Democrats Richer Than Romney

Pages: 1 2

Democrats who have been a bit too obscenely eager to damn Mitt Romney as Mr. Moneybags may want to reconsider. The media has spent a great deal of time touting the claim that Romney would be the richest president in half a century. But Romney’s net worth of approximately 200 million dollars would not even make him the richest senator. Senators Kohl, Warner and Kerry all beat out Romney in the wealth sweepstakes. And they’re all Democrats. For all the news stories about his wealth, if Romney ran for Congress, he wouldn’t even make it as the wealthiest member of the House of Representatives.

If the Democrats really believe that wealth is a disqualification for public office, why do they keep selecting some of the wealthiest senators in the country? If Romney wins then he may become the wealthiest president in half a century, but if Kerry had won the honor would have gone to him.

The combined net worth of Obama and his cabinet in 2010 was around 150 million dollars. Slate Magazine sneeringly put up a calculator offering readers a chance to see how long it would take Mitt Romney to make the same amount of money that they did. The annual income figure that Slate used for Romney was 21.6 million dollars. Obama’s tax return showed him earning 5.5 million dollars. Romney’s annuals weren’t that much more than the 16 million that the Clintons took him in one year as part of the over 100 million dollars they amassed since Bill left office. There were no Slate calculators to let people figure out how long it would take Obama or Clinton to earn what they made in one year.

There’s something ridiculous about pretending that 21 million a year is a lot of money, but 5.5 million is a modest income. To most Americans both figures represent a lot more than they make. But then few presidents leave the Oval Office as paupers anyway. Ulysses S. Grant might have gone so badly into debt that he was reduced to poverty, but that’s uncommon today when former presidents have any number of lucrative moneymaking options.

Clinton has a higher net worth than George W. Bush does and every Democratic President has been or ended up wealthier than his Republican predecessor, except Carter who tied Ford. And their wealth is relative. Romney isn’t anywhere in the range of political billionaires like Bloomberg or Meg Whitman who can sink tens of millions of dollars into an election. To put those numbers into context, Bloomberg and Whitman combined spent nearly all of Romney’s net worth on trying to win just two elections.

But the net worth and the political clout of their wealth pale next to George Soros who along with the billionaires of the Shadow Party funded the rise to power of the Democratic Party and its takeover by the left. Soros’ Open Society Institute spends between 400 and 500 million dollars annually. That’s twice Romney’s net worth in a single year being tossed around by the godfather of the Democratic Party

Democrats hoping to use sheer numbers as a talking point may find that those numbers go places they don’t expect and asking the public to adjudicate between millionaires playing class warfare will earn them a shrug and a grunt. The real numbers to be worried about are even bigger than Obama’s millions or Romney’s millions or even Soros’ billions that power the Democratic Party. They are the trillions of dollars in national debt amassed by a class warfare administration that refuses to contemplate spending cuts for anything but the military. And that debt is the monkey on the back of generations living and yet unborn. It’s an anchor around the United States economy and a ticking time bomb waiting to blow up whatever prosperity and stability is achieved this decade.

The federal government spends over 20 billion dollars per work day. Romney’s entire net worth isn’t even 1 percent of the money spent by the federal government in a single day. A higher tax rate for Romney would be no more than a snowflake in the avalanche of federal spending.

If we were to confiscate Romney’s entire fortune, what would that buy us?

Pages: 1 2

  • Amused

    Once the assets of our supposed politicians , Democrat AND Republican alike , surpassesd about 5 million or so , the figures of who's got more become irrelevant . Truly the assets of that demonized 99% will never see such assets or anything close .And now with the recent Supreme Court Ruling , that " corporations are people too " , personal and corporate super pacs are multiplying tyo the point of affecting the very choices for candidates ,Santorum being the most obvious recipient of these .Perhaps EXXON will ultimately choose the next Republican nominee .

    • Grantmann

      That may happen, but it would be following SEIU choosing this current president. I don't see much difference. Except with Exxon we might get lower gas prices with drilling being reactivated and pipelines being built.

    • mrbean

      Better than the Nazi-Communist collaborator George Soros choosing the previous Democrat nominee – you know the clandestine Muslim Marxist racist and cluseless empty suit that occupies the oval office now. Santorum might make a damned good president – at least he respects and follows the US Constitution.

      • bill

        look up the bushs ties to nazi germany n hitler. prescot bush was a financier of hitlwr.

  • Brujo Blanco

    In have always had an aversion to taking advice from a wealthy socialist. These people have received what they have from some capitalist venture. When they talk about sharing the wealth they do not believe it means their wealth. Every communist country has had elites that had a standard of living far greater than the regular people. Do the American Communists/socialists/marxists/democrats believe that they will be among the elites when their commie dreams come true. It is apparent that Obama believes he is the top elitist. Consider how his wife spends our money on her many vacations.

  • NotaBene

    Nice trick of comparing the Obama cabinet's NET WORTH to Romney's ANNUAL INCOME. The two are comletely different. Net worth measures all assets minus liabilities and so is almost always going to be higher than income.

    Romney's net worth is upwards of $300 million, so the whole comparison works against you.

    BrujoBlanco, just as you don't trust a wealthy socialist, i don't trust a conservative who has ever collected social security, filed for unemployment, called the fire department, or ridden the subway.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Actually I compared Romney's net worth to the net worth of Obama's cabinet.

      • NotaBene

        You mentioned Romney's net worth several paragraphs away from where you mentioned the Obama cabinet and Romney's income; the better to make a connection between the two. I suppose it's possible that you weren't being intentionally dishonest but that you're simply a a terrible writer. And that's not even mentioning how silly it is to compare the income of over a dozen people with just one.

        If your point was that politics has become a rich man's game, you'd at least have something to say. As it is you only wanted to slander Democrats and you can't even do that right.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          But Romney’s net worth of approximately 200 million dollars would not even make him the richest senator. Senators Kohl, Warner and Kerry all beat out Romney in the wealth sweepstakes. And they’re all Democrats. For all the news stories about his wealth, if Romney ran for Congress, he wouldn’t even make it as the wealthiest member of the House of Representatives.

          If the Democrats really believe that wealth is a disqualification for public office, why do they keep selecting some of the wealthiest senators in the country? If Romney wins then he may become the wealthiest president in half a century, but if Kerry had won the honor would have gone to him.

          The combined net worth of Obama and his cabinet in 2010 was around 150 million dollars.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That's the context.

          • poppakap

            …context indeed.

            Mr. Greenfield, I guess the evidence before us shows once again that regardless of the proof, leftists are simply incapable of self-criticism or recognizing hypocrisy.

            Thanks for an illuminating article.

    • LibRep

      NotaBene – You wouldn't trust anyone who stood on their own and never relied on society/ government for anything? You sure as hell wouldn't have survived in the 19th century then.

  • mrbean

    John Kerry was a two time giggilo who married into money the first time around and married into moey the 2nd time around, and by the way, while still a reserve Naval Officer in 1970 and again in 1971, he arranged for and attended secret meetings with the NVA and VC communists in Paris, and for this he should have never been allowed to hold a public office or even vote. He is a dishonoravley discharged waste.