Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   How much money are the Obamas worth? Well, it's somewhere between $1.8 million and $5.8 million. Oh, you'd like him to be more specific? Well, who are you to ask questions of our liege?   (wtop.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, obama, Michelle Obama, White House released, Vice President Joe Biden  
•       •       •

828 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 May 2013 at 10:05 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-16 08:47:16 AM  
5 votes:
They wouldn't have dared to ask this of Romney.  Who has that much lost in his couch cushions.
2013-05-16 08:11:11 AM  
5 votes:
Who cares?
2013-05-16 11:53:16 AM  
4 votes:
It's not like he had a major interest in a firm, placed his assets in a supposedly "blind" trust, and proceeded to give them billions of unquestioned, uncompetetive contracts in two war zones.
2013-05-16 08:42:48 AM  
4 votes:
If you'd like him to be more specific, you should petition your representatives in the federal government to revise the disclosure forms to require more specificity. Of course, they won't, because then THEY would have to be more specific as well. But that is probably still Obama's fault somehow.
2013-05-16 08:14:35 AM  
4 votes:
The jealousy is dripping off of you, subby.

Conservatives hate a self-made man.
2013-05-16 08:14:27 AM  
4 votes:

Dust: Who cares?


Perennially butthurt right wingers
2013-05-16 11:47:07 AM  
3 votes:

Danger Mouse: Romeny runs for office and every day you hear about his wealth, how much money he has, and rumors are spread about his tax returns.

Actually ask what a sitting President is worth and the libtards scream.


You mean after Obama made public 10 years of tax returns?
2013-05-16 08:25:03 AM  
3 votes:
Name a President that wasn't part of the elite, either socially or financially.
2013-05-16 12:59:50 PM  
2 votes:

kronicfeld: If you'd like him to be more specific, you should petition your representatives in the federal government to revise the disclosure forms to require more specificity. Of course, they won't, because then THEY would have to be more specific as well. But that is probably still Obama's fault somehow.


graphics8.nytimes.com
2013-05-16 12:54:40 PM  
2 votes:
They released their tax returns.  That's more than I can say for some politicians.
2013-05-16 12:07:22 PM  
2 votes:
He would have a lot more money  but he wasn't in congress long enough to take advantage of all the insider trading opportunities available to its members.
2013-05-16 10:55:34 AM  
2 votes:

JunkyJu: Dr Dreidel: A leading Federal politician worth between $1.8 and $5.8 million, you say?

How about John Boehner?

Net Worth: From $1,787,113 to $5,455,000 (only good enough to be ranked 85th in House)
Assets: 104 totaling $1,787,113 to $5,455,000
Transactions: 69 totaling $521,059 to $2,040,000


The "Look over there!" defense is becoming the standard.


Unless you want to be outraged 544 more times (435 Reps, 100 Senators, 9 SCOTUS justices, V/POTUS), this isn't a scandal. If you want to keep your blood pressure down a bit, narrow your focus to the longer-termed folks who came in with net worths under a million and haven't produced much (like a book), yet are somehow now worth many millions.

There's fewer of those, and far more "there" there to get outraged about.

Pointing out that a guy who wrote 2 best- and long-selling books while also making ~$150-200k salaries in the last 7ish years is now worth over a million isn't really an insight into anything other than Obama being pretty good at capitalism.
2013-05-16 10:50:00 AM  
2 votes:
WTF?  Aren't there like 10 straight years of tax returns on public record for the Obama's?

That's some fine butthurt you got going on there, subby.
2013-05-16 10:31:27 AM  
2 votes:

Dust: Who cares?


I concur. But I particularly like how the idea of him being worth 6 million is somehow something problematic, when you remember that the last two guys the Republicans put forwards were worth about six to twenty times as much.
2013-05-16 10:27:42 AM  
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: oh look how he took advantage of tax loopholes to give money to his kids without paying taxes.

These 1%ers are out of control.


$5.8 mil is about half the threshold for the top the 1%.
2013-05-16 10:20:11 AM  
2 votes:
why is it seem  that only the right refers to Obama as "dear leader" or "our liege".  What kind of complex do they have, anyway?
2013-05-16 09:06:42 AM  
2 votes:
The same people outraged by this were also outraged that anyoned dared to ask Romney to disclose his tax returns.
2013-05-16 09:06:35 AM  
2 votes:

YodaBlues: jehovahs witness protection: He's going to need that money for smokes and baggy pants male hookers in the federal prison.

You're not even trying anymore.


You say this like he was ever trying to begin with.
2013-05-16 08:55:00 AM  
2 votes:

kronicfeld: If you'd like him to be more specific, you should petition your representatives in the federal government to revise the disclosure forms to require more specificity. Of course, they won't, because then THEY would have to be more specific as well. But that is probably still Obama's fault somehow.


Look, buddy. If there's one thing the Right can't stand, it's hypocrisy. That's why they have no patience for people like George Soros who call for "tax reform" and yet CHOOSE not to donate all their extra money to the IRS. You know that you're allowed to do that, right? If you feel like the government should have more money or that your taxes aren't high enough, you can give all your extra money to the IRS. Hell, they'll need it pay bail with all these investigations going on. But what does it say when a man like Soros wants all of US to pay more, but he's not willing to give any more in the first place? It says HYPOCRITE.

And Al Gore. Don't even get me started on Al Gore and all his environmentalists goons. These people want us to live in the dark ages and not have electricity and worship Mother Earth, which they call Gaya, no surprise there, and yet they live in their 20,000 square foot mansions and jet all over the world in their jet planes burning oil just for the heck of it. "Do as I say, not as I do," that's the mantra. Well, you know what that says? HYPOCRITE. That's what.

And so here we are with Obama's taxes. What was it that liberals were wetting their pants over during the 2012 election? What was that, again? Oh, that's right -- Mitt Romney's taxes. His net worth. They wanted to know everything about him, every little worker he fired and every little corporation he chopped up and every little show horse he purchased for his wife. Tell us more, tell us more, they kept screaming. I've told you what I have to, he'd intone. Not enough, not enough, they'd whimper. I'm following the law, he'd say. We don't care about the law, we want to know, they'd lament. And on and on. And now Obama can shroud his untold millions under the veil of "paperwork" and "required disclosure?" Does that seem like anything to you? It does to me, and I'll tell you what that is: HYPOCRISY.
2013-05-16 03:51:20 PM  
1 vote:

UNHbeta19: Tor_Eckman:
I don't know if you need the "Welcome to Fark" pic or the "Well Bye" pic.

If you are outraged by posts that "contribute nothing" (in your expert, esteemed opinion) I don't know wtf you are doing here.  Maybe you should try /r/conservative.  Might be more to your liking.

Frankly, this thread was over after the very Boobies.  The rest is just masturbation.  Or in your case, manufactured outrage.

How apropos that you recommend the "Welcome to Fark" Pic and get filter pwned in the same post....


You've been around for 11 years and you don't know the meaning of the "Welcome to Fark" pic.

Interesting.
2013-05-16 03:47:03 PM  
1 vote:
UNHbeta19: drip drivel


What the fark is that all about?

I sense dusty alt
2013-05-16 03:41:47 PM  
1 vote:

UNHbeta19: However shouldn't this article illicit more of a discussion of whether it is an effective process, rather then making it "OBAMA GOOD, WHY YOU HATE OBAMA? YOU STUPID"


Any submission that is headlined with "who are you to ask questions of our liege", that isn't literally about a tyrant persecuting his opponents is not designed for interesting discussion.
2013-05-16 03:37:32 PM  
1 vote:
So... Was there a point to this link beyond blatant trolling?

I thought not.

Dear modmins,
i.imgur.com
2013-05-16 03:19:52 PM  
1 vote:

UNHbeta19: coeyagi: UNHbeta19: coeyagi: UNHbeta19: BMulligan: UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.

You do realize that the net worth of our elected public servants has been reported in this exact manner for years and years now, right? And that no one ever complained about it before, regardless of the president's party? And that you're a pathetic farkwit?

Kind of the point.   It has been reported in a 1950's fashion (check a box for where your asset value falls into) when we could have much more precise.  And people have complained.  And again proving my point about unintelligent, most basic possible thinking in these types of threads...

So, what you're saying is.... Obama should rewrite the form that he has to fill out?

Most basic possible thinking hits a home run!

//feel free to call the cops on me for just figuratively raping your ass

Not sure what your exact point is.  No reasonable person expects Obama to fill out a different form then all other presidents (in fact it would be illegal I would imagine).  However shouldn't this article illicit more of a discussion of whether it is an effective process, rather then making it "OBAMA GOOD, WHY YOU HATE OBAMA? YOU STUPID"

Read the first 5 comments and tell me that they provide, in any way, any sort of insightful or meaningful thought.  It is defending Obama when he has not been attacked, it is simply ridiculous.  My original point was that coming into these discussions you KNOW that that will be the Weenerss, which is depressing for a site that I actually used to see some interesting points and discussion.

If your whole assertion is that we are defending him instead of looking at the process, I agree. But who f*cking started it?  The article and subby, god damnit.  Why don't you go after them?  They're the bullsh*t a ...


Of all the "classic" trolling styles, I find this one - the unholy love child of willful obtuseness and concern trolling - to be perhaps the most tedious.
2013-05-16 03:17:16 PM  
1 vote:

UNHbeta19: coeyagi: UNHbeta19: coeyagi: UNHbeta19: BMulligan: UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.

You do realize that the net worth of our elected public servants has been reported in this exact manner for years and years now, right? And that no one ever complained about it before, regardless of the president's party? And that you're a pathetic farkwit?

Kind of the point.   It has been reported in a 1950's fashion (check a box for where your asset value falls into) when we could have much more precise.  And people have complained.  And again proving my point about unintelligent, most basic possible thinking in these types of threads...

So, what you're saying is.... Obama should rewrite the form that he has to fill out?

Most basic possible thinking hits a home run!

//feel free to call the cops on me for just figuratively raping your ass

Not sure what your exact point is.  No reasonable person expects Obama to fill out a different form then all other presidents (in fact it would be illegal I would imagine).  However shouldn't this article illicit more of a discussion of whether it is an effective process, rather then making it "OBAMA GOOD, WHY YOU HATE OBAMA? YOU STUPID"

Read the first 5 comments and tell me that they provide, in any way, any sort of insightful or meaningful thought.  It is defending Obama when he has not been attacked, it is simply ridiculous.  My original point was that coming into these discussions you KNOW that that will be the Weenerss, which is depressing for a site that I actually used to see some interesting points and discussion.

If your whole assertion is that we are defending him instead of looking at the process, I agree. But who f*cking started it?  The article and subby, god damnit.  Why don't you go after them?  They're the bullsh*t a ...


You are if you defend by proxy (by not highlighting the fact) that a) the GOP and other cons have spend 5 f*cking years doing nothing but ripping on the President instead of their f*cking job and b) we get bombarded by sh*t headlines like this all the time, so we rip on subby and the other mongoloids who subscribe to that characterization.

Why don't you go after the instigators?  You have an agenda, you have no interest in root cause analysis so f*cking admit it and stop wasting our time.
2013-05-16 03:05:02 PM  
1 vote:

UNHbeta19: However, replace "Boehner" for "Obama" and the first 5 comments would be exact opposite... which shows that it is not about the fairness/unfairness of the issue, but rather the letter after the name.


People in this thread have pointed out that Boehner did the same type of calculation and is in the same ballpark in wealth. Very few people gave a shiat. I certainly didn't.
2013-05-16 03:04:21 PM  
1 vote:

UNHbeta19: coeyagi: UNHbeta19: BMulligan: UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.

You do realize that the net worth of our elected public servants has been reported in this exact manner for years and years now, right? And that no one ever complained about it before, regardless of the president's party? And that you're a pathetic farkwit?

Kind of the point.   It has been reported in a 1950's fashion (check a box for where your asset value falls into) when we could have much more precise.  And people have complained.  And again proving my point about unintelligent, most basic possible thinking in these types of threads...

So, what you're saying is.... Obama should rewrite the form that he has to fill out?

Most basic possible thinking hits a home run!

//feel free to call the cops on me for just figuratively raping your ass

Not sure what your exact point is.  No reasonable person expects Obama to fill out a different form then all other presidents (in fact it would be illegal I would imagine).  However shouldn't this article illicit more of a discussion of whether it is an effective process, rather then making it "OBAMA GOOD, WHY YOU HATE OBAMA? YOU STUPID"

Read the first 5 comments and tell me that they provide, in any way, any sort of insightful or meaningful thought.  It is defending Obama when he has not been attacked, it is simply ridiculous.  My original point was that coming into these discussions you KNOW that that will be the Weenerss, which is depressing for a site that I actually used to see some interesting points and discussion.


If your whole assertion is that we are defending him instead of looking at the process, I agree. But who f*cking started it?  The article and subby, god damnit.  Why don't you go after them?  They're the bullsh*t artists trolling all of us.

Oh, no, couldn't do that, wouldn't fit with your hidden Independent™ agenda, would it?
2013-05-16 03:03:22 PM  
1 vote:

UNHbeta19: LasersHurt: UNHbeta19: Not every time somebody questions him is it a personal attack on you.

But why question him at all, if, as you've said, there is no reason to at all?

Read the article.  Not once was he ever questioned.  It is simply stating that he released this document...which he is required to.  Nothing more.  Yet again proving my point... defending Obama when nobody is questioning him at all.


Sometimes, on Fark.com, people discuss more than just the text of the article at hand, including the headline used, or the general sentiments of various users who weigh in during the thread.
2013-05-16 03:02:25 PM  
1 vote:

UNHbeta19: coeyagi:

Ok, so you've said that hiding BILLIONS is bad.  You've learned today, dear patriot, that Obama has no more than 5.8 million in net wealth.  Why don't you make it easier on us and just draw some arbitraty "outrage point" by which you can villify Obama for having a certain amount of wealth?

All billions started as millions.  And honestly $1 of ill-gotten wealth as a result of a public position (any public position) is too much.  And honestly I do not care what Obama is worth.  His wife was a successful lawyer and he is a best selling author.  Of course he will have money.  that is not the issue.  It is people like you that jump to his defense when he isn't even attacked or questioned.  We get it you like him.  Not every time somebody questions him is it a personal attack on you.


I don't even know where to start with this word salad.  Seriously, I don't know, it has no point or cohesiveness.

Well, let's start with the assertion that he wasn't attacked.  Strawman. He was.  Subby, at the very least, did.  Read the f*cking headline.  Or drool, I don't care which.  I bet the latter because it's obvious he was attacked.

Ill-gotten wealth?  How the f*ck would this form alleviate the desire to know if it was ill-gotten? You're just flinging diarrhea around the thread, bro.
2013-05-16 02:55:05 PM  
1 vote:

UNHbeta19: Not every time somebody questions him is it a personal attack on you.


But why question him at all, if, as you've said, there is no reason to at all?
2013-05-16 02:35:44 PM  
1 vote:

UNHbeta19: I do not think this is the end of the world, but shouldn't we know what the leader of our country is worth? look at the alternative such as in China where the leaders hoard BILLIONS of dollars for themselves and their families. Easiest way to prevent that and keep politics from getting dirtier? Public disclosure. And I think most people here would agree that in general public disclosure is a great idea.


Yes, it was a great idea to make Obama disclose his wealth. Which he did. Which is what the article is about.
2013-05-16 02:32:59 PM  
1 vote:

UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.


You do realize that the net worth of our elected public servants has been reported in this exact manner for years and years now, right? And that no one ever complained about it before, regardless of the president's party? And that you're a pathetic farkwit?
2013-05-16 02:32:08 PM  
1 vote:

UNHbeta19: Goddamn it.  It is comments in articles like this that really make me hate Fark (after 11 years of lurking or reading).  Before you even look in the comments you can tell it is going to just be full of apologists because it is Obama.  If this was Bush it would be "How dare he hide everything, what is he keeping form us, he must be getting kick backs from Halliburton".  Obama? "Whats the big deal?".

I do not think this is the end of the world, but shouldn't we know what the leader of our country is worth?  look at the alternative such as in China where the leaders hoard BILLIONS of dollars for themselves and their families.  Easiest way to prevent that and keep politics from getting dirtier?  Public disclosure.  And I think most people here would agree that in general public disclosure is a great idea.

In some way I get it, you see your guy shiat upon for stupid reasons day and night and the reaction is to over-defend him.  But can common sense needs to prevail at some point.  A good idea does not cease to be a good idea simply because it goes against your party.  Your guy is not always right.  And criticism often has some valid base to it.

/Sorry for rant, I have just noticed that I spend a lot less time on Fark solely because the comments are so predictable and unintelligent (in the critical thinking sense).


Ok, so you've said that hiding BILLIONS is bad.  You've learned today, dear patriot, that Obama has no more than 5.8 million in net wealth.  Why don't you make it easier on us and just draw some arbitraty "outrage point" by which you can villify Obama for having a certain amount of wealth?
2013-05-16 02:25:05 PM  
1 vote:

jehovahs witness protection: Well, I would go farther and mention the gallows, but the senate will never allow barry to be tried for treason.


Wow, you're literally calling for a black man to be lynched.  I think the infection has gone to your head.
2013-05-16 01:16:40 PM  
1 vote:
the only time I care about how much someone makes is when they complain about how low their taxes are, while simultaneously earning percentage points in Arruba and Switzerland.
2013-05-16 12:49:50 PM  
1 vote:

Danger Mouse: coeyagi: Danger Mouse: Romeny runs for office and every day you hear about his wealth, how much money he has, and rumors are spread about his tax returns.

Actually ask what a sitting President is worth and the libtards scream.

Way to boil down the argument to potato, Forrest.

Derp, Forrest, Derp!

You forgot to call me a racist and you didn't even make a chicken comment.

I have a sad.


How about "climb down off that cross"?  Would that make you feel better that you are reinforcing at least one stereotype that you conservaclowns have dutifully earned?
2013-05-16 12:45:47 PM  
1 vote:

Danger Mouse: If someone points out the hypocrisy of the Left, then that's considered wailing and gnashing of teeth, chicken farking, and all the rest of the standard muck?  Go it.


You didn't point out any hypocrisy at all. Your thinking that it was hypocrisy is the wailing and gnashing of teeth, chicken farking, etc.
2013-05-16 12:38:32 PM  
1 vote:

jehovahs witness protection: He's going to need that money for smokes and baggy pants male hookers in the federal prison.


That's a pretty twisted fantasy.
2013-05-16 12:34:59 PM  
1 vote:

DarwiOdrade: George W Bush is worth $35 million.

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]


Impressive. Now, imagine what he could have been worth had he not pissed away millions on poorly-run business ventures.
2013-05-16 12:27:55 PM  
1 vote:
Go with the high end and say it is $5.8 million. Is that an obscene net worth for the leader of our country? Some moron who got drafted by the Raiders was paid $26 million before flunking out of the NFL and retiring at the age of 24.
2013-05-16 12:21:11 PM  
1 vote:

Yes please: I find it ridiculous that the leader of the free world is paying a 5.625% interest rate on a 30 year mortgage.


If he re-fis, even if his rate is high-3's, he automatically got a sweetheart deal from his cronies in the banking industry.

// better question: if he's worth so much, why not just pay off the note with some of the cash he has laying around?
// I know there are reasons not to do this, but not being a homeowner, I'm not intimately familiar with them
2013-05-16 12:17:07 PM  
1 vote:
The GOP did this shiat in Clinton's 2nd term.....the petulant hypocritical shills will not stop the witch hunt.  Party above Country.
2013-05-16 12:13:56 PM  
1 vote:

Danger Mouse: Where do you see the wailing and gnashing of teeth?

If someone points out the hypocrisy of the Left, then that's considered wailing and gnashing of teeth, chicken farking, and all the rest of the standard muck?  Go it.


It's the same complaining Romney got. If it's hypocritical to defend, so, too, is it hypocritical to complain.

But you keep right on farking that chicken.
2013-05-16 12:09:05 PM  
1 vote:

Danger Mouse: Romeny runs for office and every day you hear about his wealth, how much money he has, and rumors are spread about his tax returns.

Actually ask what a sitting President is worth and the libtards scream.


I'm totally fine with you asking. Ask away. The information has been reported.

When you point at that information and say "SEE? SEE?" when he isn't worth more than any other high-profile politician on a national level (and much less than many), that's when you start to sound like a whiny, deranged farkwit.
2013-05-16 11:48:57 AM  
1 vote:

Danger Mouse: Romeny runs for office and every day you hear about his wealth, how much money he has, and rumors are spread about his tax returns.

Actually ask what a sitting President is worth and the libtards scream.


Republicans whine about how it's none of our business.

Unless, of course, it's a Democrat. Then there's wailing and gnashing of teeth from conservitards.

Keep farking that chicken, baby - you know it wants it.
2013-05-16 11:35:04 AM  
1 vote:

Danger Mouse: Romeny runs for office and every day you hear about his wealth, how much money he has, and rumors are spread about his tax returns.

Actually ask what a sitting President is worth and the libtards scream.


Actually get an answer and the conservatards scream anyway, apparently.
2013-05-16 11:05:35 AM  
1 vote:
Subby want to maybe let us know how much money is donated to political campaigns and by whom? I think that might be more relevant than knowing precisely how many millions out politicians personally have.
2013-05-16 10:57:46 AM  
1 vote:

JunkyJu: The "Look over there!" defense is becoming the standard.


Much like the "That uppity ni....well, that is, what I meant to say was, socialist thinks he's better than you!" charge has become the GOP standard. Is there any evidence to any GOP charge aside from "Well, I mean...just look at him, you know he did it!"?
2013-05-16 10:53:59 AM  
1 vote:
It's too easy to get people who don't pay attention to statistics riled up with a couple of numbers.  It's like every time the unemployment report comes out someone will point out the "REAL" unemployment rate, even though that's a number tracked by the same agency.  Or a couple of years ago during the debt ceiling kerfuffle Grover Norquist was going on about how the White House debt reduction proposals were obviously trying to inflate the numbers and trick the American people because their proposals were for debt reduction over 10 years, failing to mention that EVERY budget measure talks about projected effects over 10 years, because that's how the CBO works.
2013-05-16 10:53:39 AM  
1 vote:

jehovahs witness protection: YodaBlues: jehovahs witness protection: He's going to need that money for smokes and baggy pants male hookers in the federal prison.

You're not even trying anymore.

Well, I would go farther and mention the gallows, but the senate will never allow barry to be tried for treason.


Well, considering there is literally nothing treasonous that he could be tried over, that actually makes quite a bit of sense.
2013-05-16 10:52:46 AM  
1 vote:
Ok, so he's worth somewhere between 18 and 58 mil.

I... don't know what that's supposed to imply or prove, but yeah.  He's a wealthy man.  Am I supposed to be upset or something?  Where is this going?  And what happened to my pants?
2013-05-16 10:51:11 AM  
1 vote:

JunkyJu: Dr Dreidel: A leading Federal politician worth between $1.8 and $5.8 million, you say?

How about John Boehner?

Net Worth: From $1,787,113 to $5,455,000 (only good enough to be ranked 85th in House)
Assets: 104 totaling $1,787,113 to $5,455,000
Transactions: 69 totaling $521,059 to $2,040,000


The "Look over there!" defense is becoming the standard.


It's not "look over there." It's "Why does this matter for Obama and not for anyone else?" It's not a scandal that Obama's rich. He wrote books, practiced law, was a seantor, and  is the farking President. Why does it matter?
2013-05-16 10:37:59 AM  
1 vote:

Dr Dreidel: A leading Federal politician worth between $1.8 and $5.8 million, you say?

How about John Boehner?

Net Worth: From $1,787,113 to $5,455,000 (only good enough to be ranked 85th in House)
Assets: 104 totaling $1,787,113 to $5,455,000
Transactions: 69 totaling $521,059 to $2,040,000



Boehner could take a few classes in vote-selling from Senator Turtleman:

Net worth: From $9,946,049 to $44,667,000 (ranked 10th in Senate)
Assets: 41 totaling $9,946,049 to $44,667,000
Transactions: 23 totaling $227,024 to $830,000

This from a man who's all but outright said his taking bribes counts as free speech. There's a reason we have the term, "as stupid as a Kentucky voter."
2013-05-16 10:36:57 AM  
1 vote:
I see the derposphere is tee-ing up their next "scandal".  Welcome to life with conservatives when they've finally resigned themselves to the fact that the Dem won re-election.
2013-05-16 10:26:31 AM  
1 vote:

crab66: Democrats that have a little money are elitist. Where as Republicans with money are just hard working patriotsjob creators


This is a new and exciting attack by the right.


FTFY
2013-05-16 10:25:36 AM  
1 vote:

Dr Dreidel: A leading Federal politician worth between $1.8 and $5.8 million, you say?

How about John Boehner?

Net Worth: From $1,787,113 to $5,455,000 (only good enough to be ranked 85th in House)
Assets: 104 totaling $1,787,113 to $5,455,000
Transactions: 69 totaling $521,059 to $2,040,000


They're not alone either -- EVERY US politician reports their assets this way.  Since most of those assets fluctuate in value over time, they mostly just report an asset class (real estate, stocks, etc), which in turn are categorized into an approximate range of values.  To try to gin up "controversy" over this is just naive.
2013-05-16 10:22:44 AM  
1 vote:
 Democrats that have a little money are elitist. Where as Republicans with money are just hard working patriots.


This is a new and exciting attack by the right.
2013-05-16 10:16:42 AM  
1 vote:
A leading Federal politician worth between $1.8 and $5.8 million, you say?

How about John Boehner?

Net Worth: From $1,787,113 to $5,455,000 (only good enough to be ranked 85th in House)
Assets: 104 totaling $1,787,113 to $5,455,000
Transactions: 69 totaling $521,059 to $2,040,000
2013-05-16 10:11:22 AM  
1 vote:

hillbillypharmacist: jehovahs witness protection: YodaBlues: jehovahs witness protection: He's going to need that money for smokes and baggy pants male hookers in the federal prison.

You're not even trying anymore.

Well, I would go farther and mention the gallows, but the senate will never allow barry to be tried for treason.

How are you doing these days?


I don't think you want to know.  He seems rather unhinged and sad.  It's like that morning when a boy wakes up to be a man, and the first thing he realizes is that his hands are too big to play with his Polly Pocket playset.
2013-05-16 10:11:13 AM  
1 vote:
i.imgur.com
2013-05-16 09:57:13 AM  
1 vote:
Long form worth certificate.
2013-05-16 09:11:59 AM  
1 vote:
And he still manages to not shiat all over the 47%.  It's like America is actually composed of different types of people!
2013-05-16 08:59:51 AM  
1 vote:

jehovahs witness protection: He's going to need that money for smokes and baggy pants male hookers in the federal prison.


You're not even trying anymore.
2013-05-16 08:59:00 AM  
1 vote:

PC LOAD LETTER: Name a President that wasn't part of the elite, either socially or financially.


Some, like Obama, didn't start out that way but by the time they run for office everyone is. I don't begrudge the very wealthy. What I have a problem people born to wealth run for office. The problem is with is when they run for president saying they know what it is like to struggle and understand the job market. No they do not.
2013-05-16 08:23:52 AM  
1 vote:
They sound uppity.
 
Displayed 65 of 65 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report