Wacka Posted August 22, 2008 Posted August 22, 2008 The Obama campaign, who had strong incentive to get it right in their attack ad, came up with only 7. That tells you it is not an obvious question. Most of the properties were purchased by his wife, from her considerable fortune, and some are controlled by a family trust. I'm willing to bet McCain knows *exactly* how many he paid for himself. One condo was bought by Cindy for their daughter for when she finishes college. A second condo was bought in the same building. Another condo was bought in California for use by the kids. Considering that he's probably never even been to some of these properties, let alone was involved in picking them out and purchasing them, it's no surprise that that they don't immediately register. Tell me this: do you know how many suits you own? Does that include outfits your wife bought for own use? They are still joint property. His mother lives in another condo of his.
Wacka Posted August 22, 2008 Posted August 22, 2008 So What? His half brother is reportedly living on a dollar a month. The messiah cold throw a grand his way and the guy could live like a king.
blzrul Posted August 22, 2008 Posted August 22, 2008 And if John Kerry had made this gaffe regarding houses purchased mostly with HIS rich wife money you wingnuts would have been delirious with joy. But he didn't. So either McCain is rich and out out touch, like his party's leader (New Orleans under water? just jump in the Land Rover and head for the country home) ... or he's senile. Take your pick.
Chef Jim Posted August 22, 2008 Posted August 22, 2008 And if John Kerry had made this gaffe regarding houses purchased mostly with HIS rich wife money you wingnuts would have been delirious with joy. But he didn't. So either McCain is rich and out out touch, like his party's leader (New Orleans under water? just jump in the Land Rover and head for the country home) ... or he's senile. Take your pick. Explain what you mean by rich and out of touch. Remember us wingnuts are all about being rich and getting richer. I don't think we'd have a problem with Kerry and/or his wife investing in real estate.
finknottle Posted August 22, 2008 Posted August 22, 2008 Ok, I've found the most cogent explanation yet as to why he couldn't answer: John and Cindy McCain keep their finances separate, and file separate tax returns. She bought all the property - it is all in her name (except the ranch, which is owned by a family trust). So technically, he doesn't own a house. Or, he could say four - that's the number he shares with her. You really cannot say he owns the others - if the McCains divorce, they are clearly hers and not his. Where it gets complicated is in the Arizona tax code - couples are not allowed to consider their property as separate. The value of your spouses property (when you separate finances) enters your tax return as a line item. So John never even sees these properties listed - he is just handed a number by the accountant. And that's why his first impulse was to say 'I'll have to ask my accountant.'
Chef Jim Posted August 22, 2008 Posted August 22, 2008 Ok, I've found the most cogent explanation yet as to why he couldn't answer: John and Cindy McCain keep their finances separate, and file separate tax returns. She bought all the property - it is all in her name (except the ranch, which is owned by a family trust). So technically, he doesn't own a house. Or, he could say four - that's the number he shares with her. You really cannot say he owns the others - if the McCains divorce, they are clearly hers and not his. Where it gets complicated is in the Arizona tax code - couples are not allowed to consider their property as separate. The value of your spouses property (when you separate finances) enters your tax return as a line item. So John never even sees these properties listed - he is just handed a number by the accountant. And that's why his first impulse was to say 'I'll have to ask my accountant.' Her homes are in her name? Not the trust?
Exit_58 Posted August 22, 2008 Posted August 22, 2008 How many houses will be lost when Mccain is president. Hes got the Bush economic plan ready to keep going. I hope he wins because he is just giving his people what they want which is funny. I believe the guy. Mccain went through hell in Vianam and never ever broke. He;s telling the truth about what he is going to do. He will throw government workers onto the streets to balance the budget.
JK2000 Posted August 23, 2008 Author Posted August 23, 2008 His half brother is reportedly living on a dollar a month. The messiah cold throw a grand his way and the guy could live like a king. So Obama is financially responsible for all the kids his deadbeat dad fostered after he skipped out on Barack at the age of 2? The dude had at least 9 kids.
finknottle Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Her homes are in her name? Not the trust? Everything I've read says that they are all in her name, except the ranch/estate thing that is in Arizona. What I find surprisingly - and I didn't see anything that spells this out - is that that would seem to include his Arlington condo. In passing, this is not that surprising. In fact, it is heartening - the guy has been in congress all his life, and *shouldn't* be independently wealthy. In fact, his income is basically what you would expect it to be - not much more than a senators base salary at 350k. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/20...n-releases.html The surprising thing is how much of his income he donates to charity: 28%. Contrast that with Clinton, 10-15% of 15-20 million, and Obama, 6% of 1-4 million. In fact, during the 7 years previous to that (before Obama began his run) his charity giving averaged 1% on 250k for the first 5 years and 5-6% on 1-1.6 million the last two. Not that I pay much heed to it, but 6% is unusually low for a politician making over a million dollars, particularly one with his positions. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/20...a-releases.html
Wacka Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 So Obama is financially responsible for all the kids his deadbeat dad fostered after he skipped out on Barack at the age of 2? The dude had at least 9 kids. He could throw some chump change- (for him) their way. Charity begins at home.
/dev/null Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 So Obama is financially responsible for all the kids his deadbeat dad fostered after he skipped out on Barack at the age of 2? The dude had at least 9 kids. Make a difference in one life or an insignificant difference in 300 million
JK2000 Posted August 23, 2008 Author Posted August 23, 2008 Why would a non-elite, regular, salt of the earth, lunchpail guy like John McCain need to be defended by Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous host Robin Leach? Could it be because John McCain's a celebrity? No, that's impossible. I mean how does appearing in Wedding Crashers, 24, Saturday Night Live, Lewis Black: Taxed Beyond Belief, WWE: Raw is War, Regis and Kelly, The View, The Daily Show, Entertaiment Tonight, ESPN 25: Who's #1, Beyond The Glory- Ultimate Fighting Championship, ESPN Sportscentury, Listen Up! Charles Barkley and Ernie Johnson, Rome is Burning, WWE Smackdwn, Late Night with David Letterman, and The Tonite Show with Jay Leno make one a celebrity?
Chef Jim Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Everything I've read says that they are all in her name, except the ranch/estate thing that is in Arizona. What I find surprisingly - and I didn't see anything that spells this out - is that that would seem to include his Arlington condo. Well I would assume they're in a trust and she is the sole trustee. That was my point.
JK2000 Posted August 23, 2008 Author Posted August 23, 2008 His half brother is reportedly living on a dollar a month. The messiah cold throw a grand his way and the guy could live like a king. Maybe Obama's just waiting for Cindy McCain to "throw a grand" the way of her half-siblings.
Wacka Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 I saw her on TV this week. Their father left Cindy's half -sister like 10K and the rest to Cindy. Her sister is not living in a wood hut on $1 a month.
buckeyemike Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 I saw here on TV this week. Their father left Cindy's half -sister like 10K and the rest to Cindy. He sister is not living in a wood hut on $1 a month. She's upset because she didn't get what she thought was her rightful share. It sounds like sour grapes on the half-sister's part.
finknottle Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Well I would assume they're in a trust and she is the sole trustee. That was my point. The newspaper accounts I read made a point of explicitely describing the ranch as trust-held, and did not do so for the others. I find it easy to believe that the others are not, from the perspective of her protecting her assets in the event of a divorce, since she paid for them out of her own money. I would think that anything in the trust would either be not recoverable or else would be subject to division.
blzrul Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 The newspaper accounts I read made a point of explicitely describing the ranch as trust-held, and did not do so for the others. I find it easy to believe that the others are not, from the perspective of her protecting her assets in the event of a divorce, since she paid for them out of her own money. I would think that anything in the trust would either be not recoverable or else would be subject to division. I guess since she met her husband while he was still married to someone else and they carried on an illicit affair whist he was still married to someone else she figures he could well do it again ....
Chef Jim Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 The newspaper accounts I read made a point of explicitely describing the ranch as trust-held, and did not do so for the others. I find it easy to believe that the others are not, from the perspective of her protecting her assets in the event of a divorce, since she paid for them out of her own money. I would think that anything in the trust would either be not recoverable or else would be subject to division. It depends on if it's a community property state where they reside. If it is when she passes the properties become his. If they're not a community property state when she dies they go to probate. Either way not a good thing. That's why almost anyone with a home needs a trust.
finknottle Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 I guess since she met her husband while he was still married to someone else and they carried on an illicit affair whist he was still married to someone else she figures he could well do it again .... Oh, and I suppose the actions of a $100 million heiress would be different if he were a guy of modest means who wasn't married when they first met. Yeah, people never get divorced, especially rich people. I don't care if he's a saint, that is always a pre-nup and separate finances situation.
Recommended Posts