Comments about ‘Letter: Political candidates' money is no liability’

The amount of money a candidate has makes no difference to me. The way that candidate made his money does. People should research how private equity works. It is really nothing like textbook capitalism.

Just a couple of comments regarding this letter. Washington's $525M in net worth was not 2% of the national budget. His salary - whatever that was - was 2% of the national budget. Washington had vast holdings in farmland (about 8000 acres) and his wife inherited a substantial amount. But he was able to manage those holdings because he owned 300 slaves. I'm quite sure that wasn't taken into account when it was decided to put his bust on Mount Rushmore.

And once again there is an attempt to set up a strawman argument that people think Mitt Romney's wealth makes him unqualified to be president. That is definitely not the case. But what concerns people is that his vast wealth and the manner in which he is compensated, actually qualifies him for lower tax rates than those who make a fraction of what he makes. This is, of course, because people of similar influence have written the tax code. Why has Mr. Romney not spoken out about the unfairness of this circumstance? Warren Buffet, who has far more money than Mitt Romney has at least acknowledged that he enjoys an unfair advantage.

I don't think people are concerned about Mr. Romney's wealth. They are concerned about whether he understands the challenges faced by those without wealth. And they are concerned about his policies which seem to favor the wealthy. Nice straw man argument, though.

It isn't about personal wealth. All recent President's and major party opponents have been far better off than the average voter. It's about understanding the challenges of the middle class, caring, and doing something to help. When a candidate keeps large sums of personal money in foreign accounts, he show that they are not really interested in investing in America. When he sees nothing wrong with having a lower tax rate than the vast majority of us and wants to contribute even less to the nation, we can conclude he cares only for his own personal interests.

Even one of America's leading liberal authors, Susan Jacoby, has noted that the collective intelligence of the voters has plummeted in the last 50 years. Whereas the voters once wanted to vote for the most intelligent candidate, they now want to vote for the candidate they would most like to drink beer and play pool with.

This dumbing down of voter intelligence is demonstrated perfectly by the idea that a candidate should not be elected if he is rich. This is absurd.

Wealth is obtained and retained through hard work and intelligence. These are exactly the attributes we should seek in a President.

Sure. Let's compare life and government now with the time when George Washington was President of the United States.
Yes, of course, that makes perfect sense.

And which former President is most remembered, George Washington or James Buchanan? Which one accomplished great things that are still spoken about today?

Redshirt - It might be worth mentioning that Paris Hilton is worth $100 million. I'm sure her father worked very hard to make that money but as for Paris goes, I'm not so sure. That's not to say that Parish doesn't earn legitimate money. She gets between $25,000 and $100,000 for a hosting fee to appear at parties and clubs - essentially she shows up. Can you imagine?

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't get carried away with the assumption, as JCS has claimed, that everyone with money obtained and retained it through hard work and intelligence. That's all.

George Washington was a FARMER first and a Military Officer second.
[BTW - serving in the Military is not how one goes about becoming rich.]

Romney got his by WallStreet trading, Busting up Companies and sell their assets, and Inheritance.

Not even the same.

The amount of money Romney has isn't the issue. The fact that he doesn't understand the challenges facing middle America is the problem.

George Washington was a general in the army, he fought for American independence.
George Washington could have become the king of the United States.
George Washington voluntarily chose to limit his presidency to two terms, because he did not feel one man should have power for too long. He could have been president until he died.
I wish we had a man like George Washington running for president.
Neither Obama nor Romney comes close to the integrity and greatness of George Washington.

Worth pointing out that when he served as General, he kept careful track of all his expenses, and sent the bill to Congress when the war ended. His expense account is wonderful reading--he basically billed them for EVERYTHING. Man after my own heart.

Also, why not put Bill Clinton on Mount Rushmore? Poor kid from a single-parent family, never had much money. Great American success story.

To "ECR" so what you are saying is that appearing in multiple movies and television shows, along with being a model, singer, designer, and whatever else she has done is not legitimate works. That means that all of Hollywood and Broadway, along with the fashon industry are not doing any legitimate work.

Also consider this, how smart do you think a person has to be to convince a club to pay her $25,000 to $100,000 to go to a party. Could you do that?

To "LDS Liberal" actually, Romney got rich by making companies successful. 70% of the companies purchased by Bain Capital remained in business or grew. He has hardly the track record of "Busting up Companies and sell their assets". Plus, he was already wealthy by the time that he received any inheritance.

Great argument.

When Washington was President, slaves and women couldn't vote.

Had their opinions mattered, we may have seen a different President.

I don't mind if the president is rich or not. In fact, the election process almost requires it. I just don't want romney. Rich or not.

So Redshirt, is it "Paris for President!" Is that what you're thinking? I will respect your right to make that choice even if I disagree with it.

I think Paris Hilton would make a far better President than Romney.

To "ECR" I don't think she could be any worse than what we have right now.

You have failed to deal with the problem that you brought up. Why does it matter how a person makes millions, unless it is illegal?

Also consider this, how smart do you think a person has to be to convince a club to pay her $25,000 to $100,000 to go to a party. Could you do that?

We should be more concerned with a candidates adherence to the 9th Commandment. And please will someone give us examples of what companies are thriving because of Mitt Romney. GM and Chrysler don't count.

To "ugottabkidn" ok here are some companies that Romney helped boost:

Staples
Sports Authority
Domino's Pizza
DDi Corp
LinkedIn
Shopping.com
Taleo Corporation
MinuteClinic
SurveyMonkey
Dade International
Burger King
Houghton Mifflin Company

Are those enough successful companies for you?