So, how in touch are Congress with the People?

[Zeb_Carter]

Report: 237 millionaires in Congress

Talk about bad timing.

As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.

Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.

CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.

All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

What's odd is that they're nearly all Democrats.

 

[Pure]

the reputation of the Senate as a white millionaires club is well-known. the article cited in the OP says,

Senators’ estimated median reportable worth sunk to about $1.79 million from $2.27 million in 2007. The House’s median income was significantly lower and also sank, bottoming out at $622,254 from $724,258 in 2007.

that makes a typical senator worth about 2 million, with half his buddies making** less than that (though in most (?) cases, over 1 million).

the OP apparently combines House and Senate. the house has 435 members, the Senate 100.

ftsoa, assume 80 Senators are millionaires [net worth], 80%.

then the house has 157 millionaires, or about 36%. just wild guesses.

**correction: "half his buddies WORTH less than that." box is correct, we are not talking about income.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Zeb_Carter is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In a state of delusion...
Posts: 5,443 So, how in touch are Congress with the People?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report: 237 millionaires in Congress

Talk about bad timing.

As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.

Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.

CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.

All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.

What's odd is that they're nearly all Democrats.

I don't think that's so odd. I would be willing to bet that most of the millionaire Dems either inherited wealth or married it, like Kerry, while most of the GOP millionaires earned it themselves, like Issa did.

 

[cloudy]

I don't think that's so odd. I would be willing to bet that most of the millionaire Dems either inherited wealth or married it, like Kerry, while most of the GOP millionaires earned it themselves, like Issa did.

Got any proof of that? Or are you just pulling this latest "fact" out of your ass like you usually do.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I don't think that's so odd. I would be willing to bet that most of the millionaire Dems either inherited wealth or married it, like Kerry, while most of the GOP millionaires earned it themselves, like Issa did.

Got any proof of that? Or are you just pulling this latest "fact" out of your ass like you usually do.

Got proof of what? It is common knowledge that Kerry is married to the heir of the Heinz fortune and anybody can google Issa and learn he got his wealth from a high tech company he founded. As for the general statement, that is strictly an opinion, and I believe it, but I don't feel any obligation to go to all the trouble and time necessary to support it.

ETA: Harman married rich and Kohl inherited big bucks, although both these people are also otherwise successful. Warner worked for his wealth.

 

[Boxlicker101]

the reputation of the Senate as a white millionaires club is well-known. the article cited in the OP says,

Senators’ estimated median reportable worth sunk to about $1.79 million from $2.27 million in 2007. The House’s median income was significantly lower and also sank, bottoming out at $622,254 from $724,258 in 2007.

that makes a typical senator worth about 2 million, with half his buddies making less than that (though in most (?) cases, over 1 million).

the OP apparently combines House and Senate. the house has 435 members, the Senate 100.

ftsoa, assume 80 Senators are millionaires, 80%.

then the house has 157 millionaires, or about 36%. just wild guesses.

You seem to be confusing wealth with income. They are related, of course, but it is possible to be very rich without having much income. Wealth is the difference between total assets and total liabilities. Income to a business is the difference between revenues and expenses. To an individual, it is all revenues or other consideration received during a year. It is possible for a business owner to actually lose money during a year and still be a millionaire.

 

[Pure]

huh?

boxI would be willing to bet that most of the millionaire Dems either inherited wealth or married it, like Kerry, while most of the GOP millionaires earned it themselves, like Issa did.

that's an odorous little mindfart, box. got any evidence? two examples aren't evidence.

my speculation would be that for senate millionaires at least, they are equally in the two parties.

we shouldn't forget the phenomenon of BECOMING a millioinaire while in Congress. not sure if box counts winning lobbyists favors as being 'self made.'
(this applies to Nixon).

it's odd to see this "GOP as party of the individual" 'the party of the self made man" thing still floating about the rumornet.

i'm sure box believes in the tooth fairy and that Bush the Lesser made his millions working his "ranch" in Crawford. incidentally, McCain's major funds are from his second wife. he divorced the first one after she was injured in an auto accident and he had several affairs. second time lucky!

 

[cloudy]

Got proof of what? It is common knowledge that Kerry is married to the heir of the Heinz fortune and anybody can google Issa and learn he got his wealth from a high tech company he founded. As for the general statement, that is strictly an opinion, and I believe it, but I don't feel any obligation to go to all the trouble and time necessary to support it.

Perhaps Republicans earned it like McCain did: by dumping his disabled wife for a trophy wife from a rich family.

 

[rgraham666]

A question?

Does wealth make it impossible for a person to understand people that are not wealthy?

 

[sr71plt]

A question?

Does wealth make it impossible for a person to understand people that are not wealthy?

No. Perhaps entrenched wealth might, but even there some of the wealthiest families in America have been some of the hardest workers to better the plight for the poor. (Of course they have the free time and cushion to take up such causes in depth).

 

[Pure]

my impression is that those of established wealth tend to be liberals, or at least centrist, e.g. Nelson Rockefeller.

established wealth is often the background of those in public service. some figures, like the Kennedy's think they have an obligation to further the common good, or even assist the badly off in improving their state.

this view is common, also, among the 'old conservatives'; the new Right denies that the well off should lift a finger because of any 'social sentiments.'

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I just want to go on record that I don't see anything wrong with marrying money. And members of both parties do it. Hell, Jaqueline Kennedy Onasis did it twice!

 

[cloudy]

I just want to go on record that I don't see anything wrong with marrying money. And members of both parties do it. Hell, Jaqueline Kennedy Onasis did it twice!

Nothing wrong with it, if that's what they choose to do. Box was just pulling shit out of his ass again, and got called on it, that's all.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Nothing wrong with it, if that's what they choose to do. Box was just pulling shit out of his ass again, and got called on it, that's all.

All I said was that I believed most wealthy members of Congress who are Dems. either inherited the wealth or married it, whereas most GOP members earned it themselvesI looked up the few examples on the first post, and they seemed to show that, although there were not enough individuals to make a good sample.

I also believe there is nothing wrong with inheriting or marrying money. I would certainly have done it, given a choice.

Without looking up each member of congress, which is not something I want to do, I don't know how to find out where their money came from.

 

[cloudy]

Without looking up each member of congress, which is not something I want to do, I don't know how to find out where their money came from.

The obvious solution, then, is for you to quit making assertions you can't back up, yes?

 

[TE999]

All I said was that I believed most wealthy members of Congress who are Dems. either inherited the wealth or married it, whereas most GOP members earned it themselvesI looked up the few examples on the first post, and they seemed to show that, although there were not enough individuals to make a good sample.

I also believe there is nothing wrong with inheriting or marrying money. I would certainly have done it, given a choice.

Without looking up each member of congress, which is not something I want to do, I don't know how to find out where their money came from.

Hey Box! Never forget that all rich Democrats are good, all rich Republicans are bad. Rich Democrats care about the little people, rich Republicans are selfish and greedy. Rich Democrats have everyone's best interests at heart when they run for office, rich Republicans only want to help Big Oil, Big Insurance, Wall Street, Big corporations and their friends in high places.

See how simple it is?

 

[cloudy]

Hey Box! Never forget that all rich Democrats are good, all rich Republicans are bad. Rich Democrats care about the little people, rich Republicans are selfish and greedy. Rich Democrats have everyone's best interests at heart when they run for office, rich Republicans only want to help Big Oil, Big Insurance, Wall Street, Big corporations and their friends in high places.

See how simple it is?

No one ever said that. I simply asked Box to back up an assertion he made, and he couldn't, as usual.

That you think anyone DID say that shows more about you than it does anyone else. It'd be nice if you actually read the posts, instead of deciding what they say without reading them.

 

[TE999]

No one ever said that. I simply asked Box to back up an assertion he made, and he couldn't, as usual.

That you think anyone DID say that shows more about you than it does anyone else. It'd be nice if you actually read the posts, instead of deciding what they say without reading them.

Oh, I read the posts, alright. No one ever said that, I'm saying it.

That's what I glean from all the whining on these posts about how things aren't fair and how all the altruistic Democrats are working to make sure everything in life is.

 

[Katyusha]

Oh, I read the posts, alright. No one ever said that, I'm saying it.

That's what I glean from all the whining on these posts about how things aren't fair and how all the altruistic Democrats are working to make sure everything in life is.

Both of these parties are out for themselves and neither actually cares about real issues. They care about where their money and their votes come from and that's it. And truth be told, I think an awful lot of the polarization and anger in this country comes more from that knowledge than it does about each party's so-called ideals screwing people that disagree with them.

Too bad a viable third party will never ever happen. Not with so many people out there unwilling to vote for third party candidates because they're afraid of giving away an election.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Both of these parties are out for themselves and neither actually cares about real issues. They care about where their money and their votes come from and that's it. And truth be told, I think an awful lot of the polarization and anger in this country comes more from that knowledge than it does about each party's so-called ideals screwing people that disagree with them.

Too bad a viable third party will never ever happen. Not with so many people out there unwilling to vote for third party candidates because they're afraid of giving away an election.

The problem with that thinking is that when both candidates are piss poor the one people vote for is the one that makes them the biggest promises of Cake and Candy. When they don't get the cake and candy they forget about that when the next election rolls around and vote for him again on the same fucked up promises he made the last time.

Most voters are too stupid to understand the issues if they came up and bit them on the ass. So they pretend to understand them and vote for the one that promises them the most. The one who says government should take care of them by wiping their ass and tucking them in at night and giving them everything the Jones' have.

 

[TE999]

Both of these parties are out for themselves and neither actually cares about real issues. They care about where their money and their votes come from and that's it. And truth be told, I think an awful lot of the polarization and anger in this country comes more from that knowledge than it does about each party's so-called ideals screwing people that disagree with them.

Too bad a viable third party will never ever happen. Not with so many people out there unwilling to vote for third party candidates because they're afraid of giving away an election.

Precisely, Katy. It's a two party shell game and most American's are easily hoodwinked. Third party candidates have never been more than spoilers in national elections when the votes were close.

The problem with that thinking is that when both candidates are piss poor the one people vote for is the one that makes them the biggest promises of Cake and Candy. When they don't get the cake and candy they forget about that when the next election rolls around and vote for him again on the same fucked up promises he made the last time.

Most voters are too stupid to understand the issues if they came up and bit them on the ass. So they pretend to understand them and vote for the one that promises them the most. The one who says government should take care of them by wiping their ass and tucking them in at night and giving them everything the Jones' have.

I can agree totally with the stupid (actually it's totally uninformed) and the 'gimme, gimme, gimme' aspects...what's really sad are those who actually believe what their party tells them and think they're acting in the best interests of their fellow citizens.

All the highfalutin' campaign trail rhetoric is mesmerizing to the innocents among us...it must be heartbreaking when they discover it was all double talk and bullshit...if in fact they ever do.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The obvious solution, then, is for you to quit making assertions you can't back up, yes?

I did not make an assertion; I expressed an opinion. There is a difference, you know.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No one ever said that. I simply asked Box to back up an assertion he made, and he couldn't, as usual.

That you think anyone DID say that shows more about you than it does anyone else. It'd be nice if you actually read the posts, instead of deciding what they say without reading them.

Okay, this is what I said on the post you are squawking about:

I don't think that's so odd. I would be willing to bet that most of the millionaire Dems either inherited wealth or married it, like Kerry, while most of the GOP millionaires earned it themselves, like Issa did.

That is not as assertion. It is an expression of opinion. If I had made a flat statement, that would have been an assertion.

That you think I DID make an assertion shows more about you than it does anyone else. It'd be nice if you actually read the posts, instead of deciding what they say without reading them.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I did some research and this is what I came up with:

Okay, here are the eight wealthiest senators. The list is not up to date, and includes Kennedy, but it should give a good idea of where their wealth came from. It also says how they voted on a bill a while ago. It has nothing to do with the health care bill:

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611
Inherited wealth from a chain of department stores.
2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611
Married an heir to the Heinz food fortune.
3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611
An heir to the Rockefeller fortune.
4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611
Inherited wealth and married more.
5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611
Inherited wealth from construction. Apparently known as a RINO.
6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611
Born poor, he earned his own wealth.
7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611
Married wealth
8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611
Inherited wealth
Of the eight people here, only two were GOP and one of them is something of a RINO. The only person who neither inherited nor married wealth was Lautenberg, a Democrat.