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.
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.
Trust me, those Dems do not like being one of the 1% they complain about!
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
If you ask that question don't even bother. Have you read the other posts?
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?
Read his answer. Obviously you care more than him so maybe you two should get together and find out.
In other words, you can't answer because you were just spouting empty BS.
Again read his answer. If I have to explain it, you can't get it.
I could have responded differently, but you bore me, so why bother?
Another good one. You have a million of 'um
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...
Thats the point, not all those listed were crooked, get it? I doubt it!
Of course, probably only the Democrats listed. Right?
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!
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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!
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.
Yep, It was the only fact that I needed! Thanks for playing.
It is a whirly twirly world in there isn't it?
Not so "whirly twirly" that the obvious escapes me. You should try profiling sometime, it works!
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.
Good for you. what are you going to do with that information? I'll answer for you, nothing.
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.
Yeah, you really don't come well armed to these things.
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.
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
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
This thread is about the shock some feel that democrats can be rich - not republicans.
Maybe you should start another thread.
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."
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'?
Then take my suggestion and start another thread. Or did you miss that part?
It's relevant to this thread.
No, it isn't. No one is expressing any shock that republicans may be rich.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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.
They may not stand for it but I think their days are numbered anyway
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.
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.
Yes, but the OP was shocked that some dems were. Why the shock over that?
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.
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!
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.
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!
The top 10 poorest are also democrats.
Oh, and "poor" is an entirely relative term in this discussion.
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)
Some of them have negative networth due to debts or longterm investments busting.
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%.
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
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.
"for supporting the poor". . .
oh, you mean themselves, poor things
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.
GOOD NIGHT FOLKS we'll be here all week.
Then you can blame everything on the Republicans
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.
I don't see much difference either. The Liberals and the Conservatives are really not that different here either ...
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.
The thing is, it is a world-wide thing, all the G20 countries did it as far as I know
So that makes it right? I don't think France and Germany did and they're on the road to real recovery.
I don't know if it's right or not...
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, sniping at each other is good for business, so this, of course, must be maintained in the spirit of Capitalism.
Washington is not designed to get things done quickly or easily, and that's just as it should be.
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...
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.
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.
But WHY does it always have to be about the money? I don't want to get used to it - I want something better.
BUT...in socialist nations, the situation is no better. Sometimes the only wealthy people in such countries are the ruling class.
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?
That could be true. It seems that power always corrupts...eventually.
by ga anderson 5 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
by theirishobserver. 12 years ago
I have posted this thread in order to ask the question - can such criminality be eradicated - it has reached every level of society - what is wrong - what has went wrong - what can we do?Author of Books for Children Sentenced on Child Pornography ChargesThu, 08 Jul 2010 19:56:36 -0500Kevin Patrick...
by IslandBites 4 years ago
President Donald Trump's former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, was sentenced Wednesday to three years in prison after saying he took "full responsibility" for his actions while at the same time blaming the President."I take full responsibility for each act that I pled guilty to:...
by IslandBites 5 weeks ago
Trump indicted by N.Y. grand jury, first ex-president charged with crimeA Manhattan grand jury has voted to indict former president Donald Trump, multiple people familiar the matter said, becoming the first person in U.S. history to serve as commander in chief and then be charged with a crime.The...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
According to MSN & CBS news reports on July 8th, 2016, Florida Congressperson Corrine Brown, 69, a Democratic Representative from Florida who has served in Congress since 1993, & Elias Simmons, 50, her Chief of Staff have been charge with using the political position to...
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
The Russian collusion has dominated the main street media for over a year now.What is going on? It is time for the special counsel Mueller to wrap things up.Either he has evident or not. No more fishing expeditions.This investigation has taken its course. Time to end it and move on... ...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|