Gore Is Romney-Rich With $200 Million After Bush Defeat
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by NancyBlueINOklahoma (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Bloomberg
In 1999, Al Gore, then U.S. vice president and a Democratic candidate for president, sold $6,000 worth of cows.
The former senator, who spent most of his working life in Congress, had a net worth of about $1.7 million and assets that included pasture rents from a family farm and royalties from a zinc mine, remnants of his rural roots in Carthage, Tennessee. Funds from the cattle sale went to three of his kids, according to federal disclosure forms filed as part of his presidential run.
Fourteen years later, he made an estimated $100 million in a single month. In January, the Current TV network, which he helped to start in 2004, was sold to Qatari-owned Al Jazeera Satellite Network for about $500 million. After debt, he grossed an estimated $70 million for his 20 percent stake, according to people familiar with the transaction.
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-06/gore-is-romney-rich-with-200-million-after-bush-defeat.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Blue_Tires
(57,518 posts)"Liberals aren't allowed to make big money free from scrutiny," or "Quit complaining about right-wing one-percenters now that one of your own is in that echelon..."
Either way, the writing and slant of the story is beyond shit...(par for the course for most business publications)
elleng
(137,428 posts)something like 'liberals shouldn't be wealthy or successful in business.'
Nevermind Roosevelts or Kennedys etc etc etc.
TDale313
(7,822 posts)Kennedy and FDR were very wealthy, too. It's not Romney's money people objected to, it was his policies (which made it clear that he had no concept whatsoever what life is like for those not in his tax bracket)
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)4.2 million. net worth.
According to the mandatory fiscal disclosure report that he filed with the Federal Election Commission in 2000, Nader owned more than $3 million worth of stocks and mutual fund shares; his single largest holding was more than $1 million worth of stock in Cisco Systems, Inc. He also held between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of shares in the Magellan Fund.[92] Nader said he owned no car and owned no real estate directly in 2000, and said that he lived on US $25,000 a year, giving most of his stock earnings to many of the over four dozen non-profit organizations he had founded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
Unless the poster is going to claim that 4.2 million net is "mega rich", the poster is going to have to either run away or lie.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)They only told us he's worth 200 Million because they didn't want to appear "too rich". Just average Joe's looking to become President. I bet Gore would trade that if he could get his place in history like he deserved.
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)They cite the Washington Post and Boston Globe.
Blue_Tires
(57,518 posts)And is this really breaking news??
W T F
(1,171 posts)
MoreGOPoop
(417 posts)that Rmoney is only worth 200 million. His many homes would use up most of that.
IMO, of course.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)more like a celebrity distraction about personality and what is actually small change, anyway.
What's looming in the background of the mainstream gala makes Gore's business look like the diary of a flea. There is anywhere from 34-200 trillion dollars, (which depends on who you read) floating around in an economy that functions above and beyond our common dreams. The derivatives market makes individuals who are wealthy seem like comfortable hobos.
We are not, and never will be, privileged enough to participate in the hyper-affluent econosphere that envelopes the more apparent circus of economic news, and, without a membership, it becomes none of our business.
I often mention two Americas and "binary America" is actually skillfully nestled within what is almost like another Universe when it comes to higher-level investments, gambles and influence.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Further, he's hidden nothing offshore in tax havens.
I really have no problem with this. I do hope he uses some of it for humanitarian endeavors.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Tippy
(4,610 posts)During a 2009 House hearing, Tennessee Republican Representative Marsha Blackburn tackled Gore on the issue of whether he had become a “climate profiteer” by betting on companies that might hugely benefit from his advocacy. Gore’s response: “Congresswoman, if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me.”
.....and she dosent know him she only thinks she does, I only wish I had been present....
rurallib
(63,350 posts)He sure wasn't doing that just for money.
Current was slowly rounding in to shape
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Gore is a better person than Bush. He is smarter than Bush. He is braver than Bush, going to Vietnam when Bush pulled strings to get a sinecure in the Guard (which Gore could have easily done, his father then a powerful Senator). He was a better political candidate than Bush, winning 500,000 more votes nationally, and winning Florida to boot, even with Bush cheating!
Now he's even a better and more successful businessperson than Bush.
You know what else: if a family member was killed or wounded in Iraq, that wouldn't have happened had Gore been rightfully named President, as he should have been for winning more votes by both Electoral College and popular vote standards. We are still paying in bucketfuls of blood and treasure for our fundamental crime: allowing the subversion of democracy that was the 2000 election to stand. Gore won the Presidency, plain and simple. The people's will was thwarted, and we did little to nothing.
The people were right. Democracy was right: Bush was not fit for office. The people decided that, and they were correct. But the media and the courts and people with power decided to overrule the vote of the people. And we've been visited with misery upon misery as a nation ever since. That's not cosmic justice; it's common sense.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)I know you can't prove a negative, but I believe we'd all be in a much better situation right now if the democratic process had prevailed in 2000.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and compare that to Rmoney.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)This is a feature article, not a "breaking" news piece. It could just as easily been published last week, or next month.
Please re-post in Good Reads, or Politics 2013, or GD. ( Also it was technically over 12 hours old at the time of posting)