What is the percentage of wealthy politicians of the US?
602797
100% they all are wealthy...most of them got that way off the tax payers dollar
343589
I just asked everyone (all 6 billion of them) and the answer is 37.83%.  38% like him, 13% are neutral, and 11% don't care.  I'm in the last group.
707479
The five wealthiest congressional districts in the U.S. are:\n\n1) Virginia's 11th district -- voted 50% for Bush, 49% for Kerry, and elects a moderate Republican to the House.\n\n2) New Jersey's 11th district -- voted 57% for Bush, 42% for Kerry, and elects a moderate Republican to the House.\n\n3) California's 14th district -- voted 68% for Kerry, 30% for Bush, and elects a liberal Democrat to the House.\n\n4) Georgia's 6th district -- voted 70% for Bush, 29% for Kerry, and elects a conservative Republican to the House.\n\n5) California's 15th district -- voted 63% for Kerry, 36% for Bush, and elects a liberal Democrat to the House.\n\nMy conclusion: it varies. There's more than money at stake.
800067
even after those "tax cuts for the rich", the people classified as rich pay a much larger percentage of their earnings than the "unfortunates"(poor) and middle class.\n\nI posted something on this a while ago, i  believe the rich pay around 33 percent earnings where the middle class pay average of 22-27 percent,and the "less fortunates" pay 5-10 percent.  (these numbers are off memory, but I'm sure they are close)\n\nThat is AFTER those tax cuts.
711972
Republicans think that rich people don't have enough money, and poor people have too much money.\n\nDemocrats think the opposite.
440219
Sure, America is rich, but the money is not distributed evenly. There is a small number of Americans that possesses a large percentage of the money that the nation currently has...
99587
Actually Salaries for the higher ups in the government are as follows:\nPresident      400,000\nVice President208,100\nSenator      162,100\nRepresentative162,100\nMajority and Minority Leaders      180,100\nSpeaker of the House            208,100\nChief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court208,100\nAssoc. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court199,200\n\n\nGenerally most of these people make more money from other investments than from their actually salary.\n\nFission
1096854
1996 to 1999, the US Goverment led by President Bill Clinton generate the first Surplus's in 30 years.  President Clinton even began paying down the National Debt.  2001 - 2006, President Bush and the Republican lead Congress double the National Debt from 4 TRILLION to OVER 8 TRILLION DOLLARS with no decrease in sight.  Their solution?  Cut more taxes for the Ultra rich, get rid of estate taxes for the ultra rich.  They cloak their agenda by calling Estate Taxes - death taxes; however, only about 5% of Americans will ever have to pay any Estate Tax.  Thomas Jefferson was a strong proponent of having wealth being disappated at the time of one's death so that we do not have wealth staying in the same family from generation to generation by indicating that the dispersal of wealth is a strong contributor to a strong democracy.  Therefore, whenever, you hear the Republican mantra of 'it's your money'; think more about how the meager tax cuts on most of us benefit those with the most and sacrificing benefits for the rest of us.  Vote for the Party of WE (Democrats) and not the self centered selfishness of the Party of ME (REpublicans).
775400
There are very few differences between the Dems and Reps, just a couple of policy issues. But basically they are the small percentage of the rich and powerful who will do anything to keep it that way. They are working together more then the public likes the believe and they want it that way, it keeps us divided rather then seeing the truth; that they are one party working for one goal.
240954
Yes.  The IRS has documented that the top 50% of earners pay 96% of all the income taxes.  The top 1% pay more than a third!  So the argument to tax more of the wealthy people really isn't practical.  And when tax cuts are given, the wealthy are more likely to reinvest it and create jobs -- shouldn't they get back a proportional amount if they pay the most?  And because the bottom 50% pay so little comparatively, a tax cut to that tax bracket doesn't do much good.  But I'd take it if given!\n\nBottom line:  The suggestion to tax the wealthy even MORE than they're taxed now is only political rhetoric.  It gets the vote of the poor and lower middle class.
142367
diamond dave is wrong. studies do show a tendency of college educatoin level-or higher-to vote liberally; however, there are other studies that show the more wealthy an individual becomes, the higher the tendency is to vote republican. The republican party seems to help out the elites while running on moral platforms supported by uneducated bible belters who think-for some reason liberals can't figure out-that those issues are important matters for congress to discuss: these people usually vote against their self-interests. Diamond D was right about the part on asking the government for assistance, though. Democrats are more likely to ask for some kid of aid.
240352
most of america (80% lol) and the 5% of all other countrys :P
627363
I don't think anyone can grasp all of it. We are inandated with right wing conspiracies that want to take power and wealth from the American people.\n\nTake the oil companies for example, they own our politicians. They are the wealthiest lobby. If you were a politician, who would you listen to? The man that just paid for your children's education, or someone with just one vote?
1132796
If you look at the people running this country, they are part of the 3% of the wealthiest people. You never hear about someone who was making an average salary running for office, that's because it cost so much to run for political office. There you go.
1136788
We have a ratio of 15% Politicians with a scientific background in Germany, I think that's a pretty good ratio if you compare it with how many people and how many scientists we have. And if you look at all the people behind the politicians, that really know what's going on and inform their politicians it's even more :-) \nThe sad thing though is that lawyers outnumber scientists by far (more than 30%)\n\nThat's why I wouldn't choose politics over a real scientists job  :-)
999431
Well, it depends on how you define "wealthy"\n\nThere are several factors: Total GDP, Total GNP, GDP per capita, etc. that determine how "wealthy" a nation is...\n\nFor example, the United States of America might have the biggest GDP in the world, but a small country like Luxembourg might have the highest GDP per capita in the world.\n\nBut - recently - the United Nations ranked Norway is the world's richest nation.\n\nPersonally, taking an average of all the factors that make a country rich, I would say the USA is the richest country in the world.\n\n-Anand-
992634
60 of them are not millionaires according to their official financial statements. There are only 40 millionaires 22 Republicans and 18 Democrats.