If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Good news, everybody: The majority of Congress are now millionaires, so they'll really be able to identify with most of us now   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 72
    More: Spiffy, congresses, Michael McCaul, Center for Responsive Politics  
•       •       •

783 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jan 2014 at 7:50 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-09 07:13:32 PM
How did this get the Spiffy tag, subs?
 
2014-01-09 07:51:57 PM

Via Infinito: How did this get the Spiffy tag, subs?


Added sarcasm to go with the headline, I assume.
 
2014-01-09 07:52:12 PM
I'm feeling like maybe, just maybe, politicians can't relate to us "common folk"

/Just maybe
 
2014-01-09 07:53:50 PM
But the Democrats are TOTALLY interested in pulling for the little people unlike the Republicans...
 
2014-01-09 07:57:06 PM
www.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2Fthe-30-richest-members-of-congress %2F2013%2F08%2F21%2Ff182de02-0a52-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_gallery.html% 23photo%3D1

The 30 richest members of Congress
 deslided
 
2014-01-09 07:57:06 PM

AngryDragon: But the Democrats are TOTALLY interested in pulling for the little people unlike the Republicans...


So vote Ralph Nader.
 
2014-01-09 07:58:34 PM
I'm surprised this wasn't already the case.
 
2014-01-09 07:58:36 PM

Waldo Pepper: www.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2Fthe-30-richest-members-of-congres s %2F2013%2F08%2F21%2Ff182de02-0a52-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_gallery.html% 23photo%3D1


dang didn't work. sorry
 
2014-01-09 07:59:43 PM

AngryDragon: But the Democrats are TOTALLY interested in pulling for the little people unlike the Republicans...


The Democrats understand that, for long-term economic stability, you need to throw a few bucks at poor people and the country's infrastructure now and then. The Republicans are more interested in looting all they can as fast as they can, to Hell with the long term.
 
2014-01-09 07:59:54 PM
Why do you people hate success so much? Clearly they're all very good at making financial and business decisions and they should naturally be our leaders because they're our betters.
 
2014-01-09 07:59:57 PM
Anyone else see a problem with millionaires voting to cut funding for food stamps?  Just thought I'd roll that one out there.
 
2014-01-09 08:03:07 PM

AngryDragon: But the Democrats are TOTALLY interested in pulling for the little people unlike the Republicans...



Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6  times
times more under Democratic presidents

Corporate profits have grown over  16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually  declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

Average annual compound return on the stock market has been  18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

Republican presidents added  2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-eco no my-history-says-vote-democrat/
 
2014-01-09 08:04:45 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Anyone else see a problem with millionaires voting to cut funding for food stamps?  Just thought I'd roll that one out there.


would you prefer someone who is clueless about financial matters making that decision instead?
 
2014-01-09 08:05:29 PM

FnkyTwn: Why do you people hate success so much? Clearly they're all very good at making financial and business decisions and they should naturally be our leaders because they're our betters.


blogs.villagevoice.com

Not gonna lie...that they are our betters stings.  A lot.
 
2014-01-09 08:07:23 PM

nyseattitude: AngryDragon: But the Democrats are TOTALLY interested in pulling for the little people unlike the Republicans...


Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6  times
times more under Democratic presidents

Corporate profits have grown over  16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually  declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

Average annual compound return on the stock market has been  18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

Republican presidents added  2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-eco no my-history-says-vote-democrat/


Yeah, well those are just facts. In the heart of every Real American, we know that Republicans are better at handling the economy and the national coffers.

/besides, that just, like, your opinion, man.
 
2014-01-09 08:19:04 PM
Now?  I thought this had been the case for a pretty long time.

As I recall, the lowest net worth of any Senator was a few million.
 
2014-01-09 08:23:15 PM

clowncar on fire: would you prefer someone who is clueless about financial matters making that decision instead?


What an odd thing to ask.  You would have to assume that all millionaires are good at financial matters or that only millionaires are good at financial matters to get anywhere near that.  Also, are financial considerations the only relevant thing when considering cuts to food stamps?

You're an odd duck, clowny.
 
2014-01-09 08:29:34 PM
The only constituents Congress cares about are corporations and the extremely rich.  So, in a way, they certainly ARE able to identify more with their constituents.
 
2014-01-09 08:31:20 PM
The only cure for this is to give them more money and power.
 
2014-01-09 08:32:07 PM
Gee, couldn't have anything to do with the fact that we're living in a plutocratic kleptocracy could it?
 
2014-01-09 08:34:17 PM
"Urgent bipartisan negotiations in the Senate to extend emergency unemployment benefits blew up on Thursday, placing the future of the jobless aid in doubt."

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/dems-eye-sequester-to-pay-for- un employment-101972.html

Never saw that one coming!
 
2014-01-09 08:34:35 PM

nyseattitude: AngryDragon: But the Democrats are TOTALLY interested in pulling for the little people unlike the Republicans...


Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6  times
times more under Democratic presidents

Corporate profits have grown over  16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually  declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

Average annual compound return on the stock market has been  18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

Republican presidents added  2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-eco no my-history-says-vote-democrat/


A good example of how Americans don't understand complex issues and need statistics tailored to as low a level as possible to support their worldview.
 
2014-01-09 08:37:51 PM
That money should be seized to pay for healthcare.
 
2014-01-09 08:38:54 PM

Mrbogey: nyseattitude: AngryDragon: But the Democrats are TOTALLY interested in pulling for the little people unlike the Republicans...


Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6  times
times more under Democratic presidents

Corporate profits have grown over  16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually  declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

Average annual compound return on the stock market has been  18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

Republican presidents added  2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-eco no my-history-says-vote-democrat/

A good example of how Americans don't understand complex issues and need statistics tailored to as low a level as possible to support their worldview.


I notice you didn't actually refute his point.
 
2014-01-09 08:39:53 PM
Hence why they're not interested in pushing sane policy, they're only interested in winning elections.

K Street and Wall Street run the country now. Not First Street. And definitely not Pennsylvania Ave.
 
2014-01-09 08:43:15 PM
We should cut their pay to ensure that only rich people can run in the future.
 
2014-01-09 08:47:21 PM

grumpfuff: Mrbogey: nyseattitude: AngryDragon: But the Democrats are TOTALLY interested in pulling for the little people unlike the Republicans...


Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6  times
times more under Democratic presidents

Corporate profits have grown over  16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually  declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

Average annual compound return on the stock market has been  18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

Republican presidents added  2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-eco no my-history-says-vote-democrat/

A good example of how Americans don't understand complex issues and need statistics tailored to as low a level as possible to support their worldview.

I notice you didn't actually refute his point.


Obviously presidential policies take approximately 4-8 years to have an effect, by which time the other party is in office. Not that I actually believe this, but somebody else might.
 
2014-01-09 08:55:45 PM
Most middle class people who retire are millionaires these days. Those that do retire that is.
 
2014-01-09 08:56:13 PM

Wendy's Chili: We should cut their pay to ensure that only rich people can run in the future.


I hate to be the one to break it to WC...someone else wanna let him know only rich people can afford to run now?


And before someone goes and says something stupid, like that some members are poor...here are the 10 "poorest".  Yes, even the members with "negative" net worths are rich.

Don't you wish YOU were rich enough to have debt 5 times your assets, and have banks still clamor to give you more money instead of foreclosing on your property?
 
2014-01-09 08:58:24 PM

edmo: Most middle class people who retire are millionaires these days. Those that do retire that is.


If only.
 
2014-01-09 09:03:26 PM

Bennie Crabtree: edmo: Most middle class people who retire are millionaires these days. Those that do retire that is.

If only.


If you retire with a million dollars and live off bond fund interest, you will have about $40,000 a year. That's not enough for an upper-middle class lifestyle, but combining it with social security means you aren't poor either.
 
2014-01-09 09:05:34 PM

Emposter: Don't you wish YOU were rich enough to have debt 5 times your assets


Did you not go to college?
 
2014-01-09 09:08:57 PM

itcamefromschenectady: grumpfuff: Mrbogey: nyseattitude: AngryDragon: But the Democrats are TOTALLY interested in pulling for the little people unlike the Republicans...


Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6  times
times more under Democratic presidents

Corporate profits have grown over  16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually  declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)

Average annual compound return on the stock market has been  18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)

Republican presidents added  2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents

The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-eco no my-history-says-vote-democrat/

A good example of how Americans don't understand complex issues and need statistics tailored to as low a level as possible to support their worldview.

I notice you didn't actually refute his point.

Obviously presidential policies take approximately 4-8 years to have an effect, by which time the other party is in office. Not that I actually believe this, but somebody else might.

Dad... is that you?

 
2014-01-09 09:09:24 PM

Wendy's Chili: Emposter: Don't you wish YOU were rich enough to have debt 5 times your assets

Did you not go to college?


Please, go on.  Can't wait to hear this.
 
2014-01-09 09:17:19 PM

FnkyTwn: Why do you people hate success so much? Clearly they're all very good at making financial and business decisions and they should naturally be our leaders because they're our betters.


images.sodahead.com
 
2014-01-09 09:20:49 PM

grumpfuff: I notice you didn't actually refute his point.


I said his use of statistics wasn't very well done. In effect, I said he needs to prove his point better.

Specifically to rebut the claim though that categorizes Hoover as laissez-faire you would simply need look at what he did. Under no definition of the term can you call import taxes and stimulus as laissez-faire.

In general he cited specific benchmarks that mean nothing to 99% of Americans (corporate profits and stock returns). Or the selective and biased language choice in statistics presentation.

Part of me wants to violate my "no trolling" rule and create an alt for the sole purpose of dumpinf fallacious and eroneous stats on Fark threads to see how far it gets before someone catches the error. Hell, maybe it'd be worth it if the next Republican president borrowed 15 trillion dollars in one year just to screw up all the metrics that lazy economists like to use to use to tell us how the economy is doing. That would be an epic trolling.
 
2014-01-09 09:23:22 PM
The really interesting data would be analysing how much money they had when they entered Congress, and how much they had when left.

And, if someone can hack the relevant data, exactly when the portfolio investments were made (and, while we're dreaming, correlated with NSA data about which lobbyists visited/called the Congressman right before the investment was made)

Juice-ahhh
 
2014-01-09 09:24:15 PM

Emposter: Wendy's Chili: Emposter: Don't you wish YOU were rich enough to have debt 5 times your assets

Did you not go to college?

Please, go on.  Can't wait to hear this.


Isn't it normal to have debt 5 times your assets if you recently bought a house (and/or a car) and don't have much equity in it? The amount you owe could easily be 5 times your equity.
 
2014-01-09 09:24:22 PM

Mrbogey: Part of me wants to violate my "no trolling" rule


hahaohwaityourserious.jpg
 
2014-01-09 09:52:44 PM

itcamefromschenectady: Emposter: Wendy's Chili: Emposter: Don't you wish YOU were rich enough to have debt 5 times your assets

Did you not go to college?

Please, go on.  Can't wait to hear this.

Isn't it normal to have debt 5 times your assets if you recently bought a house (and/or a car) and don't have much equity in it? The amount you owe could easily be 5 times your equity.


You'd have to take out a 30 year loan at over 16% interest with no down payment to owe 5 times the value of the property.  At 5 or 6% (normal rates), you only end up paying about double, even if you put nothing down and let it go the entire term.
 
2014-01-09 10:28:07 PM
Everything that's wrong with what this country is becoming, summed up in one headline.
 
2014-01-09 10:30:44 PM

Emposter: You'd have to take out a 30 year loan at over 16% interest with no down payment to owe 5 times the value of the property. At 5 or 6% (normal rates), you only end up paying about double, even if you put nothing down and let it go the entire term.


I think his point was that if you have a 20% downpayment, you owe the bank 4 times as much as you have equity in the property. For people who put down less than that, it would be easy to have it be 5 to 1.
 
2014-01-09 10:39:56 PM
And the Rent is Too Damn High!
 
2014-01-09 10:47:32 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Emposter: You'd have to take out a 30 year loan at over 16% interest with no down payment to owe 5 times the value of the property. At 5 or 6% (normal rates), you only end up paying about double, even if you put nothing down and let it go the entire term.

I think his point was that if you have a 20% downpayment, you owe the bank 4 times as much as you have equity in the property. For people who put down less than that, it would be easy to have it be 5 to 1.


Except you're ignoring the value of the house.  A house is an asset.  If you have a mortgage, you balance the value of the asset against the value of the liability, but you don't just ignore the asset all together.  The down payment doesn't affect the value of the house, only the amount of the liability.

A 100,000 loan, with 20% down, at 6% interest over 30 years, is about 172,000.  That's asset:liability of 100,000:172,000, not 20,000:172,000.
 
2014-01-09 10:53:57 PM
I'm really, really surprised this wasn't true years ago. A million net worth is not that had to come by. Anyone who is even moderately successful should hit a million by 50.
 
2014-01-09 11:03:02 PM

thurstonxhowell: I'm really, really surprised this wasn't true years ago. A million net worth is not that had to come by. Anyone who is even moderately successful should hit a million by 50.


A million isn't what it used to be, that's for sure. But it's a handy benchmark to decide who to devour when the time comes.

\it's coming.

\\what's your address? We'll make you an honorary member of that club.
 
2014-01-09 11:08:22 PM

Emposter: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Emposter: You'd have to take out a 30 year loan at over 16% interest with no down payment to owe 5 times the value of the property. At 5 or 6% (normal rates), you only end up paying about double, even if you put nothing down and let it go the entire term.

I think his point was that if you have a 20% downpayment, you owe the bank 4 times as much as you have equity in the property. For people who put down less than that, it would be easy to have it be 5 to 1.

Except you're ignoring the value of the house.  A house is an asset.  If you have a mortgage, you balance the value of the asset against the value of the liability, but you don't just ignore the asset all together.  The down payment doesn't affect the value of the house, only the amount of the liability.

A 100,000 loan, with 20% down, at 6% interest over 30 years, is about 172,000.  That's asset:liability of 100,000:172,000, not 20,000:172,000.


To break it down further, in order to reach the original ratio mentioned in my earlier post, you'd have to get a house with a 6%, 30 year, 20% down mortgage....then burn it to the ground.  Then get ANOTHER house with a 6%, 30 year, 20% down mortgage....and burn THAT one to the ground too.  Then you'd have to get ANOTHER house with a 6%, 30 year, 20% down mortgage.  Then you have debts 5 times your assets. (rough math, ignoring value of burnt down house, etc.)

And then, if you're rich and/or a Congresscritter, the bank will still offer you more loans.
 
2014-01-10 12:23:22 AM
image-ination.ifthisistaken.com
 
2014-01-10 12:27:55 AM
Your Congressperson at work:

meganandblog.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-10 01:44:25 AM
how can they be millionaires when they are only paid $174000 a year?
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report