As Income Inequality Widens, Rich Presidential Candidates Dominate
Chart indicating Presidential wealth compared to average famiiy income.
...but do you really want someone telling you "Sorry, you're making too much. We're confiscating 100% of it now."
I honestly don't give a flip how much any of them have made.
DoctorBlade wrote: ...but do you really want someone telling you "Sorry, you're making too much. We're confiscating 100% of it now." I honestly don't give a flip how much any of them have made.
What he said.
DoctorBlade wrote: ...but do you really want someone telling you "Sorry, you're making too much. We're confiscating 100% of it now."
Well, that was a measured and reasonable response. I bow to your emotionally restrained logic fine sir! 
DoctorBlade wrote: I honestly don't give a flip how much any of them have made.
Can a man who makes 400% more income than the average citizen, no matter the political party, really know the struggle of the average citizen? Can he/she represent that citizen's interests? Would he even know what those concerns and needs would be?
Xceler8x wrote: Can a man who makes 400% more income than the average citizen, no matter the political party, really know the struggle of the average citizen? Can he/she represent that citizen's interests? Would he even know what those concerns and needs would be?
Short answer that will drown out anything else I say, is no. But if a person already has wealth, they will want to grow it even farther. That in turn means even the poorest will have favorable policies to grow their little nugget of wealth.
Playing to the same old class warfare bullE36 M3 is old and tired. Please go bury it with the lie that wealth redistribution via government is a good thing too.
Xceler8x wrote:DoctorBlade wrote: ...but do you really want someone telling you "Sorry, you're making too much. We're confiscating 100% of it now."Well, that was a measured and reasonable response. I bow to your emotionally restrained logic fine sir!DoctorBlade wrote: I honestly don't give a flip how much any of them have made.Can a man who makes 400% more income than the average citizen, no matter the political party, really know the struggle of the average citizen? Can he/she represent that citizen's interests? Would he even know what those concerns and needs would be?
Does the average citizen have the mental capacity and experiences necessary to do a good enough job as the figurehead of an entire nation?
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Does the average citizen have the mental capacity and experiences necessary to do a good enough job as the figurehead of an entire nation?
This.
I'd respond by asking if Mr.President (or the last one, or the one before that) has the mental capacity and experiences necessary to do a good enough job, but I don't want to open that can of worms. /troll 
Ranger50 wrote: Short answer that will drown out anything else I say, is no. But if a person already has wealth, they will want to grow it even farther. That in turn means even the poorest will have favorable policies to grow their little nugget of wealth. Playing to the same old class warfare bullE36 M3 is old and tired. Please go bury it with the lie that wealth redistribution via government is a good thing too.
Are you saying that trickle down economics works?
Xceler8x wrote:DoctorBlade wrote: ...but do you really want someone telling you "Sorry, you're making too much. We're confiscating 100% of it now."Well, that was a measured and reasonable response. I bow to your emotionally restrained logic fine sir!DoctorBlade wrote: I honestly don't give a flip how much any of them have made.Can a man who makes 400% more income than the average citizen, no matter the political party, really know the struggle of the average citizen? Can he/she represent that citizen's interests? Would he even know what those concerns and needs would be?
400%? I think so. Now CEO pay? Try 231 times the pay of their average employee. That is a disconnect.
Actually, the politician number was 400 times the pay, not 400% more. Yeah, that probably is an issue.
A better understanding of the problem comes at looking at Mitt Romney versus his dad. His dad took advantage of opportunities and his own hard work to make a lot of money. Mitt was at a company that was good at financial manipulation and not much else.
So you'd like someone who hasn't proven they can do a good job be the President?
In reply to Xceler8x:
Works better then welfare. I may be my brother's keeper, but I am not his exclusive income source via third party.
Ranger50 wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Works better then welfare. I may be my brother's keeper, but I am not his exclusive income source via third party.
Please, don't be "that guy".
carguy123 wrote: So you'd like someone who hasn't proven they can do a good job be the President?
I'm not saying it applies to the current candidates, but a large measure of wealth does not necessarily equal having done a good job. Wealth and competence in this country can certainly be mutually exclusive things.
Ranger50 wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: Works better then welfare. I may be my brother's keeper, but I am not his exclusive income source via third party.
Thing is, welfare is inextricably connected to the wealthy. It is the easiest way to keep the poor from uprising.
The middle class largely pays for it. The middle class just bends over and takes it and begs for more. And for some reason they are generally mad at the poor for having a few bucks they didn't earn rather than at the wealthy who have millions or billions they didn't earn.
Xceler8x wrote: Can **ANY POLITICIAN, either Republican OR Democrat,** really know the struggle of the average citizen? Can he/she represent that citizen's interests? Would he even know what those concerns and needs would be?
FTFY. Politicians are the 1%.
Ranger50 wrote: Short answer that will drown out anything else I say, is no. But if a person already has wealth, they will want to grow it even farther. That in turn means even the poorest will have favorable policies to grow their little nugget of wealth.
It's a topic fraught with a lack of empirical data regardless of which point one is trying to reinforce, but...
The bolded part above does not follow via simple logic from the first part. The situation of the wealthy trying to become wealthier tends to differ from the situation of the poor trying to become wealthy (or comfortable). In many ways, the simplest example would seem to be the different tax structure for investment income vs "normal" earned income.
Xceler8x wrote: Can a man who makes 400% more income than the average citizen, no matter the political party, really know the struggle of the average citizen? Can he/she represent that citizen's interests? Would he even know what those concerns and needs would be?
I think, by definition, that's true for anyone in government. They get into the legislative bubble, intoxicated with power, and lose touch. Because a government's power is coercive in nature, it makes sense for it to be limited to the spheres of defending life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When it tries to enforce/create equality of outcomes (contradicting liberty), it doesn't tend to go well...
Then again, I want to resurrect the Federalist party, so what do I know?
Speaking of the Federalist party, George Washington would probably have been off the chart, had it started at the beginning and not just covered the last 40 years. A lot of his wealth was tied up in land, but I've often heard that if you adjust for inflation, he's hands down the wealthiest President of all time.
Obama got into politics because of who he knew. He had been fundraising for other organizations and when he decided to run, all those that had funded his other projects in turn funded him. Obama's personal income did not exceed the 6 digits until his book royalties started rolling in. Unfortunately, not much data has come around about his pre-political income sources.
When Romney entered politics, he paid for his own campaign. He had already amassed enormous personal wealth, and running for Senator was cheap. His wealth and success in business made him appealing to others in his position, and he earned their support by identifying with them.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Does the average citizen have the mental capacity and experiences necessary to do a good enough job as the figurehead of an entire nation?
carguy123 wrote: So you'd like someone who hasn't proven they can do a good job be the President?
Just trying to clarify here. Are you guys saying that because a person is rich they have the necessary talent, intelligence, and ability to run the country?
Duke wrote:Xceler8x wrote: Can **ANY POLITICIAN, either Republican OR Democrat,** really know the struggle of the average citizen? Can he/she represent that citizen's interests? Would he even know what those concerns and needs would be?FTFY. *Politicians* are the 1%.
I agree with this statement. The data is there to back this up as well.
MadScientistMatt wrote: Speaking of the Federalist party, George Washington would probably have been off the chart, had it started at the beginning and not just covered the last 40 years. A lot of his wealth was tied up in land, but I've often heard that if you adjust for inflation, he's hands down the wealthiest President of all time.
From the article:
Of course, we have had many decidedly wealthy presidents before, most notably George Washington, who by some measures was the richest man in the colonies. Democratic icons FDR and JFK were sons of privilege and extraordinary wealth. And unlike Mitt Romney, they could not claim to have exponentially grown the money they inherited through entrepreneurial achievements.
Xceler8x wrote:92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Does the average citizen have the mental capacity and experiences necessary to do a good enough job as the figurehead of an entire nation?carguy123 wrote: So you'd like someone who hasn't proven they can do a good job be the President?Just trying to clarify here. Are you guys saying that because a person is rich they have the necessary talent, intelligence, and ability to run the country?
No.
I'm saying that the average citizen is FAR from someone i'd want to be at the head of the entire country. I would EXPECT that the president would NOT have average mental capacity and experience.
So why would i expect that they have a level of riches in line with that of the average citizen?
The word "average" should not be used to described any president when talking about his qualifications. I wouldn't expect the word "average" to be used when talking about a potential candidate's finances either.
Basically i'm saying: Find something else to complain about.
bastomatic wrote:carguy123 wrote: So you'd like someone who hasn't proven they can do a good job be the President?I'm not saying it applies to the current candidates, but a large measure of wealth does not necessarily equal having done a good job. Wealth and competence in this country can certainly be mutually exclusive things.
Yes, but poor & uneducated definitely AREN'T good qualifications for President.
As with all things, balance and moderation are good.
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
I agree with all that. The problem isn't that rich guys are running for president. That has always been true. To me, the problem is that the wealthy are getting exponentially wealthier without really creating anything useful for the country. For every guy who got rich building a factory or whatever, there are a pile of guys who got far richer by leaching fees from everyone's 401K.
Does that not bother anyone?
You'll need to log in to post.
