Teresa Heinz Kerry

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Where do you get your information? You do realize that Kerry had to take out a loan to finance his run during the primaries because his wife BY LAW is allowed to contribute no more to his campaign than you or I could?

and where do you get your information?

You do realize that Kerry would never have QUALIFIED for a $6 million dollar loan based soley on his own income, which come mostly from his $150,000 a year salary as a U.S. Senator?

 

[faithinkarma]

I'm sorry, and you know this how? If he was doing it based on his wife's income why not borrow a gazillion dollars? You do realize that Kerry has money beyond his income? Surely you have seen all the whining about his wealth?

The personal loan was secured through a mortgage on his share of the family's home in Boston," said a statement from Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign manager.

His wife, heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry, has a fortune estimated at more than $500 million. But the law forbids her from paying off a campaign loan for her husband.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Who do you think paid for that house?

Kerry's costly loan



Sen. John Kerry gave himself quite a Christmas present last year. Mr. Kerry lent his cash-strapped presidential campaign $6.4 million two days before Christmas. Two factors made the loan possible. The first was the seemingly infinite liquidity of Teresa Heinz Kerry, the ketchup heiress he married in 1995. Mrs. Heinz Kerry reportedly forked over virtually all of the funds for the newly married couple's mansion in Boston's exclusive Beacon Hill neighborhood. The second factor was a little help from her friends at the Mellon financial conglomerate, who signed off on an eye-popping home appraisal. That super-sized appraisal made the loan much larger than it otherwise could have been.
With that infusion, Mr. Kerry rejected matching funds for the primaries. That decision enabled Mr. Kerry, once he had secured the nomination on March 2, to raise more than $140 million over the next four months. So far, however, the campaign has not been clear about how Mr. Kerry intends to repay the $6.4 million loan.

Less than three weeks after he accepts the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Kerry must decide whether that loan would be repaid by the campaign, which has been making the monthly interest payments of $16,600. The campaign clearly has the funds to retire the debt. If the campaign pays off the loan, it will have $6.4 million less to spend on advertising before Mr. Kerry accepts the nomination or to transfer to the Democratic National Committee after the convention.
Mr. Kerry clearly does not have the means to retire the debt, and his wife cannot legally repay the loan. His latest Senate financial disclosure forms report personal assets as low as $417,000. His annual Senate salary, which is less than $160,000, would not cover the $200,000 annual interest costs. Moreover, 20 days after he accepts the nomination, the so-called "millionaire's provision" of Mr. Kerry's beloved McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law prohibits him from raising more than $250,000 to repay the $6.4 million loan.
If elected president, Mr. Kerry's salary would jump to $400,000. But the mortgage's debt-service costs could rise even more sharply once the rock-bottom interest rate of his adjustable-rate mortgage (currently 3.125 percent) increases, as it surely will. If he loses the presidency and remains in the Senate, the financial vice will only tighten. On the other hand, if he uses campaign funds to repay the loan, his contributors might object; and Republicans could convincingly argue that the Kerry campaign bundled $50 contributions from the Internet or $2,000 donations from John Edwards' trial-lawyer friends to retire the Boston Brahmin's mortgage.
Either way, the $6.4 million loan that rescued his campaign in January likely will be causing Mr. Kerry problems in September and October and perhaps beyond.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040722-083849-3762r.htm

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
Who do you think paid for that house?

he only borrowed money equal to HIS SHARE IN THE HOUSE, not the entire value of the home.

 

[bsnyder]

Faith, he's got nothing, beyond his Senate salary, that she hasn't given him.

The home belongs to both of them, yes, because of community property laws. But it wasn't bought with his money.

Why would he borrow more than he needs, just because he can?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

$6.4M loan that saved Kerry may also drain him
By Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Once written off as a Democratic presidential contender, John Kerry survived to become the front-runner thanks to a $6.4 million Christmas Eve loan he made to his campaign.

The loan allowed Kerry's campaign, which was struggling to raise money, to put ads on the air and pay staff until victories in Iowa and New Hampshire produced new funds. But now the loan, which he got using his home in Boston's exclusive Beacon Hill neighborhood as collateral, places a financial burden on the Massachusetts senator, with no easy way to pay it off:

• Kerry's financial disclosures show no assets sufficient to pay the loan or even to keep up with the interest payments. Aides say he has assets that aren't listed on the forms but decline to reveal them.

• His wife, heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry, has a fortune estimated at more than $500 million. But the law forbids her from paying off a campaign loan for her husband.

• If he wins the nomination, Kerry could pay himself back from campaign contributions made before the Democratic convention in late July. But doing so would siphon off money at a time when he would be running against President Bush, who will have a projected $200 million to spend.

"There are a limited number of ways he can pay off that loan, and it's a fair question to ask what he intends to do," says Larry Noble, director of the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which studies money in politics.

Kerry borrowed the money Dec. 24 from the Mellon Trust of New England. It is payable over 30 years, with interest-only payments for the first 10 years, at a variable interest rate beginning at 3.125%.

Kerry's campaign says he intends to pay off the 30-year mortgage, which carries annual interest payments of about $200,000. But that is more than his $158,000 Senate salary and all his other income put together, according to his financial disclosure statement.

"Sen. Kerry is a man who has considerable assets," says Michael Meehan, a campaign spokesman.

Kerry's government disclosure form, covering 2002, gives no hint of what those assets might be.

The form doesn't require disclosure of property that is not held for investment purposes, such as the house in question — a $13 million Boston house Kerry owns jointly with his wife and mortgaged to finance his campaign. Aides hint that Kerry may own other non-investment property that could be sold to satisfy the debt, but they won't provide details. "He has disclosed what he needs to disclose" under the law, Meehan says.

Kerry's wife has assets valued at more than $500 million, but campaign-finance law bars her from paying off the campaign loan. That would be an illegal contribution; an individual is allowed to give no more than $2,000.

If she bought her husband's share of the house back from the bank, "that raises thorny legal issues," Noble says. It would arguably be a back-door evasion of the campaign contribution limits.

Before he was married in 1995, Kerry's disclosure forms ranked him as one of the least wealthy members of the Senate. His 1994 form showed a trust fund worth no more than $100,000 and debts of at least $20,000. Since then, he has inherited other trust funds from his mother.

Kerry and his wife bought the house together after they were married. It is not clear whether Kerry used his assets to acquire his share of the town house, or whether it was a gift from his wife, whose wealth comes from the Heinz ketchup fortune. The Kerry campaign declines to say.

Since his marriage in 1995, Kerry has repeatedly refused to fill in the missing details of his financial holdings. When he renegotiated terms of a divorce from his first wife that year, he took the unusual step of having the court records on his finances sealed. In 1996, Kerry loaned his Senate re-election campaign $1.9 million, using the same town house as collateral. He struggled to pay off the loan, retiring it three years later by raising the money from campaign donors. At the time, it was legal to do that.

A provision in the new campaign-finance law limits Kerry's ability to raise contributions to pay off the loan, however. The law says candidates can raise money to pay off personal loans to their campaigns only before the election. Once the election has passed, they are limited to a reimbursement of $250,000. In the case of presidential primaries, the election season is defined as the period before the party's convention, which for the Democrats begins July 28.

The section was put into the law to keep politicians from hitting up donors once they are in office to pay off money they loaned to their campaigns — in effect transferring campaign donations directly into their own pockets.

But if Kerry becomes his party's presidential nominee, repaying himself for the campaign loan could mean taking more than $6 million from campaign contributions at a time when the party is desperate to stay financially competitive with Bush. Such a decision could anger donors who want their money used against Bush, not to redeem Kerry's house.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/primariescaucus/2004-02-08-kerry-loan_x.htm

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I never called *you* anything. Keep up the "woman bashing" it's always so attractive coming from a man!

double (ah make a triple) huh???

You most certainly did say

I don't even feel the need to respond to the "Bushie" fanatics anymore.

back on page one. If that's not calling me a name, I don't know what is.

quadruple huh?

I bashed women? When was that? On this thread? Please point it out, would you?

Your medication must be wearing off or something.

 

[faithinkarma]

Fair enough. I thought I had read that he was wealthy in his own right. But since the loan has now been paid back, you will still have a hard time saying he got elected with money from her first husband.

Why would he borrow more than he needs, just because he can?

because you have insinuated that he bought the election with the money, so why not borrow enough to make it a sure thing?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by danacara
I wrote this elsewhere but it probably best belongs here: It ticks me off when women say that other women should be less aggressive, less ambitious, less expressively smart than they are by nature. Teresa Heinz Kerry is a bohemian philanthropist intellectual by nature. Laura Bush is a quiet mild librarian by nature, more classically and stereotypically "feminine." Why do we vilify Kerry for not being that way? Why do we fault her for standing up for herself with some pushy reporter? If a man had told him to "shove it," wouldn't we be sitting her thinking, that reporter probably deserved it?

Don't we tell our daughters that they can achieve anything, have it all, live internationally, attract and marry men who are rich in both intellectual and physical assets, raise fantastic kids (have you all seen Chris Heinz?), become philanthropists, and speak with confidence in front of forty million people? So what is it, exactly, that we don't like about Teresa Heinz Kerry?

Women are women's worst enemies. Men never do this to each other. It makes me crazy to see it.

Maybe the reporter was a little pushy but he was correct regardless. She did say "un-American" which she then aggressively denied.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Maybe the reporter was a little pushy but he was correct regardless. She did say "un-American" which she then aggressively denied.

where have you been all day?

she said unamerican traits

he said unamerican activities.

I know You know the difference.

 

[doc428]

Originally posted by Jynohn
Politics aside, I think that both Teresa Heinz Kerry and her husband both come across as very unlikeable people. I can't stand the Clinton's politics, but even I can admit that they have charisma, something that the Kerry's most definitely lack.

My opinion exactly. Being from Pittsburgh, I have seen enough of Mrs. Heinz Kerry to last a lifetime. She is aloof and stand offish. I have been at a number of charity events where she was at, and she was very unavailable for any contact with anybody but her circle.
I also find Pres. Clinton very charming and likable.Would vote for him again in a heartbeat.

 

[bsnyder]

Nope, not wealthy in his own right....he's a kept man, fair and simple.

Without the collateral for the loan (the house that Teresa bought them with Heinz money) he wouldn't have qualified for the loan.

Without the loan, his campaign, dead in the water, would have been over. He wouldn't be the nominee getting ready to speak at the convention.

I'm not insinuating anything....I'm stating a fact. A dead Republican Senator's money is reponsible for John Kerry being the Democratic nominee.

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
where have you been all day?

she said unamerican traits

he said unamerican activities.

I know You know the difference.

Is there really that much of a difference based on the context of the speech she made?

So do you think he was trying to bait her by purposely using the word activities instead of traits?

 

[danacara]

Originally posted by bsnyder
I'm not insinuating anything....I'm stating a fact. A dead Republican Senator's money is reponsible for John Kerry being the Democratic nominee. [/B]

Well, I would argue that the money is Teresa's now. I would also argue that a Yale degree, distinguished service in Vietnam, a twenty-year political tenure, and particularly good advisors are responsible for John Kerry being the Democratic nominee. But, that's just my POV. And I'm a Republican, ha.

Also, by similar logic, if a dead Republican senator is rolling in his grave because his capital is being used to the advantage of Democrats, then I wonder how the dead Republican ex-president is feeling about his son on the podium at the DNC. But I like to think that Ronnie is wearing his cowboy hat in Heaven and looking down with some pride.

 

[bsnyder]

Don't bet on it, Dana. President Ronald Reagan was opposed to stem cell research.

The ONLY reason Ron Reagan was a speaker on that platform last night was because his name happens to be Ronald Reagan. He's not a scientist or an expert in stem cell research in any way, nor is he a politician running for office. And while I have sympathy for any family member who feels strongly FOR the use of stem cell research, there are literally millions of them out there. None of them were asked to speak at the Convention.

And yes, it's clearly Teresa's money now. But you know how politics works. It takes more than a Yale degree, distinguished service in Vietnam, a twenty-year political tenure, and particularly good advisors to become the nominee of either party. It takes money.

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Is there really that much of a difference based on the context of the speech she made?

So do you think he was trying to bait her by purposely using the word activities instead of traits?

Absolutely. This guy makes his living with words. It was no innocent mistake on his part. And there is a huge difference in the words. One is associated with very painful period in America's history. The other is not.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Don't bet on it, Dana. President Ronald Reagan was opposed to stem cell research.

The ONLY reason Ron Reagan was a speaker on that platform last night was because his name happens to be Ronald Reagan. He's not a scientist or an expert in stem cell research in any way, nor is he a politician running for office. And while I have sympathy for any family member who feels strongly FOR the use of stem cell research, there are literally millions of them out there. None of them were asked to speak at the Convention.

And yes, it's clearly Teresa's money now. But you know how politics works. It takes more than a Yale degree, distinguished service in Vietnam, a twenty-year political tenure, and particularly good advisors to become the nominee of either party. It takes money.

Bless Ron Reagan Jr. for doing that. (I don't say that very often) I guess he realizes that he is in a postion to use his influence to potentially save lives. Thank God we have people like him out there.

 

[luv2nascar]

thank goodness she'll never be our first lady
she's plain yucky

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by luv2nascar
thank goodness she'll never be our first lady
she's plain yucky

Yet another intelligent addition to the discussion. Good grief...she's ugly, she's yucky? She speaks five languages and the only word you can come up with in your own language is yucky? Well, that would explain your mistaken belief that she will never be first lady.

 

[danacara]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Don't bet on it, Dana. President Ronald Reagan was opposed to stem cell research.

With the privilege of health, yes, he was. But one wonders how he would have felt if he had one moment of clarity at the end of that horrible fight with Alzheimer's. It's funny how potentially lifesaving technology looks more inviting from that perspective.