Capitol Assets: Congress’s wealthiest mostly shielded from effects of deep recession

  • Thread starter Thread starter didymus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

didymus

Guest
Washington Post:
Capitol Assets: Congress’s wealthiest mostly shielded from effects of deep recession
Click to expand...
If you could peer deeply into how the 535 members of Congress handle their money, what would you find? You would see a diversity of investment strategies and results, from those who put their money into riskier, high-growth funds to those who own safe municipal bonds. The legislators range from the super-rich to the deep-in-debt, from inherited wealth to married wealth to no wealth at all. They are entrepreneurs and farmers, oilmen and ranchers, lawyers and real estate developers.
Click to expand...
You would find that, contrary to many popular perceptions, lawmakers don’t get rich by merely being in Congress. Rich people who go to Congress, though, keep getting richer while they’re there.
The wealthiest one-third of lawmakers were largely immune from the Great Recession, taking the fewest financial hits and watching their investments quickly recover and rise to new heights. But more than 20 percent of the members of the current Congress — 121 lawmakers — appeared to be worse off in 2010 than they had been six years earlier, and 24 saw their reported wealth slide into negative territory.
Click to expand...
Those findings emerge from an ongoing examination of congressional finances by The Washington Post, which analyzed thousands of financial disclosure forms and public records for all members of Congress.
Most members weathered the financial crisis better than the average American, who saw median household net worth drop 39 percent from 2007 to 2010. The median estimated wealth of members of the current Congress rose 5 percent during the same period, according to their reported assets and liabilities. The wealthiest one-third of Congress gained 14 percent.
Click to expand...
Also check out this graphic accompanying the story. There seems to be no difference between Democrats & Republicans.
All’s I can say is, I’m shocked!!!
 
I’m surprised there are any that are in financial trouble.

I keep trying to get this message out: It’s partly true that the republicans are the party of rich. But so are the the Democrats. The republicans are the party of the “new money” rich - the entrepenuers, the venture capitalists, the small/medium business owners, the founders of large companies. This is why they tend to champion low income taxes, no inheritance tax and demonize government regulations. The Dems are the party of the “old money” rich. They look out fo the Ivy League club, the trust fund crowd, the corporate board members and the heavily entrenched billionaires. They do an excellent job of masking this fact by espousing government policies advertised as being protection for the “little guy” but that are actually protection for the old money rich. Look no further than all the bailouts, who benefitted? Ever notice that multinational corporations don’t oppose government regulation and red tape? (They don’t oppose it, they just want it to be predictable and consistent. That way only THEY can afford to navigate the swamp of regulation and nobody new can enter the competetive field. Two generations ago, you could put in 20 years as a field engineer at Exxon, learn all there was to know about the industry, resign, get a loan and buy a used drill rig on your own. Good luck with that today. The industry is protected from new competition by a regulatory system so vast you need millions to start up, so Exxon doesn’t even need to give that guy good raises anymore.)

The sad fact is that nobody in DC is really looking out for YOUR interest unless you are somebody paying $500 a plate at fundraiser dinners and bringing your checkbook along too. This is the real reason the federal government needs to shrink in size, scope, authority and responsibility. Everything they do is just a sham cover for helping out their sponsors.
 
manualman said:
I’m surprised there are any that are in financial trouble.

I keep trying to get this message out: It’s partly true that the republicans are the party of rich. But so are the the Democrats. The republicans are the party of the “new money” rich - the entrepenuers, the venture capitalists, the small/medium business owners, the founders of large companies. This is why they tend to champion low income taxes, no inheritance tax and demonize government regulations. The Dems are the party of the “old money” rich. They look out fo the Ivy League club, the trust fund crowd, the corporate board members and the heavily entrenched billionaires. They do an excellent job of masking this fact by espousing government policies advertised as being protection for the “little guy” but that are actually protection for the old money rich. Look no further than all the bailouts, who benefitted? Ever notice that multinational corporations don’t oppose government regulation and red tape? (They don’t oppose it, they just want it to be predictable and consistent. That way only THEY can afford to navigate the swamp of regulation and nobody new can enter the competetive field. Two generations ago, you could put in 20 years as a field engineer at Exxon, learn all there was to know about the industry, resign, get a loan and buy a used drill rig on your own. Good luck with that today. The industry is protected from new competition by a regulatory system so vast you need millions to start up, so Exxon doesn’t even need to give that guy good raises anymore.)

The sad fact is that nobody in DC is really looking out for YOUR interest unless you are somebody paying $500 a plate at fundraiser dinners and bringing your checkbook along too. This is the real reason the federal government needs to shrink in size, scope, authority and responsibility. Everything they do is just a sham cover for helping out their sponsors.
Click to expand...
Bingo!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top