If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) says that members of Congress "earn" their $174,000 yearly salary. And everyone thought Al Franken was the only comedian elected to Congress   (cnsnews.com) divider line 166
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

1149 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Nov 2012 at 12:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-28 06:04:41 AM
It's easy to convince yourself that you deserve the money you make, while others may think you deserve much less. Through a combination of narcissism and lobbyists and staff telling you how important and powerful you are now, I'm sure this Congressman honestly believes everything he said about deserving his pay.

Did I just imply a Congressman had an honest thought? Yep, and it may have been the only one he's ever had.
 
2012-11-28 08:37:52 AM
I say we tie congressional salaries to the median per capita income. I feel like that would improve their focus on "raising all boats" as it were.
 
2012-11-28 08:38:35 AM
FTA: "It's not elaborate, it's just a bunch of poppycock that a lot of people have spread around trying to get us to hate our own government and our government representatives."

I have to agree with that part of the statement, and love the irony that it's being quoted in an article that is desperately trying to continue perpetuating hate of the government and it's representatives.

Also, I don't have any personal knowledge of Rep. Johnson, but he is a democrat. At least he doesn't belong to the party that sees complete obstruction as worth 174k a year.
 
2012-11-28 08:55:33 AM
They show up for a couple weeks a year, take bribes from lobbyists, argue like petulant children and read speeches other people wrote for them long enough to filibuster and subvert the system. They earn precisely dick.
 
2012-11-28 09:19:37 AM
Hey now...it may not seem like it, but it is a LOT of work to go to all those fundraisers, shake all those hands, and convince Bubba Q. Lobbyist that I can not only stomach his disgusting views, but also go hunting with him, promote him before the nation, and flirt with his ugly whale of a wife. And that's not even mentioning the endless round of press atta-- I mean, 'interviews', having to be on the campaign trail every other year, and having to actually be seen with minorities every few weeks. It's disgusting, I tell you. It wears a man down, right to the bloody nub of his soul. Of course we need that money. It's all that stands between us and the whispering ghosts of our hypocrisy every night when the Jonnie Walker Blue has worn off and we still can't sleep...
 
2012-11-28 09:46:17 AM
You know what else Hank Johnson believes? He believes that you can tip over an island!
 
2012-11-28 09:55:46 AM
If republicans can wax poetic about the days when the second amendment was about the common man's ability to defend themselves against their own government, we can wax poetic about the days when being in congress meant leaving the farm for a short while, serving your country and going back to the farking farm, not making a million dollar lifetime career out of it. And feeling entitled about it.
 
2012-11-28 09:59:40 AM
Sure they earn it. Spending all that time raising money for your next election is hard work.
 
2012-11-28 10:22:28 AM

whistleridge: Hey now...it may not seem like it, but it is a LOT of work to go to all those fundraisers, shake all those hands, and convince Bubba Q. Lobbyist that I can not only stomach his disgusting views, but also go hunting with him, promote him before the nation, and flirt with his ugly whale of a wife.


I've invented a hand-shaking money funnel that can do 95% of the job of the typical member of congress. 

/Unfortunately, by the time it can run for office, a multi-armed handshaker with an even bigger funnel will be on the market. Curse you, age limits!
 
2012-11-28 10:23:30 AM
Okay, I know that this is the thread where we all talk about how obscene it is that congress critters make so much money but, honestly, $174K is a nice salary, but it seems pretty much in line with a standard executive salary range and no where near the stupid levels of compensation that top-level Fortune 500 execs tend to pull in.

Am I being insufficiently outraged, or are we only going to be happy when congressmen agree to work for alms?
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2012-11-28 10:33:16 AM

Sybarite: I say we tie congressional salaries to the median per capita income. I feel like that would improve their focus on "raising all boats" as it were.


Not only that, but do away with the congressional medical and retirement plans. You will see some real medicare, and social security reform in a hurry if they were on the same plans as us.
 
2012-11-28 10:38:07 AM
That salary sounds fair to me. We want to make the job somewhat attractive compared to managers in the private sector. Complaining about $174K for a few hundred congresscritters is a calculated distraction from the real income problems in America:

www.tc.umn.edu
 
2012-11-28 10:41:37 AM

SphericalTime: FTA: "It's not elaborate, it's just a bunch of poppycock that a lot of people have spread around trying to get us to hate our own government and our government representatives."

I have to agree with that part of the statement, and love the irony that it's being quoted in an article that is desperately trying to continue perpetuating hate of the government and it's representatives.

Also, I don't have any personal knowledge of Rep. Johnson, but he is a democrat. At least he doesn't belong to the party that sees complete obstruction as worth 174k a year.


My "representative" is famous for, and proud of the fact, that all he does is vote no. He's always been a politician, and has moved the length of the state to stay a politician rather than find honest work

/And the teabaggers my county is full of love him
 
2012-11-28 10:57:19 AM

Lumpmoose: That salary sounds fair to me. We want to make the job somewhat attractive compared to managers in the private sector. Complaining about $174K for a few hundred congresscritters is a calculated distraction from the real income problems in America:

[www.tc.umn.edu image 640x398]


Never understood that graph. Just because you are more productive does not mean you get paid more! The company buys a new computer. You are now 5% more productive, should you get paid more? Company buys a better forklift, you're now more productive. I dont think you should get a pay raise for that. Now if the company trains you I think you should get a pay raise, however you should work off the cost of the training. Turning right around and demanding a merit based raised right after your training would be a dick move. Most companies have things in place to prevent that.
 
2012-11-28 11:12:17 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: My "representative" is famous for, and proud of the fact, that all he does is vote no. He's always been a politician, and has moved the length of the state to stay a politician rather than find honest work


Your rep is RON PAUL?
 
2012-11-28 11:16:16 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lumpmoose: That salary sounds fair to me. We want to make the job somewhat attractive compared to managers in the private sector. Complaining about $174K for a few hundred congresscritters is a calculated distraction from the real income problems in America:

[www.tc.umn.edu image 640x398]

Never understood that graph. Just because you are more productive does not mean you get paid more! The company buys a new computer. You are now 5% more productive, should you get paid more? Company buys a better forklift, you're now more productive. I dont think you should get a pay raise for that. Now if the company trains you I think you should get a pay raise, however you should work off the cost of the training. Turning right around and demanding a merit based raised right after your training would be a dick move. Most companies have things in place to prevent that.


Congratulations, the wealthy in this country agree:

www.tc.umn.edu
This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from 1947 to 2010 in 2010 dollars. The 2 columns of numbers in the right margin are the cumulative growth 1970-2010 and the annual growth rate over that period. The vertical scale is logarithmic, which makes constant percentage growth appear as a straight line. From 1947 to 1970, all percentiles grew at essentially the same rate; the light, straight lines for the different percentiles for those years all have the same slope. Since then, there has been substantial divergence, with different percentiles of the income distribution growing at different rates. For the median American family, this gap is $39,000 per year (just over $100 per day): If the economic growth during this period had been broadly shared as it was from 1947 to 1970, the median household income would have been $39,000 per year higher than it was in 2010. This plot was created by combining data from the US Census Bureau and the US Internal Revenue Service. There are systematic differences between these two sources, but the differences are small relative to the scale of this plot.
 
2012-11-28 11:16:38 AM
I've laughed at Al Franken more since he entered the political arena than I ever did during his SNL stint.
 
2012-11-28 11:19:33 AM

Richard Saunders: I've laughed at Al Franken more since he entered the political arena than I ever did during his SNL stint.


The fact that the very first bill he proposed made the GOP line up to defend the right to rape says a lot about how much fun he was going to be.
 
2012-11-28 11:23:52 AM

GAT_00: MaudlinMutantMollusk: My "representative" is famous for, and proud of the fact, that all he does is vote no. He's always been a politician, and has moved the length of the state to stay a politician rather than find honest work

Your rep is RON PAUL?


Heh... no, he's even more useless

/at least RON PAUL is good for a laugh
 
2012-11-28 12:07:21 PM
If you don't offer a salary of at least that much, then the only people who will run will be super rich. There is no getting around that. Also, it's hardly exorbinant and most of them have to keep a residence in D.C. and one in their home state and pay for a fair amount of their own trips and they also have families.
 
2012-11-28 12:10:51 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-28 12:11:51 PM

SnakeLee: If you don't offer a salary of at least that much, then the only people who will run will be super rich. There is no getting around that. Also, it's hardly exorbinant and most of them have to keep a residence in D.C. and one in their home state and pay for a fair amount of their own trips and they also have families.


If anything, congressional pay should be raised for exactly this reason. Then their tie wage increases to median income gains. Holding public office shouldn't be the sole province of the super rich and should also pay well enough to attract bright and capable workers.
 
2012-11-28 12:12:07 PM
$174,000 a year? That's barely middle class.
 
2012-11-28 12:12:20 PM
Congresspeople should earn whatever the median US salary is. If it's good enough for half the country, it's good enough for Congress.
 
2012-11-28 12:14:38 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Just because you are more productive does not mean you get paid more!


This is why more companies should be employee-owned.
 
2012-11-28 12:15:52 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Okay, I know that this is the thread where we all talk about how obscene it is that congress critters make so much money but, honestly, $174K is a nice salary, but it seems pretty much in line with a standard executive salary range and no where near the stupid levels of compensation that top-level Fortune 500 execs tend to pull in.

Am I being insufficiently outraged, or are we only going to be happy when congressmen agree to work for alms?


I don't think it stems from any sort of fiscal responsibility, just a general feeling that they overpay themselves for what they actually do.

If Members of Congress worked full days and actual five-day work weeks, didn't take months-long recesses, weren't almost universally independently wealthy, and couldn't give themselves pay raises, there'd be much less outrage. As it stands, we see executive-level salary being paid to people who do maybe a third of the actual work of an executive.
 
2012-11-28 12:18:42 PM
Please, they make their REAL money through congressional insider trading. The $174k is just a pittance.
 
2012-11-28 12:18:44 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: SnakeLee: If you don't offer a salary of at least that much, then the only people who will run will be super rich. There is no getting around that. Also, it's hardly exorbinant and most of them have to keep a residence in D.C. and one in their home state and pay for a fair amount of their own trips and they also have families.

If anything, congressional pay should be raised for exactly this reason. Then their tie wage increases to median income gains. Holding public office shouldn't be the sole province of the super rich and should also pay well enough to attract bright and capable workers.


This is such a bunch of BS. Tom Smith (billionaire) just ran for congress here in PA. They don't do it for the paycheck, they do it so they can drive legislation that will benefit them outside of politics (in his case he owns coal mines and was ready to attack the environmental and OSHA regs)
 
2012-11-28 12:19:14 PM
Put me down for paying them more, but imposing term limits.
 
2012-11-28 12:19:21 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: SnakeLee: If you don't offer a salary of at least that much, then the only people who will run will be super rich. There is no getting around that. Also, it's hardly exorbinant and most of them have to keep a residence in D.C. and one in their home state and pay for a fair amount of their own trips and they also have families.

If anything, congressional pay should be raised for exactly this reason. Then their tie wage increases to median income gains. Holding public office shouldn't be the sole province of the super rich and should also pay well enough to attract bright and capable workers.



That's fundamentally wrong. After receiving a PhD, your post-doctoral work will get you $40,000 a year. As a post-doc you are ~28 years old and that's when if you ever will, you will have a family. If you are successful, around ~34 years old you get a position as a professor making around $70,000 a year. That's less than half of what a Congress person makes and requires a hell of a lot more training and sacrifice. So that explains why there are zero science professors in the US, right?

Not everyone chooses a career based on salary. Wouldn't it be nice to hire Congresspeople who wanted in to make a difference in the country, rather than a nice $174,000 salary and two homes? You're right, having two residences is expensive. What a shock, perhaps they should rent.
 
2012-11-28 12:19:27 PM

Devolving_Spud: [upload.wikimedia.org image 776x600]


Kind of meaningless if you don't include constant dollars or compare it to average wages somehow.
 
2012-11-28 12:20:32 PM

Devolving_Spud: [upload.wikimedia.org image 776x600]


oooooookay.....

Can we have that adjusted for inflation?
 
2012-11-28 12:21:00 PM

qorkfiend: I don't think it stems from any sort of fiscal responsibility, just a general feeling that they overpay themselves for what they actually do.

If Members of Congress worked full days and actual five-day work weeks, didn't take months-long recesses, weren't almost universally independently wealthy, and couldn't give themselves pay raises, there'd be much less outrage. As it stands, we see executive-level salary being paid to people who do maybe a third of the actual work of an executive.


It's really tough to hear politicians biatch about how long bills are and how they didn't read them and then hear they earn their $174,000 salary that they can barely get by on.
 
2012-11-28 12:22:31 PM

lennavan: TofuTheAlmighty: SnakeLee: If you don't offer a salary of at least that much, then the only people who will run will be super rich. There is no getting around that. Also, it's hardly exorbinant and most of them have to keep a residence in D.C. and one in their home state and pay for a fair amount of their own trips and they also have families.

If anything, congressional pay should be raised for exactly this reason. Then their tie wage increases to median income gains. Holding public office shouldn't be the sole province of the super rich and should also pay well enough to attract bright and capable workers.

That's fundamentally wrong. After receiving a PhD, your post-doctoral work will get you $40,000 a year. As a post-doc you are ~28 years old and that's when if you ever will, you will have a family. If you are successful, around ~34 years old you get a position as a professor making around $70,000 a year. That's less than half of what a Congress person makes and requires a hell of a lot more training and sacrifice. So that explains why there are zero science professors in the US, right?

Not everyone chooses a career based on salary. Wouldn't it be nice to hire Congresspeople who wanted in to make a difference in the country, rather than a nice $174,000 salary and two homes? You're right, having two residences is expensive. What a shock, perhaps they should rent.


Everywhere I go, I see teachers driving Ferraris. They're doing fine.
 
2012-11-28 12:24:10 PM

BarkingUnicorn: This is why more companies should be employee-owned.


hehe I got a great EPP for you to buy into if you like.... .


You don't want to own the company, now if your place has a profit sharing program then you're making out fine.
 
2012-11-28 12:24:34 PM

DubyaHater: lennavan: TofuTheAlmighty: SnakeLee: If you don't offer a salary of at least that much, then the only people who will run will be super rich. There is no getting around that. Also, it's hardly exorbinant and most of them have to keep a residence in D.C. and one in their home state and pay for a fair amount of their own trips and they also have families.

If anything, congressional pay should be raised for exactly this reason. Then their tie wage increases to median income gains. Holding public office shouldn't be the sole province of the super rich and should also pay well enough to attract bright and capable workers.

That's fundamentally wrong. After receiving a PhD, your post-doctoral work will get you $40,000 a year. As a post-doc you are ~28 years old and that's when if you ever will, you will have a family. If you are successful, around ~34 years old you get a position as a professor making around $70,000 a year. That's less than half of what a Congress person makes and requires a hell of a lot more training and sacrifice. So that explains why there are zero science professors in the US, right?

Not everyone chooses a career based on salary. Wouldn't it be nice to hire Congresspeople who wanted in to make a difference in the country, rather than a nice $174,000 salary and two homes? You're right, having two residences is expensive. What a shock, perhaps they should rent.

Everywhere I go, I see teachers driving Ferraris. They're doing fine.


Yeah, but only as valets after school.
 
2012-11-28 12:26:34 PM
The Stealth Hippopotamus

You know what else Hank Johnson believes? He believes that you can tip over an island!

Holy shiat, was he drunk? Is he usually like that?
 
2012-11-28 12:26:46 PM
while "barely" working 2 days a week?

farking sign me up
 
2012-11-28 12:27:07 PM
Insider trading and that board appointment a lobbyist promised you are great bonuses.
 
2012-11-28 12:27:28 PM

lennavan: qorkfiend: I don't think it stems from any sort of fiscal responsibility, just a general feeling that they overpay themselves for what they actually do.

If Members of Congress worked full days and actual five-day work weeks, didn't take months-long recesses, weren't almost universally independently wealthy, and couldn't give themselves pay raises, there'd be much less outrage. As it stands, we see executive-level salary being paid to people who do maybe a third of the actual work of an executive.

It's really tough to hear politicians biatch about how long bills are and how they didn't read them and then hear they earn their $174,000 salary that they can barely get by on.


The best part about that line is that every single Member of Congress has a very well-paid staff hired for the express purpose of doing such things for them. So you couldn't be troubled to actually read the bill? Ok, maybe. You couldn't be troubled to read the summary prepared for you by your staff that actually did read the bill? Not cool.
 
2012-11-28 12:28:06 PM
OK, let's not pay them then and allow them to subsist entirely on gifts and bribes. What could possibly go wrong?
 
2012-11-28 12:29:22 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: You know what else Hank Johnson believes? He believes that you can tip over an island!


you are the real racist for pointing that out
 
2012-11-28 12:29:24 PM

lennavan:

Not everyone chooses a career based on salary. Wouldn't it be nice to hire Congresspeople who wanted in to make a difference in the country, rather than a nice $174,000 salary and two homes? You're right, having two residences is expensive. What a shock, perhaps they should rent.


I would like to see the second place you can buy in DC on $174,000. It probably comes with its own crack dealer.
 
2012-11-28 12:30:28 PM
If performance based pay is good enough for those we to whom we entrust our children, then it is good enough for those to whom we entrust the running of this nation.

I think that Warren Buffet had it right. If deficits are over a certain level of GDP they are all ineligible for re-election, period. Don't show up for a vote, docked X amount, just like wage workers.

What a bunch of whiny farkers.
 
2012-11-28 12:31:20 PM

Rapmaster2000: OK, let's not pay them then and allow them to subsist entirely on gifts and bribes. What could possibly go wrong?


I was waiting for this talking point.
 
2012-11-28 12:32:53 PM

WayToBlue: The Stealth Hippopotamus

You know what else Hank Johnson believes? He believes that you can tip over an island!

Holy shiat, was he drunk? Is he usually like that?


Look, reasonable people can disagree as to whether or not Guam might tip over if we moved a bunch of heavy soldiers onto it.
 
2012-11-28 12:34:00 PM

Epoch_Zero: Rapmaster2000: OK, let's not pay them then and allow them to subsist entirely on gifts and bribes. What could possibly go wrong?

I was waiting for this talking point.


Glad I could make your day. Anything else you need?
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2012-11-28 12:34:03 PM

WayToBlue: The Stealth Hippopotamus

You know what else Hank Johnson believes? He believes that you can tip over an island!

Holy shiat, was he drunk? Is he usually like that?


I think this is what he was referring to
 
2012-11-28 12:34:42 PM
They "earn" their money, eh? If my job performance was as poor as those arseholes job perfomance was, I'd be unemployed.

These f*cks do nothing but try to cock block each other and kick the can down the road.

When these jackasses do something for the good of the entire country, they might be worth about half what they get (minus the gold plated insurance), but until then, their pay should be withheld for poor job performance.

And the ones that are being obstructionist should be fined as well.
 
2012-11-28 12:35:25 PM

Sybarite: I say we tie congressional and corporate salaries to the median per capita income. I feel like that would improve their focus on "raising all boats" as it were.


FTFY
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report