the wealthiest presidents

evince

evince

Truthmatters
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ney-TopStories+(USATODAY+-+Money+Top+Stories)



is not surprising then to find that the first few presidents — from Washington's election to about 75 years later — were large landowners. They generally made money from land, crops, and commodity speculation. Of course, this left them highly vulnerable to poor crop yields, and they could lose most or all of their properties because of a few bad years.

By 1850, the financial history of the presidency entered a new era. Beginning with Millard Fillmore, most presidents were lawyers who spent years in public service. They rarely amassed large fortunes and their incomes often came almost entirely from their salaries.

These presidents were distinctly middle class and often retired without the means to support themselves in anyway resembling the presidential lifestyle. Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, Hayes and Garfield had modest net worths when they died.

At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, there was another significant change to the economy. Large, professionally organized corporations in the oil, mining, financial and railroad sectors allowed individuals to amass large fortunes
 
do you know understand that the founders did not plan for big corporations to OWN this country?


they didn't exist yet and the founders didn't know they were possible.



why do you on the right pretend the founders LOVED huge corps wen such a thing never existed in their lifetimes?
 
time for you to stop worshipping these people.


They did NOT build this country


we built them


we can decide whether they can exist or not.
 
dude millionaires are not automatically bad people .

the ones who think being millionaires makes them better than all other Americans are he problem.

You know the ones who own your party and pay it to cheat in elections
 
evince said:
time for you to stop worshipping these people.


They did NOT build this country


we built them


we can decide whether they can exist or not.
Click to expand...
That's the problem with political partisanship Desh. It blinds people to the facts. For pro business GOP types to claim they are the job creators that built this nation is just as false as working class Democrats saying the built this country by the sweat of their brow alone.

Neither position is completely wrong or completely right. We did it together. Capital alone cannot get things done without good people to get the work done and the better the people they have to more work and the better quality of work they can get done. Without labor Capital means nothing. Without Capital there is no need for labor. Both are needed and both have accomplished great things for this country but neither one did it by themselves. That's an argument that is utterly false.
 
if we had NEVER allowed Mega corps to exist this country would have still grown into a great powerful country.


think about that
 
evince said:
if we had NEVER allowed Mega corps to exist this country would have still grown into a great powerful country.


think about that
Click to expand...
There your just simply wrong. Without those so called "Mega Corps" which were initially British financiers and later evolved into our own gilded age industrialist the capital required to build the infrastructure and internal improvements for the vast majority of this nation would not have been available and we would be a large third world agricultural nation governed by a land owing aristocracy.

Corporations are not the evil demons that you are painting them out to be. They are designed to make profits. They are not designed to have a social conscience, provide for the public well being or provide social equity and justice. Their primary mission is to maximize profits for their stake holders. As a tool of economic growth and entrepreneurship hey are an incredibly valuable tool.

The problem with the pro-business extreme in the GOP is that to many of them sincerely believe in the Milo Minderbinder principle. That is, "what is good for business and corporations is what is good for the country.", and often that is true....but not always....not by a long shot. They are making a mistake for seeing corporations as being more than what they are, a tool of economic growth. As a tool of social justice they suck. Just as most successful business leaders tend to be major failures in public service cause the same autocratic tendencies that serve them well in business simply don't work in public service.
 
evince said:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ney-TopStories+(USATODAY+-+Money+Top+Stories)



is not surprising then to find that the first few presidents — from Washington's election to about 75 years later — were large landowners. They generally made money from land, crops, and commodity speculation. Of course, this left them highly vulnerable to poor crop yields, and they could lose most or all of their properties because of a few bad years.

By 1850, the financial history of the presidency entered a new era. Beginning with Millard Fillmore, most presidents were lawyers who spent years in public service. They rarely amassed large fortunes and their incomes often came almost entirely from their salaries.

These presidents were distinctly middle class and often retired without the means to support themselves in anyway resembling the presidential lifestyle. Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, Hayes and Garfield had modest net worths when they died.

At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, there was another significant change to the economy. Large, professionally organized corporations in the oil, mining, financial and railroad sectors allowed individuals to amass large fortunes
Click to expand...



why are you trying to claim I said something I didn't?
 
Corporations are wonderful.

mega corps are NOT.

They amass TOO much wealth concentration.


jesus Mott why are you doing this?
 
evince said:
Corporations are wonderful.

mega corps are NOT.

They amass TOO much wealth concentration.


jesus Mott why are you doing this?
Click to expand...
I guess that depends on what you mean by "mega corporations"? If by that you mean monopolies, well hell yes you're right. Monopolies are simply bad for consumers and are inherently anti-competitive.

I just think you need to be careful about demonizing them. That's what Faux news does to those of us who believe in Keynesian economics. They've done an excellent job of convincing a lot of mouth breathers out there that we're "socialist"!
 
Here's your biggest issue, crazy lady - you single out Republicans, and completely ignore the faults & shortcomings of Democrats.

When it comes to corporate ownership of government, if you really stretch it & look at it historically, a marginal argument could be made that the Democrats are just a teensy bit better than Republicans.

But what a pointless argument. They're both terrible when it comes to corporate money. You need look no further than what happened to Obama almost immediately after his election.
 
Actually Evince is entirely correct, the founders had great fear of corporate power and issued very strict charters that severely limited the rights as well as the lifespans of corporations.
Evince is also aproximately correct as to the timing of the about face attitude our government took towards corporations and though it did coincide with the amassing of great fortunes by a few individuals, it was actually an incorrect interpretation by a court clerk in the 1880's that gave rise to the ability of corporations to break the bondage government had held then in, in fact eventually claiming rights of personhood. (yes, STY, you really are an idiot to support Citizens United, it proves that despite your best rhetoric you are more of a conservative than a libertarian).

The very basis of the Revolutionary War which ended in the founding of this country was an act of defiance against government mandated corporate monopoly. The Boston Tea Party cannot be described in any other manner, other than by the very least observant amongst us.

Mott; as to your pro-corporate bullshit: Bullshit. Corporations are no more required to garner capital than a private bank (the FED) is required to print it. Government can print it's own money just fine, and private partnerships can build large enterprises. Look to the previous gilded age if you must, for proof.
 
evince said:
dude millionaires are not automatically bad people .

the ones who think being millionaires makes them better than all other Americans are he problem.

You know the ones who own your party and pay it to cheat in elections
Click to expand...


OH No....you mean all these people were paid to cheat ?


8 Democrats Arrested and/or Convicted of Voter Fraud

http://nationwidegazette.com/8-democ...r-voter-fraud/
---------------------------------
12 charged with voter fraud in Georgia election

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/24/12...rgia-election/
--------------------------------
Democratic officials arrested for voter fraud in Indiana
Names, signatures faked in Indiana to put Obama, Clinton on primary ballot
http://video.foxnews.com/v/249896156...ud-in-indiana/
-------------------------------
Fort Worth woman arrested in voter fraud case
By Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX) August 22, 2013
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/08/2...er-fraud-case/
-------------------------------
7 Democrats Arrested in New York for actual Voter Fraud via Absentee Ballots
Democrats arrested, charged and 4 plead guilty to actual voter fraud in New York via absentee ballots!
------------------------------
NAACP Executive Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for Voting for Obama 10 Times in 2008
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ng/B8Xe0hnJ-YI
 
Rune said:
Actually Evince is entirely correct, the founders had great fear of corporate power and issued very strict charters that severely limited the rights as well as the lifespans of corporations.
Evince is also aproximately correct as to the timing of the about face attitude our government took towards corporations and though it did coincide with the amassing of great fortunes by a few individuals, it was actually an incorrect interpretation by a court clerk in the 1880's that gave rise to the ability of corporations to break the bondage government had held then in, in fact eventually claiming rights of personhood. (yes, STY, you really are an idiot to support Citizens United, it proves that despite your best rhetoric you are more of a conservative than a libertarian).

The very basis of the Revolutionary War which ended in the founding of this country was an act of defiance against government mandated corporate monopoly. The Boston Tea Party cannot be described in any other manner, other than by the very least observant amongst us.

Mott; as to your pro-corporate bullshit: Bullshit. Corporations are no more required to garner capital than a private bank (the FED) is required to print it. Government can print it's own money just fine, and private partnerships can build large enterprises. Look to the previous gilded age if you must, for proof.
Click to expand...

The revolution was a fight for our English constitutional rights which the colonists believed were being trampled on. It included such perceived abuses as direct taxation, restrictions on free movement, violations of property rights, restrictions on trade and commerce, loss of right to a fair jury trial, and so forth. Blaming the East India Company is pretty fucking retarded.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's the problem with political partisanship Desh. It blinds people to the facts. For pro business GOP types to claim they are the job creators that built this nation is just as false as working class Democrats saying the built this country by the sweat of their brow alone.

Neither position is completely wrong or completely right. We did it together. Capital alone cannot get things done without good people to get the work done and the better the people they have to more work and the better quality of work they can get done. Without labor Capital means nothing. Without Capital there is no need for labor. Both are needed and both have accomplished great things for this country but neither one did it by themselves. That's an argument that is utterly false.
Click to expand...


But when its all said and done...its the people with the capital and foresight to risk their wealth on what may or may not turn out to be successful....
Its the Carnegie's, Rockefeller's, Vanderbilt's, J.P. Morgan's of the world that built this country, like it or not.....not the English or Irish immigrants, they came because of
the opportunity's created by the rich....only pinheads insist on keeping alive the class war and Marxist bullshit from 200 years ago...
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
Actually Evince is entirely correct, the founders had great fear of corporate power and issued very strict charters that severely limited the rights as well as the lifespans of corporations.
Evince is also aproximately correct as to the timing of the about face attitude our government took towards corporations and though it did coincide with the amassing of great fortunes by a few individuals, it was actually an incorrect interpretation by a court clerk in the 1880's that gave rise to the ability of corporations to break the bondage government had held then in, in fact eventually claiming rights of personhood. (yes, STY, you really are an idiot to support Citizens United, it proves that despite your best rhetoric you are more of a conservative than a libertarian).

The very basis of the Revolutionary War which ended in the founding of this country was an act of defiance against government mandated corporate monopoly. The Boston Tea Party cannot be described in any other manner, other than by the very least observant amongst us.

Mott; as to your pro-corporate bullshit: Bullshit. Corporations are no more required to garner capital than a private bank (the FED) is required to print it. Government can print it's own money just fine, and private partnerships can build large enterprises. Look to the previous gilded age if you must, for proof.
Click to expand...


What bullshit....just WHAT CORPORATE POWERS were the founders in fear of in 1776....??? The Newspapers, the local stables, or was it Big John's 2 cow dairy farm ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top