8 of 10 Wealthiest Congressmen are DEMOCRATS...What??

Jump to Last Post 1-25 of 25 discussions (125 posts)

70
TimTurnerposted 14 years ago
I just randomly found this and I had NO IDEA that the majority of the Top 10 richest Congressmen were Democrats. I really thought it would've been Republicans.

Here is the list from 2008: http://innovation.cqpolitics.com/cq-rol … gress_2008

John Kerry leads the way with net worth of $167 million.
reply report
1. 61
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Gosh, what a surprise.
  reply report
2. 66
  Ivorwenposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Why are you surprised? I am certianly not.
  reply report
3. 70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The funny thing about this subject is that John Kerry is only richer than John McCain because of who he married. Cindy is only estimated to be worth $100,000,000. That is what they figured based on previous accounting and her not allowing her income to be disclosed in the last election.
  reply report
0
A Texanposted 14 years ago
Trust me, those Dems do not like being one of the 1% they complain about!
reply report
70
rhamsonposted 14 years ago
I am shocked that there are millionaires in congress. The slime on the hill are there because that is where you get wealthier and more power. Be it a democrat, republican or anything. The system has been in line for a long time to favor this crowd. The dumbest part is that we elected them and ignore the fact sheets on them.

Check this out if you haven't seen it before.

29 members of congress have been accused of spousal abuse.
7 have been arrested for fraud.
19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.
3 have been arrested for assault.
71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a credit card.
14 have been arrested for drug related charges.
8 have been arrested for shoplifting.
21 are current defendants in lawsuits.
In 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but were released after claiming Congressional Immunity. (from Capital Hill Blue).

It's not so shocking when you see more of the picture.
reply report
1. 70
  TimTurnerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wow I had no idea!
  
  You forgot the category "soliciting sex in an airport bathroom"
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  He was convicted. That's another category.
  reply report
71
Cagsilposted 14 years ago
I'm not surprised.
reply report
0
Denno66posted 14 years ago
Our tax dollars at work...
reply report
70
rhamsonposted 14 years ago
Here are some more:

July 29, 2008: Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, indicted on seven counts of failing to disclose thousands of dollars in services he received from a company that helped renovate his home.

_ Sept. 27, 1993: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, indicted by a Travis County, Texas, grand jury on three counts of official misconduct while she was Texas state treasurer and two counts of tampering with evidence to impede an investigation. On Jan. 6, 1994, a new indictment accused her of misuse of Treasury employees, using computers for personal and political purposes and altering computer archives. On Feb. 11, 1994, a judge ordered her acquittal after the district attorney refused to present his case until the judge agreed to rule on the admissibility of certain key evidence.

_ April 2, 1993: Sen. David Durenberger, R-Minn., indicted by a federal grand jury in Washington on two criminal charges of conspiring to file fraudulent claims for Senate reimbursement of $3,825 in lodging expenses during 1987 and 1988. The indictment was dismissed. After new charges stemming from a similar indictment, Durenberger pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of converting public funds to his personal use. He was sentenced to one year of probation and a $1,000 fine.

_ Oct. 30, 1980: Sen. Harrison Williams Jr., D-N.J., indicted in the Abscam scandal on charges of corruption, for taking money in return for obtaining a government contract. He was later convicted and sentenced to three years in prison, of which he served 21 months.

___

Other members of Congress who have been charged with crimes since 2000:

_ Feb. 22, 2008: Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., indicted on charges of extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other crimes in an Arizona land swap that authorities say helped him collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs.

_ June 11, 2007: Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, arrested in a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport. He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. He is now asking a state appeals court to let him withdraw his guilty plea.

_ June 4, 2007: Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., indicted on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money laundering in a long-running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.

_ Jan. 19, 2007: Former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for trading political favors for gifts and campaign donations from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

_ March 3, 2006: Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., sentenced to eight years and four months in prison. He collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes in a corruption scheme.

_ Oct. 3, 2005: Former Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, charged with felony money laundering and conspiracy in connection with Republican fundraising efforts in 2002. One charge has been dropped and two others are being argued before a state appeals court.

_ Aug. 29, 2003: Rep. William Janklow, R-S.D., charged with felony second-degree manslaughter and three misdemeanors after his car struck and killed a motorcyclist. He was convicted of vehicular homicide and sentenced to 100 days in prison.

_ May 4, 2001: Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of tax evasion, bribery, racketeering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted of racketeering and accepting bribes.

Just adds to my definition of them as "Slime on the Hill"
reply report
0
A Texanposted 14 years ago
Stevens was exonerated and any Indictment coming from Travis County (Hutchinson/Delay) should not be taken seriously! As for the rest I have no clue.
reply report
1. 70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All of them are slime!
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe so but your list is just as slimy, accusations against elected officials are made all the time and some of them are politically motivated. The case against Stevens was bullshit and cost the Republicans a seat in the senate.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All you are doing is picking at a scab and the deeper you pick the more infection you will find. Good luck defending this group. You don't even understand how you play into it by citing loss of party seats. You my friend unwittingly are a part of the problem.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know?
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If you ask that question don't even bother. Have you read the other posts?
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm bothering. How do you know what he "understands" or not? Do you perhaps mean that the two of you have a different point of view?
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Read his answer. Obviously you care more than him so maybe you two should get together and find out.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  In other words, you can't answer because you were just spouting empty BS.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Again read his answer. If I have to explain it, you can't get it.
  reply report
  61
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I guess you have answered it yourself by your provocative retort. Sorry you didn't get it. Your loss.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Whatever you say!
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's a good one.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I could have responded differently, but you bore me, so why bother?
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Another good one. You have a million of 'um
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  and you dont have any
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If I bore you why do you respond
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I like how you dance puppet
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You know I still like you don't you?
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  aint you sweet
  report
  61
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How do you know?
  reply report
79
Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago
Funny, no one yelled when the more wealthy congressmen were Republicans and when the Republican party had all the money.

Never thought I'd see the day when you guys were defending crooked congressmen...
reply report
1. 0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thats the point, not all those listed were crooked, get it? I doubt it!
  reply report
  79
  Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course, probably only the Democrats listed. Right?
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Like I said I doubt you get it, kinda like the Muslim at Ft Hood that you didn't seem to understand was a terrorist!
  reply report
  79
  Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That is still not proven yet...
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  True to form
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You are playing into their always underlying argument. And that is the defence of one party or another. It is a pick and choose discussion to slight the other debaters point. While it is not the primary reason when you state your case many try to twist it into this scenario. While I never defended John Kerry's wealth I was maligned for mentioning the other parties failures. I was not drawn into the argument even though I was baited several times.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Do you think John Kerry's wealth needs to be defended? I don't. Your assertion that you were being baited into a discussion about parties is ridiculous, when a person is found to be guilty then they are guilty, not before. The District Attorney of Travis County, Texas is a political hack, I would know but you wouldn't, would you?
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  All I did was point out the actors involved in different corrupt congressional and state politics. They were indicted and there must have been something suspicious about their role as they had to face the charges levied by a grand jury. As to being exonerated that is something you have to leave up to the justice system getting it right. Remember justice is blind and what walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is a duck.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You added Ted Stevens who was indicted but not found guilty, what is your experience in investigations resulting in indictments? I have a pretty extensive resume when it comes to Investigations/Indictments and it is true that anyone can be indicted for anything! Walks like a duck must be a duck? Muslim/Terrorist act?
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Whirly twirly is too hard to follow in this case. Does it all come out the same way when you tackle different issues? If you think you have an upper hand when it comes to investigations then you go ahead and believe what you want. Just cause you say something doesn't make it so. As far as indictments of your buddy Steven's you really should read the transcripts and try to defend that. Remember this justice system lets all kinds of criminals out on the street. How about OJ?
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't have to defend Stevens, he was defended in Court and found not guilty! What would be the point in looking at transcripts of his indictment or trial its not ever going to be tried again. OJ got off, its the system, can't do anything about it now! But he got his in the end, most bad guys do!
  reply report
79
Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago
Sorry, I do not jump to conclusions before the facts even come out no matter how PC you consider that. It is still not proven. You can deny that all you want ... but those are the facts.

The only facts you used to right away just to the fact he was a terrorist was his religion.
reply report
1. 0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, It was the only fact that I needed! Thanks for playing.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It is a whirly twirly world in there isn't it?
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not so "whirly twirly" that the obvious escapes me. You should try profiling sometime, it works!
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know if profiling works as well as you tout. It seems a little too easy lose the content of the conversation and focus more on misdirection as you have repeatedly proven.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Good for you. what are you going to do with that information? I'll answer for you, nothing.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not so Rambo! I know where you are coming from with every post and it saves me time trying to reason with you. I merely react to your post for my and others enjoyment. You really are too easy.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, you really don't come well armed to these things.
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  What a joke. Your response is kind of like " I am rubber and you are glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" That is where you live.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Dance puppet,dance
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Awww. Did I hurt his little feelings again?
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That was fun
  report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed. I still like you.
  report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Awwwww, another moment.
  report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yup.
  
  As for rich dems, what, this is news?
  reply report
0
Madame Xposted 14 years ago
And I'm sick to death of the ridiculous idea that the democrats are the "party of the people" because they know what it's like to be "poor and struggling" - what a joke
reply report
1. 86
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I can understand that.
  
  I'm sick to death as well of the ridiculous idea that the republicans are the "party of the people" because they know what a "real American" is - what a joke
  reply report
0
Madame Xposted 14 years ago
This thread is about the shock some feel that democrats can be rich - not republicans.

Maybe you should start another thread.
reply report
1. 86
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Your response reminds me of this:
  In the 1920's, then Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell decided that the number of Jews admitted to Harvard should be substantially reduced because "Jews cheat." When a distinguished alumnus of Harvard, Judge Learned Hand, pointed out to President Lowell that Protestants also cheat, Lowell responded, "You're changing the subject, we're talking about Jews."
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  are you serious???????
  
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Of course. Why else would you want to shut up someone pointing out that the Republicans are just as disingenuous as the Democrats in their appeal to the 'common man'?
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then take my suggestion and start another thread. Or did you miss that part?
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's relevant to this thread.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, it isn't. No one is expressing any shock that republicans may be rich.
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, I responded your comment that it's ridiculous that Democrats portray themselves as the party of the people. I simply responded that it's just as ludicrous for Republicans to do the same.
  reply report
  69
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  For the record Repbulicans don't portray themselves as the "party of the people", they portray themselves as the inheritors of the values that America was founded on. In it's own way that's as funny as the Dems claiming to be for the "people", whatever that really means.
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, they do that too. But there are lots of populists among the GOP these days, Sarah Palin the most prominent. And they most certainly portray themselves as the 'party of the people.'
  reply report
  69
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not really, most of the people getting the spotlight in the GOP these days are hammering away at the party basics. Smaller government, in other words.
  reply report
  86
  livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, because health care reform is what they're trying to kill. A pity they ignored their own efforts to expand the government until a Democrat took office.
  
  When health care reform passes, we'll probably see the GOP standard bearers return to an obsession with Obama's birth certificate.
  reply report
  69
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Do you really think it's going to pass the Senate? Blue Dog Democrats will never stand for a public option, neither will those newly minted Democratic Senators from conservative states.
  report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  They may not stand for it but I think their days are numbered anyway
  report
  69
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It'll be interesting if the Dems lose the House and Senate again. I think that will be an unprecedented event in US history where a political party has won control of the Presidency, House and Senate in one election and lost control the next election cycle. Once people have had the chance to critique both parties, well then I think we'll start to see some real change.
  report
79
Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago
The way I look at it, you don't get to be a Congressman or a Senator unless you are wealthy. So arguing about them being wealthy seems like a rather moot point.
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, but the OP was shocked that some dems were. Why the shock over that?
  reply report
2. 70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I think the original point was that John Kerry as a member of a party that claims it sticks up for the poor is very rich and how can he know how it feels to be poor.
  
  The idea of getting elected to Congress because you are rich leaves one to wonder how much our system of goverment looks after the less fortunate. It has to escalate with regard to how you can keep up. Congressmen spend a good deal of their time adding to their war chests for re-election. This adds a sense of doudt as to whether their vote is for sale as well to keep up. Two things that may lessen this problem and that is term limits and or publicly financed campaigns.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You really want to stop the corruption? Get rid of lobbyists, Obama promised that he would not have lobbyists in his administration and that was the first promise he broke! If citizens want to finance a candidate then they should be able to but lobbyists paying both sides is the real problem!
  reply report
  70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You had me at get rid of the lobbyists. You lost it when you said that citizens should finance their own lobbyists. What a nightmare and corporate America can out spend any lobbyist the citizenry could pay for.
  
  I too was very disappointed with Obamas lobbyist appointees. I guess we need to sludge through until we get someone who shuns the practice.
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The citizen should be the lobbyist, who else is the politician representing?
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Where's the money in that?
  reply report
  0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly!
  reply report
0
A Texanposted 14 years ago
I don't care if they are wealthy! But I don't like Dems playing the "Wealthy elite" card when they are just as wealthy and doing just as much to hide it offshore!
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ahhhhh. Exactly
  reply report
88
Len Cannonposted 14 years ago
The top 10 poorest are also democrats.
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Who, exactly?
  
  Oh, and "poor" is an entirely relative term in this discussion.
  reply report
  88
  Len Cannonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  523 Artur Davis (D-Ala)
  522 Max Baucus (D-Mont)
  521 Andre Carson (D-Ind)
  519 Phil Hare (D-Ill)
  519 Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich)
  517 Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
  517 Paul Tonko (D-NY)
  516 Dennis J Kucinich (D-Ohio)
  515 Keith Ellison (D-Minn)
  514 Michael Arcuri (D-NY)
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Can you give the link to that? I'd like to go look. And does it say how "poor" they are?
  reply report
88
Len Cannonposted 14 years ago
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php

Some of them have negative networth due to debts or longterm investments busting.
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Very interesting site, thanks for the link.
  
  I can't help but add that anyone in this financial condition is not exactly qualified to manage billions (oops, I mean trillions) in our name - but I guess I'm just too cynical.
  reply report
88
Len Cannonposted 14 years ago
For the record, I posted the wrong info. I put the 15-25 instead of 1-10. 1-10 is 80% democrats instead of 100%.
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ok. It's not always easy to see the difference between these a$$holes just because they have different labels
  reply report
0
A Texanposted 14 years ago
Out of the poorest 25 22 are Democrats, thats should tell you not to let them control the money! The three Republicans are probably RINO's
reply report
88
Len Cannonposted 14 years ago
Yes, yes. It is awful that democrats are rich because they are hypocrites for supporting the poor. But when they are poor they clearly can not lead. The only sensible thing to do is elect rich republicans.
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  "for supporting the poor". . .
  
  oh, you mean themselves, poor things
  reply report
  88
  Len Cannonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  except for the rich ones you were just complaining about. It is like there are lots of different people in congress joined together by ideology rather than class.
  reply report
  0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, the ideology of making themselves rich off of our money
  reply report
2. 0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds good to me!
  reply report
88
Len Cannonposted 14 years ago
GOOD NIGHT FOLKS we'll be here all week.
reply report
79
Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago
Then you can blame everything on the Republicans
reply report
1. 69
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I blame things on politicians in general. Despite what foreigners think, there really isn't much difference between our two parties. I'm not so sure that we'd be better off with a more European style system because those systems magnify the power of fringe parties way too much. Look at Likud in Israel, for example.
  reply report
  79
  Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see much difference either. The Liberals and the Conservatives are really not that different here either ...
  reply report
  69
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  That's because it's all about using tax money to buy votes. Sounds like it's the same in Canada as it is in the US. That's why both of our government's bailed out companies that should not have been bailed out.
  reply report
  79
  Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The thing is, it is a world-wide thing, all the G20 countries did it as far as I know
  reply report
  69
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So that makes it right? I don't think France and Germany did and they're on the road to real recovery.
  reply report
  79
  Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know if it's right or not...
  reply report
  69
  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Let's talk again six months from now. You give me crap for bringing up history all the time, but in reading about things like the New Deal, I know their measures failed and made things worse. That's how I know tomorrow will be worse than today.
  reply report
2. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No, things are changing. Many people have had their eyes opened about not only the leftist agenda but about how republicans aren't really conservative - Scozzafava comes to mind. I think the politicians are going to find that business as usual won't be business as usual.
  reply report
74
Beyond-Politicsposted 14 years ago
This is why nothing ever gets done in Washington...we have people like this who have nothing better to do than make the opposing political party look bad. I suppose that we could say that the majority of Congressmen involved in recent extramarital affairs--both hetero- and homosexual--are Republicans. Both parties are equally morally bankrupt..no need to bother painting one better than the other.
reply report
1. 70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It's really academic you know. Our politicians spend much time spouting party line agenda in an effort to keep us infighting. The spin and propoganda they promote keeps us from talking like adults about real topics and getting to the bottom of who is not representing our ideals in congress. Divide and conquer is a good tactic and better yet get the electorate to do their spin is even better. I don't know when the American voter will wake up and smell the coffee and start doing what is right for this country.
  reply report
2. 0
  Denno66posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, sniping at each other is good for business, so this, of course, must be maintained in the spirit of Capitalism.
  reply report
3. 61
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Washington is not designed to get things done quickly or easily, and that's just as it should be.
  reply report
92
habeeposted 14 years ago
Most of the politicians from BOTH parties stink. We need a viable third party, and we need to boot the lobbyists out. I agree with UW - it's hard for an average Joe to get elected because he/she doesn't have the financial backing. Maybe this is beginning to change. Look how well Huckabee did against McCain. We can hope...
reply report
1. 61
  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  There isn't going to be a viable 3rd party, and the 1st Amendment isn't going to be revoked, so get used to it.
  reply report
  0
  Denno66posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I wouldn't count on that theory. Everything morphs into something else eventually.
  reply report
2. 0
  Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Lobbyists, and politicians, are owned by the "robber barons" - the heads of big corporations and banks. They ain't goin' nowhere. Any "new" politician has their blessing or we (the riffraff) would never even hear of them.
  reply report
92
habeeposted 14 years ago
But WHY does it always have to be about the money? I don't want to get used to it - I want something better.
reply report
1. 70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Many believe this capitalist economy is best for us. In a capitalist scenario it is ALL about the money. With our pocket books there goes our government. The pay offs are killing us.
  reply report
92
habeeposted 14 years ago
BUT...in socialist nations, the situation is no better. Sometimes the only wealthy people in such countries are the ruling class.
reply report
1. 70
  rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know if it is the different philosophies that is the problem as much as it is the corruptness that comes into play with either.
  
  What is funny is the US trying to sell this whole crock to the Iraqis and the Afganis as a good way to govern their people.
  
  What must it look like from the outside in?
  reply report
92
habeeposted 14 years ago
That could be true. It seems that power always corrupts...eventually.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

8 of 10 Wealthiest Congressmen are DEMOCRATS...What??

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

8 of 10 Wealthiest Congressmen are DEMOCRATS...What??

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies