Lawmakers Profit During Recession

[OldTrapper]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ed-their-riches-as-economy-sputtered-in-2009-


The wealthiest members of Congress grew richer in 2009 even as the economy struggled to recover from a deep recession.

The 50 wealthiest lawmakers were worth almost $1.4 billion in 2009, about $85.1 million more than 12 months earlier, according to The Hill’s annual review of lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms.


Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) tops the list for the second year in a row. His minimum net worth was $188.6 million at the end of 2009, up by more than $20 million from 2008, according to his financial disclosure form.

While the economy struggled through a recession during much of 2009 and the nation’s unemployment rate soared to 10 percent, the stock market rebounded, helping lawmakers with large investments. The S&P 500 rose by about 28 percent in 2009.

Total assets for the 50 wealthiest lawmakers in 2009 was $1.5 billion — that’s actually a nearly $36 million drop from a year ago. But lawmakers reduced their liabilities by even more, cutting debts by $120 million last year.

There are various reasons why asset values dropped. Some lawmakers saw their real estate holdings fall as the housing crisis intensified. A handful of lawmakers also had other investments or businesses that turned sour.

The only newcomer to the Top 10 list is Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who came straight in at No. 5. He replaced Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), the 10th wealthiest member in 2008. Teague fell off the top 50 list after the value of a company he has a stake in — Teaco Energy Services Inc. — fell in value from $39.6 million in 2008 to at the least $1 million in 2009.

There were a few other new faces in the Top 50, including Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), who received an inheritance after his late father, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), died in 2009.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) also made the list.

Twenty-seven Democrats along with 23 Republicans make up the 50 richest in Congress; 30 House members and 20 senators are on the list.

The bulk of Kerry’s wealth is credited to his spouse, Teresa Heinz Kerry, who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars after her late husband, the ketchup heir Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.), died in a plane crash in 1991.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), with a net worth of $160.1 million, is the second-richest member of Congress under The Hill’s formula, even though his wealth declined by more than $4 million in 2009.

He is followed by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who saw her net wealth leap to $152.3 million, a jump of more than $40 million from a year ago.

The rest of the top 10 are Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), McCaul, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).


To calculate its rankings, The Hill used only the lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms that cover the 2009 calendar year.

 

[steveox]

See its all George Bush fault. Bush is an oil man!! Its no secret,, If Col Sanders was president the price of chicken would have tripled too.

 

[dahermit]

If their huge financial gains came from government sources the point of outrage would be different than if their gains came from unrelated sources.

As it appears, their gotten gains have come from the fact they are wealthy in their own right separate from their government paychecks. That is, the wealthy have gotten richer while the poorer have gotten poorer. What else is new?

 

[Sihouette]

Here's what I find amusing. If the GObP shills cannot find purchase on one ground, they shamelessly spin it on the same ground in the opposite direction.

Since the cult leader Beck's rally in DC I've noticed on several poltical sites spamming of the Beck talking points. Now everyone knows Fox and other interests from the fringe right have shills spamming every day on these sites but wow did it take an upturn just afterwards.

So on the one hand we're supposed to support capitalism and incentives to better oneself by one's own bootstraps: with the ultimate reward of hitting it rich. On the other hand [when the first doesn't work] we're supposed to hate people who have done well.

I'm sorry. The shills spinning has made everyone dizzy and even though I'm against hoarding, I just cannot get it up to get mad at democrats. Not from the whines of hypocrites anyway.

It's not if you have money, it's how you use it. The GObP's bed-buddies, BigOil has used their zillions of dollars to beat back alternative energy for decades which has placed us fighting for their profiteering in the Middle East for the last 9 years; which Obama rightly put an end to. They not only hoarded their money, they used it to put the US in jeopardy. Our taxpayers footed over a trillion dollars in that illegal war, which was nothing but a free ride for corporate interests to monopolize a resource in a sovereign nation abroad.

And we're supposed to get mad at people with tons of money who give it to Greenpeace, Habitat For Humanity, global warming [from carbon emissions] and help vote in green car legislation and incentives for Detriot? Why, because their activities will bring us less dependent on foreign/Texan oil? Because what they stand for will make our country stronger by being more independent? Because our innovations in these inevitable fields will bring new markets back for american workers?

Piss off shills...your words are falling on deaf ears...you've cried false "wolf" for too long. The real wolves are the ones who unanimously stood against compassionate and logical public health care last Spring. All of us pay too much for those rich bastards in the health insurance industry....what, you thought we wouldn't remember? You were all about supporting those uber wealthy for all the wrong reasons. Imagine choosing to support a rich man over your nana's failing health?

 

[OldTrapper]

So on the one hand we're supposed to support capitalism and incentives to better oneself by one's own bootstraps: with the ultimate reward of hitting it rich. On the other hand [when the first doesn't work] we're supposed to hate people who have done well.

Not hate at all. The point is that these lawmakers are gaining in wealth at a time when others are suffering, and they are the ones that created the mess we are in.

I'm sorry. The shills spinning has made everyone dizzy and even though I'm against hoarding, I just cannot get it up to get mad at democrats. Not from the whines of hypocrites anyway.

Like Kerry who proposes to raise taxes on the rich yet does all he can to avoid paying additional taxes? How about Kennedy who gained wealth from Teddy Kennedy dying simply because the Kennedy wealth is in a fund that pays no estate taxes?

It's not if you have money, it's how you use it. The GObP's bed-buddies, BigOil has used their zillions of dollars to beat back alternative energy for decades which has placed us fighting for their profiteering in the Middle East for the last 9 years; which Obama rightly put an end to. They not only hoarded their money, they used it to put the US in jeopardy. Our taxpayers footed over a trillion dollars in that illegal war, which was nothing but a free ride for corporate interests to monopolize a resource in a sovereign nation abroad.

Explain why Shell, and Chevron, as an example, have invested billions in alternative energies?

BO didn't end the Iraq war. He followed every step Bush had put in place.

The Iraq war cost 700+ billion, not a trillion like BO's budget deficit.

How much oil have we received from Iraq?

And we're supposed to get mad at people with tons of money who give it to Greenpeace, Habitat For Humanity, global warming [from carbon emissions] and help vote in green car legislation and incentives for Detriot? Why, because their activities will bring us less dependent on foreign/Texan oil? Because what they stand for will make our country stronger by being more independent? Because our innovations in these inevitable fields will bring new markets back for american workers?

Like Gore who still owns coal mines, and shares in Occidental Oil? How about Pelosi who owns shares in Halliburton, or the LadyBird Johnson family that actually owns Halliburton?

These wealthy individuals actually only give around 1% of their wealth to any charitable organization, and, unless they have a foundation like Gates from which he actually profits, even less to others.

Piss off shills...your words are falling on deaf ears...you've cried false "wolf" for too long. The real wolves are the ones who unanimously stood against compassionate and logical public health care last Spring. All of us pay too much for those rich bastards in the health insurance industry....what, you thought we wouldn't remember? You were all about supporting those uber wealthy for all the wrong reasons. Imagine choosing to support a rich man over your nana's failing health?[/QUOTE]

All you are proving is that you are a shill for the mentally ill, and the vastly ignorant.

 

[BigRob]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ed-their-riches-as-economy-sputtered-in-2009-


The wealthiest members of Congress grew richer in 2009 even as the economy struggled to recover from a deep recession.

The 50 wealthiest lawmakers were worth almost $1.4 billion in 2009, about $85.1 million more than 12 months earlier, according to The Hill’s annual review of lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms.


Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) tops the list for the second year in a row. His minimum net worth was $188.6 million at the end of 2009, up by more than $20 million from 2008, according to his financial disclosure form.

While the economy struggled through a recession during much of 2009 and the nation’s unemployment rate soared to 10 percent, the stock market rebounded, helping lawmakers with large investments. The S&P 500 rose by about 28 percent in 2009.

Total assets for the 50 wealthiest lawmakers in 2009 was $1.5 billion — that’s actually a nearly $36 million drop from a year ago. But lawmakers reduced their liabilities by even more, cutting debts by $120 million last year.

There are various reasons why asset values dropped. Some lawmakers saw their real estate holdings fall as the housing crisis intensified. A handful of lawmakers also had other investments or businesses that turned sour.

The only newcomer to the Top 10 list is Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who came straight in at No. 5. He replaced Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), the 10th wealthiest member in 2008. Teague fell off the top 50 list after the value of a company he has a stake in — Teaco Energy Services Inc. — fell in value from $39.6 million in 2008 to at the least $1 million in 2009.

There were a few other new faces in the Top 50, including Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), who received an inheritance after his late father, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), died in 2009.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) also made the list.

Twenty-seven Democrats along with 23 Republicans make up the 50 richest in Congress; 30 House members and 20 senators are on the list.

The bulk of Kerry’s wealth is credited to his spouse, Teresa Heinz Kerry, who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars after her late husband, the ketchup heir Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.), died in a plane crash in 1991.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), with a net worth of $160.1 million, is the second-richest member of Congress under The Hill’s formula, even though his wealth declined by more than $4 million in 2009.

He is followed by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who saw her net wealth leap to $152.3 million, a jump of more than $40 million from a year ago.

The rest of the top 10 are Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), McCaul, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).


To calculate its rankings, The Hill used only the lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms that cover the 2009 calendar year.

Here is my question... who cares? Did any of these people break the law to earn this money? If your answer is no, then that is the end of the story. If your answer is yes, then prove it.