Bah! In the end its two scummy politicians, one of them will suck as President... I don't really see what credit card debt really has to do with why we would elect one of these guys, but if that is your main criteria, go Obama right?

Personally, I would like to see both these guys try to live off $60000 a year with the rest of us, and then try and justifying "repealing" "tax breaks." AKA raise our taxes to keep their friends happy, because Heaven forbid, no one should ever live an above average lifestyle, no matter how smart or how hard a worker you are.

Not TOO shocking: a man that earned his money is more cognizant of its value (to himself, to us and our children (or in Bush/McCain's cases, our children's children's money)).
Versus a guy that married into it, or had Daddy and his friends basically hand it to him.

There is no evidence that the McCains are actually paying that interest. It could just be their month-to-month spending, for all we know. So while I'm not a fan of John McCain, I think it's a little bit ridiculous to make a big deal out of this story.

I'm no McCain supporter but... so? I'm more interested in the companies to which the candidates have financial ties.

This is entirely ridiculous. It does not take into account the different financial relationships between each candidate and their spouse, nor their net worths, nor spending patterns, and other liabilities.

@JeffDrummer: I take it you're not familiar with the term "deficit spending"? We pay more (a LOT more) when the GOP charges for items on their ample wish-list, rather than sensibly - and honestly - paying as you go.

@johnva:
It's certainly spending that he writes a check for each month. No one with money and common sense pays credit card interest.

I guess this surprises the Consumerist?

@johnva: I agree - the $15K most likely is month-to-month. I know my credit report says I carry about $3K but that's a snapshot that's paid off every month.

@Trai_Dep: Actually, I am. I am in finance, so this economics stuff is far from elusive to me. I do agree that a balanced budget makes sense, and any good Conservative should repudiate George Bush for creating the biggest (therefore most expensive) government in history, and adding more government spending than any President since LBJ (and LBJ was practically chased out of office since he was so unpopular). What we should do is lower government spending, and keep taxes how they are (in real dollars, so it would be tied to inflation).
In the end whether Obama or McCain win we are getting a bigger government, I just have a feeling that with one we will get far more taxes and far more spending, with the other we will get a bit of an increase, and far more spending.
If a political candidate came out and said that they would support gun rights, and shrink government and taxes they would have my vote in a second. I think that both candidates are terrible, worse options than 1996, 2000, or 2004.
I supported Ron Paul, but his core is a bunch of maniacs that think that spamming webpolls means certain victory (I am not them, trust me, I liked his policies, hated his supporters).

Lower government spending easily accomplished by eliminating crony, corrupt, no-bid, cost-plus contracts with companies like Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, Grumman, etc. Worst policy in the world. Go read "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense" by David Cay Johnston, to see how this is so corrupt.

And if you are going to mention one candidate's VP finder's connection to Countrywide - then you better mention that McCain's economic advisor Phil Gramm who is famous for the Enron loophole (now used by Oil speculators), whose wife Wendy Gramm was on Enron's board, and that Gramm is currently a vice chairman and lobbyist of UBS, who has officers currently indicted for tax evasion, and that UBS was heavily involved in the current mortgage credit mess, and that UBS has warned its executives not to travel to the US for fear that they will be arrested. So he's with McCain and he lobbied against any legislation against mortgage lenders. Talk about conflict of interest.

I despise McCain, but this is a big yawn. They probably have AMEX Black, and run everything through the card. So it's no big deal.

...If you dislike Bush b/c of his unparalleled deficit spending, how do you feel about Reagan? The previous holder of the most-unparalleled-make-the-grandkids-pay-for-it President?
And, wearing your finance hat, do you have more than "a feeling" that Obama and McCain will have equal impact on our deficit and currency trade balance?
The fact alone that Obama wants us out of Iraq ASAP, while McCain feels it fine that we stay for 100 years suggests there's some difference between the two, regarding impacting our budget. As does closing the barn door that Bush opened for the top 0.01% of our economy, which has resulted in such a wildly successful US economy.

I'm kind of tickled that the guy that proposes funding the US budget on credit relies so heavily on it personally. I guess he's... Consistent?

i love obama's :D face. mccain just looks like "take the picture, can i stop smiling now please?"

i don't care about their personal finances. i care about what they're going to do about our country's finances.

@Trai_Dep: "I'm kind of tickled that the guy that proposes funding the US budget on credit relies so heavily on it personally. I guess he's... Consistent?"

Yeah, McCain is consistently right when he says that he doesn't know anything about economics!!

What I find most interesting that McCain has $15,000-50,000 credit card DEBT in his dependent child's name, while Obama has college SAVINGS accounts for his daughters of $100,000-250,000 EACH.

Hmm, which one of these do I want in charge of the budget?

@johnva: Yeah, I'm sort of grasping to see why this is a story. Consumerist, will you please explain the point of this post?

"accounts in wife's name: between $200,000-500,000 @ 0% interest"
What a sweet hart deal from a lender. Is she going to have to resign from being his wife?

@JennQPublic: Yeah, that's a bit odd. It's one of two things: 1) Kids get mommy and daddy's credit card and they spent wildly or 2) He's offloading some personal debt to them.

Either way, it's creates a too easy of a analogy to their government style.

Most of you realize that the card he has is most likely a charge card, not a credit card, it still hits your credit report, but chances are they only carry the debt until the end of the month. I wouldn't imagine someone making 6 million a year wanting to carry 200k in credit card debt, and the only reason why it would be 0% is if it is a charge card or an intro card.

Lets not forget that McCain's wife used her political connections to dictate her own financial agenda. In the late 90's, the MMA promotion UFC (I'm sure you've heard of it) was starting to take away from boxing Pay Per View numbers. Budweiser, who sponsored boxing events and not MMA at the time, found this threatening and sicked John McCain on the sport.

Using his political clout and the term "Human Cock Fighting", he got the sport pulled from pay per view channels. Not outlawed, just pulled off of paid broadcast.

Now that Budweiser sponsors UFC events, he has made a 180 on his former stance. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Here's to you, the credit community: WHAT? McCain hasn't been F/R'ed or CLD'ed by Amex yet? Shocker! ;-)

@coold8: If that's the case, the card in his dependent child's name is used for between $15,000 and $50,000 a MONTH. Do your children spend $15,000 in a month? Do you?

On top of that, McCain's card would be used for $10,000 to $15,000 a month, with his wife spending between $100,000 and a quarter of a million dollars IN A MONTH.

I'm glad we have a common man like McCain to give us an alternative to that elitist, Obama!

@Trai_Dep: Actually Reagan was for a balanced budget... it was Congress that refused to budge. Read the Reagan diaries and you might understand his economic vision better.
What do you mean currency deficit? Do you mean the dollar's weakening PPP (purchasing power of parity; the amount that you can purchase in real dollars)? I don't think that McCain or Obama can do that much, in the end the executive can't exactly make massive monetary policy decisions, that goes to the fed, and I have to say that Ben Bernanke is doing a bad job realizing the damage that a weak dollar will cause. If you want to curb stagflation, start by raising the dollar. Presidents can coax monetary policy along, and it seems like Pres. Bush thinks that increasing net exports while increasing tariffs a la Hoover is a good plan. For a President the best monetary policy is laissez-faire, Hoover tried to defy that rule, and you saw what happened - not singularly because of him to be sure, but exacerbated by him, then more by FDR.

Obama wants out of Iraq regardless of implication, McCain wants in Iraq regardless of implications, the jury is out on which is worse. It is appealing to say that nothing negative would come of retreating, but even the famous pacifist Ayn Rand knew better regarding Vietnam. Then again, I don't see the appeal in staying in Iraq forever, I would like to see an immediate drawdown, by at least 70000 troops, with more to come - if Iraqis are getting massacred by al Qaeda as we leave, that strategy would need reevaluation. America supporters in Laos are still being executed by their government - we need to protect these types.
And Obama's socialist healthcare policies aren't exactly cheap. How about more regulation on hospitals so they can't simply tell you what they charge - and allow competition between hospitals, as tax breaks on those who get health insurance. We have medicaid, and let the states figure the rest out.

That's about it right? I am leaning McCain, but I wish that we could get someone who is a true moderate in the White House, but at this point, I don't think that is possible.

Let me add, that I am not for Obama just because John McCain is more moderate, if Bill Clinton were running, I would likely vote for him, same with Al Gore (pre-nobel laureate though :))

If you were able to ask my credit card company about my debts, they would say that I have a $5-10K balance each month at about 15% interest.

In fact, I haven't paid them any interest in eons.

They report balances, not how much you pay them (other than you're "current" which could mean you're making minimum payments or you're paying off the balance each month).

That's just the way credit reporting works.

@JeffDrummer: 60k? let's try a third to half that.

or really, for the median household income 48k. to just double clarify the term "household" that includes the wifeys.

I would hope that someone who raked in $4m could pay off their debts.

And this is much more interesting than their finances:

[www.eyeblast.tv]

If you check my credit right now, you'll see that I have *gasp* a balance on my credit cards. However, I've never paid a cent of interest. That's because revolving accounts have grace periods. It's fully possible that McCain pays his accounts in full each month.

I find it much harder to believe that Mr. Obama has NO revolving credit debt. It is certainly possible though.

And as far as financial handling goes, it would be easy to criticize Obama for having so much wealth in low-yield investments like government securities and money market funds. Not that I believe it's a bad idea, given the current state of the economy, but it might give an idea of where he thinks the market is headed in the foreseeable future...

@InfiniTrent: Or to Obama the money he has is a ridiculous amount and he doesn't see how it would be necessary to risk losing it on the stock market as it is all he will ever need. Maybe he is someone who values money. Now McCain, judging from a snapshot of his monthly expenses, sees money as toilet paper.

@InfiniTrent: Actually, if you hold public office, it's very hard to own securities w/o someone saying five years down the road that since you owned x shares of Acme, and one of three-thousand bills you voted for favors Acme, you're corrupt.
Believe it or not, Republicans sometimes use arcane, even money-losing, investments done decades ago as a starting point for engaging multi-million-dollar, tax-payer paid witch-hunts. And the media (oh SO liberal) eat it up. Shocking, I know.

Hence either blind trusts, VERY broad index funds or gov't securities are the only realistic option if you're holding office.
Unless you're Republican, since everyone expects them to be venal and corrupt and they seem eager to prove them even more correct than imagined. (see: Dick Cheney, Haliburton)

The McCains are not exactly teaching their children (my guess is Meghan) financial competence and responsibility when they just hand them a credit card and they presumably just pay it off for them. I'm scared about how much worse this crazed man would make our nation's (and the world's) economy. The McBush policy of massive tax cuts funded by China. Hurts us, helps China.

my concern is why does McCain have "between $15,000 to $50,000" on a credit card in a "dependent childs" name. isn't this what people on jerry springer do and ruin their child's credit before their of age?

@ladynurse: McCains daughter is over 18

Well, Sen. McCain has already admitted that he knows dick about economics. Listen for it; "that's what the economists say" will be the "fuzzy math" of the 2008 election cycle. Will America be stupid enough to fall for it a THIRD time?

@pal003: Yea, McCain said he didn't know much about economics. Although if you watched the democrat debate, I left realizing neither does Obama. He hasn't a clue. I'd be willing to bet that most of the senate doesn't have a clue how economics work, or how the private sector works. Which is why this election is so terrible. Nobody with any executive experience is running.

And, at least McCain has his money in tax-paying outlets. Unlike Mr More Taxes Obama who hides his in no-tax outlets.

the point of this story? This group of blogs are run by people from San Francisco. Anything to smear someone who isn't from the far left. It's ironic that some of you would think that Obama earned his money. Seriously, between his ghost writer and all the sweet deals he's gotten b/c his political power is rising meteorically, it makes me wonder how much he's hiding in tax shelters and the such, b/c I guarantee you if he get's elected he will not be paying as much taxes as he's going to sock to us all.

@Bladefist: Are you really criticizing Obama for putting his money in tax-exempt bonds? Really? That's just good money management if you don't want to invest in something like stocks. It has nothing to do with his attitudes towards taxation.

And anyway, there was an independent analysis that just came out that showed that ~85% of Americans would pay less in taxes under Obama's plans for middle-class tax cuts than under McCain's plans (which is heavy on tax cuts for the highest income earners). So while Obama will heavily raise taxes on people with very high incomes, he's NOT going to raise taxes on the majority of Americans (if he gets his way on this, of course). Read here. Remember that the majority of Americans do not fall in those upper tax brackets.

@johnva: an independent analysis that just came out

There is no such thing as an independent analysis.

Obama wants to raise taxes on people whose incomes are over $250,000. Most people at $250K are small business owners reporting business income as S Corps. Putting an increase in taxes means that small businesses have to cut back, lay off or raise prices on their goods/services.

McCain knows nothing on economics, nothing on technology, and will not even use a computer. He is basically a puppet just like our current disaster. I live in AZ and have had to put up with McCain for 20 years. He is available to the highest bidder just ask around Phoenix.

@johnva: Yes I criticize for that. You want to raise taxes on the rich, while your rich, but you make your money unavailable for those taxes? F- that.

First off - In the debate, and unless he changed his mind, he couldn't promise that he wouldn't raise taxes on middle class Americans. The promise that he did make, was that he would raise Capital gains tax up to 25%. To make it more fair. That is a huge burden on middle class America. Sell your house for a smaller house? Obama gets ya! Sell your stocks? Obama gets you. 25%. Are you serious? Even Clinton wasn't that retarded.

So, while he may reduce income taxes, you'll make up for it in other ways. What I don't understand is, he wants to undo the Bush Tax cuts, yet, the Bush tax cuts gave middle class Americans a tax break. So why would he 'undo it'? I can see revising it, but I really don't think he will lower the taxes for middle/low income America.

Next, all his new programs, including UHC (lets not debate it please) will be added into taxes.

So that's my side of it. Even if everything I said is wrong, and Obama truly is the Messiah, I don't believe in wealth redistribution. The top 1% already pay 50% of the taxes. I'm envious of them and their money and life style, but I never think they owe America another penny then they are already giving.

Also, the rich will always stay rich. You raise their taxes, and guess who absorbs that? The median household salary will fall through the room, and the economy will become stagnant. You'll see the same shit you saw during Jimmy Carter. Mark my words. The rich will remain just as rich. The problem with Obama, McCain, are they are macro economic neophytes.

@Trai_Dep: Ya know, I'm sure I'm not voting for McCain, not because I'm a democrat, because I'm actually a republican. But I'm not going to stoop to the level of insulting him based on his credit score.

@battra92: Yeah, okay, I can buy that (sort of, but remember that they are still much wealthier than the majority of people in this country). But note that it looks like you have to get to the $600,000+ range before Obama would give you a seriously large tax increase. And remember those high tax brackets got huge tax decreases under Bush.

@Bladefist: Most Americans don't pay massive capital gains taxes. Sure, they pay some when they sell stocks, but a lot of the middle classes' stocks are held in tax advantaged accounts like 401(k) accounts or IRAs. So that blunts that impact for them. As far as real estate, the current rule is that the first $250,000 ($500,000 if married) of profits from a home sale are exempt from capital gains tax. So that's a non-problem already for the middle class; if you are routinely making more profit than that on real estate then you aren't what I would call "middle class". So what we come back to is exactly what I said earlier: Obama's proposed tax increases affect mainly the wealthiest Americans, and his proposed tax cuts will result in MOST Americans actually paying less than under McCain's plan.

Now, you can be opposed to the whole idea of a progressive tax system (and it seems you are). But come right out and say that if that's the case. I'm not. I think we need to raise taxes to pay for all the crap the government is spending it on, and I think that the wealthiest people can afford to pay that much more easily than the lower income or middle class. We've got a long tradition in this country of the wealthy paying much more in taxes, which is fair because they benefit much more from government. If your country has given you a lot, you owe your country.

If the rich will always stay rich, then why are they complaining so much about higher taxes?

@johnva: Yes a lot of people simply have the stocks in 401ks, but a lot of people have actual investment stocks they are brokering on their own. Obama will wipe'em out.

The word progressive is so unfair to use. Call it the socialism tax system, please.

@Bladefist: Yes, I understand that. What I'm saying is that the amount of money that middle class people hold in taxable brokerage accounts is dwarfed by the amount of money people hold in tax-advantaged accounts. And most people with large amounts of money in taxable brokerage accounts are wealthier. And anyway, Obama's plan that I've heard (he said he would "consider" raising capital gains tax from 15% to 20%) would be far from "wiping 'em out". Remember that that applies only to capital GAINS, not the total amount in accounts. If you made $100,000 in profits on taxable stocks, you would pay $5000 more in taxes, and in reality people would pay much less due to the fact that you can offset capital gains with capital losses to strategically reduce tax. Big deal. The only thing worries me about that a little bit is that it could cause the stock markets to drop. But I do agree that it's not exactly fair for capital gains and dividends to be taxed at such a lower level than earned income.

"Progressive tax" is the proper term for what we're talking about with a bracketed tax system. And it's perfectly fair once you account for the fact that a) the rich benefit more from government; b) the rich have more disposable income; c) a tiny percentage of people control a huge portion of the wealth; and d) concentrated wealth is a threat to our democracy. It's no accident that Republican politicians tend to be so corrupt: it's because the rich like to buy themselves favorable government policies.

"Maybe he values money whereas McCain sees it as toilet paper."

Get a grip.

@johnva: And it's perfectly fair once you account for the fact that a) the rich benefit more from government; b) the rich have more disposable income; c) a tiny percentage of people control a huge portion of the wealth; and d) concentrated wealth is a threat to our democracy.

The only fair tax is the Fair Tax. Honestly, it would be the best solution.

"Senator Obama
No credit card debt"

I'm liking this Obama guy more and more.

@johnva: You lost me as soon as you said republicans are more often corrupt. That took your argument down a notch. I'll ignore it. You're better then that.

How does the rich benefit more from the government. Other then the few industries that get tax relief and subsidies (which I disagree with)

They have more disposable income because they earned it. You think because someone has too much of something, it should be yours? Do you steal food off kids plates when they ordered too much?

At the end of it all, Obama/McCain are both macro economic neophytes. In comparison with past president nominees, they are clueless. Can you give me that? You have two possible neophytes, who have big plans for our taxes, social security, UHC, and our military. Does that not scare you?

If the government decided to give you your UHC that you want so bad, do you really want Barrack Obama making the decisions about it? Seriously? I kinda lol'd when I thought about it.