Those fat cats in Congress or better yet those bloated fat cats

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2008&filter=C&sort=A
from JoeUser Forums

Most citizens in the States have felt the affects of the economy.   Myself for example, came back from being overseas (I planned on being over there for the rest of my life or least a very very long time, so you could imagine the money that I had already laid down over there) just a half dozen months after the recession had started (the recession started roughly around November 2007 which means it probably was on its way a few months before that).  Before coming back I had a job that I enjoyed with decent compensation.  If I really wanted to make the money I could have stayed here instead of going overseas and worked for a very well known and prestigious organization as one of their top obesity researchers. 

Since being back, its been tough not just with economy being bad but the job market as well.  For the past year, I've tried to find actual members of Congress net wealth.  This is quite problematic though.  Congress and the executive branch have to give disclosure of their personal finances by May 15 of each year.  According to the law, EACH MEMBER HAS TO give a list of their assets and liabilities, their income which excludes their $141,000 for being a part of the congress elite, asset transactions, even their spouses income, and even more.  They don't have to disclose any personal property unless they're making income on it.  There are about 237 members of Congress that are millionaires.  From 2007 to 2008, the average net income of Congress has gone from 2.27 million to 1.79 million.  This information came from the linked article, just so no one can say I plagiarized.

If you go to the link (please go to it. its quite interesting) I gave, don't let the Congress members who have negative net wealth income fool you.  By law, they just need to report their spouses income.  This negates any property that they own or what most politicians do is make their children, close friend, or lawyer as a coexecutor (as long as its not their spouse).  Once they have done this they no long have to disclose it because it would be in violation of that other person. 

As it has been seen, it has been harder to get Congress to actually disclose their net income or should I say to honestly disclose it.  If you look at Mr. Rangel for example he says that he only has done what others have done (which scares me) and that he made some mistakes (essentially pleading ignorance). 

Congress was never intended for an individual to get rich OR as a life long career.  

I've seen a lot of dead bodies.  I've seen dead bodies that have been so water logged.  If you haven't seen a dead body that has been waterlogged you might have seen a dead animal that has been water logged.  The person doesn't look human nor does that animal look like an animal. The body usually balloons several times the actual size, so disfiguring and stretching everything.

Essentially, this is what has happened in Congress.  Members of Congress do not look like their constituents or regular people for that matter.  This trascends party as well, so it doesn't matter what party you are.  Congress does not represent the majority of the people at least on a financial net worth level.  This is the point that most rational and logical individuals should be able to agree on.

politics
12,243 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

The final thing is the chances of this ever changing are slim.  It has become increasingly difficult for the average person with an average median income to run for office.  Yes, a small percentage have accomplished this yet even a smaller percentage of those actually go on and get elected. 

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

If you don't get elected, you'll have to eat the expenses.  Or if you were under the old bankruptcy laws you could have filed for bankruptcy.

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

They are not called the ruling class for nothing (both parties).  They have no real world conception of earning a living or living like mos of us do - month to month.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 3
They are not called the ruling class for nothing (both parties).  They have no real world conception of earning a living or living like mos of us do - month to month.

There's no need for them to.  Being a political hack is a lifetime career.  I find it concerning when you hear for example Ted Stevens was the longest standing Republican in congress who served 40 years.  If you really take note, this is a recent trend for Congress to have almost life appointments.  This whole fiasco stated in the 30s and 40s. Thanks partly to FDR. 

I'm not saying anythng about term limits.  The fact is that if you look at the history of Congress it was never meant to be a lifetime job.  If people like electing corrupt people to congress and to elect them for long periods of time so be it.  As long as it doesn't affect my state or district in any way.  This means I am against bailing out California and New York.  You sow what you reap and now what your sowing is choking what I'm trying to reap.  The people of those corrupt Congress members should pay as well as that member, for its by no means my fault you kept electing Mr. or Ms. Neonate.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

As long as it doesn't affect my state or district in any way.

Each American (legal and soon illegals) gets to vote on one Representative and 2 Senators.  it takes 218 representatives and 50 Senators to screw you.  That means that most are against you, and they demonstrate it every day.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

I believe the state should be responsible for the Senator or Congressman's salary and that of their entourage. Voters might take it into consideration then. At the very least it would cut out those late night "pay raise" votes. I wish I had a job where I decided the amount of my regular pay raise.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

I wish I had a job where I decided the amount of my regular pay raise.

Some people do have legitimate jobs like that.  They are called Entrepreneurs.  But then they do produce things, unlike congress.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 7

I wish I had a job where I decided the amount of my regular pay raise.
Some people do have legitimate jobs like that.  They are called Entrepreneurs.  But then they do produce things, unlike congress.

Yeah, some more exceptions between entrepreneurs and congress: put long hours in, most don't recklessly spend, and are some what concerned with the implications of what they are doing.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Add to the list - they do not take what is not theirs (criminals are a different issue).

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well if an entrepreneur's business doesn't make money they get a pay cut. Perhaps we need performance based salaries in government. 10% unemployment and the must give back 10% of their pay. Over budget spending by 15%, then a 15% pay cut. Things would straighten out in a hurry.