The Truth About John McCain's Money

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 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.

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.

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 wrote:

also, I hear he kicks puppies.

Bastard! :mad:

Well im not going to root for him anymore!

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.

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 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?

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%

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