Clinton, the Democratic president who was in office for two terms between 1993 and 2001, started his presidency with a net worth of $1.3 million, and after leaving office, had accumulated a wealth of $120 million, according to celebritynetworth.com.
Per the outlet, it is also thought that Clinton and his wife Hillary have earned more than $250 million to date from speaking engagements, book advances and royalties, and through investment and consulting fees.
Barack Obama was the president who saw the second highest increase to his wealth coming out of office, at around 5,300 percent.
After the Democrat was in office for two terms between 2009 to 2017, he accumulated a net worth of $70 million, up from $1.3 million.
This seems to gleefully conflate wealth and income, in order to claim that the infamously-always-grifting trump lost a fortune during his first term. Using percent to decide who had the “biggest increase” to their wealth is a sneaky way of excusing the grifting of the richest among us. It points out “Democrat” or “Democratic” repeatedly but doesn’t use the word “Republican” even one time. Its supporting “according to Bloomberg” link doesn’t even go anywhere.
Additionally, Donald Trump does not appear on the chart of before and after wealth, presumbaly because the “according to Bloomberg” numbers are 20 time higher than the highest number that is on the chart.
The article also does nothing to acknowledge or account for the way trump’s family cashed in, scoring deals that added up to potentially billions, i.e, far more than all the money on their little chart put together.
I am skeptical that any outsider can really say, in good faith, that trump’s wealth rose or fell during his first term anyway. That family’s finances are infamously obfuscated and shot through with fraud. Once a system passes a certain level of complexity, it becomes pretty trivial to paint it in whatever light you’d choose, and offer evidence to back that point of view up, too.
He absolutely did.
This seems to gleefully conflate wealth and income, in order to claim that the infamously-always-grifting trump lost a fortune during his first term. Using percent to decide who had the “biggest increase” to their wealth is a sneaky way of excusing the grifting of the richest among us. It points out “Democrat” or “Democratic” repeatedly but doesn’t use the word “Republican” even one time. Its supporting “according to Bloomberg” link doesn’t even go anywhere.
Additionally, Donald Trump does not appear on the chart of before and after wealth, presumbaly because the “according to Bloomberg” numbers are 20 time higher than the highest number that is on the chart.
Yes, good catch!
The article also does nothing to acknowledge or account for the way trump’s family cashed in, scoring deals that added up to potentially billions, i.e, far more than all the money on their little chart put together.
I am skeptical that any outsider can really say, in good faith, that trump’s wealth rose or fell during his first term anyway. That family’s finances are infamously obfuscated and shot through with fraud. Once a system passes a certain level of complexity, it becomes pretty trivial to paint it in whatever light you’d choose, and offer evidence to back that point of view up, too.
The header you omitted which clearly outlines the context was AFTER PRESIDENCY.
But Bill had a great investment advisor even had his own island.