SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (529907)1/26/2004 3:22:10 PM
From: hdl  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
what about a rich woman- who wants her hubby to be prez?



To: American Spirit who wrote (529907)1/26/2004 3:35:38 PM
From: DMaA  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
But only a rich democrat can reach the presidency. It ain't heaven but they seem to think it's better.

A rich man has as much chance to reach heaven as a camel through the eye of a needle.



To: American Spirit who wrote (529907)1/26/2004 3:36:42 PM
From: DizzyG  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
To be honest, AS...

Don't you think it's even more hypocritical when you have so many millionaire Democrats that claim to be for the "little" guy?


Millionaires populate U.S. Senate
Kerry, Rockefeller, Kohl among the wealthiest
By Sean Loughlin and Robert Yoon
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) --The U.S. Senate showed once more why it's sometimes called the millionaires' club.

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.

The top three wealthiest senators are Democrats: John Kerry of Massachusetts, with a net worth of at least $164 million; Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, with a net worth of at least $111 million, and John "Jay" Rockefeller of West Virginia, with an estimated net worth of at least $82 million.

Kerry -- who is running for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination -- is married to Teresa Heinz, heiress to the Heinz food fortune. Kohl's family founded a retail chain and he owns the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team. Rockefeller comes from one of the wealthiest families in the United States.

The numbers are conservative -- base estimates required by the financial disclosure forms. While lawmakers must detail their finances, they are reported in categories with broad ranges. For example, Kerry's estimated net worth, according to the form, ranges from $164 million to $211 million.

And the statements also do not include the value of federal salaries, pensions or primary residences, meaning the financial picture is incomplete. Bank accounts worth less than $5,000 are also excluded.

Still, the forms provide a glimpse into the financial holdings of some of the most powerful and influential people in the federal government.

"These are helpful," said Steven Weiss, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, which studies money in politics. "They show the public the financial stake their elected officials have."

At the same time, Weiss said the forms can be hard to decipher. His group posts the forms on its Web site, but he said some of the most helpful material on these forms comes from various news media outlets, which analyze them.

The Senate's majority leader, Republican Bill Frist of Tennessee, is another of the millionaires. A heart surgeon, Frist's family founded the Healthcare Company, a large hospital chain. His net worth is estimated at between $15.1 million and $42.3 million.

In comparison, his Democratic counterpart, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, comes from more modest means. His financial disclosure form shows a net worth estimated at $416,000 to $1.2 million.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the news with the release of her memoir, reported a net worth ranging from $352,000 to $3.8 million. While that may seem modest for a woman who snared an $8 million book deal, the former first lady also reported substantial liabilities, ranging from $1.7 million to $6.5 million. Most of these were for legal fees, an apparent result of the numerous investigations into the Clinton's during her husband's presidential administration.

Other highlights:

• Among the 2004 Democratic White House hopefuls who are serving in the Senate, Kerry reported the most holdings. But Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was not hurting. He reported a net worth ranging from $12.8 million to $60 million. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida reported holdings of $7.7 million to $31.6 million, and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut had an estimated net worth of $482,000 to $1.8 million.

• Not all senators are millionaires. At least 10 senators reported net worths of less than $100,000.

The numbers, however, point to a group of individuals who, in general, enjoy a level of financial comfort that exceeds most Americans.

"It shows that people of means are the ones who often jump into politics and are often the ones successful at it," Weiss said. He said that's because it also takes considerable funds to launch a Senate bid, and many candidates have to give up their jobs to run an aggressive campaign. People who come from wealthy backgrounds can afford to do so, he said.

Senators and House members are paid an annual salary of $154,700. Members of the House and Senate leadership are paid $171,900 annually.

-- CNN Producers Karla Crosswhite and Heather Riley, and researchers Meghan Dwyer, Jonathan Helman, Mike Killi, Virginia Moubray, Andrea Reynolds, and Maria Simon contributed to this report.


cnn.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (529907)1/26/2004 4:02:22 PM
From: goldworldnet  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
Christ’s message was not saying it was more difficult for a rich man to enter heaven, but rather that a rich man was equally helpless left to his own devices to pass God’s judgment.

If you want a free lunch, try reading 2 Thessalonians 3:7-12.

* * *



To: American Spirit who wrote (529907)1/26/2004 4:07:29 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 769667
 
If you were going to post this, you should, at the very least, try to gain a little understanding.....



To: American Spirit who wrote (529907)1/26/2004 5:18:46 PM
From: Don Pueblo  Read Replies (6) | Respond to of 769667
 
Thank you for the laugh of the year (so far).

Rich people are evil, you think?

I've heard of that "share the windfall with the poor" concept before somewhere. I think it was in college. I forget what it's called.

Wait, I remember, communism.

And, some man or woman lives here, makes things go right for himself, works his or her a** off....and it's a "windfall". Just luck. Luck of the draw. Nobody chooses their lot in life. Everyone is a leaf in the wind. It's fate. We can't control our destinies.

I'm cramped up with laughter. Hey, could you loan me a couple of bucks? Just till I get back on my feet.



To: American Spirit who wrote (529907)1/26/2004 5:37:30 PM
From: Srexley  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
"Rich people should at least share the windfall to help the government pay for wars and the poor"

This is called socialism. Doesn't work very well. Feel free to give Cuba a try if this sounds appealing to you.



To: American Spirit who wrote (529907)1/26/2004 5:57:04 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor  Respond to of 769667
 
Hey AS, I agree with you.

If taxpayer money is going to be used to subsidize inventions that end up as the basis for huge multinational corporations, those same firms should pay up.

Or, in lieu of that, Carly Fiorina and friends can invent their own internet or other advancements and market it themselves, without using the US university or military establishment as a "pool of ideas".

Or, another alternative is to kill the US patent system so that any invention can freely be copied and marketed by the lowest cost producer.



To: American Spirit who wrote (529907)1/26/2004 8:02:04 PM
From: Peter O'Brien  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Are the poor people going to pull all-nighters at work
like I routinely do in order to share in my "windfall"?



To: American Spirit who wrote (529907)1/26/2004 11:05:05 PM
From: Johannes Pilch  Respond to of 769667
 
The section starts with Mark 10:25. You conveniently failed to mention the rest of the section, to verse 27. This would have given you the obvious meaning of the text.

25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.


Clearly the apostles understood that by making His claim, Jesus was claiming that no one could be saved. After all, wealth is subjective. Jesus by no means here claims wealth is wrong. And he obviously doesn't claim wealth itself will deny anyone's entrance into heaven (see verses 26-27). Even the disciples presumably ate food that they otherwise could have given to the poor. Duh...