Chris Christie

Chris Christie's Family Pulls in $700,000 a Year, But Isn't "Wealthy"

|

Over at The Daily Beast, Olivia Nuzzi catches up with regular-guy Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.), who is running for the GOP presidential nomination and whose sense of reality is cloudier than the water at good ol' Ideal Beach in the summer of '13.

"I don't consider myself a wealthy man," Chris Christie said Friday in New Hampshire. That would be the same Chris Christie who, according to his tax returns, made $698,838 in 2013 – $160,054 of which he earned as Governor of New Jersey, and $475,854 of which came from his wife, Mary Pat Christie, who works at a New York investment bank.

Well, sure, cough, cough, New Jersey is an expensive place to live, with one of the very highest combined state and local tax burdens in the country, a terrible business environment, insanely high property values, and all that. And if feeling "wealthy" is all about relative status, then Christie, who has flown in the personal jets of friends and kings (literally), may be feeling sads that when he takes helicopters to check out his son's high school baseball games, he doesn't own the aircraft (worse, he eventually even has to pay for part of the ride).

But compared to the average jamuck in Jersey—and everyone else on the planet—he's doing pretty damn well:

Christie's income is nearly ten times New Jersey's median, which in 2013 was $71,692; and well over $539,000, the amount necessary to qualify as one of the top 1% of earners there.

Buh, buh, buh… Nuzzi transcribes Christie's own explanation:

"Listen, wealth is defined in a whole bunch of different ways, and in the end, Mary Pat and I have worked really hard, we've done well over the course of our lives – um, but, you know, we have four children to raise and a lot of things to do, so, no, I don't, I don't consider myself and I don't think most people think of me that way."

Read the whole thing here.

Hmm, he could really benefit from the non-phased-out, non-paid-for superfantastic expanded child tax credit in the Rubio-Lee tax plan!

Last year, I predicted that Christie won't play well outside the borders of New Jersey (the greatest state in the Union) for all sorts of reasons. First and foremost among them: The very personal attributes necessary for success in the Garden State, especially the irradiated political clam bed that is Trenton politics, will make it hard for him to figuratively cross the Delaware.

As Tony Soprano (played so memorably by the late Jersey native James Gandolfini), could tell you, the same forces that spur ambition and success also carry within them their own demise. It quickly becomes difficult to know when serious lines are being crossed or the wrong messages are being sent to the people around you.

Going on about how you're not "wealthy" despite a $700,000 annual household income is definitely one of those latter moments. This doesn't rise to the level of French aristocrats playing at being peasants before the Revolution, but it certainly is annoying and shows not just a tin ear but a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what most Americans take home, how hard they work (or think they work) and how they struggle to cover their month. Christie and other "wealthy" pols should never apologize for their money. But they also shouldn't goof around with idiotic definitions of rich either.

NEXT: 420 History, Child Support's Dark Side, FBI Admits Major Flaws in Forensic Testimony: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I wonder how much the fat bastard spends on food a week.

    1. He has no idea.

    2. Well, that depends on if you count the domestic help or not.

  2. A bridge too far?

    1. “Hey, fatty! I’ve got a movie for ya: A FRIDGE Too Far!”

  3. Damn 1 percenter. Not like poor Hillary. She was dead broke.

  4. Yo, fuck Chris Christie.

    1. Ewww. no.

  5. Chris Christie is the progressive media’s idea of what a Republican should be.

    1. You first.

  6. A wealthy person is always someone who has more than you.

    Though technically “high income” and “wealthy” are not one for one interchangable concepts.

    1. Yes. But for Christie, I’m sure he qualifies under both defintions.

  7. A wealthy person is always someone who has more than you.

    Though technically “high income” and “wealthy” are not one for one interchangable concepts.

    1. “Though technically “high income” and “wealthy” are not one for one interchangable concepts.”

      True. So long as he pisses it all away, you could stay ‘not-wealthy’ on a $700K income. Politicos would be prime candidates to do so, given the way they handle my money.

    2. Sure, they could be living paycheck-to-paycheck. But still, there’s a lot more slack when you have that type of cash flow, and you can always cut back without feeling it, unlike, say, a family of four with a 35K income and some debt.

      1. Problem is cashflow and income are not guaranteed

      2. I do not disagree, just a little annoyed at the conflation between income and wealth when Gillespie and the headline writer should know better.

      3. You’re wealthy if you can maintain your lifestyle without depending on your paycheck. If you depend on your paycheck to maintain your lifestyle, you’re still part of the middle class.

    3. At $700k/year, he has about $350k after taxes. Even if he manages to save half of that, it would still take him probably two decades to save enough money to be considered “wealthy”. And most likely, they haven’t been making that kind of income for two decades.

      Unless he has a lot of money stashed away, $700k/year (plus a few million in retirement savings and home equity) makes you upper middle class.

  8. Chris Christie will never be president.

    1. I’m counting on this being the case

      1. So much this.

      2. It’s just not worth seriously considering, I don’t think. He has zero chance.

    2. Though he’ll do his best to hand the office to Clinton.

    3. Unlikely, but possible if he gets the veep slot on the ticket and something bad happens.

      1. That seems pretty unlikely too. The only reason to do that would be to get votes and I don’t see NJ voting for a republican in the general election in any case.

    4. He still might run as a democrat when Hillary flames out.

    5. True. Besides his irritating personality, he’s fat and ugly. And you can’t achieve the Presidency in the modern TV-driven age of media image and mass appeal when you look like he does. Yes, once upon a time, Taft was elected but nobody ever really saw him.

  9. Fuck him – but he is right in this case. And I bet his wife has the enjoyment of paying NYC and NY state income tax too.

  10. “insanely high property values,” Nick? Are you saying that the market is “insane”? Sorry, dude, markets are rational. They’re places where buyers and sellers come together and make mutually advantageous agreements, which are called “contracts”. If they weren’t beneficial to both parties, they wouldn’t exist. Property values are higher in New Jersey than in, say, Mississippi, because a lot of people want to live there. They’re a reflection, really, of a sort of spontaneous order that emerges out of itself. Just like New Jersey.

    1. Alan Vanneman|4.20.15 @ 10:18AM|#
      “”insanely high property values,” Nick? Are you saying that the market is “insane”? Sorry, dude, markets are rational.”

      Yes, and they can yield ‘insanely high’ prices if they are distorted enough by gov’t interference.
      Or were just here to show off your pedantry?

      1. That’s all he is ever here for.

        1. Maybe we could get Vanneman and Hihn into a conversation. Peak Derp beckons!

    2. The property values are market driven – the property taxes are insane. I’m in a middle class neighbor hood and pay $1K a month in property taxes – and still pay to send my kids to better private High Schools because the public one sucks.

      1. Property values are also distorted by government policies which affect interest rates, among other things.

        1. You can add zoning regulations, construction regulations, height and density regulations, open-space regulations, ‘community involvement’, etc. Come check out RE costs in San Francisco, for example.

          1. Only someone as disingenuous as Vanneman would think the housing market is what libertarians would think of as a free market.

    3. Property values are higher in New Jersey than in, say, Mississippi, because a lot of people want to live there.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      *draws deep breath*

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      Ohhhhh, you slay me.

      1. Yeah, I think Vanneman may have an inaccurate estimate of how many people want to live in New Fucking Jersey.

        It’s especially laughable given that New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the country so it’s ludicrous to argue the cost of property is entirely driven by the market when a good portion is driven by government taxation.

        1. NJ does have a lot of people that “want” to live there, especially in the 1/4 that should be part of NYC because it’s so (relatively) inexpensive. Those places that are fairly close to the city and have good schools cost a ton to buy into, and anything that hits the market sells within weeks (trust me on this, I just went through it).

          it’s ludicrous to argue the cost of property is entirely driven by the market when a good portion is driven by government taxation.

          You’re thinking of cost of living. The cost of the property is high before taxation is factored in; the high tax rates exacerbate the issue.

          The high taxes actually depress housing values. The same house on the same lot on the SI side of the Outerbridge used to be about 60% more expensive than one in Woodbridge or Edison, mostly due to taxes.

          1. KDN
            The high taxes actually depress housing values.

            Shhhhhhh, market economics and Supply/Demand pricing are too confusing for the echo-speaking bloviators.

      2. Property values are higher in New Jersey than in, say, Mississippi, because a lot of people want to live there

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
        *draws deep breath*
        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
        Ohhhhh, you slay me.

        This just in. The faux Francisco reports that the Law of Suppy abd Demand has been repealed!!!!

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
        *draws deep breath*
        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
        Ohhhhh, you slay me

        WTF|4.20.15 @ 10:40AM|#
        Property values are also distorted by government policies which affect interest rates, among other things.

        High interest rates depress property values, so low interest rates are evil.

        Sevo|4.20.15 @ 10:43AM|#
        You can add zoning regulations, construction regulations, height and density regulations, open-space regulations, ‘community involvement’, etc. Come check out RE costs in San Francisco, for example.

        Umm, only Marxists believe prices are determined by costs.

        1. Here a few links that may help you Mike.

          http://www.stroke.org/stroke-r…..ort-groups
          http://www.mentalhealthamerica…..ort-groups

          I’m concerned for you. I’m afraid you’re going to take a bath with toaster soon. I have heard your cries and I’m willing to help you get help. Mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of.

          1. My stalker, Private FUQUP, does it again!

            I’m concerned for you. I’m afraid you’re going to take a bath with toaster soon. I have heard your cries and I’m willing to help you get help. Mental illness is nothing to be ashamed of.

            (snicker) This is what caused his latest hissy fit::

            1) The Law of Supply and Demand has not been repealed!!!! (Obviously, FUQ believe there is no more Law of Supply and Demand!)
            2) High interest rates depress property values. (How high must interest rates be for real estate to be free?)
            3) Only Marxists believe prices are determined by costs (Related to FUQ’s repealing the Law of Supply and Demand)

            And I wasn’t even speaking to him, or about him, which makes him the aggressor again, right? Not just the average belligerent blowhard. And, of course, my stalker.

            But he’s not a thug and never a bully … just lives in a parallel universe where Supply and Demand don’t affect prices, high interest rates INCREASE property values and prices are actually determined by costs. (laughing)

            (Damn, this may unleash the rest of his gang. They do travel as a pack))

            1. I’m concerned for you Mike. Now you claim you can read peoples minds. There really is no need to be ashamed. If you unable to pay for treatment I would be willing to start a fund here to help you out. The first step is admitting you need help. And please lock any weapons you may have up. I am actually afraid of what might happen when reality hits and you realize that you are unable to read minds.

  11. “Last year, I predicted that Christie won’t play well outside the borders of New Jersey”

    Nick, you’re going to have a hard time finding anyone to take the other side there.

    1. Hey, we elect smug assholes all the time here in NY. That’s “outside the borders of New Jersey”, isn’t it?!

      1. Yeah, and now that you mention it, CA is certainly “outside the borders of New Jersey”.

    2. I’ll take the other side of it.
      I have family in NJ and they all hate the fat bastard.

  12. Yeah,he’s just a regular Joe. How would you afford your orphans on such a pittance?

  13. Nothing says libertarian moment like harping on inequality and demanding means tested welfare, two hallmarks of Nick’s fiscal ‘conservatism.’ Even worse is making me defend Christie.

    1. “Even worse is making me defend Christie.”
      I don’t know why you’d have to do that in this case; Nick’s just pointing out his hypocrisy.

      1. Nick’s hypocrisy? That was my point. Yes, I know what you meant. Christie is certainly a hypocrite but not this time. Nick is keeping his prog credentials polished, tho.

        1. NotAnotherSkippy|4.20.15 @ 10:58AM|#
          Nick’s hypocrisy? That was my point. Yes, I know what you meant. Christie is certainly a hypocrite but not this time. Nick is keeping his prog credentials polished, tho.

          Prog credentials, or more shameless propaganda in service of the Paulista Cult?
          Reason fundrasing NEEDS a “libertarian moment” — even when all available data say the movement has been stuck in the same place for 40 years. And Cato reports that the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of even libertarians (but not by the tribal ones)

          and demanding means tested welfare … Nick’s fiscal ‘conservatism.

          What’s your solution?

    2. Nick isn’t criticizing Christie for being wealthy, he’s criticizing him for false populism based on the lie that he isn’t rich.

      In fact, here’s the last two sentences:

      “Christie and other “wealthy” pols should never apologize for their money. But they also shouldn’t goof around with idiotic definitions of rich either.”

      Gee – saying Christie shouldn’t apologize for his wealth kind of makes it seem like Nick is saying the exact opposite of what you’re claiming he’s saying.

      1. Nick isn’t criticizing Christie for being wealthy, he’s criticizing him for false populism based on the lie that he isn’t rich.

        Christie said he doesn’t CONSIDER himself a wealthy man. duh
        And 67% comes from his wife.

        So you’ve been shamelessly lied to. and swallowed it (eagerly) on behalf of Tribe Lib.
        Suckers.

        1. Christie and his wife share their money. It’s not like Christie’s wife makes $400,000 and Christie isn’t allowed to touch any of it.

          “Christie said he doesn’t CONSIDER himself a wealthy man. duh”

          Christie said that since he’s engaging in faux-populism and no rational human being could look at $700,000 and believe. That puts them in like the top 0.3% of all American income earners.

          Seek professional help you crazy person.

          1. Try to be nice, Irish, I heard somewhere that his birthday is today.

          2. “Christie said he doesn’t CONSIDER himself a wealthy man. duh”

            Christie said that since he’s engaging in faux-populism and no rational human being could look at $700,000 and believe.

            Try that in English.

            Seek professional help you crazy person.

            One more trashmouth bully. Probably in the Paulista Cult.

            1. The champion of LIBERTARIANISM collectivizing everyone who dares challenge his greatness. (laughing)

              1. The champion of LIBERTARIANISM collectivizing everyone who dares challenge his greatness. (laughing)

                The laughing hyena does not know the meaning of collectivizing, as he fantasizes a “challenge” that does not exist.

                But he’s not a bully, never an aggressor and merely a thug.

                As, once again, I acted in self defense of ANOTHER thug who said
                Seek professional help you crazy person.

                See? They do operate like a street gang.
                Or is it because Private FUQUP was totally humiliated here?

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..nt_5242138

                (walks away laughing))

                1. I understand your need to project your feelings of humiliation on others. If you would just take that first step and ask for help it’s waiting for you. Do you think you’re being spied on as well? Paranoia is a treatable condition. If it makes you feel better and gets you to seek treatment I will admit that you are the winner. Please seek help before you jump in front of bus.

      2. Please. Nick spends the entire piece playing the populism card and one off-handed acknowledgement that somone is alliwed to make as much as they can makes up for it? Yeah, no.

        1. How on Earth is saying Christie should stop lying about not being wealthy ‘playing the populism card?’

          1. How on Earth is saying Christie should stop lying about not being wealthy ‘playing the populism card?’

            The bullshit way he did it, like some fucking illegitimate child of Nancy Pelosi
            Or the New York Times.

            Google the story. Gillespie’s ranks at he very top of populist whining, along with the far left. And the story’s two days old.

  14. Hey, Nick, the word is JAMOOK.

  15. He’s also paying for a household employee according to his tax return. Poor guy.

    1. I’ve got a great tv show idea: Christie gets into a car accident, and the man who hits him is sentenced to be Christie’s butler, as he has no insurance.

    2. Certified Public Asskicker|4.20.15 @ 10:46AM|#
      He’s also paying for a household employee according to his tax return. Poor guy.

      So did my parents. Dad was a first-level foreman for a small-size tool grinder. Mom did a lot of volunteer work (during the day when we were at school). That was in the 1950s, the worst-economy decade in the postwar years.

      Libertarian Populism. Who knew it’s the same as every other populism???

      1. My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low-grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen-year-old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. A sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. If I was insolent, I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds. Pretty standard, really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fifteen, a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shaven scrotum.

        1. Breathtaking!

  16. Now the Propaganda Minster for the Rand Paul cult attacks wealth! (OMG)
    Who doesn’t consider himself a wealthy man. “$475,854 of which came from his wife” Early morning and already wins today’s bullshit medal.

    Nick Gillespie, undertaker for the libertarian movement.
    Spent all of 2013 proclaiming a “libertarian moment” perhaps an era.
    Then, one week into 2014, apologized (“Yeah, yeah, yeah”), admitting it was one of the worst years for libertarians … but 2014 will be great!. (Ooops 2014 sucked also)
    While Cato reports the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians

    “Libertarian values” are both social liberals (millennials) AND extreme social conservatives (The Paulista cult)

    Reason now reports to the movement libertarians (5.3% of Americans), all the gains achieved by the Nolan libertarians (59% of Americans, roughly the same majority we’ve had for 40 years). SO SEND MONEY!!!

    Is it tribal to deny libertarian tribalism?

    1. Jesus dude, take you meds and get some rest.

      1. Michael Hihn apparently doesn’t know that Christie and his wife likely share their money and that Christie therefore benefits from his wife’s very high salary.

        Because Michael Hihn is mentally ill.

        1. This place is like flypaper in a slaughterhouse for the mentally ill.

          1. Has anyone figured out what his point is yet?

            1. He’s all over the place. Mostly he just seems pissed that Reason is taken seriously and he’s somewhere in between a joke and cautionary tale about mental health in senior populations.

              1. OK, because reading his posts is like taking crazy pills. I was hoping I wasn’t alone.

            2. I have no idea. The first time I became aware of how fucking crazy Michael Hihn is was when he was defending the Saudi government when they were decapitating ‘militants.’ He basically accepted the Saudi argument that those militants were actually militants, when in all likelihood they were just enemies of the state that the Saudis claimed were terrorists in order to justify their executions.

              Saudi Arabia has no due process to speak of, so it’s idiotic to seriously believe they’re executing people who deserve to be executed rather than just killing political enemies.

              Nothing says ‘libertarian’ like defending the state sanctioned murder of a theocracy.

              1. Viscount Irish
                I became aware of how fucking crazy Michael Hihn is was when he was defending the Saudi government when they were decapitating ‘militants.’ He basically accepted the Saudi argument that those militants were actually militants,

                It wasn’t the Saudi argument. so you’re full of shit. And here’s the proof you’re a bullshitter, chump. (snicker)

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/01…..beheadings

                Viscount has been stalking me for 23 days, since the first time I documented him as liar. But they’re not bullies, never aggressors, don’t act like a street gang of thugs. And not much of a challenge.

                The belligerent bloviators. (yawn)

          2. I really don’t get our trolls. Is it something we did? I feel like the only troll we have that isn’t completely unhinged is tony, who is just the most partisan person on the planet.

            1. I think it has to do with not having downvoting and/or mods that drop the banhammer easily. Which is a good thing. But so few blog comments are “open” in that sense any longer and then you combine it with libertarianism attracting hateful kooks that are so angry we don’t want to be controlled and the sectarian nature of the anti-government movement in general, it creates an eddy that causes them to eventually wash up here.

              1. Some people crave negative attention?

                1. Charles, that is what makes them trolls in the first place. What is interesting is how many of them make it here in the first place, and which of them stay.

                  Over a timescale of years, these things really start to stick out. And the ones that stay around seem to be very broken people.

                  This convo is, like, so meta, you guys!

                  1. “Over a timescale of years, these things really start to stick out.”

                    I suppose that’s how Epi quickly determined who Weigel was the other day despite the new moniker.

                    1. Tulpa, uncovered in a single post. I laughed.

      2. Jesus dude, take you meds and get some rest.

        Have no facts, so be a potty mouth. LOYAL TO THE TRIBE!
        Suckered as badly as Obama supporters, and just as eagerly.

        1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

          1. WTF
            Welcome to Retardation:

            WTF supports a bullly, like himself, who said “Jesus dude, take you meds and get some rest.”

            But he’s not a thug.

        2. Quit being a bully

          (crying)

          You’re aggressing everyone

          (sniff)

          We are trying to reject the libertarian label like 91% of the real libertarians.

          (confused)

          Please lead us to the promised land like you did 4 decades ago

          (pleading)

          1. I count 15 bullies (so far) all launching trashmouth aggression over …. disagreement. (gasp) The Enforcers of Political Correctness. They travel in packs. Watch them openly discuss their targets (Mary, Bo, me and all other non-puppets)

            How many more will (again) prove me correct on this, as the nastiness escalates?
            They think bullying and aggression are acceptable behavior (would their parents be proud?) And they really get pissed when called out as aggressors. Ummm, who initiates? (lol)
            And they VOTE!

            The Self-Righteous Bloviators. Three thousand years of stomping out dissent.
            The Cult wing of libertarianism.

            1. I count 1 million times you’ve aggressed me (picks ass) because you dare to challenge my greatness. (sniff fingers) Watch me as I self identify with known trolls. (digs out earwax) I assume people get pissed when I make statements about them being bullies (digs cheese from under balls) because I’m so fucking nuts that I believe 80-90% of the people reading this are applauding me. (tastes ball cheese and smiles)

              Anyone who doesn’t follow and accept me are a bunch of (insert random insult here). There is a cult and I demand to be the leader. (gets distracted by kitty cat)

              Here kitty kitty. I have some some nice ear wax and ball cheese for you. (drool) Nice kitty. I will hold you and pet you and call you George. (eye droops)

              EXTREME SOCONS !!!!!!!!!!!!! (mutters under breath)

              1. assume people get pissed when I make statements about them being bullies

                (laughing) In self defense, like you were totally humiliated here:

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..nt_5242138

                1. Funny, I don’t feel humiliated.

                  (snicker)
                  (choke)
                  (gag)
                  (spit)

          2. Private FUQ, was humiliated here:

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..nt_5242138

            So he changes the assault

            We are trying to reject the libertarian label like 91% of the real libertarians. (confused)

            One more time, that’s Cato (not me). (yawn)

            http://bitly.com/1AGaBU7
            “In our Zogby survey we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way. Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way: “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?”
            … Fully 59 percent of the respondents said “yes” they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

            Umm, 100% – 9% = 91% rejecting. Do we believe Cato or a foulmouth bully?

            Let’s say the 59% are Nolan Libertarians. The “label” libertarians are (9% x 59%) only 5.3% of voters

            That’s why the Cult viciously attacks me. Americans have moved sharply toward gay marriage, school choice, legalization and other issues. Is this change driven by 5.3% of Americans or by 59%? (lol)

            Cato carefully measured (and documented) the total failure of ?. them, the zealots and ideologues — versus thousands of libertarians elected to local public office and doing the work of liberty … instead of circle jerking in an Ivory Tower..

            1. My penis 91% likely to explode when jerked.
              (jerking penis)

              I’m gonna keep repeating poll numbers thinking the people mocking me aren’t understanding the poll. I don’t realize that every time I repeat this poll that I’m confirming that I have tunnel vision.
              (still jerking penis)

              I’m convinced that since someone said that 59% of Americans are libertarian that is reflected in the makeup of our current government.
              (almost finished)

              Cato carefully measured….penises I guess, since we were jerking off in an Ivory Tower.
              (almost there……wait…..here kitty kitty. I have a nice ball sack for you to play with)

            2. Reason really needs kill files or moderation or something. I’m really tired of having to scroll past your stupid drivel. It’s particularly bad with your excessive use of markup. Your writings are so incoherent that I can’t even tell whether you are a libertarian or whether we disagree.

              What do we have to do to make you STFU?

    2. So what you’re saying is that someone who makes $160k, which is more than 2x the median household income of NJ, shouldn’t consider themselves wealthy?

      Or are you saying it’s not okay to call out politicians on their bullshit, while still acknowledging they shouldn’t apologize for their wealth?

  17. Technically Nick you are falling to the same moronic trap that most liberals do conflating income with wealth.

    Wealth is an accumulation of assets, income is your current cash flow

    Christie and his wife probably ARE rich but income does not equal wealth and I can easily see how a family in New Jersey with $700k in household income could only afford to live a relatively normal lifestyle that while a little nicer. Nicer home in a nicer neighborhood, nicer car, little bit better vacation, etc. but nothing that would in principal be beyond the grasp of someone earning just double the median..

    Of course none of that would likely apply to Christie because it would primarily be small business owners who would be in that situation and Christie by virtue of his position can do things even fairly wealthy New Jersians can do.

  18. It is possible to have a large income and not be wealthy if you blow all your money on stupid stuff. I’d bet he is what I would call at least somewhat wealthy, though. Certainly very comfortable.

    1. I believe there is a term for this phenomenon.

      via urban dictionary

      1. Now I know that you’re the reason for the trolls.

        1. probably I never said I didn’t deserve the trolls.

          1. i meant more or less the collective commentariat.

            1. I know.

              What you provided a link to is troll-summoning material. And quite racist as well.

  19. A wealthy man would make $700,000 a year in investment income, not from salaries. Why? Because your investments, unlike your employers, pay automatically, they don’t require you to meet arbitrary performance standards, and they can’t fire you.

    1. because your investments, unlike your employers, pay automatically, they don’t require you to meet arbitrary performance standards, and they can’t fire you.

      Go to Google. Search for “1929 Stock Market”
      Then find a place that supports your claim that investments are always profitable “automatically”
      Are you Warren Buffett in drag?.

      1. They’re not always profitable, they pay automatically. If a man holds stock, he gets his dividend. If he holds bonds, he collects his interest. And when he sells his stake, he gets the agreed upon price. That sort of thing.

        You’re amazingly obtuse.

        1. You’re amazingly obtuse

          This from a financial genious ho thinks all stock pays dividends.
          Or that investments are synonymous with bonds.
          And best of all ….

          And when he sells his stake, he gets the agreed upon price

          Umm, bonds can be sold at a loss.

          Love and kisses,
          -The Obtuse One

          1. My god, you have outdone yourself. I’ve already explained where you misread what he was talking about and you double down on your own misinterpretation. He was not talking about profit, you fucking retard. You do not need to make any sort of profit to actually make $700k in investment income (though it does make it easier). He’s saying that at a certain point it’s just plain easier (by any definition of the word) to invest than to work which is why wealthy people do so.

            bonds can be sold at a loss.

            Duh? I mean, where in my post did I state otherwise? If you had any sort of ability to read, you would understand that this fact is implied by the very sentence you quoted. Jesus tapdancing Christ.

            1. KDN: blowhards hate to get called out!

              My god, you have outdone yourself. I’ve already explained where you misread what he was talking about and you double down on your own misinterpretation

              Pay attention, Sluggo (laughing)

              . He was not talking about profit, you fucking retard

              (OMG) he said “pay automatically” So did you.

              Here’s what you said, point by point for the mentally impaired

              They pay automatically. If a man holds stock, he gets his dividend.

              hahahaha — second time — they don’t always pay dividends!!!!!

              bonds can be sold at a loss.
              Duh? I mean, where in my post did I state otherwise?

              1) The entire context is compared with a wage.
              2) You said “pay automatically”
              3) How many wages get “automatically” paid a loss? lol)
              Got it?

              you had any sort of ability to read,

              One more belligerent blowhard with a temper.

          2. “This from a financial genious ho thinks all stock pays dividends.”

            He never made that claim. (snicker)

            “Or that investments are synonymous with bonds.”

            He never made that claim. (snort)

            “Umm, bonds can be sold at a loss”

            How is that contrary to his statement that “And when he sells his stake, he gets the agreed upon price”? (giggling)

            Have you heard that the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians? (drool)

            Did you know that 59% of the people are libertarians? (picks booger)

            That Rand Paul and his dad are extreme SoCons. (scratches balls)

            I heard you have stalkers. You should defend yourself from their bullying and aggressions by making wild and inaccurate statements. (eats booger)

            1. FUQUP again!

              “This from a financial genius who thinks all stock pays dividends.”
              He never made that claim. (snicker)

              Right here, hyena. (snorfle)

              They pay automatically. If a man holds stock, he gets his dividend.

              They don’t always pay dividends! duh

              Have you heard that the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians? (drool)
              Did you know that 59% of the people are libertarians? (picks booger)

              Third time on this one page!

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..nt_5242457

              I heard you have stalkers. You should defend yourself from their bullying and aggressions by making wild and inaccurate statements.

              I prefer publicly humiliating them, like here.

              And this by you is also an aggression, because you jumped into the subthread … and fell on your face.
              Again

              Repeat: Belligerant blowhards never care how crazy they look, they just keep attacking. Like the thugs and bullies they are.

              1. I’m the winner!!!!!!
                (link to comment that doesn’t prove my point)

                I humiliated you
                (link to comment that doesn’t prove my point)

                I’m gonna keep repeating the same tired shit over and over until you bastards listen to me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                (stomps feet)

              2. Repeat: Belligerant blowhards never care how crazy they look, they just keep attacking. Like the thugs and bullies they are

                I assume you’re speaking about yourself.

  20. Various estimates (google it) places Chris Christie personal assets at $5 million. Bitchtits is wealthy.

    1. Wow! Imagine the size of their joint assets!!!

      1. Your case worker is going to be pissed when she realizes you got on the internet again.

      2. Pretty sure they don’t have joints of any size around the Christie mansion

  21. But hes not, you know, Kardashian- Wealthy, and as an average american who pulls in my average american middle middle class salary, I completly get it.
    As a Coloradoan, I also dig his super uptight stance on marijuana, and i approve of his plans to shut this shit down, because we dont really need the school money, and the 12,000 folks Cannabis employs in this state would be better off jobless than sucking on the teat of a person who is wishing to purchase an agricultural commodity with thier hard earned money!

  22. Who gives a shit? I’m glad he makes all that money. Good for him and his family. Does it matter whether he considers himself a wealthy man or not? No, it doesn’t. He’s expressing his state of mind. Would you prefer he shout “I’m rich, bitch!” He isn’t claiming he’s “dead broke” like that other lying politician. And just because you or your wife had a couple of nice years, income-wise, doesn’t make you the Monopoly Man. It can be gone before you know it.

    1. The point is he’s a dishonest hack who has no real conviction to letting other people make money honestly. Of course, it’s New Jersey, so it’s hardly all his fault, but he’s just another slimy populist with empty rhetoric.

  23. What an odious cunt. His wife is probably a nice enough person, although her judgement is suspect.

  24. When you factor in non-cash compensation (is Christie paying rent to live in the governor’s mansion? I doubt it) where does he fall in economic ranking terms? What would you or I have to pay Blackwater for the level of security services enjoyed by the governor of a state like New Jersey?

    He may not “feel” wealthy. Most insane people don’t feel crazy, either.

    1. Most insane people don’t feel crazy, either.

      There is a very good example of this in this thread. (besides me)

      (laughing hysterically)

  25. *throws flag*
    “Fifteen yards for BULLYING!”

    1. Your comments trigger me, P Brooks, get yourself to the nearest re-education center post haste.

  26. Half million at an investment bank? What does she do? Make the coffee? Seriously, an investment banker not making 5 million dollars is a failure. Anyway, half the guidos in Jersey with their own cash businesses easily make 700k/yr.

  27. Half million at an investment bank? What does she do? Make the coffee? Seriously, an investment banker not making 5 million dollars is a failure. Anyway, half the guidos in Jersey with their own cash businesses easily make 700k/yr.

  28. Whether you’re “wealthy” depends on your net worth, not your income. Generally, you start being considered wealthy at around $10 million.

    This confusion between income and net worth is the same b.s. we get fed by progressives about “the 1%”. Making $700k for a few years doesn’t make you wealthy, and most people who make that kind of money only make it for a few years. Even making $700k/year for 20 years wouldn’t let you save enough money to have a $10 million net worth.

  29. The NY Times recently ran a story which contained the remarkable statistic than almost 9 out of 10 Americans consider themselves to be middle-class. If middle class status comes from knowing someone with more money than you and not having so much or so little money that you can avoid calling yourself rich or poor yourself, that result isn’t surprising. Still, it makes “middle class” rather a useless sort of a term.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.