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.

(Slate)   GOP congressman whines that he's "Stuck Here Making $172,000 a Year", and suddenly a symphony of tiny violins reached crescendo   (slate.com) divider line 156
    More: Dumbass, congressman, GOP, symphony, Phil Gingrey, median household income  
•       •       •

3861 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Sep 2013 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-19 11:10:27 AM  

GanjSmokr: If being a "leader" is now seen as simply a stepping stone to a high paying cushy job later on, things are broken.


If you were a leader in our government, wouldn't you be terrified of leaving office with anything BUT a high paying, cushy job waiting for you? They've spent the past few years farking the poor and the middle class every chance they get and as much as I hate to say it, only the 1% and Wall Street are recovering from their goddamned mess 5 years ago while the rest of us are still suffering their effects.

If you were part of a body attempting to eliminate affordable medical care, cut welfare, food stamps, funding for Planned Parenthood, so on and for forth - would you want to leave office and have to join the ranks of those who you just screwed over for the past however many years?
 
2013-09-19 11:10:31 AM  

serpent_sky: error 303: I'm not saying congress critters should be getting compensated at the CEO level or anything, but they're definitely not getting paid comensurate with the work they're performing either.

When you consider the perks that come with the job, the copious amount of time off, and the fact that they will often have opportunities in media/publishing when their terms end (either by choice or by voters) that the rest of us may never see no matter how hard we work, I'd say they are doing okay. 

Congress/Senate was never intended to be a lifelong job, either, as far as I remember my US government classes.


No, but then again, Congress/Senate was never intented to have non-white, non-moneyed people who didn't come from families that could support their venture into "public service".  That's changed, and if we want people who represent us more, we have to provide an income that allows them to move up in the world and let's them stand up to richer interests.  That's the hideousness of the "no budget no pay" bullshiat.   All that proposal (if SCOTUS even found it Constitutional) would do is punish the people who didn't have outside interests or sources of income.  Those that did would have a stronger bargaining position.
 
2013-09-19 11:10:58 AM  

Cataholic: Dear Slate:

Thank you for providing no context in order to generate poutrage.

The quote was in response to someone criticizing his "No Special Treatment for Congress Act" because it ended a health insurance subsidy for members of Congress as well staffers.  Thus the "Capitol Hill aides may be 33 years old now and not making a lot of money. But in a few years they can just go to K Street and make 500,000 a year,"  portion of the quote.


My suggestion of paying Congress and staffers more plus legally barring them from working for a lobbyist group still stands.
 
2013-09-19 11:13:01 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: Nadie_AZ: And yet those on food stamps and welfare are living the good life.

Yeah.

What percentage of those making $172,000+ have a fridge?


And teachers are overpaid sponges with massive vacation time and no real work.
 
2013-09-19 11:13:42 AM  

Diogenes: Capitol Hill aides, he said "may be 33 years old now and not making a lot of money. But in a few years they can just go to K Street," the Washington, D.C., vernacular for becoming a lobbyist, "and make 500,000 a year. Meanwhile I'm stuck here making $172,000 a year."

I don't know this guy at all.  But if you take those quotes in isolation, it's possible he's making a much different point:  the problem of money and influence peddling.

But if he really is just whining, show his ass the door.


Yeah, it's hard to tell without context.  I'd like to think that he's complaining about the excessive amounts of money that go into lobbying and lobbyist salaries.
 
2013-09-19 11:14:30 AM  
What a life of misery you must lead.
 
2013-09-19 11:14:49 AM  
His advice to people on food stamps is to eat cake.
 
2013-09-19 11:15:04 AM  
www.microwaves101.com
 
2013-09-19 11:16:22 AM  

Cataholic: Dear Slate:

Thank you for providing no context in order to generate poutrage.

The quote was in response to someone criticizing his "No Special Treatment for Congress Act" because it ended a health insurance subsidy for members of Congress as well staffers.  Thus the "Capitol Hill aides may be 33 years old now and not making a lot of money. But in a few years they can just go to K Street and make 500,000 a year,"  portion of the quote.


Geewhiz, whoever wrote that article is an intellectually dishonest, partisan, rube. I hope he isn't a Farklib hero.
 
2013-09-19 11:17:19 AM  

Aristocles: Geewhiz, whoever wrote that article is an intellectually dishonest, partisan, rube. I hope he isn't a Farklib hero.


You are in rare form today.  Bravo.
 
2013-09-19 11:18:32 AM  
He makes sense. I would have expected someone with more travel expenses, but $172K in DC doesn't go a long way compared to Georgia. He apparently doesn't dress like a computer programmer, probably has to meet and greet lots of people, travel a lot, maintain a second residence in his district. If he doesn't learn about insider trading he may leave office owing money.
 
2013-09-19 11:20:09 AM  

error 303: Arkanaut: error 303: Then again, once you're in for a bit, you've got an easy path to being a high paid lobbyist/policy wonk making money, so maybe it's trivial, but still, $172k isn't all that much for the importance and responsibility of the position these folks are in.

Is it too much to expect our representatives to serve the public out of a sense of duty? I mean, it's not like they're starving on $172k a year.

That's a valid question. I can see agrguments on both side. I work for the government, and there is sort of a nice sense of reward knowing that my labor isn't just going into share holder profits and CEO compensation, but I wasn't exactly super excited to get my furlough notice and pay reduction because I'm doing this soley out of a sense of duty.

I'm not saying congress critters should be getting compensated at the CEO level or anything, but they're definitely not getting paid comensurate with the work they're performing either.


Yes, when you focus on income inequality, the place to do it is the people making north of $150,000 a year, who receive all kinds of fat, greasy perks, like for example being able to make insider stock trades.  Yes, that's the place to focus the spotlight.

Because most of them are super-intelligent and diligent, spending all of their time reading bills and learning all of the ramifications, consulting with their constituents, poring over volumes of research, instead of just receiving orders from their party on how to vote, and dividing their time between fundraising, partying and having their hair coiffed to Real Amercian perfection.
 
2013-09-19 11:20:09 AM  

serpent_sky: GanjSmokr: If being a "leader" is now seen as simply a stepping stone to a high paying cushy job later on, things are broken.

If you were a leader in our government, wouldn't you be terrified of leaving office with anything BUT a high paying, cushy job waiting for you? They've spent the past few years farking the poor and the middle class every chance they get and as much as I hate to say it, only the 1% and Wall Street are recovering from their goddamned mess 5 years ago while the rest of us are still suffering their effects.

If you were part of a body attempting to eliminate affordable medical care, cut welfare, food stamps, funding for Planned Parenthood, so on and for forth - would you want to leave office and have to join the ranks of those who you just screwed over for the past however many years?


And thus the end of my previous comment...   things are broken.
 
2013-09-19 11:20:23 AM  
Yeah, it's not a popular sentiment, but I kind of understand. I'm not exactly comfortable with the football coach at west point making more than the guy with the nuclear launch codes, especially when judged against what such a person would make in the private sector.

A president these days spend about a billion dollars to get a $400k/year job. That pretty much excludes people whoare not already independently wealthy enough to go 2 years without a salary while you're campaigning.
 
2013-09-19 11:21:09 AM  
Yup, it's the same problem we have with poorly paid teachers, where "those who can't do teach".  The problem with politics is that there are a lot of opportunities to take bribes, so you don't just get people who are too incompetent to make it in the private sector, but corruption as well.
 
2013-09-19 11:21:47 AM  
 
2013-09-19 11:22:06 AM  
Don't worry, you can easily get a multi-million lobbying job after your finish your service to the country
 
2013-09-19 11:24:19 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Benevolent Misanthrope: You know, Congressman, there's a way for the good folks in Georgia to help you get un-stuck...

He's based out of Marietta (Newt's old district).  All he has to say is "help help, the Yankees are being mean to me" and his district will rally around him.

Marietta:  Jew Lynching Free Since 1915.


I know, I was being overly optimistic.
 
2013-09-19 11:25:24 AM  
Can we get some kind of natural disaster to destroy this K street place at the height of busyness? At best it's useless people doing useless things, at worst it's institutionalized bribery with the potential to destroy the world as we know it. Not a single fark would be given by actual human beings that day.(though some legislators would be upset).
 
2013-09-19 11:26:25 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Whether or not he's actually an asshole depends on where he thinks the problem is. If he thinks the problem is that congressmen "only" make $172k, he's an asshole. If he thinks the problem is a system that encourages congressmen to become a lobbyist for $500k, he's correct.


There's another issue going on here that I don't think has been addressed.  A lot of people (right or wrong) take a lot of pride in how much money they make and use it as a barometer for the value that society places in their work.  This happens in the private sector also.  You get paid less to work at a fast food chain than you get to be a computer programmer because we value the latter more.  Now while $172,000 is an objectively high salary, it's not a lot of money compared to the circles they run in and what these congressmen are seeing everybody around them make.  I understand the frustration, actually.  He's the supposedly important and powerful elected representative, yet he makes a third as much as the 33-year-old who used to run his errands but now gets paid half a million dollars a year to pull his strings.   To me, it's not hard to see how these representatives are a resentful. Just based on their salaries they see that not only are lobbyists more valued in DC than the representatives themselves, but they are far more valued.
 
2013-09-19 11:28:07 AM  

FarkedOver: Aristocles: Geewhiz, whoever wrote that article is an intellectually dishonest, partisan, rube. I hope he isn't a Farklib hero.

You are in rare form today.  Bravo.


I just found it funny how the comment blamed Slate instead of naming the actual author of the propaganda.

None other than the notoriously partisan liberal Matthew Yglesias.

Yglesias cited an NRO post, yet, somehow, Yglesias didn't think it necessary to provide context. Also, Yglesias must not have seen this doozy:

In a phone interview, Gingrey said he does not remember exactly what he said, but his point was that "it is completely unfair for members of Congress and Hill staffers to get this special treatment that the general public are not getting."

That's something with which even you, FarkedOver, could support, right?
 
2013-09-19 11:29:47 AM  

udhq: A president these days spend about a billion dollars to get a $400k/year job.


A billion dollars of other people's money. I'd spend that to get a $90k/yr job.

udhq: go 2 years without a salary while you're campaigning.


The only presidential candidate from either of the two major parties in recent memory who didn't draw a salary while campaigning was Mitt Romney, and I'm not even sure I'm right that he didn't.
 
2013-09-19 11:30:26 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: The truckers have something to say about this.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/09/18/truckers-organizing-to-shut-d ow n-america-dc-for-3-days-83628


The comments on that were disturbing because i think they were actually real people.
 
2013-09-19 11:31:22 AM  
That's it. Living in poverty or not, I'm buying me a second refrigerator. And not one of those small ones either. One that's big enough to store Costco bags of buffalo wings. And two gallon tubs of ice cream.

The poor we shall always have with us but why the dull and boring diet?
 
2013-09-19 11:32:04 AM  

shut_it_down: thurstonxhowell: Whether or not he's actually an asshole depends on where he thinks the problem is. If he thinks the problem is that congressmen "only" make $172k, he's an asshole. If he thinks the problem is a system that encourages congressmen to become a lobbyist for $500k, he's correct.

There's another issue going on here that I don't think has been addressed.  A lot of people (right or wrong) take a lot of pride in how much money they make and use it as a barometer for the value that society places in their work.  This happens in the private sector also.  You get paid less to work at a fast food chain than you get to be a computer programmer because we value the latter more.  Now while $172,000 is an objectively high salary, it's not a lot of money compared to the circles they run in and what these congressmen are seeing everybody around them make.  I understand the frustration, actually.  He's the supposedly important and powerful elected representative, yet he makes a third as much as the 33-year-old who used to run his errands but now gets paid half a million dollars a year to pull his strings.   To me, it's not hard to see how these representatives are a resentful. Just based on their salaries they see that not only are lobbyists more valued in DC than the representatives themselves, but they are far more valued.


I agree, but I think the solution is to make lobbyists pariahs who businesses refuse to deal with and get spit on on the streets and disowned by their families, not increase congressmen's pay to match theirs.
 
2013-09-19 11:32:34 AM  
blogs.houstonpress.com

Then quit, you slimy farking walrus-looking piece of shiat! Get the fark out of my Congress! Get the fark out of my Congress! Now!
 
2013-09-19 11:34:08 AM  

Aristocles: In a phone interview, Gingrey said he does not remember exactly what he said, but his point was that "it is completely unfair for members of Congress and Hill staffers to get this special treatment that the general public are not getting."

That's something with which even you, FarkedOver, could support, right?


That benefit he's talking about, the government's contribution to their health insurance plan, is a part of a federal government employee's compensation. Would you complain about, say, an employee of Boeing being partly compensated via a contribution to their health insurance plan? No? Then quit your yapping.
 
2013-09-19 11:36:33 AM  
Sounds like he needs a pay cut.
 
2013-09-19 11:36:48 AM  

error 303: 'm not saying congress critters should be getting compensated at the CEO level or anything, but they're definitely not getting paid comensurate with the work they're performing either.


notsureifpotato.jpg
 
2013-09-19 11:36:54 AM  

thurstonxhowell: shut_it_down: thurstonxhowell: Whether or not he's actually an asshole depends on where he thinks the problem is. If he thinks the problem is that congressmen "only" make $172k, he's an asshole. If he thinks the problem is a system that encourages congressmen to become a lobbyist for $500k, he's correct.

There's another issue going on here that I don't think has been addressed. A lot of people (right or wrong) take a lot of pride in how much money they make and use it as a barometer for the value that society places in their work. This happens in the private sector also. You get paid less to work at a fast food chain than you get to be a computer programmer because we value the latter more. Now while $172,000 is an objectively high salary, it's not a lot of money compared to the circles they run in and what these congressmen are seeing everybody around them make. I understand the frustration, actually. He's the supposedly important and powerful elected representative, yet he makes a third as much as the 33-year-old who used to run his errands but now gets paid half a million dollars a year to pull his strings. To me, it's not hard to see how these representatives are a resentful. Just based on their salaries they see that not only are lobbyists more valued in DC than the representatives themselves, but they are far more valued.

I agree, but I think the solution is to make lobbyists pariahs who businesses refuse to deal with and get spit on on the streets and disowned by their families, not increase congressmen's pay to match theirs.


Oh, I agree with that.  The problem is that they get paid that much money because they're effective.  If lobbyists weren't able to get access to congressmen and couldn't influence their decisions, then nobody would pay them to lobby.  So at least a chunk of fault lies in Congress itself for being so damn pliable.
 
2013-09-19 11:36:56 AM  

thurstonxhowell: I agree, but I think the solution is to make lobbyists pariahs who businesses refuse to deal with and get spit on on the streets and disowned by their families, not increase congressmen's pay to match theirs.


I could get behind this plan.

And if he's bothered by lobbyists, he could lead the charge against them by refusing to deal with them or have his strings pulled by them.
 
2013-09-19 11:39:36 AM  
In Gingrey's defense he's an incredible dickhole

 and he's jumped into the "clown car primary" for a Georgia Senate seat with other dickholes of magnitude like Karen Handel and Paul Broun
 
2013-09-19 11:42:06 AM  
i.imgflip.com
 
2013-09-19 11:43:22 AM  
What an entitled taker.
 
2013-09-19 11:46:15 AM  

thurstonxhowell: shut_it_down: thurstonxhowell: Whether or not he's actually an asshole depends on where he thinks the problem is. If he thinks the problem is that congressmen "only" make $172k, he's an asshole. If he thinks the problem is a system that encourages congressmen to become a lobbyist for $500k, he's correct.

There's another issue going on here that I don't think has been addressed.  A lot of people (right or wrong) take a lot of pride in how much money they make and use it as a barometer for the value that society places in their work.  This happens in the private sector also.  You get paid less to work at a fast food chain than you get to be a computer programmer because we value the latter more.  Now while $172,000 is an objectively high salary, it's not a lot of money compared to the circles they run in and what these congressmen are seeing everybody around them make.  I understand the frustration, actually.  He's the supposedly important and powerful elected representative, yet he makes a third as much as the 33-year-old who used to run his errands but now gets paid half a million dollars a year to pull his strings.   To me, it's not hard to see how these representatives are a resentful. Just based on their salaries they see that not only are lobbyists more valued in DC than the representatives themselves, but they are far more valued.

I agree, but I think the solution is to make lobbyists pariahs who businesses refuse to deal with and get spit on on the streets and disowned by their families, not increase congressmen's pay to match theirs.


I think that could be viewed as a gross violation of the First Amendment.
 
2013-09-19 11:49:37 AM  

Serious Black: Aristocles: In a phone interview, Gingrey said he does not remember exactly what he said, but his point was that "it is completely unfair for members of Congress and Hill staffers to get this special treatment that the general public are not getting."

That's something with which even you, FarkedOver, could support, right?

That benefit he's talking about, the government's contribution to their health insurance plan, is a part of a federal government employee's compensation. Would you complain about, say, an employee of Boeing being partly compensated via a contribution to their health insurance plan? No? Then quit your yapping.


You say that like it's not the taxpayer who provides these Cadillac health plans.
 
2013-09-19 11:51:39 AM  
People like this have no idea what it is like to be poor.

I had to deal with a mother with a similar attitude at the elementary school PTO meeting that wanted the school to stop rewarding "most laps" and just reward most money raised (we reward both) for the jog-a-thon fundraiser, as well as heavily implying that the school should either stop participating in the free and reduced lunch program or offer free lunch to everyone because "It's not fair to the kids that don't qualify" and "discriminates".

I don't think she really understood what she was asking.

She doesn't seem to realize she doesn't live in an upper class neighborhood she used to up by Portland.  She move to a poo to lower middle class area now where our 1% in the neighborhood only make a bit above $90K, because all the rich people in the city live somewhere else.

//Rant off my chest, but I love my neighborhood.
 
2013-09-19 11:53:49 AM  

Donnchadha: Benevolent Misanthrope: You know, Congressman, there's a way for the good folks in Georgia to help you get un-stuck...

The sad thing is, that's probably not true. If he runs for reelection in Georgia's 11th (The Fightin' Eleventh!), he'll likely win without trying too hard. That's just the nature of the system we've got going here -- especially in the House. He could get unstuck by simply not running for reelection, but I don't see the voters doing it for him.


He's out. He's running for Sen.. Saxby Chambliss' seat and he's going to lose. Big Time.
 
2013-09-19 11:54:33 AM  

Aristocles: FarkedOver: Aristocles: Geewhiz, whoever wrote that article is an intellectually dishonest, partisan, rube. I hope he isn't a Farklib hero.

You are in rare form today.  Bravo.

I just found it funny how the comment blamed Slate instead of naming the actual author of the propaganda.

None other than the notoriously partisan liberal Matthew Yglesias.

Yglesias cited an NRO post, yet, somehow, Yglesias didn't think it necessary to provide context. Also, Yglesias must not have seen this doozy:

In a phone interview, Gingrey said he does not remember exactly what he said, but his point was that "it is completely unfair for members of Congress and Hill staffers to get this special treatment that the general public are not getting."

That's something with which even you, FarkedOver, could support, right?


Both sides of the aisle perpetuate the greed culture, both sides should be stopped dead in their tracks.  The masses should take a stand for themselves and object to all things that benefit the few and strip the many of basic human needs.  In this country everything is for sale, freedom is only for those that can afford it, everything has a price while at the same time everything has lost its value.  This needs to change, this country has to change, this world has to change.  This system is not sustainable.
 
2013-09-19 11:55:01 AM  

Serious Black: thurstonxhowell: shut_it_down: thurstonxhowell: Whether or not he's actually an asshole depends on where he thinks the problem is. If he thinks the problem is that congressmen "only" make $172k, he's an asshole. If he thinks the problem is a system that encourages congressmen to become a lobbyist for $500k, he's correct.

There's another issue going on here that I don't think has been addressed.  A lot of people (right or wrong) take a lot of pride in how much money they make and use it as a barometer for the value that society places in their work.  This happens in the private sector also.  You get paid less to work at a fast food chain than you get to be a computer programmer because we value the latter more.  Now while $172,000 is an objectively high salary, it's not a lot of money compared to the circles they run in and what these congressmen are seeing everybody around them make.  I understand the frustration, actually.  He's the supposedly important and powerful elected representative, yet he makes a third as much as the 33-year-old who used to run his errands but now gets paid half a million dollars a year to pull his strings.   To me, it's not hard to see how these representatives are a resentful. Just based on their salaries they see that not only are lobbyists more valued in DC than the representatives themselves, but they are far more valued.

I agree, but I think the solution is to make lobbyists pariahs who businesses refuse to deal with and get spit on on the streets and disowned by their families, not increase congressmen's pay to match theirs.

I think that could be viewed as a gross violation of the First Amendment.


Only if we ban them.

//Rich people belong to unions, but they call their reps "lobbyists" instead of "thugs"
 
2013-09-19 11:57:12 AM  

Serious Black: I agree, but I think the solution is to make lobbyists pariahs who businesses refuse to deal with and get spit on on the streets and disowned by their families, not increase congressmen's pay to match theirs.

I think that could be viewed as a gross violation of the First Amendment.


Why? They are free to attempt to lobby, and everyone else is free to ignore them and look down upon them as if they are telemarketers who call during dinner.  Nobody is saying lobbyists can't say what they want, just that nobody has to listen.
 
2013-09-19 11:57:27 AM  

Aristocles: Serious Black: Aristocles: In a phone interview, Gingrey said he does not remember exactly what he said, but his point was that "it is completely unfair for members of Congress and Hill staffers to get this special treatment that the general public are not getting."

That's something with which even you, FarkedOver, could support, right?

That benefit he's talking about, the government's contribution to their health insurance plan, is a part of a federal government employee's compensation. Would you complain about, say, an employee of Boeing being partly compensated via a contribution to their health insurance plan? No? Then quit your yapping.

You say that like it's not the taxpayer who provides these Cadillac health plans.


The taxpayer isn't providing health plans; what the taxpayer is providing is compensation for doing a job. By sponsoring this bill, he is affirmatively stating that two classes of federal employees (namely elected representatives and their staffers) are being paid too much money. Do you agree that they are being paid too much money?

His argument makes no sense to me. If he acts to cut the pay of his staffers, it will only encourage them to leave and take the cushy K Street jobs that he is deriding them for taking in the first place!
 
2013-09-19 11:57:45 AM  

Serious Black: Capitol Hill aides, he said "may be 33 years old now and not making a lot of money. But in a few years they can just go to K Street," the Washington, D.C., vernacular for becoming a lobbyist, "and make 500,000 a year. Meanwhile I'm stuck here making $172,000 a year."

If you're worried about the money you're making in Congress, you could always go the Jim DeMint route. Or the Chris Dodd route. Or the Evan Bayh route.


I wish he'd just go the Budd Dwyer route.
 
2013-09-19 12:00:22 PM  
They should really just make taking and offering bribes at the federal level a firing squad offense. Bribes do not equal "free speech", sorry.
 
2013-09-19 12:00:30 PM  

Kuta: What an entitled taker.


Don't be a hater. Everyone knows that rich people are job creators. The difference is that he's studied it out and discovered that the terrible economy caused by gay marriages and obamacare death panels. He understands that we need to slash funding for ACORN and PBS, and start giving that money to a small, carefully selected group of the right kind of people. The kind of people who are job creators and will save the economy from socialism
 
2013-09-19 12:01:41 PM  

Serious Black: I think that could be viewed as a gross violation of the First Amendment.


How so? I didn't say it would be the law. I just said people would do it. "Lobbyist" isn't a protected class, so I can refuse to do business with them to my heart's content.
 
2013-09-19 12:02:05 PM  

serpent_sky: Serious Black: I agree, but I think the solution is to make lobbyists pariahs who businesses refuse to deal with and get spit on on the streets and disowned by their families, not increase congressmen's pay to match theirs.

I think that could be viewed as a gross violation of the First Amendment.

Why? They are free to attempt to lobby, and everyone else is free to ignore them and look down upon them as if they are telemarketers who call during dinner.  Nobody is saying lobbyists can't say what they want, just that nobody has to listen.


So there's no legal change going on? The incentives are already heavily tilted towards Congressmen treating lobbyists like friends and businesses hiring people to lobby on their behalf. Just saying "let's treat lobbyists like shiat" isn't going to do shiat to change those incentives.
 
2013-09-19 12:02:35 PM  

error 303: $172k isn't all that much


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-09-19 12:03:08 PM  

Serious Black: Aristocles: Serious Black: Aristocles: In a phone interview, Gingrey said he does not remember exactly what he said, but his point was that "it is completely unfair for members of Congress and Hill staffers to get this special treatment that the general public are not getting."

That's something with which even you, FarkedOver, could support, right?

That benefit he's talking about, the government's contribution to their health insurance plan, is a part of a federal government employee's compensation. Would you complain about, say, an employee of Boeing being partly compensated via a contribution to their health insurance plan? No? Then quit your yapping.

You say that like it's not the taxpayer who provides these Cadillac health plans.

The taxpayer isn't providing health plans; what the taxpayer is providing is compensation for doing a job. By sponsoring this bill, he is affirmatively stating that two classes of federal employees (namely elected representatives and their staffers) are being paid too much money. Do you agree that they are being paid too much money?

His argument makes no sense to me. If he acts to cut the pay of his staffers, it will only encourage them to leave and take the cushy K Street jobs that he is deriding them for taking in the first place!


With Obamacare looming, employers are cutting off health care benefits for hundreds of thousands of Americans. As taxpayers pay for the health benefits for Congressfolk, I'd like to cut off their benefits and have them use the exchanges. As for the amount he's paid, that seems okay, but the d-bags who shoved Obamacare down our throats shouldn't get a pass from the consequences on the taxpayers' dime.

I don't give a fark if his staffers take cushy K street jobs.
 
2013-09-19 12:03:19 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Serious Black: I think that could be viewed as a gross violation of the First Amendment.

How so? I didn't say it would be the law. I just said people would do it. "Lobbyist" isn't a protected class, so I can refuse to do business with them to my heart's content.


Sure, you can do that to your heart's content, but everyone else will be free to do so as well. And believe me, Congress will still listen to what lobbyists say even if you somehow lower public opinion of lobbyists even further than the already dreadfully low depths it lingers in today.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report