• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Obama's are reported to have a net worth of $40,000,000

Logical1

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
7,394
Reaction score
2,306
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Obama's are reported to have a net worth of $40,000,000!!! Isnt it about time they stare redistributing it?? Since thats what the commie told us, time for him to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Acadia

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
16,989
Reaction score
10,708
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
They didn't do that...
 

Saladin4

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
9,718
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Blue State America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Obama's are reported to have a net worth of $40,000,000!!! Isnt it about time they stare redistributing it?? Since thats what the commie told us, time for him to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow...40?...Way to go President Obama!
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Talk about EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.....no one enriched themselves DIRECTLY OFF OF THE PRESIDENCY like the Obamas and Clintons have...
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,186
Reaction score
61,432
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why do conservatives get so angry over how much money other people have?
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,186
Reaction score
61,432
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Talk about EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.....no one enriched themselves DIRECTLY OFF OF THE PRESIDENCY like the Obamas and Clintons have...

It's impossible not to read your posts in the voice of Grimlock.

 

Logical1

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
7,394
Reaction score
2,306
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Harry Truman once said ------------ anyone that gets rich in Politics is a crook. IMO old Harry was right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Saladin4

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2017
Messages
9,718
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Blue State America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This appears to be another slobbering I hate Obama and Hillary OP.....Put out by angry old white men...I'm out
 

SenorXm/Sirius

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
16,083
Reaction score
12,107
Location
New York State, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Why do conservatives get so angry over how much money other people have?

They only get angry with Democrats have money. Like the Obamas or Soros. When Republicans like Trump have money they get on her knees and worship them
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
there are few jobs I would want less than being President of the United States. But being an ex-president? I could get used to that.
 

CMPancake

No gods, no masters.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
6,250
Reaction score
6,247
Location
Tacoma
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
The Obama's are reported to have a net worth of $40,000,000!!!

Oh boi, wait till you hear about this other guy. I'm forgetting his name, but word on the street is that this dude is a billionaire.
 

Tanngrisnir

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,597
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Obama's are reported to have a net worth of $40,000,000!!! Isnt it about time they stare redistributing it?? Since thats what the commie told us, time for him to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I heard it was closer to $40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,932
Reaction score
44,842
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The OP's argument is so well supported, I don't know where to start? Maybe at his birth certificate? Nah, we'll likely never agree even on that!
 

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,140
Reaction score
13,365
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
The Obama's are reported to have a net worth of $40,000,000!!! Isnt it about time they stare redistributing it?? Since thats what the commie told us, time for him to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama is not a commie, and never was.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,252
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Obama's are reported to have a net worth of $40,000,000!!! Isnt it about time they stare redistributing it?? Since thats what the commie told us, time for him to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Book deals = money laundering. One “customer” buys all the books up front, then distributes them to book stores where those that dont sell are pulped. Plus Obama can say “I sold a million copies!”
 

Exquisitor

Educator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
6,911
Reaction score
1,004
Location
UP of Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh boi, wait till you hear about this other guy. I'm forgetting his name, but word on the street is that this dude is a billionaire.

Trump's pretty stupid and blew it by passing his tax bill otherwise he should have made himself the world's first Trillionaire.

It's only a Thousand Billion, a mere hundred times what he has now, four percent of the world's wealth, but if he's going to do it by cutting his taxes and choking up on a crash and leaving us bankrupt he's not going to do it and he's fired.
 
Last edited:

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
57,932
Reaction score
44,842
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Book deals = money laundering. One “customer” buys all the books up front, then distributes them to book stores where those that dont sell are pulped. Plus Obama can say “I sold a million copies!”
If that were the case, how come Hillary's books don't sell?

And have you read any of Obama's stuff? He can write! And he doesn't use a ghost writer. He's the real deal.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Obama's are reported to have a net worth of $40,000,000!!! Isnt it about time they stare redistributing it?? Since thats what the commie told us, time for him to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  1. Net worth and income are very different things. It's quite possible to have a high net worth and have low gross income.

    I don't presume that's the case for Obama, but it doesn't need to be for, during one's lifetime, the US taxes income, not net worth, as the means of redistributing income. Redistributions of one's net worth happen after one's died.
  2. Obama's proposal re: the income redistributive "tool" the US uses, income taxation, would have increased his taxes even when he wasn't worth $40M. Obama didn't have a problem with structuring the tax code such that his own and other high-income individuals' federal income tax burden increased, whereas his political opponents did/do.

ETA:
Some wealthy people don't object to reasonable increases in their tax liability.

 
Last edited:

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why do conservatives get so angry over how much money other people have?

Conservatives don't get angry over how much people have, as long as they earned that money legitimately. The difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives get angry over how much money people have that are supposed to be public servants as government employees when those public employees leave public service with millions of dollars (like making $85k/year before getting elected to the Senate and and POTUS and coming out of public service with tens of millions of dollars) versus Progressives that by the evidence seem to defend such enrichment on the backs of tax payers but decry and condemn private sector entrepreneurs that succeed on the private markets and not on public sector tax money. As an example, let's look at Obama who along with other Progressives talk about "the rich should pay their fair share of taxes" and also talk about "redistribution" from the rich to the poor and middles class" when they actually mean that they want to enrich themselves on the back of those that have to earn their money (the middle class and the rich) when the Progressives and the Bernie-ite Socialists enrich themselves off of the hard earned tax money of those that have a real job.

How do you end up with tens of millions of dollars when you make $174,000.00/year for a little less than three years as Senator, and $400,000.00/year for eight years as POTUS? If he didn't have any expenses at all, he would have come out of public service with $522,000.00 from the Senate and $3,200,000.00 from POTUS, a total of $3,722,000.00 during an economic recession where the stock market and real estate market all crashed. So where'd the money come from that wouldn't be a violation of Article One, Section 9, Clause 8, or Article Two, Section One, Clause 7, 5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain, or all of the other myriad of laws against enriching yourself while on the federal government's payroll?

This applies to all President's, including Trump, not just Obama. So please don't try to deflect from the actual thread topic with what-about-isms to Trump.

So, I hope that answers your question.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,186
Reaction score
61,432
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Conservatives don't get angry over how much people have, as long as they earned that money legitimately. The difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives get angry over how much money people have that are supposed to be public servants as government employees when those public employees leave public service with millions of dollars (like making $85k/year before getting elected to the Senate and and POTUS and coming out of public service with tens of millions of dollars) versus Progressives that by the evidence seem to defend such enrichment on the backs of tax payers but decry and condemn private sector entrepreneurs that succeed on the private markets and not on public sector tax money. As an example, let's look at Obama who along with other Progressives talk about "the rich should pay their fair share of taxes" and also talk about "redistribution" from the rich to the poor and middles class" when they actually mean that they want to enrich themselves on the back of those that have to earn their money (the middle class and the rich) when the Progressives and the Bernie-ite Socialists enrich themselves off of the hard earned tax money of those that have a real job.

How do you end up with tens of millions of dollars when you make $174,000.00/year for a little less than three years as Senator, and $400,000.00/year for eight years as POTUS? If he didn't have any expenses at all, he would have come out of public service with $522,000.00 from the Senate and $3,200,000.00 from POTUS, a total of $3,722,000.00 during an economic recession where the stock market and real estate market all crashed. So where'd the money come from that wouldn't be a violation of Article One, Section 9, Clause 8, or Article Two, Section One, Clause 7, 5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain, or all of the other myriad of laws against enriching yourself while on the federal government's payroll?

This applies to all President's, including Trump, not just Obama. So please don't try to deflect from the actual thread topic with what-about-isms to Trump.

So, I hope that answers your question.

You make that money by bringing your experience, your perspective and of course your prestige to speaking events or books. There's nothing corrupt about that. If Trump left office today and made eleventy gazillion dollars by using his experience as President to promote his books, tv shows, line of underoos, etc., I'd have no problem with it because he's no longer in office and there isn't the concern that he's crafting government policy as a result of personal profit.

If you see paid speeches and book deals after office as the same thing as profiting off of businesses in office, then you really just don't understand what corruption is.
 
Last edited:

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
50,011
Reaction score
34,126
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Conservatives don't get angry over how much people have, as long as they earned that money legitimately. The difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives get angry over how much money people have that are supposed to be public servants as government employees when those public employees leave public service with millions of dollars (like making $85k/year before getting elected to the Senate and and POTUS and coming out of public service with tens of millions of dollars) versus Progressives that by the evidence seem to defend such enrichment on the backs of tax payers but decry and condemn private sector entrepreneurs that succeed on the private markets and not on public sector tax money. As an example, let's look at Obama who along with other Progressives talk about "the rich should pay their fair share of taxes" and also talk about "redistribution" from the rich to the poor and middles class" when they actually mean that they want to enrich themselves on the back of those that have to earn their money (the middle class and the rich) when the Progressives and the Bernie-ite Socialists enrich themselves off of the hard earned tax money of those that have a real job.

How do you end up with tens of millions of dollars when you make $174,000.00/year for a little less than three years as Senator, and $400,000.00/year for eight years as POTUS? If he didn't have any expenses at all, he would have come out of public service with $522,000.00 from the Senate and $3,200,000.00 from POTUS, a total of $3,722,000.00 during an economic recession where the stock market and real estate market all crashed. So where'd the money come from that wouldn't be a violation of Article One, Section 9, Clause 8, or Article Two, Section One, Clause 7, 5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain, or all of the other myriad of laws against enriching yourself while on the federal government's payroll?

This applies to all President's, including Trump, not just Obama. So please don't try to deflect from the actual thread topic with what-about-isms to Trump.

So, I hope that answers your question.

You "liked" this post:

Talk about EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.....no one enriched themselves DIRECTLY OFF OF THE PRESIDENCY like the Obamas and Clintons have...

If you really mean the above, I have to suppose you have a problem with any president who has ever obtained any income during or after the presidency outside that $400,000. But then, if that's what you thought you would have to dislike his post because his was partisan hackery aimed solely at the two most recent liberal presidents. Meanwhile, I'm not aware of one single President in modern history who didn't make a dime outside his salary to avoid someone misreading and misapplying the emoulment's clause to him.

But anyway, the position is ridiculous given what Cardinal said. Of course they're going to write books and speak at events. If it was just a shameful dishonest money-grab, people wouldn't pay money to hear what presidents and ex-presidents have to say, or read what they write.

Now, if you really do think presidents shouldn't have any other source of income and really do apply it to ALL, then I think that's silly. But at least I would know it wasn't partisan hackery.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You make that money by bringing your experience, your perspective and of course your prestige to speaking events or books. There's nothing corrupt about that. If Trump left office today and made eleventy zillion dollars by using his experience as President to promote his books, tv shows, line of underoos, etc., I'd have no problem with it because he's no longer in office and there isn't the concern that he's crafting government policy as a result of personal profit.

If you see paid speeches and book deals after office as the same thing as profiting off of businesses in office, then you really just don't understand what corruption is.

I have no problem at all with Obama or anyone else charging whatever they can make for speaking tours or books, or whatever they wish to do... after leaving office and if no other member of their immediate family (spouse, child) are in public office, especially a high public office.

My statement to you responded to your post about what in your opinion conservatives become angry over regarding people enriching themselves, and I pointed out that conservatives tend to get angry over public servants enriching themselves while in office, and Progressives evidently have no problem with public servants enriching themselves while in office but have major problems with private sector entrepreneurs enriching themselves legally in the private sector (the left hated millionaires and billionaires). Your post above seems to follow that same line as as well, unless you are talking solely about enrichment from the private sector after a public servant leaving office, which I have no problem with, and did not address at all in my post. Which if that is the case would mean that your post was either unintentionally off topic by mistaken response, or intentionally misleading to defend public servants enriching themselves while in office. I'm not sure which?
 
Top Bottom