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 (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-19 10:07:25 AM
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.
 
2013-09-19 10:10:28 AM
You know, Congressman, there's a way for the good folks in Georgia to help you get un-stuck...
 
2013-09-19 10:11:52 AM

Diogenes: 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.


That's what I was thinking. I have no doubt that someone as well-connected as a congressman could go make a half a million a year someplace else. It's not good if our leaders are champing at the bit to  not be leaders.

On the other hand, I'd imagine that there are lots of perks for being a congressman, so maybe this guy has just got his priorities screwed up.
 
2013-09-19 10:12:33 AM
F*ck y'all

/in fact, f*ck all y'all
 
2013-09-19 10:21:35 AM
And yet those on food stamps and welfare are living the good life.
 
2013-09-19 10:23:06 AM

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


They probably get bored with lobster and sushi all the time, though.
 
2013-09-19 10:23:55 AM

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


If they really wanted to get lots of government money for doing nothing they'd get elected
 
2013-09-19 10:25:47 AM
He's also an MD.
OB-GYN, in fact.  There's plenty of green for him, right there in the pink.
 
2013-09-19 10:28:53 AM
Funny coincidence.  On one of the local news sites' main page today we have:

 - Pay increase proposed for Orlando's elected leaders

 - Census finds income is stagnant in Fla.

Truly, it's good to be the king.
 
2013-09-19 10:37:45 AM
Rail, tar, feathers.
I am ready to show him out.
 
2013-09-19 10:41:16 AM

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?
 
2013-09-19 10:42:27 AM
Stealers Wheels unavailable for comment.
 
2013-09-19 10:42:45 AM
Republican House member? Why would K street need another lobbyist specializing on how to vote against the ACA.
 
2013-09-19 10:42:55 AM

vudukungfu: Rail, tar, feathers.
I am ready to show him out.


I don't have a guillotine but I know the basic concept and I've got plenty of scrap wood lying around.  I hate Congress.
 
2013-09-19 10:43:06 AM
Why is he stuck there? Nobody said he had to run for re-election (or election in the first place), or even finish his term.  Nobody puts a gun to his head and makes him stay there.  If he feels so stuck, and so put upon making $172,000 per year, he should resign. I am sure there are plenty of people who would be happy to be stuck in his situation, and they'd even campaign and beg people to vote them into it.

I mean, he'd know that, that's how he got the job in the first place. But let's overlook that part.
 
2013-09-19 10:49:58 AM
F*ck you asshole.
 
2013-09-19 10:51:06 AM
You slimy piece of shiat.
 
2013-09-19 10:52:16 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.


Following the links to the National Review article, it appears he pissed off Republican Congressional aides, so I'm guessing he's just straight up whining
 
2013-09-19 10:52:16 AM
How much do the benefits of being a Congressman add on to the real salary? They get eternal healthcare and a great big pension don't they? What else? Of course, CEO's probably get similar.

You could increase salaries to attract to best and brightest to politics, but then you might end up attracting an even more greedy, corrupt, and self serving class of human... Decisions decisions.
 
2013-09-19 10:52:29 AM
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.
 
2013-09-19 10:52:31 AM
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.
 
2013-09-19 10:52:33 AM

simplicimus: Republican House member? Why would K street need another lobbyist specializing on how to vote against the ACA.


I think it's well-established at this point that modern Republicans don't grasp true ROI.
 
2013-09-19 10:53:37 AM
Remind me again why show trials and summary executions are somehow forbidden?
 
2013-09-19 10:53:39 AM
His constituents sure are getting their money's worth from him.  Him being a "public servant" and all.
Let's see, he makes above minimum wage showing up every once in a while for another failed vote to get rid of Obamacare.

Are Republicans even American?  Are they all as lazy as this sack of s**t?
 
2013-09-19 10:54:58 AM

Peter von Nostrand: 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.

Following the links to the National Review article, it appears he pissed off Republican Congressional aides, so I'm guessing he's just straight up whining


Then as I said -- ass, door.  No one's forcing him to be there, and if his primary concern is his compensation and not his constituents and his country he shouldn't be there in the first place.
 
2013-09-19 10:55:56 AM
We should all play a game of Mad Libs!

People who get get into politics to become wealthy should be ______________!
                                                                                                            (verb)
 
2013-09-19 10:56:13 AM
Garotte this little shiat with bootstraps.
 
2013-09-19 10:56:33 AM

Slaxl: How much do the benefits of being a Congressman add on to the real salary? They get eternal healthcare and a great big pension don't they? What else? Of course, CEO's probably get similar.

You could increase salaries to attract to best and brightest to politics, but then you might end up attracting an even more greedy, corrupt, and self serving class of human... Decisions decisions.


They're eligible for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (until 2014, but they'll still get the employee contribution after that). They also are part of the Federal Employee Retirement System which has them participate in Social Security, gives them a TSP account with an up to 5% match on contributions, and a decent pension for people who contribute for five or more years (or other more complicated scenarios).
 
2013-09-19 10:57:09 AM

FarkedOver: We should all play a game of Mad Libs!

People who get get into politics to become wealthy should be ______________!
                                                                                                            (verb)


Tortured until they weep blood? I mean, it's a verb phrase, but I think it fits.
 
2013-09-19 10:58:22 AM
Ok, admittedly, once you factor in the second place in the DC area, 172K is not a fortune, but you ain't hurting dick weasel.
 
2013-09-19 10:58:40 AM

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.
 
2013-09-19 10:59:47 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.


The feeling I get from the quote is that that's exactly the problem he's trying to point out. It's awfully tempting to set yourself up for a cushy lobbyist gig if it pays 3 times what you're making now.

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.
 
2013-09-19 11:00:15 AM

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.


True.  The President is woefully undercompensated considering the size of the nation that he's leading, and there is a case to be made that increased pay deters (not completely blocks)  bribery.  Of course, given that he's the party of "fark gubm'nt it's theft." fark him.  Now when we have people in there who say, "government, like any human institution, is prone to error and abuse, but it also can be used for good as well so let's try to do as much good as possible." then we can talk pay raises.
 
2013-09-19 11:00:16 AM
In his defense, following the link in TFA, he was speaking in regards to the idea that congressional staffers can continue to receive the 'employer' portion of the premiums towards their health care premium purchases on the exchanges.  I find this whole situation really amusing because of the logical pretzel conservatives are twisting themselves into over it... calling this some kind of exemption from Obamacare when the whole situation only comes from their being *required* to get their coverage from the exchanges... the exact opposite of an exemption.

Anyway, it was kind of a stupid way to make the point that Vitter's proposal to prevent members of congress and their staff from continuing to receive the 'employer' portion of their premiums is a bad idea.
 
2013-09-19 11:00:46 AM
*Breaking News* - Tom DeLay's conviction has been overturned... yippie.
 
2013-09-19 11:00:48 AM

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.

Ben Bernanke is arguably the most powerful man in the world and he's making just under $200k a year.  But you don't hear him complaining, because he's the most powerful man in the world.
 
2013-09-19 11:00:59 AM
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

-- John Kenneth Galbraith

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

-- Anatole France
 
2013-09-19 11:01:57 AM
Poor guy hasn't figured out how to write off the hookers and blow yet.
 
2013-09-19 11:03:08 AM
This is just how the Founding Fathers wanted it. The Noble Citizen who doesn't even want to participate in politics is dragged away from his prosperous private endeavors to SERVE.

God Bless you, Rep Gingrey.
 
2013-09-19 11:03:22 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.


I think the important part that is being overlooked is they are still civil servants. Powerful civil servants, but civil servants nonetheless.  I don't believe Congress/Senate was ever meant to be the path to untold wealth and riches, but more of a way of participating in the government and standing up and representing the people who elected you to do so.
 
2013-09-19 11:04:30 AM

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.
 
2013-09-19 11:05:13 AM

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.
 
2013-09-19 11:05:28 AM

thurstonxhowell: 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.

The feeling I get from the quote is that that's exactly the problem he's trying to point out. It's awfully tempting to set yourself up for a cushy lobbyist gig if it pays 3 times what you're making now.

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.


And if that's the case, we should pay them more money and highly discourage or ban them from using their political connections gained during their service to profit themselves after leaving Congress.
 
2013-09-19 11:05:52 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.


He wasn't really whining about his own salary, but he was saying that he doesn't care if Capitol Hill staffers (all of whom are required by law to make less than he does, and 99% of whom make FAR less) have to pay more for health care because they can go get lobbying jobs.

Of course, the people who actually get the big lobbying dollars are former members, like Gingrey.

In short, he's a dick.
 
2013-09-19 11:06:15 AM

FarkedOver: *Breaking News* - Tom DeLay's conviction has been overturned... yippie.


Don't worry. There's still another round of appeals to go.
 
2013-09-19 11:06:53 AM

Fubini: It's not good if our leaders are champing at the bit to not be leaders.


This.

If being a "leader" is now seen as simply a stepping stone to a high paying cushy job later on, things are broken.
 
2013-09-19 11:06:58 AM

theknuckler_33: In his defense, following the link in TFA, he was speaking in regards to the idea that congressional staffers can continue to receive the 'employer' portion of the premiums towards their health care premium purchases on the exchanges.  I find this whole situation really amusing because of the logical pretzel conservatives are twisting themselves into over it... calling this some kind of exemption from Obamacare when the whole situation only comes from their being *required* to get their coverage from the exchanges... the exact opposite of an exemption.

Anyway, it was kind of a stupid way to make the point that Vitter's proposal to prevent members of congress and their staff from continuing to receive the 'employer' portion of their premiums is a bad idea.


wow, I just realized Gingrey supports ending the subsidy. Interesting. Seems his point was more "fark the staffers, they can go to K-street".
 
2013-09-19 11:07:50 AM

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.
 
2013-09-19 11:08:18 AM

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.
 
2013-09-19 11:09:18 AM
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
2013-09-19 08:25:27 PM
Poor guy, he's barely middle class.

www.mindhuestudio.com
 
2013-09-19 08:26:11 PM

bunner: Boo my hoo, you greedy c*nt.  Seriously.


upload.wikimedia.org

Poors complain too farking much
 
2013-09-19 08:41:55 PM

skullkrusher: Poors complain too farking much


Then they go drive around this town, and let the cops chase them around.
 
2013-09-19 08:54:55 PM

theorellior: skullkrusher: Poors complain too farking much

Then they go drive around this town, and let the cops chase them around.


In Escalades, no doubt.
 
2013-09-19 11:33:43 PM
The last horizons I can see, are filled with bars and factories, and in them all we fight to stay awake.

You know what's funny?

Not only are you, obviously, just a dime store troll, but...

you probably either make f*ck all or hinge your very last drop of self esteem on making a lot.  Fortunately, both are irrelevant.   And you have to come here to sell it to feel like a big deal.   :  )
 
2013-09-20 01:10:50 AM
Quite a sound byte that will be for his next opponent.
 
Displayed 156 of 156 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report