How do I counter this freeper email I got here at work

[bif]

About the rechest presidents.


This Forbes.com article convincingly contradicts the Democratic myth that the Republicans are only the "party of the rich." If Kerry were elected, 4 of the 5 richest U.S. Presidents would be Democrats. Onward and upward.

Kerry Would Be Third-Richest U.S. President
Dan Ackman, 02.13.04, 7:00 AM ET

NEW YORK - Whatever schoolboy lore says about Abe Lincoln's log cabin or Lyndon Johnson's "Aw shucks" Texas upraising, many, if not most, U.S. presidents were born well-to-do, and nearly all were quite well off by the time they sought the nation's highest office.

A few presidents were spectacularly wealthy, such as the nation's first president, George Washington, who we reckon would have made the Forbes 400 of his day on the strength of his Virginia plantation and his wife's fortune. Others, like Lyndon Johnson and Andrew Jackson, used government service as a springboard to personal fortune.

If the Democratic primaries play out as expected, this year the race for the White House will pit Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts against George W. Bush. President Bush, the second son of a president to attain the office, made our list of the richest presidents partly based on his claim to a family fortune, but mostly because of a windfall on his investment in the Texas Rangers baseball franchise.

The Richest U.S. Presidents
It is difficult to compare personal wealth across historical periods, but below is our best estimate of the relative net worths of the richest five U.S. presidents. The rankings are based on our own calculations and extensive interviews with presidential historians.

Rank Name Party Term
1. George Washington None* 1789-1797
2. John F. Kennedy Democrat 1961-1963
John F. Kerry** Democrat NA
3. Andrew Jackson Democrat 1829-1837
4. Lyndon B. Johnson Democrat 1963-1969
5. Herbert Hoover Republican 1929-1933
*President Washington was generally aligned with Federalist doctrine, though he was not formally a member of the Federalist Party or any political party. ** Candidate. NA: not applicable.
Sen. Kerry, like the last JFK from Massachusetts to serve as commander in chief, is also extremely wealthy. We estimate his family fortune at $525 million, which would make him, if elected, the third-richest president ever. But the key word is "family." The Kerry money comes from his wife, Theresa Heinz Kerry, who inherited it from her late husband, Sen. John Heinz III of the Heinz food family.

This puts Kerry in a situation somewhat similar to President Kennedy's. President Kennedy's father, Joseph, and his mother, Rose, were both still alive when JFK was in office and when he was assassinated, so John never inherited even a share of the Kennedy family fortune, which we estimated to be worth $850 million at its height in 1990.

But Joseph Kennedy was, under campaign finance laws at the time, free to spend basically as he wished on his son's electioneering efforts, which he certainly did.

Here John Kennedy and candidate Kerry part company. Current federal law prohibits wife Theresa from donating more than $2,000 to her husband's campaign. Indeed, in December, when Howard Dean was riding high, Kerry mortgaged his share of his family townhouse on Boston's Beacon Hill to raise money for his campaign.

In the course of his career, Kerry's campaigns have received substantial funding from employees and affiliates of such companies as Fleet Boston Financial (nyse: FBH - news - people ), Time Warner (nyse: TWX - news - people ), Citigroup (nyse: C - news - people ) and Goldman Sachs (nyse: GS - news - people ), according to the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C.-based investigative group. Corporate lawyer firms like Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo and New York-based Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom have also been big backers.

While there are limits on what Theresa Heinz Kerry might contribute to her husband's campaign, she may, depending on how current law is construed, be able to spend as much of her own money as she wishes on "issue ads"--advertisements that advance a cause or theme. She might also contribute unlimited sums to other groups running their own issue ads.

Of course, if Sen. Kerry's campaign were to benefit from spousal spending, there would inevitably be allegations that he was exploiting a loophole. Others would say that the candidate was simply countering the incumbent president's huge lead in fundraising.

Either way, this was the kind of issue that the widow Martha Dandridge Custis, who married the legendarily forthright Washington--cherry tree and all that--never had to worry about.

[wryter2000]

1. Oh, for the love of...

The point isn't who among politicians are rich. The question is who favors the rich over everyone else. We have a long and wonderful tradition in this country -- going back to the real George W., Washington -- of wealthy people working for the betterment of our society as a whole.

Two of the most progressive populist presidents of the 20th century were Roosevelts, for pity's sake. Rich people can and do good. People in the lower classes sometimes favor the upper classes. Hence the joke, "what do you call a Republican who isn't rich -- sucker!" Kevin Phillips makes this point in Wealth and Democracy. It proves that we aren't engaged in class warfare when we want what's good for the country as a whole.

[stepnw1f]

4. Exactly...

people do not mind so much the class of the person as President, as much as the policies that leader supports. Sounds like a spin on the facts.

[revree]

7. Ignore it.

Always best to ignore stupid people or they just get all into thinkin' they're having an effect on others...which breeds more stupidity and more stupid people, OH GOD, WHEN WILL IT END???

[ET Awful]

2. Simply point out that . . .

That list in no way indicates anything contrary to Republicans being the party of the rich, it simply means that there are a few intelligent rich people that have chosen the party that seeks to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Then point out that there are more millionaires in Bush's administration than any other administration.

Then point out that historically liberal policies have done much more to help the poor and middle class than any conservative policies have.

Point out that such wonderful things as weekends, minimum wage, child labor laws, etc. were all liberal ideas and did NOT come from any conservative source.

There's a million ways to approach that letter, not the least of which is to point out that when you look at the big picture instead of the tunnelized version the right prefers, Democratic administrations have served the people to a much greater degree. By the people I mean the average person in the US today, not the wealthiest minority who are the beneficiaries of most Republican policies.

[bluestateguy]

3. What is his point?

By that logic we could counter the Republicans claims to being "for" the military by showing that very few of them served.

[bif]

6. I was thinking of just sending him the list of chickenhawks

Along with the list of all the Dems who served in the mnilitary.

[felonious thunk]

5. Tell him that you're glad he's concerned about that

and given the wealth of the Bush family encourage him to vote Kucinich who would probably be the poorest President ever, since this is such an important issue.

[Sorry.]

9. so many rich men ...

has the US ever had a working-class president?

I'd say the point hidden in his email, is that we've always got rich people is charge of us, just some of 'em prefer the carrot to the stick.

[felonious thunk]

10. Sure, we've had working class presidents

Through our history we've had many farmers and such, even recently. Harry Truman was not even close to wealthy. Eisenhower was a career military man. Carter was a farmer. Clinton grew up in poverty. It's hard for someone who isn't wealthy to run for President these days, but it's happening. Kucinich is a great example. But don't forget Clinton, though he wasn't "working class" per se, he certainly didn't come from wealth.

[Warren Stuart]

8. Forbes, the guy who spent tens of millions to get a dozen votes

If pure wealth meant everything, then Bill Gates would be president. He's not, so obviously there is more to it than that.

Plus the "Party of the Rich" implies the party that benefits the rich over the non-rich. This describes the Republicans to a tee. There is no amount of weasling that can change this dynamic.

[GumboYaYa]

11. I guess if they can point to one wealthy Democrat

to make the claim that Democrats are the party for the wealthy, we can point to one racist bigot, let's say Trent Lott, to prove that Republicans are the party of racist bigots.

[Spirochete]

12. Send back the first paragraph

and reply "what do you mean - if?"

[bif]

13. Good points all

You're right about the first paragraph. So 3 of the 5 richest presidents were Democrats. So?