Comments on: Average Assets of Americans Compared to Presidential Candidates

By: Don’t hate Edwards because he’s rich

Don’t hate Edwards because he’s rich — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:11:57 +0000

[...] about the plight of the working poor and Edwards is not the richest man in the field. In fact, here’s some interesting figures on their net [...]

By: Non Partisan

Non Partisan — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:54:59 +0000

Bob has a point, wife’s assets are generally not included, but should be. The above chart appears to include McCain’s wife’s assets, but not Obama’s, and the small print is admitting its Obama figures are not up to date. Considering that Michelle Obama was an executive who managed a major corporate contract to supply Walmart with food, then I would have to guess that her assets weren’t zero, they were probably higher than Barack’s. I still think the chart would fall in the Preaident’s favor, with somewhere just over ten million, but not nearly as “man of the people” as the chart is attempting to show.

Also, the connections to people with money are potentially more important. Anyone who is a member of the CFR and already has three directors of the FED on speed dial is not a man of the people, they are already a member of the ruling elite. Just winging it, I’d say that John Edwards probably had the most in common with the rest of us, and Hillary Clinton had the least.

Oh, this works in the other direction as well: Mitt Romney who is shown here as about twice as rich is actually far far richer, because of the assets he has access to through Bain Capital, which includes access to those of eBay.com, and I believe at the time of the campaign also included control of Dell Computer.

There aren’t going to be any actual men of the people, ever. If there were, the ruling elite would destroy them.

By: alec

alec — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:52:26 +0000

Winston: Yes, sorry. ‘The Fed said the net worth of the median American family — the one smack in the statistical middle — was $93,100 in 2004. Net worth, the difference between a family’s assets and liabilities, rose a robust 10.3% between 1998 and 2001 and 17.4% in the three-year interval before that.’

By: umlando

umlando — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:48:49 +0000

Isn’t the point that they’re really stinkin’ out of touch? Even the populist Edwards is drifting off from his daily realization that America is economically bifurcated into the la-la land of private jets and corporate boardrooms.

My family’s income is comfortable – therefore I have to make an effort to see things from poorer people’s point of view. But what can any of these people do to understand people closer to the income median, or below it? How can they relate, and in relating, make policies to help us?

FDR is a good example of such a transcendence of personal finances. I’m pretty sure that the voting records of these candidates don’t bode well for populism. And Gov. Huckabee, conspicuously absent from this list, wants a regressive soak-the-poor sales tax to replace income taxes.

By: Winston Seagoon

Winston Seagoon — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:05:22 +0000

I believe the figure you’re quoting for the Average American Household is actually the “Median” American Household. A minor mistake to all but a statistician, but the spirit of the message is the same.

By: MAJeff

MAJeff — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:22:32 +0000

With his win last night in Michigan, hopefully Willard will stay in longer, keep spending, and watch that tall bar shrink.

By: Hal

Hal — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:10:03 +0000

I doubt many Presidents have been poor or even average in wealth. What was Harry Truman worth? Perhaps less than most. Nixon may have been only modestly wealthy, at least when he became President. Reagan wasn’t poor by any means, nor Jimmy Carter. Clinton again not really rich but certainly comfortable. Some excellent Presidents have been quite rich: Roosevelt for one (though his mother held the purse string, I gather). The more important issue for Democrats for sure is race. It might just split the party enough so that a Republican wins again. Unthinkable, but possible.

By: gmanedit

gmanedit — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:19:36 +0000

Michael Bloomberg, for some reason floating the idea of a run, has $11 billion.

By: alec

alec — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:43:22 +0000

Ah thanks, good catch!

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:20:31 +0000

“Note: Personal assets of presidential candidates do not include the assets of their spouses. Most notably, income for the McCain’s and Clinton’s is much higher when their spouses are factored in.”

—

In this comment you are using the terms “assets” and “income” interchangeably. They are not the same. I think you meant to say “assets” (not “income”) in your last sentence.