Presidential Net Worth List

At 4/11/2012 8:07:05 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 4/11/2012 8:04:41 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/11/2012 8:00:56 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 4/11/2012 7:35:12 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/11/2012 5:35:34 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 4/11/2012 5:34:41 PM, OberHerr wrote:

At 4/11/2012 5:32:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
The problem isn't with being rich, the problem is being out of touch with the middle class and being unable to understand the hardships that the average American may face.

Don't distort that message. No liberal has ever claimed that wealth is a crime

By overtaxing them, and constantly demonizing them, you kinda get that impression.

To me, the worst is the inheritance tax. You can't even die anymore without having Uncle Sams hands in your wallet.

Bill Gates Sr. supports the inheritance tax.

Ok? Lol

Bill Gates Sr., the father of the richest guy in the world, pointed out why a inheritance tax was the better option (than not having it). He said:

"Bill Gates didn't invent the Internet. [He] just used it -- to make billions. There is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure, [which included] the banking system, Federal Reserve, Highway system, scientific and medical establishments, etc. These taxpayer investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men! They owe the taxpayers of this country back a great deal and should be paying it back."

A billionaire telling us that.

Hey good point, why don't we just give all of our assets to the government since we used some taxpayer infrastructure to gain them.

No, I am not a Socialist :D

Besides didn't they already pay for the usage of that with other taxes? Yes...

Note that GDP before was much lower than it is today

Bill Gates did not get paid for using the internet, he got paid for improving upon it.

People like him are what give it any value at all, do you want a society where people are charged for using useless, valueless services provided by the public?

If anything, perhaps the public owes him more money for adding value to the public internet.

At 4/11/2012 5:19:37 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

At 4/11/2012 5:17:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Are they all adjusted for inflation?

Washington is one fat cat.

Yes they are.

You may want to recheck those sources.

I know Obama's worth at least 10 mill

How many times do I have to say this?

Corporations facilitate governmental resources, not the other way around.

At 4/11/2012 11:01:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
How many times do I have to say this?

Corporations facilitate governmental resources, not the other way around.

I think it goes both ways.

*gets back on topic*

At 4/11/2012 5:32:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
The problem isn't with being rich, the problem is being out of touch with the middle class and being unable to understand the hardships that the average American may face.

Don't distort that message. No liberal has ever claimed that wealth is a crime

That's why FDR was such a bad president. He had grown up wealthy, in one of the most powerful families ever. In fact, even though he failed law school, he was kept on in a law firm because of his name. Eventually, he ran for governor on his mother's finances. I would say he wasn't ever in touch with the middle class, hence his numbskull economic policies. My great-grandmother still remembers US Marshalls coming onto their farm in CO and killing most of their pigs...in the middle of the Great Depression.

I don't think Romney, or Obama for that matter, is really that out of touch with the middle class, and I honestly don't care how wealthy the president is as long as he is qualified for the position and such.

At 4/12/2012 7:42:29 AM, Contra wrote:

At 4/11/2012 11:01:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
How many times do I have to say this?

Corporations facilitate governmental resources, not the other way around.

I think it goes both ways.

No, it doesn't.

Roads are built for corporations and ultimately the consumers.

At 4/12/2012 10:46:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 4/12/2012 7:42:29 AM, Contra wrote:

At 4/11/2012 11:01:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
How many times do I have to say this?

Corporations facilitate governmental resources, not the other way around.

I think it goes both ways.

No, it doesn't.

Roads are built for corporations and ultimately the consumers.

But corporations build roads. And the consumers pay for them.

At 4/11/2012 5:20:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Cool list.

I will say, why do people make a big deal about Romney having a lot of money?

Doesn't that mean he is successful?

One's wealth itself doesn't make an accurate measure of his success. (I'd hardly call vulture capitalism a success)

What is more important is by what MEANS did he acquire his wealth. That is where it becomes a big deal

At 4/12/2012 6:38:58 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

At 4/11/2012 5:20:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Cool list.

I will say, why do people make a big deal about Romney having a lot of money?

Doesn't that mean he is successful?

One's wealth itself doesn't make an accurate measure of his success. (I'd hardly call vulture capitalism a success)

What is more important is by what MEANS did he acquire his wealth. That is where it becomes a big deal

Romney worked for his money, unlike former presidents I know, but contra would hate me if I proceeded.

At 4/12/2012 6:41:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:

At 4/12/2012 6:38:58 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

At 4/11/2012 5:20:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Cool list.

I will say, why do people make a big deal about Romney having a lot of money?

Doesn't that mean he is successful?

One's wealth itself doesn't make an accurate measure of his success. (I'd hardly call vulture capitalism a success)

What is more important is by what MEANS did he acquire his wealth. That is where it becomes a big deal

Romney worked for his money, unlike former presidents I know, but contra would hate me if I proceeded.

You call buying small businesses and liquidating their assets "working"?

Look up 'King of Bain'. Enlightening stuff.

At 4/12/2012 10:46:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 4/12/2012 7:42:29 AM, Contra wrote:

At 4/11/2012 11:01:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
How many times do I have to say this?

Corporations facilitate governmental resources, not the other way around.

I think it goes both ways.

No, it doesn't.

Roads are built for corporations and ultimately the consumers.

Corporations use the Federal Reserve, Judicial system, education system, highway system, medical and scientific establishments, our safety net (more dynamic economy), and airline systems, which taxpayers paid for. Yes, corporations have paid taxes that have helped pay for these, but they have also benefited from the taxpayer investments that helped more than corporate taxes in funding these investments.

At 4/12/2012 6:51:11 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/12/2012 10:46:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 4/12/2012 7:42:29 AM, Contra wrote:

At 4/11/2012 11:01:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
How many times do I have to say this?

Corporations facilitate governmental resources, not the other way around.

I think it goes both ways.

No, it doesn't.

Roads are built for corporations and ultimately the consumers.

Corporations use the Federal Reserve, Judicial system, education system, highway system, medical and scientific establishments, our safety net (more dynamic economy), and airline systems, which taxpayers paid for. Yes, corporations have paid taxes that have helped pay for these, but they have also benefited from the taxpayer investments that helped more than corporate taxes in funding these investments.

+1

At 4/12/2012 6:41:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:

At 4/12/2012 6:38:58 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

At 4/11/2012 5:20:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Cool list.

I will say, why do people make a big deal about Romney having a lot of money?

Doesn't that mean he is successful?

One's wealth itself doesn't make an accurate measure of his success. (I'd hardly call vulture capitalism a success)

What is more important is by what MEANS did he acquire his wealth. That is where it becomes a big deal

Romney worked for his money, unlike former presidents I know, but contra would hate me if I proceeded.

Bush -> Oil businessman
Clinton -> Private attorney, author
Bush -> Businessman of a failed oil company, author
Obama -> Author, private law professional (attorney, etc)

At 4/12/2012 6:52:34 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/12/2012 6:41:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:

At 4/12/2012 6:38:58 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

At 4/11/2012 5:20:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Cool list.

I will say, why do people make a big deal about Romney having a lot of money?

Doesn't that mean he is successful?

One's wealth itself doesn't make an accurate measure of his success. (I'd hardly call vulture capitalism a success)

What is more important is by what MEANS did he acquire his wealth. That is where it becomes a big deal

Romney worked for his money, unlike former presidents I know, but contra would hate me if I proceeded.

Bush -> Oil businessman
Clinton -> Private attorney, author

No, the reason he is worth such a crap load is because people pay him for speeches.

Bush -> Businessman of a failed oil company, author
Obama -> Author, private law professional (attorney, etc)

At 4/12/2012 6:51:11 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/12/2012 10:46:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 4/12/2012 7:42:29 AM, Contra wrote:

At 4/11/2012 11:01:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
How many times do I have to say this?

Corporations facilitate governmental resources, not the other way around.

I think it goes both ways.

No, it doesn't.

Roads are built for corporations and ultimately the consumers.

Corporations use the Federal Reserve, Judicial system, education system, highway system, medical and scientific establishments, our safety net (more dynamic economy), and airline systems, which taxpayers paid for. Yes, corporations have paid taxes that have helped pay for these, but they have also benefited from the taxpayer investments that helped more than corporate taxes in funding these investments.

+100

So Obama is the closest to middle class than any president in past 60 years...

At 4/11/2012 5:28:07 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 4/11/2012 5:25:37 PM, imabench wrote:

At 4/11/2012 5:22:34 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 4/11/2012 5:20:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Cool list.

I will say, why do people make a big deal about Romney having a lot of money?

Doesn't that mean he is successful?

The perception is that he's a crooked businessman. I don't really know why they think that, but that's what they dont like about him. Stereotypical rich guy.

americans dont like rich people, unless they sell them iphones and computers

Obama is rich.

poorest elected president in 90 years...

At 4/12/2012 6:41:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:

At 4/12/2012 6:38:58 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

At 4/11/2012 5:20:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Cool list.

I will say, why do people make a big deal about Romney having a lot of money?

Doesn't that mean he is successful?

One's wealth itself doesn't make an accurate measure of his success. (I'd hardly call vulture capitalism a success)

What is more important is by what MEANS did he acquire his wealth. That is where it becomes a big deal

Romney worked for his money, unlike former presidents I know, but contra would hate me if I proceeded.

Bullsh1t.
Romney's dad:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

At 4/12/2012 6:51:11 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/12/2012 10:46:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 4/12/2012 7:42:29 AM, Contra wrote:

At 4/11/2012 11:01:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
How many times do I have to say this?

Corporations facilitate governmental resources, not the other way around.

I think it goes both ways.

No, it doesn't.

Roads are built for corporations and ultimately the consumers.

Corporations use the Federal Reserve, Judicial system, education system, highway system, medical and scientific establishments, our safety net (more dynamic economy), and airline systems, which taxpayers paid for. Yes, corporations have paid taxes that have helped pay for these, but they have also benefited from the taxpayer investments that helped more than corporate taxes in funding these investments.

At least some progress....

Now why were all of those created?

At 4/12/2012 7:18:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 4/12/2012 6:51:11 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/12/2012 10:46:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 4/12/2012 7:42:29 AM, Contra wrote:

At 4/11/2012 11:01:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
How many times do I have to say this?

Corporations facilitate governmental resources, not the other way around.

I think it goes both ways.

No, it doesn't.

Roads are built for corporations and ultimately the consumers.

Corporations use the Federal Reserve, Judicial system, education system, highway system, medical and scientific establishments, our safety net (more dynamic economy), and airline systems, which taxpayers paid for. Yes, corporations have paid taxes that have helped pay for these, but they have also benefited from the taxpayer investments that helped more than corporate taxes in funding these investments.

At least some progress....

Now why were all of those created?

These were created because the people thought they would be ultimately good for society, that is why they supported government officials who created these programs.

Where is all the hate for all the small business owners that decided to sell to Bain and shaft their employees? Why assume it is Bain's fault for providing a service? It's like shooting the prostitute and letting the John walk away squeeky clean.

At 4/12/2012 7:32:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Where is all the hate for all the small business owners that decided to sell to Bain and shaft their employees? Why assume it is Bain's fault for providing a service? It's like shooting the prostitute and letting the John walk away squeaky clean.

Tea-party Jesus Freaks need to use spell check :D

Just kidding, I bet it was an honest mistake.

At 4/12/2012 7:22:11 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/12/2012 7:18:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 4/12/2012 6:51:11 PM, Contra wrote:

At 4/12/2012 10:46:52 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 4/12/2012 7:42:29 AM, Contra wrote:

At 4/11/2012 11:01:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
How many times do I have to say this?

Corporations facilitate governmental resources, not the other way around.

I think it goes both ways.

No, it doesn't.

Roads are built for corporations and ultimately the consumers.

Corporations use the Federal Reserve, Judicial system, education system, highway system, medical and scientific establishments, our safety net (more dynamic economy), and airline systems, which taxpayers paid for. Yes, corporations have paid taxes that have helped pay for these, but they have also benefited from the taxpayer investments that helped more than corporate taxes in funding these investments.

At least some progress....

Now why were all of those created?

These were created because the people thought they would be ultimately good for society, that is why they supported government officials who created these programs.

Wrong.

These programs were created so that consumers could access the resources that these major corporations produce. This was done to increase the quality of life of the consumer. These Public Goods were created to facilitate the consumer because of the corporations. As a result, the consumers should pay.

At 4/11/2012 6:16:14 PM, jat93 wrote:

Also that as a result of his vast wealth he's totally out of touch with the average American. Remember when he so casually made a 10,000 dollar bet to Newt Gingrich during one of the debates? You know how he's currently building a new house with a 3600 square foot basement? It's not that success is bad, it's that people want someone who will represent the middle class and understand them. But Romney's had the silver spoon in his mouth his entire life. He even essentially said during one of the debates that he's never had to cut back on money in any significant way in his entire life.

What is the implication of "understanding the middle class?" The liberal idea is that anyone who understands the middle class will believe in government control of the economy and redistribution of wealth. "Not understanding" equates, in the minds government should pass 10,000 pages of new regulations per month, well then you just don't understand.

What else could liberals possibly be implying? Are they worried that a guy who knows how to make money and create jobs will plunge the nation into a fit of prosperity and job creation, destroying the chances for increased government control?

At 4/12/2012 7:32:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Where is all the hate for all the small business owners that decided to sell to Bain and shaft their employees? Why assume it is Bain's fault for providing a service? It's like shooting the prostitute and letting the John walk away squeeky clean.

Bain were turnaround experts. Their job was to take over failing companies, dump in new investment capital, and sell off the revived company at a profit. The alternative in every case was to let the company fail. Bain's business has a lt o risk, and sometimes they failed and the company they were trying to revive went bankrupt anyway, but overall their track record was very good.

Why is it better to let companies go bankrupt? I don't understand the argument.

At 4/12/2012 9:05:04 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

At 4/12/2012 7:32:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Where is all the hate for all the small business owners that decided to sell to Bain and shaft their employees? Why assume it is Bain's fault for providing a service? It's like shooting the prostitute and letting the John walk away squeeky clean.

Bain were turnaround experts. Their job was to take over failing companies, dump in new investment capital, and sell off the revived company at a profit. The alternative in every case was to let the company fail. Bain's business has a lt o risk, and sometimes they failed and the company they were trying to revive went bankrupt anyway, but overall their track record was very good.

Why is it better to let companies go bankrupt? I don't understand the argument.

Cause the MAN said so.

At 4/12/2012 8:59:15 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

At 4/11/2012 6:16:14 PM, jat93 wrote:

Also that as a result of his vast wealth he's totally out of touch with the average American. Remember when he so casually made a 10,000 dollar bet to Newt Gingrich during one of the debates? You know how he's currently building a new house with a 3600 square foot basement? It's not that success is bad, it's that people want someone who will represent the middle class and understand them. But Romney's had the silver spoon in his mouth his entire life. He even essentially said during one of the debates that he's never had to cut back on money in any significant way in his entire life.

What is the implication of "understanding the middle class?" The liberal idea is that anyone who understands the middle class will believe in government control of the economy and redistribution of wealth.

Too much rhetoric here. It is called LIBERAL or PROGRESSIVE not COMMUNIST ("Caa-mm--uuuu---nn-issst").

"Not understanding" equates, in the minds government should pass 10,000 pages of new regulations per month, well then you just don't understand.

Bush passed more regulations than Obama. Same with Bush I and Bush II.

What else could liberals possibly be implying? Are they worried that a guy who knows how to make money and create jobs will plunge the nation into a fit of prosperity and job creation, destroying the chances for increased government control?

We are worried he'll get us back where we started at.