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 45
    More: Dumbass, congressman, GOP, symphony, Phil Gingrey, median household income  
•       •       •

3862 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Sep 2013 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-19 10:21:35 AM  
5 votes:
And yet those on food stamps and welfare are living the good life.
2013-09-19 11:00:59 AM  
3 votes:
"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 10:58:40 AM  
3 votes:

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 01:31:43 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:03:22 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:54:58 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:53:37 AM  
2 votes:
Remind me again why show trials and summary executions are somehow forbidden?
2013-09-19 10:49:58 AM  
2 votes:
F*ck you asshole.
2013-09-19 10:12:33 AM  
2 votes:
F*ck y'all

/in fact, f*ck all y'all
2013-09-19 04:14:07 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:28:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:22:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:43:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:01:40 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:17:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:59:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:52:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:49:40 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:30:12 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:27:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:00:22 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:57:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:32:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:26:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:20:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:14:49 AM  
1 votes:
His advice to people on food stamps is to eat cake.
2013-09-19 11:10:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:10:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:09:18 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:07:50 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:06:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:05:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:00:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:00:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:59:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:57:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:53:39 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:52:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:52:31 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:51:06 AM  
1 votes:
You slimy piece of shiat.
2013-09-19 10:42:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:25:47 AM  
1 votes:
He's also an MD.
OB-GYN, in fact.  There's plenty of green for him, right there in the pink.
2013-09-19 10:23:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:10:28 AM  
1 votes:
You know, Congressman, there's a way for the good folks in Georgia to help you get un-stuck...
2013-09-19 10:07:25 AM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report