jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (125 posts)

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

  1. TimTurner profile image71
    TimTurnerposted 7 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.

    1. tksensei profile image61
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Gosh, what a surprise.

    2. Ivorwen profile image78
      Ivorwenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Why are you surprised?  I am certianly not.

    3. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

  2. profile image0
    A Texanposted 7 years ago

    Trust me, those Dems do not like being one of the 1% they complain about! roll

  3. rhamson profile image77
    rhamsonposted 7 years ago

    I am shocked that there are millionaires in congress.roll 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.

    1. TimTurner profile image71
      TimTurnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Wow I had no idea!

      You forgot the category "soliciting sex in an airport bathroom"  smile

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        He was convicted.  That's another category.

  4. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    I'm not surprised.

  5. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    Our tax dollars at work...

  6. rhamson profile image77
    rhamsonposted 7 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"

  7. profile image0
    A Texanposted 7 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.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      All of them are slime!

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in 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.

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

          1. tksensei profile image61
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            How do you know?

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              If you ask that question don't even bother. Have you read the other posts?

              1. tksensei profile image61
                tksenseiposted 7 years ago in 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?

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Read his answer.  Obviously you care more than him so maybe you two should get together and find out.

                  1. tksensei profile image61
                    tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    In other words, you can't answer because you were just spouting empty BS.

          2. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Whatever you say!

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              lollollol That's a good one. lollollol

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I could have responded differently, but you bore me, so why bother?

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  lollollol Another good one.  You have a million of 'um lollollol

                  1. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    and you dont have any

      2. tksensei profile image61
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        How do you know?

  8. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 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...

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thats the point, not all those listed were crooked, get it? I doubt it!

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Of course, probably only the Democrats listed. Right?

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in 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!

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That is still not proven yet...

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              roll True to form

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in 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?

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in 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?

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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?

                  1. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 7 years ago in 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!

  9. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 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.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yep, It was the only fact that I needed! Thanks for playing.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It is a whirly twirly world in there isn't it?

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Not so "whirly twirly" that the obvious escapes me. You should try profiling sometime, it works!

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this
              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this
              2. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Good for you. what are you going to do with that information? I'll answer for you, nothing.

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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. lol

                  1. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, you really don't come well armed to these things.

      2. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yup.

        As for rich dems, what, this is news?

  10. profile image0
    Madame Xposted 7 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

    1. livelonger profile image89
      livelongerposted 7 years ago in 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

  11. profile image0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    This thread is about the shock some feel that democrats can be rich - not republicans.

    Maybe you should start another thread.

    1. livelonger profile image89
      livelongerposted 7 years ago in 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."

      1. profile image0
        Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        are you serious???????

        http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2470/3965809003_a594c26655_o.gif

        1. livelonger profile image89
          livelongerposted 7 years ago in 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'?

          1. profile image0
            Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Then take my suggestion and start another thread. Or did you miss that part?

            1. livelonger profile image89
              livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It's relevant to this thread.

              1. profile image0
                Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                No, it isn't. No one is expressing any shock that republicans may be rich.

                1. livelonger profile image89
                  livelongerposted 7 years ago in 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.

                  1. ledefensetech profile image70
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in 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.

  12. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 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.

    1. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, but the OP was shocked that some dems were. Why the shock over that?

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in 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!

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The citizen should be the lobbyist, who else is the politician representing?

            1. profile image0
              Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Where's the money in that?

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly!

  13. profile image0
    A Texanposted 7 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!

    1. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Ahhhhh. Exactly smile

  14. Len Cannon profile image88
    Len Cannonposted 7 years ago

    The top 10 poorest are also democrats.

    1. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Who, exactly?

      Oh, and "poor" is an entirely relative term in this discussion.

      1. Len Cannon profile image88
        Len Cannonposted 7 years ago in 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)

        1. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Can you give the link to that? I'd like to go look. And does it say how "poor" they are?

  15. Len Cannon profile image88
    Len Cannonposted 7 years ago

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php

    Some of them have negative networth due to debts or longterm investments busting.

    1. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in 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.

  16. Len Cannon profile image88
    Len Cannonposted 7 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%.

    1. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Ok. It's not always easy to see the difference between these a$$holes just because they have different labels smile

  17. profile image0
    A Texanposted 7 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

  18. Len Cannon profile image88
    Len Cannonposted 7 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.

    1. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "for supporting the poor". . .

      oh, you mean themselves, poor things sad

      1. Len Cannon profile image88
        Len Cannonposted 7 years ago in 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.

        1. profile image0
          Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, the ideology of making themselves rich off of our money smile

    2. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds good to me!

  19. Len Cannon profile image88
    Len Cannonposted 7 years ago

    GOOD NIGHT FOLKS we'll be here all week.

  20. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Then you can blame everything on the Republicans big_smile

    1. ledefensetech profile image70
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in 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.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't see much difference either. The Liberals and the Conservatives are really not that different here either ...

        1. ledefensetech profile image70
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in 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.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The thing is, it is a world-wide thing, all the G20 countries did it as far as I know

            1. ledefensetech profile image70
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in 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.

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know if it's right or not...

                1. ledefensetech profile image70
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in 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.

    2. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in 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.

  21. Beyond-Politics profile image86
    Beyond-Politicsposted 7 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.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

    2. profile image0
      Denno66posted 7 years ago in 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.

    3. tksensei profile image61
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Washington is not designed to get things done quickly or easily, and that's just as it should be.

  22. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 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...

    1. tksensei profile image61
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in 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.

      1. profile image0
        Denno66posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I wouldn't count on that theory. Everything morphs into something else eventually.

    2. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in 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.

  23. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 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.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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.

  24. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    BUT...in socialist nations, the situation is no better. Sometimes the only wealthy people in such countries are the ruling class.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in 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?

  25. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    That could be true. It seems that power always corrupts...eventually.

 
working