Well looking at the list the Republican side of me would say that if a person is compentent and intelligent to amass a large amount of money by running a business then they have what it takes to run the government. The democrat part of me would say that if they are worth that much money then you know they can never be brought or bribed by corporate America. The socialist in me would say they are not my peer so how can they represent me and the Independent in me would say," what is their voting record".
I am sure there are inaccuracies but I bet they are on the low side unless they are as bad at managing their own liabilities as they are ours...and I doubt that.
Let's see. I believe they have run up a 14 trillion dollar credit card debt on 2.5 trillion in yearly income and they can't do the simple math required to fix it so I guess I am not a Republican. I believe they take money from corporate lobbyists with the expectation that they will return the favor so I can't be a Democrat. Dammit. I must be a Independent Socialist.
I am sure you are correct. My main point was not to read too much into those figures. More than one of the members of that list is only there because of his/her mate. Also, it is generally recognized that the Kerry's are the richest family and it is just the Kerry's accounting (because it is "her" money) that allow them not to be shown at the top of the list. You see the other problem with that list is that it separates spouses incomes and assets.
I think spouses are included...which makes sense to me and my notion of marital wealth. http://www.rollcall.com/news/mccaul_leaps_top_50_richest_members_congress-208231-1.html?pos=hftxt But, apparently, they can list those entries as simply “over $1 million” and Kerry listed 140 accounts like that (which the article would have counted as 140 million)...which also means he almost certainly is worth much more. I knew there were some real wealthy individuals at the top of the heap. I was just surprised that one had to go all the way down to 31 to find someone under 10 million...especially considering the low ball math used. .
"generational wealth transfer" - i.e. she gave him some money for accounting purposes. They really explained it on the news.
I read that as the 'generational transfer' was from her parents to her and therefor counted in his worth. But, probably the accounts, like Kerry's, are undervalued, though.
Maybe this will show you what I mean. Still, her husband is only listed as $193 M on your list. There is no way her income is included with his. and; http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/0...er_of_congress.html?imw=Y&f=most-viewed-24h10 If they have not been identified, how could they be included in the total?
I think everyone's wife's income is 'included' in the report but because of the reporting rules, it is all way under-reported, if that makes sense. If Kerry had 140 accounts listed as “over $1 million” because they were his wife's, the actual total could be a billion dollars but would only be reported as 140 million. Which, as we figured anyway, means the totals on the list are all certainly lower than their actual wealth. 200 million, 300 million, 750 million or a billion...at that level it is all way beyond my comprehension. At some point before that, to me anyway, it all just becomes meaningless numbers. Like trying to imagine what 14 trillion dollars really is.
They are but I am content to agree to disagree in how we interpret what is written in the article. Especially since 300 million or a billion makes zero difference in my overall surprise at how wealthy our dear leaders really are.
Some of the most powerful people in politcs were on that list. For me the point of that list is that those people would serve their own best self-interests with supporting the power-elite and not serving the people they are suppose to represent in a Constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition. No wonder we do not have term limitations or real campaign financing reform, never mind a just tax code. I could go on about the attack on the middle and working class by destroying the public schools, unions and housing markets by both parties but I guess that is for other threads. If you could not tell by now I do not think the leadership of both parties sold out the people, I just think they against the people.
