Congress... net worth, stock market performance, etc etc

1,309 posts 18 reps Joined Aug 2017

Thu, May 18, 2023 8:07 AM

Why are over half of the US senators at or above retirement age? Why are 2 of them pushing 90 years old? Why is the average age of the Senate just 1 year below retirement age? Is there a good reason not for an age limit? We have a lower threshold of 30 years. Why not an upper threshold?

The average increase in net worth for Senators in terms of the top 20 growth from when elected to current status is 422% a year. I'd imagine that plays the largest role in why so many don't want to give up those jobs. Senators also out perform nearly everyone in the stock market... not even just average us households (which they kill in performance) but also those who are deemed to be corporates insiders. Why does everyone just turn a blind eye to the amount of wealth people accumulate just by being in congress. It's not a Republican or Democrat issue... its nearly all of congress,

iclfan2 Reppin' the 330/216/843

9,465 posts 98 reps Joined Nov 2009

Thu, May 18, 2023 8:16 AM

We really need term and age limits. The job can’t be that difficult if these rich people still want to keep working when they don’t even need to. And yea, a lot of people bag on Pelosi for doing so well in the market, but I think Crenshaw performs as well or better than her. Not sure how you stop it. I think they should be able to own stocks, but maybe not individual ones?

kizer permanente Senior Member

1,309 posts 18 reps Joined Aug 2017

Thu, May 18, 2023 8:26 AM

posted by iclfan2
We really need term and age limits. The job can’t be that difficult if these rich people still want to keep working when they don’t even need to. And yea, a lot of people bag on Pelosi for doing so well in the market, but I think Crenshaw performs as well or better than her. Not sure how you stop it. I think they should be able to own stocks, but maybe not individual ones?

For me that's the frustrating part. B/c like many things, there's no realistic way of stopping it. and that's why it thrives like it does. When you get to vote on what you get to do and don't do, that's inherently a problem. Why aren't those votes in a general election for me and you to decide? Why does congress get to decide what congress can do. Our founders certainly got that tidbit wrong.

geeblock Member

1,123 posts 0 reps Joined May 2018

Thu, May 18, 2023 8:41 AM

to top it off they constantly vote against free health care while they get free health care, they vote themselves raises while threatening to cut social security.

gut Senior Member

18,369 posts 114 reps Joined Nov 2009

Thu, May 18, 2023 10:51 AM

posted by iclfan2
The job can’t be that difficult if these rich people still want to keep working when they don’t even need to.

Aside from whipping votes, which seems like cocktail party fodder for the socialites (probably why so many geriatrics want the job), the real work is done by a bunch of 20-something law school students.

Which is the #1 reason why lobbyists often serve an important job. Sure, some deservedly get a bad rap. But when you have progressive young lawyers from Harvard writing all the laws - people who have little life experience and NO work experience - you need industry people to step in and advise how ignorant their ideas are to stop themCongress from doing real damage.

Heretic Son of the Sun

20,517 posts 202 reps Joined Nov 2009

Thu, May 18, 2023 12:16 PM

Every time someone talks about Biden being too old and senile for his job, Feinstein says "hold my beer" while spending more time being at home and recovering from one ailment or another than doing her job.

She also shows just how fucked the whole system/hierarchy is in our politics. The old-guard D establishment treats her with kid gloves and tries to downplay any reports of her not exactly knowing what she's doing...even though her presence (or lack of presence) isn't exactly helping their cause due to how she's essentially a necessary vote on the committee which votes on appointing judges. And when some other D (Porter?) decided to run for her seat in the next election, there was this underlying vibe of "this is disrespectful" because Feinstein "deserves" to make the call as to whether she wants to continue holding "her" seat before anyone else in her party should be allowed to make his/her own claim.

Really illustrates just how the politicians view their posts. Get entrenched in your seat and you view yourself as a Supreme Court justice -- appointed for life. Where any attempt by your own party to challenge you or even question your ability is an offense.

gut Senior Member

18,369 posts 114 reps Joined Nov 2009

Thu, May 18, 2023 12:28 PM

posted by Heretic
Really illustrates just how the politicians view their posts. Get entrenched in your seat and you view yourself as a Supreme Court justice -- appointed for life. Where any attempt by your own party to challenge you or even question your ability is an offense.

We've allowed it to become a path to wealth - not just a good living, but rich by most people's standards. And that's a huge part of the problem. Between influence peddling and stock front-running, I'd guess a majority of Congress is engaged in one of those activities (and many in both).

And then this concept of "safe" Republican or Democrat districts is how a Pelosi or Feinstein becomes entrenched and "appointed for life".

Unfortunately, I think the govt is too unwieldy and complex for limit them to a single term. But maybe 12 years, total (House AND Senate combined) would be a good starting point. 12 years in the Senate, for sure. But then if you allow another 6-8 years in the House that's still half a career, which seems to much.

But as if often said, we get what we vote for. I'm all for varied and diverse representation, but where do you ever see a group picking a young 30-something with no experience to represent them?

Congress... net worth, stock market performance, etc etc

Login

Register