motherjones.com— The election is not until Tuesday, but Gingrich scores first place in the biggest lie of the New Hampshire contest.
Jan 7, 2012View in Crawl 4
Wow....that one big lie alone should be enough proof in itself that Newt does not have the integrity, intelligence and common sense to serve as our president.
Obama, has an estimated net worth of $10.5 million dollars.
And guess were most of obama's money came from? The same place Gingrich's did. The sale of books he wrote. So what. This is America. That's what we do. Work and make money. Gingrich employees a lot of people. America was made great with people working. How many people do you employ?
It's called Free Market. So with obama being richer, $11.5 million, than gingrich, $6.7 million, does that mean obama has less "integrity, intelligence and common sense to serve as our president?
If Obama claimed that he wasn't rich, he'd be lying, too. But he hasn't claimed that. Gingrich said, "I'm not rich" and yet he is rich. Therefore, he is lying.
Seriously why do you even bother? Why come back with a point so stupid, so irrelevant, so lacking in any basic understanding as to the point of this article?
You know, most of the time the only response you'll get from a Republican on this site is "hey, look over there!" If you have to deflect, you've lost the argument.
It's like this, Newt Gingrich told a lie, a lie that is easily proven by facts submitted by the man himself. Whether you find those lies offensive or not is open to your own interpretation. But he did not tell the truth in an attempt to curry favor with voters, so all the deflection in the world will not help, it just makes you look stupid, awfully, awfully stupid.
"This past summer, Gingrich had to file the financial-disclosure form required of presidential candidates. It revealed that he has a net worth of at least $6.7 million and that his income was at least $2.6 million in 2010. That's about 65 times the income of the average family of four in the United States. That puts him well into the top 1 percent (about $520,000 a year or more) and close to the top 0.1 percent. He, of course, had that $500,000-plus tab at Tiffany's, and weeks ago was boasting that he pulled in $60,000 a speech."
And not a single con will care about this absurd dishonesty.
He owns Obama and the white house. Obama has been doing the bidding of Mr. Soros since the beginning.
Including funneling money to Mr. Soros international business interests. Do you recall the money given to Petrobras for their oil industry? Mr. Soros is a majority stock holder. Or the deployment of armed forces to Uganda to protect Mr. Soros oil company interests.
"He owns Obama and the white house. Obama has been doing the bidding of Mr. Soros since the beginning."
The chief difference between someone like Soros & people like the Kochs, is that "Soros' bidding" isn't self-serving & counter-intuitive to majority benefit. You can bitch about the influence of wealth all you want, but overlooking the finer details like to whom that influence benefits is a failure on your part to fully understand the discussion.
You made an EXCELLENT point, but conservatives don't care about facts.
It's sad that the conservative argument is always to try to paint progressives with the same brush, even when they are not the same. Ex: Progressives will say the Republican party discriminates against gay rights and use harsh rhetoric towards the gay community. Conservatives will counter that Democrats are the same because they don't all support gay marriage, as if both parties are equal in the treatment to gays.
As Paul Harvey used to say "and now for the rest of the story".
The 44th President of the United States, Obama, has an estimated net worth of $10.5 million dollars.
And guess were most of obama's money came from? The same place Gingrich's did. The sale of books he wrote. So what. This is America. That's what we do. Work and make money. Gingrich employees people. America was made great with people working. How many people do you employ?
It's called Free Market. Without it America dies just like it is now because obama has put so many regulations on the private buisness sector. He's rich but he doesn't want the small buisness people to succeed.
So with obama being richer, $11.5 million, than gingrich, $6.7 million, does that mean obama is a 1%'er????
I mean with your criteria chilidog then that means obama makes about 100 times more than the average family.
Remember in biased politics it is always tit-for-tat.
What gets me is that the liberal democrats are wealthier than republicans.
-Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $220.40 Million
-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $193.07 Million
-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $81.63 Million
-Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $76.30 Million
-Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $65.91 Million
-Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) $55.07 Million
-Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) $52.93* Million
-Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $45.39 Million
-Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $44.21 Million
and the great white champion of the poor and ethnic groups herself.........
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) $35.20 Million-- she's on a $350,000 Hawaiian vacation right now. I wonder if she took any of the poor or OWS'ers with her?...................Not
-Some of America’s wealthiest people back Barack Obama’s presidential bid and are pouring record sums into the Democratic Party and liberal organizations, some say it will reach a billion dollars.
the ultra-rich liberals.....affectionally know as the Obama Campaign Cash Cows.......
Bill Gates $59 B 55 Medina, Washington Microsoft
Larry Ellison $33 B 67 Woodside, California Oracle
Christy Walton $24.5 B 56 Jackson, Wyoming Wal-Mart
George Soros $22 B 81 Katonah, New York hedge funds
Sheldon Adelson $21.5 B 78 Las Vegas, Nevada casinos
Jim Walton $21.1 B 63 Bentonville, Arkansas Wal-Mart
Alice Walton $20.9 B 61 Fort Worth, Texas Wal-Mart
Steve Balmer, Paul Allen.......the list goes on because there are many liberal Internet billionaires and millionaires.
Besides the obvious that you missed the point about Newt LYING he's not wealthy, can you elaborate on "It's called Free Market. Without it America dies just like it is now because obama has put so many regulations on the private buisness sector. He's rich but he doesn't want the small buisness people to succeed."
There hasn't been any major regulation implemented yet. Talk is talk but he's not walking the walk. This crisis started before he came to office so something was broken BEFORE he became president. Furthermore, our growth, though slow, is much faster than most of the developed nations the past 2 years. And last, you don't think he wants small business people to succeed? Even though he wants to remove corporate tax loopholes for major corporations so that he can lower corporate rates? Even though he many of his tax breaks have been for small business?
I don't know where you get your 'facts', but I'm guessing it's initials are F.N.
You can lie to the morons but hell real people in this economy aren't going to buy what the Newt is selling . This is one of those moments when he will hit the ice berg and sink.
I'll be around. Where there's a rich white guy in need of another tax break, I'll be there. Wherever there's a brain dead woman in need of expensive life support her husband doesn't want, I'll be there. Wherever there's a country that needs invading for reasons that don't quite pan out, I'll be there.
And it seems you cant integrate any of them into your world view without feeling like you are betraying yourself.
If you dropped all notion of belonging to any party on Earth right now, and focused on what policies we will need in 50-100 years then the problem will evaporate.
Last time I checked, Michael Moore isn't in the race to earn the republican nomination. Your comment is irrelevant. As far dropping "all notion of belonging to any party," what the heck do you know about me and my affiliations? Jack s**t, but keep on assuming.
Americans could come together to discuss things as we are now, but the meme structure would have to be totally different.
It would require dissemination of huge amounts of information without the use of regular media outlets, as their message will ground the future dialogues back to their old paradigms.
This cannot happen until people see that everything can have a purpose through time, even the ugliest periods of history.
Tokyo fire bombings and the atomic bombs were tragic events, but you wouldnt know by looking at Japan now.
Humanities history is filled with these kind of events on all sides of every engagement.
You wont hear conservatives talk about it, because they are embarrassed the US used that kind of power for such deeds.
Liberals will only remark on the brutality, because they cannot see with clarity beyond their own hands.
I agree. All these labels do is serve to blind us and divide us. First and foremost, we are people. Secondly, we are all Americans. I don't care if you are a republican or democrat; if you have good ideas that will work, I am interested in hearing them, but don't assume that because someone is democrat that they somehow fit some arbitrary definition that exists only in your mind. I am sure that we could sit down and have a beer and find that we have a lot more in common than superficial labels, and the same would be true for most people out there. If we stood as Americans first and foremost, there is nothing we couldn't accomplish, but if we divide up into little groups who constantly bicker back and forth, we all lose.
I don't see the world in black and white and I surely don't operate under a two-valued logic of one or the other. I live in a world of dynamic possibility, not one of rigid absolutism.
"You wont hear conservatives talk about it, because they are embarrassed the US used that kind of power for such deeds.
Liberals will only remark on the brutality, because they cannot see with clarity beyond their own hands."
I don't agree with those kind of blanket statements. To say, "Well, he is liberal, and therefore...," or "Those conservatives, all they do is....," is not only biased but intellectually lazy. "As you think, so shall you be."
Hey, let's argue over how many oceans there are: some say four, others say five. Step back and look at the whole and there really is one global ocean; the boundaries are arbitrary. The same can be said for the way that people are divided by labels. We apply superficial divisions and miss the whole picture, and in this case, the majority of Americans are getting screwed over and over again, conservative and liberal alike.
This is akin to if Michael Jordan (6'6'') stood next to Yao Ming (7'6") and said, "I'm not tall." While factually true in that context, compared to the average man (5'9"), that would be a gross distortion of reality.
That's probably what Newt means, compared to the ultra wealthiest 0.01% he is not rich. But then again, that would be besides the point and it would be giving him the benefit of doubt that he doesn't deserve based on his past rhetoric.
all these politicians are a bunch of phonies. $6.5 is rich. If this guy retires and lives another 30 years without working he would have spent close to $1Million(rent, food, etc..) and not worry if he runs out of money. The average american will never see 6 million in their bank accounts or 100k for that matter. Rent is going up and up in almost every state, food and gas prices going up, health care insurance going up, etc.... people will be living pay check by pay check. In austin texas in thepast you would find a nice large apartment for $600 a month with utilities now if you look for the same thing you have to shell out $1200-$2000 a month. Same with new york city(queens, brooklyn, bronx) even though apartments here are dirty and a nasty dump. These politicians don't give a damn f**k about you they are too busy living in the moment for themselves.
There you have it, ladies and gents.... thats basically it in a nut (pun intended) shell..... vote for him if you want. This mofo is bats**t crazy like Michelle Bachman. mark my word.
No member of congress that serves more than one term will ever lack for money. They don't have to worry about where they're going to live, how they'll feed their families or how their children and grandchildren will pay for education.
Nope... Newt isn't rich. In his mind rich is $1,000,000,000,000... so I guess he isn't lying huh? That guy is pathological... Someone should come out and say "Newt is a LIAR". Would be interesting to have that come back at him.
By the standards of those who finance his politics?
Newt lives in a trailer and carries a brown paper bag to lunch.
True; Newt may be filthy rich in comparison to the average American;
- but Newt isn't thinking of the average working American.
In point of fact he thinks of the average working American
as often as you think about the bacteria in your lower intestine;
- and with the same sense of queasy distaste.
C'mon. Newt gave an honest answer. $6.4 million really isn't that much. That's about what the average worker needs to have in savings to retire at Age 55.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Wow. You really thing the average worker is able to save $6 million for retirement? Someone with a doctorate or professional degree might make 3 - 4 million in their lifetime. Someone making $25k a year won't even come close.
brucealmightyJan 8, 2012
Wow....that one big lie alone should be enough proof in itself that Newt does not have the integrity, intelligence and common sense to serve as our president.
aveterenJan 8, 2012
Obama, has an estimated net worth of $10.5 million dollars.
And guess were most of obama's money came from? The same place Gingrich's did. The sale of books he wrote. So what. This is America. That's what we do. Work and make money. Gingrich employees a lot of people. America was made great with people working. How many people do you employ?
It's called Free Market. So with obama being richer, $11.5 million, than gingrich, $6.7 million, does that mean obama has less "integrity, intelligence and common sense to serve as our president?
Remember in biased politics it is always tit-for-tat.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
razorsfuryJan 8, 2012
This is not about who is more rich. This is about Gingrich telling a bold face lie which he must believe the entire world is stupid enough to believe.
personmanJan 8, 2012
If Obama claimed that he wasn't rich, he'd be lying, too. But he hasn't claimed that. Gingrich said, "I'm not rich" and yet he is rich. Therefore, he is lying.
mbst2000Jan 8, 2012
aveteren,
Seriously why do you even bother? Why come back with a point so stupid, so irrelevant, so lacking in any basic understanding as to the point of this article?
You know, most of the time the only response you'll get from a Republican on this site is "hey, look over there!" If you have to deflect, you've lost the argument.
It's like this, Newt Gingrich told a lie, a lie that is easily proven by facts submitted by the man himself. Whether you find those lies offensive or not is open to your own interpretation. But he did not tell the truth in an attempt to curry favor with voters, so all the deflection in the world will not help, it just makes you look stupid, awfully, awfully stupid.
publiclurkerJan 9, 2012
To people like aveteren, any black person with money obviously stole it.
eraptorJan 8, 2012
I don't know who Newt thinks he's fooling with this lie. Tiffany's doesn't offer $500,000+ credit lines to people who AREN'T rich.
chilidogsJan 7, 2012
"This past summer, Gingrich had to file the financial-disclosure form required of presidential candidates. It revealed that he has a net worth of at least $6.7 million and that his income was at least $2.6 million in 2010. That's about 65 times the income of the average family of four in the United States. That puts him well into the top 1 percent (about $520,000 a year or more) and close to the top 0.1 percent. He, of course, had that $500,000-plus tab at Tiffany's, and weeks ago was boasting that he pulled in $60,000 a speech."
And not a single con will care about this absurd dishonesty.
bille3Jan 8, 2012
He does not hold a candle to Mr. Soros. But Newt is the bad guy.....
kaegroJan 8, 2012
Hey Glenn Beck, what does Soros have to do with anything?
bille3Jan 8, 2012
He owns Obama and the white house. Obama has been doing the bidding of Mr. Soros since the beginning.
Including funneling money to Mr. Soros international business interests. Do you recall the money given to Petrobras for their oil industry? Mr. Soros is a majority stock holder. Or the deployment of armed forces to Uganda to protect Mr. Soros oil company interests.
Mr. Soros is much closer to the oval office than Newt will ever be and Mr. Soros yields far more power than Newt could imagine.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Jan 8, 2012
"He owns Obama and the white house. Obama has been doing the bidding of Mr. Soros since the beginning."
The chief difference between someone like Soros & people like the Kochs, is that "Soros' bidding" isn't self-serving & counter-intuitive to majority benefit. You can bitch about the influence of wealth all you want, but overlooking the finer details like to whom that influence benefits is a failure on your part to fully understand the discussion.
daimposterJan 8, 2012
You made an EXCELLENT point, but conservatives don't care about facts.
It's sad that the conservative argument is always to try to paint progressives with the same brush, even when they are not the same. Ex: Progressives will say the Republican party discriminates against gay rights and use harsh rhetoric towards the gay community. Conservatives will counter that Democrats are the same because they don't all support gay marriage, as if both parties are equal in the treatment to gays.
MusicManGPJan 8, 2012
Soros isn't running for president and claiming he is not rich.
daimposterJan 8, 2012
Price of tea in China.
aveterenJan 8, 2012
As Paul Harvey used to say "and now for the rest of the story".
The 44th President of the United States, Obama, has an estimated net worth of $10.5 million dollars.
And guess were most of obama's money came from? The same place Gingrich's did. The sale of books he wrote. So what. This is America. That's what we do. Work and make money. Gingrich employees people. America was made great with people working. How many people do you employ?
It's called Free Market. Without it America dies just like it is now because obama has put so many regulations on the private buisness sector. He's rich but he doesn't want the small buisness people to succeed.
So with obama being richer, $11.5 million, than gingrich, $6.7 million, does that mean obama is a 1%'er????
I mean with your criteria chilidog then that means obama makes about 100 times more than the average family.
Remember in biased politics it is always tit-for-tat.
What gets me is that the liberal democrats are wealthier than republicans.
-Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $220.40 Million
-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $193.07 Million
-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $81.63 Million
-Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $76.30 Million
-Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $65.91 Million
-Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) $55.07 Million
-Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) $52.93* Million
-Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $45.39 Million
-Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $44.21 Million
and the great white champion of the poor and ethnic groups herself.........
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) $35.20 Million-- she's on a $350,000 Hawaiian vacation right now. I wonder if she took any of the poor or OWS'ers with her?...................Not
-Some of America’s wealthiest people back Barack Obama’s presidential bid and are pouring record sums into the Democratic Party and liberal organizations, some say it will reach a billion dollars.
the ultra-rich liberals.....affectionally know as the Obama Campaign Cash Cows.......
Bill Gates $59 B 55 Medina, Washington Microsoft
Larry Ellison $33 B 67 Woodside, California Oracle
Christy Walton $24.5 B 56 Jackson, Wyoming Wal-Mart
George Soros $22 B 81 Katonah, New York hedge funds
Sheldon Adelson $21.5 B 78 Las Vegas, Nevada casinos
Jim Walton $21.1 B 63 Bentonville, Arkansas Wal-Mart
Alice Walton $20.9 B 61 Fort Worth, Texas Wal-Mart
Steve Balmer, Paul Allen.......the list goes on because there are many liberal Internet billionaires and millionaires.
The richest men and women in the world are liberals.....1%'ersComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
MusicManGPJan 8, 2012
Who said liberals weren't rich? Which prominent liberal that is rich claimed not to be?
crunchdiggJan 8, 2012
but but but Al Gore has a big house and flies on airplanes!
brucealmightyJan 8, 2012
All that typing and you still missed the point entirely. It's not about wealth, it's about lying.
daimposterJan 9, 2012
Besides the obvious that you missed the point about Newt LYING he's not wealthy, can you elaborate on "It's called Free Market. Without it America dies just like it is now because obama has put so many regulations on the private buisness sector. He's rich but he doesn't want the small buisness people to succeed."
There hasn't been any major regulation implemented yet. Talk is talk but he's not walking the walk. This crisis started before he came to office so something was broken BEFORE he became president. Furthermore, our growth, though slow, is much faster than most of the developed nations the past 2 years. And last, you don't think he wants small business people to succeed? Even though he wants to remove corporate tax loopholes for major corporations so that he can lower corporate rates? Even though he many of his tax breaks have been for small business?
I don't know where you get your 'facts', but I'm guessing it's initials are F.N.
roofviewJan 8, 2012
You can lie to the morons but hell real people in this economy aren't going to buy what the Newt is selling . This is one of those moments when he will hit the ice berg and sink.
tcbishop12Jan 7, 2012
Oh, no, you're not rich, Newt. Doesn't everyone carry a $500,000 in debt on a "revolving charge account" with Tiffany's?
UncleRuckuJan 8, 2012
I'll be around. Where there's a rich white guy in need of another tax break, I'll be there. Wherever there's a brain dead woman in need of expensive life support her husband doesn't want, I'll be there. Wherever there's a country that needs invading for reasons that don't quite pan out, I'll be there.
Rush Limbaugh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o14yyJfOfhE
theswashbucklerJan 8, 2012
Sad thing is, he probably believes it. Which just goes to show out of touch with the American people he really is.
NeosopheusJan 8, 2012
He isn't rich compared to Bill Gates, but compared to the majority of Americans, he is indisputably rich.
tcbishop12Jan 7, 2012
The one thing all the Republican presidential candidates share in common? They all lie to you.
And not the ordinary white lies. No. It's pee on your face and tell you it's raining lies.
laborerJan 8, 2012
Michael Moore said the same thing. Hes filthy rich.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-26/politics/30323542_1_piers-morgan-michael-moore-worth-millions
Everybody on all sides lie.
Dont be so partisan, it does more to make 'you' look like 'them' than youd think.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
timelessbwJan 8, 2012
Is Michael Moore running for public office?
munionhunterJan 8, 2012
Hell no. There is an IQ test he couldn't pass.
letherialJan 8, 2012
I think its rather clear there is no need to pass any IQ test to run for office in the USA
bluenose2Jan 8, 2012Submitter
IQ test ? Even if was a requirement ,that only registers intelligence not whether they are smart.
delphium226Jan 8, 2012
@munionhunter
You just failed yours.
ljseinfeldJan 9, 2012
@munionhunter
Reagan made it... he was dumb as soup.
daimposterJan 8, 2012
Michael Moore is not a politician so what does 'partisan' have to do with this?
And Piers Morgan is a big tool. He's like a 10 year old doing interviews.
publikjohn9Jan 9, 2012
for a 10 y/o audience.
NeosopheusJan 8, 2012
What does Michael Moore have to do with anything? Your red herrings are absolutely hilarious.
laborerJan 8, 2012
Hilarious but true.
And it seems you cant integrate any of them into your world view without feeling like you are betraying yourself.
If you dropped all notion of belonging to any party on Earth right now, and focused on what policies we will need in 50-100 years then the problem will evaporate.
You will be able to sustain any facts, negative or positive, about any group.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
NeosopheusJan 8, 2012
Last time I checked, Michael Moore isn't in the race to earn the republican nomination. Your comment is irrelevant. As far dropping "all notion of belonging to any party," what the heck do you know about me and my affiliations? Jack s**t, but keep on assuming.
laborerJan 8, 2012
Its not just about this factoid.
It is the whole Republican vs Democrat, US conservative vs US liberal paradigm.
Its ridiculous.
==========
I do think if Americans wanted to, they could sidestep it all.
But it would require a world philosophy deep and complex.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laborerJan 8, 2012
Americans could come together to discuss things as we are now, but the meme structure would have to be totally different.
It would require dissemination of huge amounts of information without the use of regular media outlets, as their message will ground the future dialogues back to their old paradigms.
This cannot happen until people see that everything can have a purpose through time, even the ugliest periods of history.
Tokyo fire bombings and the atomic bombs were tragic events, but you wouldnt know by looking at Japan now.
Humanities history is filled with these kind of events on all sides of every engagement.
You wont hear conservatives talk about it, because they are embarrassed the US used that kind of power for such deeds.
Liberals will only remark on the brutality, because they cannot see with clarity beyond their own hands.
Maybe you see what I am saying. I hope so.
If not, that is ok too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
NeosopheusJan 8, 2012
I agree. All these labels do is serve to blind us and divide us. First and foremost, we are people. Secondly, we are all Americans. I don't care if you are a republican or democrat; if you have good ideas that will work, I am interested in hearing them, but don't assume that because someone is democrat that they somehow fit some arbitrary definition that exists only in your mind. I am sure that we could sit down and have a beer and find that we have a lot more in common than superficial labels, and the same would be true for most people out there. If we stood as Americans first and foremost, there is nothing we couldn't accomplish, but if we divide up into little groups who constantly bicker back and forth, we all lose.
I don't see the world in black and white and I surely don't operate under a two-valued logic of one or the other. I live in a world of dynamic possibility, not one of rigid absolutism.
NeosopheusJan 8, 2012
"You wont hear conservatives talk about it, because they are embarrassed the US used that kind of power for such deeds.
Liberals will only remark on the brutality, because they cannot see with clarity beyond their own hands."
I don't agree with those kind of blanket statements. To say, "Well, he is liberal, and therefore...," or "Those conservatives, all they do is....," is not only biased but intellectually lazy. "As you think, so shall you be."
Hey, let's argue over how many oceans there are: some say four, others say five. Step back and look at the whole and there really is one global ocean; the boundaries are arbitrary. The same can be said for the way that people are divided by labels. We apply superficial divisions and miss the whole picture, and in this case, the majority of Americans are getting screwed over and over again, conservative and liberal alike.
daimposterJan 9, 2012
WTF is wrong with Laborer?
NeosopheusJan 8, 2012
This is akin to if Michael Jordan (6'6'') stood next to Yao Ming (7'6") and said, "I'm not tall." While factually true in that context, compared to the average man (5'9"), that would be a gross distortion of reality.
daimposterJan 8, 2012
That's probably what Newt means, compared to the ultra wealthiest 0.01% he is not rich. But then again, that would be besides the point and it would be giving him the benefit of doubt that he doesn't deserve based on his past rhetoric.
dalexandruzJan 8, 2012
all these politicians are a bunch of phonies. $6.5 is rich. If this guy retires and lives another 30 years without working he would have spent close to $1Million(rent, food, etc..) and not worry if he runs out of money. The average american will never see 6 million in their bank accounts or 100k for that matter. Rent is going up and up in almost every state, food and gas prices going up, health care insurance going up, etc.... people will be living pay check by pay check. In austin texas in thepast you would find a nice large apartment for $600 a month with utilities now if you look for the same thing you have to shell out $1200-$2000 a month. Same with new york city(queens, brooklyn, bronx) even though apartments here are dirty and a nasty dump. These politicians don't give a damn f**k about you they are too busy living in the moment for themselves.
solitaireroseJan 8, 2012
The sad thing is that MOST people who make ginormous amounts of money and made it by exploiting people say they aren't rich. They even believe it.
linuxpersonJan 9, 2012
Serial hypocrite strikes again.
amnesia10Jan 8, 2012
He is not rich compared to Mitt Romney or many other politicians but compared to most people he is rich.
tamakerJan 8, 2012
There you have it, ladies and gents.... thats basically it in a nut (pun intended) shell..... vote for him if you want. This mofo is bats**t crazy like Michelle Bachman. mark my word.
jpurdyJan 8, 2012
No member of congress that serves more than one term will ever lack for money. They don't have to worry about where they're going to live, how they'll feed their families or how their children and grandchildren will pay for education.
miffelplixJan 9, 2012
And he made his $ not by honest graft, but by influence peddling.
kislingJan 8, 2012
He is tone-deaf.
glassagateJan 9, 2012
500K line at Tiffanies.....what? Not rich?
feverhostJan 9, 2012
Nope... Newt isn't rich. In his mind rich is $1,000,000,000,000... so I guess he isn't lying huh? That guy is pathological... Someone should come out and say "Newt is a LIAR". Would be interesting to have that come back at him.
gkiltzJan 9, 2012
He's not sane either, so what DOES he have going for him???
crymtyphonJan 9, 2012
Mr. Newt is correct.
By the standards of those who finance his politics?
Newt lives in a trailer and carries a brown paper bag to lunch.
True; Newt may be filthy rich in comparison to the average American;
- but Newt isn't thinking of the average working American.
In point of fact he thinks of the average working American
as often as you think about the bacteria in your lower intestine;
- and with the same sense of queasy distaste.
braininaboxJan 8, 2012
C'mon. Newt gave an honest answer. $6.4 million really isn't that much. That's about what the average worker needs to have in savings to retire at Age 55.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
markusfarkusJan 8, 2012
Wow. You really thing the average worker is able to save $6 million for retirement? Someone with a doctorate or professional degree might make 3 - 4 million in their lifetime. Someone making $25k a year won't even come close.
daimposterJan 8, 2012
The average lifetime earnings of someone 55 years of age is just a little over $1M. That's earnings --- so net worth would be MUCH LESS.
His $6.4M net worth is about 4x the lifetime EARNINGS of the average American. He made about a $1M in 2010 than most people make in their lifetime.
bille3Jan 8, 2012
As long as Mr. Soros owns liberal media outlets the left will defend him to their dying breath, even if Mr. Soros is behind it.
daimposterJan 8, 2012
Tea in China, idiot.
mbst2000Jan 8, 2012
Go sit at the kids table d**kh**d.