Hybrid AT 78 Posted August 15, 2019 Share Posted August 15, 2019 Top tier candidates (in order of highest to lowest net worth) ELIZABETH WARREN Net worth: $12 million Financial transparency score: 4/5 Money raised: $36 million Teachers aren’t paid so poorly after all—at least not Harvard professors. Warren and her husband, Bruce Mann, both longtime instructors at the university, have built up a small fortune through years of teaching, writing and consulting. Their largest holdings include TIAA and CREF accounts—available to educators and nonprofit employees—worth more than $4 million. One of their best investments has been their home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, purchased in 1995 for $447,000. It’s now worth an estimated $3 million. JOE BIDEN Net worth: $9 million Financial transparency score: 4/5 Money raised: $22 million “Middle-class Joe” is now solidly upper class. The former vice president and his wife, Jill, earned more than $15 million in the two years after they left the White House, cashing in on a multi-book deal with publisher Flatiron. In 2017, they dropped $2.7 million on a 4,800-square-foot pad in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. The next year, they paid off a mortgage on their other home, in Wilmington, Delaware. KAMALA HARRIS Net worth: $6 million Financial transparency score: 4/5 Money raised: $25 million Senator Harris married lawyer Douglas Emhoff in 2014, creating a California power couple. She brought the clout, and he brought the money. Since then, they have raked in $8.2 million—most of it from Emhoff’s work at law firms Venable and DLA Piper. The couple owns homes in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, worth a combined $5.8 million before debt. BERNIE SANDERS Net worth: $2.5 million Financial transparency score: 4/5 Money raised: $46 million Turns out, the socialist senator is a pretty successful capitalist. After running for president in 2016, Sanders inked three lucrative book deals that have brought him more than $2 million so far, catapulting him into the 1%. Since the 2016 election, he has shelled out $575,000 for a northern Vermont summer home and paid off a 30-year mortgage on his Burlington, Vermont, house—25 years early. PETE BUTTIGIEG Net worth: $100,000 Financial transparency score: 4/5 Money raised: $32 million Mayor Pete has enough money to live comfortably in the Midwest, but he’s still the poorest 2020 contender. Chalk that up to his age (at 37, he’s the youngest candidate), student loan debt and his decision to give up a lucrative McKinsey job to run for treasurer of his home state of Indiana in 2010. He lost but got a six-figure gig as mayor of South Bend two years later. Still, he and his husband, Chasten, a former teacher, disclosed between $100,000 and $230,000 in student loans. Hmm... Now I wonder why people who are quick to make threads about unnecessary purity tests and "billionaire donors" who can donate as much as everyone else in an election campaign don't make threads about this 🤔🤔 This automatically makes Pete a pretty qualified candidate to understand middle-class issues and be a strong representative, since he's been through it and still dabbles with low income and high student debt. What would it take for people to understand that facts matter, baseless conspiracy theories that fit their narratives don't. "I was protected by the monks of Azarath, I was raised by my friends. They are my family, this is my home and you are not welcome here." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,834 Posted August 15, 2019 Share Posted August 15, 2019 Interesting how so mamy Presidential candidates have so much money Here in Canada most party leaders that run for Prime Minister are only upper middle class Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphine Prince 109,645 Posted August 15, 2019 Share Posted August 15, 2019 Bernie is the poorest millionaire of the top candidates YES KING! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melech 9,900 Posted August 15, 2019 Share Posted August 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, Economy said: Prime Minister are only upper middle class I think it’s like that for many countries. I don’t believe merkel is a multi-Millionaire Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hybrid AT 78 Posted August 15, 2019 Author Share Posted August 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, Economy said: Interesting how so mamy Presidential candidates have so much money Here in Canada most party leaders that run for Prime Minister are only upper middle class That's the clownery of the American elections. "I was protected by the monks of Azarath, I was raised by my friends. They are my family, this is my home and you are not welcome here." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weed 78,870 Posted August 15, 2019 Share Posted August 15, 2019 I didn't know Pete had a husband! Come thru first Gentleman/Man of the white house! but still Bernie slays me, he is so legit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hybrid AT 78 Posted August 15, 2019 Author Share Posted August 15, 2019 1 minute ago, neptugne said: I didn't know Pete had a husband! Come thru first Gentleman/Man of the white house! but still Bernie slays me, he is so legit Wait you didn't know he was gay and married "I was protected by the monks of Azarath, I was raised by my friends. They are my family, this is my home and you are not welcome here." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauvais 0 Posted August 15, 2019 Share Posted August 15, 2019 🕊️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,834 Posted August 15, 2019 Share Posted August 15, 2019 14 minutes ago, HybridAT said: That's the clownery of the American elections. I'm not saying I have an issue with a rich person running in itself... But when disproportionately such a high fraction of runners are wealthy, it shows it's not a level playing field... People being rich shouldn't give them more power in politics Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hybrid AT 78 Posted August 15, 2019 Author Share Posted August 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, Economy said: I'm not saying I have an issue with a rich person running in itself... But when disproportionately such a high fraction of runners are wealthy, it shows it's not a level playing field... People being rich shouldn't give them more power in politics Tom Steyer is a billionaire who is polling zero everywhere yet bought donors to cross the donor threshold and is spending $100 million on ads to get him to qualify for September debates. Proves your last point. "I was protected by the monks of Azarath, I was raised by my friends. They are my family, this is my home and you are not welcome here." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill 31,812 Posted August 15, 2019 Share Posted August 15, 2019 29 minutes ago, HybridAT said: This automatically makes Pete a pretty qualified candidate to understand middle-class issues and be a strong representative Being rich doesn't automatically make you not understand middle-class struggles. The vast majority of these candidates are also enjoying a fortune they made through hard work, and are promoting ideals that would share that fortune with those in need. Also, net worth accounts not only for cash they can spend right now, but from properties or loans or anything else that's financial, including things they inherited. If we go by the logic of "elect the poorest", then we should elect a person dying because they can't afford to eat. They would understand the struggle, yes, but would they be good politicians? In the majority of cases, no. Also, as for Elizabeth Warren for example, she is paid to do her job, and since she is in politics since a long time ago, she obviously accumulated a small fortune. Does that small fortune mean she would not be a good president? Hell no, it only means she's rich. And, comparing her net worth to that of Donald Trump for example, or the billionaires (not including Trump because he's not one lol) who are constantly harassing both Warren and Sanders, and other candidates like them, their fortunes are NOTHING. The fact that they are willing to reform the system in order to prevent people from starving to death or dying from a preventable disease just because they don't have money proves their wealth is not a factor that should be taken into account for choosing someone as president. If Trump, for example, had a net worth of $1.000, would you vote for him since he "understands middle-class struggles"? Former First Lady of the United States. Now card-carrying member of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 52,834 Posted August 15, 2019 Share Posted August 15, 2019 Just now, Lionel Hutz said: Being rich doesn't automatically make you not understand middle-class struggles. The vast majority of these candidates are also enjoying a fortune they made through hard work, and are promoting ideals that would share that fortune with those in need. Also, net worth accounts not only for cash they can spend right now, but from properties or loans or anything else that's financial, including things they inherited. If we go by the logic of "elect the poorest", then we should elect a person dying because they can't afford to eat. They would understand the struggle, yes, but would they be good politicians? In the majority of cases, no. Also, as for Elizabeth Warren for example, she is paid to do her job, and since she is in politics since a long time ago, she obviously accumulated a small fortune. Does that small fortune mean she would not be a good president? Hell no, it only means she's rich. And, comparing her net worth to that of Donald Trump for example, or the billionaires (not including Trump because he's not one lol) who are constantly harassing both Warren and Sanders, and other candidates like them, their fortunes are NOTHING. The fact that they are willing to reform the system in order to prevent people from starving to death or dying from a preventable disease just because they don't have money proves their wealth is not a factor that should be taken into account for choosing someone as president. If Trump, for example, had a net worth of $1.000, would you vote for him since he "understands middle-class struggles"? Yeah. Not every wealthy person was always so Those who inherit a lot of wealth and are given a lush life on a silver platter (like Donald Trump), those ppl are incapable of understanding middle class issues But even those who weren't always wealthy it depends on what their road was like... Working hard does not always guarantee success and life can be really unfair If they did not face very significant hurdles in their efforts to success and did not go thru what many go thru, even those wouldn't know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ward 9,613 Posted August 15, 2019 Share Posted August 15, 2019 It says Peter Buttigieg is only worth $10,000 in the tweet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supersonic 49,376 Posted August 15, 2019 Share Posted August 15, 2019 16 minutes ago, Economy said: Interesting how so mamy Presidential candidates have so much money Here in Canada most party leaders that run for Prime Minister are only upper middle class 14 minutes ago, Melech said: I think it’s like that for many countries. I don’t believe merkel is a multi-Millionaire Depends on how you define "upper middle class". According to a study that was published in Germany this week, Germans with a yearly income of more than 41,240€ (before taxes) earn more than 90% of the rest of the population and therefore belong to the upper class. Also upper class citizens are typically ashamed of being rich and refuse to describe themselves as such, often associating themselves with the upper middle class. I'm pretty sure that's not just a strictly German phenomenon. Prior to being politically active, Merkel worked as a university professor, as the chancellor of Germany she earns around 350,000€ per year and her net worth is estimated to be above 3,500,000€. She's definitely upper class, and I'm pretty sure the rest of the German government can be considered part of the upper class as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hybrid AT 78 Posted August 15, 2019 Author Share Posted August 15, 2019 40 minutes ago, Lionel Hutz said: Being rich doesn't automatically make you not understand middle-class struggles. The vast majority of these candidates are also enjoying a fortune they made through hard work, and are promoting ideals that would share that fortune with those in need. Also, net worth accounts not only for cash they can spend right now, but from properties or loans or anything else that's financial, including things they inherited. If we go by the logic of "elect the poorest", then we should elect a person dying because they can't afford to eat. They would understand the struggle, yes, but would they be good politicians? In the majority of cases, no. Also, as for Elizabeth Warren for example, she is paid to do her job, and since she is in politics since a long time ago, she obviously accumulated a small fortune. Does that small fortune mean she would not be a good president? Hell no, it only means she's rich. And, comparing her net worth to that of Donald Trump for example, or the billionaires (not including Trump because he's not one lol) who are constantly harassing both Warren and Sanders, and other candidates like them, their fortunes are NOTHING. The fact that they are willing to reform the system in order to prevent people from starving to death or dying from a preventable disease just because they don't have money proves their wealth is not a factor that should be taken into account for choosing someone as president. If Trump, for example, had a net worth of $1.000, would you vote for him since he "understands middle-class struggles"? Maybe you misread it. My only point is people need to stop throwing the "elitist candidate" at him since this disproves that. That needs to be thrown out already. I'm not interested in arguing with anyone about who is a better candidate than others. I support Pete for my own reasons, I've followed his campaign blow-by-blow, listened to his long form interviews and speeches and know exactly who he is, nothing is going to deter my support for him. I'm just saying Pete is equally qualified to have a seat on the table because he's in that position currently and is thus obvious that he understands the core of these issues, as much as these proponents of the middle class issues even though they are pretty rich themselves. Period. "I was protected by the monks of Azarath, I was raised by my friends. They are my family, this is my home and you are not welcome here." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.