The economy is fine: Pelosi made over $20 million last year

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/166599-pelosis-net-worth-rises-62-percent-

Pelosi's wealth grows by 62 percent
By Kevin Bogardus - 06/15/11 12:46 PM ET
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saw her net worth rise 62 percent last year, cementing her status as one of the wealthiest members of Congress.

Pelosi was worth at least $35.2 million in the 2010 calendar year, according to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday. She reported a minimum of $43.4 million in assets and about $8.2 milion in liabilities.

For 2009, Pelosi reported a minimum net worth of $21.7 million.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) also remained a multimillionaire. He reported that his minimum net worth in 2010 was close to $2.1 million, with zero liabilities. His 2009 minimum net worth was more than $1.8 million.




FYI: this is a headline on the Drudge Report, so that explains the user comments at the bottom.

Goes to show you though, Pelosi is willing to raise her own taxes and she has a lot more than he does.

Her 'income' is from Congress. Anything else is capital gains from other sources. Capital gains are taxed at a flat 15% and no one has proposed raising them. Only the income tax.

is always Present.

We have a serious bi-partisan conflict of interest situation "on the hill".
New Rule: No one who has a net worth in excess of $250,000.00 is eligible to serve in any elected office.:)

If you had money in the market, you saw large gains.

I should mention that anyone with a 401k saw similar gains.

"new math" :shrug:

I'd bet she was.

You are assuming NO new investment at the lower price.

Let's try this ... in March of 2009 the DOW was at about 6500. Recently, it was as high as 12k or more. That's almost DOUBLE for any money that you had in the market at 6500. But if you continued to invest at 6500, and 7000, and 7500, and 8000, and 8500, and 9000, and 9500, and 10000, and 10,500 and 11,000, and 11,500 .... you INCREASED your gain past the simple difference from 6500 to 12k.

Same is true in the run from 9800 to 12,000.

Your individual gain is not simply the difference in the 2 end points, it also includes the added gains that occur in between.

The DOW will give you the general direction of the market, but small and medium cap stocks generally move farther and faster in that direction.

"Let's try this ... in March of 2009 the DOW was at about 6500."

The OP refers to Pelosi's earnings in 2010. March of 2009 took place in 2009.

"Same is true in the run from 9800 to 12,000...Your individual gain is not simply the difference in the 2 end points, it also includes the added gains that occur in between."

Right. Which is why we track how much a person gains over a year. Pelosi's net worth increased 62% in 2010, if the story is to believed. Barring the miracle of fish and loaves, that money had to come from SOMEWHERE.

During ANY dip in the markets, a person who invests within the dip makes MORE than just the difference in the two end points after an increase.

It does not matter that the change from 9800 to 12,000 does not equal 62%. The only way that it would matter is if Nancy bought NOTHING new in between those two points. If she makes no new investments, her gain would be the same as the percent change between the two end points.

But it is unlikely that she did not add new investment in that period.

And that means, any investment she made between those 2 points increased her networth in 2 ways additional ways.

1) Nancy gets paid as part of being a Congress member. That money immediately adds some to her net-worth.

2) And then, when she takes any of that money (or any other income she's making) and invests it in the DOW (or even the S&P , I'll come back to that), the invested money was used to purchase stocks well below 12,000. And, so those investments ADDED to her networth as well.

The result of 1 and 2 is that her increase is greater than the difference between 9800 and 12k.

I should mention that if Nancy was paying attention, she took some additional gains when the market broke 12.5k recently. That was too high.

You mention the S&P. I used the DOW and its increase as a simple example but I could have just as easily used the S&P. The S&P and the DOW track very closely and are highly correlated.

Don't take my word for it ... go here.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI#symbol=^dji;range=1y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=;

When you get there, click the word "COMPARE" which appears right about the chart, next to the field in which you can enter stock symbols. A box will pop up, and the last item in it is the S&P 500. Select then select "Draw".

What you will see are the lines for both the DOW and the S&P 500. They overlap almost perfectly.

On most days, you can take the change in the DOW, divide by ~8, and you'll get a good estimate of the change in the S&P. The relationship is not 100%, but its very high.

...how much each and every investor made from investments during that period of time. Because, you know, it REALLY works that way, everybody that invested got the same proportional return!

:rofl:

That's how this whole "discussion forum" thing works! :hi:

...the Kochs cleared $100,000,000 every week last year.

Hedge fund manager Paulson made $2,400,000 every hour last year.

By comparison, Nancy's a pauper.

:)

but thank god we had nixon and reagan as president as they came from nothing and are one of us.

really stupid.

:rofl:

nt

He's borderline.

nature and not any kind of opinion. How could you construe that to be an attack?

It makes it look like you look down on people who make money and assume that the mere fact that the poster correctly identified that Nancy Pelosi had a good year financially makes it an attack.

Looks very sarcastic to me, especially since the post noted it came from DRUDGE.

to explain the reason for the vicious attacks in the comments section. I was emailed this link from a friend. Maybe they got it from drudge, maybe they didnt, I dont think that really matters.

Is there something wrong with that?

that is why they don't give a sh*t about how the laws and economy affects the lower class so long as their investments and inside tradings are raking in the money. And they don't care if some companies are bilking the government and average citizens because ultimately the money flows to them> In addition, the direct bribery they get from the campaign contributions or lobbying sweetheart jobs/consultancy cement their fortunes and those of their family members for life that they have nothing to worry about except to maintain the facade that they do care for the country when they only care for themselves.

really?

hers.

But that kind of information isn't interesting to you, is it? It's only interesting to you if it's information that can be spun to cast a bad light on a Democrat.

I've been voting the Democratic ticket for 50 years now. Doesn't mean I have to pander to them just because
they are rich. But thanks for your psychological assessment of me.

Yeah, I am sure you are a loyal blue dog Democrat saying stuff like that.

:eyes:

But they shouldn't be in Congress when they do it. From the get go, it looks like a conflict of interest. If they want to invest in the market or make a mint in the private sector, then let them return to the private sector. Just my opinion.

Making that much money at her age and still fighting for "US" when she could be travelling Europe?

Off with 'er 'ead!!

I'm sorry, but as much as I love listening to assholes bitch about socialism all day, I would've quit on y'all by now. In fact, I'd be skipping out of my office with a whistle and a smile. Don't worry. I'll be making a healthy donation to DU before I go.





Love ya, Nancy!! We need you back in that seat!!

:hi:

I'm sorry I can't cite it, but the study showed that members of Congress consistently saw notably higher performance from their stock market investments than was the norm. Is that really surprising?

I thought that was the one I was thinking of, but I don't think it is now. Interesting read so far though.

And everyone that has one nickel more than I do is evil.

Matters not that they may have worked like dogs their entire lives to accumulate that wealth, having money makes one evil.

Matters not that they have devoted huge sums of money to further progressive causes, that money was probably stolen from the poor to begin with.

You just know every wealthy politician is a crook, you know, like every Kennedy that ever held office.



I learned that on the DU.

...why aren't they all making that much? It could be possible that her position gave her an opportunity to make a "bit" more (easier to sell a book when people know who you are), but I doubt that it's the only reason. At some point in our lives, we should be mature enough to accept the fact that some people made better choices than ourselves and have profited from those decisions. I read somewhere in this thread that her husband is wealthy. Good investments with good income make good profit. Should we hate her for being smart or embrace her for the hard work she's done for us, and continues to do for us even though it's obvious she could retire comfortably and play with her grandkids?

There are a lot of people in this world that make a whole helluva lot more than I do that I look up to for their strength and character. Ms. Pelosi is one of them. There are also people that make much less than I do that I look up to for their strength and character. You wouldn't know them.

Silver is up 91% in the last year.

some Democrats are rich. Too bad Alan Grayson isn't still a member of Congress. He could have taken this headline. Last report had his net worth at more than Pelosi's current.

DeMint is one of the least wealthy Senators.

What does how much someone is worth have to do with anything?

Pelosi is one of the strongest progressives in Congress.

What kind of garbage can we make up to attack Democrats.

I guess that means when he posts here (or Dkos, etc) we should all immediately "unrec", huh? No way should we be judging candidates on their character, policies or abilities. It's all about their bank accounts. I wonder how much Keith Olbermann is worth? Maybe we should boycott his new show. I, for one, am proud of our many of our wealthy Dems. When you see the greed from the other side and how they fight for their own best interests and tell us poor people to fuck off, it's humbling to see folks like Pelosi, Grayson, Olbermann, the Kennedys, etc. fight against their interests and for ours.

Government as a whole is broken and corrupt.