Wealth of Each Presidential/Vice-Presidential Candidate

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/368rqgqt.asp

 

I had not read this, but I shared this same basic info with my daughter who is leaving for Louisburg College in a couple of weeks. We were talking about voting and how she was excited to be able to vote in her first election.

After I told her the relative wealth factor of the four canidates her response was...But I thought the Kerry/Edwards were for the poor people? My response...Perhaps, but those 2 are are not by any means poor. If they took 10% of their income alone they could fund more than half of the things they promised at their convention. That means you and I would not have to pay more...nah...that would never happen.

So she now awaits the Republican Convention and the debates before she makes up her mind who to vote for. My lesson to her...be informed about who you vote for and why...if you can not intelligently explain your convictions then do not vote a certain way just because others do it.

 

At least Bush, Cheney, and Edwards earned their money, while Kerry just coincidentally finds billionaires to marry.

BLD

 

The intelligent view is to not assume that, because Kerry is extremely wealthy, he is not for the poor.

All four of the candidates are rich.

The article does a good job of documenting the various sources and accoutrements of wealth, but then it also makes unfounded comments like:

"He became rich in a way unconnected to merit. Yet he seems to believe it's his due."

Evidence for the second sentence?

At least Kerry SAYS he's committed to the poor and to the middle class. Bush makes no bones about it. He doesn't care. Neither does Cheney.

 

So if someone says they're for the poor, that's good enough? Kerry doesn't even know what poor is.

If you'll remember, President Bush is the one sending billions in aid to Africa. Please name what act of compassion and helping the unfortunate we could lay at Kerry's feet? After all, he does say he's committed to the poor. I guess that's the usual liberal line -- all talk and no substance.

BLD

 

No that is just as unintelligent. The intelligent view is not to take what everybody (newspapers, news stations, talk radio, Micheal Moore, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Pope, Internet websites, etc.) shoves down our throats ad nauseum as the honest to goodness truth without researching it for yourself. By divorcing yourself from your prejudices (political, social, emotional, ethical, racial, et al) whatever they may be, and open up your mind that just maybe you may be wrong and somebody else may be right, that you can become intelligent and articulate on just what either canidate is proposing.

Secondly, no matter what they promise...unless Congress passes it, and unless the Supreme Court upholds the inevevitible court challenges, it is all rhetoric. And don't forget it all has to be paid for..I wonder who is going to do it?

I do not begrudge their riches. Some earned it, some inherited it, some may have schemed, swindled, and stolen and some married into it. Just like so many people across America. I merely pointed out an inconsistency that is frequently ommitted when the Newspapers and News Stations report on John Kerry and John Edwards.

For example...when Bush had a campaign fundraiser in Raleigh it was heavily reported by the media he was in North Raleigh (very affluent) and that it was $25,000.00 a plate dinner. So it was therfore insinuated that the "poor" could not afford Bush and had a physical tangible touchstone - North Raleigh. However when Edwards did a campaign fundraiser it was just as heavily reported that he was at NCSU-state University right on the outskirts of two of the oldest African American neighborhoods in Raleigh ...Method and Oberlin...but the fundraiser dinner was also in North Raleigh. It was reported that his fundraiser was $2,500.00 per plate. The truth was is was a sliding scale from $2,500.00 to gues what amount? That is right ...up to $25,000.00 a plate, just like the Bush fundraiser. But the media consistently omitted the higher amount and selctively emphasized the lower amount and the rally at the University as opposed to the fundraiser. Also Bush's fundraiser was for the Republican party in North Carolina, not just himself. Edwards was for his and Kerry's campaign.

This is what I mean when I tell my daughter to be an intelligent voter and see and hear all sides as many sides of the issue(s) before blindly voting for someone because of looks, or sound, or because your public school teacher tells you who to vote for.

Now they don't do that do they? As a
minister I refuse to tell my people who to vote for. I do tell them to be informed about all the issues, ask questions, do research, pray, and vote their heart. This irritates the political people in my congregation and community because I do not push a particular party line or color line ballot procedure. Oh well!

By the way both my wife and I are registered Independents.

 

Yeah, that creep Kerry cheated his way to it by living a life of service to his country.

Gee, Bush didn't find his dad's connected friends to invest in his failed oil companies, did he? Or when those friends backed his purchase of the Texas Rangers? Of course not. And Cheney certainly didn't use his connections in government to get the CEO's position (and the millions per year in salary) at Halliburton; they hired him simply because he was the best manager available! . I offer that they earned it in the exact same fashion as Kerry did: they used their connections. Now Edwards, that's a rags-to-riches story!

 

Some life of service!

The Truth About Kerry is Coming Out

 

Oh, I'm sure you can be assured that book is a reliable source!

Whatever Kerry has or has not done for his country, it is patently obvious what Bush has done to his country. That alone should warrant his ouster. We'll see.

 

Rich,
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think Bush is the greatest President of my lifetime, other than Reagan.

BLD

 

I was born in 1959. My ranking of Presidents since then:

1. JFK (Cuban Missile Crisis)
2. LBJ (Civil Rights, Great Society)
3. Clinton (8 years of peace and prosperity)
4. Reagan (Intangible leadership; returned our self-respect)
5. Carter (Brought humanity to an office made inhumane by Nixon)

The others:

6. Ford (Should have prosecuted Nixon)
7. Bush 41 (Didn't do anything)
8. Bush 43 (Invaded the wrong country, huge budget deficits, tax cuts to the rich only)
9. Nixon (Single most dangerous assault on the U.S. Constitution by a sitting President)

 

Considering that Edwards wealth was especially made using pseudo-science (ie, that ObGyn failure to do ceasareans causes infant paraysis - and that rates of this proceedure have quintupled - and that these "outcome faulures" remain undimminished), and that the tort-law industry amounts to more than a 7% tax - and we are demonstrably no safer than other nations from corporate malfeasance - I'd rather personally undergo leech treatment than see him near the oval office.

--Orson

 

Identify the alternative!

Given that containing Saddam was one cause of 9/11, according to Bin Laden (ie, US military occupation of Saudi), and given the March 2003 study at the University of Chicago School of Business
http:gebwww.uchicago.edu/fac/steven.davis/research/
which estimated the 20 year cost of continued containment at $380 billion - do you really have a superior proposal?

(Thought not!)

--Orson

 

Bill Clinton is visiting Toronto today to promote his book. The line outside the Indigo Book Center on Bay Street is at least five blocks long. This goes to show that this former president's popularity is still compelling among Canadians. During the Clinton administration, Canada's economy flourished and our exports to the U.S. nearly doubled to $7 Billion per year.
One needs to remember that Bill Clinton grew up as a poor child in small town America. As governor of Arkanas and then President, he brought peace and prosperity to America. He deserves to enjoy whatever wealth he has accumulated over the past 25 years.

 

Can't be the right number. Way way too low.

 

Your right Dennis. More like $37 Billion. I need to get my eyes checked.

 

That's because the lowlife didn't force their women to have sex with him. Clinton was, and is, a complete disgrace to our country.

 

Then you would need to include to your list the names of all the other Presidents who had affairs or lovers during their term in office (and that's a long list). Here in Canada, our leaders are too busy drinking to have extra marital affairs. Our leaders perfer to be drunk.

 

Clinton didn't just have an affair, he had sex with an intern in the Oval Office, lied about it under oath, and was impeached!

 

Clinton was never impeached. He served two full terms in office. True, he did lie about his affair with Monica Lewinski, but he did lead the U.S. to prosperity and peace. Clinton may have been caught with his pants down (pun intended), but there were many other presidents who lied or had affairs while in office - Nixon, JFK, FDR, LBJ, etc.