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 12:07:33 PM  

Serious Black: 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.


uh... you do realize that lobbyists lobby for a wide range of policies some of which are at odds with others and, therefore, many positions for which a lobbyist might lobby are disregarded, right?
 
2013-09-19 12:11:03 PM  

Aristocles: 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.


Section 1312(d)(3)(D)(i) reads: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after [January 1, 2014), the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)."

They already are required to purchase health insurance through the exchanges.

As for the second point, if you don't care about his staffers jumping to cushy K Street jobs, why the hell are you biatching in this thread when that is EXACTLY what he is complaining about?
 
2013-09-19 12:13:15 PM  

Serious Black: 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.


I think you're taking my little fantasy for an actual suggestion of how to fix government. It's not. I just want to spit on lobbyists and I wish more people would.
 
2013-09-19 12:15:23 PM  

Aristocles: Serious Black: 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.

uh... you do realize that lobbyists lobby for a wide range of policies some of which are at odds with others and, therefore, many positions for which a lobbyist might lobby are disregarded, right?


Jesus titty-farking Christ. You seriously think I was suggesting every single member of Congress could listen to every single lobbyist, let alone support their positions via the legislative agenda? That's completely impossible! But they will certainly listen to some lobbyists and take into account their positions in shaping the legislative agenda.
 
2013-09-19 12:16:40 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Serious Black: 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.

I think you're taking my little fantasy for an actual suggestion of how to fix government. It's not. I just want to spit on lobbyists and I wish more people would.


Tell you what. The next time I see President Obama, I'll ask him to shove a bunch of Hellfires up lobbyists' assholes. Deal?
 
2013-09-19 12:17:01 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!


Let's not forget that the only reason they are talking about this in the first place is because the GOP thought they could derail the ACA with a poison pill... the requirement than congress and their staffers MUST get their insurance on the exchanges. A unique, special requirement ONLY for congress and their staffers. No other American who is currently getting their healthcare coverage through their employer will be required to get their coverage on the exchanges as of Jan 1.  But to their surprise, the Dems agreed and now they have to lie in the bed they made. It is baffling how they can refer to this situation as some kind of 'exemption' for congress and staffers when it is exactly the opposite.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-09-19 12:19:44 PM  

error 303: Maybe this isn't a popular opinion, but I've always thought our national leaders are really under paid. I mean sure, lots of them are idiots and they work 3 day weeks more often than not and all that, but when you think about it, these guys aren't making all that much considering the types of decisions theyre making and policy they're crafting.

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.


I'd be for paying them more if they did anything. Being 'hard at work' trying to make sure nothing happens is usually the type of thing these folks decry SNAP recipients and union members of doing. I'm pretty sure the price tag is a little different for the same overall accomplishment of the stigmatized welfare recipient.
 
2013-09-19 12:20:32 PM  
... Remember that scene in 'Airplane', with the hysterical woman being slapped to bring her to her senses?  And the camera pans left, to reveal the Looooong line of people waiting their turn, and the line escalating through sticks, clubs, brass knucks, guns, etc.?

Yeah, I say we set up a line just like that one for this guy, only a hell of a lot longer, to kick him in the nuts.
 
2013-09-19 12:21:34 PM  

Serious Black: Aristocles: 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.

Section 1312(d)(3)(D)(i) reads: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after [January 1, 2014), the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staf ...


You must not have read the NRO link I post (also linked by the dishonest Matthew Yglesias). Here, I'll quote from it so as to catch you up to speed:

The Office of Personnel Management recently ruled that the federal government can continue providing a subsidy to use in the exchange markets, which critics such as Senator David Vitter have railed against as a special exemption from the law for Congress.
...
Then Representative Phil Gingrey spoke up. Gingrey has led the charge in the House to end the subsidy, introducing the "No Special Treatment for Congress Act" and joining Vitter on a letter to OPM questioning whether its ruling is legal.


They're talking about the taxpayer subsidizing Cadillac plans for Congressmembers, not K street.
 
2013-09-19 12:22:53 PM  

theknuckler_33: 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!

Let's not forget that the only reason they are talking about this in the first place is because the GOP thought they could derail the ACA with a poison pill... the requirement than congress and their staffers MUST get their insurance on the exchanges. A unique, special requirement ONLY for congress and their staffers. No other American who is currently getting their healthcare coverage through their employer will be required to get their coverage on the exchanges as of Jan 1.  But to their surprise, the Dems agreed and now they have to lie in the bed they made. It is baffling how they can refer to this situation as some kind of 'exemption' for congress and staffers when it is exactly the ...


Frankly, I think there's a good argument that this clause of the bill is unconstitutional because it violates the 5th Amendment's equal protection doctrine. After 2013 ends, every person in the country is will be legally allowed to use group health insurance negotiated by their employer except for members of Congress and their staffers. I cannot think of a rational basis for treating these two kinds of employees differently than every other employee in the country.
 
2013-09-19 12:25:58 PM  
Let's have him whine about this in Detroit.
 
2013-09-19 12:27:09 PM  

Serious Black: After 2013 ends, every person in the country is will be legally allowed to use group health insurance negotiated by their employer except for members of Congress and their staffers.


Dude, we are their employer. If you don't like it, call your congressperson. I for one, say "fark 'em."
 
2013-09-19 12:30:12 PM  

theknuckler_33: Let's not forget that the only reason they are talking about this in the first place is because the GOP thought they could derail the ACA with a poison pill... the requirement than congress and their staffers MUST get their insurance on the exchanges. A unique, special requirement ONLY for congress and their staffers. No other American who is currently getting their healthcare coverage through their employer will be required to get their coverage on the exchanges as of Jan 1. But to their surprise, the Dems agreed and now they have to lie in the bed they made. It is baffling how they can refer to this situation as some kind of 'exemption' for congress and staffers when it is exactly the opposite


We keep coming back to the same thing with all of these discussions: if the GOP would stop acting like unhinged lunatics (after 40+ tries to end the ACA, perhaps it's time to let it go, but they just can't...) they wouldn't have these problems.   The ACA exists, it was put in place, and they had ample opportunity to effect changes to make it better as opposed to just trying to destroy it/put weird shiat in there like they did with this. But the former would possibly have been productive, and not adding to the giant political divide in this country, and made them look like rational people doing their jobs as elected officials.  I guess they couldn't stand that thought, so... here we are.
Again and again and again.
But then again, since their constituency are generally stupid, they forget who did what, or that the Republicans actually authored something that they are now against and just follow blindly.
 
2013-09-19 12:38:24 PM  
i78.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-19 12:49:40 PM  
The people in his district really need to pay attention here. This guy is openly telling them he is there to make money for himself, not represent and help his district.
 
2013-09-19 12:52:37 PM  

error 303: Maybe this isn't a popular opinion, but I've always thought our national leaders are really under paid. I mean sure, lots of them are idiots and they work 3 day weeks more often than not and all that, but when you think about it, these guys aren't making all that much considering the types of decisions theyre making and policy they're crafting.

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.


Oh yes, the decisions these people have to make every day are staggering.  Which pointless non-issue do I attack the President for today?  Which mouth-breathing group do I pander to today?  Which passages from the bible do I need to pretend I don't know about today?

Staggering, I tell you.
 
2013-09-19 12:59:20 PM  

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.


how about the R. Budd Dwyer route?

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-09-19 12:59:55 PM  

sugardave: error 303: Maybe this isn't a popular opinion, but I've always thought our national leaders are really under paid. I mean sure, lots of them are idiots and they work 3 day weeks more often than not and all that, but when you think about it, these guys aren't making all that much considering the types of decisions theyre making and policy they're crafting.

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.

Oh yes, the decisions these people have to make every day are staggering.  Which pointless non-issue do I attack the President for today?  Which mouth-breathing group do I pander to today?  Which passages from the bible do I need to pretend I don't know about today?

Staggering, I tell you.


You try going to a townhall meeting in a Derpy Red District and refrain from openly and spontaneously laughing in your deluded constituents faces as they expose their untenable grip on reality.      It can't be easy.
 
2013-09-19 01:06:32 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: F*ck y'all

/in fact, f*ck all y'all


Not to mention all y'all's horses you rode in on.

Or is it "all y'all's horses in upon whom y'all rode?"

/where's a grammar nazi when you need one?
 
2013-09-19 01:11:21 PM  

shut_it_down: 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.


Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I cannot respect someone who doesn't see the difference.
 
2013-09-19 01:13:46 PM  

error 303: Maybe this isn't a popular opinion, but I've always thought our national leaders are really under paid. I mean sure, lots of them are idiots and they work 3 day weeks more often than not and all that, but when you think about it, these guys aren't making all that much considering the types of decisions theyre making and policy they're crafting.

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.


And even if we paid them more, they'd still want that sweet. sweet lobbying money and investments with inside informaiton that is only legal for congress to use. How many people would really say, "No, I am making enough right now. Take your lobbying money, and I will not legislate in way that directly benefits my bank account."
 
2013-09-19 01:14:46 PM  

elvisaintdead: He's also an MD.
OB-GYN, in fact.  There's plenty of green for him, right there in the pink.


eeeeeewwwwwwww

Why are these creepy republican congress doctors ALWAYS gynecologists?

Although I guess being in congress at least keeps them away from patients.
 
2013-09-19 01:16:26 PM  
To be fair, this human-shiat-stain believes middle class starts at $250,000 a year.
 
2013-09-19 01:16:59 PM  

DeaH: error 303: Maybe this isn't a popular opinion, but I've always thought our national leaders are really under paid. I mean sure, lots of them are idiots and they work 3 day weeks more often than not and all that, but when you think about it, these guys aren't making all that much considering the types of decisions theyre making and policy they're crafting.

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.

And even if we paid them more, they'd still want that sweet. sweet lobbying money and investments with inside informaiton that is only legal for congress to use. How many people would really say, "No, I am making enough right now. Take your lobbying money, and I will not legislate in way that directly benefits my bank account."


They already have plenty of money when they go in.  The average person couldn't foot the bill of a Congressional race, and wouldn't have the contacts to raise the money. That's also part of the problem - they're already by and large well off and upper class before they get there.  That's why a salary that most of us would be extremely pleased with seems like so little to them. It is. But they didn't take that job for the salary - they took it for the power and the opportunities for other money and more power, so it's kind of a moot point.
 
2013-09-19 01:17:44 PM  

Serious Black: error 303: Maybe this isn't a popular opinion, but I've always thought our national leaders are really under paid. I mean sure, lots of them are idiots and they work 3 day weeks more often than not and all that, but when you think about it, these guys aren't making all that much considering the types of decisions theyre making and policy they're crafting.

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.

So pay them more and make it a felony to jump ship to a company that lobbies Congress within some time of retiring from Congress.


This.  I had to sign a non-compete agreement to get a job in the private sector.  The same should go for congress.
 
2013-09-19 01:31:43 PM  
Propose a bill saying members of congress have to be payed whatever the national average salary is for teachers in the United States.

Let's sit back and watch what happens.
 
2013-09-19 01:42:11 PM  
IF he doesn't want his salary, I'll gladly take it.
 
2013-09-19 01:43:03 PM  

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?


Hence the name, 'the 1%'.
 
2013-09-19 02:01:40 PM  
he should just negotiate with his employer for a pay increase, or go out and get himself a second part time job to supplement his income.

in his spare time he can home cook his meals from beans, rice, chicken, potatoes and cans of tomatoes. he could also sublet rooms in his DC and GA. I bet his living room in GA is big enough to fit like two dozen migrant farm workers.

even better, he can have them plant his backyard with food, and share the proceeds when the surplus is sold at the market.
 
2013-09-19 02:13:02 PM  

dumbobruni: he should just negotiate with his employer for a pay increase, or go out and get himself a second part time job to supplement his income.

in his spare time he can home cook his meals from beans, rice, chicken, potatoes and cans of tomatoes. he could also sublet rooms in his DC and GA. I bet his living room in GA is big enough to fit like two dozen migrant farm workers.

even better, he can have them plant his backyard with food, and share the proceeds when the surplus is sold at the market.


Good point.  I remember many threads here when farkers have told long stories, with straight faces, about how they supported a family of 11 on $1.75 an hour, sure, they enjoyed it, and they earned three Ph.Ds while doing it, and golly, they never had a better time, you just need to be smart about how you manage your budget.  My hunch is that those same people would white-knight for this guy.
 
2013-09-19 02:31:31 PM  
They are all opportunistic assholes people. ALL of them.

We are ALL voting for assholes. So lets stop picking sides and lets start picking the best assholes.

and I mean that...
 
2013-09-19 02:31:41 PM  

Zik-Zak: 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?

Hence the name, 'the 1%'.


Seriously.  He can trade places with me if he likes; I make less than a third of that and actually have to work for a living.
 
2013-09-19 02:32:32 PM  

TheNewJesus: They are all opportunistic assholes people. ALL of them.

We are ALL voting for assholes. So lets stop picking sides and lets start picking the best assholes.

and I mean that...


I already am picking the best assholes (SHUT UP! NOT LIKE THAT! SHUT UP!).  It just so happens that most of the worst assholes are on the same side.
 
2013-09-19 02:43:12 PM  
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is speaking out against a cut in congressional pay because she says it will undermine the dignity of their positions. "I think we should respect the work we do," Pelosi said. "I think it's necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded."

Pelosi, whose husband, Paul, is a  real-estate mogul, was quick to add that slicing her own paycheck wouldn't "mean as much" as those senators who struggle to make ends meet on $174,000 per year. "


Because it's different when a democrat says it.
 
2013-09-19 02:50:09 PM  
my posts trickle down
 
2013-09-19 02:51:09 PM  
Once you factor in the cost of living in DC and the fact that he still has to maintain residence (read: another house) in his home state, $175k isn't all that much. Combine that with the costs of attending formal functions all the time and it's only a moderate salary.

tl;dr: living in DC with two homes costs more than living in mom's basement, living off saltines and Fark
 
2013-09-19 03:00:13 PM  

super_grass: $175k isn't all that much.


maybe you are very wealthy and don't really have a grasp of reality on this front but a single member of the household pulling down 175 a year is doing pretty damn good in any city.
 
2013-09-19 03:08:41 PM  

Headso: super_grass: $175k isn't all that much.

maybe you are very wealthy and don't really have a grasp of reality on this front but a single member of the household pulling down 175 a year is doing pretty damn good in any city.


Except for:

"cost of living in DC and the fact that he still has to maintain residence (read: another house) in his home state"and "costs of attending formal functions all the time"

I mean if you want to make congressional service a game for bored people who are already stinking rich, that's fine. But I still consider being a member of congress a semi-important job and don't want them tempted too much by money from the dark side.
 
2013-09-19 03:21:33 PM  

super_grass: Once you factor in the cost of living in DC and the fact that he still has to maintain residence (read: another house) in his home state, $175k isn't all that much. Combine that with the costs of attending formal functions all the time and it's only a moderate salary.

tl;dr: living in DC with two homes costs more than living in mom's basement, living off saltines and Fark


This is like those stupid columnists who say that because they live in NYC, $500k is barely enough to survive.

Loudoun County, VA has the highest median income in the US and is a suburb of DC. It's median income is still $107,207.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudoun_County,_Virginia

If you make over that and still say you have financial troubles, then you obviously don't know how to manage your money.

He can either get a townhouse or apartment or if he is really strapped for cash, sleep in his office like other Congressmen do.
 
2013-09-19 03:22:26 PM  

Danger Mouse: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is speaking out against a cut in congressional pay because she says it will undermine the dignity of their positions. "I think we should respect the work we do," Pelosi said. "I think it's necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded."

Pelosi, whose husband, Paul, is a  real-estate mogul, was quick to add that slicing her own paycheck wouldn't "mean as much" as those senators who struggle to make ends meet on $174,000 per year. "


Because it's different when a democrat says it.


Actually, it was quite a bit different.
 
2013-09-19 03:28:03 PM  

Danger Mouse: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is speaking out against a cut in congressional pay because she says it will undermine the dignity of their positions. "I think we should respect the work we do," Pelosi said. "I think it's necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded."

Pelosi, whose husband, Paul, is a  real-estate mogul, was quick to add that slicing her own paycheck wouldn't "mean as much" as those senators who struggle to make ends meet on $174,000 per year. "


Because it's different when a democrat says it.


You mean, it's different when a Republican says one thing, and a Democrat says a different thing?
 
2013-09-19 03:34:26 PM  

Mrtraveler01: super_grass: Once you factor in the cost of living in DC and the fact that he still has to maintain residence (read: another house) in his home state, $175k isn't all that much. Combine that with the costs of attending formal functions all the time and it's only a moderate salary.

tl;dr: living in DC with two homes costs more than living in mom's basement, living off saltines and Fark

This is like those stupid columnists who say that because they live in NYC, $500k is barely enough to survive.

Loudoun County, VA has the highest median income in the US and is a suburb of DC. It's median income is still $107,207.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudoun_County,_Virginia

If you make over that and still say you have financial troubles, then you obviously don't know how to manage your money.

He can either get a townhouse or apartment or if he is really strapped for cash, sleep in his office like other Congressmen do.


Or he can start scoring freebies and cultivating connections with groups with deep pockets for future employment. It's a lot easier.

And making over median income isn't saying much once you factor in the mandatory second home and the importance of the job.
 
2013-09-19 03:47:56 PM  

super_grass: Mrtraveler01: super_grass: Once you factor in the cost of living in DC and the fact that he still has to maintain residence (read: another house) in his home state, $175k isn't all that much. Combine that with the costs of attending formal functions all the time and it's only a moderate salary.

tl;dr: living in DC with two homes costs more than living in mom's basement, living off saltines and Fark

This is like those stupid columnists who say that because they live in NYC, $500k is barely enough to survive.

Loudoun County, VA has the highest median income in the US and is a suburb of DC. It's median income is still $107,207.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudoun_County,_Virginia

If you make over that and still say you have financial troubles, then you obviously don't know how to manage your money.

He can either get a townhouse or apartment or if he is really strapped for cash, sleep in his office like other Congressmen do.

Or he can start scoring freebies and cultivating connections with groups with deep pockets for future employment. It's a lot easier.

And making over median income isn't saying much once you factor in the mandatory second home and the importance of the job.


you can buy a house in Georgia for like 50 grand, and how much does someone have to earn before they don't act like a corrupt shiatbag? I will hold the Koch brothers and the Waltons up as a counterpoint to whatever figure you come up with...
 
2013-09-19 03:57:05 PM  
Boo my hoo, you greedy c*nt.  Seriously.
 
2013-09-19 04:01:18 PM  

Headso: you can buy a house in Georgia for like 50 grand, and how much does someone have to earn before they don't act like a corrupt shiatbag? I will hold the Koch brothers and the Waltons up as a counterpoint to whatever figure you come up with...


Enough so that congressmen won't even think of a free meal or a car ride as worth their time with a lobbyist that they don't particular care about? I'm sure that you believe that if you're ever in congress, you'll live in your office and make your property back home a trailer below an underpass like some kind of congressional Gandhi.

But most congressmen expect more for their pay grade, and I expect much less saintliness from them.

/And a 50 grand house in a place worth living in in Georgia? Good luck with hat.
 
2013-09-19 04:02:54 PM  

Kibbler: Danger Mouse: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is speaking out against a cut in congressional pay because she says it will undermine the dignity of their positions. "I think we should respect the work we do," Pelosi said. "I think it's necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded."

Pelosi, whose husband, Paul, is a  real-estate mogul, was quick to add that slicing her own paycheck wouldn't "mean as much" as those senators who struggle to make ends meet on $174,000 per year. "


Because it's different when a democrat says it.

You mean, it's different when a Republican says one thing, and a Democrat says a different thing?


When Pelosi is against cutting the $174 salary, hardly a word was said around this tab about salary being too high, yet when a republican says "hey I only make $174" most of the posters here are going to have calluses from the circle jerking.

Hey it's all good. I'm just here for all the hypcrotrical libtarding.

 /Carry on.
 
2013-09-19 04:10:47 PM  

super_grass: Headso: you can buy a house in Georgia for like 50 grand, and how much does someone have to earn before they don't act like a corrupt shiatbag? I will hold the Koch brothers and the Waltons up as a counterpoint to whatever figure you come up with...

Enough so that congressmen won't even think of a free meal or a car ride as worth their time with a lobbyist that they don't particular care about? I'm sure that you believe that if you're ever in congress, you'll live in your office and make your property back home a trailer below an underpass like some kind of congressional Gandhi.

But most congressmen expect more for their pay grade, and I expect much less saintliness from them.

/And a 50 grand house in a place worth living in in Georgia? Good luck with hat.


on the contrary, I will try to steal as much money as possible, when in rome do as the romans do...
 
2013-09-19 04:14:07 PM  
Since "Liberal" and "Conservative" are meaningless misnomers that have been masticated into a useless wad of political bolus, if "liberal" has come to mean "the people who aren't in favor of rich, lying, greedy, thieving c*nts stripping the paint off the walls with complete impunity", you can check that box for me.  It's all made up marketing malarkey, any how.
 
2013-09-19 04:47:40 PM  
The fact that a lobbyist can make $500K a year is a clear example, if not the best example, of just how farked up the US political system is. Lobbyists being paid a crazy amount of money by people and corporations who make an even crazier amount of money so that they can jack the system even more and rake in an even crazier amount of money.

I just can't wrap my head around their 'never enough' mindset.
 
2013-09-19 07:27:23 PM  
Danger Mouse:
Hey it's all good. I'm just here for all the hypcrotrical libtarding.

 /Carry on.


Assholes like you keep the world nice and shiat-stained. You should be proud in your ignorance.
 
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