http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/07/14/daily79.html

Republican presidential candidate John McCain cashes his monthly Social Security checks despite calling the federal program "a disgrace," the Associated Press reports.

"I'm receiving benefits," McCain told campaign reporters, but added, "the system is broken."

In 2007, he received benefits of $23,157 from Social Security, approximately $1,930 a month. The maximum monthly benefit under Social Security is $2,185. Social Security benefits are determined by age at retirement.

McCain, who is 71, has received benefits since he was 65.

Last week, McCain told observers at a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, Ohio, "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers ... and that's a disgrace."

B.J. Jarrett from the Social Security Administration said that individuals can refuse retirement benefits.

In 2006, McCain's wife Cindy earned $6 million, and has a net worth of approximately $100 million.

This election is going to be barely more than a formality, at this rate.

I was somewhat bored earlier today, and so read the paper more thoroughly than I usually might, which resulted in my reading David Brooks piece. Now I don't really like most of what Brooks writes, but he did make an interesting note in his attempt to half-heartedly promote the McCain candidacy today, and it really drove home for me what lacks in our current candidates.

"The true function of the state as it interferes in social life should be to make the chances of competition more even, not to abolish them." This quote is from Teddy Roosevelt.

We NEED a Teddy Roosevelt right about now.

Do you guys mean to tell me that a politician would disparage something while at the same time accept the benefits of the very thing they disparage?

Social Security benefits are determined by age at retirement.

McCain, who is 71, has received benefits since he was 65.


So...would'nt "working" as a U.S. Senator for the past 6 years constitute fraud? pretty sure there is a limit to the amount of income one can recieve while drawing SSI benifits.

So...would'nt "working" as a U.S. Senator for the past 6 years constitute fraud? pretty sure there is a limit to the amount of income one can recieve while drawing SSI benifits.

I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure I've heard people say they can only work so many hours or their social security will get cut.

The thing is, McCain has every right to collect SSI it's his money, but I think it shows for all of the bluster about him being a maverick and a war hero it comes down to the fact that he's just another scumbag politician who grabs everything he can right down to a couple of thousand measley dollars.


McCain told observers at a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, Ohio, "Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers ... and that's a disgrace."


But certainly not disgraceful enough to refuse the check...oh did I mention the 100 million bucks this piece of shit sits on....I'm sure that 2 grand a month is needed by him and his family.

McCain has also been getting a disability pension from the military since the 70s for being 100% disabled.
First off, I find it fascinating that John McCain, who is refusing to vote for the GI Bill for our troops because "it's too generous (http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/obama-hits-mccain-for-opposing-new-gi.html)," is himself getting $58,000 a year, tax-free, from the US government for his military service. Had McCain been getting that amount every year since Vietnam, that would total $2,000,000 for the man who isn't into overgenerous government. I just find that interesting.

His staff responded with the classic "he was tortured for his country (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pension22apr22,1,6562984.story)." Yeah, we get it. The torture card. It's to McCain what 9/11 was to Giuliani's candidacy - the never-ending name-drop. Though what McCain's staff actually said was downright, um, we're being nice to Clinton now, so I won't say Clintonian. Here's the quote:
McCain campaign strategist Mark Salter said Monday night that McCain was technically disabled. "Tortured for his country -- that is how he acquired his disability," Salter said.
Technically? What does that mean? Usually, it means that under the strict reading of the law, you're covered, but in fact it's kind of a nudge-nudge-wink-wink situation - that's what "technically" means. It's called parsing, which is something you do to "technically" claim something is true, when on its face it really isn't. So is McCain "technically" disabled, and taking $58,000 a year tax free from the government, or is he actually disabled? I would imagine there are other solders who are actually disabled who could use the money. And if he is actually disabled, just how disabled is he?
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/why-is-mccain-getting-58000-year-in.html

When McCain released his tax return for 2007 on Friday, he separately disclosed that he received a pension of $58,358 that was not listed as income on his return.

On Monday, McCain’s staff identified the retirement benefit as a “disability pension” and said that McCain “was retired as disabled because of his limited body movements due to injuries as a POW.”

McCain campaign strategist Mark Salter said Monday night that McCain was technically disabled. “Tortured for his country – that is how he acquired his disability,” Salter said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/22/nation/na-pension22

No, he wants his cake and to eat it too: John McCain believes very strongly that service members who suffered permanent injuries in service to our nation should not be forced to give up their disability compensation in order to collect their retirement pay. For this reason, John McCain has been a staunch supporter of repealing the historic ban on receiving both disability and retirement pay at the same time. Source (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f.htm)
The guy is married to a millionaire, works at a "job" even though the Navy says he is 100% disabled - and that means incapable of holding down any job at all. If the guy is as disabled as the military has claimed for the last 25+ years, then he certainly is unfit for duty as President.

Funny thing. I could actually receive 100% disability but I don't as I was under the obviously mistaken impression that if I did I could not work.

I guess I have a few dollars in retroactive payments due me.

Looks like John is a player!

Congrats on the low road vacation.

Congrats on the low road vacation.


Define please.

He is entitled to both the Social Security and Military Retirement benefits, however, those payments should not come with any added compensation for "100%" disability. I would have to say that him maintaining his status as 100% disabled is nothing short of fraud.

I used to think John McCain was a good man that was slowly losing his sense of direction due to the rigors and compromises one must make when running for president. I know think he's just another shill like so many others, interested in his on self interest. I'm really disappointed, though I disagree with many positions he has taken, I really though that he was an honorable man...the more I research, and confirm as true, the less I think of him.

Once again, my vote will come down to who I think will do the least amount of harm, the lesser of two evils.

Akipt,

Why is this the low road? Are the facts wrong? Is he not listed as 100% disabled and still working full time? Is he not extremely well off, whether you count his wife's millions or not, while taking $80k a year from US tax payers? Does it not seem disingenuous to you that he he accepts Social Security while saying it's a shame that current workers pay for it?

Where is the mistake? Give us the reasoning why this is okay for him to do.

I don't mind negative rep, at times I deserve it. When I give I sign it and it's about what was posted. I'd like to say that every time it's about the quality of the post and it's info, but it isn't every time. But I do make sure I sign every time I give re, the anonymity of the net does not excuse me to act like a heathen...

I gave negative rep to Akipt because he didn't present anything of value in his post. This is the rep I received a few minutes later (and please no positive rep in response to this, not looking for that):

McCain's "Broken"... (http://ayonae.com/showthread.php?p=146662#post146662) 07-21-2008 08:47 AM go <edited for content> yourself
Isn't that nice, I edited the curse word out. Don't know who did it, it wasn't signed, but it does give us a view into the mind of the types that support McBush.

Maybe it was Dick Cheney that gave you the Neg Rep?

That was me. Really, I was only looking out for your personal enjoyment.

"low road".. very rich.

Coming from the wingnut side who wanted John Kerry's paperwork to justify his medals. Remember that? That whole fabrication to discredit Kerry's military service. Good times.

So..

QQ Moar.

A bit of perspective from another disability recipient:

I receive 40% disability payments for the loss of the use of my left eye, which as of the last pay increase comes to approx $480 a month now. This money is not, and never has been (as far as I know), reportable income as far as the issue of income taxes goes. Military/Veteran's Administration disability payments are not taxable.

I still have a few years to go before I start collecting social security, so I cannot comment on whether it would impact that benefit, as reportable income.

I am wondering how he is able to collect his social security benefits with the salary he makes, as I have heard people talk often about having to be careful not to make too much or they would be penalized. And, these were folks who made less than half of McCain's salary.

Yeah I remember Kerry basing a huge part of his campaign on his experience in Vietnam and a whole bunch of men in a position to offer credible criticism of things like Cambodia being seered, no SEERED into his memory hole.

Perhaps Kerry should have left his little 8mm camera back in the states to make homemade porn like all other guys his age.

Good ahead, continue to spin it into a new verb though.

I like how we can't even muster anyone who actually likes McCain, but can still dog people who are nominally against him. Must be a rough year for the faux-news-mass-forward crowd.

Yeah I remember Kerry basing a huge part of his campaign on his experience in Vietnam and a whole bunch of men in a position to offer credible criticism of things like Cambodia being seered, no SEERED into his memory hole.

Perhaps Kerry should have left his little 8mm camera back in the states to make homemade porn like all other guys his age.

Good ahead, continue to spin it into a new verb though.

Unfortunately Kerry didn't serve in Cambodia and never claimed he did as when he was there was a bit before the incursion into Cambodia which never involved riverine units. Don't forget that all of those so called "men" never served with Kerry and almost all of them didn't serve in a Riverine unit.

It's so patently obvious that those who were known as "The Swift Boat Veterans" were in fact never on Swift Boats and that the Men that served directly with John Kerry, those in his unit and those under his command stood right behind him during the bald faced lies that were told regarding his service. Kerry, much like McCain served honorably and heroicly, I think it should be noted that although both served one served right down in "the shit" while the other saw the war from 20,000 feet up and then from inside the walls of a terrible prison.

The shocking thing is that while well aware of the lies being told about Kerry, McCain not once stood by his "brother" and defended his honor, perhaps it was the fear that was put inside of McCain by the underhanded rovian tactics that were used on him and his family in 2000.

Silly me.

Such a classy party. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/kevin-bryant-south-caroli_n_114098.html)

Ya'll do realize that by bringing Kerry into this you undermine your own efforts.

Kerry was a tool, regardless of the how and why he was and will remain a big jawed opportunist.

Get back on track, discuss McCain and keep to the issue.

Yep I agree, Akipt was dumb in dragging Kerry into this, he did no good for his party and the fatherland with pointing out how when it comes down to it those republicans will stop at nothing to hold on to power.

So what have we learned in this thread? We learned that Rover was incorrect in his thinking that by collecting disability he couldn't work, I can't thank the good senator enough for showing me the light. Economic slowdown? Not here, I'm gonna get some free money!

And in other news, McCain has clearly stated that we have won in Iraq. Time for the troops to come home. He's soooo right, Obama doesn't know a thing about the situation he thinks we can leave our troops there for 16 more months and all the while we've won and they can come home now!


"When you win wars, troops come home," McCain said. "He's been completely wrong on the issue. ... I have been steadfast in my position."
On Afghanistan, McCain said, "I've always said it's long and tough and hard."

As to Iraq, "We've succeeded. We're not succeeding, we've succeeded," McCain said later at a fundraiser.

Silly me.

Such a classy party. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/kevin-bryant-south-caroli_n_114098.html)

Yeah Putinista, really classy. (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=bush+hitler&gbv=2)

Perhaps his pal Bill Ayers can bridge the gap of understanding terrorism for Barrack. Oh sorry, I wasn't hippie weed smokin protestor, so I don't understand what it was like back then. Right.

Akipt was dumb in dragging Kerry into this,If you can't even look back 3 posts and get it right, don't even bother trying to lecture me on history 40 years ago. kkthx

Anyway, back on subject I guess.

McCain's Social Security benefits... unless I'm mistaken, that's HIS FUCKING MONEY. Not yours. Not the government's. Not Obama's. His. He earned it. Unless he's got some sweet deal as a Senator, he's not getting back anywhere near what he's put in over the years. And if he is, kudos to him. Since he was completely disabled while serving his country, a politician is the path he took with the most rewards while still being able to serve his country.

Yes, you low road freaks. I invite you to get 'technically' disabled for your country by having your sternum broken multiple times long ways because your arms are repeatedly pulled so far back behind you over several years that you can barely sit at a desk with your arms resting on it. And then have some dick head tell you you don't deserve compensation from the government for it.

On Akipt's first point...it's a little different when a GOP senator posts a derogatory picture on his website than citing a bunch of MySpace and left wing media putting the picture of a guy NOT running for president that has been fucking the country for nearly 8 years. Missed the mark on that one, but nice try.

On your second point. You have a some very good points. On social security I agree, it is his money...but doesn't it seem to you to be disingenuous to be collecting that pittance out a system you've criticized as broken and which so many depend on for their very lives? Especially when you have the millions this guy has and your kid:

while one of their two dependent children had an AmEx card with a monthly balance as large as $50,000.

He obviously doesn't come anywhere close to needing the money, so why take it when so many need it to live? Why as a millionaire, and feed me that his wife's the billionaire, that's BS, does he feel the need to take this money from taxpayers? It's not a matter of whether he qualifies, it's a matter of character.

I 100% agree with you on his disability, he's owed that money from the government and deserves absolutely NO criticism for receiving it.

In his autobiographies, McCain said that his knee still bothered him in cold weather and that he was unable to raise his hands above his shoulders.

I'm betting he underplays them to a great degree based on the military giving him 100% designation. I further agree it is the low road to criticize him for these benefits. I was clearly wrong to question it.

Now that's the post I was looking for Akipt!

Akipt, sometimes your mouth moves before your brain registers that your awake. No one said that McCain doesn't deserve his disability what was said was that, as far as I know, supposed to be a reduction in disability payments based on your earning power. I explained, I could easily apply for and receive disability, I am in no doubt 100% disabled as far as the rules go, but I don't.

I don't because the monies I would be paid would be far less than I would make working and I also don't because it is patently obvious that while I fall well within the rules of being disabled I am able to earn money and maybe it's just me but I think that makes me no more than a common thief to collect free money that someone who really is not able to work deserves.

As far as SSI goes, you are correct, it's his money, the part that makes it wrong is he disparages the system he uses.

Say what you want about Obama, the deflection is OBVIOUS on your part. Stick to McCain here, you said it yourself.

Rover, are you saying that it's your understanding that if you work you lose your disability benefits? That seems odd...can't find anything on the gov websites but it seems to me you are suffering those disabilities whether you work or not, why would you not be entitled to receive compensation for those disabilities? Granted I understand your argument about whether he needs the money, the moral issue of collecting, but certainly he's entitled to the money for the service he performed and the disabilities he suffers to this day.

the part that makes it wrong is he disparages the system he uses.Why is that wrong? It's his money and he's getting a very small fraction of his return of investment from it. You're mentally handicapped if you don't bitch about it.

If you are disabled you are allowed the money regardless of your occupation. It affects every aspect of your life, even if you are able to power through it and work. I think there is a process where the claim can be challenged, i.e. you are claiming a back injury and are caught in the gym deadlifting twice your weight.

Rover, are you saying that it's your understanding that if you work you lose your disability benefits? That seems odd...can't find anything on the gov websites but it seems to me you are suffering those disabilities whether you work or not, why would you not be entitled to receive compensation for those disabilities? Granted I understand your argument about whether he needs the money, the moral issue of collecting, but certainly he's entitled to the money for the service he performed and the disabilities he suffers to this day.

I didn't say he wasn't entitled to it. I was under the mistaken impression that if you receive disability and you work that your disability payment is reduced by your earnings in a regular job. I was obviously wrong and as you read this I am on my way to collect what is due me.

Gotta love America, I can make over 250k a year and get free money through disability, this will certainly add to my retirement package in the future...looks like I can retire a few years earlier than I thought and John McCain showed me the light!

Im glad McCain is getting his.

We sure as fuck arent getting ours.

Gotta love America, I can make over 250k a year and get free money through disability....


Well it's "free" if you don't count the fact that you are physically unable to perform certain functions for the rest of your life....:(

Well it's "free" if you don't count the fact that you are physically unable to perform certain functions for the rest of your life....:(

I think you mis-understand me here, I am actually according to the rules 100% disabled, it would be a cakewalk for me to get paid with benefits. I chose not to years ago because I was under the mistaken impression that if I did I would not be able to work which would leave me in an unfortunate financial position of a very limited income. I now know it to be different.

All kidding aside, if you don't need the money you shouldn't collect the money whether or not your disability shows you to be deserving. Disability is just that, it is for those who are too disabled to actually work. McCain might deserve the money, god knows the man lived through pure hell, but he doesn't need the money which is why he shouldn't take it, he could very easily say, I have a good salary plus the odd $100 million dollars that I have access too would show I don't NEED the disability money as I have shown I do have the ability to work.

He's now proven that he is as sleazy and greedy as the next piece of shit in Washington, but I guess associating with Phil Graham showed that also, plus the fact that Carly Fiorina is now his main economic advisor, she's the one who almost put HP in the ground...remember? This is not going to be an administration of any skill in national security, foriegn policy, economic policy or just simply good management of assets. A McCain presidency will so obviously be the killing blow this country is near to.

I think Rover has the two mixed up: if you receive military or VA disability compensation it is non-taxable income, and any other income is irrelevant; but, social security benefits are reduced depending on what other income the recipient has, since SSI is supplementary income.

Disability compensation is exactly that; you are being compensated for what you lost, or sacrificed, for your country.

I think you mis-understand me here, I am actually according to the rules 100% disabled, it would be a cakewalk for me to get paid with benefits.
Are you disabled due to serving your country? Or due to some other situation?

I was disabled, however not 100% while in the Marine Corp, this ended up most likely being a major part of my current disability it involves a blood clot which is most likely one of the causes of my current cardiac issues.

That being said, it's probably just me and the way I was brought up but I view it as a take what you need thing and due to my financial situation I don't need it and I feel that someone who doesnt need it even though deserving shouldn't take it thats all I think about it.

I look at it as a situation where the guy deserves it, he absolutely does NOT need it yet he takes it. I think disability should be taken on need not on what one feels they deserve. I'm kind of surprised that a libertarian would feel it's ok to take something from the government that one doesn't need and surely we can all agree that the money is something that McCain does not need.

I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that he sustained the disability during military service. He is owed that money from the Government, and whether his wife is loaded or not has no bearing on his collection of it.

I'm sure you'd agree he earned that money having his sternum fractured multiple times, and unable to lift his arms more than shoulder-height.
Whether he needs it or not, I'm pretty sure he'd give it all back to be able to lift his grandchildren above his head. I'm not sure there's an amount of money that could cover that disability.

Personally if I didnt need it, I wouldn't take it either. Just because he does, however doesn't make him worse in my eyes. Maybe he takes that disability money and donates it to charity for all we know.

I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that he sustained the disability during military service. He is owed that money from the Government, and (1) whether his wife is loaded or not has no bearing on his collection of it.

(2)I'm sure you'd agree he earned that money having his sternum fractured multiple times, and unable to lift his arms more than shoulder-height.
Whether he needs it or not, (3)I'm pretty sure he'd give it all back to be able to lift his grandchildren above his head. I'm not sure there's an amount of money that could cover that disability.

Personally if I didnt need it, I wouldn't take it either. Just because he does, however doesn't make him worse in my eyes. Maybe he takes that disability money and donates it to charity for all we know.

In answer to (1): If your wife is loaded you are too.

In answer to (2): I said multiple times he is deserving of disability.

In answer to (3): I would certainly hope so.

Look, the guy is nothing more than a typical politician, he has almost 0 experience in business, he's been on the "I get it passed you donate to me" end of the business stick. This disability thing is something that is valid and needs explaining by McCain and should not be overlooked by the press or the people.

The whole thing reminds me of seeing the video of ODB riding in a limo to pick up food stamps.

Who cares about whether or not he's milking the system legitimately? Simple common sense dictates that a politician flying around in a private jet does not need to milk the bankrupting system to begin with.

The issue of him collecting social security is a valid one that hopefully we will see one of the networks spend some time and money on, and maybe even on a Sunday morning program. As I mentioned earlier, I am aware of folks who have to watch their incomes to ensure they do not get their social security benefit reduced.

Regarding the disability, I am in strong opposition of Rover's position. I lost the use of an eye, and if anything were to happen to the good one, I am SOL. I have no reservation whatever collecting my monthly check for the potential inconvenience of being totally blind. I was inducted on the day of my 17th birthday, and was in country three days following my 18th. Stepping up at the risk of being alienated from my childhood friends and some family members in order to support my country left me half blind, and it is the basic contract between government and soldier that they compensate me for that loss. It does not matter that I am gainfully employed (by the same government, no less) but only that I suffered a loss of physical ability due to my service.

With the change in warfare tactics we have seen in Iraq, many more will be considered disabled to some extent, and none should be slighted for collecting those checks.

If your household had a net worth of over $100 million, I would think you were a dick for collecting disability checks too. There's a night and day difference there that you can't compare as apples and apples.

If your household had a net worth of over $100 million, I would think you were a dick for collecting disability checks too. There's a night and day difference there that you can't compare as apples and apples.

The problem here, dear San, is that the thread was about social security and for some reason disability compensation got brought into the mix. At that point, misconceptions and bad information got spewed, that needed correcting. Now, regardless of someone's income, if they incurred bodily injury due to serving their country, and are entitled to compensation for that loss, I could give a shit if you think someone is a dick or not, I will still defend their right to that government obligation.

As to the issue of social security, which the thread is about, McCain is (IMO) drawing money he has no right to, based on his earnings. The purpose of SSI is to supplement retirement monies, and as he is not retired, and is earning such a large salary compared to the average citizen, he should not be collecting these monies. At some point, if I find enough time to research further, I will look for the scales of income versus reduction in benefits that should apply to him, making his SSI monthly benefit virtually 0.

Cmon..

Im sure McSame never cashed any of those checks.

I bet it was his (wifes) team of personal accountants who did the actual cashing and depositing. People of McCains status do not handle the money, thats left to us troglodytes and garlic eaters.

You cant expect a man of McCains (wife's) tremendous wealth to know where every penny of his (wife's) vast fortune is or know the comings and goings of a few tens of thousands of dollars.

I'd have to say, as a general rule, the fiscally independent don't get that way from leaving any nickel unturned.

While I tend to believe that at some point, enough is enough, there are those that would say that makes me irresponsible.

Removing all circumstances in this issue and any of you had, say... 250 million stashed away and someone said, "Hey, here's 60k a year because of X. It's yours, free. You earned it." Would you turn it away?

Personally, I would take it. I would then donate it to my favorite charity. Assuming I had one of those... if I was that rich, I'm sure I'd have a favorite charity, right?

In answer to (1): If your wife is loaded you are too. Try telling that to a judge during a divorce, you'll be laughed out of court.

And if he was collecting Social Security benefits, as opposed to disablity compensation, then he has some 'splaning to do.

However, I don't care how rich you are, if you incurred a disability during service to our country, then you are deserving of the compensation for the disability. What he does with that money is his own business.

From the link in the original post:
In 2007, he received benefits of $23,157 from Social Security, approximately $1,930 a month. The maximum monthly benefit under Social Security is $2,185. Social Security benefits are determined by age at retirement.

McCain, who is 71, has received benefits since he was 65.
Yes, this is about Social Security, not disability benefits.

Try telling that to a judge during a divorce, you'll be laughed out of court.

And if he was collecting Social Security benefits, as opposed to disablity compensation, then he has some 'splaning to do.

However, I don't care how rich you are, if you incurred a disability during service to our country, then you are deserving of the compensation for the disability. What he does with that money is his own business.


I'll take a wild stab here and say that if your in front of a judge going over divorce proceedings you probably are calling her an ex-wife or soon to be.

I said if your WIFE is loaded you are too: This statement would in fact infer that one would be on good terms with the wife and not be in a separated or divorce situation.

I think I was very clear on this disability issue, I didn't say he never deserved it I said he DID NOT NEED THE FUCKING MONEY...is that clear enough?

And now we start to reach one of the real issues at the heart of our government. These individuals have enough wealth and a different perspective on money and law that they don't even live in the same country as the rest of us. Then they start making policy, and we wonder why it doesn't make sense.

As someone who never served in the armed forces, I have no problem with him or anyone else who served taking disability, regardless of income. My view is probably a little askew from those of you who have spent time in active duty, but if you're willing to put yourself on the line for those of us sitting safely at home, please happily take the money.

As for disability, I wouldn't care if he took it regardless of income, since he did pay into the system. However, he's proving himself to be a typical politician when he he claims that those claiming social security are a burden on others. In my mind this is right up there with individuals who, say, champion family values, and then get caught in a sex scandal.

Okay, I really try to stay away from generalizations but I'm a bit forced here. I apologize to anyone this doesn't apply to ahead of time, but here it goes. This is indicative of the GOP. In general, their platforms are based on little or no social conscience. He takes the money because he can and it makes him richer. I don't believe anyone argues he's not entitled legally...it's his social conscience that's in question. Just because it's legal (though I'm still trying figure out why he gets so much SS with his obvious wealth), doesn't make it the right thing to do. It casts some insight as to the type of man he is versus what he tries to represent.

Of course, if you want to know what kind of pile of shit he is, just look at his recent adds that try to blame Obama for high gas prices.

But...But... he was a POW! is that not enough to forgive him for everything he's done for the last 40 years?

Wouldn't be the first time his hero status awarded him some benefits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_five)

C'mon Ainweener...


After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Ethics_Committee) determined in 1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991) that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly.


Unless you're saying that the Ethics Committee was wrong.

The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him. McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.

I can't say that "poor judgment" is high on the list of traits I like to see in my President.

Unless you're saying that the Ethics Committee was wrong.

Not at all. Mcain's involvment is shady, there's no doubt. Maybe I misread Ainwein's post and therefore misinterpreted the intent.

Looking back now, I think I see what he means. 5 Senators involved and two got off. John Glen and John Mcain, both heros of some sort.

Ok, I finally decided to use my head for something other than a place to keep my hair, and asked my mother about social security.

Under the old system, any income by a SSI recipient over approx $8k per year would result in the loss of $1 of SSI benefits for each $2 over the $8k figure. This was discontinued around '97, allowing seniors to take part-time jobs without threat of penalties.

So, my previous statements that something was fishy about him being able to collect that benefit while drawing his Senate salary is incorrect. It is not fishy; it just smells bad.

Ok, I finally decided to use my head for something other than a place to keep my hair, and asked my mother about social security.

Under the old system, any income by a SSI recipient over approx $8k per year would result in the loss of $1 of SSI benefits for each $2 over the $8k figure. This was discontinued around '97, allowing seniors to take part-time jobs without threat of penalties.

So, my previous statements that something was fishy about him being able to collect that benefit while drawing his Senate salary is incorrect. It is not fishy; it just smells bad.

A fishy smell can be bad....

Tuna for president?

No Bill Parcells for President.

A corny saying I heard recently....

you can tune a guitar but you can't tunafish

A corny saying I heard recently....

you can tune a guitar but you can't tunafish


Old school rock band named REO Speedwagon in 1978 had an album titled "You Can Tune A Piano But You Can't Tuna Fish". There was a seeming battle of funny album titles for a while in the '70s, like Spooky Tooth's "You Broke My Heart So I Busted Your Jaw".

REO had a cute album title but I never got too carried away by their music. I gave it a 35, decent beat and easy to dance to, but lacking something.



And so, the derail lived on.........

Saw REO Speedwagon open for Styx and Def Leppard, wasn't nearly as good as I remembered from when I was little. Was better than Styx though.

REO Speedwagon - Styx

Two bands that no guy admitted to listening to back in the day, however it could pay off to have a cassette or two hidden in your glove box when you were with that chick who you met at the....

Two bands that no guy admitted to listening to back in the day, however it could pay off to have a cassette or two hidden in your glove box when you were with that chick who you met at the....

Add Journey to that list, since all three sounded the same.

Say no to 'Yes' ....

What was this thread about, again? :D

Now wait a minute, Yes helped lead to Asia, and we got some good tunes out of them.

Not to mention the very excellent "Journey to The Center of The Earth" album by Rick Wakeman, Yes keyboard man.



And the thread was about McCain being a hypocrite, but talking about froo-froo rock bands is more fun. And less predictable. :p

Yes? Yes rocked! The song "You and I" is excellent!!!!

Add Journey to that list, since all three sounded the same.

The thing about Journey was their lead guitarist was an EXCELLENT guitarist, the very underrated Neal Schon. He was playing with Santana when he was around 15 or so. Excellent guitarist.

Wow, I had forgotten about Asia....
Didn't they only have 3 hits?

Um, big hits maybe. Many fans blamed them for the demise of Yes and (lake and Palmer?). I've seen the current band in concert, and like some of these other 'froo-froo' bands they are amazingly talented. One of the best drum solos I've ever heard, and this is a year after the drummer had open heart surgery. They just put out a new album too, which isn't so bad and has several songs I really like.

Um, not really that big a fan, most of this I learned prior to seeing them in concert.

Foreigner is another group that will get you laid.....Espically "Waiting for a Girl Like You".

And now, for the funny tie in to the topic of the thread, a large number of these band members are now old enough to be eligible to collect social security.

/rimshot

Oh....I thought we were discussing running mates for McCain?

Two bands that no guy admitted to listening to back in the day, however it could pay off to have a cassette or two hidden in your glove box when you were with that chick who you met at the....

I took my dad to see Def Leppard (I was twelve when they were popular, it was cool to see them). The other two bands just happened to be playing with them.

Add Journey to that list, since all three sounded the same.


Hey now, I love Journey.

Steve Perry has one of those "one in a million" voices. I'm not a professional singer and I'm not sure what the terminology is, but I think it's when you change octives, most people have a break in their voice or a pause... or something. But when he does it, it's smooth and you can't even tell. I don't know what that's called... but I certainly can't do it.

Oh....I thought we were discussing running mates for McCain?

The Guinness Book of Records has the longest sustained conversation about McCain at 3 minutes and 21 seconds. Participants either fell asleep, wandered away aimlessly, gnawed their arms off to escape or lapsed into a coma.

I was curious to see if McCain gave to charity...found this:

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002858


That’s true, but as I reported here in February (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002519), between 2001 and 2006, the John and Cindy McCain Family foundation “made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids’ private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.”

From what I can gather, he donates all of his book revenues to the foundation which makes it look like he contributes large amounts to charity, but as you can see a good portion of that goes to private schools he happens to send his kids to. I found a little more on cause the rest goes to:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/18/mccain.taxes/

Michelle Obama, who has young children, did release her tax records, filed jointly with her husband, Sen. Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918).
Sen. Hillary Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746) and former President Bill Clinton file taxes jointly.
"My life has not been one of privilege and luxury. I had the great honor of serving in this country," McCain has said.
The 71-year-old presumed GOP nominee received about $23,000 last year in Social Security, and paid nearly $18,000 in alimony to his ex-wife. He received more than $58,000 from his Navy pension.
He earned nearly $177,000 in book royalties, which he and his wife donated to charity -- and McCain donated an additional $17,000.
McCain donated about 26 percent of his income to charity. By comparison, the Clintons gave 15 percent, and the Obamas gave 6 percent.
Almost all of McCain's donations went to the John and Cindy McCain Family Foundation. The foundation supports charitable ventures such as clearing land mines and aid for children with cleft palates, which the McCains' adopted daughter had.


Through all that, even if you subtract the money McCain gives to elite private schools, which isn't a charitable donation in my book, I don't think he percentage would fall below the Obamas.....unless you count Cindy's income...oh wait, we can't because he won't disclose anything. Funny how the shoe is on the other foot now, the GOP candidate doing something they ripped Kerry for in the last election.

In the effort to be fair...Obama doesn't look like he's got any edge on being Mr. Charitible:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26taxes.html?ei=5124&en=94c02b1ee84232ea&ex=1364270400&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1217254082-BlDSV5FNstdCsaFyasFM2w


The Obamas’ returns are striking on a number of levels. They show that the couple made very few charitable contributions, sometimes less than 1 percent of taxable income, until Mr. Obama began his run for the White House.

Also of note...a lot of his donations went to the church he's trying distance himself from now.

So we can pick on McCain all we want, but Obama's no saint in this department either. Once agian, we need to choose the lesser of two evils.:devil

Other than maybe suggesting something about character, what do charitable donations have to do with qualifications for president? In theory, isn't working as a public servant (elected official) already an element of public service?

My criteria these days are simple. Lets start with a candidate who tells the truth and doesn't shit on the Constitution. Everything else is icing.

Lets start with a candidate who tells the truth....

Tells the truth, or deals with facts?

Because we all know that when the people in Washington went from being statesmen, and turned into politicians, the truth became a subjective matter....

Is speaks volumes about character...and character, or more exactly, the perception of character, is what is winning elections now. McCain is trying to attack Obama's character now. Character will most likely be the single most important issue determining the next president in the minuscule mind of the average American.