Millionaire Senators: Why is this such a big deal?

[JLGatsby]

I constantly see these news articles detailing the assets of Senators and other politicians and calling places like the Senate a "Millionaire's Club."

The news organizations seem to glorify someone with 3 or 4 million dollars as some sort "high rolling big shot." I mean seriously, you've got to be kidding?

My line of thinking is this, if you are not intelligent enough to amass a modest nestegg of 2 or 3 million, how can you be intelligent enough to administer public policy?

Does anyone want someone who through their entire life (most politicians are older) has never been able to at least make a few bucks to keep themselves financially secure?

Does anyone have any idea how easy it is to make a few million dollars by the time they're in their 50s or 60s?

I personally refuse to vote for anyone who is not a millionaire. If you cannot make a million bucks, you cannot possible have enough intelligence to serve in office.

And because you're rich, that doesn't make you corrupt. Probably the wealthier you are, the less likely you are to take bribes. Would Bill Gates ever take a bribe? I don't think so.

 

[BrownTown]

Yeah I agree, also there is the fact that people who aren't worth alot of money can't afford to spend month campaigning for a job they might not get. Also, its true that a rich person would be less liksly to accept bribes. If you are poor then a bribe could mean sending your kids to a good college, or being able to retire 10 years sooner. If you are rich then you don't have to worry about making ends meat and have more time to worry about what is best for the country. Also, its true that any person with the skills to be a good politican (intellegence, networking, etc) should likely be able to succeed in buiness as well. It doesn't take that much now adays to get a net worth of a million dollars. I mean shoot I worked at an engineering company this summer, and many of the engineers even the ones not in management positions can be making 100,000+ by the time they are 40. And if you are a successfull lawyer, doctor or buisnessman you can make 10 times that.

 

[dahunan]

Can we lookup info on how many of them
inherited wealth
married into it


I have always wondered what the average increase in wealth is for a politician vs the avg person with the same amount of money
>> say Politican A is worth $400,000 when he/she enters office
>> Citizen A is worth $400,000 when Politician A enters office

Is the average growth of the politicians wealth = to the common wealthy person or do they use their influence to make their money grow *usually at the cost of their integrity *ala Iraq War*

Does anyone have any idea how easy it is to make a few million dollars by the time they're in their 50s or 60s?

^^^^^^^^ that attitude right there is why people do not like millionaires... Are you white?

Rich wouldn't take bribes? WTF.. you are so lost.. They just claim bankruptcy and make the common citizens pay it back.

Did you grow up in a poor black family or a poor white family?

____________Millionaire Politicians __________ do not have the majority of Americans .. the majority of the voters best interests in mind when they meet with lobbyists... they think more about their money than they do about what is best for their fellow citizens

 

[Rainsford]

JLGatsby, as one of the more Republican members of this board, I would think you would understand the "problem" with rich politicians better than most. For some reason Americans lately really seem to like populist bullshit...if someone doesn't act like "one of them", they are "a bad guy". George W. Bush played this crap very well, why else would a rich guy from a rich family in Connecticut spend so much time pretending to be some Texas rancher? Because it works, and to a larger extent it's worked for the Republicans in general for quite a number of years now. Why else does the term "liberal elite" elicit such hatred from the right? And money is just one more way to pick out the elite folks, because your Ayn Rand BS aside, most Americans DON'T have millions of dollars.

Now for my part I couldn't care less, I think only idiots vote for people who DON'T make a ton of money, and I think only idiots who've read too much Ayn Rand ONLY vote for people who have a ton of money. Money is how people with no talent keep score, I'd rather vote for the smart folks with good ideas. Now obviously if you're smart in the right field, you can make a ton of money, but why exclude people who have decided to take their smarts in a different direction? I'd rather vote for an exceptional engineer rather than an average lawyer, even though 10 to 1 the lawyer has more money in the bank. And for that matter, why should someone get my vote if he fell into money and would be the night manager at Burger King if he hadn't been born into the right family?

I think both sides have it wrong, money really does not matter...it doesn't mean you don't understand "the people", and it doesn't mean you are some super successful genius, all it means is that you have a big bank account. So...if that ever becomes a factor in effective government, I'll change my tune...but for the moment I think both sides need to take the blinders off and realize that money isn't really the first thing you should be looking at.

 

[dahunan]

BTW, your snobby attitude comes across in your poll making it unclear

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: dahunan
BTW, your snobby attitude comes across in your poll making it unclear

What do you expect from someone who read Ayn Rand and thought she was talking about money?

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: dahunan
____________Millionaire Politicians __________ do not have the majority of Americans .. the majority of the voters best interests in mind when they meet with lobbyists... they think more about their money than they do about what is best for their fellow citizens

Where do you base this opinion from? Why do you have this notion that anyone with a ton of money is some sort of crook?

Many, if not most wealthy politicians are in a "closure" stage of their business life. Bill Gates is a perfect example of this when he retired from daily duties at Microsoft last July. They have made their money and now they are looking for other goals outside money and business and most often they turn to either politics or philathropy as a way to "give back" after a successful business career. This notion that anyone with a lot of money is some sort of "money-addict" (like a drug addict) who will spend their lifetime selling their children for a dime is total based on blind jealousy.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
I constantly see these news articles detailing the assets of Senators and other politicians and calling places like the Senate a "Millionaire's Club."

The news organizations seem to glorify someone with 3 or 4 million dollars as some sort "high rolling big shot." I mean seriously, you've got to be kidding?

My line of thinking is this, if you are not intelligent enough to amass a modest nestegg of 2 or 3 million, how can you be intelligent enough to administer public policy?

Does anyone want someone who through their entire life (most politicians are older) has never been able to at least make a few bucks to keep themselves financially secure?

Does anyone have any idea how easy it is to make a few million dollars by the time they're in their 50s or 60s?

I personally refuse to vote for anyone who is not a millionaire. If you cannot make a million bucks, you cannot possible have enough intelligence to serve in office.

And because you're rich, that doesn't make you corrupt. Probably the wealthier you are, the less likely you are to take bribes. Would Bill Gates ever take a bribe? I don't think so.

Politics is unfortuantely about money...always has been, always will be but that does not make it right.

I would rather vote for a commonsense farmer who worked his ass of and can appreciate the power given to him rather some guy Dem or Repub that was handed his loot.

Money does not = inteligence and the mere fact that you equate the 2 shows your lack of the latter.

Remember, the reason these guys have amassed some of thier wealth is because they have supporters who will foot the bill for many things they want if they pass legislation in the favor of the supporter(s) and they vote themselves raises.

It does not take someone with a high IQ to figure out that if you vote a certain way you get perks, not does it take a large amount if brains to vote yourself a raise.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
For some reason Americans lately really seem to like populist bullshit...if someone doesn't act like "one of them", they are "a bad guy". George W. Bush played this crap very well, why else would a rich guy from a rich family in Connecticut spend so much time pretending to be some Texas rancher? Because it works, and to a larger extent it's worked for the Republicans in general for quite a number of years now.

I consider myself a Libertarian (I'm very open and tolerant), not a Republican.

As for your "one of them" comment, I agree 100%. I made a thread earlier about political ads with politicians (who are probably either lawyers or businessmen) putting on borrow work jackets parading as just your "average guy." Unfortunately most people cannot respect someone who has fairly made a good amount of money in their life, the "jealousy" mindset kicks in far before the "respect" and "good for him" mindsets do.

Regarding your comment about how money does not matter, I think it does. I'll tell you why. Many people go around saying "money doesn't matter to me," implying they do not care to be wealthy. I personally think that's BS, especially when it comes to politicians. Those people are just complete liars. EVERYONE wants to be wealthy, and once in power, the temptation to use that power to benefit oneself is often too much for someone without money to handle. Would a billionaire sell out for $100k? I doubt it. Would a guy with only $500k in the bank sell out for $100k? I think the possibility is much higher.

The general rule I take when it comes to politicians is that EVERYONE wants to be rich. No one is exempt from the allure of money, so that's why I believe it's an issue that should always be looked out for.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Money does not = inteligence and the mere fact that you equate the 2 shows your lack of the latter.

Two important things to that. When I connect wealth to intelligence, I am NOT including those who inherited their money. Because someone inherited money does not make them intelligent, that's for sure.

I am NOT talking about large amounts of wealth, say 100s of millions, or really even 10s of millions. I'm talking about how the media glorifies the guy with 3 or 4 million as some sort of "elitist big shot." I'm going to say it, and I don't care if you believe it or not, but in my mind it's 100% fact: If you cannot build up for yourself a decent little nestegg, $2 or 3 milllion, by the time you're in your 50s or 60s, you CANNOT possibly be intelligent enough to serve office. Don't try to tell me that some people don't care to be wealthy, that's not true. Everyone wants a little nestegg for themselves. These people who live simple lives (some farmer or rural person) and claim to not care about money are lying. I simply, flat out, do not believe them.

When someone says they don't care about money, they're either lying to you, or they're lying to themselves. It's one of the two. Some people may not want to be a billionaire, but everyone wants a respectable nestegg so they can buy enough freedom to enjoy life. That's why I find it hard to trust a non wealthy person with a lot of power. Hunger for money is part of human nature. Some have fed and satisfied this hunger by becoming wealthy, others have not.

 

[judasmachine]

I don't have a problem with it as long as they aren't corrupt (ie criminals) and they follow the opinions of their constituents.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: dahunan
BTW, your snobby attitude comes across in your poll making it unclear

You can tell a lot about a person by the things they first associate with money and financial success.

Some will associate it with snobbery, corruptness, and elitism.

Others will associate it with hard work, the American dream, and productivity.

Those who associate it with snobbery are usually confessing either their own inability to become successful in the world, or their a level of fear they have of failure if they did try to become successful. They're intimidated. It's a form of rebelliousness against an important aspect of life they may not have succeeded at. Having grown up in a working class family, I've seen it countless times before.

And of course the other group, those who associate it with hard work and productivity, it's an insight into the mind of someone who is not intimidated, but inspired by other's success. It's a sign of ambition and optimism.

 

[BoberFett]

I'd prefer honestly to intelligence. And I'd prefer a drooling moron to anyone like JLGatsby. Rarely have I seen such an unashamed display of elitism. From his thread about how politicians should stop stooping to please those "working class slobs" to this one, it seems JLGatsby has nothing but spite for anybody who actually works for a living.

In summation, I wish JLGatsby would shoot his eye out.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
I consider myself a Libertarian (I'm very open and tolerant), not a Republican.

As long as you have money. Your tolerance ends where the bank account does.

Don't pay attention to this douchebag, as a libertarian myself I wouldn't give this guy the time of day. I can't tell if he's serious or simply a troll, either way he's a prick of the highest order.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

If you exclude primary residence, how many Americans accumulate multi-millions in assets by their mid-50s? Why on Earth would you limit high elected office to a SLIVER of the US population? Why would you consider such a surrogate indicator of competence?

The primary reason GWBush had wealth before becoming governor was the political/financial connections of his family. IMHO, wealth (particularly among people consumed with acquiring it) is a good indicator that someone may NOT be qualified for office.

For some (including myself) the hallmark of a good politician is their desire (and ability) to SERVE others . . . with minimal (or total absence) concern for the 'return'. Accordingly, I would be quite wary of anyone that spent most of their life thinking, 'hmm, how can I make a buck off this?'

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
it seems JLGatsby has nothing but spite for anybody who actually works for a living.

What's with all the flaming? I want to ask an honest question about people who you claim "actually work for a living." I assume you mean blue collar workers. If they're such hard workers, why didn't they work harder in school and go to college to get a better job?

Ever heard someone tell you "The hardest work of all is with your brain." That's the biggest truth you'll ever hear. Don't tell me a guy who turns wrenches 50 hours a week is a harder worker than a lawyer who slaves away in his office for 50+ hours a week in his office, that's simply not true. That implies it's harder to work on an assembly line than it is to perform surgery, or to defend someone in a courtroom. Does anyone really believe that's true? I don't think so.

I'm not purposely being arrogant or trolling, which some seem to believe. I am just defending those who do the REAL hard work. Why do they get no credit? Why do politicians banter to the "common working man" instead of someone who spent 10 years slaving away in college to become a doctor? Why does no one respect that person?

I just get sick of the lack of respect society's real hard workers get. Those who spend 8, 10 years in school, and perform surgery for a living, or those who have masted the legal system, or scientists who everyday try to cure diseases.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If you exclude primary residence, how many Americans accumulate multi-millions in assets by their mid-50s? Why on Earth would you limit high elected office to a SLIVER of the US population? Why would you consider such a surrogate indicator of competence?

I'll give you some real stats.

As of right now 7% of all Americans have $1m or more in assets outside their primary residence.

Also, of those who are millionaires, 50% of them have never inherited a penny. 20% of them have inherited less than 10% of their net worth. Other 30% are inherited. So most earned it.

Am I implying that 93% of Americans are not fit to serve office? I don't think many would disagree with me. (Important: I'm not implying that all rich people are smart and all non-rich people are dumb, I'm only saying there a strong correlation between wealth and intelligence, but there are always exceptions. There are a lot of dumb rich people and intelligent non-rich people.) Most people know nothing about economics, the structure of the US government, foreign affairs, etc. I think I even read that most Americans don't even know who the Prime Minister of Great Britain is. How pathetic is that?

I will also quote Ayn Rand to bring more light to my thoughts when you say "Why on Earth would you limit high elected office to a SLIVER of the US population?": "It does not matter that only a few in each generation will grasp and achieve the full reality of man?s proper stature?and the rest will betray it. It is those few that move the world and give life its meaning?and it is those few that I have always sought to address. The rest are no concern of mine; it is not me or "The Fountainhead" that they will betray: it is their own souls." --Ayn Rand

 

[her209]

Why would someone making a million dollar plus per year take a paycut to work for the government?

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: her209
Why would someone making a million dollar plus per year take a paycut to work for the government?

I mentioned it in a post above: Many, if not most wealthy politicians are in a "closure" stage of their business life. Bill Gates is a perfect example of this when he retired from daily duties at Microsoft last July. They have made their money and now they are looking for other goals outside money and business and most often they turn to either politics or philathropy as a way to "give back" after a successful business career.

Some have achieve their goals in business and their hunger for money has faded, and they are looking for other goals and many are looking to "give back." It's how rich people retire, they give back after a lifetime of being given to. Most successful/driven people can never really retire at anything, they always need a goal. They don't just sit on their butt on the beach with a drink in hand, they always need a goal. They often create charitable goals in their later years as a sense of closure to their business career.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
Does anyone have any idea how easy it is to make a few million dollars by the time they're in their 50s or 60s?

So let's say it is easy. Let's say everyone does it, and everyone has millions of dollars by the time they're ready for retirement. Doesn't that mean that everyone's basically the same then? OMG, no, teh communists!!!!
It it really is easy, everyone's going to be doing it, and suddenly it won't be a viable option. If everyone's got money, it isn't worth as much.

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
Some people may not want to be a billionaire, but everyone wants a respectable nestegg so they can buy enough freedom to enjoy life. That's why I find it hard to trust a non wealthy person with a lot of power. Hunger for money is part of human nature. Some have fed and satisfied this hunger by becoming wealthy, others have not.

I think there are a lot of Buddhists who might disagree with this. One of the Four Noble Truths is, "The origin of suffering is attachment." Too often, wanting something else that one cannot have will cause that person to suffer. Either that, or the person will do anything to get that object, causing others to suffer in the meantime.
Happiness can be attained without vast amounts of wealth.

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

You can tell a lot about a person by the things they first associate with money and financial success.

Some will associate it with snobbery, corruptness, and elitism.

Others will associate it with hard work, the American dream, and productivity.

Those who associate it with snobbery are usually confessing either their own inability to become successful in the world, or their a level of fear they have of failure if they did try to become successful. They're intimidated. It's a form of rebelliousness against an important aspect of life they may not have succeeded at. Having grown up in a working class family, I've seen it countless times before.

And of course the other group, those who associate it with hard work and productivity, it's an insight into the mind of someone who is not intimidated, but inspired by other's success. It's a sign of ambition and optimism.

Money brings power.
Power brings corruption.
I've seen it countless times before.

 

[JLGatsby]

Jeff7, Of course everyone cannot become wealthy, even if it is easy. The simple reason is that most people are lazy and/or don't try or care.

"Happiness can be attained without vast amounts of wealth."

True, but happiness is relative. People can brainwash themselves to believe that there is no need to wealth and material possessions. Other people may just be intellectually too simple to need money for happiness. As Ayn Rand said, "money cannot serve the mind that cannot match it."

"Money brings power.
Power brings corruption.
I've seen it countless times before. "

Biggest lie ever. Lack of money with power brings corruption. Personal need/want is the ultimate source of motivation to do anything, including lying, cheating, or stealing (corruption). Since money is and buys FREEDOM (that is fact), money creates freedom from need/want, which eliminates the need for corruption. Because why would a billionaire need to steal $10k? They wouldn't.

The "money = corruption" corruption is a myth started by pop culture, which downplays and doesn't respect self made wealth.

The true motto should need "lack of contentedness + lack of morals = corruption." If a man has a lot of money, yet is still corrupt, he is a accidental byproduct of a capitalist system, which makes wealth accumulation easy and allows for even people who don't deserve wealth, to become wealthy (think movie stars or athletes), but those people are still in the minority of all wealthy people.

The majority of wealthy people are moral, that's how a capitalist system works. It rewards hard work and playing by the rules. The corrupt ones are in the minority and just a byproduct of an overly-abundant (but rightfully so) nation.

 

[dahunan]

I bet he thinks wealth = honor and integrity?

He also conveniently skipped by my social and ethnic class related questions..

 

[sandorski]

Disagree. Most People will never be amongst the Wealthy. Government serves the People, you need a wide assortment of People representing all Classes, Races, Sexes in order to have good Representative Government.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
Jeff7, Of course everyone cannot become wealthy, even if it is easy. The simple reason is that most people are lazy and/or don't try or care.

"Happiness can be attained without vast amounts of wealth."

True, but happiness is relative. People can brainwash themselves to believe that there is no need to wealth and material possessions. Other people may just be intellectually too simple to need money for happiness. As Ayn Rand said, "money cannot serve the mind that cannot match it."

"Money brings power.
Power brings corruption.
I've seen it countless times before. "

Biggest lie ever. Lack of money with power brings corruption. Personal need/want is the ultimate source of motivation to do anything, including lying, cheating, or stealing (corruption). Since money is and buys FREEDOM (that is fact), money creates freedom from need/want, which eliminates the need for corruption. Because why would a billionaire need to steal $10k? They wouldn't.

The "money = corruption" corruption is a myth started by pop culture, which downplays and doesn't respect self made wealth.

The true motto should need "lack of contentedness + lack of morals = corruption." If a man has a lot of money, yet is still corrupt, he is a accidental byproduct of a capitalist system, which makes wealth accumulation easy and allows for even people who don't deserve wealth, to become wealthy (think movie stars or athletes), but those people are still in the minority of all wealthy people.

The majority of wealthy people are moral, that's how a capitalist system works. It rewards hard work and playing by the rules. The corrupt ones are in the minority and just a byproduct of an overly-abundant (but rightfully so) nation.

BS.

 

[JLGatsby]

dahunan, Are you referring to these two questions? I do not hide from questions, if I missed any, repost the ones I missed.

Originally posted by: dahunan
Is the average growth of the politicians wealth = to the common wealthy person or do they use their influence to make their money grow *usually at the cost of their integrity *ala Iraq War*

Did you grow up in a poor black family or a poor white family?

1. I would imagine extremely wealthy politicians grow their wealth at a much less higher rate than other extremely wealthy people because of the restrictions and disclosure issues the government puts on them. There are many billionaires who are doubling their wealth every year (even as a billionaire). Also, since they are in office, they have less time to devote to business, which also prevents them from engaging their wealth in the business world and making more money.

2. I grew up in a working class white family, but have a very economically diverse background. I've been poor at times and upper middle class at time. I've also gone to working class schools and went to high school at a very very wealthy school. My opinions are based on countless observations.