![Mitt Romney vs. the Net Worth of U.S. Presidents [PICS]](http://cdn2.diggstatic.com/story/mitt_romney_vs_the_net_worth_of_u_s_presidents_pics/t.png)
Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
James Lowell
4253 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
Antonio Richard
333 Followers
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
killersquirelFeb 6, 2012
I think it's safe to say that pretty much everyone that is or has run for president, at least in the last 40 years has been quite wealthy. Mitt Romney's wealth doesn't offend or bother me.
garrywFeb 6, 2012
Kerry would have been the richest president. Got to marry the right lady. Given the choice, earning money is more respected than marrying it.
stevanoskiFeb 7, 2012
The old saying goes, "Anyone who marries for money pays for every second of it." Wonder if Kerry is still in love (smirk insert)?
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
Not quite:
Obama's money
Net Worth: $1.3 million
Where he got it
After Harvard Law, Obama didn't exactly rake in the big bucks. He led a voter-registration drive and then worked for a Chicago law firm that specializes in civil rights and employment discrimination.
He earned $60,000 as an Illinois state senator, plus another $32,000 as a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
Michelle Obama, however, worked for a while as a big-firm lawyer, leaving to take jobs in the nonprofit sector. She wound up as vice president for community affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid nearly $317,000 a year.
She resigned in May and also left her post as lead independent director of Tree House Foods, a private-label food business.
According to the Obamas' tax return (Obama and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut are the only candidates to release one), their income hit $1.7 million in 2005 and $991,000 in 2006.
The big boost came from his writing, following the stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention that made him famous.
First came a memoir, "Dreams of My Father," and later "The Audacity of Hope," which was on the New York Times bestseller list for 30 weeks.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/5.html
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
"Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, reported assets of between $241,000 and $894,000 in mutual funds, life insurance and certificates of deposit. The Bidens’ largest asset is a residential rental property in Wilmington, Delaware, valued between $100,000 and $250,000.
The vice president and his wife reported debts of between $160,000 and $450,000, the largest of which is a home equity line of credit from the Wilmington Savings Fund Society on which they owed between $100,000 and $250,000.
Neither Obama nor Biden, 68, reported retaining any gifts for personal use during 2010. They are required to report on the financial disclosure forms only those gifts they retain that are valued at more than $335. In most cases, the president and the vice president accept gifts on behalf of the U.S. government and the items are turned over to the National Archives, rather than kept for personal use."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-16/obama-holding-assets-of-up-to-11-8-million.html
wipisFeb 6, 2012
Thanks for doing your research. People talk about rich politicians but Obama was mostly self made and not rich at all compared to many of his predecessors. His campaign fund however made a s**t load of money.
stevanoskiFeb 7, 2012
gasp, I dugg killer? Say it ain't so.
norman619Feb 6, 2012
Again with the bitching about how rich he is. What does this have to do with his ability to do the job? Not a damn thing. This is yet another attempt to stoke the flames of class envy against a candidate.
jameslowellFeb 6, 2012Submitter
Exactly. If anything, it's not Romney's wealth that matters, it's the injustices of the tax code that matters.
blinker1315Feb 6, 2012
Yes. The flat tax is the way to go, with exemptions for people making less than $30,000. Strip away the loopholes, put accountants and tax lawyers into another line of work.
ridgerunner5Feb 6, 2012
I'm a fan of a VAT tax with exemptions for necessary things like food and basic clothing.
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
It always starts with one or two exemptions for a small group of people........
It's that line of thinking that's given us a 70,000 page tax code.
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
If you're making 1Bn dollars and I'm making only $30,000.01, how do we arrive at an amount that both of us can afford that would still enable us to fund the government?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
Easy: 10-15% either way. You wouldn't pay much while the billionaire would pay tens of millions.
Closed AccountFeb 7, 2012
Right...but how do you fund the government (now that your revenue is reduced because everyone is now paying Mitt Romney's tax rate)? How many tax dodgers do you think there are?
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
A flat tax creates responsible voters and politicians.
e.g...... "Would you like to fund this park? ........your tax rate will go from 15% to 17%".
People make very different decisions when #1 they can understand the cost of political actions and #2 it affects them directly (for better or for worse).
What DOESN'T make sense is when 50% pay nothing yet they can vote that the other 50% fund things that they want (....but refuse to fund). That's our current system...........and we can't afford it no matter what rate we charge millionaires and billionaires in taxes.
spatula7Feb 6, 2012
No, it's how he earned it. Bail out boy has a lot of explaining to do. Right now he looks like a hypocrite extraordinaire.
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
He took a risk buying distressed companies and trying to make them profitable. Why does that require so much explaining?
I'll try to put it in words that you'll understand:
"Mitt makes bad things better"
novenatorFeb 6, 2012
Earning profit by buying up and destroying medium sized businesses is parasitical. Nobody is envious of the shady methods by which RoMoney has acquired his fortune. He is a ferengi.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
uh no. ferengi do not destroy business. if there is any money to be made in a business they will make it the they will run from the police. or starfleet.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition
miklkitFeb 6, 2012
That only applies to your business. Any other business is to be exploited to the benefit of your business.
Witness Romney making 900% profits while stealing pension money from another business that the federal government then had to make up with our tax money.
That is very Ferengi.
bobcat7407Feb 6, 2012
Source?
novenatorFeb 6, 2012
Romney’s Bain Capital Made Billions While Bankrupting Nearly One-Quarter Of The Companies It Invested In http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/09/400404/romney-bain-bankrupts-billions/
Any business owner knows that you have to *reinvest IN* the business to keep it going. RoMoney's Bain Capital specialized in stopping all reinvestment, raiding retirement accounts, and basically stripping down the companies they bought for every penny they could get in the short term, then hanging them out to dry. It's predatory capitalism at it's worst.
bobcat7407Feb 6, 2012
"Romney’s Bain Capital Made Billions While Bankrupting Nearly One-Quarter Of The Companies It Invested In"
So is bankruptcies the way you would rate success/failure? The WSJ article points out that Bain invested in "riskier" deals, so of course there were some failures.
From the actual WSJ article:
"Seeking the protection of a bankruptcy court isn't necessarily a sign of long-term business failure. Many of the Bain companies emerged from reorganization healthier, just as, for instance, General Motors did a few years ago. But while bankruptcy filings aren't a perfect measure of performance, they provide a way to assess a disparate array of target businesses that in many cases weren't required to make public financial filings."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet
"Any business owner knows that you have to *reinvest IN* the business to keep it going. RoMoney's Bain Capital specialized in stopping all reinvestment, raiding retirement accounts, and basically stripping down the companies they bought for every penny they could get in the short term, then hanging them out to dry. It's predatory capitalism at it's worst."
That's a bunch of unsubstantiated hyperbole as far as I've seen. An analysis of the facts, at least as far as I've seen, doesn't backup your claims.
nairebisFeb 6, 2012
According to your link, "Romney’s Bain Capital Made Billions While Bankrupting Nearly One-Quarter Of The Companies It Invested In."
So, in other words, Romney took businesses that were close to failing, and turned 75% of them around and avoided bankruptcy?
That's a pretty damn good percentage, and that probably saved a hell of a lot of jobs. And those are just the ones that avoided bankruptcy. Some percentage of THOSE emerged healthier from the bankruptcy process.
If he was really the heartless bastard you say he was, I suspect it would be closer to 100% bankruptcy.
atomheartmotherFeb 6, 2012
Exactly.
Closed AccountFeb 7, 2012
also trump has filed for bankruptcy before. now his holdings are worth like 5 billion. so just cause your in bankruptcy doesnt mean the business is failed.
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
You don't have to be a genius to know that people don't buy companies with the intent of bankrupting them.
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
He bought companies? Anything wrong with that?
Once he owns a company he can run it, sell it, or sell parts of it.........it's his company.
.............or are you not a fan of personal liberties?
Do you similarly have a problem with people who purchase cars and then sell the parts because they're worth more that way? He's not immune to market forces. He's not magically pulling fees out of his hat like many suggest. He's a good businessman and America needs more of them.
While it does suck if you're a secretary making $150,000 who's suddenly replaced by one that makes $30,000, I'd definitely want someone making those decisions if they were watching after my company or my money.
assassyn360Feb 6, 2012
His money is irrelevant I agree, but what job do you think he will do for you. Do you make more than a million a year? If not, then you are not part of the club no matter what way you vote.
ultimisFeb 6, 2012
As the article showed many of the founding fathers who fought for the rights and liberties of the people were rich. Are you questioning George Washington's patriotism and love for his country? Was he a part of the "club"?
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
are you comparing Romney to George Washington?
just when i think the DP's cant get any more ridiculous
atomheartmotherFeb 6, 2012
No he wasn't, but I can see where an idiot might think that....
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
no, you cant try and one-up ultimis on the ridiculous comments, his was better
shingoexFeb 7, 2012
He clearly was. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said "Are you questioning George Washington's patriotism and love for his country? Was he a part of the "club"?"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ultimisFeb 7, 2012
It was quite clear; I was asking if being rich excludes you from being a American and patriotic. Assassyn360 responded below and stated that yes George Washington would be a part of the "club".
You're the tool that think I'm comparing the two men. Either answer my question or stfu. George Washington as pointed out by this article was the richest president with hundreds of slaves, yet no one would question his patriotism because of it (besides assassyn360). Many of the founding fathers were rather wealthy.
particleman420Feb 7, 2012
because it's not his wealth that is in question, but how he gained his wealth and the actions he's taken since gaining the wealth.
no one hates bill gates because he's rich, and he's not only 1% he probably more like the .0001%
ultimisFeb 7, 2012
assassyn360 implication (who I was responding to) was that since he was a part of the "club" he could not represent America. This is absurd, and I see that you don't agree with that position. As for how Romney earned his money is a entirely different discussion.
assassyn360Feb 7, 2012
No more than Obama's patriotism and love for this country was questioned. And yes, as a slave owner of 300+ slaves, George Washington was part of the club of his time. Exploiting people for his own personal gain at the expense of their very lives just like romney did to those people he stole pensions from.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drich255Feb 6, 2012
Agreed. And nobody seemed to have had any problems with John Kerry's wealth when he ran for president in '04.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
his wealth didnt come at the expense of thousands of american's jobs and businesses. Nor did they require the government to bail out some of those companies that he plundered.
he's got ketchup on his hands whereas romney has blood and tears on his.
stevanoskiFeb 6, 2012
LOL, parti I really wanted to digg re: ketchup (Heinz, good play) but surely you and I can agree that no one gets that much money without skullduggery being committed at some point.
particleman420Feb 7, 2012
if by skullduggery you mean also owning Ore-Ida, the company that makes Tater Tots, therefor creating demand for their Ketchup, then yes. very nefarious!
stevanoskiFeb 7, 2012
lol
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
What about less fortunate ketchup companies that couldn't compete and were driven out of business?
Kerry didn't do anything for his money.....he married into it.
Romney on the other hand has built a successful business from scratch and has saved thousands of jobs in the process.
Closed AccountFeb 7, 2012
And Romney was born into it. It's ridiculous to suggest that he didn't benefit from his last name (just as it would be ridiculous to suggest that Ben Quayle and Beau Biden haven't benefited from theirs). Romney also got a 42K loan from his dad so he could buy his first house. He claims he donated his inheritance to BYU. I love how people brag about "charitable" donations that are more or less symbiotic relationships.
ultimisFeb 6, 2012
I found the link somewhat interesting. Shows he first 10 presidents or so were fairly rich (millions to hundreds of millions).
But yes, their wealth doesn't really many anything to me besides the fact that they might have been successful in their personal endeavors (assuming they didn't inherit it).
Closed AccountFeb 7, 2012
Um...ok, but they were all slave owners... ;-(
ultimisFeb 7, 2012
It was fairly common at the time, as were those awful wigs. Slavery had been fairly common for thousands of years. Indentured servants forcefully brought over in the early colonial period usually didn't survive long enough to gain their freedom.
Closed AccountFeb 8, 2012
The point is that their success was enabled at least in part by slave labor. They didn't do all the hard work and sacrifice themselves.
ultimisFeb 8, 2012
I can't really argue that, I'm sure its true for some of them. Though the real point here is that it didn't make them any less patriotic and they didn't fail as leaders because of their wealth (either earned or not). There is the current narrative that Romney is disconnected purely because he is wealthy (I'm sure you have more reasons for the disconnect, but the common narrative is just that).
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
FTAYDR:
"The fact that Romney's net worth is greater than the sum of the last eight presidents times two is the kind of statistic you might throw away as meaningless trivia. But it's also the perfect summation of income inequality, which is most extreme among the extremely wealthy. Like his tax return, Mitt Romney's wealth is absolutely not an indictment of the candidate, but rather a lens into a policy question. As our 45th president, he would belong to a proud tradition of commanders-in-chief whose fortunes are microcosms of their eras."
mjm6783Feb 6, 2012
The one problem with the "net worth" values given is that they are calculated post presidency. Most of the modern presidents made a majority of their wealth from speaking engagements and books. Still interesting to read.
novenatorFeb 6, 2012
How about instead of electing someone who's from the richest 1% and only going to cater for the rich, we elect someone who has very humble roots and is going to look out for the country as a whole?
ghengiskhan1Feb 6, 2012
The system is rigged against such people, unfortunately. There are many people in this country that started poor, worked hard, kept their nose to the grind stone and built their own American dream. They are honest people, they employ people, the volunteer at their kids schools and coach little league. They join the Rotary club or Lions club. They are true leaders, community activists and patriots. They build and create wealth for themselves and others. They are both democrats and republicans.
These people would make great politicians.
The system does not want these kind of people any where near it.
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
You know........you kind of just described Romney. He's a self-made man.
nairebisFeb 6, 2012
Because, generally speaking, the best and brightest people are successful in life. Why would I want to vote for Jack the Maintenance Man, who might be honest and reasonably bright, but who is completely unqualified to navigate the complexities of governance of the United States, not to even mention navigate the complexities of international leadership.
That's why Presidents have typically been through various levels of government before they run for President. Say, governor of a major state or prominent members of Congress.
Why exactly would I want to throw just anyone into the Presidency who has never shown any success or ability in their own life?
All honest work is honorable, but that does mean that all honest work qualifies someone to be President of the United States and all that entails.
novenatorFeb 6, 2012
Many of the richest people in America are clearly not the "best and brightest". They are just born into wealth to begin with, got into the finest schools, and are unashamed of being greedy.
nairebisFeb 6, 2012
That's probably true, but so what? Are you saying that there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and success in life? So any success in life should automatically disqualify someone from holding higher office? What exactly is your point? Or did you just see an opportunity to do some pointless bashing of a group of people, so you threw out a non sequitur of a completely obvious point?
Once again, that's why we typically elect people who have experience in high level of administration of government, so we can see how they do, and make sure they have some seasoning.
Of course there are brilliant people who have little success in life, and there are dunces who fall into having great success. Again, so what? Are you seriously arguing that it would be better to take someone who has had zero success in life and they would be a great choice to not only manage the biggest economy in the world, but also practice great international diplomacy.
novenatorFeb 7, 2012
What I'm saying is that in tough economic times, it's important to have elected officials who can relate. As it stands, the average net worth of a US Congressman is $3.5m, and a Senator $13m. It's no wonder Congress consistently passes pro-corporate, pro-rich, anti-small business, anti-worker legislation because of this. RoMoney will not help the situation, he will make it worse. Very worse.
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
You should really figure out the difference between "rich" and "greedy".
shingoexFeb 7, 2012
Paris Hilton and Snooki disagree.
asfinktersezwutFeb 6, 2012
Dude, seriously, we've talked about this before and my Mom is still really not interested in being President.
Donuts4UFeb 6, 2012
Not a bad point.
The article made me look up "haberdasher". For a piano player and failed haberdasher, Truman wasn't all that bad.
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
I think we could do better with a lottery system for all public officials.
inspiron08Feb 6, 2012
Anybody notice that the title of this article doesn't match the info they put. Even the first president on the list has 2.5x as much as as Romney has.
etubruteFeb 6, 2012
The article headline is the net worth of U.S Presidents, the digg header is misleading.
skinturtleFeb 6, 2012
If this **** ever gets elected...you really can kiss your middle class good bye. He knows nothing of it.
UnaBomberrrFeb 6, 2012
the smell of jealousy is strong in this thread
laurahoustonFeb 6, 2012
Not all wealthy made their millions-mountians, pink-slipping the servant class.
stevanoskiFeb 7, 2012
tsk, naivete at it's best (worst?)
laurahoustonFeb 6, 2012
I know he was only a VP but no one will ever match the way Cheney pulled out multi-billions of Americans federal and state funds for his own companies profits. He got NO BID..OPEN ENDED costs contracts rained upon him from the gov. for years and years.
That was Americas money he squandered for their corps- and got America into the position it is today.
And if they manage to start-up a war in Iran or Mexico...we'll see the last drops of Americas revenue stuffed into their pockets.
MrFrogyFeb 6, 2012
More Halliburton bulls**t... It never ends, OK, let's try this one more time: http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.html
ridgerunner5Feb 6, 2012
And Pelosi did the same for a company that happened to be owned by her husband.
etubruteFeb 6, 2012
I don't think people are jealous or questioning his wealth, Romney bought this on himself . He uses his business experience and his wealth management as reasons that he can create jobs and do a better job than Obama when it comes to the middle class.
If he didn't want people looking at his wealth he shouldn't be trying to get a free ride on it to get elected, in his case it's a double edged sword.No we don't care about <insert subject here> of your history or <insert skill/asset/etc> here but when you tout it as a reason you are better it's going to be under severe scrutiny.
assassyn360Feb 6, 2012
I don't care how rich Romney is or isn't. I just care about how he intends to inflate the pockets of the rich. That is his intent and the secondary goal of the GOP. The first is to get Obama out of office. A pathetic goal when you offer zero solutions on what you intend to do if that goal is ever achieved.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ridgerunner5Feb 6, 2012
Because the rich haven't gotten richer under Obama's watch?
Both parties are united against the American people.
stevanoskiFeb 7, 2012
exactly