I Had No Idea...

whodunit · #1 01/19/12, 02:29 AM

...George Washington was so rich or at the very least that he was this rich; according to the Atlantic Monthly, $525 million in today's dollars.

The Kennedys as a family beat him, though, being worth over $1 billion.

So basically Romney is 1) not the first rich guy to run for president and 2) only half as rich as Washington and 1/4 as rich as the Kennedy family.

JJ Grandits · #2 01/19/12, 03:25 AM

Does'nt matter. Liberal spin will turn him into "Mr. Bill on the hill" while Obama and all the other Democrats are simple working folks trying to get a fair shake.

**Shrek** · #3 01/19/12, 04:22 AM

The book America Inc. had very interesting finacial data of this nations POTUS since Washington.

Tricky Grama · #4 01/19/12, 07:12 AM

Sorry I don't have the link, y'all can yell liarliarpantsonfire but read that "Ds" are more wealthy than "Rs". Contrary to what "Ds" would have ya believe.

Wayne02 · #5 01/19/12, 09:43 AM

I like rich people.

chickenmommy · #6 01/19/12, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne02

I like rich people.

I wish I were one.

beowoulf90 · #7 01/19/12, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne02

I like rich people.

Yea met too!

I'm still waiting (after over 50 years) for one of the rich to adopt me or at least put me in their will...

I even discussed divorcing the DW (of over 32 years) and marrying a rich widow.. But then I decided, I don't think I can live in a nursing home...

I'm leaving now.. Don't bother getting up...

MO_cows · #8 01/19/12, 11:56 AM

Interesting! I remember one of Paul Harvey's "rest of the story" broadcasts about a man who was behind on his property taxes and in danger of losing his land, his farm was non-productive and in a shambles because he had been away at war, he was just about flat broke and had to borrow money from friends to pay the taxes and acquire a suit before he went away to start a "new job". According to PH, this was George Washington. So his fortunes improved considerably once he became President if both sources are correct.

KnowOneSpecial · #9 01/19/12, 12:03 PM

Up until Lincoln most of our Presidents have been toward the upper end of the pay scale. Most of them came from 'old money', too.

In the Obama vs. Romney fight....I think Obama being the son of a single Mom started out a tad poorer than the son of the guy who ran GM. Of course this year Romney is living off of investments and Obama is working a job that pays just $330,000. Even with investments I'm willing to bet that Romney still made more this year.

Not bad for being unemployed.

Ken Scharabok · #10 01/19/12, 12:04 PM

George Washington acquired his monies initally by being a surveyor on the KY frontier. Law said an invididual could claim something like 10,000 acres in a new survey. He found ways to put many blocks of such under his name.

Of course, at Mt. Vernon he also was profitable, perhaps due to extremely low-cost labor.

As I recall, Martha Washington also had some family monies.

emdeengee · #11 01/19/12, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Grandits

Does'nt matter. Liberal spin will turn him into "Mr. Bill on the hill" while Obama and all the other Democrats are simple working folks trying to get a fair shake.

Except that right now it is his fellow Republicans who are painting him as the super rich guy who has not got a clue what it means to be middle class. They are the ones coming out with all the corporate raider, vulture capitalist and Caymen Island tax evasion stories - not the Dems.

Wanderer0101 · #12 01/19/12, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnowOneSpecial

In the Obama vs. Romney fight....I think Obama being the son of a single Mom started out a tad poorer than the son of the guy who ran GM.

Obama was mostly raised by his grandparents who were quite well off. So was his father for that matter, and his step-father was in a pretty good financial state as well. Any idea of Obama growing up in poverty is just propaganda.

Tracy Rimmer · #13 01/19/12, 01:12 PM

Traditionally, those who got into politics were the highly educated (lawyers, etc.), and you didn't get that kind of education unless you came from money.

Things have changed since WWII, but before that, it was very much a "rich man's game".

Now, educational opportunities mean that people who come from modest backgrounds can still acquire the education that used to be exclusive to the rich, but one still needs connections and backing -- still normally sourced from business contacts and family connections. It's more POSSIBLE for someone of modest financial means to rise in politics, but still not PROBABLE.

Those who talk about their "modest" childhood or "poor" upbringing, well, that's spin more often than not, and perspective. "Poor" is as subjective a term as "rich".

whodunit · #14 01/19/12, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Scharabok

George Washington acquired his monies initally by being a surveyor on the KY frontier. Law said an invididual could claim something like 10,000 acres in a new survey. He found ways to put many blocks of such under his name.

I think I read that in a biography of John Adams. Seems like Washington had vast acreages all over the then U.S. and spent much time traveling between them and trying to make them produce.

Yvonne's hubby · #15 01/19/12, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO_cows

Interesting! I remember one of Paul Harvey's "rest of the story" broadcasts about a man who was behind on his property taxes and in danger of losing his land, his farm was non-productive and in a shambles because he had been away at war, he was just about flat broke and had to borrow money from friends to pay the taxes and acquire a suit before he went away to start a "new job". According to PH, this was George Washington. So his fortunes improved considerably once he became President if both sources are correct.

I think what a lot of folks dont understand is that most wealthy people dont have a lot of money.... they tend to spend the bulk of their money on assets. This can leave one in awkward positions when they go off to war for several years and spend their ready cash in the process. It doesnt mean they are not still wealthy, due to their accumulated assets, it just means they sometimes have to borrow some cash to pay their taxes.

whodunit · #16 01/19/12, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby

I think what a lot of folks dont understand is that most wealthy people dont have a lot of money.... they tend to spend the bulk of their money on assets. This can leave one in awkward positions when they go off to war for several years and spend their ready cash in the process. It doesnt mean they are not still wealthy, due to their accumulated assets, it just means they sometimes have to borrow some cash to pay their taxes.

The information I got was from a Bill O'Reilly Talking Points. It had sources but I don't recall them all. Apparently JFK lived entirely on his trust fund.

I do find it interesting that the media is exploring Romney's wealth and never said a peep about President Obama's. Romney had a rich father (who apparently started in poverty), but wasn't there something about Obama having a rich benefactor pay his way through college? Did anyone ever figure out what that was all about? This is more dubious IMHO.

SquashNut · #17 01/19/12, 02:44 PM

If you do enough research you'll find the D's are the richest. You'll also find many of them got that way by investing using shorts and insider trading.
Essencially bidding agaist the United States.

plowjockey · #18 01/19/12, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emdeengee

Except that right now it is his fellow Republicans who are painting him as the super rich guy who has not got a clue what it means to be middle class. They are the ones coming out with all the corporate raider, vulture capitalist and Caymen Island tax evasion stories - not the Dems.

The Republicans are handing Obama, a wonderful gift.

They don't have a clue, to what "United we stand - divided we fall" means for the upcoming election.

The Dems will use every last second of video footage, of this GOP food-fight, to discredit whoever gets the nod.

JuliaAnn · #19 01/19/12, 04:49 PM

Washington had some money, but married very well, Martha being quite a wealthy catch. Washington's first surveying trip was along the Ohio river, north of Kentucky, although he did surveying work in that general area.

As far as I have read, having read many biographies about Washington, his estate was not in a shambles, as his cousin Lund was general caretaker of Mt. Vernon and it's estate while General Washington was away. There is much correspondance extant between General Washington and Lund outlining things the general wanted Lund to do for him in regard to the estate.

The labor costs of Washington keeping slaves was not low, at least by the standards of that day. Washington himself made a comment at one point that it was going to bankrupt him because he was keeping a "home for the aged" for slaves. Toward the end of his life, Washington kept fewer and fewer slaves due to the cost, and as a result the remaining slaves aged. Washington continued to provide for them instead of just turning them out, as many did at that time.

blufford · #20 01/21/12, 06:38 PM

[QUOTE=JuliaAnn;5644404]Washington had some money, but married very well, Martha being quite a wealthy catch. Washington's first surveying trip was along the Ohio river, north of Kentucky, although he did surveying work in that general area.

As far as I have read, having read many biographies about Washington, his estate was not in a shambles, as his cousin Lund was general caretaker of Mt. Vernon and it's estate while General Washington was away. There is much correspondance extant between General Washington and Lund outlining things the general wanted Lund to do for him in regard to the estate.

The labor costs of Washington keeping slaves was not low, at least by the standards of that day. Washington himself made a comment at one point that it was going to bankrupt him because he was keeping a "home for the aged" for slaves. Toward the end of his life, Washington kept fewer and fewer slaves due to the cost, and as a result the remaining slaves aged. Washington continued to provide for them instead of just turning them out, as many did at that time.[/QUOTE]

Well there's good slave holders and then there's bad white honky slave masters.....