2003 US Senate : Wealth of Millionaires

[Nie Trink Wasser]

gee, I guess the notion that Republicans are just greedy rich people and that Democrats are unconcerned with money, but concerned about the poor, could really just be a myth ?


http://tommcmahon.blogspot.com/images/2003senatewealth.gif

http://tommcmahon.net/2003_09_14_tommcmahon_archive.html#106357649709769 527

[Upchurch]

Heh. Postin' without readin' again, NTW?

The article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/index.html) the above data was taken from.
Financial disclosure forms released Friday by the nation's 100 senators show there are at least 40 millionaires among them -- 22 Republicans and 18 Democrats. All but six of them are men. [/b]
The data shows that the actual number of millionares are roughly even for both parties in Senate and that, in fact, the millionares are actually the minority of the Senate. Further, a sampling of 100 (and really, only a sampling of 40 is provided in the article) isn't nearly large enough to determine the proportionate wealth of both parties.

[hgc]

... And it only takes a couple super-rich senators to throw the whole measure out of whack. Corzine and Kohl perhaps?

edited to add:

I forgot Rockefeller, and of course Kerry. Truth be told, I though Kerry's mad Heinz money would have been more. I assume Teresa's fortune is being counted, no?

And how in the Hell is Ted Kennedy worth less than $10 million?

[Tmy]

What does this chart really show?

If Bill gates won a Congress seat running as a Communist he'd have more money than all of them.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
[B]Heh. Postin' without readin' again, NTW?


:bs:

[Upchurch]

I was merely pointing out that your data doesn't support your claim. Rebuttal?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
gee, I guess the notion that Republicans are just greedy rich people and that Democrats are unconcerned with money, but concerned about the poor, could really just be a myth ?


http://tommcmahon.blogspot.com/images/2003senatewealth.gif

http://tommcmahon.net/2003_09_14_tommcmahon_archive.html#106357649709769 527

Beyond the fact that the statistics are misleading (as others have pointed out), they also don't back up your assertion. One can be rich but still be concerned with the poor. Conversely, one can be of modest wealth but still wish the poor ill. Personal wealth is irrelevant, and the argument you made is but an ad hominem attack.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I was merely pointing out that your data doesn't support your claim. Rebuttal?

"The data for this chart was taken from this CNN story. They only included the millionaires in that article, but adding in the rest wouldn't appreciably change the overall ratio. "


D - John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018
John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029
Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009
Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: $7,981,015
Bob Graham, D-Florida: $7,691,052
Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: $6,267,028
Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota: $3,974,037
Harry Reid, D-Nevada: $1,500,040
Thomas Carper, D-Delaware: $1,482,017
Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: $1,080,014
Bill Nelson, D-Florida: $1,073,014

R - Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013
Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042
Richard Shelby, R-Alabama: $7,085,012
Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: $6,429,011
Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island: $6,296,010
Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee: $4,823,018
Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: $4,308,093
Ben Campbell, R-Colorado: $3,165,007
Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska: $2,963,013
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: $2,955,037
James Talent, R-Missouri: $2,843,031
Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania: $2,045,016
Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire: $1,916,026
John McCain, R-Arizona: $1,838,010
James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma: $1,570,043
John Warner, R-Virginia: $1,545,039
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R - Texas: $1,513,046
Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: $1,511,017
Sam Brownback, R-Kansas: $1,491,018
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: $1,417,013
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: $1,086,023
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: $1,016,024



if anyone can add these figures before me I'd appreciate it. Im doing 5 things at once.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


"The data for this chart was taken from this CNN story. They only included the millionaires in that article, but adding in the rest wouldn't appreciably change the overall ratio. " Yes, I read that too. That's how I knew where to go for the article. That is one person's opinion that isn't backed by the data provided. Nor does it support your claim at the beginning of the thread. Can you back either claim?

edited to add:

I'm sure the numbers provided in the CNN article add up to the ones represented in the graph. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the samples size is too small to be representitive of the Republican and Democratic parties and, even if it were, it doesn't support your claim that the Democratics are unsympathetic to the poor.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Can you back either claim? [/B]


my claim is about notions of greed when comparing republicans to democrats. It was mostly tongue and cheek, but since you're begining to morph into Booger mode, we can continue with (once again) your lame bully match.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

my claim is about notions of greed when comparing republicans to democrats.Which is still unsupported by the data given. It was mostly tongue and cheek,So, why didn't you state that instead of reposting irrelevent data in a futile attempt to support a joke?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Booger, you need to back off. You're annoying.


Here's what I added up for combined wealth on both sides :

Democrats : $ 525,287,840

Republicans : $ 204,037,150



now, Booger, is my math wrong or do the Democrats more than double the Republicans in wealth ? ( I may have added in some Repubs twice)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
is my math wrong or do the Democrats more than double the Republicans in wealth ? Acording to the chart you posted, it is. In the chart, Republican Senators are worth a total of $99,055,563 and Democrat Senators are worth a total of $527,724,842. I don't know which is correct and frankly, that isn't the issue. Please pay attention.

The chart, as well as the list of Senators you lifted from CNN (without citation, I might add), represents 40 people (22 Republican Senators and 18 Democratic Senators), which is not a good sampling size for the entire Republican and Democratic parties. Drawing a conclusion about the total population from such a small sampling size is prone to wide margin of statistical error. Further, you haven't shown that the relative wealth of each party has in connection to each party's position on welfare and the poor.

Can you provide any additional evidence that supports either of these claims?

edited to fix grammer and spelling

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I don't know which is correct and frankly, that isn't the issue. Please pay attention.


dont patronize me, Booger.

Maybe you should drop that chip on your shoulder and try to understand the conversation I'd like to have.

Of course we've tried this in the past, but you dont seem to be able to hold a conversation with me that actually stays on course.



The chart as well as the list of Senators you lifted from CNN (without citation, I might add) represents 40 people (22 Republican Senators and 18 Democratic Senators), which is not a good sampling size for the entire Republican and Democratic parties. Drawing a conclusion about the total population from such a small sampling size is prone to wide margin of statistical error. Further, you haven't shown that the relative wealth of each party has in connection to each party's position on welfare and the poor.



could you please add the amounts and tell me what you get ?

the point of this thread is to find out exactly how much the Democrats v/s Republicans are worth in the senate using the monetary information available to the public.


Can you provide any new evidence that supports either of these claims?

edited to fix grammer and spelling [/B]


Im asking you to participate me in calculating how much the Dems make v/s the Repubs........if you are unable to do that and would rather go on with a bs argument about the notion I described in the first post....just ignore the thread.

I want to know just how rich each side is, because Im sick of hearing about how greedy Republicans are as if Democrats are the saviors and voices of the poor.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Maybe you should drop that chip on your shoulder and try to understand the conversation I'd like to have. The conversation you want to have (bashing the Democratic POV that the Democrats are the "good guys" and the Republicans are the "bad guys") is pointless because the data that you're basing it on doesn't support your premise. If you can't support your premise and we're to accept your premise on faith, what is there to discuss? This, after all, a skeptics discussion forum.
could you please add the amounts and tell me what you get ?Let's assume you've added them correctly. The actual dollar amounts are irrelevent. It's the number of senetors in question that is the problem with the data. It isn't a large enough statistical sampling to be representative.
the point of this thread is to find out exactly how much the Democrats v/s Republicans are worth in the senate using the monetary information available to the public.Which is not what you originally stated when you said, "I guess the notion that Republicans are just greedy rich people and that Democrats are unconcerned with money, but concerned about the poor, could really just be a myth ?"

The data provided, does not provide enough information to answer the question you originally posed. The question you now ask brings in to question the validity of the chart you posted and originally assumed to be true.
Im asking you to participate me in calculating how much the Dems make v/s the Repubs.
As I said, there isn't enough information to do so. All we have is the information for less than half of the Senate. I'm gussing that represents at least less than 1% of all Republicans and Democrats.
if you are unable to do that and would rather go on with a bs argument about the notion I described in the first postBoth you and I are unable to calculate this with the information give, but you implied that the relative net worths of each party somehow indicates each party's true feelings towards the poor. How does it indicate such?
I want to know just how rich each side is, because Im sick of hearing about how greedy Republicans are as if Democrats are the saviors and voices of the poor. Again, how does one relate to the other? Can someone not be rich and still stand up for the poor?

[Gem]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the data NTW provided showed only that the richest democrats are richer than the republicans. Like upchurch said, it does not show that the democratic party is richer than the republican party.

Gem

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
I want to know just how rich each side is, because Im sick of hearing about how greedy Republicans are as if Democrats are the saviors and voices of the poor.

A question, please tell,
How much money each can show
Does not say it all.

Enron vs. Kohl's
Kohl's solvent and growing, Dem!
Enron, pubs, deceased!

Enron, no jobs now.
Kohl's, jobs for the less skillful.
Which one cares for poor?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
If you can't support your premise and we're to accept your premise on faith, what is there to discuss? This, after all, a skeptics discussion forum.


Upchurch, you're really going overboard. The notion I addressed at the begining of the post was in relation to how much money Dems v/s Repubs make in the Senate. Ultimately that is where the conversation would go.....how much money each side is worth.... but I understand that you can't talk about this (or help me research it) because you have to derail the thread somehow someway.


Let's assume you've added them correctly. The actual dollar amounts are irrelevent. It's the number of senetors in question that is the problem with the data. It isn't a large enough statistical sampling to be representative.


how then can we find the dollar amounts for all Senators involved ? That's what Im looking for.

If you think that is irrelevant and impossible then the entire CNN article is irrelevant, eh ?


Which is not what you originally stated when you said, "I guess the notion that Republicans are just greedy rich people and that Democrats are unconcerned with money, but concerned about the poor, could really just be a myth ?"


your iq seems to be dropping or you refuse to understand.


The data provided, does not provide enough information to answer the question you originally posed. The question you now ask brings in to question the validity of the chart you posted and originally assumed to be true.


if the chart is wrong or flawed, fine. Would you like to help me find the real data concerning this ? I think it would be very interesting.


Both you and I are unable to calculate this with the information give, but you implied that the relative net worths of each party somehow indicates each party's true feelings towards the poor. How does it indicate such?


over and over again people on the left accuse the Bush administration of ignoring the poor because he comes from a rich family and in the same breath (for years) accuse republicans of being a party for the greedy. Now, since we're about to begin discussing the actual amounts of how much these people are worth, it would delight me to see the real numbers and possibly debunc the popular leftist meme that Republicans control the government with greed (money). An example of this can be found in Malachi.




Can someone not be rich and still stand up for the poor? [/B]

according to popular belief, only if you're a democrat.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It's the number of senetors in question that is the problem with the data. I misspoke here. It's the number of Democrats and Republicans that is the problem, not the number of senators.

Even if we were simply talking about the proportion of wealth in the Senate, this wouldn't be a good sampling because the sampling wasn't random.

Anyway, all around, it's a bad comparison.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by jj


A question, please tell,
How much money each can show
Does not say it all.

Enron vs. Kohl's
Kohl's solvent and growing, Dem!
Enron, pubs, deceased!

Enron, no jobs now.
Kohl's, jobs for the less skillful.
Which one cares for poor?


Until you can stop talking like Capt. Caveman, Im ignoring you.

Enron was very involved with Clinton, so you need to reevaluate.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


Until you can stop talking like Capt. Caveman, Im ignoring you.

Enron was very involved with Clinton, so you need to reevaluate.

Truth is painful hurt.
Avoidance will not change it.
Better to face fact.

Embarassing,yes!
Democrat Kohl make wealth grow,
Enron destroy it.

Haiku annoy you?
Elegance grate philistine
Sensibilities!

Enron, black as h***?
Clinton, Bush, both are saucepan
Time to scrub off soot!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

The notion I addressed at the begining of the post was in relation to how much money Dems v/s Repubs make in the Senate.No, actually, it isn't. You generalized the non-random small-sized sampling to indicate unrelated attributes to larger groups.
Ultimately that is where the conversation would go.....how much money each side is worth.... but I understand that you can't talk about this (or help me research it) because you have to derail the thread somehow someway.Funny thing about threads. They go where the conversation, not the starter of the thread, leads them. You presented an unfounded claim, I'm asking you to back it up.
how then can we find the dollar amounts for all Senators involved ? That's what Im looking for.Are you then going to revise your claim to say:

"I guess the notion that Republican Senators are just greedy rich people and that Democrat Senators are unconcerned with money, but concerned about the poor, could really just be a myth ?"

? If so, how do you support the claim that the wealthy cannot be conerned about the poor?
If you think that is irrelevant and impossible then the entire CNN article is irrelevant, eh ?No. I think the way you used the CNN article is irrelevant. The article itself doesn't hypothesize beyond the scope of the data it presents.
if the chart is wrong or flawed, fine. Would you like to help me find the real data concerning this ? I think it would be very interesting.I'm not going to do your research for you, no. If you can to support your point, make it. If you can't, then don't put it out there in the first place.
over and over again people on the left accuse the Bush administration of ignoring the poor because he comes from a rich family and in the same breath (for years) accuse republicans of being a party for the greedy. Now, since we're about to begin discussing the actual amounts of how much these people are worth, it would delight me to see the real numbers and possibly debunc the popular leftist meme that Republicans control the government with greed (money).
I understand it would give you great pleasure to debunk what you see as a myth, but you must actually debunk it. Simply making claims and berating those who question those claims is not sufficient. If you come up with numbers for the parties, in general, feel free to post them, but you will still have to support your claim that the rich cannot care for the poor in order to fully debunk this myth (if it is, indeed, a myth).

[Upchurch]

I've been thinking about this and NTW is going about this the wrong way.

If you wanted to prove that the Democrats don't care about the poor, showing that the Democratic party wasn't poor wouldn't accomplish the job. You would have to focus on the Democratic party's policies, proposed bills, and voting record (i.e. their actions) and what effects these actions had on the poor (however you choose to define "poor"). Conversly, if you wanted to prove that the Republican party cared more about the poor than the Democratic party, you'd have to do a comparison of those same actions and the effects of each on the poor. The actual net worth of each party really is irrelevent to the actions of each party.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I've been thinking about this and NTW is going about this the wrong way.

If you wanted to prove that the Democrats don't care about the poor, showing that the Democratic party wasn't poor wouldn't accomplish the job.


you're a fool, Upchurch. You're focusing on the wrong issue in my thread. I stated that my first statement (the one you're labeling the "premise") as tongue in cheek as I was hoping to discover later on what would be relevant data about the incomes of Senate members as respective to their parties.

you keep pushing that to side and focusing on the wrong topic (which will result in another lame debate of yours that goes nowhere).






You would have to focus on the Democratic party's policies, proposed bills, and voting record (i.e. their actions) and what effects these actions had on the poor (however you choose to define "poor"). Conversly, if you wanted to prove that the Republican party cared more about the poor than the Democratic party, you'd have to do a comparison of those same actions and the effects of each on the poor. The actual net worth of each party really is irrelevent to the actions of each party. [/B]


The point is the myth that is perpetuated by those on the left about "republican greed", that somehow you've chosen to pretend doesnt exist.

this idea is mostly based simply on the income of the politician or his/her family.

maybe you should think more about the subject and acknowledge the point of the thread....monetary #s...

[DavidJames]

NTW - You said
"over and over again people on the left accuse the Bush administration of people on the left accuse the Bush administration of ignoring the poor because he comes from a rich family "

Please show me examples of this and since you claim it's "over and over", I'd like 5 unique sources.

[Gem]

this idea is mostly based simply on the income of the politician or his/her family.

Well, how can you determine if someone is greedy by their INCOME? AFter all, I could haven an income of 50,000 and huddle it, while someone who has an income of 1 million could give half to charity.

Could you explain how income and greed are related?

Gem

[Aoidoi]

While I hate to agree with NTW on anything, it is somewhat interesting to note that the leading Republicans are generally portrayed as old, rich white men while leading Democrats are supposedly more in touch with "the common man" yet both groups are composed primarily of affluent white males.

I don't think this is a particularly shocking revelation, nor does it necessarily refute the idea that the Dems are more compassionate towards the poor, to me it just demonstrates that the parties are almost interchangeable in many regards.

Though really, anyone thinking of Ted Kennedy as a hero for the common man has some pretty serious issues with reality. :D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't think it's fair for JJ and Upchurch to beat up on a retard.

On second thought, calling Winky Tinky Wusser a retard is an insult to retarded people everywhere.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

you're a fool, Upchurch. You're focusing on the wrong issue in my thread. I stated that my first statement (the one you're labeling the "premise") as tongue in cheek as I was hoping to discover later on what would be relevant data about the incomes of Senate members as respective to their parties.You still don't get it, do you? If that's where you wanted the thread to go, that's where you should have started it. Threads will go where the posters' take it, not necessarily where the thread starter wanted it to go. After you start the thread, it's no longer your thread. You have no ownership of it.

Further, despite the fact that you keep saying that it isn't about your original claim that this thread isn't about the myth that Republicans don't care about the poor because their rich, you keep bringing it up. i.e. from your last post:The point is the myth that is perpetuated by those on the left about "republican greed", that somehow you've chosen to pretend doesnt exist. If this thread isn't about that and you want me to focus on something else, why do you point out that you think I'm ignoring it?

Interesting. In the last few paragraphs you contradict yourself.
The point is the myth that is perpetuated by those on the left about "republican greed", that somehow you've chosen to pretend doesnt exist.

{snip}

maybe you should think more about the subject and acknowledge the point of the thread....monetary #s... I personally think the "myth" subject was your original intent for this thread (especially since you keep defending and bringing up that point) and the "monetary #s" subject is just back-peddling after you ran into a brick wall.

If you truly wish to talk about how rich each senetor is or how reach each party is in the Senate, to what end? You said it yourself. it would delight me to see the real numbers and possibly debunc the popular leftist meme that Republicans control the government with greed (money).
Ultimately, you're just going to tie it back to the other ("not the point") point of the thread, your Republican greed myth. However, surely you must see that the personal wealth of a few people (1) does not reflect the wealth of the parties as a whole, (2) does not indicate how greedy those individuals are, and (3) does not indicate how those individuals feel towards the poor. Other posters and I have outlined the reasons for 1 and 3 above and 2 shouldn't be too hard to conclude.

In short, I don't believe you only wanted to talk about how much the richest senetors are worth. You've admited that much yourself. Also, while the "myth" may be just that, you won't be able to debunk it with the information provided.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
I don't think it's fair for JJ and Upchurch to beat up on a retard.At this point, I prefer to think of it as "instruction in logical argumentation" rather than "beating up".

(although the first paragraph of my last post was a little harsh. Sometimes you need to get people's attention.)

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
At this point, I prefer to think of it as "instruction in logical argumentation" rather than "beating up".

(although the first paragraph of my last post was a little harsh. Sometimes you need to get people's attention.)


you'd love to think of yourself as some sort of logical guide, but as others can also notice, you're derailing the thread with long winded resistance to discussion.

discussion of these points (in order of relevance) :

1. how much Senators are worth.
2. the myth that only Republican wealth is a source of greed and corruption.

[DavidJames]

1. how much Senators are worth.
I don't care how much Senators are worth. I care about their actions, the things they do carrying out their job.

2. the myth that only Republican wealth is a source of greed and corruption.
What myth? Point me to where I can read about this myth. Show me where people other than conservative trolls espouse this myth.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You still don't get it, do you? If that's where you wanted the thread to go, that's where you should have started it. Threads will go where the posters' take it, not necessarily where the thread starter wanted it to go. After you start the thread, it's no longer your thread. You have no ownership of it.


Just as you've described, you've taken my thread and derailed it. You arent discussing the topic and the 2 points Ive addressed for the thread. Simply arguing about why you dont want to talk about it, which is strange.



Further, despite the fact that you keep saying that it isn't about your original claim that this thread isn't about the myth that Republicans don't care about the poor because their rich, you keep bringing it up. i.e. from your last post:If this thread isn't about that and you want me to focus on something else, why do you point out that you think I'm ignoring it?


I want to discuss point 1 before discussing point 2 (which isnt as important to me).


Interesting. In the last few paragraphs you contradict yourself.
I personally think the "myth" subject was your original intent for this thread (especially since you keep defending and bringing up that point) and the "monetary #s" subject is just back-peddling after you ran into a brick wall.


oh, I see. I "ran into a brick wall" because Im simply trying to get you to discuss the subject of my thread instead of derailing the discussion based solely on the screen name that posted it. You're trolling, Upchurch. Stop pretending to be an authority, because you're simply derailing discussion.


If you truly wish to talk about how rich each senetor is or how reach each party is in the Senate, to what end? You said it yourself.
Ultimately, you're just going to tie it back to the other ("not the point") point of the thread, your Republican greed myth. However, surely you must see that the personal wealth of a few people (1) does not reflect the wealth of the parties as a whole, (2) does not indicate how greedy those individuals are, and (3) does not indicate how those individuals feel towards the poor. Other posters and I have outlined the reasons for 1 and 3 above and 2 shouldn't be too hard to conclude.


I want to show how much they make and then possibly have a discussion about the myth with ANYONE interested in it. You've got to be the most long winded person on here (being long winded doesnt make you intelligent no matter how hard you try).


In short, I don't believe you only wanted to talk about how much the richest senetors are worth. You've admited that much yourself.


believe what you want. You obviously have a learning disorder.




Also, while the "myth" may be just that, you won't be able to debunk it with the information provided. [/B]

but it sure does bring us closer to a more real view of the situation doesn it ?

is this subject threatening to you Upchurch ? Why are you refusing to even compare the income/worth of the senators ?

I think its very interesting (as did the folks at CNN).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

2. the myth that only Republican wealth is a source of greed and corruption. Close. Your #2 should actually read "The myth that Republican don't care about the poor because they are rich and greedy." You missed the connection to the poor.

Now, how does your first point relate to the second point?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by DavidJames
What myth? Point me to where I can read about this myth. Show me where people other than conservative trolls espouse this myth. [/B]

These are only 2 examples :


"The Republican Party is nothing but a bunch of old-fashioned, rich, greedy, power-hungry, racist bastards and now, they are in charge of the country. " http://www.morrissey-solo.com/discuss/index2001.cgi/read/40963



"I noticed a humorous bumper sticker in a political memorabilia store that read: "GOP: Greedy Old Parasites." Of course I really never thought of the Republicans as greedy, just out of touch with the middle class. " http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/column2.html



Would you like me to continue ?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Now, how does your first point relate to the second point? [/B]


Upchurch, either you really are this dumb and incapable of intelligent discussion or you're simply sabotaging the thread in spite.

Point 1 will show an estimated monetary worth of each Senator and how rich their party is combined.

Point 2 will use Point 1 to show how the notion that only Republican Senators are rich (see : "GOP: Greedy Old Parasites." ) isn't very intelligent when you consider how rich the Democrat Senators are.

this could also result in a Point 3 in which we examine the notions of greed from such wealth.


this is turning into a comical exercise in how to talk to an LD.

[DavidJames]

"The Republican Party is nothing but a bunch of old-fashioned, rich, greedy, power-hungry, racist bastards and now, they are in charge of the country. " http://www.morrissey-solo.com/discu....cgi/read/40963"


"I noticed a humorous bumper sticker in a political memorabilia store that read: "GOP: Greedy Old Parasites." Of course I really never thought of the Republicans as greedy, just out of touch with the middle class. " http://www3.baylor.edu/Lariat/column2.html

The link must have changed since your quote isn't found in the link.

Nice try, but neither ( i read the first and the single quote from the second) supports your claim, remember you are not trying to prove that people think Republicans are greedy, your claims was "only Republican wealth is a source of greed"

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

Just as you've described, you've taken my thread and derailed it. You arent discussing the topic and the 2 points Ive addressed for the thread. Simply arguing about why you dont want to talk about it, which is strange.Look closely, NTW, and list for me the topics you feel I'm trying to discuss that aren't on the list you provided. See, in order to derail the thread, I'd have to be talking about something other than the topic of the thread. That's the definition of derailment. There is only one topic that's been discussed besides the two that you listed and that's the topic of whether or not I'm derailing the thread (which you keep bringing up).
I want to discuss point 1 before discussing point 2 (which isnt as important to me).On point 1, we're still waiting for you to find those numbers. Would you like us to twidle our thumbs until you find them and make your point?

As for point 2 not being important to you, bull-hockey. Point 2 is why you want to know point 1:it would delight me to see the real numbers and possibly debunc the popular leftist meme that Republicans control the government with greed (money). Enough of that. I'm skipping on down to the actual subject.

Also, while the "myth" may be just that, you won't be able to debunk it with the information provided.
but it sure does bring us closer to a more real view of the situation doesn it ?Does it? That's what I keep asking, how does the personal net worths of each of the senators indicate who is creedy and who does or does not care about the poor?
Why are you refusing to even compare the income/worth of the senators ?Please go back and reread the thread, NTW. We've already gone over this with the information you've provided.

To sum up, of those senators worth over $1 million (22 Republicans, 18 democrats), the 18 Democratic Senator millionares are worth somewhere between 2-5 times the 22 Republican Senator millionares. Statistically, this tells us nothing about Senate nor either political party in general as the sample size is either too small and/or non-random. ("and" in the case of each political party, "or" in the case of the Senate)

If you have more information to provide, please do so and we'll talk about it.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
gee, I guess the notion that Republicans are just greedy rich people and that Democrats are unconcerned with money, but concerned about the poor, could really just be a myth ?


http://tommcmahon.blogspot.com/images/2003senatewealth.gif

http://tommcmahon.net/2003_09_14_tommcmahon_archive.html#106357649709769 527

It should quite obvious to everyone that essentially all politicians are corrupt. The idea that Democrats represent the left is laughable. There are many Democrats who have inherited major wealth, Rockefeller, Kennedy, and Gore for example.

The whole system sucks.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by DavidJames


The link must have changed since your quote isn't found in the link.



strange that it didnt work...

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:dwGfjU-U5NYJ:www.baylor.edu/Lariat/column2.html+greedy+republicans&hl=en&ie=UTF-8



Nice try, but neither ( i read the first and the single quote from the second) supports your claim, remember you are not trying to prove that people think Republicans are greedy, your claims was "only Republican wealth is a source of greed" [/B]


my claim was actually that there is a myth of wealth a greed being only a Republican quality. Im quite sure you understand and have heard this meme.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Malachi151


It should quite obvious to everyone that essentially all politicians are corrupt. The idea that Democrats represent the left is laughable. There are many Democrats who have inherited major wealth, Rockefeller, Kennedy, and Gore for example.

The whole system sucks.


wealth does not equal corruption.

there are just as many (if not more) corrupt poor people.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
While I hate to agree with NTW on anything, it is somewhat interesting to note that the leading Republicans are generally portrayed as old, rich white men while leading Democrats are supposedly more in touch with "the common man" yet both groups are composed primarily of affluent white males.

I don't think this is a particularly shocking revelation, nor does it necessarily refute the idea that the Dems are more compassionate towards the poor, to me it just demonstrates that the parties are almost interchangeable in many regards.

Though really, anyone thinking of Ted Kennedy as a hero for the common man has some pretty serious issues with reality. :D

Well as has already been touched on #1 many people on the rleft dont' feel that Democrats represent them anymore. #2 The Democrats have a few extremely wealthy people who have inherted most of their money, and those same people have used it largely for philanthropy setting up foundations and such. In fact several of the richest Democrats have views 180 degrees oposite of their fathers or grandfathers who earned the money, Rockefeller isa great example of that, some of the du Ponts are as well.

But there is need to look at the source of the money, how recently the people have aquired the money, and what they do with it.

For example Dick Cheney has made most of his money in his own lifetime, does not give to charity, and does not support causes for poor and middle class Americans and does support trade agendas that favor the use of foreign workers and foreign tax shelters and he has made his money by bulding relationships with high level businessmen around the world. Rockefeller on the other hand is a 3rd generation multi-millionair/billionair and has focused on setting up charitable foundations, giving money away, funding programs for the poor, building liberaries and such, etc.

Those are just two examples, but overall yes all of our politics has been corrupted by money.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Malachi151


It should quite obvious to everyone that essentially all politicians are corrupt. The idea that Democrats represent the left is laughable. There are many Democrats who have inherited major wealth, Rockefeller, Kennedy, and Gore for example.

The whole system sucks.

Okay, maybe you can explain why having wealth somehow means you can't represent the left (or as NTW put it, be concerned about the poor).

Also, how does inherited wealth indicate corruption? While there maybe a grain of truth to the adage that "Behind every great fortune there is a great crime," I fail to see how even that applies to those in the "son" business.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

more :


"Decent Americans will not hesitate for a second to agree to this. Unfortunately, decent Americans do not contribute to Republican election war chests. By surrounding themselves with only the rich and the greedy, Republicans believe that all of America is unwilling to pay for necessary government programs."
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:PZKw0ku_5VUJ:www.theangryliberal.co m/01-05-02.htm+rich+greedy+republicans&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

(this is repub opinion)"What do you think about when you hear the word "Republican?" Do you think of a racist, bigoted, rich, greedy, anti-environmental, homophobe? "
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:u-p-4-i242wJ:ionarepub.topcities.com/Voices/Jason%2520Barone/092001.htm+rich+greedy+republicans&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"When I see something like this I see a rich, greedy recording business that is being backed into a corner by the advent of new technology that inevitably will revolutionize the field, and they want to go down fighting. They tend to make a very Republican-like argument:
"Sure, we're making a lot of money. But that poor guy over there didn't pay for that CD, and I could've used that CD to pay for part of my gold-plated toilet seat!" "
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:md4W7PYpy-AJ:www.markfiore.com/forum/article.php%3Fsid%3D838+rich+greedy+republican&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



wealth does not equal corruption.

there are just as many (if not more) corrupt poor people.

corruption (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=17338&dict=CALD)

How much power do the poor have?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


How much power do the poor have?

a lot (http://www.citivu.com/ktla/sc-ch1.html)

and more (http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=Algeria)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


a lot (http://www.citivu.com/ktla/sc-ch1.html) you think angry equals poor?

BTW, what happened to the two subjects you were dying to discuss and being angry at anyone who wanted to talk about something else? That seemed to evoporate pretty quickly.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
you think angry equals poor?


no. I think you have a learning disorder.

the poor rose up and had great effect. Most of them werent angry, just saw an opportunity to get some free tvs.

In most cases, the way in which they went about it was extremely corrupt. Rodney King is just as corrupt as the police (but lets not go off on that tangent if possible).

the point is that the poor have power.





BTW, what happened to the two subjects you were dying to discuss and being angry at anyone who wanted to talk about something else? That seemed to evoporate pretty quickly. [/B]


you see, Upchurch, some people are interested in discussion (different tangents come up) and others (like yourself) seem to have a pretension about them (chip on their shoulder) and simply go on and on about why the thread isn't up to their standards.

the thread isn't dead (thankfully it was saved from your selfconscious-death-grip somehow) and discussion is coming from many different angles concerning the subject.

you lack the ability to discuss anything here, so maybe you should just move along.

I was never angry at anyone for wanting to discuss anything else (as long as its related and doesnt attempt to derail discussion), I was annoyed with you for arguing about why you didnt want to discuss anything here.

move along now, Booger, or offer something beneficial.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Malachi151

But there is need to look at the source of the money, how recently the people have aquired the money, and what they do with it.

For example Dick Cheney has made most of his money in his own lifetime, does not give to charity, and does not support causes for poor and middle class Americans and does support trade agendas that favor the use of foreign workers and foreign tax shelters and he has made his money by bulding relationships with high level businessmen around the world. Rockefeller on the other hand is a 3rd generation multi-millionair/billionair and has focused on setting up charitable foundations, giving money away, funding programs for the poor, building liberaries and such, etc.

Those are just two examples, but overall yes all of our politics has been corrupted by money. [/B]


just to further examine my point....notice how malachi goes after Cheney, makes unsupported accusations about him not caring for the poor and only expounds the seemingly good qualities of Rockefeller (not mentioning any faults).

[wollery]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
just to further examine my point....notice how malachi goes after Cheney, makes unsupported accusations about him not caring for the poor and only expounds the seemingly good qualities of Rockefeller (not mentioning any faults).
In fairness to NTW there is a general perception that the Republicans are greedy and the Democrats aren't. Maybe it's myth and maybe it isn't, and maybe it is worth investigating further. However I agree with Malachi that looking purely at how much money people have is no indicator of their generosity/compassion, a better measure of this would be how much money each of these rich senators give to charities and where their money came from in the first place.

NTW - Malachi did qualify his example by saying that it was only one example. It's possible that it isn't representative of the whole. Find some numbers on this and we could get a really good discussion going here.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by wollery
Find some numbers on this and we could get a really good discussion going here. [/B]

where do you think we can find legitimate numbers for both senator income/worth and how much/frequently they contribute to social/economic causes ?

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



wealth does not equal corruption.

there are just as many (if not more) corrupt poor people.

Astonishment is!
N T has that one dead right!
Congratulations!

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151
But there is need to look at the source of the money, how recently the people have aquired the money, and what they do with it.

Money, Malachi
Seems to say that it is bad?
Why does the source matter?

Even a bad source
In the last generation
May not taint this one.

What they do is, though
More a question that matters.
But it is their funds.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by jj


Money, Malachi
Seems to say that it is bad?
Why does the source matter?

Even a bad source
In the last generation
May not taint this one.

What they do is, though
More a question that matters.
But it is their funds.

Source does matter. How did the people get their money? Did they use questionable business practices like Dick Cheney,did they simply inherit it, did they win it in a lottery, did they use child labor in India, how did they get it?

I'm not defending either group, I don't like Democrats or Republicans, in fact I hate Democracts more in general.

How they get it and what they do with it are relevant, but not totally. For example Andrew Carnege donated almost all his money away before he died, but he earned his money through some very unsavory business practices, most of which are now illigal. So yes, he did good with his money, but by the same token he was anti-labor rights and pro-monopoly in the first place, and he used force, he bought entire towns and owned every single thing in them so control prices, he broke strikes including even the killing of a few people, he refused pay increases, refused safety improvements, etc. So to say that he was a "good guy" because he donated money is really only half the story. There ar crack dealers that donate money to their families and communities too, but they still make the money by selling crack in teh first place so...

[Malachi151]

Being wealthy is not a sign of being corrupt, however one of the majors ways that many people make dramatic changes in their economic situation is though the use of forms of corruption and harsh business tactics. That obviously does not mean that everyone that has major money has done such things, but you will find that a large percentage have.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151
For example Andrew Carnege donated almost all his money away before he died, but he earned his money through some very unsavory business practices, most of which are now illigal. So yes, he did good with his money, but by the same token he was anti-labor rights and pro-monopoly in the first place, and he used force, he bought entire towns and owned every single thing in them so control prices, he broke strikes including even the killing of a few people, he refused pay increases, refused safety improvements, etc. So to say that he was a "good guy" because he donated money is really only half the story.

As it happens, I went to college on Carnegie money, via C-MU.

Yes, I'm well aware both of Andrew Carnegie's business practices, and his later philanthropy.