|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Aug 28, 2008 20:16:13 GMT -6
Let me begin this by saying that I had recently thought Biden had a very credible chance at becoming POTUS in 2009. He seemed to me to be a great choice for the Dems, one of the more moderate and most experienced candidates they rolled out. Of course, the vocal extreme left got up in a roar and wanted someone with better socialist credentials than Biden to run the ticket, but nonetheless, I thought Biden would have been a fine choice for the Dems and that he would have won the general by several points.
Notwithstanding that, it has come to my attention that Senator Biden has disclosed that he has a net worth of between $100k and $150k. I've gotta ask, really, how is that possible?
Now we've all heard about the McCain family's predicament that many uber wealthy families have, they don't even know what they own, but how can someone who has consistently been toward the very top of the income ladder have so little in assets at 65 years of age?
Part of me thinks maybe he's omitted some assets on his disclosures, but I don't have any evidence of that. Another part of me thinks he is an absolute moron for being 65 years old with virtually no money. And another part of me thinks he is a very economically rational actor because he knows he will have a giant government pension and free healthcare for the rest of his life, courtesy of us proles.
What do you think it is?
A) He's a liar
B) He's a dipshit who can't save any cash
C) He's smart because he knows he can soak the taxpayer
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Aug 28, 2008 21:35:32 GMT -6
Let me begin this by saying that I had recently thought Biden had a very credible chance at becoming POTUS in 2009. He seemed to me to be a great choice for the Dems, one of the more moderate and most experienced candidates they rolled out. Of course, the vocal extreme left got up in a roar and wanted someone with better socialist credentials than Biden to run the ticket, but nonetheless, I thought Biden would have been a fine choice for the Dems and that he would have won the general by several points. Notwithstanding that, it has come to my attention that Senator Biden has disclosed that he has a net worth of between $100k and $150k. I've gotta ask, really, how is that possible? Now we've all heard about the McCain family's predicament that many uber wealthy families have, they don't even know what they own, but how can someone who has consistently been toward the very top of the income ladder have so little in assets at 65 years of age? Part of me thinks maybe he's omitted some assets on his disclosures, but I don't have any evidence of that. Another part of me thinks he is an absolute moron for being 65 years old with virtually no money. And another part of me thinks he is a very economically rational actor because he knows he will have a giant government pension and free healthcare for the rest of his life, courtesy of us proles. What do you think it is? A) He's a liar B) He's a dipshit who can't save any cash C) He's smart because he knows he can soak the taxpayer It's because he didn't fuck around on his crippled wife & marry a beer heiress. |
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Aug 28, 2008 21:36:46 GMT -6
From the Wash Post in March: Sen.Joe Biden(D-Del.)
Net worth: $100,000-$150,000
Details: Biden has spent virtually his whole life in public service and does not have much else aside from investments in a small array of mutual funds and cash accounts. He received a $112,000 advance from Random House for a book in 2005.www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032400305_pf.htmlI have no idea if you can count mutual funds as part of your wealth. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Aug 28, 2008 22:04:32 GMT -6
It's because he didn't f**k around on his crippled wife & marry a beer heiress. Well golly gee, neither did I and I have earned substantially less money in my life than Senator Biden, yet at 30, I allegedly have a higher net worth than he does. Contrary to widely held liberal beliefs, not everyone acquires money through inheritance, marriage, crime or the lotto. |
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Aug 29, 2008 6:12:29 GMT -6
It's because he didn't f**k around on his crippled wife & marry a beer heiress. Well golly gee, neither did I and I have earned substantially less money in my life than Senator Biden, yet at 30, I allegedly have a higher net worth than he does. Contrary to widely held liberal beliefs, not everyone acquires money through inheritance, marriage, crime or the lotto. Our current president did. |
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Aug 29, 2008 7:06:17 GMT -6
It's because he didn't f**k around on his crippled wife & marry a beer heiress. Again, another brilliant quote from our admin pro tem. BTT, I don't know how honest he was about his net worth. Were he to retire now he'd make apprx. 135K/yr. (not counting social security) As long as he has self supportive children, and no real financial burden- he is still sitting pretty. If the money is guaranteed to continue (it is), I'd think the cagey old should spend it.... who needs a bank account if you've been a senator since 1972? Who knows, maybe he has money sheltered oversea? I have no problem with that- Unless of course you're also championing the death tax at the same time < Kennedy>. As a side note- have you noticed how nasty the "street lib's" tones are getting. (see above) I believe this is because they thought Americans were to stupid to recognize an unconstitutional socialist, or that they are upset that there candidate is the most indefensible lib of them all. Imagine a moderate Dem's feelings when they peruse his voting record? Oh well, VOTE RON PAUL |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Aug 29, 2008 7:17:56 GMT -6
It's because he didn't f**k around on his crippled wife & marry a beer heiress. Again, another brilliant quote from our admin pro tem. BTT, I don't know how honest he was about his net worth. Were he to retire now he'd make apprx. 135K/yr. (not counting social security) As long as he has self supportive children, and no real financial burden- he is still sitting pretty. If the money is guaranteed to continue (it is), I'd think the cagey old should spend it.... who needs a bank account if you've been a senator bince 1972? Who knows, maybe he has money sheltered oversea? I have no problem with that- Unless of course you're also championing the death tax at the same time < Kennedy>. As a side note- have you noticed how nasty the "street lib's" tones are getting. (see above) I believe this is because they thought Americans were to stupid to recognize an unconstitutional socialist, or that they are upset that there candidate is the most indefensible lib of them all. Imagine a moderate Dem's feelings when they peruse his voting record? Oh well, VOTE RON PAUL So your moral compass is telling you: A guy screwing around on his disabled wife for longer than he was imprisoned... and leaving her & his children for a beer heiress 17 years younger than him. Is better than: A guy that joined the Senate at age 30 & has less net assets than a guy that whines about not getting comped double-porterhouses thinks he should have? Sweet... You & Ron Paul are a perfect match. |
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Aug 29, 2008 7:29:02 GMT -6
No, my moral compass tells me...
I was right to request election day off to drive republicans to the booth. (even though I'm probably going to write in Paul, rather than vote for Barr)
Federal Socialism and redistribution are evil. (forced charity isn't charity, its tyranny.)
Maintain the status quo for now, and hope we make strides in the supreme court.
So that one day the US can be great again, and our children will shake their heads in disbelief when they learn that the US was once an unconstitutional Welfare State.
I'm concerned about the future, not about marriage faux pas.
BTW, I have very little against Biden. His biggest knock against him is that he would stand on the same podium with the likes of Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Aug 29, 2008 8:44:34 GMT -6
Federal Socialism and redistribution are evil. (forced charity isn't charity, its tyranny.) Maintain the status quo for now, and hope we make strides in the supreme court. How is paying for services that help the citizens of the country worse than paying for services that pay for undeclared wars & all the corrupt miasma that goes with it? McCain would be far from the "Status Quo". He would be worse. If you would recall, Bush was supposed to be a "Uniter"... and while dumb, somewhat level headed. Take a look at all the extra-constitutional liberties he's taken and monumental fuck-ups. Now here we have McCain offering such favorable rhetoric as "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" ditties & offering unenforceable threats to our former cold war foe - amongst other gems. The entire cadre of neo-con button pushers has taken up shop as his advisors. And if you honestly believe that a person that has to "ask his people" how many houses he owns - isn't subject to these influences, you're nuts. So I guess, if you're so convinced Obama would be an unconstitutional tragedy for the country... watch and see. I'll guarantee you he won't be a fraction of what Bush is - or what McCain would have been. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Aug 29, 2008 10:15:23 GMT -6
Let me begin this by saying that I had recently thought Biden had a very credible chance at becoming POTUS in 2009. He seemed to me to be a great choice for the Dems, one of the more moderate and most experienced candidates they rolled out. Of course, the vocal extreme left got up in a roar and wanted someone with better socialist credentials than Biden to run the ticket, but nonetheless, I thought Biden would have been a fine choice for the Dems and that he would have won the general by several points. Notwithstanding that, it has come to my attention that Senator Biden has disclosed that he has a net worth of between $100k and $150k. I've gotta ask, really, how is that possible? Now we've all heard about the McCain family's predicament that many uber wealthy families have, they don't even know what they own, but how can someone who has consistently been toward the very top of the income ladder have so little in assets at 65 years of age? Part of me thinks maybe he's omitted some assets on his disclosures, but I don't have any evidence of that. Another part of me thinks he is an absolute moron for being 65 years old with virtually no money. And another part of me thinks he is a very economically rational actor because he knows he will have a giant government pension and free healthcare for the rest of his life, courtesy of us proles. What do you think it is? A) He's a liar B) He's a dipshit who can't save any cash C) He's smart because he knows he can soak the taxpayer Maybe he's just a hard-working American who pays his bills on time and isn't overly concerned with how much is in his personal portfolio just as long as it is enough. Actually, he is the norm........you on the other hand are pathetic |
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Sept 4, 2008 10:08:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Sept 4, 2008 11:26:07 GMT -6
Let see a VP with an pregnant unmarried 17 year old daughter ...and no experience other than 18 months on the job of the 47th most populous state, a vagina, PTA / City Council & Mayoral terms. She DID get good experience as a mayor of a city smaller than these Iowa cities: Altoona Carroll Fairfield Fort Madison Keokuk Oskaloosa Pella Spencer Storm Lake But these current Iowa mayors have served longer terms than her. So I feel they have been overlooked for VP consideration - as they have more executive experience & are mayors of larger cities: Altoona - Timothy Burget (20 yrs)  Fairfield - Ed Malloy (7 yrs)  Fort Madison - Steve Ireland (not sure, but at least 1 term)  Keokuk - David Gudgel (7 yrs)  (on the left I believe) Oskaloosa - David Dixon (not sure, but at least 1 term)  (middle - with tie) Pella - Darrell Dobernecker (not sure, but at least 1 term. AND he should receive special consideration because he endorsed McCain & he was a big proponent of the rainforest --- which makes him equal to Palin's bridge to nowhere)  Spencer - Reynold Peterson (at least 7 yrs) (No image available) Storm Lake - John Kruse (at least 7 yrs)  (on the left... not the Eagle Scout) |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Sept 5, 2008 21:49:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Sept 6, 2008 9:22:17 GMT -6
She could be satan and still be better than obama, so long as she's not a blatant socialist who believes in open constitutional interpretation. (rather than a more stringent amendment process)
|
|
