Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does it ever bother you that most of our "Leaders" are millionaires?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 05:44 AM
Original message
Does it ever bother you that most of our "Leaders" are millionaires?
It bothers me, along with a lot of other things, that these fuckers live so large, like rock stars, riding in limos, attending all the most fashionable affairs, eating only the finest foods, served by servants constantly, preened over, photographed, flying around in jets hither and yon, flying over the wretched serfs in their wretched little hovels.

What the fuck is it that they do that is so important that we must support them with extremely large salaries and benefits and mansions? Is what they do really work at all?

Almost all of them, unless I'm imagining things again, are millionaires or multi millionaires, or billionaires. And once having "served" the people, they get cushy speaking jobs and they get to live out their lives in splendor without a worry in the world.

Does this ever bother you? I think most of them got into politics simply to become millionaires and live the life.

If there are examples of a politician who does not fit this category, please let me know. I've heard that there are a few of them who actually do have a soul and a conscience, but the majority of them act like we owe them a life of luxury simply because they say fancy words and sign statements and shake hands and kiss babies and fuck us over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
datasuspect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. they are rich capitalist gangsters
with fat corporate cocks in their mouths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ret5hd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. Kucinich might be the exception you are looking for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. That's what I've heard.
Why is there only one name that pops up? He often makes the mistake of making sense in his speeches too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. And Sanders.Both seem to understand every day people
Both loved by the rest of Congress I am sure. Funny how many of these very rich get it in deals but not some thing they think up or made. And all you need to do is turn on c-span and know that they class money with brains. Course a 'smart' call girl can become as rich and we know what she sells.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ObaMania Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #8
21. .. and don't forget
John Edwards and Mark Warner. They seem like good, caring people who understand we commoners too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. they are both millionaires,
self-made millionaires but still got lots of money. Just made it before they got into office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. So you want to rule out anyone who was successful - how stunning
I am not a Warner or Edwards supporter, but the fact that they earned money is NOT a negative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Dooley Donating Member (113 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #27
48. I don't think that is what he was getting at...
I think the point is that a disproportionate amount of multi-millioniares represent us in Congress compared to how many there actually are in the population.

I agree. I have a BIG problem with being represented by people unaffected by current economic conditions.

And I definitely think they are overpaid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
4. Government salaries are decided by the government
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datasuspect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. kickbacks, cronyism, nepotism
are decided by the corporate lobbyists, you know, like the nice people of the credit card industry who wrote their own bk bill.

30% interest for late payments nowadays? no problems there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Of course, if I worked there...
I'd be too busy relaxing on my yacht to post on DU. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
42. I'd like to get rid of all congressional and
presidential pensions.

I don't want career politicians. Put in a few terms and then go start a business and work on your retirement fund.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:09 AM
Response to Original message
5. Bother? No
We live in a specialized, hierarchical, institutionalized society. Who else would have the time if not a wealthy elite? Like you said, there is the odd exception, but does anyone who has any actual power really listen to Kucinich and his Department of Peace?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datasuspect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. absolutely not
because there is not an obscene amount of wealth-based hucksters with their aquiline, aristocratic noses up his powdered ass.

if peace became profitable (amazingly, jaw-droppingly profitable) "kucinich" would be a household name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
D-U-D-E Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:12 AM
Response to Original message
6. they always have been for the most part
nothing new there. I am more bothered by how the general public can be rallied to vote for people who care nothing for them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
25. Hi D-U-D-E!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:17 AM
Response to Original message
7. millionaires have just as much right as anyone to run for office... what
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 06:22 AM by ixion
bothers me is that a) as you mention, it's next to impossible for a working-class guy or gal to get elected; and b) that people make such a cushy living once they do get elected.

Running our country should not be a cake job. It should not be a gravy train. It should, in fact, be difficult and unpleasant, like the REAL jobs of so many working people out there. It should not pay well. It should not come with perks. It should be something, sort of like the military, where people get in, and can't wait to get the hell out.

I should not be glamourous. It should not confer rock-star status. It should not, in fact, even be a position of power, but simply a funtionary position.

The laws should be made and voted for and interpreted by We, the People. Their salaries should be decided by We, the People, and should be capped so that it never becomes a salaried position that is considered ample.

It should, in fact, be just like jury duty.

Jury duty.

You're going along, working your ass off, minding your own business when suddenly you get a letter saying show up or we'll come and arrest you, so you show up. They pay you slave wages as you trade your life away presiding for who knows how long over a case that may or may not be of interest to you. Jury duty is just that, a duty. It is unpleasant, but it must be done.

Government office should be the same. It should be unpleasant, and should not be profitable, nor powerful.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Only millionaires can get elected.
They have to amass a war chest of millions to even compete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. right. that is a flaw in our electoral process.
there should be a modest sum given to every candidate who obtains enough signatures to run for office.

That should be all they're allowed to spend.

What we have now is a contest to see who can spend the most on PR, which in the end only promotes the whole Cult of Personality, which is the central problem with the modern political environment, IMO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Neither of my Senators
are millionaires, nor is my Rep, but yes, it bothers me enormously how many are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. What State Are You In?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
39. A way to change this is a bill like Kerry and Wellstone proposed
Here are Kerry's comments when he re-introduced the bill in 1997.

From Thomas:
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.

Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
GPO's PDF
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.
Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean el ections'' fu nded by ``clean mo ney,'' elections wh ere our citizens are the ones who make the difference

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
43. Funny story in my hometown paper yesterday
Our county's top elected official is County Judge which is really the leader of the county commission, more than having anything to do with judge.

Anyway, the current guy is retiring and there is a Republican and Democratic candidate running for his spot.

The story was that the Democratic candidate missed the deadline to provide a list of contributors to his campaign for November's election.

The candidate was very apologetic in the paper, said he just screwed up and quickly filed when he was told of the omission. The story will probably get him some votes.

Anyway, the Republican had listed the supporters who gave him his $ 12,000 war chest.

Now that the Democratic candidate has filed the public can see his warchest too.

$ 90 !!!!

Guess who's going to win this one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
49. I mostly agree with your position. My only problem with it...
...is that, like with jury duty, if it's completely unpleasant, those enlisted to do the job may pick the most expedient option rather than the best or right one. Fast government isn't better than greedy government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #49
54. certainly there are the finer details to work out, and checks and balances
would need to be in place to head off the type of behavior you describe. The core premise stands, though: Government should not be a honey pot for whomever happens to be elected at any given time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
9. Of course.
It ought to bother everyone here. It further demonstrates that the average person of average means cannot get elected to the Congress. It has become a collection of aristocrats looking out for their interests at the expense of the People's, who are nominally their constituency. This representative democracy long ago ceased being anything more than a joke.

98% reelection of incumbents rivals anything that the USSR ever had!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
15. Yes. My candidates will lose because they are not rich.
The rich cannot be my voice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:51 AM
Response to Original message
17. The money doesn't bother me as much as does the
promotion of the prevailing myth that we have anything even remotely resembling a representative legislature or true democracy any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
19. Most politicians work hard for relatively little money
When you compare their jobs to other professions, it is pretty remarkable. The president of the United States makes about as much money in salary as a successful dermatologist from Scarsdale.

It's not the politicians salaries that irk me. It is, as the OP and several others point out, that they are already millionaires when they run for office.

If you were a millionaire or billionaire, why would you want to spend millions of your own money on a campaign to get a job that pays (by your life standards) peanuts? Why would Mike Bloomberg spend $20 million to run for mayor and then donate his salary to charity?

There's something even fishier than their living large. Bloomberg is a businessman and investor. He doesn't invest without getting a return. Bill Frist is another multi millionaire businessman. Why would he want to be a senator?

The awful truth is that these guys are making money and leveraging their already existing wealth by having access to government power, and we don't even know how they are doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. It is possible that many run out of public service and
the view that they could do a good job running the country.

If you want, you could say this is egotist - but if you have proven that you can start and run what becomes a successful business, like Bloomberg or Warner, you do have some skills that may be transferable to running a government. It may be that you don't - in which case you either won't get elected or re-elected.

What is suspicious is people of any level of wealth whose wealth increases because of insider deals. I have no problem with Ted Kennedy, with his inherted wealth who is one of the Senators most likely to be working on issues that help the poorest. I have no problem with John Kerry, who chose public service over the type of lucrative positions his intelligence and connections would have made possible. (He chose public service over wealth and was not well off for the first decade as a Senator. The wealth listed is mostly Teresa's )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
20. Here's The List:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/

There might be a newer list but as you can see there are many progressives on that list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grilled onions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
22. Bugs Me Big Time
How can they relate to the little people if they have never lived that lifestyle? How can they understand what it is to eek out a living on 8 bucks an hour when they hand that out in tips everyday? They cannot represent people they do not know about. They can't have any empathy for most of us when they spend their entire career lining their own pockets. They are far too concerned about doing the right thing to their corporate sponsors to ever worry a farthing about the underclass. The lower class,in this country, are severely under-represented by our politicians and since they only listen to those who have the money to toss into their war chests how can it ever change unless we get some in office who are more in touch with the poor then the rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #22
30. Explain Senator Kennedy then ( n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. Senator Kennedy came from
a family who built their name on championing the value of the working class. He might be rich, but thanks to a fine upbringing where his family taught him to involve himself in the plight of working people, he's hasn't isolated himself with his wealth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. That was my point - and it is contrary to the OP's view
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
23. I was just reading the LBN thread about Blair coming to California,
how much secrecy was surrounding the whole trip. Does it not ever bother them that they have to travel in so much secrecy to avoid protestors and wackos? It hasn't always been that way, and I'd say it's a bad sign for the Leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
26. Frankly, I don't think ANY of the Democrats that I have
seen are the least like that. Some are wealthy, though they didn't become that through government service. I give all of them credit for having souls and consciences, unless demonstrated otherwise.

We do not give them "extremely large salaries or mansions". I think a Senator gets about $160,000. However, they need to have a home in their district and a place to stay in the DC area where they spend around half of their time. For many Senators, they could use their abilities to earn far more outside government. (ex-Senator Edwards, who was born middle class (at best) would never have amassed $27 million if he had spent his whole life in government.)

As to how hard they work, many actually work very very hard. I seriously doubt many people could keep the schedule that Senator Kerry has for years. He, through his marriage to Teresa, could simply live a life of luxury, but he consistently has worked to try to make things better for less fortunate people. He not only has a soul and a conscience but a heart. The same is true for Durbin, Lautenberg and others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElboRuum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
28. No... what bothers me...
Is that only a millionaire can BE a leader. They're the only one's that can afford the costs of campaigning. And as we all know, modern politics is all about face time. How are you going to get face time without dough?

I hate the fact that the system is such that people of more meager means but better ideas can't get elected simply because a campaign would bankrupt them two weeks into the political season.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
31. Insomuch as their ability to accurately represent us, fuck yes. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
32. you mean as I lie, mortally wounded, here in the no man's land
of the class war the rich are waging against me, my family and everything I hold dear?

You mean as I watch my life's blood ooze into the stinking muck, does it bother me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
33. Sure it bothers me, but the average "Joe" can't afford to run for
a Fed. Office. I think it's always been that way. When the Republic was started, those folks in charge perhapse weren't millionairs, but they were wealthy at their time!

Sometimes I think it bothers me more that most of they are LAWYERS1 than the fact that they're wealthy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KyuzoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
34. It's not really a stretch to equate leadership with good business skills.
Assuming the money was acquired through legal and ethical enterprise. Many good leaders end up rich, but most rich people are not good leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
35. John Kerry and Howard Dean did not get into politics for the money
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 11:29 AM by LSK
That should be obvious.

The same with John Edwards, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers and Wesley Clark.

You can even say the same about Bill and Hillary.

I think you are spouting off old right wing talking points AGAIN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
38. yes...constantly
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genie_weenie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
40. It's a good thing! Since they are all so rich
it keeps them from being corrupted by money and gifts.

I can't believe you are doubting the American Democracy? It's set up perfectly to keep you on the hook. Share a drop of the honey with the plebes in order to keep the pot for themselves.

Now, stop typing about this plebe and keep voting because your vote matters...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuhByeChimp Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
41. Yes, yes it does.
In my local area, Tulsa Oklahoma, the Mayor spent 1.3 million of her own money to get elected.

It seems anymore you have to be rich to get elected anymore or have name recognition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
44. Yes. It does.
They're also almost entirely white, Christian, and male.

That bothers me too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #44
52. Election Reform has been a pathetic joke for many years.
The USA is a two party system even though there are many other parties that could
be included in power sharing. Other parties are stymied due to the way the system set up restricts them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
45. It bothers me way more that...
It bothers me way more that our current president is a fucking incompetent and heartless boob than it does that he is a multi-millionaire from a long line of multi-millionaires.

Sure, I wish anybody with some good ideas can become president. But, I also wouldn't care if the person that became president was richer than ExxonMobil, as long as she or he did a good job as president.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
46. Yes. None of them have a fucking clue what its like to live check-to-check
...they are completely isolated from the reality all of us have to live with on a daily basis...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
47. Yes. It also bothers me that they're all chummy members of the same class
Edited on Fri Jul-28-06 01:42 PM by JVS
They can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
50. Depends on the millionaire
It doesn't bother me that they are all millionaires. In a way, that can be good if the millionaire can say that he's not beholden to anyone because he didn't have to take their money.

Like anyone, it depends on the millionaire, and it's not his money that bothers me. I'm not biased against someone having money. It's what they do with it that will be the determining factor.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
51. Yes
which is why, in the primaries, I won't vote for anyone who didn't attend public schools. I'd like a president who at least has some memory of how the rest of us live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BluePatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
53. My answer...
'Cause we all just wanna be big rockstars
And live in hilltop houses driving fifteen cars
The girls come easy and the drugs come cheap
We'll all stay skinny 'cause we just won't eat
And we'll hang out in the coolest bars
In the VIP with the movie stars
Every good gold digger's
Gonna wind up there
Every Playboy bunny
With her bleach blond hair
And we'll hide out in the private rooms
With the latest dictionary and
today's who's who
They'll get you anything
with that evil smile
Everybody's got a
drug dealer on speed dial
well..
Hey hey I wanna be a rockstar...

(courtesy Nickelback)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC