Why do all the liberal politicians seem to be filthy rich?

Question

Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $101,579,003
John Kerry (D-Mass) $235,262,100
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $98,660,021
Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $93,043,004
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $55,085,000
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $50,200,000
Yet these people expect the commoners (that's you and me) to pony up even more taxes to continue the overinflation of their bank accounts.
You can find info here: http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp

And each of the socialist ********* says "it's for the people".....

I agree, ALL politicians are filthy rich. NONE worry too much about the commoners.
I did pick on the libs because of their socialistic leanings. Socialism IS a swear word and is the antithesis of freedom.

Answer 1

Hey i am the guy who says end representative government. The insider game plan excludes the majority for rule & control but includes them for fleecing & victimization. Replace via constitutional amendment a True Direct consensus democracy with and honest voting system of/by/for the legal citizen majority! All levels of government should be well manage employees subject to hiring & firing at will no elections! Management needs to be seniors with vested community interest! The "LCM" has the up or down vote on issue's. What it boils down to is who should you trust to have your family's best interest & financial security with? answer YOU/YOURSELF & I! YOU can NOT trust the well connected wealthy ruling class.

Answer 2

ALL politicians are filthy rich. Bush's first-term cabinet was made up of nothing but millionaires.

There is no way to get elected without mass media support, and there are no mass media that aren't owned and edited by extremely wealthy people. ( Say what you will about the politics of reporters, the owners and editors soundly trump them.)

There can be no mass exposure without massive financial backing. While it is possible that a formidable fund could be built up from miniscule donations, it still doesn't control the exposure it will get. If wealthy patrons, organizations, and corporations feel their interests are threatened by a candidate, they can easily buy or otherwise arrange countercoverage to negate the media value of the original funds. Only the very wealthy and the very well-connected can pull this off.

I also suspect that any candidate popular enough to a) not need corporate backing b) not need favorable mass media coverage and c) be able to successfully counter whatever negative coverage his adversaries could devise would be killed.

Answer 3

Because politicians are cut from the same cloth.
Consider the amount of money it takes to run a national compaign, and examine how you feel about the notion that it takes money to attract money. Once you've pondered these things with an objective analysis of the facts, then tell me again there is a real difference between a liberal and conservative pol beyond the label...

Answer 4

Lets clear things up, its not just Democrats that are rich its the majority of politicians in national government.
123 members of the house and 45 senators claimed assets over 1 million $ in 2005 (the latest records I can find).
So how is this a democratic problem?

Answer 5

The report shows a range thats their investments fall in and not necessarily their net worth. Also the website doesn't show proof of how it arrived at that number (i.e. copies of official government douments)

Pelosi for example could be as low a 15,000,000. Jay Rockefeller comes from a wealthy family just like Edward Kennedy but they're not worth that much. You should report the range not just the maximum of what it COULD be and present it as fact.

Answer 6

Hm, i think of of you have an fairly twisted theory-approximately what extremely constitutes "earning" a sales. Actors EARN their money through way of working...many (if no longer optimal) CEOs, etc., take their salaries from the complicated artwork of those they handle and selfishly pay themselves bonuses even mutually as they fail to maintain the business enterprise solvent it incredibly is their basically authentic duty. The failure of a business enterprise 9especially one that has been around for an prolonged time) result pension plans, etc. yet those selfish and grasping CEOs walk away with hundreds of thousands and thousands of dollars without care as to how they left the business enterprise following their tenure.

Answer 7

How much is Bush worth? Cheney? etc. (counting their offshore accounts) But you're right about one thing--liberals are righer than the neo-cons on average. That's because we're smarter and better educated.

BTW--"Socialism" is a specific form of economic/political organization--not a swear word. None of these people advocates socialism. Which you would know--if you even knew what the term meant't.

Answer 8

For the same reason the conservatives aren't exactly paupers either. It's like the stock market. The organization is run for the benefit of the insiders, not the outsiders. When they say it's "for the people", they mean it's for THEIR people!

Answer 9

What I don't get is why some of these rich people don't seem to be able to afford a gym membership if their waistlines are anything to go by and why they hardly ever wear a nice tie.

Answer 10

All politicians have a great deal of money, no matter the party. That is the only way you can get elected these days....to have much money.