mcmick
Rookie
On Tuesday, McClatchy Newspapers reported that "Congress Grew 13% Richer in 2007"
Collectively their wealth grew by that amount.
The top 6 Senators were all Democrats, as was the top House member, Jane Harman, of California whose "net worth" is reported at $397 million.
The 6 Senators, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Herb Kohl, Jay Rockerfeller, Frank Lautenberg, Diane Feinstein ranged from $336 million-Kerry-down to $84 million-Feinstein.
I respect their fortune and net worth and do not believe an out of control federal spending machine should have one penny more of theirs or anyone else's earnings.
If the federal budget were not loaded with so much special interest welfare, waste, pork and other unnecessary spending, it could easily pay "necessary" expenses.
Although nanny-state advocates usually shift wasteful spending on "the war", total defense spending is less than half of what it was in the 60's under Kennedy and Johnson. It takes less than 5% of GDP about the same as welfare.
However defense spending has no entitlement number and has always receded after wars, whereas entitlements are exploding and cannot be sustained at present levels.
Citizens Against Government Waste, (CAGW) scores House and Senate members on how they vote on the waste/pork projects each year.
The rich people above have woeful scores.
The best possible score is 100%.
The 6 senators range from Herb Kohl Wisconsin-34% down to 13%-Jay Rockerfeller W. Va.
Jane Harman in the House has a weak 30%.
The top 10 in each chamber are about evenly divided in total, 11 Dems, 9 Repubs.
What's wrong is very rich people being less than frugal with everyday workers' earnings, than using demagoguery and class warfare to show how much they care by carrying out redistribution, from those who have earned it, to those who have not, in any way.
Redistribution goes very heavily from the top earners down, it does not go the other way at all.
Barack Obama had a score of 10% before running for president and moving a little to the center, the same as he did after he defeated Hillary.
He then upped his score to 18%
John McCain has a lifetime score of 88%, he wants a bigger pie, for all to go after.
If you're paying attention, it's clear how much Redistribution of most who earn it, to those who do not, is Barack Obama's agenda.
Increased federal spending reduces the size of the pie, to spread out to special interests who, will vote for them.
Collectively their wealth grew by that amount.
The top 6 Senators were all Democrats, as was the top House member, Jane Harman, of California whose "net worth" is reported at $397 million.
The 6 Senators, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Herb Kohl, Jay Rockerfeller, Frank Lautenberg, Diane Feinstein ranged from $336 million-Kerry-down to $84 million-Feinstein.
I respect their fortune and net worth and do not believe an out of control federal spending machine should have one penny more of theirs or anyone else's earnings.
If the federal budget were not loaded with so much special interest welfare, waste, pork and other unnecessary spending, it could easily pay "necessary" expenses.
Although nanny-state advocates usually shift wasteful spending on "the war", total defense spending is less than half of what it was in the 60's under Kennedy and Johnson. It takes less than 5% of GDP about the same as welfare.
However defense spending has no entitlement number and has always receded after wars, whereas entitlements are exploding and cannot be sustained at present levels.
Citizens Against Government Waste, (CAGW) scores House and Senate members on how they vote on the waste/pork projects each year.
The rich people above have woeful scores.
The best possible score is 100%.
The 6 senators range from Herb Kohl Wisconsin-34% down to 13%-Jay Rockerfeller W. Va.
Jane Harman in the House has a weak 30%.
The top 10 in each chamber are about evenly divided in total, 11 Dems, 9 Repubs.
What's wrong is very rich people being less than frugal with everyday workers' earnings, than using demagoguery and class warfare to show how much they care by carrying out redistribution, from those who have earned it, to those who have not, in any way.
Redistribution goes very heavily from the top earners down, it does not go the other way at all.
Barack Obama had a score of 10% before running for president and moving a little to the center, the same as he did after he defeated Hillary.
He then upped his score to 18%
John McCain has a lifetime score of 88%, he wants a bigger pie, for all to go after.
If you're paying attention, it's clear how much Redistribution of most who earn it, to those who do not, is Barack Obama's agenda.
Increased federal spending reduces the size of the pie, to spread out to special interests who, will vote for them.
