Earthbound64
Banned
Hence why I said "seems," not "is."
For some reason, though, there appears to be no desire to more closely examine the situation.
EDIT: Darn, top of page
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Senator Claire McCaskill's Vacation Home Is the Problem With America's Ruling Class
- Thread starter Makonero
- Start date
Hence why I said "seems," not "is."
For some reason, though, there appears to be no desire to more closely examine the situation.
EDIT: Darn, top of page
This article is the close examination. And it has come up seriously wanting.
"Yes, but he doesn't sound so annoying when he talks"
Earthbound64
Banned
Well posts like that are ridiculous, but that doesn't really change anything for McCaskill.
Earthbound64
Banned
That's more what I was posting in regards to - the complete dismissal of any consideration of the matter, because "So fucking what."
This stuff is so easily framed the worst light. Senator Claire McCaskill lives like a rich person because she is one. She is rich, has rich friends, is friends with people in rich industries, and has rich friends donate to her campaigns. If I were a rich person and a politician all of these things would be true and it wouldn't be a problem. Even now my friends donate to my career in many ways, but none of us are rich.
AmayaPapaya
Banned
Some people in Congress make way too much money, and live lives that are too lavish. I think there should be some type of financial control over these people. It should be an honor to be a senator, so you should be forced to give up a heft of luxuries, and other benefits. I don't see how you can represent the people when your problems are so far removed from theirs. I bet they'd think twice about voting for a number of things that they did, or taking money from certain places.
It's very troubling that personal wealth (or proximity to wealthy donors) is a requirement for political office. Half of our congresspersons are millionaires, even though only 3% of Americans have such a net worth. This kind of misrepresentation is directly averse to our democracy and has to be identified.
That's a pretty appropriate reaction, actually.
If she continues to vote Democratic, which typically means more stringent regulations on such industries, him being a family friend isn't an issue at all.
If she were a Republican voting for weaker regulations, this could be an issue, but she's not.
Everyone in Congress earns the same salary.
And the rest of this post is very silly.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
That settlement is specifically aimed at the allegations of medicare fraud, and has nothing to do with the allegations of the alleged health and safety lapses.
AmayaPapaya
Banned
You realize they make more than just their salary, right?
What else do they make?
Fenderputty
Banned
The irony of this post, is that this is a shining example used by the right to convince moderates the left just hates and wants to demonize money. I hear shit like this on right wing radio all day and I say to myself, "nah, that's stupid. The left just hates untaxed and unregulated hording of money" and then I come read this stuff lol
I guess you can make the argument that congressional salaries are too high, but the much bigger problem is wealthier people have inordinate influence in our politics. This can be manifest directly, because wealthy individuals are more able to enter politics, or indirectly, because the wealthy can pressure lawmakers more easily than the middle or working classes.
I would never makethe argument that their salaries are too high.
And while I agree up and down that money has far too great an influence on politics (particularly via the doors opened by Citizens United), the fact that politicians tend to be wealthier people in general is logical (not right, but logical) to some extent, and I wonder how that would be changed. I guess if running for office earned a salary of some sort that could help.
oneils
Member
She could resign from the committee that oversees the industry her best friend works in. She can be in the senate, but she doesn't need to be on committees that regulate her friends.
AmayaPapaya
Banned
So what? Should we dedicate our discussions to what the right-wing may use as propaganda?
I don't think so.
Her best friend? Where are you getting this? He was her husband's friend.
And under that logic there would be lots of Senators that couldn't serve on any committees.
oneils
Member
They own a house together! That's pretty close. And yeah, so what? Not everyone has to be on an oversight committee.
Her husband bought that house with this guy before he met her.
And then would would staff these committees?
I'm still curious what other money members of Congress make.
oneils
Member
I'm sure they can figure it out. There must be some industry she can oversee that also doesn't co own her cottage or husbands cottage.
But...why? There hasn't been any sign of impropriety, no matter how hard this article wants us to walk away thinking there has been.
She has been involved in senior issues for most of her political career. She knows and care about them. I want her on that committee.
Um, honesty in today's market 600k isn't all that much. Sure Bernie is wealthier than the average American, but my guess is he's far less wealthy than most senators.
At one point becoming a senator or congressperson was considered an honor and civil duty with sacrifice, not a path to wealth.
AmayaPapaya
Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
I don't have all day, so I'll give you one example.
Does Darrell Issa have 254.65 million dollars from his $174,000 salary? No. He probably got most his wealth when he was CEO of Directed Electronics, a company he co-founded.
I don't know what you are getting at, TBH. I don't think you actually believe what you are insinuating.
It still is. Very few people become Senators or Congressmen to make money.
You said "some people in Congress make too much money." Issa didn't make that money in Congress, he already had it.
Officerrob
Banned
Matt doing some serious work in this thread, good job man
Fenderputty
Banned
This was not my point.
I have no idea when, or why or what this has to do with anything we're currently discussing.
When WHEN in American history have US Congressmen not been rich?
This is exactly why senators and congresspeople talk to their constituents, and why, if they don't, it's so important that those constituents badger them relentlessly by calling their offices and attending town halls.
monchi-kun
Member
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/2109/claire-mccaskill#.WcCURkFlCaM
Seems to vote in line with most of the things I care about
Seems to vote in line with most of the things I care about
toadsworth
Banned
Lots of politicians in America become lobbyists because it's so much more lucrative and probably less work. The country is kind of a fucking mess.
AmayaPapaya
Banned
What was it, then?
They make money while in Congress too, and from other places besides their salary. My main point was that they are too wealthy, though, in general. Whether that is from before or after, isn't really what I'm concerned about (at least, with what I was discussing).
They make money from their spouses, previous and current investments, inheritance, speaking fees, books, laws they pass that increase their wealth, and have future investment with companies with the whole revolving door. Most of their wealth is from outside.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...id-members-of-congress-get-so-wealthy/379848/
"Congressional wealth comes from many different places, but one thing links it together: These lawmakers, unlike most of their constituents, do not draw the bulk of their income from a paycheck. In 2010, more than 150 lawmakers reported earning more from outside investments than from the congressional salary, which for a rank-and-file House or Senate member is $174,000. (In 2012, the median U.S. household income was $51,017, and the median household net worth was $56,335.) That discrepancy between the public and lawmakers may distort the congressional debate on topics like the capital-gains tax and the mortgage-interest deduction, which affect members more than they do most of their constituents."
Here is another article about the money Congressmen make.
http://watchdog.org/123522/congress-millionaires-theyre-getting-rich-system/
Here is one talking about how Tom Price got a discounted offer on Biomedical stock, as a congressman.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rep-to...r-on-biomedical-stock-company-says-1485800769
Money from their previous work or from investments is not money they are making from being in Congress. They would have that money either way. And what Price did is probably illegal, and it will hopefully come back to haunt him eventually.
The point is, people don't generally go into Congress to make money. It's just not the most efficient way to do that.
Is your suggestion really that the rich should be banned from serving? Because I otherwise don't see a way to stop them.
Fenderputty
Banned
That we shouldn't demonize people with money for simply having money and that I was surprised people on the left hold such simplistic opinions.
AmayaPapaya
Banned
Yes, but there were like ten other things I listed that they make money on while serving. Anyway, I disagree that Congress isn't a good way to increase your wealth, but that's not my point.
My point was that these people make too much money and don't represent average Americans. If congressmen had their kids go to public schools, for instance, they probably would be far more focused on improving our educational institutions, than they are now. If they had to worry about the insane costs of Drugs, they would probably be focused on lowering their prices. etc etc etc
Something like that may be good. I don't know what exactly such a system would look like, but it would be good to have. Being forced to give up wealth and investments is something we already ask, but only if it proves to have a conflict of interest. Being a congressman/woman is an honor and a privilege, and should be treated as such.
It would be just like Obamacare, or something like that. May be hard to convince people to accept it, but after it's implemented, no one wants to go back to the way things used to be. The new system may be flawed, but it's flaws dwarf the previous.
I mean, I think the general question of whether rich people can be senators can be separated from the specifics in the article here, and the specifics in the article seem...not great?
Leaving aside the entire question of the nursing homes, which is not to say there aren't concerning details there, the LLC that exists to own houses and jet skis seems extraordinarily shady to me. If the only people that use those houses are McCaskill and her husband, why, exactly, are they in an LLC jointly owned with a businessman? What business, exactly, is the LLC in? That's like a cattle futures level of "probably a payoff," cmon.
So that's pretty bad. McCaskill should figure this stuff out and get in front of it.
But it's still incorrect to say this is the problem with America's ruling class. The Nazis are the problem with America's ruling class. People should, you know, try not to lose track of that.
Leaving aside the entire question of the nursing homes, which is not to say there aren't concerning details there, the LLC that exists to own houses and jet skis seems extraordinarily shady to me. If the only people that use those houses are McCaskill and her husband, why, exactly, are they in an LLC jointly owned with a businessman? What business, exactly, is the LLC in? That's like a cattle futures level of "probably a payoff," cmon.
So that's pretty bad. McCaskill should figure this stuff out and get in front of it.
But it's still incorrect to say this is the problem with America's ruling class. The Nazis are the problem with America's ruling class. People should, you know, try not to lose track of that.
Except the rest of your post was wrong as well. Sitting members of Congress can't earn money from speaking fees. The money earned by their spouses is exactly that, money earned by someone else. Yes they can sell a book, but with a few exceptions that's not the most lucrative gig.
You have yet to establish why being a member of Congress is a money making gig.
As for the rest of it, well that would be grossly unconstitutional and simply wrong. Joining Congress isn't and shouldn't be the same as joining a convent.
You didn't read the article. The house was bought and the LLC was formed before McCaskill even met her husband. It's owned jointly in an LLC for tax reasons. DeStefane uses the house too.
Why did he deed the second house to the LLC?
Where do you see that DeStefane uses the house? That doesn't appear in the article that I noticed. Wouldn't he have been upset when McCaskill's husband, you know, pledged the house as security for an unrelated debt in a separate business he owns solely?
Just to be clear, the official reason for the LLC is so that Senator McCaskill can engage in tax evasion? Not for any legitimate business purpose?
Again, tax reasons.
And no. Again, this was set up before the Senator was in the picture. And having an LLC own homes is not illegal tax evasion.
And I don't think he was upset about the loan. Why would he have been?
You are creating a conspiracy here.
I didn't say "illegal tax evasion." "Tax reasons" means "I wanted to avoid paying taxes I would otherwise have to pay." In other words, tax evasion, but perfectly legal tax evasion. Right? I remember Romney's campaign!
I guess I don't own three homes, so maybe I'm a little too far from the relevant milieu here, but where I come from, it is considered, uh, shocking to encumber a jointly owned asset with an unrelated debt of your own. After all, if your business venture fails, the house would be repossessed despite it not being solely your asset. Have you considered taking out a mortgage on your father's home to start a new business lately? Or would that seem a little unusual?
AmayaPapaya
Banned
No it's not unconstitutional. The constitution doesn't protect the government, it protects the people. There are tons of stuff congressmen and elected officials can't do, that would be deemed unconstitutional if they were put on normal citizens.
I wouldn't even really call it tax evasion in this case. It was probably bought as an investment property with someone else that they also use. Makes sense to do it as an LLC. That's actually pretty basic real estate stuff. Nothing strange here.
As for the loan, you don't know the situation behind it at all, and are jumping to conclusions. The loan may have also been for tax reasons, and the money needed to pay it back put in a special account. Or something else. You have no basis to find anything suspicious about it. The article tried its best to paint McCaskill in a bad light, and even it didn't harp on the house finances, because it's pretty normal.
It would absolutely be unconstitutional to disallow the wealthy to hold public office. Taking away the right of someone to hold public office because of how rich they are is NOT protecting the people, it's stripping them of rights.
Also, would their family have to adhere to this? Would their spouse have to quit their job?