• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: Most of Congress millionaires

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,312
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
A majority of the members of Congress are millionaires for the first time in history, according to a new analysis.
At least 268 of the 534 current Hill lawmakers had a net worth of more than $1 million in 2012, according to a Center for Responsive Politics examination of financial disclosures.


In addition, the median net worth of congressional members topped $1 million, up from $966,000 last year.

Democrats had a slightly higher net worth than Republicans: The median of Hill Democrats was $1.04 million, while Republicans’ median net worth was approximately $1 million.

Senators also had a higher net worth than members of the House with a median of $2.7 million, compared with $896,000 in the House. The party split was reversed in the Senate as Democratic senators reported a median net worth of $1.7 million versus $2.9 million for senators.
Click to expand...



Read more: Report: Most of Congress millionaires - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com

And people say we arent a plutocracy. The people who purchase our politicians are rich and the people who "represent" us are also rich. Welcome to the plutocracy!
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more: Report: Most of Congress millionaires - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com

And people say we arent a plutocracy. The people who purchase our politicians are rich and the people who "represent" us are also rich. Welcome to the plutocracy! [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

It has always cost money to mount a good campaign, when campaigning became important. Reaching the public costs money. Democracy provides ample incentive (it's basically a requirement) for reaching the masses, and in order to do that, you need money. Prior to that, establishment was important, and that frequently relied on a good network and money. Regardless, the well-to-do largely get national legislative office and this should not be a surprise to anyone.

In summation: please quit complaining and acting like this is such a horrible thing.
 
Fiddytree said:
It has always cost money to mount a good campaign, when campaigning became important. Reaching the public costs money. Democracy provides ample incentive (it's basically a requirement) for reaching the masses, and in order to do that, you need money. Prior to that, establishment was important, and that frequently relied on a good network and money. Regardless, the well-to-do largely get national legislative office and this should not be a surprise to anyone.

In summation: please quit complaining and acting like this is such a horrible thing.
Click to expand...

Then why do many more countries have a lot more strict voting rules and yet they have a higher turnout and dont need boat loads of $$ to "reach the public"?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Then why do many more countries have a lot more strict voting rules and yet they have a higher turnout and dont need boat loads of $$ to "reach the public"?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could provide actual studies on this. Regardless, a quick study of American history from start (when campaigning was not needed) to the current era would still find this to be pretty true.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Then why do many more countries have a lot more strict voting rules and yet they have a higher turnout and dont need boat loads of $$ to "reach the public"?
Click to expand...

Citation?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Then why do many more countries have a lot more strict voting rules and yet they have a higher turnout and dont need boat loads of $$ to "reach the public"?
Click to expand...

Think you just helped answer your own question. People suck at showing up to vote in this country and then a lit of those who do think "wow this guy is rich, he'll definitely know how to fix the economy!" It's a plutocracy in practice because it's what our representative democracy has delivered.
 
Fiddytree said:
So I can assume you have never complained about the financial barriers to seeking office?
Click to expand...

This is not the thread to discuss that because this thread is not about that.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
This is not the thread to discuss that because this thread is not about that.
Click to expand...

Why not? If the barriers to entry in seeking office are a direct result of a political party's committee having incentive to back a wealthy candidate so they can campaign more freely (and give the party free money when needed), wouldn't it then follow that your "plutocracy" is a reaction the demands of democracy? Or are you somehow expecting a non-financially backed citizen to then raise to the ranks of national office despite those barriers?

If your plutocracy exists, they have to get in there somehow, don't they? :roll:
 
Fiddytree said:
Why not? If the barriers to entry in seeking office are a direct result of a political party's committee having incentive to back a wealthy candidate so they can campaign more freely (and give the party free money when needed), wouldn't it then follow that your "plutocracy" is a reaction the demands of democracy? Or are you somehow expecting a non-financially backed citizen to then raise to the ranks of national office despite those barriers?

If your plutocracy exists, they have to get in there somehow, don't they? :roll:
Click to expand...

They do have to get money. By selling themselves directly to the oligarchs
 
TheDemSocialist said:
They do have to get money. By selling themselves directly to the oligarchs
Click to expand...

It is well-known that a candidate has to do what in order to be attractive to get into office?
-Campaign for months on end
-Provide their own funds for the party
-Provide their own social network of financially important friends to help

Are you one of those who expect a Mr. Smith story to exist without the party men providing all the support? Or perhaps you are wanting the party men to get a Mr. Smith out into office, back him with party money, and then whoosh, into office he goes?
 
Fiddytree said:
Why not? If the barriers to entry in seeking office are a direct result of a political party's committee having incentive to back a wealthy candidate so they can campaign more freely (and give the party free money when needed), wouldn't it then follow that your "plutocracy" is a reaction the demands of democracy? Or are you somehow expecting a non-financially backed citizen to then raise to the ranks of national office despite those barriers?

If your plutocracy exists, they have to get in there somehow, don't they? :roll:
Click to expand...

It's unseemly that so many get rich after being in office. The electorate does not view that as the man function of elected office.
 
Fiddytree said:
It is well-known that a candidate has to do what in order to be attractive to get into office?
-Campaign for months on end
Click to expand...
Yes

-Provide their own funds for the party
Click to expand...
Ehh not all the time

-Provide their own social network of financially important friends to help
Click to expand...
Also not all the time. Thats why you hire a consulting firm and also let the party hire people for ya.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Many people do.
Click to expand...

If you can get that much time off to run and not get paid to do so, you probably should instruct all the experts on how to do it.


Depends on the race what type of race, if its competitive, etc, etc,
Click to expand...

A house or the heavily-coveted senate seat? You better believe it is a large possibility.


A good chunk of the time.
Click to expand...

And who has those connections?
 
Fiddytree said:
If you can get that much time off to run and not get paid to do so, you probably should instruct all the experts on how to do it.
Click to expand...
Explains why most elected officials have the time to do this.


A house or the heavily-coveted senate seat? You better believe it is a large possibility.
Click to expand...
Its its a heavily contested seat, that is not most of the time. But when it just so happens most of the time the biggest players will step up to throw in the big $$$

And who has those connections?
Click to expand...
Consulting firms arent that hard to come by. But when and if its a contested seat the party will definatly be there for ya.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Explains why most elected officials have the time to do this.
Click to expand...

They first needed the funds to run for office for the first time, don't they? Somehow step one seems to be missing in your thought process.


Its its a heavily contested seat, that is not most of the time. But when it just so happens most of the time the biggest players will step up to throw in the big $$$
Click to expand...

But many of those big players are personally connected to the candidate, who come from similar social circles.


Consulting firms arent that hard to come by. But when and if its a contested seat the party will definatly be there for ya.
Click to expand...

Candidates still need a viable social network to receive financial backing.....
 
Fiddytree said:
They first needed the funds to run for office for the first time, don't they? Somehow step one seems to be missing in your thought process.
Click to expand...
Not all the time...
It also has not been like this historically until the past 30 odd years.


But many of those big players are personally connected to the candidate, who come from similar social circles.
Click to expand...
Recently with the creation of SUPER PACS not so much.

Candidates still need a viable social network to receive financial backing.....
Click to expand...
Social networks? Sure thats why Super PACS are there for ya!
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Not all the time...
It also has not been like this historically until the past 30 odd years.
Click to expand...

First, I would like to know who can afford to devote all of their working day, nearly every day, to campaign matters, and still get paid from their regular job, and maintain their way of life.

Second of all, you must be joking about the history part.


Recently with the creation of SUPER PACS not so much.
Click to expand...


You do know that folks that put out the report (and other groups which discuss similar topics) contradict your statement, right?
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
First, I would like to know who can afford to devote all of their working day, nearly every day, to campaign matters, and still get paid from their regular job, and maintain their way of life.
Click to expand...
Dr's
Lawyers


Second of all, you must be joking about the history part.
Click to expand...
nope






You do know that folks that put out the report (and other groups which discuss similar topics) contradict your statement, right?
Click to expand...
How so....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom