Originally Posted by trumptman
This is because most conservative (not party but financial) definitions do not include your primary residence as an asset.
Given that this is often the largest single asset in middle income families I think that this is a dubious assertion when it comes to computing personal wealth. Especially since it IS counted against you if you owe a mortgage.
An awful lot of people are learning that very lesson right now which is why the subprime word is suddenly one everyone is familiar with.
Only folks who couldn't normally qualify for a mortgage in the first place.
Likewise most people do not consider cars, boats, etc. to be assets either.
Homes are not in the same category.
An asset is something that increases in value and puts money in your pocket. Calling your car or golf clubs an asset is the type of definition that makes people with almost $200k in personal loans feel good about what they squandered their money on.
Yes, and a house qualifies. A $1.3M+ house for certain.http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:/...22864&t=k&om=1
Pensions, retirement funds, etc too when calculating net worth. Especially one you get as a Senator.
The fact is the guy seems pretty clean. His retirement planning is covered by his pension plan that is easily supplemented by speaking engagements. Not quite like Tom DeLay. Didn't he come in poor and emerge as a millionaire?
The life insurance loans are nothing. They sound like full life, which are crappy to begin with and he's just surrendering the value that they pay out at death to pay for the premiums.
The only real loan of note is the line of credit in the 100K+ range and frankly that's likely just from being a Senator. I'd be surprised if other Senators didn't keep a line of credit open.
That said, he still strikes me as a weak VP choice, foreign policy experience or not.