[Mr_Jet]

Quote

WASHINGTON: The wealth gap between members of Congress and ordinary Americans is growing larger, with nearly half of all lawmakers now worth more than one million dollars, according to US media reports today.

US lawmakers are increasingly likely to be multimillionaires and are on average nine times richer than the other Americans, according to data made available to the New York Times and Washington Post.

The papers reported figures from the Center for Responsive Politics that showed the median net worth of a member of Congress stood at USD 913,000 and is climbing, compared to USD 100,000 and falling for the rest of the population.

Amid protests against the country's wealthy elite that have seen many US cities "occupied" by demonstrators, it appears elected many elected representatives make up the "one percent."

Among the richest is Republican representative from California, Darrell Issa.

According to separate figures from the Center for Responsive Politics' released in November, Issa was worth USD 195 to USD 700 million last year, his fortune coming from his car alarms business.

Texas Republican Representative Michael McCaul and Democratic Senators John Kerry, Mark Warner and Herb Kohl were also among the most wealthy.

According to the Washington Post, members of the House of Representatives were worth an average of USD 725,000 in 2009 compared to USD 280,000 in 1984, adjusted for inflation. Those figures do not include home equity.

Their wealth stands in stark contrast to the economic fate of most Americans, who have seen their value shrink over the last two decades.

Over the same period American families saw their average wealth drop from USD 20,600 to USD 20,500, also inflation-adjusted and not including home equity.

The reasons for the gap are far from clear, although many point to the cost of running for office being a deterrent to the poor, and also lawmakers being able to profit from market-moving knowledge.

"I am sure that there are multiple reasons for it," Alan Ziobrowski -- a professor at Georgia State University -- told AFP.

Ziobrowski, who has studied how lawmakers' stock investments have faired, said "the situation is pretty straight forward" with regard market-generated wealth.

"You have got a Congress which is preoccupied with three things, with regulation of industries; they are preoccupied with taxes and they are preoccupied with the federal budget. Any one of those things can have an absolutely profound impact on stock price."

[azjetfan]

All the more reason for less government.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 07 January 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

All the more reason for less government.

Yeah that'll solve the problem alright. This is nothing compared to what former congressmen and senators make once they leave Capitol Hill and move over to K street. That's where the real money is made and they're not in the government.

Plus you have to factor in many members of congress are already rich before they are elected (like Congressman Issa and Senators Kohl and Warner) or marry into money (like Senators Kerry and McCain). Today you have to either be rich already or be willing to whore yourself out to rich people to get elected.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 07 January 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Yeah that'll solve the problem alright.

Sure will

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 07 January 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Sure will

LOL, No it won't. They're either rich before they're elected or they're put there by the rich folks that bought them and put them in congress to do their bidding. The size government has nothing to do with it.

[MoMilk1991]

azjetfan, on 07 January 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

All the more reason for less government.

Care to elaborate? This article just seems to validate the rich serving the rich.

[azjetfan]

MoMilk1991, on 08 January 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

Care to elaborate? This article just seems to validate the rich serving the rich.

Politics are dirty. Always have been always will be. No matter what side of the fence you are on.

Smaller government is easier to keep track of by the people. How many of your state reps do you know how they voted? Do you use their track record to vote for them again? How do you hold them accountable for their actions? Too many people to shift blame to.

You have 300 people with the same authority sitting in a room trying to accomplish the same thing. All making over $100k. All with there own interests. How long does it take 300 people to agree to terms? and is the best option for the people selected? I don't think so. Knock it down to 50 and save the $25 million. Put those funds into lowering taxes. I am tired of giving 1/2 my salary to some form of government.

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 08 January 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Politics are dirty. Always have been always will be. No matter what side of the fence you are on.

Smaller government is easier to keep track of by the people. How many of your state reps do you know how they voted? Do you use their track record to vote for them again? How do you hold them accountable for their actions? Too many people to shift blame to.

You have 300 people with the same authority sitting in a room trying to accomplish the same thing. All making over $100k. All with there own interests. How long does it take 300 people to agree to terms? and is the best option for the people selected? I don't think so. Knock it down to 50 and save the $25 million. Put those funds into lowering taxes. I am tired of giving 1/2 my salary to some form of government.

So basically you're saying is you want an aristocracy form of government. A select few (in this case 50 people) at the top representing over 300 million people. See these 50 whatever you want (senators or representatives I don't know which house you're talking about) would likely come from heavily populated and more urban areas, meaning you've just created a permanent majority for the Democratic party since those areas of the country vote heavily Democratic.

Anyway this 50 member body of congress would still be able to personally profit from market-moving knowledge like the article mentions. They would still be able to get rich off of their abilities to effect regulations, taxes, and the federal budget. I'm almost certain Americans would not want to switch from a republic (officially atleast) to an aristocracy form of government.

[azjetfan]

Mr_Jet, on 08 January 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

So basically you're saying is you want an aristocracy form of government. A select few (in this case 50 people) at the top representing over 300 million people.

(aristocracy) a form of government in which a few elite citizens rule. Not quite. The majority of all decisions will be made by local government that understands the needs of tht community. 300 people sitting in a room in DC have no or little idea what is going on in small or midsize county, Nor do they really want to.

Mr_Jet, on 08 January 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

There is no doubt there is a problem. Unfortunatly it will never be fixed when the government is so large and people are not going to put the time into research who to vote for. They typicly vote for whomever is in the party they feel a part of without any knowledge of what the person is about. The federal government should be small and handle national proble

There is no doubt there is a problem. Unfortunatly it will never be fixed when the government is so large and people are not going to put the time into research who to vote for. They typicly vote for whomever is in the party they feel a part of without any knowledge of what the person is about. The federal government should be small and handle national problems only.

[HarlemHxC814]

As the son of a politician I just want to chime in. I'm not this entitled person with gobs of money and truth be told we have to make ends meet just like everyone else. Im paying loans from college and will be doing so until 2031. This isn't a direct response to anything specific but in the past ive seen things on these boards about politicians don't care blah blah theyre all rich and can't relate. Nothing can be further from the truth in some instances

[Mr_Jet]

azjetfan, on 08 January 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

(aristocracy) a form of government in which a few elite citizens rule. Not quite. The majority of all decisions will be made by local government that understands the needs of tht community. 300 people sitting in a room in DC have no or little idea what is going on in small or midsize county, Nor do they really want to.


There is no doubt there is a problem. Unfortunatly it will never be fixed when the government is so large and people are not going to put the time into research who to vote for. They typicly vote for whomever is in the party they feel a part of without any knowledge of what the person is about. The federal government should be small and handle national problems only.

Your request for smaller government to the point of taking the number of members of congress from 535 down to 50 would require amending the U.S. constitution meaning the congress themselves would basically have to willingly eliminate 485 members of it's own body. So first of all that's not going to ever get enough votes so it'll never even make it to the state legislatures. Also it goes against the wishes of our founding fathers and destroys all the time and hard work it took them to form our "more perfect union." Remember this country is a union of states and if the majority of the founding fathers wanted to give states the powers you want to give them all in the name of "smaller government," they would have given those powers to the states 220 years ago.

Smaller government is not the cure for all the things you don't like. All that would end up happening is instead of having multi-million dollar U.S. senate and U.S. house campaigns, we'd have multi-million dollar state senate and state house campaigns. We'd have lobbyist currently lobbying Capitol Hill, lobbying state legislatures and city halls around the country instead. The money wouldn't go away, it would just move down to the local level. The money is just going to go wherever the power goes. You give the power to local government and the big money donors, PACs, and lobbyist will follow. These senators and congressmen aren't making more now than they used to because they all like big government. They know if they want to get re-elected they need to raise money (cater to the folks and companies with a lot of money) and in the process they can make a little more on the side for themselves for being puppets for Wall Street. Then they can become lobbyist themselves and make some real money once "they leave public life."

To put it simply, smaller government isn't going to change anything considering big money influence still drives our government no matter it's size. We need to overturn the Citizens United decision and have total public financing of congressional and presidential campaigns. That would at least be a start.

[azjetfan]

Lets push this fun back till a little closer to November. I am just not engaged in this right now.