A Few Stats On The US Congress.

The salaries of the 541 members of the US congress amount to $94,134,000.

40% of US senators were millionaires as of 2003.  They of course “represent” americans of whom approximately 1% are millionaires.

Before winning the presidential election, Barrack Obama was the only black member of the US senate, even though if it were statistically representative of the country there would’ve been at least 13 black senators.  The senate is conversely 13% jewish whereas the general population is estimated by the census bureau to be 2.2% jewish.

Was going to get more but got lazy instead : )

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to A Few Stats On The US Congress.

  1. MangoWOW says:

    We cater to rich white people. Not shocking. 😛

  2. Justin_DeBin says:

    So you’re saying all Jews are rich?@MangoWOW – 

  3. agnophilo says:

    @MangoWOW – More like rich white people cater to other rich white people, but yeah.@Justin_DeBin – No.

  4. I think it is just one, if you could write a never ending sentence, otherwise, yes. 

  5. It is said that statistics will tell you anything if you torture them enough.  But since the statistics here are drop dead meaningless, not even torture can do any good.Affirmative action is a leftist boondoggle whereby statistics are hallucinated in order to give it meaning.A free, capitalistic society needs people of merit in all walks of life.  If minorities are cutting it it’s because government programs were designed that way.  Affirmative action is just an excuse to grow government under the guise of social justice.Affirmative action is an assault on human dignity because it makes the individual part of a segregated group deserving of special attention for the sole purpose of electing sympathetic politicians.

  6. Justin_DeBin says:

    @agnophilo – the way you order the stats does seem to imply it!

  7. leaflesstree says:

    @LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – Um, not that your comments aren’t valid, being that affirmative action is not always a good thing, but I fail to see how it’s relevant to this posting. This post comments on the state of the members of Congress, which, last time I checked, was not filled by means of affirmative action. If it was, then I would think there would be more than one black senator, being as blacks represent far more than 1% of the population. I believe what is being argued in this post (which I have seen argued before) is that the Congress is representative of the people of this country. If a significant number of citizens are black, it should thus follow that a significant number of elected representatives are black as well. If half the population is female, it should thus follow that roughly half of all elected representatives to the federal stage should be female. The proportions should line up. As these statistics point out, they do not. That would seem to signify a failure of the electoral system and the congress in general. Affirmative action on the other hand is a program which mandates that a certain percentage of a population be of a minority. This is most often found in schools, but also in workplaces. Those who are not members of a minority often feel they are denied positions in schools and workplaces because they are not of this minority percentage. It is an attempt to legislate fair representation in a work place, and has been argued to be a form of “reverse” discrimination against whites. It is most certainly not present in the US Congress. I’ve seen stats like this before, and I agree, it’s pretty damned pathetic. (And you didn’t even include the percentage of female representatives as compared to those in other countries (which makes the US look kinda sad, as well)).

  8. @leaflesstree – If a significant number of citizens are black, it should thus follow that a significant number of elected representatives are black as well. If half the population is female, Only to a bigoted race bater it would.Since we are all Americans, color, creed, ethnicity and economic status are irrelevant.  Competent representation has nothing to do with any of that.The racist Left has us all divided up into our own little skin color, ethnic and sex groups so it can foment discontent.  And what better excuse to grow big government tyranny than if we are all in competition with each other based on percentages.That’s what affirmative action is all about.

  9. agnophilo says:

    @schallerbrandon – Come again?@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – The only affirmative action mentioned in this blog was for rich white people, which apparently you don’t have a problem with.@Justin_DeBin – I don’t think so.  But yeah, consider yourself CC’d.@leaflesstree – Yeah I should’ve included the male/female stats.  They were actually on one of the pages I got some of these stats from but I am very lazy, lol.And I would recommend avoiding loborn, she will just say your ideas are “hallucinations” brought on by you not being like her (liberal, secular, whatever).@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace – I love how bigots and racists accuse anyone of bigotry and racism who points out or speaks against bigotry and racism.

  10. agnophilo says:

    @YouTOme – That is a very reasonable, measured and intelligent response to her post.  Cue fuck-nut crazy response in 3… 2… 1…@YouTOme – Well yeah but clearly I’m a hallucinating bigot.

  11. BobRichter says:

    The purpose of the US Congress is not to represent people in identity but rather to represent their interests in legislation. Consequently, it does not follow that Congress should be as poor on the average as the US or as black or as female…or as Protestant?An ideal Congress would not be 13% Black and 51% Female and 97.8% non-Jewish and 99% non-millionaire. Rather, an ideal Congress would be 100% competent and 100% honest, which would naturally skew or eliminate some identity groups (specifically those identified by a lack of competence or integrity.)Needless to say, our Congress is far from ideal, and that is the reason it remains the most universally detested branch of our government.Now, if we had an ideal Congress, then we could start talking about its composition and what that meant in terms of social justice.

  12. agnophilo says:

    @BobRichter – Wait, so which demographics that you mentioned are “identified by a lack of competence or integrity”?  Blacks, women, jews or non-millionaires?And the point is that if a near majority are millionaires US economic policy will overwhelmingly favor millionaires.  If minorities are super-minorities then their interests will also be non-priorities.

  13. FalconBridge says:

    Your millionares link goes to an article that was written in 2003.  Do you have anything more current?  Those facts have probably changed by now.

  14. agnophilo says:

    @FalconBridge – In my blog I said “as of 2003”.  And no, don’t have more recent stats, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it went down (because of the economy) and wouldn’t be surprised if it went up because, well, I wouldn’t be surprised.

  15. BobRichter says:

    @agnophilo – there are identity groups other than blacks, women, non-millionaires, and non-jews. Any group of people who share any given characteristic (even a made-up one, like race) are an identity group. Example identity group that excludes virtually all competent, honest persons: politicians (100% of members of Congress are politicians, far more than the national average.) Other fine example groups would be the young, the senile, the deranged, and sociopaths. I don’t think “the point” can stand. Identity does not compel behavior. There is no reason to suppose that a member of Congress who is a millionaire is incompetent to represent his constituents and while there is some suspicion cast on his integrity by his wealth, a millionaire might as easily be a paragon of virtue as a person of any other class.

  16. agnophilo says:

    @BobRichter – So if everyone in congress was white and had 20 million in the bank you’d be fine with that?

  17. BobRichter says:

    @agnophilo – For what reason shouldn’t I be?Seriously, is there something wrong with “white” people or rich people that should cause me to discriminate against them categorically? Are they incapable of being honest or competent? Let me be clear. I would be fine if every member of the US Congress was:-white-black-male-female-jewish-atheist-rich-poorThese are questions of identity that have no bearing on the performance of a representative. If our society were a little more socially just, we probably shouldn’t expect numbers like these but there’s nothing inherently wrong with them. They’re at most a symptom and not in themselves the problem.

  18. leaflesstree says:

    @agnophilo – yeah, i kind of got that impression from the comment. I don’t know what made me decide to reply. I usually just ignore things like that. 

  19. agnophilo says:

    @BobRichter – So an electorate very disproportionately not voting for minorities doesn’t imply or promote any social inequity of any sort?  You’re fine with there being not one elected black man in the senate, you think that that doesn’t imply any sort of underlying social problem?If we were a colorblind society the people in congress from different demographics would roughly correspond to the general population.  You suggested that this isn’t so because some race, gender or income groups have less integrity.  I asked you to be more specific and you backpedaled.  Now you’re defending the overwhelmingly rich white congress and saying that apparently all race, gender and income groups are equally awesome, a complete reversal of your earlier comment.@leaflesstree – Arguing with crazy people is something I do more often than I should too, lol.

  20. BobRichter says:

    @agnophilo – “You suggested that this isn’t so because some race, gender or income groups have less integrity.”That was your misinterpretation, and I did not backpedal, I clarified.Likewise you’ll note that I specifically stated that this kind of composition would suggest some underlying phenomenon.Really, I’m not certain why you’re trying to argue with me. The extent of my participation here has been to argue against the concept of identity politics.One final point is that wealth, specifically, is not an independent variable. Members of Congress collect a sizable salary, and require considerable economic influence even to contemplate being elected. Ultimately, Congresscritter is a job and pointing out that Congresscritters are more likely to be millionaires than the population generally is somewhat like pointing out that investment bankers are.

  21. agnophilo says:

    @BobRichter – You said what you said.And the last problem stated could be solved by campaign finance reform.

  22. BobRichter says:

    @agnophilo – I did say what I said, but I did not write what you read.I said that a perfect Congress (which, recall, we do not have) would exclude identity — not minority — groups defined by a failure in competence or integrity. Clearly no identity group defined by race or sex or wealth (or, for that matter, any other factor aside of the two mentioned) could possibly be such a group, so your interpretation of what I said is not only in error, it’s not even logically valid.I also said that a requirement of competence or integrity would skew membership of other identity groups. In my view, after all, a Tea Partier simply cannot be both competent and honest. Other identity groups are unfairly deprived of competence. Education being what it is for the poor, disadvantaged minority groups and economic classes are less likely to be competent than are the privilaged. They’re also more likely to be criminal, which may tend to impeach their integrity. Until this situation is rectified, an ideal Congress would probably include fewer members of disadvantaged identity groups. The disadvantaged are struck at by one other factor. Economic success is in some part a measure and to some degree a predictor of administrative competence, so a wealthy person is somewhat more likely to be competent than an impoverished person.Campaign finance reform would probably reign in the prominence of wealth in the Congress but could not wholly eliminate either the advantages a Congressional position provides toward obtaining wealth or the advantages that wealth provides in obtaining a Congressional position.So would I like to see a world where an ideal Congress would have strong odds of being a representative one? Yes. Do I see an unrepresentative Congress as a problem in itself? No.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s