CNN chart purporting to compare candidates' "wealth" omitted Cindy McCain, who is reportedly worth $100 million
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On The Situation Room, an on-screen chart showed Sen. John McCain's income to be significantly lower than that of Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when combined with the income of their spouses. However, the chart did not include any income earned by McCain's wife, Cindy. As Dana Bash reported moments earlier of Cindy McCain, "Some estimates actually put her worth at about $100 million."
On the April 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, during a report on the release of Sen. John McCain's tax returns, an on-screen chart showed McCain's income to be significantly lower than that of Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when combined with the income of their spouses. However, the chart did not include any income that McCain's wife, Cindy -- who has not released her tax returns -- earned separately. As CNN political correspondent Dana Bash reported moments earlier of Cindy McCain, "Some estimates actually put her worth at about $100 million." While the chart was displayed, on-screen text read: "Comparing their wealth."
Also while the chart was displayed, host Wolf Blitzer said, "Let's see how McCain's total income of about $405,000 compares to some other big-name political types. Remember, McCain filed separately from his very wealthy wife, Cindy. George and Laura Bush reported a combined income of more than $900,000 last year. Dick and Lynne Cheney had a total income of more than $3 million. Barack and Michelle Obama earned a total of more than $4 million last year. And Hillary and Bill Clinton outearned them all last year with a total income of more than $20 million."
Earlier in the program, Bash compared the portion of McCain's income that he gave to charity with the portion given by the Clintons and Obamas -- without noting that McCain presumably benefits from his wife's wealth and from her income from her separate property, a figure that she has not released. Bash stated: "So, all told, John McCain donated about 26 percent of his income to charity. And Wolf, by comparison, the Clintons gave 15 percent, and the Obamas, they gave 6 percent."
Additionally, Bash reported: "Now, ironically, Wolf, you probably remember -- well, actually I can tell you now, McCain advisers are defending not releasing his wife's tax records by comparing it to Democrat John Kerry, his campaign four years ago. And what you do remember, then, is his multimillionaire wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, she refused to disclose all of her tax returns. And that's something Republicans campaigned about -- complained about, I should say." However, as Media Matters for America documented, while Heinz Kerry did not provide her full tax returns, as The New York Times reported, she did release a "two-page document" showing a "total income of $5,073,554 last year." Heinz Kerry's release enabled the Times to do an analysis to determine how much she had benefited from the Bush tax cuts, which John McCain supports extending permanently.
From the April 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BASH: What the campaign did not release were tax returns for McCain's wife, Cindy. She, of course, is an heiress to a fortune from her father's beer-distribution empire that was called -- is called Hensley & Company, and she is now the chairman of that company.
According to last year's Senate financial disclosure form, the McCains have assets of at least $36.5 million. Some estimates actually put her worth at about $100 million. But, Wolf, before marrying 27 years ago, the McCains signed a prenuptial agreement. And that keeps their finances separate, and they file their taxes separately. And McCain's campaign said Cindy is not releasing her returns, in words of the campaign, "in the interest of protecting the privacy of her children." But you remember, Michelle Obama, who also, of course, has very young children, she did release her tax records, and she filed those jointly with her husband, Barack Obama.
Now, the DNC chairman, Howard Dean, he issued a statement just a short while ago calling McCain's lack of transparency, quote, "troubling" and said not releasing Cindy McCain's taxes, quote, "raised -- raises questions about what he's hiding."
Now, ironically, Wolf, you probably remember -- well, actually I can tell you now, McCain advisers are defending not releasing his wife's tax records by comparing it to Democrat John Kerry, his campaign four years ago. And what you do remember, then, is his multimillionaire wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, she refused to disclose all of her tax returns. And that's something Republicans campaigned about -- complained about, I should say.
Now, let's go back to John McCain and a little bit more about what he did disclose today. First of all, he received more than $58,000 from his Navy -- from the Navy for his pension. He's 71 years old, and the presumptive Republican nominee also got $23,000 last year in Social Security, and he paid nearly $18,000 in alimony to his ex-wife. He actually earned nearly $177,000 in royalties from the books that he sold, and he donated, along with his wife, all of that money to charity.
And let's look at some of the charity because it's interesting. McCain gave an additional $17,000 in charity. So, all told, John McCain donated about 26 percent of his income to charity. And Wolf, by comparison, the Clintons gave 15 percent, and the Obamas, they gave 6 percent.
BLITZER: Interesting. Very interesting. He also said -- correct me if I'm wrong -- about a month or two ago that he would release his medical records by April 15th. It's now April 18th. What's the delay?
BASH: That's right. Well, it was about a month ago, maybe more, that John McCain was actually coming from a doctor's appointment, and he said that he would release his medical records right about now. And then immediately, his campaign said, well, you know, it might, you know, be a couple of days later. The McCain campaign told us a couple weeks ago that they're actually not going to release his medical records until next month, sometime in May. The reason they give, Wolf, is because they say they're trying to line up all of his doctors because they insist they want his doctors to be at a press conference available to answer reporters' questions about McCain's health.
Of course, you remember he had skin cancer eight years ago, and obviously, he is -- would be, if elected, the oldest president. So they understand his health is a big issue. But, you know, it's going to be May before we get any kind of -- or any kind of medical records from him. They did release a lot of records back in 1999, the first time he ran for president.
BLITZER: That was before the melanoma, though.
BASH: Exactly.
BLITZER: All right. Thanks very much, Dana, for that. We'll continue to watch this story.
Let's see how McCain's total income of about $405,000 compares to some other big-name political types. Remember, McCain filed separately from his very wealthy wife, Cindy. George and Laura Bush reported a combined income of more than $900,000 last year. Dick and Lynne Cheney had a total income of more than $3 million. Barack and Michelle Obama earned a total of more than $4 million last year. And Hillary and Bill Clinton outearned them all last year with a total income of more than $20 million.
<>McCain looks so darn lonely on that bar chart all by himself!
<>Kudos for noting CNN's conflation of annual income with wealth. <>The claim by MM is not true.
The chart does not purport to show "wealth." It purports to show "income." There's a big difference!
MM is being dishonest here, folks!
hey moron, you got it wrong.
Cindy McCain's "income" is not being factored in-- while Bill Clinton's IS! Poor Johnny boy looks like the little guy here. Just why is that? CNN could have at least estimated hers...
How CNN could use one set of criteria for the Dems-- joint income-- and a different set for McCain-- sole income-- speaks volumes.
This omission is unbelieveable, so glaringly wrong, that it must make MMFA's day!
Just look at that phony chart-- with McCain the pobrecito, no less!
What audacity. What lies.
"So, all told, John McCain donated about 26 percent of his income to charity. And Wolf, by comparison, the Clintons gave 15 percent, and the Obamas, they gave 6 percent."
A third-grader could see how fallacious this comparison is-- CNN is comparing partial incomes of the McCain's vs. total incomes of the Dems.
Proof positive that this kind of selectivity and dishonesty is deliberate. Has Blitzer no shame to be standing there, delivering that nonsense?
Does he not wake up in the morning and say to himself-- 'that was erroneous, that was wrong'?
Where's Olbermann's worst person in the world on this guy?
I wish we could find out how much these "journalists" gave to charity. The minimum of these 3, 6% is above average.
Let's see? In dollars -
26% of McCain = 105,300
6% of Obama = 252,000
15% of Clinton = 3,060,000
McCain has no actual money worries.
Obama's young and only recently started having a yearly income in this range. His gross contributions are admirable, considering he probably has half his life left and he is smart enough to see that the dollar may have dark days ahead.
Clintons' come out looking good in dollar amount - that's some real folding money and 15% is way above national average.
Show me that Cindy McCain also gave 26% of her income and I will possibly undergo an existential crisis and question some of my beliefs regarding the hyper-wealthy.
And whose the one with the generous, multi-faceted, bullet proof retirement income? McCain!
NOW, about McCain's income. Infuriates me, as a teacher, to see those multiple government pensions for politicians. McCain benefits like this from service and Soc Sec, yet we have this nifty bill that applies to some state employees, teachers in my state, that says I don't get the Soc Sec benefits I contributed towards if I get a state pension.
I hear you on the SS problem-- it is so unfair.
Teachers and other public employees who have vested non-SS pension plans get their earned SS taken away! You can blame Chris Matthews' old boss for letting the Repubs get away with this in the mid 80's when they "fixed" SS.
Every year Congress says they will change this, and every year they don't.
Apparently, public employees aren't allowed to collect their own SS because they ahve a pension that they paid into. But private sector-- or John McCain-- they get it all!
It's not about CNN being "right", it's about CNN misrepresenting facts. This type of misrepresentation and using the percentage of income given to charity versus the dollar amount really pisses me off. It's obvious that these clowns at CNN are carrying water for McCain. If they weren't, they would have given a fairer accounting of the tax returns.
To me, it's obvious that with this piece they are trying to portray McCain in a more favorable light, especially when it comes to the wealthy and their charitable contributions. And CNN couldn't even do an apples to apples comparison. The first mistake: McCain's filing versus the Clintons and the Obamas. The first line of the report should have been something about the fact that the Obama and his wife filed jointly; Bill and Hillary Clinton filed jointly; John and Cindy McCain did not.
Then butthole Blitzer compares the charitable contributions in percentage form. If Blitzer really wanted a true comparison, he would have used the percentages, then used the real dollar amounts. Let the people decide based on a real analysis...not the analysis of someone trying to purposefully misinform the electorate.
"It's difficult to believe, but a wife's wealth from her family, do not belong to the husband. "
We're talking about her income!!
Which means....Bill Clinton's counts, but hers doesn't, right?
The chart and the story and resulting "number-crunching" to come up with "percentages donated tax-deductably to charitable causes", it's all ridiculous, for what it's supposed to imply: That John McCain, at one end of the spectrum, is a selfless Buddhist monk who donates most of his earnings to charity... and at the other end of the spectrum are the greedy ungiving Mr. and Mrs. Leona Helmsley.
But the whole thing is worse than ridiculous, it's dishonest.
Any CNN producer, seeing the story while it's still "on the drawing board", would certainly ask "Why does the graphic, showing McCain at one extreme end, have him alone, without his wife, while the other pictures show spouses? What happened, did McCain get divorced again while I was at lunch, and he's a bachelor now?"
And of course the one who made up the chart graphic would respond "The guy's still married as far as I know... it's just that his wife hasn't released her tax returns as of yet, so we don't have that information, so we couldn't put it on the chart graphic."
(And here's where dishonesty is recognized, and speaks at the meeting)
"OK, I was just asking..." says the producer "Fine, go with it."
(As opposed to what any honest sincere truthful person might have said:
"You mean we don't have all the info to complete the chart grahic? It's incomplete? Well then, we don't run the story, or at least we don't show the chart, until we have all the information... if information is incomplete, then it invites conclusions that are likewise incomplete... and the business we're in, we don't do that... we don't invite misunderstanding... in this business, it's misunderstanding and misinformation and ignorance that we stand opposed to, like an Excorcist opposes the Devil and his Demonic minions..."
"The Power of Truth Compels You..." the producer says to the drawing board gang, laughing at his Excorcist reference...
"The Power of Truth Compels You!"
...as he sprinkles them with water from the water-cooler, and forbids the little devils from using the incomplete graphic chart with the incomplete information inviting the incomplete conclusion.)
Also, I see no reference in the story, nor in the comments either, as to just what it is that makes Mrs. McCain so wealthy (worth about $100 million I guess).
Her father, Jim Hensley, founded a beer distributorship (they're the ones who own and drive those cool beer trucks, that roll up regulary to your local package store or liquor store or whatever you call them in your part of the country), and he ran his beer distributorship up into the biggest in the Phoenix area, biggest by far, mostly by being the exclusive distributor of Anheuser-Busch products in that part of the country: the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributor in the nation.
Mr. Hensley has passed, and now his daughter Cindy is The Queen of Budweiser in the greater Phoenix area... but before Jim passed on, while he was still running the suds distributorship, he hired a sharp young guy out of the Navy, who also happened to be his Son-in-law: John McCain.
Sen. McCain is a former Vice President of Public Relations at Hensley & Co., of which Cindy is the Chairman of the Board.
One last thought on the matter:
So John McCain was the Vice President of Public Relations at the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributor in the nation?
Public Relations, for Budweiser beer?
What did he do in that capacity... invent "Spuds Mackenzie", the surfboard-riding pitbull that sold Bud Light?
Or maybe Mr. McCain had the idea of beer bottles hilariously playing their own little football game, the Bud Bowl, at half-time of the Super Bowl?
I don't know... some genius must have thought all these things up... cool stuff like that doesn't just happen, like the weather or chit does.
Some guy had to be the first to say "Hey, I know, let's advertise beer on the television, specifically during the ball game... that'll move the suds with the American People!"
(To which even those two little B&W cardboard cut-out guys, selling Guinness Beer on tv, would say "BRILLIANT!"... Public Relations for beer... there's got be a genius behind it all... maybe John McCain, maybe he's the guy to rescue the American Brand world-wide... "Spuds McCain!")
People, if you look at the numbers. The McCains almost gave all their money away to charity.
In fact, McCain's entire book proceeds went to charity.
If we want to talk numbers. Let's talk numbers.
These numbers have ZERO relevance to the election. I was serious above - what is this graph supposed to convey? Who do they think will base any decision on this? Didn't we all know they are millionaires?
Really, I'm trying to understand what the importance of this is.
The importance is this: CNN is cooking the books to the benefit of McCain.
It defies belief that they would factor Bill Clinton's income in with Hillary, but leave out McCain's wife.
It's such a glaring omission that it had to be deliberate. Good work, MMFA.
The McCains almost gave all their money away to charity.(Copeydisy)
Good thing they reconsidered. That would be pretty stupid to give all of your money away. What the hell are you talking about?
They did not give away most of their money. Where do these people get these ideas?
MMFA noted yesterday that-- unlike Clinton, unlike the general sketch of Kerry-- McCain's wife refused to submit her tax info. They gave away his paltry sums.
Where do these people get these ideas?
Compliantconsent doesn't technically have "ideas", more like instructions. Possibly the stoopidest poster ever on this site, and he's made a blog to parade it. I think AnotherAmerican might be brighter than CD.
Let's talk numbers - copius...
OK - number of intelligent posts made by you - zero.
People, if you look at the numbers. The McCains almost gave all their money away to charity.
As usual, you are wrong, CopiousOmmission. With Cindy McCain's income unreported, there's no way of knowing how much money the McCains have - therefore, your statement about them giving "all their money away to charity" is bogus - just like everything else you post here.
And I'm sure your blog is equally useless. I've never bothered going there, because based on the "quality" of your posts here at MMFA, your blog can't be anything bu another right-wing cybersewer - and the Internet is littered with right-wing cybersewers.
Even if John Boy's chances at the presidency go down in flames.
PLEASE NOTE: I could have used, but chose not to use, the horrible derogatory name, "Gramps". I am a recovering Hateful Ageist and I'm working the steps in the Hateful Ageists Anonymous Program.
Why would we want to spoil the beauty of Mt. Rushmore and the surrounding states with the mugs of McCain and Bush? ;)
"People, if you look at the numbers. The McCains almost gave all their money away to charity."
Another idiot.
Since only HIS income is being factored in, the "McCains(ssss)" have nothing to do with it. We don't know where her money goes-- and the claim that almost all of their money is being donated away is laughable.
The whole chart makes McCain look like Mahatma Gandhi-- which of course is the idea.
If Blitzer wants to watch the story, that is fine, eat your heart out. i am watching the real story and that is oil prices going thru the roof and no creature is stirring.now that ios a matter of national security, a serious lapse in defending this nation not only from a military attack but also an economic attack.
Yeah, right.
Guy is hired to test the efficiency of a large company. He devises a simple test. He goes to the CEO and asks, "How much is two and two?" CEO says, "We're having a meeting next week to determine that outcome." Guy goes to the legal department. "How much is two and two?" "Well, in Collins vs the State of Iowa in 1911, the Supreme Court ruled that two and two was 5, but that was on appeal." He then goes to the accounting section. "How much is two and two?" Accountant replies, "How much do you want it to be?"
Apparently these numbers are supposed to reveal something about character. The only tie to character I see is this:
Some candidates want to raise their own taxes. Some candidates want to lower their own taxes.
I've reported. You decide.
how dumb can you dems be? mccain and his wife entered into a prenuptial agreement prior to their marriage, and accordingly he has no interest in her beer distributorship. the others have no such arrangement so everything is community property and community income.
disclaimer: the clintons are from new york, which is not a community property state (that being basically the states that at one time were under Spanish authority), so they may not call it community there. however, they have an equivalent arrangement.
Rump-
How do you know he didn't flip-flop on the pre-nuptial agreement? He seems to think he's entitled to change his mind on just about anything.
I assume you are not serious,
The agreement can be changed with the help of a court.
I recall that in '04, much was said by all the righty talkers about Theresa Heinz Kerry's wealth, and how it might benefit Senator Kerry in his White House bid, and how it might influence him as President...
check it : http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200407140830.asp
Interestingly, the above article also makes a bunch of noise about her unwillingness to release more than the first two pages of her tax returns. So where's the righty outrage about Mrs. McCain? I mean, there's a pre-nup between Mrs. Kerry and her husband, as well...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/homes.asp
oil prices going thru the roof and no creature is stirring.now that ios a matter of national security, a serious lapse in defending this nation not only from a military attack but also an economic attack.
well, hold on to your hats, it's only going to get worse. commodities across the board are going up for a variety of reasons, including increased demand from india and china, biofuels programs, drought in Australia, and Argentina for no good reason other than they in effect have a dictatorship is cutting back on its wheat planting.
in the meantime, the price of meat is going down. why? because cattle growers are slaughtering their herds in record numbers because they can't afford the cost of feed. so, if you have freezer storage load up on your favorite cuts now, because it won't be long before beef and other meats will be in short supply, but at much higher prices.
RUMPY, I'm with you again...Why does Israel just nuke everyone with those nukes that they don't have? Wait a minute, they don't have nukes..but they do. Sounds like they are breaking international law..again and again and again. NUKE EVERYONE save the world
W.A.R., W.A.R. W.A.R.
WE ARE REPUBLICANS, WE ARE REPUBLICANS,,, W.A.R. W.A.R
Sleepy, I will follow you into battle any time, anyplace.
I assume in your household when eight jewish seminary students are gunned down in their libray you find cause for joy and celebration.
as for using the nukes, i have no problem with that.
Really, only if you have the nukes....Are you saying it would be okay for the nutty terrorists to nuke thier enemy? Not me.
And don't start comparing 8 to 12 to 200..that is just stupid. ZERO would be the ideal.
i was only referring to israeli nukes.
i don't think you really want zero palestinian deaths, because that would mean zero israeli deaths, which you seem to revel in.
when i suggested that palestinian deaths would be zero if they stopped killing israelis, you rejected that approach. as your sympathies lie with the ululators I assume you want zero of their deaths and don't care about israeli deaths. But the approach i posited would mean zero israeli deaths, and so you are willing to accept some palestinian deaths in order that there be israeli deaths.
i know you would just be happy if things could return to the good old days of the third reich, then you'd have plenty of jewish deaths to cheer. Maybe Iran with the nukes they are developing can help you out in that regard. But I wouldn't put the champagne on ice just yet.
Yer all over the map of Stupidsvile aren't you. You might want to read up on the history of Israel before you go spoutin' off at the mouth there, Rumpy. And you might also look at the latest NIE report as it pertains to Iran's nuclear weapons capability, i.e. they don't have any.
Not to mention you can't even spell your own name right. Go back to sleep why don't ya.
i know you would just be happy if things could return to the good old days of the third reich, then you'd have plenty of jewish deaths to cheer.
I think some Jews in Israel (mainly in the far right government) learned the wrong lesson from the Holocaust.
What's the problem here exactly? CNN was showing a graphic of candidates and spouses who have released their tax returns and what are they supposed to do, guess what McCain's wife's is? Just because it is "widely known" that she has over 100 million, is that basis enough to include a bar for her on a chart that is clearly labeled "2007 total income"??? That would be called "irresponsible journalism."
Income and net worth are not the same thing. Mrs McCain could have a net worth in excess of 100 Million and have almost zero income for 2007. We don't know, we will probably not know, and to attribute any figure to 2007 Income would be pure speculation.
Cheneys' income for 2007 probably include proceeds from the sale of a book by Mrs. Cheney, along with proceeds from the Blind Trusts their assests were put into in 2000-2001. I, for one, am glad these people, and others in the country, are a part of the upper income earners that pay between 10 - 30% of all income taxes collected by the IRS.
Assuming the upper 1% pay 10% of the taxes and the upper 5% pay around 30% of the taxes and the bottome 50% pay around 3%, that leaves the rest of us to pay the balance of the bill. I guess we could bill the upper 5% about 4% points more (let the tax cuts expire), but would it make a difference?
No, it wouldn't, nor would it solve anything at all. The only reason (some) liberals want to raise taxes is to punish those who have wealth. (Note to all: Research how Joe Kennedy hid his family fortune offshore, and how much his heirs have had to pay in inheritance taxes.)
I'm convinced that, if (again, some) liberals in power had the chance, they'd pass massive tax increases only on right-of-center wealthy people.
Again wealth and income are two different things. We tax on income and not on wealth (at least until death when the estate tax is re-instated). I agree that trust fund "babies" (Paris Hilton, Ted Kennedy, etal) should probably contribute more as they have done little to earn their wealth, but many of those with what you would consider great wealth worked hard at some point in their lives to earn that wealth (paying taxes as they earned) and many of them are using that wealth for good (instead of spreading it around to get re-elected like a lot of our legislators do with government money).
If you are advocating a 60% tax on the wealthiest, are you also advocating a minimum 1% tax on the poorest? That would only seem fair.
Again wealth and income are two different things.
Agreed.
We tax on income and not on wealth (at least until death when the estate tax is re-instated).
I think we should reevaluate this.
but many of those with what you would consider great wealth worked hard at some point in their lives to earn that wealth (paying taxes as they earned) and many of them are using that wealth for good (instead of spreading it around to get re-elected like a lot of our legislators do with government money).
I think there's a lot of people who knew how to manipulate the system to their advantage; they didn't actually work hard for their money.
If you are advocating a 60% tax on the wealthiest, are you also advocating a minimum 1% tax on the poorest? That would only seem fair.
No. The bottom 20% have negative to zero wealth.
But there are those who have worked hard, have lived frugal and have amassed some wealth.
I would say that number is relatively small nowadays.
I would imagine that you would define a fair tax policy as one that takes more of the income from anyone earning more than you do, right???
A fair tax policy [to me] would be tax hikes for those who would not struggle if their taxes were to increase.
"Struggle" is pretty subjective. Means something a whole lot different to each of us.
Why do people continually defend (poorly, at that) these rich corksuckers that don't give a rats arse about them. Amazing.
Maybe ask her to be part of her husbands campaign, which she happens to be. Cons want Clintons' daughter to answer all questions. She choses not to and is vilified for it. Mrs. McCain won't show her return. Why? Because she fears her childrens safety. BALONEY, why? Because it is "widely known" that she has over 100 million. Source: InterestingObserver
It seems that someone doesn't want it to look like McBush is a fatter cat than the other fat cats.
P.S. How did Cheney make 3 millions dollars? Isn't he on our payroll? Let us check his time-card.
What scares me is they think he should stay in office...What Constitution? They haven't used it in 8 years, why start now.
Can't wait to see the crying and exploding Repub heads when the newly elected Democratic President takes over and, in thier opinion. tries to usurp that piece of paper. I just used a "U" word because Rumpy did it above so I got out my dicitonary.
In closing, this news item was about "wealth" not last years tax return. Now, Rumpy, get out your dictionary(the one the rest of the world uses).
If it's wrong to have accumulated wealth... and the Clintons are worth more than either the McCains or the Obamas... oh, wait, Bill Gates is worth more. Or is it Soros? Or one of the oil sheiks?
Maybe it would be better to just forget about wealth envy, period.
They get the majority of poor people to vote for them by telling them that they will punish the wealthy and then give the money to them.
The money will be used to benefit society as a whole.
They make the poor people feel good by telling them that the wealthy will pay for having so much success. Rule number one in the Democratic playbook is based on wealth envy or class envy.
The republicans have declared war against working and middle class Americans and the Democrats are responding to it.
Benefit society as a whole? By getting them dependant on the government and less self reliant?
What percentage of the population is dependent upon the government?
And the money would go towards rebuilding infrastructure, rebuilding the public education system, protecting the environment, paying down the national debt and the money owed to social security and yes, money for entitlement programs for those in our society who have been left behind.
And the Republicans haven't declared war on anybody. We simply want everybody to be treated equally.
They've declared an all out war by dismantling laws designed to protect labor, deregulation of industries, pushing free trade agreements, keeping the minimum wage low and installing judges who favor corporations over the little guy. There's class warfare going on and the rich are winning.
The government should exist to protect our freedoms and protect us from threats. nothing more.
We disagree on this point.
Well entitlement spending already accounts for about 60% of our overall budget, so I'm not really sure how you can argue for even more spending on entitlements. What do you want? 90% of our budget to be on entitlements? You have a good point about the infrastructure but we already passed a huge highway bill that adressed that.
Republicans simply appoint originalist justices who interpret the Constitution as our founders intended. They don't favor anybody. They simply folllow the Constitution. And free trade ends up helping the poor more than anybody as it lowers prices here at home so the poor can afford products. Economic studies also show that it benefits the economy overall. That's simply an economic fact. And the increase in the minimum wage was recently passed with 97 Senators voting for it, so you have no point there.
Well entitlement spending already accounts for about 60% of our overall budget, so I'm not really sure how you can argue for even more spending on entitlements.
How did you come up with 60 percent? Are you including insurance programs like FICA and Medicare?
You have a good point about the infrastructure but we already passed a huge highway bill that adressed that.
The infrastructure is still crumbling - we need more.
Republicans simply appoint originalist justices who interpret the Constitution as our founders intended.
They don't appoint originalists; they appoint people who agree with their corporate power ideology at the expense of the working and middle class.
And free trade ends up helping the poor more than anybody as it lowers prices here at home so the poor can afford products.
No it doesn't. Prices are still going up.
The poor need jobs that pay a decent wage and republicans are against that.
Economic studies also show that it benefits the economy overall.
The average American can tell if globalization is benefiting them.
And the increase in the minimum wage was recently passed with 97 Senators voting for it, so you have no point there.
From the beginning of 2001 to the end of 2006 the Democrats were trying to raise the minimum wage in the republican controlled Congress and it was blocked by the republicans. It was finally raised in 2007. Something took place in early 2007 that facilitated its passage in 2007. Do you know what took place?
"How did you come up with 60 percent? Are you including insurance programs like FICA and Medicare"
Yes, it includes those and Social Security and all the other entitlement programs.
"The infrastructure is still crumbling - we need more"
Our infrastructure here in Kansas is great. I've heard that the roads in New York are pretty bad. And guess what? You have Democrats running your state. The solution might be to vote out the Dems and put someone else in charge.
"They don't appoint originalists; they appoint people who agree with their corporate power ideology at the expense of the working and middle class"
It was the liberals on the Supreme Court who gave big corporations the power to take away homes from average people. The conservatives on the court were strongly against that.
"No it doesn't. Prices are still going up.
The poor need jobs that pay a decent wage and republicans are against that"
Prices are only going up for oil and food. If it wasn't for those things we'd be having deflation right now. Those two things have inelastic demand which is why they're still going up. Republicans were only against the Democratic minimum wage bills because they didn't provide protection for small businesses. Small businesses are the ones that get hurt from minimum wage increases, not the big corporations. By increasing the minimum wage without any protection for small businesses the Dems are simply hurting the people that they are trying to help; the poor.
"The average American can tell if globalization is benefiting them"
The average American has seen much lower prices overall due to free trade. Free trade hurts the industry which faces more competition from imports, but it helps all consumers by lowering prices. It's an economic fact that free trade lowers prices and helps consumers. It can't be argued with. Read any economic text book dealing with free trade and you will see that.
Rinohunter, one thing you self-sufficient, bootstrap-pulling red-staters seem to always forget as you're insulting us commie red staters is this.
The most recent figures on this table showed that my state (CA) paid about 290k in Fed. taxes to your states 17k. We in turn , received 240k to your 20.5k.We chipped in 50k, you sucked out 3.5k. You're welcome.
Now, take a look at this table (2005 again). Total taxes paid to the Fed? Why, California and NY are ranked #1 and #2, respectively, with freeloading Kansas shlepping in at #33. Per capita, which is really the best indicator of which individual citizens are dragging along the slackers, shows my own Cali. at #10, that damn liberal NY at #11, and the independent All-American we-don't need - no-stinking-government Kansans at #30 out of the 50 states. My state gets 78¢ for every dollar we kick in, you guys in the Oz-adjacent Kansas take $1.12 for every buck you pay.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I'm an American first, and don't mind a little wealth distribution to my fellow Americans who just can't seem to ...ahem... get it together. I'm happy to do it, it just would be polite on your part if, as you suckle at our glorious blue-state teat, you don't try to bite us.Maybe if you elected some democrats, we'd be able to wean you off of some of these "entitlements".
In the meantime, I don't mind helping you out. That's how we libs are, understanding of the fact that some just don't have the talents or ambition to carry their weight, but they're Americans, and by cracky, we'll give them a hand up!
Your examples of CA and KS show the meat of "progressive" tax rates. I heard HRC make the same point a few years ago, NY wasn't getting back as many $ as it contributed, but NY (and CA) are among the richer states and therefore, like the richer taxpayer, will contribute more that they get in return (for the most part).
You personally seem to be OK with that arrangement, but there are many in the country who aren't, who seem to think the Federal Treasury is bottomless (that covers the current Administration as well as many others) and can take care of all the problems. We complain about the infrastructure and yet when we are asked to contribute to upgrades via bonds, increased taxes, etc, we vote NO, looking to Uncle Sam to bail us out. Doesn't make much sense.
Yes, it includes those and Social Security and all the other entitlement programs.
Social security and Medicare are insurance programs. Americans pay into these programs and reap the benefits when they retire.
Our infrastructure here in Kansas is great. I've heard that the roads in New York are pretty bad. And guess what? You have Democrats running your state. The solution might be to vote out the Dems and put someone else in charge.
What infrastructure is in Kansas? How many people live there?
It was the liberals on the Supreme Court who gave big corporations the power to take away homes from average people. The conservatives on the court were strongly against that.
Though I disagree with it, the Democrats were relying on the fifth amendment and precedent to make that decision. It's odd that conservatives who are in the tank for big business voted against it.
And it reinforced the state's power to confiscate land with proper compensation, not corporations.
Prices are only going up for oil and food. If it wasn't for those things we'd be having deflation right now.
Prices are going up everywhere.
Republicans were only against the Democratic minimum wage bills because they didn't provide protection for small businesses. Small businesses are the ones that get hurt from minimum wage increases, not the big corporations. By increasing the minimum wage without any protection for small businesses the Dems are simply hurting the people that they are trying to help; the poor.
This is a lie. If they were concerned about small businesses, they would have included a provision in the bill instead of stymieing the legislation for years.
It's an economic fact that free trade lowers prices and helps consumers.
It doesn't help consumers one bit when their wages are decreasing and/or their decent paying jobs are heading overseas because of free trade.
Republicans seem to have the hang up with money. There are plenty of poor people (ever heard of Walmart Republicans - that's just one small example) that regularly vote Republican. Don't project your money envy on to us. I am not wealthy but very comfortable. I have no problem with people making money and don't know anybody that does unless it's at the expense of other people - meaning war profiteering and plundering the middle class to give tax breaks to corporations and the ultra rich. That's a stupid canard that people like you trot out when you have nothing else. It's old and boring.
The rich now pay a larger percentage of the overall taxes than they did before Bush's tax cuts.
That's because of the growing income disparity.
Except the fact is that the lower and middle classes actually got a larger decrease in their MARGINAL TAX RATE than did the rich.
No they didn't.
Yes they did. That's a fact that can't be disputed. I'm talking about marginal tax rates, not the overall amount of money that they got back. You don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html
Look at Chart 2.
"Libtard"? Wow, I haven't heard that since I got kicked off FreeRepublic. I was too liberal for them, y'see. No loss, though.
Does the phrase "winners of lifes' lottery" not count as wealth envy, Julia?
Not neccessarily. It is a desricptor for people who are born rich and don't have to excel at anything in life like King George. I wouldn't be envious of that. Most people aren't happier with excess wealth and it doesn't build character. In fact a lot of unhappy people are those with wealth and too much time on their hands and no work ethic or meaning in life. It depends on what you value.
"Let's see how McCain's total income of about $405,000 compares to some other big-name political types. Remember, McCain filed separately from his very wealthy wife, Cindy"
What's the big deal? Blitzer disclosed that Cindy McCain wasn't included because she hasn't released her tax returns. There's no kind of secrecy here. The reason why the 4 other spouses were included and Cindy McCain wasn't is simply because Cindy McCain hasn't released her tax returns while the four others have. It's that simple. End of story.
Somehow I don't think Ms. McCains worth will ever enter into the public debate. Not end of story, except for you and wolfie. Feel free to make more endings you can share with him.
Rule number one - regurgitate right wing accusations , even rehash accusations about Theresa Heinz by the right . Good Job Dana , the more relevant issue would be why Mrs. McSame didn't release all of her records .
What's so a appalling is how blatantly BIAS CNN is with their chart , claiming all the dems are rich elites , compared to poor little McSame .
<>Bonnie Goldstein at Slate has posted a much better article on the McCains' income and wealth.
<>Apparantly, McCain did have to report his wife's salary on his state tax return. Cindy H. McCain earned $870,000 in salary as the chairwoman of Hensley & Company.
<>It's still not known what investment income his wife might have made, as he was not required to list that info on his state tax return.
http://www.slate.com/id/2189578/entry/2189579/
<>So the McCains are worth a lot of money. Big deal.