MyDD :: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million Per Year Aren't "Rich"

McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million Per Year Aren't "Rich"

by Jonathan Singer, Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:10:00 PM EST

Leave it up to John McCain. Just when you thought that he had done enough damage to his own campaign by exposing the extent to which he is out of touch with the American people, he goes out and says something like this:

The rich may be different for John McCain and Barack Obama.

On almost every issue, the two presidential candidates have staked out opposing positions. Their contrasting views on wealth surfaced during their back-to-back appearances in Southern California on Saturday night when each was asked to define "rich."

Obama didn't hesitate. "I would argue that if you are making more than $250,000, then you are in the top 3, 4 percent of this country," he said. "You are doing well."

McCain took a far more discursive approach to answering the question but ultimately settled on a dramatically higher figure: "I think if you're just talking about income, how about $5 million?"

The Arizona Republican quickly added that he was "sure that comment will be distorted," and his campaign said Sunday that he was joking.

It may be that to someone worth $100 million, who owns 10 houses, who flies around in a $12.6 million corporate jet, and who walks around in $520 Italian loafers, $5 million a year in income is the cutoff for the wealthy -- that those making $500,000 a year, or $1 million a year, or even $4 million a year are not "rich" -- but to most American people that's just an absurd statement. Indeed, not only is it absurd to say even jokingly (and it's not clear what the joke would be, or if it really was intended to be a joke, despite what the McCain spinmeisters say) that the cutoff point for being rich is $5 million per year, it's almost unfathomable that anyone could believe that to be the case.

At a time when so many hardworking Americans are struggling to make ends meet in an economy shepherded in the wrong direction by George W. Bush and the Republican Party, voters aren't going to take too well to a candidate this out of touch. It's good, then, to see the Obama campaign continuing to hit McCain on this angle.

Tags: John McCain, Economy, Out of Touch (all tags)

Permalink :: 41 Comments :: Post a Comment

Let's Admit It: Obama Tanked on Saturday (none / 0)

Can we just admit the obvious, that Obama tanked?

Anytime a candidate bucks the abortion question by saying that it's above his "pay grade" obviously had an off day.

Not that I'm taking up for McCain, but I'm sure he meant net worth of $5 million, which I believe is the dividing line between wealthy and not.

Our only saving grace here is that the Republican rank-and-file by and large still do not trust McCain. That's why the VP picks this week and next are going to make all the difference....

I proudly support Barack Obama for President!

by Zeitgeist9000 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:26:31 PM EST

Re: Let's Admit It: Obama Tanked on Saturday (none / 0)

I don't think it was necessarily an off-day for Obama. If he gets 30 % of the people in an evangelical church in Orange County, CA to vote for him, this will be a cake walk. He just had to reassure those (admittedly few) independent or at least not rabidly conservative voters out there that he's not the devil. I think he did that.

Imagine how McCain would do at a Unitarian Church in Boston. Or maybe a Pearl Jam concert. His off-the-cuff war-and-pizza routine wouldn't play as well.

by the mollusk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

aren't off topic? (2.00 / 1)

this isn't an open thread.

not everything is about Hillary's veep chances.

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:33:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's Admit It: Obama Tanked on Saturday (none / 0)

A failure to use what one is given is what loses elections. Rationalizing your opponent's mistakes is not a winning strategy.

by rfahey22 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I mean really. (2.00 / 1)

think how the corporate media would rake Clinton over the coals if he/he said that.

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's Admit It: Obama Tanked on Saturday (none / 0)

As you can see in the quote, he wasn't talking about net worth, but about income:

"I think if you're just talking about income, how about $5 million?"

And besides, do you really think someone with a net worth of $4.9 million isn't "wealthy"?

by davisb on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's Admit It: Obama Tanked on Saturday (none / 0)

Indeed. Check table 4 here to get an idea of what "wealthy" means. The median net worth for the top quintile of income earners is less than $200k.

I am not a crook!

by username on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wealth comment (none / 0)

Good grief, it was said in jest. If you look at the video it is obvious the 5 million is supposed to be a joke.

By the way, let me ask you: What is 'rich' and what is wealthy? To me that $250,000 is wealthy but rich is in the millions.

Anyway, if we pick on every word we think is slightly off. When something really big is said it won't stand out when we pick on it.

by del on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wealth comment (none / 0)

I can't see how it can be construed as a joke, except in the playground "kidding! kidding! please don't hit me!" sense.

But leaving that aside, a better way to think about "rich" is to ask yourself what percentage of people are rich (5%? 1%? 0.1%?), then look up the corresponding income at the census bureau. Since it's somehow taboo (or forbidden) to talk about salaries, people have screwy ideas about what others make.

I am not a crook!

by username on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wealth comment (none / 0)

Why is that a better way to think about it?
That interpretation is subjective.
As is the general public's definition of that word.

To someone making $15,000-20,000 $100,000 is rich, wealthy, well off etc. If you make $250,000 in San Francisco you are NOT rich, if you make $$250,000 in most of the swing stated it is relatively rich. That is partly why it is used as a cutoff point.

My opinion is asking a question with subjective words is a poor choice.

by del on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wealth comment (none / 0)

There's something to be said for both definitions. I think that when we look at someone else and say "he's rich," we're usually referring to positional goods (larger house, nicer car, better location). There are roughly a fixed number of people who can drive the nicest cars to the biggest houses in the best locations -- if others come to afford these cars/houses/lots, the "rich" will buy more expensive cars and drive up property values. This is different from "comfortable," which I would define as something like "your income exceeds your expenses by a comfortable safety margin."

FWIW, I thought this was one of the best questions asked, because it shows both the candidate's idea of what counts as "a lot of money" in absolute terms, and what counts as "wealthy" in more subjective terms. (IMHO McCain did a power-fail on both counts, and Obama should slam him for it.)

I am not a crook!

by username on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's Admit It: Obama Tanked on Saturday (none / 0)

Anytime a candidate bucks the abortion question by saying that it's above his "pay grade" obviously had an off day.

Which is, as we all know, not the question he was responding to. On "the abortion question" he was, as he always has been, strongly pro-choice.

Not that I'm taking up for McCain, but I'm sure he meant net worth of $5 million, which I believe is the dividing line between wealthy and not.

Let's review the quote.

"I think if you're just talking about income, how about $5 million?"

He made it pretty clear he was talking about income, not net worth.

As to the actual definition of "rich"... I've had a lot of (vigorous) discussions about this with a friend of mine. My definition of "rich" tends to be "never having to worry about money." You don't have to be absurdly wealthy. You just have to essentially live in such a way that, when an unexpected bill comes in, you know you've got more than enough money to cover it. You know you'll be able to retire, probably early, and not have to worry about making ends meet. You don't have to scrimp on your groceries to put your kids through school. Etc.

His definition of "rich" tends to be closer to absurdly-wealthy. We narrowed it down to "you are rich if your capital gains are greater than your living expenses"--i.e., your wealth generates more wealth faster than you can spend it, and therefore you don't actually need to work for a living.

Five million dollars a year income? That's way, way beyond both our definitions.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million Per Year (none / 0)

Is this guy ever serious? It seems like everything he says is a joke, according to his campaign.

by the mollusk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:28:15 PM EST

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million Per Year (none / 0)

This is a great chance for Obama to mock McCain on all these points, especially the shoes.

by BlueinColorado on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:35:48 PM EST

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (none / 0)

I somehow missed this while liveblogging; a fly in my ear or something. But when I saw the clip later, it pissed me off like nothing else. The median income is what, $40k? Look, if you can give every child their own bedroom, afford a twice-a-week housekeeper, and jet to Europe once a year, you may not be the wealthiest person in the country, but you're rich. There's nothing wrong with that, but unfortunately, most people in such a position don't recognize their privilege. The Admiral's son and beer heiress' husband is one of those people. Barf.

The Wayward Episcopalian

by Transplanted Texan on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:36:50 PM EST

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (none / 0)

if you ever need to purge the contents of your stomach, try talking to someone who lives in the suburbs and makes about $200 k /yr. they think everyone is a socialist and the only reason they aren't kings of the f-ing world is because gay people exist.

by the mollusk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:39:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (none / 0)

that's a gross overgeneralization. I'm one of those people, as are my neighbors. None of them are like what you're claiming.

by slynch on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (none / 0)

you're right, of course. but i'm always astounded at how blind upper-middle to upper-income people can be to how good they actually have it. my perception is probably colored to some extent by bad interactions i've had in the past.

by the mollusk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:30:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (2.00 / 1)

I know what you're saying. A lot of people come from that type of household and then, not surprisingly, end up in the same situation themselves and think they've done something tremendous--that they're a product of their own 'hard work,' and they resent having to pay taxes in the 30% bracket to benefit all those 'lazy' others. That pisses me off. I started off middle class (poor as a kid, but my folks were upwardly mobile, but when I went to college, I had no help), worked my way through college and grad school, and now I make a damn good income (top 3-5%). I remember how it used to take me all year to make what I make in a month now, and I don't begrudge paying the high tax rate. I think that's true of most people who come from more modest means; it just isn't true of many who come from 'rich' backgrounds. And I'm with you in not liking that type.

by slynch on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (2.00 / 1)

Your valorous comment reminds me of Sam Seaborne saying, "It's the only way it's gonna work!" :)

The Wayward Episcopalian

by Transplanted Texan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:31:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (none / 0)

Also, kind of depends on where you are leaving.

Lots of communities in Seattle where a combined income of $200K is barely enough.

Plenty of people where I live make that, and they are pretty damn blue voters...

On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....

by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (none / 0)

Right. I live in the northeast (Jersey). Not only are incomes higher, but folks tend to be more liberal in the upper northwest and northeast than in the middle of the country. There, those with middle income or lower tend to be more conservative. In part perhaps because they're the ones who feel the most competitive (for jobs, etc.) with various minorities (including gays).

This is actually old sociological theory, but, with some caveats, it's pretty accurate empirically.

by slynch on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (none / 0)

$200k is barely enough for what?

by the mollusk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (none / 0)

To live.

If your low end rental is $2300 a month, and a low end condo is 450K (one bed, one bath), you need big dough.

Property taxes are stunning in Seattle, and getting worse.

Seattle is expensive, San Francisco is expensive.

Not exactly bastions of hard core Red voters.

On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....

by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (none / 0)

ok, but making $200k still doesn't make you poor or even middle class. it may require large sums of money to live certain places - such as the place I live now. but ultimately you're making a choice to spend your money on the location. that fact doesn't change your income when compared to most of the people in the country.

the reason this is a sore point with me is that it's a very short distance mentally from "i'm middle class" to "my taxes should be lower". and it is probably true that someone living in ames, ia who makes $200k/yr lives quite well while someone in manhattan who makes $200k/yr is just making it. but that doesn't mean that the person in manhattan shouldn't be paying taxes like the person in ames.

by the mollusk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:09:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (2.00 / 1)

That's partially true, but remember that if you're making $200k/yr in Manhattan and moved, you'd probably make less elsewhere. So yeah, maybe you're spending the money on location, but it's money you wouldn't have to spend on location if you were in another location. Yes, taxes should be the same, but when it comes to things like figuring out the poverty line, benefits, etc., anything that's really formula based, we can use local numbers.

The Wayward Episcopalian

by Transplanted Texan on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I live in manhattan (none / 0)

when i started working I made $125k. I live with my girlfriend who made the same. Neither of us are particularly thrifty but we were and are completely comfortable and were able to both pay off our $100k school loans w/in 3/yrs.

I now make just under $100k because I took a different job but I have saved money. Again I'm not thrifty.

Kids would be a different story, as would it be if we wanted to buy, but 2 people with normal living expenses can get by just fine on $200k combined.

by JJE on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 12:57:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I live in manhattan (none / 0)

ok, but you had approximately $30k/yr extra when you were making $125k/yr and, in your words, you lived "comfortably". most people do not have that experience, even if they move to salina, ks.

by the mollusk on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

for sure (none / 0)

I was paying off my loans to the tune of $30k per year. However, I forgot about my $50k bonus (the financial life of a corporate sellout is sweet).

However, this year I made $95k (no more loans) and didn't have any problems maintaining my decadent lifestyle. Basically I think a combined of $200k is fine for all but the most expensive places (I live on the Upper West Side) if you neither have kids nor have any intentions of buying. I couldn't even afford a down-payment on what I currently make.

by JJE on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:56:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: Those Making Only $4 Million (none / 0)

A good point, and part of the reason I loved Obama's answer - he made allowance for region.

The Wayward Episcopalian

by Transplanted Texan on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

*Millionaires aren't rich* (none / 0)

Old guys in rocking chairs on porch.

Fade in

Old guy #1: Digya hear the latest?

Old guy #2: What?

Old guy #1: John McCain says Millionaires aren't rich!

Old guy #2: Now ain't that rich!

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:37:17 PM EST

Re: *Millionaires aren't rich* (none / 0)

I love it!

The Wayward Episcopalian

by Transplanted Texan on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's those damn rich elites the Obama's..... (none / 0)

Well, you have to admire McCain a bit.

He took the old fashion way to get rich: He married it.

No wonder he is clueless about how much money it takes to live and what rich vs middle class vs poor is all about.

The guys bills have been paid for by his wife's accountant for the last 20+ years.

Ah, but Obama and Michelle are the elites, forgot there for a minute.

Check, thank you, MSM liberal media for buying and reinforcing the Republic meme!

On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....

by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:48:39 PM EST

losing issue for dems (2.00 / 1)

Sadly, this is often a losing issue for Dems cuz it gets turned around into, "why don't Dems want us to be rich?"

Maybe will help this year due to the bad economy (think GHWB buying socks and being surprised at price scanning technology) but talking about McCain's private jet is not going to win an election cuz it seems like most of America wants their own private jet too.

If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:50:49 PM EST

Re: losing issue for dems (none / 0)

Well, It HAS been a losing issue, but if framed correctly, it CAN be a winner for us.

Everyone thinks they might move up the economic ladder, tis true.

But, when times are really bad, and they are sliding backwards instead, that's not a bad time to point out WHO is responsible for the slippery times.

On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....

by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:57:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: losing issue for dems (none / 0)

Agreed. Ohio should be a good petri dish for this given the ads Obama and McCain are running there.

Rather than mocking McCain for stoopid "jokes," I'd rather see Obama focus on how dangerous McCain's policies are for us economically. How well did the whole Two Americas message resonate for Edwards?

Like it or not, it will be very difficult to paint McCain as Richy Rich. He comes across as a pretty regular guy and, because of that, bringing up his wife's wealth can actually help him ("He's got $100mm and still he seems like my Uncle Joe, that's cool.") Ok, well, crazy Uncle Joe, but still...

If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

being daddy warbucks did hurt Romney (none / 0)

hurt steve forbes, as well.

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:04:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: (2.00 / 1)

I have to be frank. Four years ago i got really sick of the Bush crowd of criticising Kerry for his wealth as well as his wife's wealth. And frankly i am getting a little tried of this meme.

Attacking McCain and his wife for being wealthy is not only low class it is a loser in the GE. We should be focusing on issues and it is issues that we have the advantage on not class war fare.

Just saying. This meme hurts our cause in the fall and doesnt help it.

david

by giusd on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:07:10 PM EST

Re: McCain: (none / 0)

Point taken, but pointing out that their economic stances are out of touch is more an attack on the Republic Party in general, and I think you can paint McCain actually as a "Flip-Flopper" on that.

He has in the past objected to tax cuts loaded towards the top end, but, to pass muster in the primary, he morphed towards the Phil Gramm side for Socialism for Corporations, Trickle down and hand us the bills for the rest of us.

IF we DON'T hit him and the Republics on money issues, we lose and, we deserve to.

On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....

by WashStateBlue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: (none / 0)

But...Bush won.

by rfahey22 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: McCain: (none / 0)

Well you have me there and that is a good point. While we can all agree that bush was an awful president you have to admit he was a great candidate. I ways on message and his rove team really knew how to push a negative meme not matter how false.

david

by giusd on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.