Fifth Avenue Forum

Would we be better off if a poor (and most likely uneducated because of that economic status) black man/woman was leading the government? Maybe, but probably not. That's why I don't get the whole "RICH WHITE MEN RULE THE WORLD! TIME FOR A CHANGE!" Okay...Rich black man, check. Nope...that isn't working. I guess a rich latino woman is next. Maybe if she's a lesbian that would do the trick...

I don't really see how things can get worse by adding diversity. People who understand different aspects of American life. Im thinking more of diversity in congress, not specifically the president.

Would we be better off if a poor (and most likely uneducated because of that economic status) black man/woman was leading the government? Maybe, but probably not. That's why I don't get the whole "RICH WHITE MEN RULE THE WORLD! TIME FOR A CHANGE!" Okay...Rich black man, check. Nope...that isn't working. I guess a rich latino woman is next. Maybe if she's a lesbian that would do the trick...

I don't really see how things can get worse by adding diversity. People who understand different aspects of American life. Im thinking more of diversity in congress, not specifically the president.

I never said it would be worse. I asked "would it be better"? I highly doubt it.

I think diversity is important, not just from racial, gender, socio-economic or sexual orientation stand point, but from a career stand point as well. What percentage of congress are business (wo)men or lawyers?

So more doctors and scientists?

doctors, scientists, linguistic type people, social workers, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... -congress/

here's the image:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/ ... jpg&w=1484

more diverse than I thought, but still weighted heavily.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... -congress/

here's the image:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/ ... jpg&w=1484

more diverse than I thought, but still weighted heavily.

A lot more educators than I thought.

About what I expected for lawyers and business people

Lawyers make sense though. They know...ya know...the law.

I am in total agreement though. We need more farmers, social workers, educators, etc. representing the people. It's hard though. It takes tons of money to run let alone win an election. Those fields tend not to pay as well as law.

Also...

Redundant use of the word 'though' is redundant.

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to write laws.

You don't. I was simply stating that they know the law and it makes sense that, historically, lawyers have held places in congress.

I think the "rich" part is the biggest problem. I don't know for sure, but I would guess most high level politicians for the rich category.

I think the "rich" part is the biggest problem. I don't know for sure, but I would guess most high level politicians for the rich category.

According to this:

http://nypost.com/2014/06/11/number-of- ... ses-again/

6.25% of American households have over $1 million

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... 50-percent

over 50% of congress have over $1 million.

So yeah... I'd say politicians are mostly "rich" people.

Would we be better off if a poor (and most likely uneducated because of that economic status) black man/woman was leading the government? Maybe, but probably not. That's why I don't get the whole "RICH WHITE MEN RULE THE WORLD! TIME FOR A CHANGE!" Okay...Rich black man, check. Nope...that isn't working. I guess a rich latino woman is next. Maybe if she's a lesbian that would do the trick...

I don't really see how things can get worse by adding diversity. People who understand different aspects of American life. Im thinking more of diversity in congress, not specifically the president.

I never said it would be worse. I asked "would it be better"? I highly doubt it.

yeah...having more minorities/females/homosexuals/etc in congress isn't going to change anything significantly, as long as they have the same motives that exist now: re-election, status quo maintenance, and most importantly treating their work as a career rather than a public service.

I'd say the problem RE:rich people in congress begins and ends with what it takes to get on a ballot and build a support group.

You have to consider advertisements, payments to get yourself on the ballot (not sure if this is still a thing, but I recall it being so from a 10th grade US Govt. class), time spent collecting signatures, etc.

Unless there's some huge reform in the way people get on a ballot, plus the campaign funding and what not, I don't see a change in the future.

Our system is stuck and it's broken with no way to fix it. Yeah, I'm pessimistic about it but all I see in front of the US is a steady downfall and decline.

1) you need to be wealthy to run for office at that level
2) when you are that wealthy, your priority is going to be to maintain a lucrative career
3) when that's your priority, you aren't going to be progressive. you are going to work your ass off to avoid risk and stick with what got you there.

this is a problem. i don't know if there's any way to fix it, other than limiting term...which only helps a little.

I don't necessarily see a problem in rich people in the Congress. Where I worry is when people become rich for having been in Congress.

I don't necessarily see a problem in rich people in the Congress. Where I worry is when people become rich for having been in Congress.

I know this is going to come across as naive, but does that happen?

Yup, because the crux of the issue (money) still remains.

The only way I can even think of it being feasible to get a "regular" person onto a ballot is if they latched on to a party and got money that way, but then you run into the problem of needing to more or less follow that party's views to get support. A moderate candidate on either side may not receive the monetary support because the party doesn't think a moderate candidate would gain votes from their party, and we're more or less back to square one.

I think removing parties would be a good first step, but the negative consequences will likely be much higher than the possible rewards.

I don't necessarily see a problem in rich people in the Congress. Where I worry is when people become rich for having been in Congress.

I know this is going to come across as naive, but does that happen?

i'm not sure how it works either.

i know that andy harris is in bed with the pharm industry, which is why he's such a nut sack about drug policy, but what exactly does he get from them? promises of a lucrative career when his term is over? bags of money?

I don't necessarily see a problem in rich people in the Congress. Where I worry is when people become rich for having been in Congress.

I know this is going to come across as naive, but does that happen?

Depends on how you take my meaning. Most Congressmen arrive in Washington already pretty well off; for the first time, the median worth of Congress broached the $1 million barrier a year or two ago. (Darrell Issa is worth close to half a billion, for example) But there was a study that tracked the investment incomes of Congressmen over something like a 20-year span, and they found that they tended to do like 5-6% better on their returns than the national average. It amounted to something like $120,000 a year in increased net worth, and it was pretty consistent across the board and across party lines. I'm sure it was 1) a coincidence, or 2) just proof that they're smarter investors.

We just need 534 more stories like this....


Harry Reid Says He Won’t Seek Re-Election
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/us/po ... etire.html

His heir apparent:

and there is a good chance he will be majority leader in 2016.

What is it with Democrats and rich, white, men leading their party?

He's Jewish though. How many GOP Jews in Congress? Exactly zero now that Eric Cantor lost his seat and on that:

David Wasserman, a House political analyst at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said another, more local factor has to be acknowledged: Mr. Cantor, who dreamed of becoming the first Jewish speaker of the House, was culturally out of step with a redrawn district that was more rural, more gun-oriented and more conservative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/us/po ... ml?hp&_r=0

This is how I picture Factorial sometimes:

How to Go to Congress and Become a Millionaire

Just found that story after talking about becoming rich while in Congress. Talks about some of the details I mentioned (more accurately).