We know Consumerist readers love to trade advice (and insults) on personal debts and savings, so here are some fun facts from Friday’s financial disclosure statements of Barak Obama and John McCain:
| Senator Obama | |
| No credit card debt | |
| 2007 earned income: over $4 million | |
| Major assets: | |
| money market fund: between $1-5 million U.S. Treasury notes: between $500,000-$1,000,000 |
|
| 2 college savings accounts for their daughts, between $100,000-250,000 each | |
|
|
|
| Senator McCain | |
| Credit card debt: | |
| joint account W/American Express: between $10,000-15,000 @ 25.99% interest accounts in wife’s name: between $200,000-500,000 @ 0% interest account in dependent child’s name: between $15,000-50,000 |
|
| 2007 earned income: $341,708 | |
| Major assets: | |
| checking and banking accounts totalling between $17,000-$80,000 | |
The crazy difference between Senator Obama’s and Senator McCain’s earned income comes from Obama’s $4 million in book royalties for 2007, compared to McCain’s meager $176,488. However, McCain has far deeper pockets ultimately, because his wife is loaded—she earned over $6 million in 2006 alone.
We’re less than impressed that American Express is letting the McCains carry hundreds of thousands of dollars in zero-interest loans, but before you get all political about it, consider that “Sen. Barack Obama’s first choice to head up his vice presidential search committee resigned this week” after it was discovered that he was one of the recipients of Countrywide’s VIP treatment we posted about last week.
What surprises us most of all, ultimately, is that the McCains would carry any debt on that 25.99% rate card.
“Summaries of Senate financial disclosure forms” [Associated Press]
“Disclosures Give Look at Candidates’ Personal Finances” [New York Times]
“Ready To Laugh At McCain Family Debt? Not So Fast …” [Huffington Post]
More From Consumerist
-
Americans Are More Responsible With Credit Cards Than We’ve Been In A Decade
-
A Third Of $900 Billion In Outstanding Student Loan Debt Held By Subprime Borrowers
-
We Would Like To Shake The Hand Of The Man With A Credit Score Of 848
-
Debt Collectors Keep Calling About Bogus Debt, Even After Being Threatened With Suit
-
U.S. Families Now Carrying About As Much Debt As Before The Recession
God bless partisan apparatchiks, every last one.
@Bladefist: And the thing is, it can even be sold to Liberals since because the rich spend more, they still pay more.
@battra92: The “Fair tax” would cause as many problems as it would solve, in my opinion. But even it is still a form of “wealth redistribution” if it includes that “rebate” portion. Which is good.
@Bladefist: To be fair, I never said that Republicans are “more often” corrupt. There are plenty of corrupt Dems too. But right now, I think there are a lot more corrupt Republicans…and I think this is largely because they are the party that controls the White House and because they had controlled the whole government until 2006.
The rich benefit more from government for a ton of reasons. First off, they have more to lose. So they depend more on the governments’ security guarantees provided by police, the military, and the court system. The rich are also more likely to own large (and smaller) businesses. This, again, means that they depend more on government services like infrastructure construction and the legal system. So yes, I stand by that statement.
And many of the rich did NOT “earn” their wealth. Many did, but many inherited it and are living passively off of the investment income. You would have a stronger argument if the Republicans weren’t also so dead set against the estate tax. Looking at their tax policies as a whole, it’s hard to believe that they aren’t just favoring an American aristocracy over everyone else.
As for Obama/McCain being “economic neophytes”, are they going to be worse than Bush? I doubt it, in either case. Although McCain’s policies look a lot more like Bush’s… The economy isn’t doing great (especially for people who AREN’T living off of the stock market), our currency is tanking, and a lot of the reasons for this are political. Basically, I think McCain’s policies are much worse (even though I disagree with some of Obama’s).
Please provide evidence that “Rezko finances everything [Obama] needs”. That is BS and you know it. The Feds pressured Rezko to flip on Obama to save himself, and he didn’t because there was nothing there. And keep in mind that Rezko was also connected to both the Clintons and the Bushes as well.
@battra92: The Fair Tax isn’t all bad, I agree. It’s just not that good, either. It fails to address a couple of problems, in my opinion:
* Black market/offshore purchases: it would provide a huge incentive for people to buy things outside the country or on a black market. How would we practically stop this trade?
* The fact that the richest people only spend a tiny fraction of what they make. This might allow unchecked accumulation of wealth, and by extension, political power.
@johnva: I’ve honestly lost track of how many Republicans were exposed for corruption, breaking election funding laws, bribes, etc., in the past seven years. I know the number of Conservatives caught in hypocritical gay sexual shenanigans is around fifteen, simply because of the irony. The other number is at least twice or three times that: too many to track. Abramoff and the DeLay ones alone trend towards, what fifteen? Wade another eight?
So how could you suggest that Republicans are corrupt. That’s just so hysterical of you. You’ve totally lost credibility.
Tee hee. Facts must be such unpleasant things for Conservatives since they’re mugged by them on an almost-daily basis.
Because we’re on the side of forthrighteousness and honesty, a compendium supporting the above.
2 subcategories and 162 articles. And this after a 5-sec Google:
[www.sourcewatch.org]
@johnva: You’re really reaching on your arguments. You didn’t convince me the rich use the government more. What about the poor run down neighborhoods? I could go on for days.
“I never said that Republicans are “more often” corrupt. There are plenty of corrupt Dems too. But right now, I think there are a lot more corrupt Republicans”
Dude, what are you doing? Do we have to define the word ‘is’?
@Trai_Dep: I’m going to take a momentary break from ignoring of your ignorance and suggest a good book for you.
Makers and Takers: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic…
[www.amazon.com]
Just thought of you, and how angry you are. You should totally switch parties.
@Bladefist: I don’t think you want to be convinced.
@johnva: Not true. That particular question was a real question, not a quiz, and I was going to make up my mind based on what you said. And what you said was neither factual nor comparitive to what middle class and low class people cost to the government. I would say low income people use the government the most. They are provided food, a place to live. I think you eagerly made that statement too quick, got caught up in it, then you had to make some BS to make it sound like you meant to say it all along.
@Bladefist: But… Drugs are fun!
Angry, who’s angry? It brings chuckles to watch the faith-based rationalizers crash on the hard shoals of reality. Facts are just so hard! Hee.
Am bummed about the collateral damage, tho: 4,100+ US servicemen, etc.
@Bladefist: Nope, I’ve believed for some time that the rich use government services the most. In order to understand this, you need to think beyond just DIRECT services like welfare, etc and look at things that we collectively benefit from. The whole benefit of having government in the first place is that it provides civil stability. Well, someone has to pay for that, and the fact is that the poorest people CAN’T pay for an equal portion of that cost. So the rich pay more. They benefit more because government is a hedge against revolution and violent “wealth redistribution”. Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civil society.
Good point. And schools, water, civil court systems, criminal court systems, highways, telecom, ports, air traffic, water, libraries…
How many billionaires live on desert islands? Heck, even populated (small) islands? How many relatively impoverished people? Compare. Contrast.
@Bladefist: Shame on you for breaking the embargo on The Tedious One.
@Bladefist: @johnva: Excellent debate today. I’ll sully it with my own contribution:
johnva, I really can’t buy the argument that taxes are a toll for living in a civil society the way you frame it. You seem to be saying that the insanely disproportionate tax burden that wealthy folks shoulder (the top 10% of earners paying 70% of taxes) is somehow a necessary bulwark against true class warfare. If this were the case, the US would have disintegrated in violence long ago, as the current “progressive” tax scheme, or really any semblance thereof, is a very recent (20th century) phenomenon. You also seem to countenance this arrangement, as if it’s not only practical but also preferable to have the wealthy pay some sort of protection money to the government. Couldn’t disagree more.
I also have trouble with the argument that the rich use more government resources, directly or indirectly, than the poor, and thus should be taxed more. The “they have more to lose” argument is weak, given that the only things the government should be “protecting” are the lives and the liberties of its citizens, which are not valued on any socioeconomic scale. You may argue that wealthy get more benefit from policeman because they have more property to be protected; I would argue that the property protection is actually provided by private insurance, and that the police are actually there to guard safety. Other services that the government provides, like roads, because private solutions aren’t workable, are consumed equally, or are tolled proportionate to use. Anything else that the government provides (education, social security) is not only undesired by the wealthy, but usually not even utilized in favor of private sector services. The government does get involved in business, with trade agreements, regulation, taxation schemes, and the like, but just because this is happening does not mean that it is proper.
Since my entire view on taxation rests on the idea that the government should only provide a basic level of services which are by definition needed and consumed equitably, and which can not or should not be provided by the private sector, I’d be very interested to hear from you some examples of the contrary.
From everything I’ve seen, the pro-tax argument really boils down to, as Bladefist put it, a Socialist view. This is a fine view to hold, but let’s not whitewash it as “progressive” or use some other euphemism to portray it as something other than a plan to take money from the rich and redistribute it among the poor with the official backing of the government.
@AtomicPlayboy: I think a lot of these people just unfortunately for them, were born in the wrong hemisphere.
@Bladefist: I still want to know why the original story was posted. Is there supposed to be some relevance to the fact that Obama pays cash and McCain uses Amex? To draw some sort of conclusion about the candidates from their credit cards is pretty silly, as all of the rational comments have indicated. Next thing you know, someone will be telling us that John McCain is in bed with the airlines because he’s earning miles!
Who cares? They are both rich and pretending to give a sh|t about the rest of us. They aren’t average Joes and they don’t care about the middle class. If I was rich I probably wouldn’t care either.
It’s not a black guy running against a white guy, it’s two rich bastards fighting for power. It’s garbage like this that turns people into socialists.
@AtomicPlayboy: You know why it was posted. To spur more hate McCains way. Even though it proves nothing, its another reason to call Obama the Messiah and McCain fiscally irresponsible. Even though it makes 0 sense.
@johnva: Definitely would be their month-to-month spending. I know I’ve never carried a balance, yet my credit report shows a balance for each month.
What I find more interesting is the Obama family carrying no balance. So, they’re either not using credit cards at all (unlikely) or are running EVERYTHING through their businesses (questionable practice).
@AtomicPlayboy: Gosh. That’s just so… Pathetic.
I feel sad for you bro.
@Trai_Dep: Trai_Dep you’re totally living in la la land. I love liberals who love to pull out “facts”. To Claim that liberals want more forthrightness is such a bold faced lie that you should be ashamed for stating such a lie. Where are the Clintons financial records? Where was an honest answer from Obama about the Gay Marriage ruling? Why lie that he’s NOT going to sock it to the middle class? Trai_Dep time to move out of your parents house, get a job and see what its like to earn a living.
@FLConsumer: They could just be using debit cards or something. Or maybe the reporting rules are vague as to whether month-to-month credit card spending need be reported as “debt”?
@coolkiwilivin: You must be joking. I give hard-sourced 168 cases (with TWO subcategories) of GOP pols caught pandering, breaking laws, larceny and RICO crimes, and you bring up the staggeringly over-investigated (and under-criminal) Whitewater case? And assorted noncriminal red herrings?
What world do you live in where you think pols – any pols – illegally using their office to commit Federal, felony crimes is okay? Seriously, how can you think this is fine? George Washington must be weeping right now.
Bladefist: Obama’s economic background.
He’s vastly more educated about economics than McCain is, and is likely to be fairly laissez-faire, as well. (that means he’s a fan of the free market, just in case you needed the definition)