Alabama and am balanced everyday by the true American electorate. I haven't visited in about 2 years, due to my feeling that this blog is way left of politics and through college and a fledgling careeer in journalism I've been necessarily moved central.
To clarify, I love Obama, but I also know many, MANY, republicans, and in Alabama at least being republican is all about politics.
Anyway, this is the point of my post. I wish you would point out that McCain was almost kidding (and he said, right after he said $5 million is rich, that he was kidding) when he said 5 mil. There's plenty of room to make fun of him on the fact that he's even making JOKES that 5 mil is rich in America. Even in NY, 250,000 is good living. It's like you're arguing that the ability to go to school for 8 years is something that people are able to receive easily without assistance. We're Democrats. I am lucky to have parents who told me "we make less than $100,000 a year, so of course we're democrats" when I was the only person in my entire school who said he would vote for Gore in our school poll in 2000. $250,000 is a great answer in Obama's situation. In fact, it's amazingly prescient. But as democrats, rich people are not our base. Poor people are, or at the least, should be. Our trouble is convincing them they will allow them to maintain their moral values and make more money. We can do that, because it requires nothing for the first thing, and tax cuts for the poor and raises for the rich to do the rest. $250,000 is not an issue.
All Comments
Hilzoy notes the latest:
No More Mr. Nice Blog points out that The Nightingale's Song, a 1995 book about five graduates of the Naval Academy, one of whom is McCain -- contains a chapter on, of all things, three Christmases McCain spent in captivity. (Thanks to Amazon's 'Search This Book' feature, and the fact that the chapter in question is only four pages long, I've read it, and you can too.) It contains no mention of this incident at all.
Didn't watch it myself.
They're all Wingnuts.
Also, I agree with Obama that the so-called "payroll tax" for social security and medicare should be extended to earnings above the current $97,000 ceiling.
John is correct in that you can't measure a person's standard of living without taking into account geographic differences. A $4 million apartment in New York can be had for a tenth that cost in the midwest or south.
Nor should we be focusing on increasing corporate taxes. The result is nothing more than a pass-through of tax costs to consumers. Again, tax the investment income.
that means McShame thinks that 100 times the median income is the definition of rich. Strange that he would set the bar so high? Not really, what he is really admitting to is that unless you make 5 Million/yr you aren't important to him. Like Barbara Bush, McShame has deep contempt for "those people".
Yup.
You cant really put a number on it, a millionaire can be poor because he spends it all on drugs, or someone making 50,000 /yr could be rich because they save every penny and earn interest, etc.
Maybe total personal assets is the way to go, but the federal government taxes income as opposed to wealth, so I'm not really sure why we'd measure wealth.
That being said, it is a relative arguement, but it seems to me that the weight of the arguement should be on what people take in (all sources of income), and not so much on what they spend, simply because a lot of the expenses most people have are self-imposed (no, I'm not talking about unexpected bills and things like that). Now, if the average income for a person in this country is 32000 or so, and you are making 320,000 (or some other obviously larger number), it's pretty hard to feel too sorry for you if you choose to live in a brownstone in Manhattan and keep your BMW parked in a $300.00/month garage.
Sorry.
I try to support every good person but that sounds stupid.
Buying things that will increase in value is how to build wealth.
Besides, the deductions can be useful.
http://www.trevorfitzgerald.com/2008/01/chris-r...
Apparently the FBI didn't keep a key piece of evidence in the Anthrax Attack.
Nothing to see here...
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_10237558
It must be an honest mistake.
http://66.170.18.164/playlists/18aug08.mp3
And while they're at it, they should stop yammering on endlessly like the Repugnicans about "families", "working families" and what they're doing "for the children" and pay some attention to a signficant part of the population that's living single.
According to some Pew stats I dug up, 56% are married or living as married in the same household, 44% have never been married, are divorced, widowed or separated. That's a big chunk of the American adult population that's just being ignored by both parties.
The last time I read Americablog, we were dealing with hundreds of comments per post. Occasionally Aravosis posted back to my replies even then (my username has changed, couldn't figure it out), and I appreciated that. I loved his and the rest of Americablog's coverage of gay issues, for the right reason, but really resisted way, way left coverage due to the fact that I live in Alabama and am balanced everyday by the true American electorate. I haven't visited in about 2 years, due to my feeling that this blog is way left of politics and through college and a fledgling careeer in journalism I've been necessarily moved central.
To clarify, I love Obama, but I also know many, MANY, republicans, and in Alabama at least being republican is all about politics.
Anyway, this is the point of my post. I wish you would point out that McCain was almost kidding (and he said, right after he said $5 million is rich, that he was kidding) when he said 5 mil. There's plenty of room to make fun of him on the fact that he's even making JOKES that 5 mil is rich in America. Even in NY, 250,000 is good living. It's like you're arguing that the ability to go to school for 8 years is something that people are able to receive easily without assistance. We're Democrats. I am lucky to have parents who told me "we make less than $100,000 a year, so of course we're democrats" when I was the only person in my entire school who said he would vote for Gore in our school poll in 2000. $250,000 is a great answer in Obama's situation. In fact, it's amazingly prescient. But as democrats, rich people are not our base. Poor people are, or at the least, should be. Our trouble is convincing them they will allow them to maintain their moral values and make more money. We can do that, because it requires nothing for the first thing, and tax cuts for the poor and raises for the rich to do the rest. $250,000 is not an issue.
I love your post on Obama not hitting back.