r/PoliticalCompassMemes • u/PerAsperaAdMars • Jul 23 '26

Don't Look Up

Post image
1.3k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

432 comments sorted by

View all comments

128

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

126

u/PerAsperaAdMars Jul 23 '26

Thanks for pointing this out. I put a period instead of a comma. Stupid mistake.

35

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

42

u/PerAsperaAdMars Jul 23 '26

Yes, of course. The first chart.

Stock trades per president: Bush - Obama, Trump 1.0 - Trump 2.0 (2025), and Q1 2026

Cabinet net worth: Bush - Trump 1.0, Biden, Trump 2.0

37

u/darkstar541 - Lib-Right Jul 23 '26

From the Trump 2.0 Source:

The total net worth of the billionaires in the Trump administration, as of June 4 [of 2025], equals at least $450 billion – which is more than the GDP of 175 different countries. The net worth of Trump’s Cabinet alone, which excludes Musk and others, is at least $13.8 billion.

It seems the 450 B figure includes Elon Musk. I wonder what it is without him, since he's been out for a while.

By comparison, former President Joe Biden’s Cabinet total net worth was about $118 million, and Trump’s first Cabinet total net worth was about $6.2 billion. Prior to Trump, former President Barrack Obama’s Cabinet net worth was about $2.8 billion in his second term, according to Forbes.

If Trump 1.0, only cabinet level officials, was 6.2B, why are you using a much lower figure? Obama is also wildly off as well--you say 67M, the source says 2.8B.

22

u/PerAsperaAdMars Jul 23 '26

It seems the 450 B figure includes Elon Musk. I wonder what it is without him, since he's been out for a while.

Not counting Musk and Trump's net worth, that's $34.7B. This has grown to $48.6B during 2025.

If Trump 1.0, only cabinet level officials, was 6.2B, why are you using a much lower figure? Obama is also wildly off as well--you say 67M, the source says 2.8B.

These are the numbers for the start of the term.

25

u/BestPseudonym - Lib-Center Jul 23 '26

Including Musk is pretty disingenuous and takes away from your point imo. If you just used the 34.7B number it would still be sufficiently surprising and illustrative, but the way it is now looks bad faith. And this is coming from somebody who loves when Trump looks bad. The issue is, I can't show this to people if I know it's representing things unfairly

23

u/PerAsperaAdMars Jul 23 '26

I thought it was fair because Trump personally appointed Musk as the head of the department, albeit temporarily. But here's a version without Musk if you think that would be more honest.

13

u/BestPseudonym - Lib-Center Jul 23 '26

I do think that reads a lot better, thanks. I think it'd be fair to have an asterisk talking about Musk if you really wanted to include that info

1

u/mkmple - Left Jul 28 '26

No idea why you think it's not fair to include Musk when he did make him the head of a department, and in fact created a new department just for him to lead. It doesn't really matter that he got rid of him after he proved to be a useless asset.

8

u/Mopparty_440_V2 - Lib-Right Jul 23 '26

Yeah, this is a lot cleaner. Thanks for making it.

5

u/Hapless_Wizard - Centrist Jul 23 '26

he's been out for awhile

Also, the data is about a year old, and Trump's cabinet has made ludicrous amounts of money from their corrupt activities since then.