June 16, 2005

No!

Really?

13 comments:

DrTony said...

Gee whiz, what a huge surprise! I notice the article didn't talk about the blind trust I'm sure most of his assets are in.

Paul said...

Well. gee, That's news I never, ever suspected. So that means....???

dax said...

If you look at the numbers, that's not that much money considering stocks, bonds, and especially real estate.
These guys are smart, connected, and middle age. I would be shocked if they hadn't accumulated some wealth.

jk said...

anyone know how these numbers compare with the Clinton team? the article provide zero context.

Troy said...

The article is disappointing... These guys are Republicans dammit! Why isn't Rove owning houses in the projects and screwing poor people by failing to put in A/C, etc.??? Verrrry disappointing. I thought these guys would be richer -- ignore the middle and lower class wealthy.

The White House phenomenon is similar to Ann's earlier post about SCOTUS wealth. The Libs were downright wealthy, the conservatives were more modestly so. Bottom line: ain't no poor or solidly middle class people in high appointed positions on either side.

SteveR said...

Gee what about the Cheney- Halliburton- War for Oil deal. How could they have not included that? BTW my portfolio did well the last couple years and I don't work at the White House. Along the lines of what Dax said, they'd have to be stupid not to have done well, and they are not stupid.

Great investigative journalism. Next week.. Fortune 500 Companies Out For Profit

Sloanasaurus said...

I haven't heard about Halliburton for quite some time now. Perhaps it wasn't a real issue after all and only used by the press during the election.....hmmmm...

Stephanie said...

"They're on the government payroll, but some of President Bush's top aides have millions of dollars...."

So, what, is there some rule that aides can't be paid for their work if they already have money?

Freeman Hunt said...

The kind of people who run the United States, an incredibly wealthy and powerful country of over 300 million people, are the kind of people who have managed to do well for themselves? How unfair. We can't possibly trust highly competent people. We should have people in there who've done horribly in the stock market and have little or no assets to their names. Such people would obviously do better jobs.

???

Richard Fagin said...

Actually, for a bunch of guys supposedly at the top rung of American society, Bush's advisors aren't all that wealthy. Maybe that's why they aren't all that well versed on running an economy. You want poor people holding the purse strings? Then there's that railroad executive running the Treasury - how 19th century robber baron-ish.

Kathleen B. said...

I am not sure I would equate wealth with competence. but I guess that is just me.

dax said...

Kathleen b - You're right, wealth doesn't equate to competence.
The CREATION and GROWTH of wealth does require competence.
A perfect example is the Kennedy fortune. The wealth that Joe Sr. created has just about evaporated. Family members have been feeding from it for years and nobody has put anything back.

Kathleen B. said...

well nothing in this article says anything about any of these people CREATING and GROWING their wealth.