Thirteen Cars and Seven Houses?
September 21, 2008 by Joshua Davis
It looks like John McCain has been caught in another lie, he has previously said he only owns American built cars, but government records show he owns thirteen cars, and two of them are foreign made, one is a Honda, the other is a Volkswagen.
In addition to the foreign made cars, McCain has a lot of gas guzzlers including a 2007 half-ton Ford pickup truck, a 2008 Jeep Wrangler, and a 2001 GMC SUV.
How many cars do the Obama’s own? Just one, a Ford Escape Hybrid. They also own only one house, yet for some reason they still call Obama the elisist and McCain the workingmans man.
The workingman’s man would advocate the establishment of a living wage, to replace the unlivable minimum wage, and see that the Treasury Department certify that people can actually live off of the wage. The workingman’s man would fight for the repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, and allow workers to collectively bargain with their employers. The workingman’s man would advocate Fair Trade policies, to protect the worker. The workingman’s man would support restructuring the federal budget to see that the worker’s tax-money is spent in the way most beneficial to the worker and country.
It is my opinion that the number of houses or cars that a person has does not necessarily make them more or less friendly to the working class, though I suppose that someone who is less-well-off could better emphasize with someone of the same condition. But, when both candidates are worth over a million dollars, there may be some differences in opulence, but both of them are still very well-off. Both candidates are still richer than anyone I know can ever hope to be. What I think is most important, in determining which candidate is most friendly to the working people of this country, is their stated policies.
[Reply]
The working man would actually hold a real job and not be a politician. So this argument is unnecessary. I personally would like my president to a solid human being first and foremost, which is truly questionable in any body that would wish to seek the office of president. However, if I must throw out my character requirements I would have to say I wish my president to be an “elitist”. Personally I believe that a workingman, or common person, which ever nomenclature one wishes to use, wouldn’t have a clue what to do or posses the skills for foreign diplomacy. (i.e. our fearless leader “W”).
[Reply]
Elizabeth… I know you are a Nader lover and I agree with you on many points about a real “working man/woman candidate.” But don’t go bashing McCain and Obama because they happen to be wealthy. I’m pretty sure Nader is worth more than at least Obama…
[Reply]
Elizabeth,
The minimum wage rate is not a “living wage,” and it was never intended to be one. It is in place to ensure that people are not being paid below a set national level to ensure they are not being taken advantage of. However, even with the set national rate, there are clauses in a few industries where companies are allowed to pay below the national level. For what it’s worth, most states minimum wages exceed that of the national rate (as it is intended to be). I have no problems with your second paragraph.
Joshua,
McCain says “he” owns American cars. Just like the investment property, the additional cars belong to McCain’s wife who, among other things, is a car collector and a drift car racer. There is no “lie” here.
[Reply]
Those cars are McCain’s cars, his daughter’s and wife’s cars where not counted.
[Reply]
Mr. Ivker, I was not bashing Obama and McCain because they are wealthy—I directly stated that “What I think is most important, in determining which candidate is most friendly to the working people of this country, is their stated policies.” Their stated policies, not their level of wealth. It’s not my fault that Obama and McCain haven’t adopted any of the policies that I first noted. If they had, I might be voting for them.
Mr. Common Sense, the minimum wage may not have intentioned this, but I think that every person should be able to live off of the wages they recieve if they work 40 hours each week. You can’t live of off the minimum wage established by the federal government. It is one thing to see that workers are not completely taken advantage of, and quite a different thing to ensure that they can actually live off of the fruits of their labors. That is why I think the living wage could be a replacement for the minimum wage. Why not just establish this at the national level and thus allow the people of all of the states to have livable wages?
[Reply]
Elizabeth,
I totally agree in terms of the minimum wage. I find it ironic that the people who bash the minimum wage also bash welfare. MAKE UP YOUR MIND! If you want people off welfare, provide a livable wage so that the people of our country can survive. As it is now we have people working three minimum wage jobs and still taking our tax money for welfare. Why not remove welfare or significantly lower it while providing jobs that have a livable wage?
[Reply]
Why not remove welfare or significantly lower it while providing jobs that have a livable wage?
Then corporations would have less profits, and their executives would have less bonuses, and well it just wouldn’t work out nicely for the one percent.
[Reply]
I hope that’s being sarcastic..
[Reply]
of course it was.
[Reply]