Communist Organization

[Ramo]

True, but how many of the congressmen are starving?

You realize that there's a significant middle ground between dirt poor/starving and having so much accumulated wealth to be able to live a comfortable lifestyle without income, right?

[Ben Kenobi]

Some even have negative net worth. Here's a link, albeit the data is somewhat dated.

Tom Delay is the people's champion, owing a million dollars?

Wow, that's the first I've heard. Why haven't any of the papers told me this before?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but how many of the congressmen are starving? Most already have been very successful which is why they can afford to do public service in the first place.

So what if someone who is not financially well of wants to help govern? They can't because they would work for a long time without pay?

Being a legislator or executive can be hard work, and it is silly to expect people to do this hard work without compensation. Also, they would be forced to draw their pay from elsewhere, which would create conflicts of interest.

[Ben Kenobi]

You realize that there's a significant middle ground between dirt poor/starving and having so much accumulated wealth to be able to live a comfortable lifestyle without income, right?

It all depends on how you define 'comfortable'.

The devil is in the details. I have heard of people who make a million bucks a year who can't make ends meet on a luxury apartment in new york city, and I know plenty of folks who make do on far less and are happy.

It really depends on what you need for a 'comfortable' life.

[Ramo]

Spell out the details, then. How much wealth are you attributing to every single member of Congress?

[Ben Kenobi]

So what if someone who is not financially well of wants to help govern? They can't because they would work for a long time without pay?

The system as set up already puts high financial barriers on candidates.

Being a legislator or executive can be hard work, and it is silly to expect people to do this hard work without compensation.

Sure you can. That's the point. I know plenty of volunteers who dedicate a substantial portion of their time. They do an incredible amount of service to the community, all on their dime.

Yes, it's hard work, but it would drive home, that you are not to be served by the people but you are there to serve the people. I think far to many see themselves as being served and that they are entitled to compensation for the hard work that they do.

Also, they would be forced to draw their pay from elsewhere, which would create conflicts of interest.

As opposed to their current ownership of substantial assets which will keep them out of conflicts of interest?

I think the whole concept of a 'professional politician' is detrimental to governance and that the US would be better off with a volunteer representation, people who are only there not because of a paycheque, but because they know the work needs to be done.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spell out the details, then. How much wealth are you attributing to every single member of Congress?

Own a house, several vehicles and a successful business of some sort that's been running at least for several years.

I have worked on two campaigns so far, one was a very successful lawyer who had a private practice, and the other was a sanitation engineer, who had worked with the city and eventually branched out to be a city contractor.

And these were the little guys!

[Ramo]

Obviously, not every member of Congress ran a successful business before running for Congress. McCain, Obama, and Clinton included. Having "several" vehicles also sounds like nonsense.

Clearly, what I'm looking for is $. Exactly how much wealth are you attributing to every member of Congress?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The system as set up already puts high financial barriers on candidates.

In the US, yes, but that is not true everywhere. Besides, the discussion is about what should be or could be, not of what is.

Sure you can. That's the point. I know plenty of volunteers who dedicate a substantial portion of their time. They do an incredible amount of service to the community, all on their dime.

Governance is an all time job, or should be for the person doing it. There would be no other time in that person's day.

Yes, it's hard work, but it would drive home, that you are not to be served by the people but you are there to serve the people. I think far to many see themselves as being served and that they are entitled to compensation for the hard work that they do.

Being a servant does not mean not getting paid. And in general people should be compendated for their labors, specially in a system in which one's labors are not directly related to the production of their means of survival.

As opposed to their current ownership of substantial assets which will keep them out of conflicts of interest?

I think the whole concept of a 'professional politician' is detrimental to governance and that the US would be better off with a volunteer representation, people who are only there not because of a paycheque, but because they know the work needs to be done.

No one becomes a politician for the paycheck. The pay for most political offices in this country is nowhere near are high as in many other professions in which people with the same amount of education are engaged in. Pay for business people, doctors, and lawyers in private practice are all higher than what politicians, specially in lower levels like State or municipal office, get paid.

People get into governance for the ability to influence things, whether because they want to serve honestly, or because they seek power and positions. All that demanding people to go unpaid would do is either bar the poor from ever thinking of governance (which would bar a huge number of people), or force people while in governance to become corrupt in order to further their material wants while in office.

Both are poor ends.

[Ben Kenobi]

At least 6 figures in assets. That would be half of their house.

I'm looking at the numbers here, and Alcee Hastings apparently doesn't even have a house of any sort, and has about 2 million in lawyers fees.

I would guess his house would be in his wife's name.

Velazquez has a 5 million dollar home in Brooklyn.

Delay has about a million dollars in legal fees.

Salazar has a 'paid off mortgage', that I don't understand why it counts as a negative.

John Salazar has a 5 million dollar ranch and an offsetting line of credit.

Langevin has 6! different mortgages, and 8 that he owns in the clear.

Finally, someone who would meet what I'm looking for in a congressman.

Edolphus Towns (D-NY) - 2005

Own's a 250k mortgage. Has a bunch of 15k investments in different banks.

That's the type of financial profile that I am talking about.

John Higgens would be another.

Biden is like +3 million, depending on how you weigh assets and liabilities.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gohmert doesn't claim any assets.

Brad Miller is +100k.

Stephanie Herseth, that's 3 who would fall under what I expected.

Weldon has the house in his wife's name

Stupak has a million dollars to the good.

Deal has about 8 million

Bishop has his house in his wife's name.

Hostettler has his house in his wife's name

Norwood has 700k

Davis has his house in his wife's name

Balart is 100k to the good.

Not sure what is up with corrine brown. No house or anything.

Gonzalez has his house in his wife's name.

So out of everyone in debt I count three who fell under my expectations of having 100k net worth.

[Ramo]

$100,000 is a completely ridiculous definition of "independent wealthy." You are a silly person.

[Ben Kenobi]

People get into governance for the ability to influence things, whether because they want to serve honestly, or because they seek power and positions. All that demanding people to go unpaid would do is either bar the poor from ever thinking of governance (which would bar a huge number of people), or force people while in governance to become corrupt in order to further their material wants while in office.

The system right now, has very high barriers, high pay for congressmen and senators, and on top of that we have high corruption.

Obviously what is there is not working out at all. I don't see how making it clear that the congressmen are there to serve the people is a bad thing, and to remind them of that by not cutting them a cheque would be a good thing.

A poor person getting elected would be such a story. I'm only seeing about 3 congressmen out of some 525 who are under 100k net worth. There are a few that are slightly over, and many, many more who are much weathier.

I think if one got elected who was in dire financial straights that we would be able to gage this on a case by case basis.

[Ben Kenobi]

$100,000 is a completely ridiculous definition of "independent wealthy." You are a silly person.

Well lets see.

You have a car.

You have a house.

You have a job and a business that is presumably profitable.

You have investments, etc.

I don't know many people with 100k in assets. Maybe you do, but then you run in different circles then I do.

I can only count about 3 congressmen who are under that definition.

What would you consider wealthy Ramo?

[Ben Kenobi]

Average wealth is something like 5 millon dollars.



And you don't see a problem at all?