Net Worth of the U.S. Presidents
We have taken into account hard assets like land, estimated lifetime savings based on work history, inheritance, homes, and money paid for services, which include things as diverse as their salary as Collector of Customs at the Port of New York to membership on Fortune 500 boards. Royalties on books have also been taken into account, along with ownership of companies and yields from family estates.
The net worth of the presidents varies widely. George Washington was worth more than half a billion in today's dollars. Several presidents went bankrupt."
MP: What's interesting is that George Washington was probably the wealthiest U.S. president with $525 million of net worth, depending on how you count the entire Kennedy family estate of $1 billion towards JFK's net worth. Also, it's pretty amazing that Bill Clinton's net worth of $38 million is almost as much as the combined net worth of both Bush Presidents together ($43 million total), see chart above.
70 Comments:
If the purpose of the article in the Atlantic was to assess the wealth of Presidents in their own lifetimes, then the numbers given for the Founders are almost completely useless. Jefferson's land-holdings would now be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but they had no net worth when he left office as President. His only fungible assets were his slaves whom he used for the rest of his life as his sole source of ready money. Madison was similarly inept when it came to matters financial. His land had no more value than Jefferson's when Madison left office; when he died, Madison left poor Dolley as literally a pauper. Washington was, indeed, a wealthy man. When he married her, Martha was the richest woman in the colonies; and Washington was an accomplished farmer. But even with his skillful management, Mt. Vernon remained a marginal property; the greatest part of his wealth came from his holdings of Western lands that he acquired as a successful speculator, but the valuation of more than half a billion current dollars is fantastic. $50 million would be a far more reasonable estimate.
Shhh... don't let that cat out of the bag about Bill Clinton cashing in on his political background to a higher degree than anybody else.
Clinton was smarter than both Bushes.
Anon, it depends how you define smart.
Kerry, Bush GPAs At Yale Similar
June 7, 2005
(AP) "Sen. John F. Kerry's grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush's record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign."
Bush dumb, Gore bright?
March 06, 2002
"Not only did Bush academically outperform the "intellectually superior" Gore, Bush scored a higher verbal SAT score than Rhodes scholar and former Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley."
"Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale [emphasis added]. Gore, later the author of the environmental call-to-arms book, "Earth in the Balance," received a D in a Harvard science course."
From the "Atlantic" article:
>The stigma of making money from being a retired president also began to disappear.
This stigma was obviously gone by the end of the Clinton presidency. Who would buy a book about an unremarkable philanderer if he hadn't been President?
LetUsHavePeace said...:
>"[Washington]...but the valuation of more than half a billion current dollars is fantastic. $50 million would be a far more reasonable estimate."
Fascinating. References please. How did you come by this estimate?
If you are correct, the early presidents were a bunch of bumbling boobs, business wise. I wonder how they managed to survive childhood? I'm really interested in your sources. Please provide links to them
Clinton was less intelligent than either W or his father. He was also a rapist and a liar.
His only fungible assets were his slaves whom he used for the rest of his life as his sole source of ready money.
This statement is bullshit. Jefferson acquired his slaves through the inheritance of his father-in-law's estate, along with sizeable debts. Neither their labor nor their sale would have produced enough money to extinguish those debts. Instead, he sold land in an attempt to satisfy his creditors but the scrip he was paid in became worthless. He also assumed the debts of other relatives, for whom he had cosigned loans that they defaulted on. He made money through the practice of law and found willing lenders when he was short. His stature as a founding father allowed him to escape foreclosure while living and following his death his estate was sold at auction.
The big point is that modern-day US Presidents and Senators, and most Congressman, are millionaires, and most of them are lawyers.
As such, they are divorced both from working people, and people running businesses.
Chase Bank says this is helping our "plutonomy" an economy of, by and for the wealthy.
Clinton was smarter than both Bushes.
Clinton was too stupid to inhale. Or, maybe he was just counting on the gullibility and stupidity of his supporters. If the shoe fits ...
Academics don't mean squat when it comes to intelligence. The single best predictor of aca demic performance is how much money your parents have.
When I was in college kids driving sports cars and taking four business classes were on Deans List. I took six engineering and science classes - and worked a full time job.
I never made deans list but I graduated college debt free with money in the bank.
Money is one way we measure success, and not very many dumb people have lots of money.
You don't think Bush ever lied?
Washington made a lot of his money selling booze.
Despite his good nature towrds friends and family Jefferson was also a profligate spender and bad manager.
If Jefferson was alive today his proeprty would be worth hundreds of millions and his net wort would probably still be near zero.
Clinton was less intelligent than either W or his father.
I watched clinton at a press conference field one of those seve part questions of the type designed to trap the answerer. It probably took the reporter all night to dream this up and string togeterh all the innuendo.
Clinton answered all seven parts in turn without missing a beat.
Then you have Bush "Fool me twice..."
I liked the Bushes, but I never considered them to be very bright.
I'm going with Clinton. He has far more money, it's just hidden from the tax man.
The Kennedy clan could give away several hundred million and still be one of the richest families in the world. Why do they need me to pay more taxes to ease their guilt when they should fix their guilty consciences themselves?
Maybe Clinton is dumb or smart--but he made his own money, while the Bushes inherited theirs.
Indeed "W"s best investment was money someone gave--"loaned"-- him to invest in the Rangers. He then later sold his share in the Rangers for $18 million.
BTW, to build the Rangers' stadium, the City of Arlington used eminent domain to push land owners off property they did not want to sell.
Don't you love the Republican Party-so full of phonies they bet each other $3 bills in marked card-poker games in second-story pot-joints above ground-floor brothels in Reno.
I watched clinton at a press conference field one of those seve part questions of the type designed to trap the answerer. It probably took the reporter all night to dream this up and string togeterh all the innuendo.
The only thing MSM "reporters" take all night doing to Democrats is fellatio.
Maybe Clinton is dumb or smart--but he made his own money, while the Bushes inherited theirs.
Strike a nerve? Funny how "Benny" always rises to the defense of the Democrats. Putting up the right comment is like rolling over a rock, he always winces at the light and then slithers toward the darkness.
Unlike, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama, Bush had some actual business experience, although that's viewed as negative, or even criminal, by many.
However, I think, both Clinton and Bush were "misunderestimated," while Obama is misoverestimated.
Obama should've focused on economic growth and jobs rather than his big pet projects.
It has been a waste, while the country suffers.
Clinton bombed a European capital city
You would think this would cause some tension between Clinton and Obama. Clinton blew up the Yugo factory while Obama wants in import them.
On the Bush watch 9/11 happened, we got entangled in two endless wars in Iraqistan at a cost of trillions of dollars (there is a fat tail of outlays in the military world), our financial system collapsed, GM went bankrupt, the stock market went down not up (after eight years of R-Party rule).
If memory serves, Bush jr. was the only sitting President in history not invited to speak at his own party national convention (in 2008). He did a video that was shown briefly, as I recall. He said he was worried about hurricanes, or something to that effect. First time ever that happened.
Ron Paul got the most enthusiastic ovations at that same convention.
BTW, I think we see a Palin-Bachman ticket in 2012. The Tea Party is fired up, and smashing the party establishment in every election. The TP'ers love Palin, and she is playing to the crowd.
It will be a fascinating election--the talk show hosts will determine the next R-Party nominee, not the party establishment. The R-Party establishment is feeble and brain-dead. Who is that weenie running the RNC? He is such a zero I can't even remember his name. Michael "The Wimp" Steele, I think.
Another fun one to watch: Rand Paul, the handsome son of Ron, may win a Senate seat in Kentucky--a state that gets back $1.50 for every dollar they send to DC. It amounts to about $5,000 for every resident of Kentucky. (See Tax Foundation)
Paul touts is libertarian roots. Yet, to truly wrench free of DC would cause an economic collapse in Kentucky, which like the 21 farm states, essentially floats on top of a pool of federal lard. All the farm states are subsidized by DC--they all get back $1.30 or more for every dollar they send to DC. California is a net loser, paying $60 billion or more to DC than it gets back.
Tough call for Paul.
It is one reason why the R-Party runs huge deficits even when our national economy is growing (2000-2006).
Gee, thank you "Benny"
I recall Bush was open to a stimulus plan after Lehman failed in Sep '08. Yet, nothing came out of the Pelosi House, and there's still nothing effective.
Some will continue to blame Bush for unexpected events (e.g. 9/11) and acts of God (e.g. hurricane Katrina).
The real Bush economy:
Bush inherited the worst stock market crash, since the Great Depression, and a recession. However, the Bush Administration turned the recession into one of the mildest in history, after the record economic expansion.
Over a five-year period in the mid-2000s, U.S. corporations had a record 20 consecutive quarters of double-digit earnings growth, two million houses a year were built, 16 million autos per year were sold, U.S. real GDP expanded an average of 3%, in spite of 6% annual current account deficits (which subtract from GDP).
The U.S. economy was most efficient, while Americans stocked-up on real assets and goods, and capital was built-up. It was one of the greatest periods of U.S. prosperity, and in a structural bear market that began in 2000.
The Bush Administration was adept minimizing the recession in 2008, until Lehman failed in Sep '08, which caused the economy to fall off a cliff. However, subsequent appropriate policy adjustments were implemented quickly.
>"BTW, I think we see a Palin-Bachman ticket in 2012. The Tea Party is fired up, and smashing the party establishment in every election. The TP'ers love Palin, and she is playing to the crowd."
I don't think so. If she wants love from Teaparty groups, she needs to quit endorsing candidates like McCain in AZ and Carly Fiorina for senate in CA. The liberty candidate in CA is Chuck DeVore, not Fiorina.
If she is actually as centrist as those she endorses, she doesn't stand a chance with Teaparty voters.
The only thing MSM "reporters" take all night doing to Democrats is fellatio.,
Clinton answered all six question in order, and all you can muster is an entirely unrelated response.
The Kennedy clan does give away millions. I'm pretty sure their accountant tells them the exact amount that will minimize their taxes.
After taxes they still have enought to be comfortable, not that it has made them happy.
Obama should've focused on [economic growth] undoing Bush's mistakes and jobs rather than his big pet projects.
Some will continue to blame Bush for unexpected events (e.g. 9/11) and acts of God (e.g. hurricane Katrina).
No one is blaming Bush for Katrina. Prepration for it once it was obviously a problem and response afterward is something else.
"Maybe Clinton is dumb or smart--but he made his own money, while the Bushes inherited theirs."
Yeah, Clinton cashed in on his infamy. Wow, what a stellar businessman!
Benji's boyfriend Obama made his own money too, with the help of Tony Rezko and other nefarious criminals.
That didn't stop Benji from pulling the lever for Hopeandchange in 08.
Clinton answered all six question in order, and all you can muster is an entirely unrelated response.
That's your fantasy. What were the questions? Provide a link. It's got to be some sort of mental disorder to expect others to confirm and respond to your delusions.
Anonymous said...
The Kennedy clan does give away millions. I'm pretty sure their accountant tells them the exact amount that will minimize their taxes.
After taxes they still have enought to be comfortable, not that it has made them happy.
Cry me a river. They're so big on redistributing the wealth, except their own wealth. They're hypocrites. They sure do not need anywhere near $1 billion, and particularly so if they want to come after my income. They should walk the walk first and start actually doing the things they want taxpayers to do, and in a big way.
At least Warren Buffet is going to give his wealth away, and he earned it himself.
>Clinton answered all six question in order, and all you can muster is an entirely unrelated response."
Remember, Clinton's specialty was answering questions. It's the one thing he was really good at....well almost.
"I never had sexual relations with that woman!"
""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
King of teflon, no one has topped him for slipperiness before or since.
Anon, Obama is undoing the greatest and most efficient economy the world has ever seen.
As for hurricane Katrina:
Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina:
"The response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.
Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.
While the press focused on FEMA's shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success--especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state."
"I never had sexual relations with that woman!"
We agree Clinton was a liar.
This started with the observation that Clinton had more money than the Bushes. and I responded that Clinton was smarter than he bushes.
That was diverted to an unrelated comment about academics and Kerry, to which I responded that I thought academics were not all that indicative of smarts, money being the usual indicator of success. I can’t recall ever being asked about my grades since I left school, except for government jobs.
I gave an example of Clinton thinking fast on his feet, which elicited a response about MSM and fellatio. I consider that a symptom of Turret’s or Attention Deficit Disorder. It is not my fantasy that the fellatio comment was off topic.
Sorry I don't have a link to the example, I just recall seeing it on a news conference. You don't need to try to make me out as a liar or delusional on account of that.
I don't have to like my employees to recognize their talents, and the same goes for the presidents. The guy was a Rhodes scholar, although he never finished his degree. (He later got an honorary one, I think.)
Here is what Bush had to say about Clinton at Oxford:
'You know, Governor Clinton is already talking about pulling together the best and the brightest, all the lobbyists, economists, lawyers, all those guys, liberal guys that were hanging out with him in Oxford when some of you were over there fighting, and have them solve all of America's problems.'
For someone who is all about individual responsibility, what do you care what the Kennedy's or anyone else with money does with it?
I didn't say nothing was done after Katrina. Some of my former Coart Guard buddies were real heros. They would have been heroes under any president, so I don't give Bush extra credit for that.
I understand you can buy some never used FEMA trailers real cheap now.
Anon, Obama is undoing the greatest and most efficient economy the world has ever seen.
You mean the one leading up to Lehman and AIG?
Anon, it seems, Bush's experience in the Air National Guard paid off.
Yes, if there was a GOP Congress to support Bush, I suspect, there would've been a large tax cut.
I stated before a significant tax cut would've increase household disposible income, strengthen household and bank balance sheets, spur consumption, to clear the market of excess assets and goods, which in turn would spur production, and create a real economic recovery.
It worked under Kennedy in '61, Reagan in '81, and Bush in '01 and early '08.
The Bush tax cut in early '08 gave the Fed time to catch-up easing the money supply. The U.S. was on a path to a mild recession, until Lehman failed in Sep '08.
Anon, it seems, Bush's experience in the Air National Guard paid off.
What's that got to do with net worth or smarts?
I've got nothing against Bush, I'm sure he did the best with what he had to work with.
Faced with the same issues Obama would have done it differenty.
So would I, and you probably.
Doesn't make one wrong and the other right.
I stated before a significant tax cut would've increase household disposible income, strengthen household and bank balance sheets, spur consumption, to clear the market of excess assets and goods, which in turn would spur production, and create a real economic recovery.
At what point would you say taxes are too low and result in reduced government revue despite the overall economic gain?
Anon: "What's that got to do with net worth or smarts?"
What do you think a BA from Yale, an MA from Harvard, and business, political, and military experience have to do with net worth or smarts?
You raise taxes, or taxes rise, in an economic boom, and you cut taxes, or taxes fall, in an economic bust.
You don't raise and cut taxes at the same time in a recession or a slow recovery and do everything you can to make the economy inefficient and retard growth when you need higher growth.
You don't want slower growth, smaller tax revenues, and huge budget deficits, along with a higher cost of living or a decline in living standards.
However, it seems, being able to complete sentences adds to net worth.
What do you think a BA from Yale, an MA from Harvard, and business, political, and military experience have to do with net worth or smarts?
I know some PhDs who are dumb as toast. I don't think academic credentials show much other than perserverence and discipline.
Experience is mostly what happens to you, and most of that is out of your control. That doesn't take any smarts at all.
What you take awy from it counts.
Mostly, we recognize money as the measure of success. Even for presients we look at the economy, to measure success (although we measure badly, I think).
Some people could care less about money and pursue their happiness in other ways. If they succeed, they are the smartest of all.
You don't want slower growth, smaller tax revenues, and huge budget deficits, along with a higher cost of living or a decline in living standards.
At what point would you say taxes are too low and result in reduced government revue despite the overall economic gain?
You raise taxes, or taxes rise, in an economic boom, and you cut taxes, or taxes fall, in an economic bust.
You need to lead that goose when you pull the trigger. As MP has shown us it takes a long time for the experts to measure which direction the economic goose is flying.
It seems a president would need to be prescient to guess correctly, but if he gets it right, his successor will get the credit.
Should have done nothing, the critics will say, the market would have fixed itself. Government intervention does not work. But that doesn't keep the blame vultures away when thngs go badly.
Anon @ 8:05
First of all, if you want to make multiple comments on a thread such as this one, why don't you pick a name to use instead of anonymous? It's just as easy, and then your comments are easier for others to follow and respond to. It's just one button up from the one you are using, any name will do, and no URL is needed.
I estimate that there are at least three anons on this thread, and it almost appears that you are arguing with yourself.
you said:
>"This started with the observation that Clinton had more money than the Bushes. and I responded that Clinton was smarter than he bushes.
That was diverted to an unrelated comment about academics and Kerry, to which I responded that I..."
Thanks for the recap. This whole discussion of who is smarter is way down there in the noise and seems kind of pointless. I'm not sure why you feel you need to defend Clinton's intelligence. It's not a very important or interesting subject, and it's not what he is mainly remembered for.
Your Bush quote is from a campaign speech by Bush Sr. in 1992. It isn't praise for Clinton's intelligence, but is a condemnation of the elitist attitude that really smart people somehow know what is best for the rest of us, and can plan our future for us.
It is still a dangerous idea, and history has shown that Central Planning hasn't worked well anywhere it has been tried.
I'm not sure why you feel you need to defend Clinton's intelligence.
All I did was offer an opinion as to why he had more money.
I'm not sure why people have to attack me/defend Bush (so vehemently) over an opinion that would apply equally to other people.
I agree that central planning has not worked. Neither has no planning.
On the other hand, China seems to be doing well, lately.
why don't you pick a name to use instead of anonymous?
You guys have your way of being rude, I have mine.
I'll get it fixed one of these days.
Anon asks: "At what point would you say taxes are too low and result in reduced government revue despite the overall economic gain?"
You want to maximize the overall economic gain. So, you want to reduce government as much as possible, i.e. substantially reduce government revenues and expenditures.
On the Federal level, there should be only an unemployment tax to help smooth-out business cycles. Also, although a private mercenary military would be more efficient, a standing military should be maintained for security. Moreover, some money should go to maintaining the original Cabinet of 200 years ago, e.g. Secretary of State, etc. but not too much. Furthermore, a central bank will be needed.
The Federal government doesn't need to spend $3.7 trillion this year. $1 trillion is more than enough.
Everything else can be done by the private sector, more efficiently and much cheaper. For example, a private firm can fill potholes and the bill can be sent to households in the city each month.
The bill can be itemized and consolidated with other public services provided by private firms and paid by households in a city rather than through taxes. That would be a true community.
Anon @ 11:43
>"You guys have your way of being rude, I have mine."
In that case, you started out being rude.
A reader can easily follow a string of comments by a name, but not an anon. This gives what you say continuity, and context.
>"On the other hand, China seems to be doing well, lately."
Is that the Chinese people you are referring to? How are they doing these days?
The Chinese government is holding their currency artificially low so their exports are cheap, but that makes their imports expensive, so the Chinese people can't afford as many imported goods. Besides, they aren't actually getting the money to spend, as their government is buying IOUs from the US.
Is this Central Planning in the best interest of the people?
PeakTrader
>Anon asks: "At what point would you say taxes are too low and result in reduced government revue despite the overall economic gain?"
This may be the never ending question from the Laffer Curve troll. I can't believe anyone could be as incredibly stupid as this person seems to be, so the only explanation is trolling.
>"On the Federal level, there should be only an unemployment tax to help smooth-out business cycles."
Why are you recommending a new federal tax? This is normally handled well enough at the state level.
And, remember, if you subsidize something, you will get more of it.
>"Furthermore, a central bank will be needed."
You & I will likely never agree on this one, so I will say nothing. :-)
Well, maybe just a little thing. If the Fed's job is to smooth out the business cycles, then why haven't they done it? Why did we fall into this deep hole we are in?
Austrian school economics predicted this recession, as well as the Great Depression. If the Fed can't or won't do it's job, we shouldn't have one. The market can set interest rates better than those "bark on the tree" experts possibly can.
With the small government you are recommending, we would all have to decide on our own how to live our lives, and how to spend our own money. What a horror that would be! :-)
I see that pseudo benny is still in 'delusional prattle mode', I just wished the comments were more entertaining...
anon makes the bizzare claim sans anything credible to back it up: "Clinton was smarter than both Bushes"...
So this alledged professor of law was so smart he forgot what perjury is all about?!?!
BTW, how many blue dresses did the Bushes collectively stain?
Just asking is all...
"In that case, you started out being rude."
Nah, you guys were being rude long bbefore I dropped an oar inthe water.
I can't believe anyone could be as incredibly stupid as this person seems to be,
The Laffer curve does have a bottom end, does it not?
So this alledged professor of law was so smart he forgot what perjury is all about?!?!
We agree he is a liar. Those who claimed perjury just weren't smart enough to convict.
If doctor A made twice as much money as Doctor B in the same business, I would suggest that he was the smarter of the two.
If Lawyer A made twice as much money as lawyer B in the same business, I would suggest that he was the smarter of the two.
If president A...
This has nothing to do with supporting Clinton.
"The Federal government doesn't need to spend $3.7 trillion this year. $1 trillion is more than enough."
If the present tax load is around 25%, then I interpret your comment to mean you think taxes should be no higher than 6.75%.
Good luck with that.
Why did we fall into this deep hole we are in?
Not enough government intervention?
Europe stimulated less and recovered slower, China stimulated more and recovered faster.
"Those who claimed perjury just weren't smart enough to convict"...
Hmmm, I suggest you take a closer look at the vote and who voted what...
"This has nothing to do with supporting Clinton"...
Never said you were supporting Clinton, I just indicated that the reasoning you offered why Clinton is smarter is potentially flawed just like your lawyer and doctor statements...
There's a myriad of reasons why someone makes more money in the same field as someone else and how 'native smarts' plays into that may possibly be only a minor reason...
makes the bizzare claim sans anything credible to back it up: "Clinton was smarter than both Bushes"...
To Juandos, anything I say will be bizarre and nothing I say will ever be credible.
"A closed mind is not only closed to outside thoughts, it is often closed to itself as well. It is closed to new thoughts and anything that threatens the status quo. "
Clinton is smarter is potentially flawed just like your lawyer and doctor statements...
I accept that. Money is not the only measure, just the usual one.
Meanwhile, Clinton still has more money.
I happen to believe it is a better measure than academic performance. You got another one?
"Meanwhile, Clinton still has more money."
Yeah, so did Pablo Escobar. At one point he offered to pay off Colombia's national debt if the govt dropped the charges.
I guess he must have been a genius, like Einstein.
"Meanwhile, Clinton still has more money."
Yeah, so did Pablo Escobar. At one point he offered to pay off Colombia's national debt if the govt dropped the charges.
I guess he must have been a genius, like Einstein.
I accept that. Money is not the only measure, just the usual one.
Clinton has more money than Pablo Escobar, today.
the reasoning you offered why Clinton is smarter is potentially flawed just like your lawyer and doctor statements...
So far, that's the best argument I've gotten: "potentially flawed".
C'mon, you guys (gals) think the market solves everything, and the market is all about money.
"Clinton has more money than Pablo Escobar, today."
Well, yeah, Escobar went down in a hail of bullets on a rooftop in Medellin.
Clinton shamelessly cashed in on his infamy, so what. Doesn't prove he's some super savvy businessman.
"To Juandos, anything I say will be bizarre and nothing I say will ever be credible"...
Well since you've yet to post anything like a credible comment (and since unlike liberals) I tend to be skeptical of mere, foundationless statements maybe working on a little crediblity isn't such a bad thing...
Post a Comment
<< Home