Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Lord Jim »

Big Pay day for Prime Time:
Al Gore is now richer than Mitt Romney – and it’s all thanks to big oil

Al Gore’s strategy for saving the Earth seems to be to raise enough money to be able to buy it. After selling his failing Current TV company to Al Jazeera, Gore is suddenly a super rich man. Forbes analyst Ryan Mac says, “Taking into account taxes to be paid on the deal, possible earlier debt and the fact that Gore's representatives declined to comment, Forbes conservatively estimates the former vice president's net worth to be at least $300 million.” And how can Al Jazeera afford to hand over sums of money like that? Why, it’s bankrolled by the medieval kingdom of Qatar – which, in turn, makes its money out of black gold. The next time you see Al Gore on TV telling us how evil fossil fuels are, remember this: that fat gold Rolex on his chubby little wrist was paid for by oil.

But there’s another twist to this tail. Ryan Mac notes that this discovery of a rich seam of cash makes Mr Gore, “wealthier than unsuccessful Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney … Last May, Forbes estimated Romney's net worth to be around $230 million.” Thanks to petrodollars, the secular saint of liberalism is now richer than its devil.

There’s nothing innately wrong with being mega rich, and Gore has never criticised Romney for his wealth. But throughout the presidential election, the entire American liberal movement berated Mitt for making too much money too unethically through private equity. His “vulture capitalism” was built on outsourcing and downsizing and rationalising businesses out of a workforce. But to Romney’s credit, he never claimed to be something he wasn’t and he insisted that his free market ideology could help other people make money, too. He also built his business from the ground up.

By contrast, Mr Gore has made a vast wad of cash by setting up a boring TV channel, letting it fail and then selling it to a foreign concern. Not quite outsourcing, but fans of the movie The Campaign might know it as insourcing. And the indirect source of his wealth is something that he’s spent the last ten years attacking: big oil.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst ... o-big-oil/

To those who have followed Prime Time's career over the years, the news that he is a shameless hypocrite will come as no surprise. In fact I gotta hand it to Big Al; the fact he was able to sell an essentially worthless property (there's absolutely no guarantee that cable services will continue to carry the station after the transfer is complete, and the hopeless Current TV's average daily viewership is about 45,000) to these guys for 500 million shows that when push comes to shove, he's really quite the hustler....

On the other hand, cynical fellow that I am, I really have to wonder if Qatar thought it was worth shelling out 500 million dollars for this pig-in-a-poke, (100 million of which is going into Prime Time's pocket) just what else they're getting for their money from His Goreness in exchange for their generosity....
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImage

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by rubato »

Image


The all-time mark for cynici$m.

yrs,
rubato

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by dales »

I'll see you and raise you, rube.

Image

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by rubato »

http://archive.truthout.org/article/geo ... enneth-lay
__________________________
George W. Bush and Kenneth Lay

George W. Bush and Kenneth Lay
By Jason Leopold

Monday 29 May 2006

The Bush administration knew Enron was on a collision course two months before the high-flying energy company collapsed in a wave of accounting scandals that wiped out $60 billion in shareholder value and left thousands of company employees penniless.

It was August 15, 2001, when Enron lobbyist Pat Shortridge met with then-White House Economic Adviser Robert McNally, one day after Jeff Skilling made a stunning announcement that he was stepping down as president of Enron.

Shortridge confided in McNally that Enron was headed for a financial meltdown - one that could very well cripple the country's energy markets - and urged the White House economic adviser to alert President Bush about the company's financial problems so he could help put together a federal bailout, according to thousands of pages of documents about the meeting released by the government's Enron Task Force.

It certainly made sense for Enron to seek help from the White House. In August of 2001, Ken Lay was still known as "Kenny Boy" to President Bush, a nickname Bush bestowed upon him when the two men were up and comers in the Texas energy and political industries respectively.

When Bush announced his intention to run for president, Enron and its employees gave more than $1 million to Bush's 2000 election campaign, the Republican Party and the Bush Inaugural, and Bush aides used the Enron corporate jet during the post-election fracas in Florida.

With Thursday's guilty verdicts against Lay and Skilling on numerous counts of accounting fraud, conspiracy, and dozens of other charges, perhaps Enron should be remembered as - in addition to a symbol of greed - the first in what has become a long list of scandals that can be directly linked to the White House.

Back in 2002, White House spokeswoman Anne Womack pointed out that the McNally/Shortridge meeting was acknowledged by the White House on May 22, 2002, in documents released to reporters and Senator Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.

In those documents, it was noted that "Mr. McNally met with Mr. Shortridge and another individual who was not from Enron." Asked whether Enron's future had been discussed, Womack said, "If the meeting was about that, I would assume there wouldn't be anyone else there besides Mr. McNally and Mr. Shortridge."

To this day, no one knows exactly what happened after the meeting between Shortridge and McNally in the summer of 2001. President Bush has never answered questions about what he knew and when he knew it and whether he took steps to save the company's long-time employees from losing their savings.

One thing is for certain, however: once Enron's accounting machinations became public in October 2001, the Bush administration wasted no time in covering up its close ties with the energy company.

In late 2001, Alberto Gonzales, who at the time was Bush's chief counsel, refused to comment on the substance of the August 15, 2001, meeting between McNally and Shortridge in which McNally was tipped off to Enron's coming demise.

Gonzales said there was no known instance of Enron asking the White House for help prior to its bankruptcy proceedings. But according to Enron's December 2001 bankruptcy filing the company did just that.

According to those documents, Lay called Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on October 28 to advise him that Enron was heading toward bankruptcy. The following day, Lay asked Commerce Secretary Don Evans for help in heading off a downgrading of Enron's credit rating by Wall Street credit rating agencies that would push the company into bankruptcy.

A week later, former Enron president Greg Whalley called then-Treasury Under Secretary Peter Fisher six to eight times, seeking help in getting banks to lend more money to Enron.

The White House also announced in January 2002 that Lawrence B. Lindsey, who headed Bush's National Economic Council, had directed a review in October - before the calls received by O'Neill and Evans - to see whether an Enron collapse could have a strong impact on the American economy. That admission prompted critics of the administration to sound several alarms.

As Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said at the time, "It shows once again that the administration did a lot of thinking about the fact that the company was going to collapse but they did absolutely nothing to make sure that 50,000 Enron employees would not lose their life savings."

It also drew closer attention to the intensely close ties between Enron and the Bush administration. Lindsey had been a paid consultant for Enron, receiving $50,000 in 2000.

And he was just one of several top White House and Republican Party officials who have had close Enron ties, including Robert Zoellick, former United States trade representative, who sat on an Enron advisory board in 2000; Karl Rove, senior White House political strategist, who held more than 1,000 Enron shares before selling them in June 2001; and Marc Racicot, onetime chairman of the Republican National Committee, who worked as an Enron lobbyist last year.

When the White House finally complied with a subpoena in May of 2002 and released thousands of pages of documents about its contacts with Enron, it revealed that the company wielded enormous power and influence at the highest levels of government. One such document was a January 8, 2001, letter written to Bush's personnel director, Clay Johnson, recommending seven candidates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Two of the candidates Lay recommended, Pat Wood and Nora Brownell, were appointed to FERC by Bush; Wood was appointed chairman.

When Wood left his post as chairman of FERC in 2005, Bush appointed Joseph Kelliher, a former policy adviser with the Department of Energy and a member of Vice President Cheney's energy task force, to head up FERC, the agency that controls the country's natural gas industry, hydroelectric projects, electric utilities, and oil pipelines and has played a critical role in the deregulation of those industries.

However, what's most troubling about Kelliher's appointment to head FERC, a role in which his main priority will now be to protect consumers from the manipulative tactics of the very industry he enjoys a cozy relationship with, is the relentless lobbying of bigwigs in the energy industry in early 2001, as a member of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, to help write President Bush's National Energy Policy in a way that would be financially beneficial to energy corporations - at the expense of consumers.

The lengths to which Kelliher went to solicit key players in the energy industry to help write the National Energy Policy became apparent in 2003 when Judicial Watch, a bipartisan watchdog group that sued Vice President Dick Cheney to gain access to Cheney's list of industry insiders who participated in secret meetings with Cheney's energy task force, won a legal battle that forced the White House to release several hundred pages of task force related documents.

One such document, a March 10, 2001, email to energy lobbyist Dana Contratto, was damning - in it, Kelliher asked Contratto, if he were "King" or "Il Duce," "what would you include in a national energy policy, especially with respect to natural gas issues?"

On another occasion, Kelliher sought out Stephen Craig Sayle, an Enron lobbyist, to make similar recommendations. Sayle, former counsel for the House Commerce Committee, sent Kelliher Enron's "dream list," including a recommendation that the administration commit to market-based emissions trading, which was also used in administration's National Energy Policy.

Sayle wrote to Kelliher that "a multi-pollutant regulatory strategy should be estimated for the power generation sector including: Gradually phased in [mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions] reductions; Reform/replacement of NSR; Use of market-based/emission trading programs; Inclusion of both existing and new plants and equal treatment for both. The last bullet is the critical one to ensure that: a) we encourage the new generation that is required b) we ensure that the new technologies developed through DOE programs can come into the market."

"Obviously, this is a dream list," Sayle said in the March 23, 2001, email he sent to Kelliher. "Not all will be done. But perhaps some of these ideas could be floated and adopted."

Sayle also provided Kelliher with a PowerPoint presentation on behalf of his other energy clients in the so-called Clean Power Group, a consortium made up of a handful of the country's biggest energy companies, including NiSource Inc., Calpine Corp., Trigen Energy Corp., and El Paso Corp, whose mission, according to the group's web site, is to "streamline requirements under the Clean Air Act for electric generating facilities while at the same time making major reductions in air emissions."

The PowerPoint presentation, "A Comprehensive Multi-Pollutant Emission Control Strategy for Power Generation," summarized the Clean Power Group's support of a "cap and trade" method in addressing emissions of mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide from power plants, but included a proposal for a voluntary cap on carbon dioxide. The Clean Power Group stood to benefit from the initiative it urged Kelliher to get the White House to adopt - the companies could release more emissions under its proposed plan than under the more restrictive rules the Clinton administration had put in place.

After receiving Sayle's email and supporting material, Kelliher recommended that President Bush "direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose multi-pollutant legislation that would establish a flexible, market-based program to significantly reduce and cap emissions; provide regulatory certainty to allow utilities to make modifications to their plants without fear of new litigation; provide market based incentives, such as emissions-trading credits to help achieve the required reductions," all of which was approved by the president and eventually incorporated into the National Energy Policy.

In fact, President Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative consists of many of the bullet points laid out months earlier in Sayle's email to Kelliher.

In addition to Kelliher's correspondence with Sayle, he also met with oil and gas industry lobbyists, who helped write executive orders that Kelliher passed on directly to the White House. Two months later, the president issued executive orders nearly identical to those Kelliher received from the lobbyists months earlier.

But perhaps the most egregious of crimes involving Enron and the Bush administration is how the White House turned a blind eye to the Enron's manipulation to the California electricity market, which ignited a crisis in 2000 that resulted in several days of rolling blackouts.

On May 29, 2001, when the energy crisis reached its peak, Governor Gray Davis met with Bush at the Century Plaza Hotel in West Los Angeles, and pleaded with him to enact much-needed price controls on electricity sold in the state, which had skyrocketed to more than $200 per megawatt-hour.

Davis asked Bush for federal assistance, such as imposing federally mandated price caps, to rein in soaring energy prices. But Bush refused, saying California legislators had designed an electricity market that left too many regulatory restrictions in place and that it was that which had caused electricity prices in the state to skyrocket.

It was up to the governor to fix the problem, Bush said, adding that the crisis had nothing to do with energy companies' manipulating the market.

But Bush's response, in hindsight, appeared to be part of a coordinated effort launched by Lay to have Davis shoulder the blame for the crisis, which ultimately led to an unprecedented recall of the governor and Republican-funded attack ads on Davis's handling of the energy crisis.

A couple of weeks before the Davis and Bush meeting, the PBS news program Frontline interviewed Cheney. Cheney was asked by a correspondent from Frontline whether energy companies were acting like a cartel and using manipulative tactics to cause electricity prices to spike in California.

"No," Cheney said. "The problem you had in California was caused by a combination of things - an unwise regulatory scheme, because they didn't really deregulate. Now they're trapped from unwise regulatory schemes, plus not having addressed the supply side of the issue. They've obviously created major problems for themselves and bankrupted PG&E in the process."

In April 2001, a month before the Frontline interview and Bush's meeting with Davis, Cheney, who chaired Bush's energy task force, met with Lay to discuss Bush's National Energy Policy.

Lay recommended some energy policy initiatives that would financially benefit his company, and gave Cheney a memo that included eight recommendations for the energy policy. Of the eight, seven were included in the energy policy's final draft. The energy policy was released in late May 2001, after the meeting between Bush and Davis, and after Cheney's Frontline interview.

What many people have failed to realize is that Davis was right in his assessment that energy companies, including Enron, were manipulating the state's wholesale power market. To this day, neither Cheney nor Bush has acknowledged that they got it wrong and that their inaction helped fuel the California energy crisis.



riiiiiiiiight.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Gob »

As Al Gore recently put it, "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change."
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

Any reason an Al Gore thread gets derailed into a Reagan selling butts and/or a Bush/Cheney thread?
If one wants to discuss Reagan puting his face on a cigarette ad (many famous people did so back in the day) then start a thread about it.
If you want to go and show the hipocracy of the Bush Cheney years, then start a thread about it.
Just because other people did some not so nice things doesn't take aways from Gore's hipocracy in this matter. One can discuss Gore on his own merits (or lack of) without comparisons to other peoples merits (or lack of).

User avatar
dales
Posts: 10922
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:13 am
Location: SF Bay Area - NORTH California - USA

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by dales »

Butt, butt, butt..................that's the rube play book. :lol:

Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 9101
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Sue U »

The article in the OP is just stupid. It isn't some sort of scandal or "hypocrisy" that Al Gore made money selling a US cable TV company to an international media enterprise. Would it be any less scandalous or hypocritical if he sold it to Disney, Time-Warner or News Corp.? (Well, maybe News Corp.) Why is it somehow immoral to sell a business to people who made their money (initially) in oil and gas? (And BTW Al Jazeera is no longer owned by the government of Qatar, which, if you have seen pictures of Doha, can hardly be described as "medieval.") What is more immoral and more of a scandal is that I, and hundreds of millions of others, are forced to continue to power our personal and commercial transportation with gasoline and diesel fuel.

Moreover, the phrase "vulture captalism" was coined not by Al Gore, or by any "liberal" Democrat, but by Republican Rick Perry, attacking Romney in the GOP primaries. Simply being rich is not and has never been "demonized" by democrats (see, e.g., FDR, JFK, Warrern Buffet and George Soros). And of what consequence is it that Al Gore might have more money than Mitt Romney? Was Al Gore running for president last year? Was Al Gore making comments about "the 47%" or about how "corporations are people, too"? Was Al Gore in a position to be setting tax policy?

Al Gore and every other sane person on this planet knows that reducing use of fossil fuels can only benefit the local environment and global climate. There is nothing inconsistent with that and selling a business to another business. Don't you think Americans should be getting some of those petrodollars back?

And LJ:
Lord Jim wrote:I really have to wonder if Qatar thought it was worth shelling out 500 million dollars for this pig-in-a-poke, (100 million of which is going into Prime Time's pocket) just what else they're getting for their money from His Goreness in exchange for their generosity....
First, it is not "Qatar" that is paying, it is the privately held "Al Jazeera Media Network." Second, exactly "what else" is Al Gore in any position to give? If you have evidence of something illegal or immoral, then say what it is. If you don't, you're only engaging in a baseless smear. It's beneath you.

BTW, I have been reading and watching Al Jazeera English on-line for years. They do a hell of a job, and are a first-class source of news and opinion. I wish my cable operator -- and yours -- would carry it.

ETA:

I have never been a fan of Al Gore. In fact, I voted against him when he ran for president (and for vice president, for that matter). But the man is right on the climate issue, and has done good and considerable work to bring it to the fore in public discussion. It is a shame that the issues get sidelined and devalued for the sake of personal attacks on Mr. Gore. It is a stupid and wholly unproductive mode of operation. And perhaps that is exactly what its proponents wish.
GAH!

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Rick »

His Carbon Sink Idea IS a ripoff no ifs ands or buts about it.
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 9101
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Sue U »

Glad I got the stainless steel sink, then.
GAH!

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Gob »

:funee:
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Rick »

Don't encourage her Gob...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 9101
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Sue U »

Too late ... I've already come over to the dark side.
GAH!

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Rick »

Thhhhhaaaattts right you are a dark sider now...Bwaaahhaaahaaaahaaaa welcome and let anarchy reign...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Gob »

Sue U wrote:Too late ... I've already come over to the dark side.

The new SueU?

Image
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Lord Jim »

First, it is not "Qatar" that is paying, it is the privately held "Al Jazeera Media Network."
Yeah, well, uh...
Al Jazeera is closely held and gets some funding from the government of Qatar, a small country on the eastern side of the Arabian Peninsula that gets almost half of its gross domestic product from oil and gas, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

“Under Qatari law, Al Jazeera Media Network is incorporated as a private, non-profit company,” Charlotte Fouch, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. “Al Jazeera receives funding from the State of Qatar, much like other publicly funded broadcast networks.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... ory_1.html

Yes, I'm sure it's just like PBS....

(Hat's off to the first person who can find a reputable source to tell us just what the amount "some funding" Al Jazeera receives from Qatar is,or whether or not Al Jazeera would have the resources to shell out 500 million bucks absent this "funding", or whether or not Al Jazeera is even profitable...because I'll be damned if I can find the answers to those questions....)
Second, exactly "what else" is Al Gore in any position to give? If you have evidence of something illegal or immoral, then say what it is. If you don't, you're only engaging in a baseless smear.
Oh no, unless you believe these folks are incredibly stupid, it is completely legitimate to speculate as to what other considerations might be involved in paying 500 million dollars for a property, that absent it's cable access into households, in real terms probably has no more value than a few 100 thousand dollars worth of office and studio equipment....

Not to mention the additional money they can expect to continue to lose, as they attempt to develop and promote US programming....

And as I pointed out, buying Current TV does not guarantee access with the cable networks that have carried it, as was proven almost immediately upon the announcement of the sale:
NEW YORK –- Time Warner Cable pulled the plug on Current TV just hours after news of the cable channel's sale to Al Jazeera became official.

"This channel is no longer available on Time Warner Cable," read an on-screen message where Current TV used to be found.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/0 ... 99370.html

That loss alone dropped the value from 52 million US households to 40 million US households...

Ah, but hello, what's this? There may be an explanation here:
Gore's stake of 20% (not 25%) was worth $100 million.] (The IPO was aborted in 2009.) Gore’s partner, Current vice chairman Joel Hyatt, held a similar initial stake, although it’s likely both men’s holdings have been diluted somewhat since then.

Another Current investor, billionaire supermarket mogul Ron Burkle, is also believed to own roughly 25% of Current, while Comcast and DirecTV each hold stakes of more than 5%.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovi ... re-and-co/

So presumably a guarantee from those cable networks, who are profiting from the sale, that they wouldn't drop the station was part of the deal....(or maybe that's just me being cynical again...)

Let me make a couple of points:

I personally have absolutely nothing against Qatar. They are in fact an extremely important US ally in the region; they host the forward basing of The US Central Command...

And I also have nothing against the English language version of Al Jazeera; in fact during the height of the Arab Spring, I watched a lot of their programming on line; they had more in-depth and comprehensive coverage of the unfolding dramas in Egypt and Libya than was provided by any other news outlet, including CNN and the BBC...(though there has been garbage that's appeared on their flagship Arab language programming that rivals Der Strumer....)

But I'm not a guy who has made myself rich touting the evils of oil, making myself even richer taking money from an oil sheikdom....
Last edited by Lord Jim on Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
ImageImageImage

Grim Reaper
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Grim Reaper »

By the way, your source was rather loose with the facts:
“Taking into account taxes to be paid on the deal, possible earlier debt and the fact that Gore's representatives declined to comment, Forbes conservatively estimates the former vice president's net worth to be at least $300 million.”
That $300 million is how much he's made since leaving office. Only $70 million came from the Al-Jazeera deal.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Lord Jim »

Grim, my reading of that was, (and everything else I've read on this besides that) is that the 300 million figure is arrived at by adding his profit from this sale to his pre-existing wealth....(the money he inherited, plus the money he's made from pimping his "green" schemes)

I've seen the 70 million dollar figure you reference, but I've also seen 100 million dollars referenced, (even on MSNBC)
ImageImageImage

Grim Reaper
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: Al Jazeera Gore...or : "Earth In The Bank Balance"....

Post by Grim Reaper »

But by only mentioning his total worth, that makes it seem like he earned a lot more from the deal than he actually did.


Post Reply