The politics of being too wealthy.

[jdm61]

We have heard a lot of blabbing about how Mitt Romney is too rich to be in touch with the rest of America. We have also heard President Obama saying how he was not "born with a silver spoon in his mouth". That got me to thinking. Most of our Presidents were not hurting for money when they were elected. As a matter of fact, I can only think of two that didn't have much in the way of assets at the time that they were President and after. Ulysees S. Grant had to write his memoirs before he died of cancer to pay off his debts. Harry Truman, whose only real asset when he got out of office was the home that his in-laws had left to him and his wife, got a one time royalty payment of $600,000 for his memoirs, but with the crazy tax laws back then, he had about $30,000 left after taxes and expenses and Congress had to vote him a pension. So, my question is how rich is too rich? President Obama paid $1.6 million MOL for his house in Chicago and even in 2011, which was a bad year for him (made slightly less than $1 million) compared to the previous years, he did pretty well. As a matter of fact, he made over twice the amount that it takes to put someone in that evil top 1% category. Previous Presidents had "summer White Houses" that were pretty impressive. Some had ranches in California and Texas, others had oceanfront homes. The Clintons have owned a couple of pretty impressive homes in trendy NYC suburbs since Bill left office. Hell, even Dwight Eisnehower had a very nice farm in Pennsylvania and he was from Kansas. The fact of the matter is that since the President was granted a pension by law, you no longer have to be rich to become President AND to have two nickels to rub together when you are done, but that doesn't mean that any President that we have had in a LONG time has been poor. Yes, Clinton was born "poor" but he did go to Georgetown and Yale Law School. Abe Lincoln may have been born in a log cabin in Kentucky, but he married well and was a successful lawyer before he ran for national office. So how does Obama basically get away with saying "I may be rich by my own standards (what he says in public) but I am not as rich as that guy, so I am more in touch with The People?" I haven't even talked about how guys like Obama, Gingrich and Santorum have basically "made their fortune" by feeding at the government trough for a substantial portion of their adult lives, whereas Romney made his fortune in the real world and then went to work in the public and/or non-profit sector.

[bulgron]

I think they should put a salary cap on the Democratic Party. If you make more than $75K a year, then you get kicked out of the party, leaving you with only the GOP to belong to. That way, we can know without looking that all our elected representatives are stinking rich because they'll all belong to the party of the stinking rich.

But should the GOP have a minimum income requirement? Hmmm.... I suppose it should ....

[quietmike]

"President Obama released his tax returns. It turns out he made $900,000 less in 2011 then he did in 2010. You know what that means? Even Obama is doing worse under President Obama." –Jay Leno

[OliverH]

There's a lot in what you say. But hey, it's a political season, and everybody is making the points--cheap and unfair, if necessary--where they can.

It's certainly true that Romney was born to wealth and privilege and has operated in that milieu and among people of his same rarefied class since birth, but the same can be said about FDR. In my eyes what makes Romney vulnerable to such gibes is that his public persona is sort of cold and distant, and that he seems so clueless about the vast gap between his own experience and that of most of his fellow citizens. As a couple of easy examples: When asked about how much he made from speaking engagements last year, he responded: "Oh, not much. About $350,000." Or while at the Daytona 500 to establish his cred as a common Joe Sixpack kinda guy, he remarked casually that "I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners." I don't think Romney's a bad guy, but he's got a tin ear for such things.

It's a bit bogus to say that Obama made his fortune by feeding at the government trough, as if he cashed in on his connections to become a lobbyist (hello, Trent Lott and Bob Livingston and a zillion others) or did a Cheney and became a CEO to a big government contractor in the expectation that he could use his connections to benefit the company in that way, or signed on with a high-powered Washington law firm, or just hit the rubber chicken circuit to tell stories. Obama certainly DID make a pile of money as a result of being a public figure, but the great majority of that came from book sales. (In this, one might compare him to Grant, except for the little niggling detail that Obama wasn't dying of cancer the whole time that he wrote his books. Really, they don't make too many guys like that, no matter what century you live in.)

Here's a site that shows Obama's financial fortunes from 2004 onward, and in relation to the rest of the Senate. And here's a site showing the relative net worths of the various presidents.

A couple of other recent presidents worthy of financial mention: Richard Nixon never really cashed in on his having been in political office until well after he left the presidency. It's odd, because as far as I know he never really spent a lot of effort to do so before then, though he had the position and ability to have made a real pile, and Lord knows the old bastard certainly had a deep resentment of rich guys like Kennedy. Maybe he preferred to exert his talents to obtain power instead, or maybe he got more of a charge out of nursing his hatred of the silver spoon types than actually beating them at their own money game. Hard to know. He did get pretty rich afterwards, but you got the impression that he didn't really care all that much, and it was maybe because there just wasn't a lot else to take up his time. I think he only really cared about restoring his reputation and getting back into the game. Heck, I bet if he thought there was something to end his political exile, he would have ponied up everything he owned to live in a shotgun shack on the Potomac, and possibly in the bargain have agreed to sell one of his daughters to white slavers.

At the other end of things, I read once that nice guy Gerald Ford became almost embarrassingly acquisitive after he left office, behaving a lot like retired major leaguers doing the circuit of baseball card expos where they autograph pictures at $10 a pop. Some political operative remarked during the late 70s/early 80s that "you can't even shake hands with Gerry anymore for less than fifty bucks."

[ttoney83]

Romney is too crazy to be in touch with the rest of America.....

You DO have to be rich to become President these days, OR be able to raise millions of dollars to do it.

One can not put any credibility into ANYTHING any of the last several Presidents say regarding ANY subject matter as they all suffer from some form of psychopathology and will LIE ABOUT ANYthing.....Mitt Romney is a PERFECT example of the modern liar in chief. How anyone can support a "man" who has been on EVERY side of EVERY issue he has ever spoken about is beyond my ability to comprehend.....

[timcsaw]

Greed and envy are at the root of "concerns" about someone else's wealth. Depending on the metal of the man, even they guy who drives a top shelf Mercedes Benz will "concern" himself with his neighbors Rolls, and love it when a bird craps on that Silver Shadow. Such is the nature of man.

"Strive for and even achieve excellence, and your mediocrity will be recognized and lauded by your peers and the masses." (Or in today's vernacular; "Hater's gonna' hate.")

[MSGBN]

Public Office is not for the Republic. Citizens allow this and continue to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

[Triton]

Romney is too crazy to be in touch with the rest of America.....

You DO have to be rich to become President these days, OR be able to raise millions of dollars to do it.

One can not put any credibility into ANYTHING any of the last several Presidents say regarding ANY subject matter as they all suffer from some form of psychopathology and will LIE ABOUT ANYthing.....Mitt Romney is a PERFECT example of the modern liar in chief. How anyone can support a "man" who has been on EVERY side of EVERY issue he has ever spoken about is beyond my ability to comprehend.....

Like it or not, either Romney or the obama is GOING to be president. Which one will you choose?

[ttoney83]

Like it or not, either Romney or the obama is GOING to be president. Which one will you choose?

Niether. A vote for either of those two choices is a vote for the continued subversion of the Constitution and the destruction of the Republic ceding further, or complete sovereignty to the UN. A vote for either is also a vote virtually garaunteeing the necessity of a 2nd Revolution.
Hopefully enough people who support and defend the Constitution can be elected to the Congress to accomplish as close to a complete turnover of the House and Senate as possible.

[timcsaw]

Niether. A vote for either of those two choices is a vote for the continued subversion of the Constitution and the destruction of the Republic ceding further, or complete sovereignty to the UN. A vote for either is also a vote virtually garaunteeing the necessity of a 2nd Revolution.
Hopefully enough people who support and defend the Constitution can be elected to the Congress to accomplish as close to a complete turnover of the House and Senate as possible.

IMO... At the end of the day, there IS a lesser of two evils (black and white (no racial innuendo intended))... rather than remain silent and ineffective with the only real "voice" (quiet as it may be) given to me at the ballot box, I choose to "speak" or willingly, "forever hold my piece". To do any less is to throw up one's hands in defeat. You've never lost until you give up.

ON EDIT: I'd be glad if no one else ever voted... I don't mind voting all by myself and accepting by proxy, all who invalidate themselves and give their "power" to me to decide EVERYTHING for everyone else. The "volume" of my voice gets louder, thanks to everyone who stays at home!

[ttoney83]

IMO... At the end of the day, there IS a lesser of two evils (black and white (no racial innuendo intended))... rather than remain silent and ineffective with the only real "voice" (quiet as it may be) given to me at the ballot box, I choose to "speak" or willingly, "forever hold my piece". To do any less is to throw up one's hands in defeat. You've never lost until you give up.

ON EDIT: I'd be glad if no one else ever voted... I don't mind voting all by myself and accepting the "power" given to me to decide EVERYTHING for everyone else.

IMO these two are equal evils. Wait and see. My conscience dictates that I can not cast a vote or fight for either of these evils so, IF Ron Paul runs, my vote will be for the greater good.

[timcsaw]

IMO these two are equal evils. Wait and see. My conscience dictates that I can not cast a vote or fight for either of these evils so, IF Ron Paul runs, my vote will be for the greater good.

Cool. RSVP at the ballot box; Tim+1

[Triton]

Niether. A vote for either of those two choices is a vote for the continued subversion of the Constitution and the destruction of the Republic ceding further, or complete sovereignty to the UN. A vote for either is also a vote virtually garaunteeing the necessity of a 2nd Revolution.
Hopefully enough people who support and defend the Constitution can be elected to the Congress to accomplish as close to a complete turnover of the House and Senate as possible.

<Shrug> Then you will have changed nothing and insured that the candidate that most closely represents you will not have your support. If enough conservatives (although I'm not sure if you are one) take your position they can help bring about the reelection of the obama, something that would seem to be a less than optimal outcome. At the end of the day one of these two guys WILL be the president however so it would seem to be a good idea to take the best option even if it is still a bad one. Paul will NOT be elected, therefore voting for him seems like a waste of time and effort. No one cares about the "statement" that such a vote supposedly makes.

[ttoney83]

Cool. RSVP at the ballot box; Tim+1

By the way, Ron Paul draws votes from BOTH sides of the aisle, so his running would not necessarily detract from either side more than the other.

[ttoney83]

<Shrug> Then you will have changed nothing and insured that the candidate that most closely represents you will not have your support. If enough conservatives (although I'm not sure if you are one) take your position they can help bring about the reelection of the obama, something that would seem to be a less than optimal outcome. At the end of the day one of these two guys WILL be the president however so it would seem to be a good idea to take the best option even if it is still a bad one. Paul will NOT be elected, therefore voting for him seems like a waste of time and effort. No one cares about the "statement" that such a vote supposedly makes.

That's the point Triton, NEITHER Romney NOR Obama most closely represents me. I recognize BOTH as being employed by the same globalist interests so BOTH are domestic enemies of the Constitution and this Republic.....

ETA: Both have also demonstrated this in their actions and statements. The only difference is that Romney has not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate his treason on a National scale. But he will soon enough.

[jdm61]

I love how that website says that Obama was the son of a goat herder. LMAO. Yeah, a goat herder that had scholarships to University of Hawaii and Harvard.:roll eyes: Please note that in 2012 dollars, Romney is worth less than George Wahington and probably about as much as Thomas Jefferson. He is also worth significantly less that what JFK's family was worth and unlike JFK, Romney actually made his "family" fortune during his time with Bain. Were those other guys too rich to be President?

[ttoney83]

<Shrug> Then you will have changed nothing and insured that the candidate that most closely represents you will not have your support. If enough conservatives (although I'm not sure if you are one) take your position they can help bring about the reelection of the obama, something that would seem to be a less than optimal outcome. At the end of the day one of these two guys WILL be the president however so it would seem to be a good idea to take the best option even if it is still a bad one. Paul will NOT be elected, therefore voting for him seems like a waste of time and effort. No one cares about the "statement" that such a vote supposedly makes.

Ron Paul is the ONLY true conservative running.....In that sense, anyone who does not support him is arguably not truly conservative. Just sayin

Be that as it may, the real support is for Ron Paul. Those who oppose him tend to be those who submit to the brainwashing of the Main Stream Propaganda Machine which repeatedly fills their heads with the Mantra "he's unelectable." And so, the zombies repeat; he's unelectable, he's unelectable, he's unelectable, he's unelectable.....Judging by the thousands he draws to his rallies, vs. the hundreds the others struggle to get, he is imminently electable and if there were no shenanigans he would be the next President. Not that that necessarily means the end to America's difficulties as there is a whole Congress of Globalist lackey's to contend with, but the point is that those who no longer pay any attention to what comes out of the no longer credible Main Stream Propaganda Machine know that the only hope for America's survival as a Sovereign Nation, and the survival of our Constitution is Ron Paul.

[ttoney83]

I love how that website says that Obama was the son of a goat herder. LMAO. Yeah, a goat herder that had scholarships to University of Hawaii and Harvard.:roll eyes: Please note that in 2012 dollars, Romney is worth less than George Wahington and probably about as much as Thomas Jefferson. He is also worth significantly less that what JFK's family was worth and unlike JFK, Romney actually made his "family" fortune during his time with Bain. Were those other guys too rich to be President?

In the end, a man's wealth, or lack thereof, should not be the determining factor. What We the People SHOULD be concerned about is whether or not this man, or woman, truly supports and defends the Constitution by their actions.

[powernoodle]

By the way, Ron Paul draws votes from BOTH sides of the aisle, so his running would not necessarily detract from either side more than the other.

You gotta be kidding. No good leftist would be caught dead supporting someone who promises to slash a trillion dollars from spending, limit federal powers to those actually enumerated in the Constitution, eliminate the IRS and keep illegal Mexicans out of my country. Sweet Mother of Pearl!

[powernoodle]

What We the People SHOULD be concerned about is whether or not this man, or woman, truly supports and defends the Constitution by their actions.

I'm going to write your name in on the ballot for Governor of Bladeforums.