Reply
Sat 14 May, 2005 09:57 am
This years public disclosure forms are out. Did some research and here's the claimed worth of both men from 2000 - 2004:
Bush
2000 8 - 19 Million
2001 9 - 19 Million
2002 9 - 26 Million
2003 8.8 - 21.9 Million
2004 7.8 - 18.1 Million
Cheney
2000 20 - 69 Million
2001 23 - 70 Million
2002 22 - 103 Million
2003 19.1 - 86.4 Million
2004 16.6 - 75.5 Million
2002 appears to have been a good year for both of our leaders following 9/11 and as they promoted the invasion of Iraq, but both have now fallen well below their worth prior to taking office.
If they can take such a financial hit, why can't they imagine that perhaps the middle and lower classes might need a little financial assistance? Why would they consider this a good time to cut medicaid, housing assistance, food stamps and other programs?
And, since most of their money is in stocks/bonds/funds, do you think maybe that's a clue that personal accounts for investing social security might not be such a great idea?
Re: Even Bush /Cheney Worse Off Under Their Own Administrati
squinney wrote:
2002 appears to have been a good year for both of our leaders following 9/11 and as they promoted the invasion of Iraq, but both have now fallen well below their worth prior to taking office.
If they can take such a financial hit, why can't they imagine that perhaps the middle and lower classes might need a little financial assistance? Why would they consider this a good time to cut medicaid, housing assistance, food stamps and other programs?
And, since most of their money is in stocks/bonds/funds, do you think maybe that's a clue that personal accounts for investing social security might not be such a great idea?
They lost money. They want to make it back. Perfect time to cut their own taxes. No imagination needed. Just plain ole selfish greed.
I'd like to help - is there somewhere I can send a few bucks?
Where did you find the numbers Squinney? I'm tired of searching and hope you saved your research
Well, if they're so corrupt, and liars, and nothing is beneath them, and all that, why aren't they getting rich from their positions of influence?
Brandon9000 wrote:Well, if they're so corrupt, and liars, and nothing is beneath them, and all that, why aren't they getting rich from their positions of influence?
That was going to be my question.
I already know what they are going to say.
Bush is to stupid to make more money.
If he ahd made more money they would have said "See he is a crook and a thief. While millions of americans go hungry and can't pay the bills he is making more. See we told you he was only in it for the rich."
Does that about cover what will be or could have been said?
Quote:Does that about cover what will be or could have been said?
You forgot the obligatory big oil/Haliburton references.
Quote:Bush
2000 8 - 19 Million
2001 9 - 19 Million
2002 9 - 26 Million
2003 8.8 - 21.9 Million
2004 7.8 - 18.1 Million
Cheney
2000 20 - 69 Million
2001 23 - 70 Million
2002 22 - 103 Million
2003 19.1 - 86.4 Million
2004 16.6 - 75.5 Million
I'd say that isn't bad for a cowboy and a hick from Wyoming.
Hah! A million a schmillion. Show me some real money. It's obvious these blokes aren't all that rich yet. I feel for them.
Brandon9000 wrote:Well, if they're so corrupt, and liars, and nothing is beneath them, and all that, why aren't they getting rich from their positions of influence?
Lousy financial advisers?
goodfielder wrote:Hah! A million a schmillion. Show me some real money. It's obvious these blokes aren't all that rich yet. I feel for them.
True...no way can that small amount stack up to Kennedy money...earned in such an honest upstanding way.
goodfielder wrote:tommrr wrote:goodfielder wrote:Hah! A million a schmillion. Show me some real money. It's obvious these blokes aren't all that rich yet. I feel for them.
True...no way can that small amount stack up to Kennedy money...earned in such an honest upstanding way.
No argument here
But the fact is that if they were big time crooks as is often alleged by the far left, their money wouldn't be just sitting there and even decreasing a bit. They would be peddling influence, etc.
The Disclosures are made public each Spring for the previous year. The most recent report states the 2004 and 2003 figures.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a9S7ITPxnGMU&refer=us
Had to dig more for the ones further back. Was going to post sources but ended up with 6, so didn't. You can Google "Bush Cheney Disclosure Form."
Brandon9000 wrote:goodfielder wrote:tommrr wrote:goodfielder wrote:Hah! A million a schmillion. Show me some real money. It's obvious these blokes aren't all that rich yet. I feel for them.
True...no way can that small amount stack up to Kennedy money...earned in such an honest upstanding way.
No argument here
But the fact is that if they were big time crooks as is often alleged by the far left, their money wouldn't be just sitting there and even decreasing a bit. They would be peddling influence, etc.
Payoff waiting in the wings :wink:
They are given such a broad range for reporting that we really don't know if it's fluctuated at all. Bush may have had gained 2M for each of the past 5 years for all we know from the figures. Just curious that they would report what appears to be losses at the same time they are pushing to put SS funds in the market - the same place these losses would have occurred for them.
Thanks...did a couplef of searches,but came up empty. Was time challenged, so figured the easy way was to ask you. Thanks again.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace