Most politicians talk themselves poor in the course of an election campaign, but it needs a little more subtlety than Newt Gingrich appears to be able to muster.
Mother Jones (yup) reports:
When Gingrich was campaigning in Laconia on Wednesday, a fellow came up to the former House speaker and asked, “Won’t you buy a home in the Lakes Region if elected president?” This was a reference to Mitt Romney’s house in New Hampshire.
Gingrich replied, “No, I can’t afford things like that. I’m not rich.”And his wife Callista quickly added, “We have one home.”
Not rich? This past summer, Gingrich had to file the financial-disclosure form required of presidential candidates. It revealedthat he has a net worth of at least $6.7 million and that his income was at least $2.6 million in 2010. That’s about 65 times the income of the average family of four in the United States. That puts him well into the top 1 percent (about $520,000 a year or more) and close to the top 0.1 percent. He, of course, had that $500,000-plus tab at Tiffany’s, and weeks ago was boasting that he pulled in $60,000 a speech. These are the sort of actions that tend to be associated with richness.
Well, he’s no Pelosi, but even so….
Eh. I don’t care if he literally has his foot in his mouth until November.
But you are right, he’s no “Crypt Keeper”.
Nate, your statement is completely unfair and unjust
The Cryptkeeper is an entertaining teller of short shock and horror stories, with a certain dark wisdom and a wonderful sense of humour.
He is also better looking than Pelosi
First of all, do we even know if that story is true? Consider the source.
If that story is true, I don’t see the problem. He’s at least being honest. “Rich” is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe if you had that money you would consider yourself rich. So would I. But if you own a house, I’d guarantee you would not feel the need to buy another one just to win someone’s vote.
Obama thinks “rich” is anyone earning $200,000 or more, so which is worse? And unlike Obama, you can’t fault Gingrich for lack of sincerity.
“Obama thinks “rich” is anyone earning $200,000 or more, so which is worse?”
The median household income in the wealthiest county in America in 2009 (Loudoun County, VA, unsurprisingly) was $112,021. This means that earning a household income of $200,000 per year even in the toniest area of the country far above what most of the people who live there manage to make do with. So please stop pretending that $200K per year isn’t “rich.” “Rich” is a comparative term, and that income level is well into “rich” territory, no matter where you live.
oops. Garbled sentence. I meant to say:
This means that those earning a household income of $200,000 per year even in the toniest area of the country earn far above what most of the people who live there manage to make do with.
I never said it wasn’t a lot of money. But Obama characterizes it like it was a nefarious thing and equates it with extreme wealth. Actually, many such people who make that amount are small business owners who hire employees.
You do make a good argument, and you’re right. $200,000 is no meager sum. But when the average wage earner talks about rich people, they’re referring to millionaires. So yes, even after all those taxes $200,000 is financially very comfortable, but you know what I meant.
Calvin, Thank you for your thoughtful, respectful response. This is literally the first time I’ve had that response from a conservative when I’ve pointed out that 200K/year is wealthy, no matter where you live.
There’s been some fudging of terms recently regarding what constitutes a “millionaire.” It used to be that if your net worth was above $1 mil, you qualified. But when Obama floated a tax increase (or something, I forget exactly what) targeting people who earn more than a mil per year, it was called a “millionaire’s tax.” I’m guessing that there are a lot of 200K yearly earners out there with assets worth more than a million.
While I suppose that “millionaire” is what people term those they consider to be rich, I would argue that what they’re referring to isn’t so much a dollar amount as a lifestyle that does not include deciding which bills to pay this month and which to put off, among many other things. I submit that if a family is still suffering financial hardship when they’ve got $200K a year rolling in, they are most likely terrible at managing money, but most would still consider them “rich.”
Of course it’s a lot of money. I make $15,000 a year. I’m not ashamed of putting that out there. If I never make $200,000, then maybe I never deserved it in the first place. It could be I’m not intelligent enough, or it could simply be that my life never managed to go down that path. What annoys me is when people assume I’m a Democrat just because I’m struggling financially. There are plenty of good reasons not to vote Democratic, particularly class warfare. In any event, whoever says $200,000 is not a lot of money doesn’t necessarily mean they’re insincere or out of touch. Maybe they just have a different comparative view of money versus the cost of living. If you have more money, then the things you buy are going to be more expensive of course.