Who's "Wealthy" Now?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri May 29, 2009 at 11:23:42 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Eric Boehlert takes apart an outrageous AP piece on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Read Eric for the gory details of the racism and unfairness, but I want to focus on AP's new definition of "wealthy." From the article:

There are two sides to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor: a Latina from a blue-collar family and a wealthy member of America's power elite. . . . She now earns more than $200,000 a year . . .

200,000 a year now is "wealthy" for the AP? Let's hope so. It was not always this way. Funny that when the AP discusses President Obama plan to return the tax rates for person earning over $250,000 a year to Clinton era levels, that is not considered raising taxes on the "wealthy," but on "middle class" Americans. An example:

Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.

(Emphasis supplied.) "Workers" ay? Like Joe the Plumber I suppose. No mention by the AP about people making more than $250,000 a year being "wealthy." Hmmm. Here's another example:

Obama's budget proposal would effectively raise income taxes and curb tax deductions on couples making more than $250,000 a year, beginning in 2011. By not extending former President George W. Bush's tax cuts for such wealthier filers, Obama would allow the marginal rate on household incomes above $250,000 to rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

"Wealthier?" Why not just "wealthy?"

Here's one where the AP agrees that those making 250,000 a year are wealthy:

President Barack Obama is asking Congress to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut Medicare costs to provide health care for the uninsured while making the just-enacted $400 tax cut for most workers permanent.

Now all we need is some consitency from the Assoicated Press on this. From now on, when discussing persons who make $200,000 a year or more, like Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the AP needs to refer to such people as "wealthy." Who counts on that? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.

Speaking for me only

< Friday Open Thread | Phil Spector Sentence: 19 Years to Life >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Who's "Wealthy" Now? | 59 comments (59 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by jbindc on Fri May 29, 2009 at 11:30:21 AM EST

Boehlert didn't read this:

If U.S. Appellate Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed as the Supreme Court's newest justice, she would be among its poorest.
Her personal financial disclosure form filed last year puts her sum total of investments at the end 2007 from $50,001 to $115,000. She reported only two assets: a checking account and a savings account -- both at Citibank.
The form does not require disclosure of the value of a judge's personal residence. But New York City records show that Sotomayor owns a Greenwich Village condo that she bought in 1998 for $360,000. It's now worth about $1.4 million, according to Zillow.com. And city records indicate two outstanding mortgages totaling $450,000.
Papers submitted in connection with her nomination to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997 say she was earning $1,100 a month in rent on a co-op apartment that she owned in Brooklyn. As recently as 2004, she reported less than $30,000 in her two bank accounts.
A source told The Washington Post earlier this month that Sotomayor once said that filling out her financial reports was a breeze. "When you don't have money, it's easy. There isn't anything there to report," she was quoted as saying.
Sotomayor is divorced and has no children.
She now earns $184,500 a year as a federal appeals court judge. As an associate justice on the Supreme Court, she would make $213,900. Both salaries went up 2.8 percent this year.
In 2007, Sotomayor supplemented her federal judicial salary with nearly $25,000 from teaching at the Columbia and New York University law schools.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23045.html#ixzz0GuiVWnZI&B

Sorry (none / 0) (#2)
by jbindc on Fri May 29, 2009 at 11:31:08 AM EST

I have no idea why that all is bolded.


Ok (none / 0) (#8)
by jbindc on Fri May 29, 2009 at 12:02:02 PM EST

I'm apparently having issues here, as it is I who did not fully read the post - you said Boehlert took apart an AP story.

Reading comprehension - hard to do on a Friday.

Mea culpa.


Poor earn $200, 000? (none / 0) (#47)
by kidneystones on Fri May 29, 2009 at 06:59:23 PM EST

Whatever the nominee's merits I find the term 'poor' and $200,000 per year both absurd and obscene. The judge clearly lived a life of privilege and comfort compared with most Americans, whatever their background.

My understanding is that the average income for most lawyers is something closer to $50,000 and that varies a great deal according to state.

I see nothing in the judge's background to suggest she will not be a first-class justice.

12% of American mortgage holders are in foreclosure or bankruptcy. Unemployment is 13% in Michigan and the economy is shedding jobs at a terrifying rate.

And now, today, we're asked to believe that a $200,000 a year income earner is not just wealthy, but in some sense 'poor'.

Un-explicative believable.


I'ts not privilege if you earn it (none / 0) (#48)
by roy on Fri May 29, 2009 at 07:20:21 PM EST

Oh, I see. (none / 0) (#49)
by kidneystones on Fri May 29, 2009 at 08:23:24 PM EST

All the kids who grow up in single-parent homes, or with parents in jail or who are chemically dependent, or whose parents don't make sure the kids go to good schools are failing to meet their responsibilities as children.

The justice 'earned' a supportive, safe family environment.

Got it.


What part of her father died when she (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by nycstray on Fri May 29, 2009 at 08:42:44 PM EST

was 9, 1 yr after she was diagnosed with JD, and her mother worked as a nurse and sometimes worked 2 jobs to support her and her brother did you miss?


You're right (none / 0) (#55)
by kidneystones on Sat May 30, 2009 at 03:56:49 AM EST

to draw attention to the death of a parent. That said, I work two jobs myself and have for the better part of the last fifteen years. I don't consider our kids in the slightest deprived. I'll stand by my claim that there is nothing in the biography of the justice to suggest she suffered more than any other child. I teach and know hundreds of educators who are all largely of the opinion that children of neglect rarely succeed.

Somebody got that little girl out of bed, dressed her properly, made sure she was fed, and likely checked her homework almost every night. Her mother deserves a great deal of credit, but in no way is she exceptional. Millions of parents are doing precisely that.

Now that we've parsed the details of middle-class suffering, but I'll return to my original claim: any suggestion that someone earning $200 k a year is 'poor' is obscene.

You're welcome to dispute that, if you like, but I somehow doubt you will.


: To the average person she is not poor (none / 0) (#58)
by nycstray on Sat May 30, 2009 at 11:28:52 AM EST

to the "wealthy American power elite" {gag}, they may just think she is, lol!~ ;) Remember, Biden is the "poorest" member of the Senate. . . .
While I wouldn't say she's a child of neglect (I was picking up on your single parent comment) I wouldn't classify a South Bronx housing project as middle-class suffering. Middle class doesn't generally live in public housing.
The Obama team seems to be hooked on people with "compelling life stories". I suspect we haven't heard the last of them . . .

I'm reminded of Charlie Gibson's teachers (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by andgarden on Fri May 29, 2009 at 11:34:59 AM EST

Maybe while we're at it, we (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Anne on Fri May 29, 2009 at 11:37:50 AM EST

could get the officiating in the NBA to be consistent, as well.

I predict that we will never have a definition of "wealthy" that is consistent, because (1) even when you go pretty far up the income ladder, a lot of people are living/spending up to that level and would not conisder themselves wealthy, (2) it seems to be one of those terms that has political use and the definition must remain fluid so that it can be used as needed to whack people upside the head for political gain.

I almost find it more interesting that they (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by nycstray on Fri May 29, 2009 at 11:41:21 AM EST

say she's part of "America's power elite". Really?

That part seems more defensible (none / 0) (#9)
by Socraticsilence on Fri May 29, 2009 at 12:08:45 PM EST

A Circuit court judge certainly is one of the more powerful individuals in America, it just depends on where you draw the "power elite" line- I mean I wouldn't place her pre-confirmation in the top 5000 people in the country in terms of power maybe not even in the Top 10,000 but this is a country of 250 million + so even being in the top 100,000 would place her in the 99.9% + range.


The way I read it was (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by nycstray on Fri May 29, 2009 at 12:29:15 PM EST

it was her "wealth" that made her part of the powerful elite.

If the discussion wasn't about her "wealth", but about her position/status as a judge, I might still have a prob with elite but certainly not powerful. Her salary (especially by NYC standards) does not seem that remarkable or elite to me :)


If 200K makes you part of the powerful elite, (none / 0) (#32)
by MyLeftMind on Fri May 29, 2009 at 02:20:44 PM EST

I'm not spending my money right.


: something tells me (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 29, 2009 at 02:25:44 PM EST

that only the power elite wants people to think 200K makes you part of the power elite.

I agree Boehlert is spot on here (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by standingup on Fri May 29, 2009 at 11:56:43 AM EST

and would point to Bob Somerby's posts from Wednesday and Thursday too.

The media can blame the internet and drop in advertising revenues for their problems all they like but I still think there is an element of the decline directly related to the reporting.

Didn't McSame say something stupid (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by scribe on Fri May 29, 2009 at 12:10:22 PM EST

during the campaign, about people not getting by on less than a million a year?

One of the Repugs did. I remember that. But not who or what, exactly.

To put it in perspective, as to lawyers' salaries (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by scribe on Fri May 29, 2009 at 12:22:23 PM EST

here's a short article from february this year in the "Amlaw Daily", a daily sort of supplement/newspaper that complements the American Lawyer. That publication is big on tracking who's making money and who isn't.

This article is about one large NYC-based firm, Wilkie Farr & Gallagher. The article reports that profits per partner for 2008, a down year, work out to more than $2 million per partner:

Willkie Farr & Gallagher on Monday reported its first drop in revenue and profits since 1991, but managed to maintain profits per partner above $2 million and (just barely) held revenue per lawyer above $1 million.
The firm saw gross revenues fall 3.2 percent to $583.5 million in 2008, while profits per equity partner shrank by 5.4 percent to $2,113,000. Revenue per lawyer also decreased by 5 percent, to $1,001,000.

It's a given that becoming a judge means a major income cut. Always has been, always will be. This tempest in a chamberpot merely illustrates that Republicans will say or do anything, tell any lie, make up any fantasy, so long as they think they can derive some politicalbenefit from it.

To put it into perspective, (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by inclusiveheart on Fri May 29, 2009 at 12:46:59 PM EST

Ken Lewis made $9 million last year at B of A which was down from 2007 when he made $20 million.

It really is a wonder that our government isn't even more crooked than it is given the disparity between government compensation and the private sector.


To give more perspective (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by BackFromOhio on Fri May 29, 2009 at 01:56:31 PM EST

1st year associates in the NY -- and I think DC and California offices of national & international law firms earn $160,000 per year; and, before I get a lot of "get your facts straight" comments, I know that a handful of firms have recently reduced associate salaries10%.


: And while their salaries might (none / 0) (#29)
by inclusiveheart on Fri May 29, 2009 at 02:11:43 PM EST

have been reduced, their student loans probably haven't been.

: That's why I never became a lawyer (none / 0) (#35)
by ChiTownMike on Fri May 29, 2009 at 03:24:59 PM EST

They don't make enough money.

I feel sad for the country, (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by KeysDan on Fri May 29, 2009 at 12:37:23 PM EST

when I think that all these despicable personal and professional comments about Judge Sotomayor would be gone if she were anti-abortion, anti-gay rights and anti-gun control. And, of course, not nominated by President Obama.

But we hardly know if she is those (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by lilburro on Fri May 29, 2009 at 12:40:40 PM EST

things. This is full on Repub race paranoia.


I, for one, have little problem with (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by scribe on Fri May 29, 2009 at 01:41:06 PM EST

the way this is unfolding.

The governing, lunatic fringe of the Rethugs (holding the job of exciting the base and raising money by popping up a bogeyman) is both in full flower and full battle cry. And they're making sensible Americans (still some of those left) cringe in pain at the spectacle. The few remaining rational Rethugs (the ones who actually have to get elected and appeal to non-base types) are so offended by the lunatics that they are calling them out. In public.

So, we have a major train wreck boiling up inside the Rethugs, and the sane among them (Hatch, inter alia) have already admitted Sotomayor will be confirmed.

I could not be more pleased with how they continue to pull themselves back into the gutter.


amen (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 29, 2009 at 01:48:12 PM EST

from most indicators Obama has played them like a Stradivarius


Americans have spoken... (none / 0) (#26)
by BackFromOhio on Fri May 29, 2009 at 01:53:34 PM EST

Poll reported on MSNBC this afternoon shows 54% supporting Sotomayer's appointment, 24% opposing, and 22% undecided.


And, of those people.... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri May 29, 2009 at 03:32:15 PM EST

how many know more about her than her name? Where do they get their information?

Polls are value-free without knowing what questions were asked and the true interest level of the answer. I'm wondering what percentage said "favor" simply because Obama chose her, and what percentage said "opposed" simply because Obama chose her.


but wait (none / 0) (#28)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 29, 2009 at 02:01:09 PM EST

Any doubts I had that it was not just right in principle but also politically smart to challenge the Sonia Sotomayor pick disappeared this morning: The National Journal reports that its survey of "GOP Insiders" shows 64 percent advising that Republicans dodge a battle, with only a quarter recommending fighting. Safe rule of American politics: Two-thirds of "GOP Insiders" are never right.

Posted by William Kristol on May 29


: There's a huge difference in "challenge" (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by nycstray on Fri May 29, 2009 at 02:13:32 PM EST

and what is actually going on.

The barometer (none / 0) (#16)
by KeysDan on Fri May 29, 2009 at 12:53:37 PM EST

I am using, at least at this point, is the response of Republicans and their media allies. But, true, barometers may be misleading.


Race paranoia? (none / 0) (#19)
by bocajeff on Fri May 29, 2009 at 01:01:04 PM EST

Alberto Gonzalez might disagree with you on this...


: Why? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 29, 2009 at 01:06:03 PM EST

: Well (none / 0) (#43)
by lilburro on Fri May 29, 2009 at 04:22:03 PM EST

It's not just Limbaugh who apparently believes Obama selected a WoC to help him take back the wealth of the country for its "rightful owners." Tancredo believes she's part of a Latino KKK. Via Hullabaloo:

LIDDY: I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, "the race." And that should not surprise anyone because she's already on record with a number of racist comments.
"Illegal alien?"
As far as I can tell, the RW media wants you to believe Obama and Sotomayor are working only for PoC. Race paranoia.

Like (none / 0) (#17)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri May 29, 2009 at 12:56:11 PM EST

Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers-Brown.


As someone who opposed both (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 29, 2009 at 01:05:26 PM EST

I feel comfortable that I never ever attacked their intellect or qualifications.

I criticized their ideology.

Unlike, Republican reactionaries, I can tell the difference between my objections to their views and some folks' objections to who they are.

Similarly, my objections to Clarence Thomas for SCOTUS and Alberto Gonzales fro Attorney General were issues based. On Gonzales, I authored this post objecting to his confirmation as AG:

"No on Gonzales
by Armando

Tue Jan 25, 2005 at 12:43:07 PM PDT

Unprecedented times call for unprecedented actions. In this case, we, the undersigned bloggers, have decided to speak as one and collectively author a document of opposition. We oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the position of Attorney General of the United States, and we urge every United States Senator to vote against him.

As the prime legal architect for the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Administration, Gonzales's advice led directly to the abandonment of longstanding federal laws, the Geneva Conventions, and the United States Constitution itself. Our country, in following Gonzales's legal opinions, has forsaken its commitment to human rights and the rule of law and shamed itself before the world with our conduct at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The United States, a nation founded on respect for law and human rights, should not have as its Attorney General the architect of the law's undoing.

In January 2002, Gonzales advised the President that the United States Constitution does not apply to his actions as Commander in Chief, and thus the President could declare the Geneva Conventions inoperative. Gonzales's endorsement of the August 2002 Bybee/Yoo Memorandum approved a definition of torture so vague and evasive as to declare it nonexistent. Most shockingly, he has embraced the unacceptable view that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution, laws duly enacted by Congress and International treaties duly ratified by the United States. He has called the Geneva Conventions "quaint."

Legal opinions at the highest level have grave consequences. What were the consequences of Gonzales's actions? The policies for which Gonzales provided a cover of legality - views which he expressly reasserted in his Senate confirmation hearings - inexorably led to abuses that have undermined military discipline and the moral authority our nation once carried. His actions led directly to documented violations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and widespread abusive conduct in locales around the world.

Michael Posner of Human Rights First observed: "After the horrific images from Abu Ghraib became public last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the world should 'judge us by our actions [and] watch how a democracy deals with the wrongdoing and with scandal and the pain of acknowledging and correcting our own mistakes.'" We agree. It is because of this that we believe the only proper course of action is for the Senate to reject Alberto Gonzales's nomination for Attorney General. As Posner notes, "[t]he world is indeed watching." Will the Senate condone torture? Will the Senate condone the rejection of the rule of law?

With this nomination, we have arrived at a crossroads as a nation. Now is the time for all citizens of conscience to stand up and take responsibility for what the world saw, and, truly, much that we have not seen, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. We oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States, and we urge the Senate to reject him."

In that piece, Gonzales' ethnicity and qualifications were not addressed because they were not relevant to our objections.

If those who object to Sotomayor write similar pieces, I may disagree, but I would not be outraged by the inherent racism that we see now from such persons.

reading this (none / 0) (#51)
by cpinva on Sat May 30, 2009 at 02:58:07 AM EST

makes me realize, again, just how totally unqualified mr. gonzales was. his appt. and confirmation were insults to the legal profession, the citizens of this country, and the excellent career attorneys of DoJ.

he is a legal hack.


Maybe you can set me straight (none / 0) (#56)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat May 30, 2009 at 05:48:45 AM EST

But how is calling one person dumb racist? To me is sounds prejudicial. If the people who wrote that had said Sotomayor was dumb becuase she is Hispanic and all Hispanics are dumb then yes, that would be racist.

Set me straight, please.

From my perception, the reception the Left gave Estrada and Rogers-Brown was because the left thought their politics did not match what they should have thought considering the color of their skin. They (the left)did not want to hear from them because they did not fit the profile.


: Pfft. (none / 0) (#59)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 30, 2009 at 06:14:31 PM EST

You kid I hope. On what basis do they call her "dumb?"

Well, (none / 0) (#18)
by bocajeff on Fri May 29, 2009 at 01:00:11 PM EST

You could do the same in reverse...

Would you support her personal story if she was pro-life and anti-gay rights and anti-affirmative action? I think not...


: Nope, but I those would be (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by inclusiveheart on Fri May 29, 2009 at 01:42:09 PM EST

the reasons that I would state for not supporting her. I wouldn't be hyperventilating the phrase, "affirmative action" and trying to convince people that this clearly intelligent and accomplished woman was some sort of mental midget as the GOP seemed to want to do at the outset.

And not named Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#42)
by ruffian on Fri May 29, 2009 at 04:08:02 PM EST

Well, I'll never be anywhere near (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Cream City on Fri May 29, 2009 at 04:41:05 PM EST

that "wealthy," that level of pay -- but I don't bedgrudge her getting that level one bit, because she clearly works hard for it.

More to the point is the marvelous skewering of AP for its ever-shifting meanings of words like "wealth." For bringing this reason for shaking my head, yet again, at the demise of good reporting, thanks for bringing Boehlert's bit to light here. It will be forwarded forthwith to my journalism prof friends to add to the stack of stoopid stuff.

Defining Wealthy (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by ThomasA on Fri May 29, 2009 at 06:32:26 PM EST

A Wallstreet organization that tracks and reports such things as the attitudes, opinions and investing outlooks of "the Wealthy", defines that as persons having $500,000 or more in liquid assets. Sotomayor doesn't come close.

Oy (none / 0) (#4)
by lilburro on Fri May 29, 2009 at 11:36:13 AM EST

I can tell today is one of those days where I'm going to have to step away from the computer for a looong time.

Too bad (none / 0) (#22)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 29, 2009 at 01:27:16 PM EST

too many people kept lauding the press that now when the press is exhibiting poor reporting they have no credibility.

: What (none / 0) (#37)
by ChiTownMike on Fri May 29, 2009 at 03:26:25 PM EST

poor reporting did they do in the examples given?

Where does the AP call $250K middle class? (none / 0) (#31)
by roy on Fri May 29, 2009 at 02:19:36 PM EST

Quotation marks are for quotations.

It's not like you've caught them using contradictory terms for the same thing. Neither "worker" nor "wealthier" contradicts "wealthy". If the AP is simply not always specifically saying that everybody making $200K/$250K is "wealthy", it seems like a strange thing to complain about. So what? There are only so many electrons to go around; they can't mention every facet of every detail in every story.

You'd have a point if they were disproportionately using "wealthy" or similarly loaded terms to deride Leftists, and leaving it out to make Righties look good, but I'm not persuaded that's happening. You found an article in which they call Sotomayor wealthy; I found one discussing her impoverished childhood without mentioning that she even has an income now. You found an article calling those making $250K in the context of SS tax "workers", I found one calling them "the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans".

Here's one that reports the Bidens' income of $269K. They repeat the White House's defense of the low charitable donation amount, but there's no "wealthy"-like verbiage. Does that disappoint you? To be fair, I'll note I had hoped to include a zinger about Bidens other tremendous financial assets going unreported, but it seems he was actually among the very least wealthy Senators. Shame on me for inviting confirmation bias. He's still wealthy though.

Agree on (none / 0) (#34)
by ChiTownMike on Fri May 29, 2009 at 03:23:14 PM EST

your comment:

Neither "worker" nor "wealthier" contradicts "wealthy". If the AP is simply not always specifically saying that everybody making $200K/$250K is "wealthy", it seems like a strange thing to complain about. So what? There are only so many electrons to go around; they can't mention every facet of every detail in every story.

I'll add that to say AP should do this or that is to infer that all the writers they have should be clones of each other. Either that or the editors should insert "Wealthy" in every article because...well that is a good question - why should they?


: I expect nothing less from you (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 29, 2009 at 03:26:03 PM EST

at this point.

My husband has a good point (none / 0) (#38)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 29, 2009 at 03:29:06 PM EST

The Republicans obvously want Sotomayer....otherwise they wouldn't make such stupid statements that will obviously backfire in their faces.

: Stupid statements have been quite (none / 0) (#40)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri May 29, 2009 at 03:35:58 PM EST

popular over the past year. Sadly, they haven't really backfired. Your boyfriend should think back to the campaigns.

: You really (none / 0) (#54)
by cal1942 on Sat May 30, 2009 at 03:14:15 AM EST

think they're that smart?

Why do they have to characterize the income (none / 0) (#41)
by ruffian on Fri May 29, 2009 at 04:02:44 PM EST

level at all, with clearly subjective adjectives like 'wealthy'? Just tell us how much the people make, if it is part of the story. We can figure out if we consider it wealthy or not.

200k? (none / 0) (#45)
by DeanOR on Fri May 29, 2009 at 06:11:05 PM EST

That sounds like a whole lot of money to me, but the real "power elite" in America now would view that as chump change.

: They'd lose (none / 0) (#53)
by cal1942 on Sat May 30, 2009 at 03:12:14 AM EST

more than that in a year tossing their pocket change on the dresser.

The AP (none / 0) (#52)
by cal1942 on Sat May 30, 2009 at 03:10:44 AM EST

should get together with Charlie Gibson and work out some kind of arrangement.

AP thinks $200 grand is wealthy, power elite stuff. Gibson thinks the average family makes $200 grand.

Cool, we are almost wealthy power elites (none / 0) (#57)
by Militarytracy on Sat May 30, 2009 at 06:38:40 AM EST

too. Where the hell's my butler? Why don't I feel like he's just a couple of ten grand away from showing up? Why is my husband going to be riding his hand me down Snapper today while I'm weed whacking when we are so close to being able to rule the world.......where's the gardener? Why am I having morning coffee reading a blog? Where's my personal trainer inspiring me to move out?

Who's "Wealthy" Now?

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment