[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Reuters happily informs us of the following facts:

John Kerry's wife inherited $500 million. John Kerry's Nantucket house is worth $9 million. John Kerry's boat is worth $150,000. John Kerry's sporting equipment cost $2,500.

And George Bush has a huge ranch, but for some reason it's not important how much that cost. Also, he fishes. No news on whether he pays $500 for a fishing rod or not, or how many rods he owns. I dunno -- maybe he builds 'em by hand, and maybe he carved the ranch out of the wilderness with his own two hands.

Comments

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

That's always irked me, too. I don't get how the media can focus on Kerry's fortune, while totally ignoring Bush's vast wealth. I guess, in the popular mind, it's okay for Republicans to be filthy rich, but not Democrats. Or maybe Bush truly has conviced everyone that he's Just One A Da Guys.

You could always compare tax returns...

[dtm]

this site has (scanned) pdfs of the released tax returns of the bushes, the VP, and candidate Kerry.

Now, this doesn't tell us total assets, but for a somewhat inaccurate estimate of that I'd look at the "Taxable Interest" line. For 2003, Kerry had just over $1,200. The Bushes had just over $400,000.

Now, I can see someone reasonably well-off who invested well making that much in a year in capital gains. But to make that much in interest income in year when the prime rate hovered around 4% all year, you'd need well over $10 million sitting in very high-interest accounts, and likely much closer to $20 million.

And that's just what they have that's earning interest income. I'd love to see a total personal-net-worth comparison of the two candidates.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

Well Bush is a major pioneer. The town of Crawford didn't even exist until he built his ranch. Can the guy even ride a horse yet?

[mysteryclock.livejournal.com]

Or maybe it's because Kerry, et al, attack the current administration for giving big tax breaks to their fellow wealthy Americans (http://angry-economist.russnelson.com/tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy.html), among other things. It's an embarrassingly uninformed line of thinking, but one that the Left has latched on to pretty hard. Even more embarrassing is that their guy (Kerry) is actually a fellow wealthy American, just like the current administration. Kerry certainly doesn't mention that often, heaven-forbid Reuters does.

And "focus on" is an exaggeration at best, but I digress.

[bryant]

I am honestly utterly confused by this. Are you implying that there's something hypocritical about a wealthy person advocating higher taxation for the wealthy? What's so embarassing about that?