The Truth About John McCain's Money

inmytree

I just got this emailed to me, he sounds like a celebrity...:D

I've been concerned that there are too many rumors going around about John McCain and I wanted to help set the facts straight. Please forward this email to everyone you know.

THE LIE: Combined, the McCain family has has a credit card balance that is more than $750,000 and their interest rate is 24.49%.

THE TRUTH: The McCains pay off their credit card bills on a monthly basis. The $750,000 figure is also wrong, though it is true that between January 2007 and May 2008, one of the credit cards did reach $500,000 and another reached $250,000.

Also, with a combined net worth over $100 million, most of the credit cards did not have any interest payments at all. Only their Visa, Mastercard, and Saks Fifth Avenue cards (monthly balances ranging between $15,000 and $50,000) charged interest.

::: :::

THE LIE: McCain purchased two separate $4.7 million dollar condos in San Diego for their own enjoyment.

THE TRUTH: The combined cost of the two condos was $4.7 millon, and one of them was for the kids.

::: :::

THE LIE: The McCains spent over $500,000 in 2007 on household staff, such as maids and butlers.

THE TRUTH: They increased their household staffing budget from $184,000 in 2006 to only $273,000 in 2007.

::: :::

THE LIE: The McCains spent $11 million between the summer of 2004 and February 2008 on 13 different residences.

THE TRUTH: They spent $11 million acquiring five residences.

::: :::

THE LIE: The McCains inherited a business worth $1,000,000,000 from relatives.

THE TRUTH: The McCains inherited assets worth more than $100,000,000 from relatives, but those assets are unlikely to be worth $1,000,000,000.

::: :::

THE LIE: John McCain gambles away hundreds of thousands of dollars at the craps tables in Las Vegas.

THE TRUTH: While John McCain does frequently play craps in Las Vegas in continuous 14-hour sessions, it is unlikely that he has ever gambled away $100,000 in a single session.

Snake

You know, looking at the "Truths", they dont seem to be any better than the lies
Instead of spending $11 million on 13 residences, he spent it on only five. Oh thats ok he just bought more expensive ones instead :rolleyes: Same amount of money.


Just think, if all the money these damn politicians had went to the people who actually needed it, the whole country could be a better place. And if all the money that they are raising for this stupid campaign went to people who needed it instead, just imagine what we could do.

Kinda off subject I know, just had to throw it out there.

cincybearcat

Snake wrote:

You know, looking at the "Truths", they dont seem to be any better than the lies


Just think, if all the money these damn politicians had went to the people who actually needed it, the whole country could be a better place. And if all the money that they are raising for this stupid campaign went to people who needed it instead, just imagine what we could do.

Kinda off subject I know, just had to throw it out there.

Who decides who needs it, who gets it, and who has to give it up?

Snake

cincybearcat wrote:

Who decides who needs it, who gets it, and who has to give it up?

You know people who dont have money in a surplus. People who are struggling to keep a home. That kind of thing. Its a basic moral responsibility to me (and many others im sure) to give what you dont need to those who could actually use it for something important, like food and a home. Of course I know not everybody has the same morals, but you get what I mean.

cincybearcat

Snake wrote:

You know people who dont have money in a surplus. People who are struggling to keep a home. That kind of thing. Its a basic moral responsibility to me (and many others im sure) to give what you dont need to those who could actually use it for something important, like food and a home. Of course I know not everybody has the same morals, but you get what I mean.

I hear ya...especially regarding the amount of $ that goes into campaigning.

raszputini

The McCains are ROLLING in beer money - so they've got condos and butlers and vacation homes, and McCain is willing to play craps and bet .00001% of his money. Who cares? That's the relative equivalent of a $100,000 earner spending $10 on the lottery throughout the course of the year. That certainly is not indicative of a gambling problem. My mom plays slots in Cherokee, NC sometimes and probably spends a much higher percentage of her income.

All Presidential candidates are LOADED. They have to be to run a viable campaign in this age, unfortunately.

Obama is loaded too - a certified millionaire at a much younger age. Obama's wealth has more than doubled since he began his Presidential bid and has increased TENFOLD since he entered the Senate only THREE years ago....think about that. Increasing your income by a factor of TEN in only THREE years.....
(http://biostatprof.blogspot.com/2008/05/obamas-wealth-rises-rapidly.html)

Makes you wonder about what he was doing while he was missing all those votes in the Senate. The Rezko land deal isn't really being talked about, but it will be in October. The GOP put the "feelers" out on this story in February and then dropped it like a bad habit. Why? Because it wasn't time to talk about it. Hillary couldn't use it effectively because of Whitewater.

Let's be clear- Obama was IN BED with Rezko. Rezko was on Obama's Senate finance committee. They have been friends for over 13 years. Rezko basically exmbezzeled $250,000 out of the IL teacher's retirement fund, some of which became campaign contributions for Obama. But Obama is the "pro-education" candidate.(http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article)

Rezko has generated nearly $200,000 or verifiable contributions for Obama in their 13 year relationship, although Obama has publicly stated it is less than 60K. That's not counting the $300,000 below market value Obama bought his house for FROM Rezko - he then kicked back $100,000 of it to Rezko's wife for a useless little scrap of land that is in between their houses. Yeah, they are next-door neighbors.

But, that's not all. Obama was paid $8000 a month by the Electronic Knowledge Interchange, a technology firm owned by Robert Blackwell, a Rezko associate. Obama ended up netting a total of $112,000 from Blackwell
(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/corruption-erup.html). Once he recieved his final payment, Obama started campaigning for Illinois officials to provide government grants for a different Blackwell company.

These are just a few of the sketchy deals that enabled Obama to increase his income TENFOLD in three years.

This will all come out when it will hurt him most.

Before ANYONE starts talking about the Keating Five, make sure know the deal. McCain did nothing improper and was basically called a wimp by the others for refusing to participate. He was in one meeting with the Lincoln S&L regulators and the minute he was told that they were under investigation he bailed out and refused to be a part of it.

anotherclone

raszputini wrote:

Obama is loaded too - a certified millionaire at a much younger age. Obama's wealth has more than doubled since he began his Presidential bid and has increased TENFOLD since he entered the Senate only THREE years ago....think about that. Increasing your income by a factor of TEN in only THREE years.....

two words actually explain the increase in his income.

BOOK DEAL.

I'm trying to figure out how a satire post regarding McCain's money has gone to Rezko, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

raszputini

Because I think we should discuss both of their money....

Obama certainly made a bunch of money from the two books. 4 million is the estimate for 2007. He also made money through a host of shady business deals, including the purchase of his house, and through the "favor-purchasing" network in Chicago, as is indicated by the EKI deal.

anotherclone

raszputini wrote:

Because I think we should discuss both of their money....

Obama certainly made a bunch of money from the two books. 4 million is the estimate for 2007. He also made money through a host of shady business deals, including the purchase of his house, and through the "favor-purchasing" network in Chicago, as is indicated by the EKI deal.

also, I hear he kicks puppies.

Snake

anotherclone wrote:

also, I hear he kicks puppies.

Bastard! :mad:

Well im not going to root for him anymore!

beachdweller

some of the truths also aren't addressing the lie, i.e.:

mccain gambles away hundreds of thousands of dollars at craps tables in vegas

to which they say they doubt he's lost 100,000 at one 14 hr sitting?

slightofjeff

Snake wrote:

You know people who dont have money in a surplus. People who are struggling to keep a home. That kind of thing. Its a basic moral responsibility to me (and many others im sure) to give what you dont need to those who could actually use it for something important, like food and a home. Of course I know not everybody has the same morals, but you get what I mean.

So everyone should have the same amount of money?

I know ... why don't we all throw our combined paychecks into a big pot at the end of the month, and we'll split it all even steven. How does that sound?

Of course, what would be the incentive for me to work? My cut would be basically the same at the end of the month, anyway.

Look, there are already programs to help those in need, so much so that they are abused each and every month. There's no need for us to revert to communism as well.

puremagic

inmytree wrote:

I just got this emailed to me, he sounds like a celebrity...:D

I've been concerned that there are too many rumors going around about John McCain and I wanted to help set the facts straight. Please forward this email to everyone you know.

THE LIE: John McCain gambles away hundreds of thousands of dollars at the craps tables in Las Vegas.

THE TRUTH: While John McCain does frequently play craps in Las Vegas in continuous 14-hour sessions, it is unlikely that he has ever gambled away $100,000 in a single session.

If you are in a 14 hour craps session in Las Vegas, where the house strokes you every ego, McCain losing $100,000 is more than probable because he's a regular and considers himself a season player. TRUTH

Snake

slightofjeff wrote:

So everyone should have the same amount of money?

I know ... why don't we all throw our combined paychecks into a big pot at the end of the month, and we'll split it all even steven. How does that sound?

Of course, what would be the incentive for me to work? My cut would be basically the same at the end of the month, anyway.

Look, there are already programs to help those in need, so much so that they are abused each and every month. There's no need for us to revert to communism as well.

Well considering I never said that everyone should have the same amount of money, and that I never mentioned anything remotely regarding communism, I think you have just misjudged my comment.

No argument from me, just a reasoning.

slightofjeff

Snake wrote:

Well considering I never said that everyone should have the same amount of money, and that I never mentioned anything remotely regarding communism, I think you have just misjudged my comment.

No argument from me, just a reasoning.

Taking money from people who have a surplus to give it to people who don't have a surplus sounds an awful lot like communism to me.

cincybearcat

slightofjeff wrote:

Taking money from people who have a surplus to give it to people who don't have a surplus sounds an awful lot like communism to me.

What's a $ surplus...how much is that?

Snake

slightofjeff wrote:

Taking money from people who have a surplus to give it to people who don't have a surplus sounds an awful lot like communism to me.

I see what you mean. I never meant actually taking from some people and giving it to others.

Me wrote:

Its a basic moral responsibility to me (and many others im sure) to give what you dont need to those who could actually use it for something important, like food and a home. Of course I know not everybody has the same morals, but you get what I mean.

And as you see I do include that not everyone has the same morals.

SweetHarmonics

KNOWN KNOWNS:

a fortune built on the backs of alcoholics everywhere is something to be proud of, dude ditched his first wife and married into the franchise wealth....shrewd move

the compulsive gambler that doesn't know when to quit, a characterization that brings new meanings to the Keating scandal and his frugality/lack of campaign funds....he's got upper management written all over him

but at least he's got the pasty white skin, that's good for at least 44%

blackredyellow

Good thing he is still cashing his social security checks. Looks like he needs them.

The Juggler

Snake wrote:

You know people who dont have money in a surplus. People who are struggling to keep a home. That kind of thing. Its a basic moral responsibility to me (and many others im sure) to give what you dont need to those who could actually use it for something important, like food and a home. Of course I know not everybody has the same morals, but you get what I mean.

beat it you socialist.....lol

RolandTD20Kdrummer

McCain being awake for 14 hours?

that old fart probably needs a nap every 6 hours or he faints into convulsions...

TDMize15

slightofjeff wrote:

Taking money from people who have a surplus to give it to people who don't have a surplus sounds an awful lot like communism to me.

Then you should get a dictionary

Taking money away from people sounds like taxes to me.

Giving to people who don't have a lot of money sounds like welfare to me.

He is not saying take all their money and let everyone have equal money. He is saying that the less fortunate should be helped out by the more fortunate.

slightofjeff

Don't Know Myself wrote:

Then you should get a dictionary

Taking money away from people sounds like taxes to me.

Giving to people who don't have a lot of money sounds like welfare to me.

He is not saying take all their money and let everyone have equal money. He is saying that the less fortunate should be helped out by the more fortunate.

And I'm saying that already happens ... anything more is flirting with socialism.

How much is enough?

TDMize15

slightofjeff wrote:

And I'm saying that already happens ... anything more is flirting with socialism.

How much is enough?

Well at least I've backed you off from communism to socialism

Ask most European countries and Canada. It's all personal opinion on how to redistribute wealth... however I personally believe that something has to be done about it in the U.S.


Quote on the U.S.'s distribution of wealth: "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."

How is this right? Do you think that that bottom 40% are all undeserving people?

I think this is definitive proof that the current system does not work.

slightofjeff

Don't Know Myself wrote:

Well at least I've backed you off from communism to socialism

Ask most European countries and Canada. It's all personal opinion on how to redistribute wealth... however I personally believe that something has to be done about it in the U.S.


Quote on the U.S.'s distribution of wealth: "In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."

How is this right? Do you think that that bottom 40% are all undeserving people?

I think this is definitive proof that the current system does not work.

As we are supposed to learn in about the third grade, sometimes life is not fair. Maybe someone has more money than you because they work harder, or are smarter, or more talented. Or maybe they just fucking got lucky and won the lottery in life.

So be it.

I think everyone deserves the basics -- food, water, shelter and (you could argue) basic health care. The government does a decent job of providing in at least those first three areas. There are social programs funded by taxpayer money. I am not against those programs in principal at all.

Above and beyond that, I don't give a shit. Let one man have a plasma TV in every room of his house, while another man can't even afford basic cable.

I'm not going to vilify the rich for being rich. And I'm loathe to ask them to pay more in taxes, when they are already giving close to 40 percent of their hard-earned money to the government as it is.

Asking a man to give nearly half his income to the government ... THAT isn't right.

TDMize15

slightofjeff wrote:

As we are supposed to learn in about the third grade, sometimes life is not fair. Maybe someone has more money than you because they work harder, or are smarter, or more talented. Or maybe they just fucking got lucky and won the lottery in life.

So be it.

I think everyone deserves the basics -- food, water, shelter and (you could argue) basic health care. The government does a decent job of providing in at least those first three areas. There are social programs funded by taxpayer money. I am not against those programs in principal at all.

Above and beyond that, I don't give a shit. Let one man have a plasma TV in every room of his house, while another man can't even afford basic cable.

I'm not going to vilify the rich for being rich. And I'm loathe to ask them to pay more in taxes, when they are already giving close to 40 percent of their hard-earned money to the government as it is.

Asking a man to give nearly half his income to the government ... THAT isn't right.

And that is simply a difference of opinion that I can respect.

slightofjeff

Don't Know Myself wrote:

And that is simply a difference of opinion that I can respect.

Agreed. Even though you are dead wrong

RolandTD20Kdrummer

If McCain is up for 14 hours in a row in a casino...he's either hitting the ice pipe, or tooting on some big fluffy lines...

raszputini

In every economic system there are winners and losers. I agree that the rich/poor gap is far too wide in the U.S.. But redistributing the wealth is not the answer, for many reasons.

There are plenty of problems with our system, but probably the two biggest are 1) The Federal Reserve System and 2) money is king in the political process.

Until the US starts printing it's OWN money and removes private bankers from currency creation and management, and until we find a way to separate money from the political process, we will always have this problem.

The Federal Reserve system enables a small few (that top 1% you were talking about) to make money simply by having money while at the same time, controlling all the factors that affect the market, so that they can maximize how much money their money makes. The problem isn't capitalism, it's speculative capitalism.\

Then those same individuals have a disproportionate impact on the political process by controlling media outlets, agenda-setting, campaign contributions, etc. Politicians are accountable to those who get them elected, and they don't view the voters as the people who get them elected anymore. It's the contributor that enabled them to run that ad that reached 200,000 voters, or the one that bankrolled a trip overseas, or better yet, the one that sponsored a $5000 a seat lunch that made them half a million dollars. Those are the people they are accountable to, and those are the people in the top 10%.

Any system of redistribution in our current political statement ends up screwing over the middle and working class, and that is where the money comes from. The Top 10% has a stable of tax and estate attorneys that can find loopholes in the tax law, create trusts to hide money, and has a ton of money to lobby so that the loopholes are in the legislation.