Previous poll Next poll

Who do you think can better address the needs of the common man, a member of Congress with a $1 million or more net worth or one with a negative net worth?

Response Percent Votes
One with a negative net worth
77% 361
One with a $1 million or more net worth
22% 105
Total 466


BABBOY 5 years, 1 month ago

Interesting question.

Might want to tweek by adding or changing to say

Congressman with million dollars of family net worth (inherrited money) or:

Congressman with million dollars of self made million dollars from hard work....

Jayhawker07 5 years, 1 month ago

Are you serious! Please. Why not include the senate and the drivers seat in the whitehouse. Whatever. I will keep my milllion dollar opinion to myself. Unfortunately, to many folks like you are so misguided. LaDeDaDeDa. Keep drawing your unemployment. Try being american and get a job! Or maybe you are one of the entitled ones.

mae 5 years, 1 month ago


um the senate is a part of congress.

RoeDapple 5 years, 1 month ago

Either one will try to bleed the other to their advantage.

verity 5 years, 1 month ago

I didn't vote because I don't think this is a black and white issue. It depends on the person, not the amount of money they're worth. As much as I don't care for some of Bill Gates business practices, he does seem to have empathy with those who are less well off. (I'm talking less well off on average, not less well off than him as that's pretty much everybody in the world.) Of course, he's not a politician, but I think the same thing holds for anybody.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

Why don't we have a choice in between those?

Somebody who is doing ok financially, but not filthy rich.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

That's the point they're trying to get at.

Politicians seem increasingly removed from the day to day life of many of their constituents, and out of touch with that reality, due to their wealth.

I think they should have kids in public schools, and take public transportation, etc.

Katara 5 years, 1 month ago

I don't think necessarily wealth is the reason for being out of touch. Many surround themselves with only people who think and believe just like them when reality has a huge variety of thoughts and beliefs. You don't have to be wealthy to do that.

mom_of_three 5 years, 1 month ago

Who can address the needs of a common man?
One with a $1 million or more net worth One with a negative net worth

How 'bout "one with freaking common sense?'

LHS56 5 years, 1 month ago

Will agree with mom_of_three. Just not a good question. Makes one wonder if the poll writer has common sense..g

RogueThrill 5 years, 1 month ago

Also anyone who isn't voting for SOPA or PIPA. That'd be a good start.

Paul R Getto 5 years, 1 month ago

Stupid question, this is. Up to a point, I suppose those in office tend to be money grubbers. If they have enough (Kennedy family; Bill Gates, for example) they tend to be more eleemosynary in their habits. Hard to say, actually, particularly when it takes millions, if not tens of millions to win any national office. Money is good and greed is better, eh? I think that's a platform plank for both major parties.

verity 5 years, 1 month ago


I learned a new word today!

Paul R Getto 5 years, 1 month ago

And a good one it is. Learned that from Senator Sam back in the Watergate days. The Nixon minions were trying to suggest they were taking charitable contributions (aka bribes) and the Senator said something like: "I was unaware the Republican National Committee was an eleemosynary institution."

acg 5 years, 1 month ago

That's a hard question. On one hand, the poor person knows what it's like to be poor. Yet, he never made much of himself, so who's to say he wouldn't run the country right into the ground? The rich person may know business, but who's to say he is in touch with what it's like to have to put stuff back at the grocery store? I think we need a few other options, too. I like c: someone who's made their own money from nothing. There you may have the best of both worlds.

Dunadan 5 years, 1 month ago

Where's the third choice on this question? Between a million and nothing lies a great portion of the population.

50YearResident 5 years, 1 month ago

Well a person with a negative net worth would never become a Congressman because he couldn't afford to run. If this person was old enough to run for congress and still had a negative net worth, his ability to make common decisions would certainly be impared. Therfore I would not vote for this person. On the other hand the canidate with the $1 million net worth probably took some payments* at some time in his pre-election. So it's not cut and dried, is it?

dirtball *kickbacks

Maddy Griffin 5 years, 1 month ago

Having a net worth of over $1 million makes one kind of out of touch with the "common man".

beatrice 5 years, 1 month ago

Someone could have a net worth of $1 million, and not necessarily be filthy rich. If they live in a major metropolitan area, a modest home could be worth $1 million all on its own. Think of someone living in New York City or San Diego. Add to that the net worth of retirement investments and any savings, which don't go to everyday living but for future planning, and one's net worth can be that high without it seeming extraordinary at all.

I also don't think someone nearing bancruptcy is someone we should be following either.

As others say, this isn't a resonable question.

budman 5 years, 1 month ago

If you told someone you own a $1,000,000 house, most people would consider you filthy rich.

Paul R Getto 5 years, 1 month ago

As noted below, unless you own it free and clear, the bank owns it and just lets you stay there. It's not much of an asset until it's paid for.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

In order to get net worth, you have to subtract debt from assets, so a $1 million house doesn't translate to $1 million of net worth unless you have no mortgage.

In order to have a $1 million net worth, your assets-debt must equal $1 million - I'd say that anybody in that situation is quite rich, wouldn't you?

JHOK32 5 years, 1 month ago

I had no idea we had so many multi-millionaires in congress............this is truly scary. how did all of these congress persons get to be so wealthy when most of them have spent the majority of their lives being career politicians? Smells like lobbyists to me........someone needs to be following the money........

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago


There are some funny rules, so that what would normally be considered "insider trading" doesn't apply to Congress, and they can use the vast amount of information they have to profit on it financially.

beatrice 5 years, 1 month ago

Exactly who is this "common man" anyway? Is it the electrician with a high school education and a season pass to the opera making $90k a year, or the librarian with a double masters in English and library science making $38k a year? Is it the father of 8 living on welfare or the single woman putting herself through law school? Is it the clerk at Planned Parenthood, or the protestor picketing out on the corner? Is it a Tea Party member, or someone occupying a street for a cause? "Common" is not an accurate thing to call anyone. Few would actually meet the description.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 1 month ago

I know someone with a net worth of negative $750,000. He should never be trusted with a dime! In fact, last time I was a guest in his home, he went through my suitcases while I was out of the house and helped himself to everything he wanted. I didn't discover that some of my things were gone until I got back home.

And I personally know at least three persons with a net worth of over a million that you could trust with your life savings. There might be more, I'm not sure, because for many people that is a very gauche subject to discuss.

Money is such an ephemeral thing that it should never be used as a judge of character or common sense, because it has nothing to do with either.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.