Congress has lost its mind...

[Trilby]

What is it with the governmental leaders in New York? Is NY just a sexy state? Are NY men just extra-horny? David Paterson, Elliot Spitzer now this guy...makes me wonder if there is something in the water...

[classicman]

This is as good a place as any - didn't feel it deserved a new thread ...

While just 1 percent of Americans are millionaires, 66 percent of senators are millionaires, as are 41 percent of House members.

The evidence is clear: Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Congress and don't believe their representatives share their priorities.

There's plenty of room for debate over whether Congress shares voters' priorities on political and policy issues. But when it comes to personal priorities, at least, voters have good reason to be skeptical of Congress. Most members of Congress simply don't share in the average American experience.

National unemployment has lingered above 8 percent for longer than 28 straight months. Congress, meanwhile, is a club that consists of 245 millionaires. Based on 2009 data, there are currently 66 in the Senate and 179 in the House (among current voting members). So while just 1 percent of Americans are millionaires, 66 percent of senators are millionaires, as are 41 percent of House members.

Even the 2010 elections, with its promises to "take our country back," produced a freshman class of senators with a median net worth of close to $4 million. The median net worth of freshman House members is more than half a million dollars, according the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based, non-partisan research group that tracks the effect of money on elections and public policy.

Multiple factors contribute to this picture. It begins with campaigns that have become increasingly costly to run, making it all the more difficult for a person of modest income to run for office. National parties, looking for ways to bring down their own costs, actively recruit wealthy candidates.

Once in office, members of Congress enjoy access to connections and information they can use to increase their wealth, in ways that are unparalleled in the private sector. And once politicians leave office, their connections allow them to profit even further.

How wealthy is Congress?

The average estimated personal wealth of congressional members far exceeds the average American's wealth, according to Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. "We're talking orders of magnitude," he said -- people with assets in the high six figures in the House and even higher in the Senate.

The Center regularly goes through the time-consuming process of reviewing congressional financial disclosure reports -- which are only filed on paper -- and publishing the information in a reader-friendly online format. Their work has shown that, besides a slight dip between 2007 and 2008, Congress' personal wealth has continued to rise.

"Most Americans are being represented by people who, any way you cut it, are in the elite of the financial elite," Levinthal said.

Link

Also, The Top Ten wealthiest senators ...

John Kerry, D-Mass.
Average net worth: $238,812,296

Mark Warner, D-Va.
Average net worth: $174,385,102

Herb Kohl, D-Wis.
Average net worth: $160,302,011

James E. Risch, R-Idaho
Average net worth: $109,034,052

Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
Average net worth: $98,832,010

Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
Average net worth: $94,870,116

Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Average net worth: $77,082,134

Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Average net worth: $76,886,611

Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
Average net worth: $50,717,522

Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine
Average net worth: $28,612,527
Link

[TheMercenary]

John Kerry? You mean that same guy that tried to register his sailboat made in another country in an effort to avoid paying taxes on it? That guy?

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

http://www.bostonherald.com/track/in...icleid=1269698

[infinite monkey]

Rhode Island is another country?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Rhode Island is another country?

HAAAAAAAAA.... I meant county (in another state). My bad.

[infinite monkey]

I knew what you meant, it just tickled my funny bone.

[TheMercenary]

The Bozo's we elected to office....


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58923.html

[gvidas]

This whole debt ceiling debate is asinine brinksmanship. If (when?) they fuck this one up, it's going to end up costing us way, way more. And, naturally, there has been approximately zero discussion of the role military spending plays in the whole situation.

Nate Silver breaks it down: GOP's no-tax stance is outside political mainstream

The average Republican voter, based on this data, wants a mix of 26 percent tax increases to 74 percent spending cuts. The average independent voter prefers a 34-to-66 mix, while the average Democratic voter wants a 46-to-54 mix:
[...]
Now consider the positions of the respective parties to the negotiation. One framework that President Obama has offered, which would reduce the debt by a reported $2 trillion, contains a mix of about 17 percent tax increases to 83 percent spending cuts. Another framework, which would aim for twice the debt reduction, has been variously reported as offering a 20-to-80 or 25-to-75 mix.

With the important caveat that the accounting on both the spending and tax sides can get tricky, this seems like an awfully good deal for Republicans. Much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases that Mr. Obama is offering is quite close to, or perhaps even a little to the right of, what the average Republican voter wants, let alone the average American.

He goes on to point out that, if the average Republican voter wants to solve the problem with 26-74% split of tax increases to spending cuts, and the average Democrat wants 46-54%, there's more disparity between Republican voters and Republican politicians, who're refusing to settle for anything less than 0% tax increase / 100% spending cuts (26% difference) than between Republican voters and Democrat voters (20% difference.)

Fareed Zakaria put it nicely the other day on Fresh Air. Paraphrasing, this is a financial problem being debated in ideological, almost fanatical terms. In religion, there are absolutes that it is very hard to find a middle ground between: how do you find a fair compromise between Christianity and Islam?

But this is economics, numbers. You can split the difference.

[glatt]

well said.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by gvidas

This whole debt ceiling debate is asinine brinksmanship. If (when?) they fuck this one up, it's going to end up costing us way, way more. And, naturally, there has been approximately zero discussion of the role military spending plays in the whole situation.

Nate Silver breaks it down: GOP's no-tax stance is outside political mainstream



He goes on to point out that, if the average Republican voter wants to solve the problem with 26-74% split of tax increases to spending cuts, and the average Democrat wants 46-54%, there's more disparity between Republican voters and Republican politicians, who're refusing to settle for anything less than 0% tax increase / 100% spending cuts (26% difference) than between Republican voters and Democrat voters (20% difference.)

Fareed Zakaria put it nicely the other day on Fresh Air. Paraphrasing, this is a financial problem being debated in ideological, almost fanatical terms. In religion, there are absolutes that it is very hard to find a middle ground between: how do you find a fair compromise between Christianity and Islam?

But this is economics, numbers. You can split the difference.

The Dems ran Congress for quite a number of years now. Completely. When they got Obama into office they really ran up the credit cards, raised taxes, and Rhammed unpopular programs through the Congress that have now broken the bank. In the end, regardless of what happens, they will take ownership for the failure of this economy. Republickins have plenty of blood on their hands, but no one will forget, it has been the Demoncrats who have been in control.

[glatt]

Republickins have plenty of blood on their hands, but no one will forget, it has been the Demoncrats who have been in control.

The debt was no big deal under Carter and before. Reagan came along and increased military spending and cut taxes, increasing the debt by unprecedented amounts. Bush I continued the path of Reagan, but slowed the growth of it a little. Then Clinton came. He started off with a big debt, but the economy was on fire then, and he ended up with a balanced budget when he left office. Bush II started his term with huge tax cuts followed by two expensive wars and ended up with a big expensive bailout just before he left office. Now Obama is increasing the debt a lot with his continued spending on the wars and the stimulus spending. At the same time Republicans have blocked tax increases.

The debt has been going on for a while and it's not a one party is to blame kind of a deal. In my opinion, the Republicans have contributed more to the debt in my lifetime, but right now it's taking off like crazy under Obama. Something needs to be done and the fair thing is to share the pain equally.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Something needs to be done and the fair thing is to share the pain equally.

I agree. The key word being "equally".

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The Dems ran Congress for quite a number of years now. Completely. When they got Obama into office they really ran up the credit cards, raised taxes, and Rhammed unpopular programs through the Congress that have now broken the bank. In the end, regardless of what happens, they will take ownership for the failure of this economy. Republickins have plenty of blood on their hands, but no one will forget, it has been the Demoncrats who have been in control.

Democrats ran congress but Republicans blocked any attempt for a compromise on the budget deal.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Democrats ran congress but Republicans blocked any attempt for a compromise on the budget deal.

Congress controls the budget. Not the president. Demoncrats have been in charge of both houses of Congress until last year. So far since Obama has been in office they ran up the credit cards with no plan to pay for it.

Congress has not passed a budget amendment for 27 months. Who was in charge during that time?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The Dems ran Congress for quite a number of years now. Completely. When they got Obama into office they really ran up the credit cards, raised taxes, and Rhammed unpopular programs through the Congress that have now broken the bank. In the end, regardless of what happens, they will take ownership for the failure of this economy. Republickins have plenty of blood on their hands, but no one will forget, it has been the Demoncrats who have been in control.

Ran up the credit cards? Or increased the deficit each year less than Bush and his $750 billion and rising unfunded Iraq war that was kept off budget so it would not count towards the annual deficit, nearly $1 trillion tax cuts for the wealthy and not offset by spending cuts and a $1/2 trillion medicare prescription drug reform program?

Raises taxes? Which taxes were raised as opposes to middle class and small business tax relief in the stimulus bill?

Unpopular programs? You've been watching too much FOX News.