Wealthiest members of Congress

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree, but for the sake of argument, it really ain't a state and you can't treat it like a state only when it's convenient to the argument. Give 'em more than a phantom Senator and some Reps... otherwise, you need to compare it to other urban cities and not states... and I bet if I pulled up a bunch of major cities in Red states or Blue we'd find other depressing stats.

To be fair, Federal Dollars do not equate to Welfare. Federal Dollars can go for everything from roads to FEMA. That is not effective criteria from which to base the discussion at hand on.

[Kosher Ham]

I don't get why it matters ?

People believe what they want.

[Johns Bass]

Burgold...Just for fun, I'll counter with this... (from the same page I gave before because I'm lazy)

Overall I would say this is pretty fair. those getting the most really need it. If you have been to some of those states it should be obvious.

Those getting the least are either very favorable to corporations, like Jersey & Nevada, or many of the ones that I am familiar with have state income taxes.

[ABQCOWBOY]

$1.74 million median net worth? Not really that great, if you consider that if you own your home outright (which is a reasonable expectation if you're as old as, say, Jon Kerry)in an area like DC and have money stashed away in 401(k)/IRA. That sounds about right and probably should even be more since they're close to retirement age.

So this net worth ain't exactly liquid. Not saying any of these ****s are poor but a lot of working schlubs could be in that ball park easily, no?

Kerry's net worth is 167 Million, as of 2008, which was the last time these figures were released. Kerry was in the Service till 1970 so at best, he started amassing his wealth at the age of 27 or so. Kerry is 67 now so roughly 40 years. At 167 Million, he's made just over 4 Million a year, on average. However, while Kerry's parents were Upper Middle Class, his family is not. Kerry is part of both the Forbes and Winthrop Families, both very rich. He was never poor or even close to it.

What's interesting about this, to me, is that it's reasonable to assume that the majority of this wealth was acquired under Republican Political Leadership.

[Elessar78]

Kerry's net worth is 167 Million, as of 2008, which was the last time these figures were released. Kerry was in the Service till 1970 so at best, he started amassing his wealth at the age of 27 or so. Kerry is 67 now so roughly 40 years. At 167 Million, he's made just over 4 Million a year, on average. However, while Kerry's parents were Upper Middle Class, his family is not. Kerry is part of both the Forbes and Winthrop Families, both very rich. He was never poor or even close to it.

What's interesting about this, to me, is that it's reasonable to assume that the majority of this wealth was acquired under Republican Political Leadership.

Is all that just HIS net worth or is that tied into his wife's, who is part of the Heinz (ketchup) family?

[Bang]

Is all that just HIS net worth or is that tied into his wife's, who is part of the Heinz (ketchup) family?

I was going to say,, Kerry married into a PILE of cash. Heinz money ain't no small ketchup stain.

~Bang

[ABQCOWBOY]

Is all that just HIS net worth or is that tied into his wife's, who is part of the Heinz (ketchup) family?

I do not believe so. We don't know exactly how much Teresa Heinz is worth but it is estimated that the number is in the area of 1.2 Billion. She shelters here Tax records through the usage of trust exemptions and privacy laws as Family Trust holder of the Heinz Estate. The last Tax Return publicly disclosed was the return she and John Kerry both filed in 2003, obviously because Kerry was running for office. Interesting that they only disclosed in 2003 but it's within the law so I have no major issue with it other then the fact that the Democratic Party touts the GOP as the party of the Rich, linked to Big Business etc. I also found it interesting that Teresa Heinz was a registered Republican up till 2003, at which point she change affiliations and became a Democrat.

As a matter of record, the Kerry's (John and Teresa) filed publicly in 2003 and the percentage of tax paid against their earnings in 2003 was only 12%. How in the world does that happen I wonder?

[Elessar78]

The best accountants money can buy!

Seriously, my best friend is my accountant and I'm poor!

[mcsluggo]

To be fair, Federal Dollars do not equate to Welfare. Federal Dollars can go for everything from roads to FEMA. That is not effective criteria from which to base the discussion at hand on.

yeah... because it would be downright farcical to lump in <say> agricultural support with welfare.

[ABQCOWBOY]

yeah... because it would be downright farcical to lump in <say> agricultural support with welfare.

I am no judge of that. I only know that it is not an accurate way of measuring what is in question.

[Thiebear]

I agree, but for the sake of argument, it really ain't a state and you can't treat it like a state only when it's convenient to the argument. Give 'em more than a phantom Senator and some Reps... otherwise, you need to compare it to other urban cities and not states... and I bet if I pulled up a bunch of major cities in Red states or Blue we'd find other depressing stats.

They have a higher STATE tax than Virginia.

[Burgold]

They have a higher STATE tax than Virginia.

And Guam? Are you prepared to argue that Guam is one of the fifty states too like that table did?

[mcsluggo]

I am no judge of that. I only know that it is not an accurate way of measuring what is in question.

i meant there to be a in that post...

but i would say it is valid to question how YOU are choosing to define "what is in question". To define it simply as straight forward "welfare" doesn't make any sense to me. CLEARLY Alaska (and its residents) puts far fewer dollars into the federal treasury than they take out. That amounts to a straight-forward transfer of revenue FROM the rest of the country TO Alaska... if that isn't measuring "what is in question", then I am not sure "what is in question"!?

[ABQCOWBOY]

i meant there to be a in that post...

but i would say it is valid to question how YOU are choosing to define "what is in question". To define it simply as straight forward "welfare" doesn't make any sense to me. CLEARLY Alaska (and its residents) puts far fewer dollars into the federal treasury than they take out. That amounts to a straight-forward transfer of revenue FROM the rest of the country TO Alaska... if that isn't measuring "what is in question", then I am not sure "what is in question"!?

I am not measuring it, per say. I am simply pointing out that Federal Dollars spent in a given state do not necessarily translate into "Assistance" type programs. Of course, some do but there are other things as you know. In the case of a state such as Alaska, they are basically one big National Park, so to speak. They have a huge Native American population and many, many Native American held Federal Contracts that basically get spent by the Federal Government in Alaska but are not really for Alaska. Alaskan Native American Companies act as purchasing agents for Federal Contracts around the world. Essentially, they procure goods for various Federal Agencies on behalf of the Government in order to satisfy certain purchasing criteria. There are a lot of factors that can go into how Federal Dollars are spent and what they are spent on. These kinds of things can skew the numbers if you are just looking at how many Federal Dollars are flowing into a given State.

[Destino]

Why do I get the feeling this thread was started because someone actually believed the nonsense that democrats hate the rich?

[ABQCOWBOY]

And Guam? Are you prepared to argue that Guam is one of the fifty states too like that table did?

Guam is not a State, but there are more Americans in Guam then there are natives. The U.S. has a good 4 or 5 military installations in Guam and we are currently planning to redeploy ten's of thousands more in the near future. We are currently spending a great deal of money in Guam to build the necessary infrastructure that will be required to facilitate all the additional troops headed for Guam. The money that is being spent there, while Federal Dollars, are not really going to the people of Guam as assistance per say. It is being spent in Guam and I'm sure that Guam is making a profit on those dollars but mainly, a group of 7 companies have contracts to build out in Guam and that's primarily what the money is going for, as I understand it.

[Burgold]

Guam is not a State, but there are more Americans in Guam then there are natives. The U.S. has a good 4 or 5 military installations in Guam and we are currently planning to redeploy ten's of thousands more in the near future. We are currently spending a great deal of money in Guam to build the necessary infrastructure that will be required to facilitate all the additional troops headed for Guam. The money that is being spent there, while Federal Dollars, are not really going to the people of Guam as assistance per say. It is being spent in Guam and I'm sure that Guam is making a profit on those dollars but mainly, a group of 7 companies have contracts to build out in Guam and that's primarily what the money is going for, as I understand it.

So, would you consider it a red state or a blue state in terms of welfare

I just find it dubious that we would include either DC or Guam when analyzing state welfare percentages. Relative to DC, I think if we looked at Kansas City or Detroit or New Orleans or many of the large metropolitan areas we would find stilted numbers based on urban density that we do not find when comparing it to most state percentages or densities.

[ABQCOWBOY]

So, would you consider it a red state or a blue state in terms of welfare

I just find it dubious that we would include either DC or Guam when analyzing state welfare percentages. Relative to DC, I think if we looked at Kansas City or Detroit or New Orleans or many of the large metropolitan areas we would find stilted numbers based on urban density that we do not find when comparing it to most state percentages or densities.

I would view them as neither. They can't vote so they are not affiliated with any American Political Party.

DC I would consider Blue. DC has no elected officials in the Senate but they do have 3 electoral votes and they do have representation in the House. The delegate can not vote on House Votes but the delegate can vote on procedural matters and they can be on House Committees where they do get a vote.

[Burgold]

... and I would agree that DC's about as blue as blue can get, but I still think it's pretty iffy if it belongs in a discussion where one is comparing state populations.

Anyway, it's a minor point within this thread brought up because someone questioned whether Red States received a disproportional ammount of federal support bucks.

[TimmySmith]

... and I would agree that DC's about as blue as blue can get, but I still think it's pretty iffy if it belongs in a discussion where one is comparing state populations.

Anyway, it's a minor point within this thread brought up because someone questioned whether Red States received a disproportional ammount of federal support bucks.

Since no one has pointed out that your original proof is 2 administrations old, I will. The US political demographics have changed a bit since 2004, don't you think?

[Henry]

I would like to interject for a moment and note that this entire red state/blue state tangent is downright silly.

[Thiebear]

i never get say bad things to my barber, the cops and the people that feed me.

If cities that had 1million plus people stopped supporting the farmers they would give up their very expensive equipment and live off the land.

if farms stopped supporting the 1million plus people in the cities, they would evacuate on several levels.

And Guam? Are you prepared to argue that Guam is one of the fifty states too like that table did?

I don't believe i'm protecting that list: Just pointing D.C. has a "STATE" tax.

And last i checked it was illegal not to pay that "state" tax by saying it was not a state.

So the Federal gov't may not give them the FULL representation. They are admitting by enforcement that it is a quasi State or Commonwealth.

[grhqofb5]

Ah hope yall realize this is jes a result of that damn lincoln freein the slaves. Still don't thank it was rite.

Edit: Ah mean the economoc termoil of it all was jus to much....

[Zguy28]

These politicians need to "live the gospel" like Nancy Pelosi says.

Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.