Skip to content
 
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.

(Fox News)   Congress says its most recent payraise is well deserved and too small   (foxnews.com) divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

2737 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Dec 2001 at 10:58 AM (18 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



100 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2001-12-26 11:00:35 AM  
YOU FARKING BASTARDS!
 
2001-12-26 11:01:15 AM  
Shouldn't this be img.fark.net?
 
2001-12-26 11:01:32 AM  
concur!
 
2001-12-26 11:02:08 AM  
Man, I could use 4,900 bucks extra a year.. ah well...
 
2001-12-26 11:02:11 AM  
"The hour was late, the issue radioactive. Under cover of darkness, members of Congress let their third pay increase in four years go through. Come January, their pay will jump $4,900 a year to $150,000."

This makes me rather irritated.
 
2001-12-26 11:02:20 AM  
Okay bastards, clean out your desks, you're fired, security will escort you out of the building.
 
2001-12-26 11:02:39 AM  
Paul Keating, ex Prime Minister of Australia, used to use many colorful phrases in describing certain members of the Opposition--in Parliament, he'd refer to them as "bastards", "gutless spivs" and worse, and on public record.

All those pejoratives apply here, too, dontcha think?
 
2001-12-26 11:02:57 AM  
Sometimes I wonder if there exists anyone more out of touch with the people of the United States than our own congressmen. Christ.
 
bug
2001-12-26 11:04:04 AM  
maybe Santa isn't checking his list as astutely as he has in the past
 
2001-12-26 11:05:29 AM  
If it was truly the 'will of the people' then WE should vote on whether or not they get a raise.

Govt will of the people
 
2001-12-26 11:09:05 AM  
it would be great if all government officials were paid the average citizen's salary, no matter what thier job was...then their focus would be on the people because they would be one of the people...not the aristocrates playing a game of Risk with real peoples' lives.

i hate politicians
 
2001-12-26 11:09:32 AM  
Hey, it's tough work posturing and bickering all day. And lining up all of those outside deals for just incase you don't get re-elected.
 
fj
2001-12-26 11:09:51 AM  
That's a truly wonderful system. I wish they would implement that where I work. Vote yourself a pay raise, screw merit based raises.
 
2001-12-26 11:13:40 AM  
I bet the majority of Congress would not be able to tell you what a gallon milk cost. Or pretty much anything that "the people" buy on a daily basis.
 
2001-12-26 11:15:03 AM  
Fj:I concur. I can't give myself a raise and when was the last time they asked the voters if they deserved a raise. I want that job but then everyone would hate me. Then again, everyone does now anyway.
Vote for Groundhog in 2002.
 
2001-12-26 11:15:47 AM  
Perhaps they should have passed the economic stimulus package? Farking morons. Vote them ALL OUT!
 
2001-12-26 11:17:50 AM  
Y'see that last post by Dalai Lama? I agree with every single farking word of that.

Decentralise government. We should have little computerised voting booths in our living rooms where we have voting duty, so we can veto when these fat assholes try to give themselves a pay rise.
 
fj
2001-12-26 11:20:14 AM  
passed the economic stimulus package?

That would cut into the tax money that is rightfully their's.
Helping the economy is nice, but it is much more important for them to help themselves (to our tax dollars)
 
2001-12-26 11:25:09 AM  
Dali Llama seems to have a good point. Although, when I read this article, I thought, "The highest-ranking executive officers of this nation make only $150,000?? That's pretty weak when you compare it to board members of any reasonably sucessfull corporation.
 
JMT
2001-12-26 11:26:19 AM  
Who cares? We all know that 90% of a congressman's income comes from lobbyists anyway.
 
fj
2001-12-26 11:28:45 AM  
Flignir: $150,000 plus the other benefits. Free transportation, money for apartments in DC, various office and travel expenses...
After all the fringe benefits, they get much ,much more.
 
2001-12-26 11:29:33 AM  
[image from c-span.org too old to be available]

"Blacks aren't as good as whites."
 
2001-12-26 11:31:38 AM  
Critics insist it's wrong to compare legislators' pay with their counterparts in business.

"The purpose of the private sector is to earn money for shareholders," said Ruskin. "The purpose of the public sector is to do the public's will."

Furthermore, critics point to congressional perquisites, such as a generous pension plan, that create a "princely" compensation package.


I agree with that. Dalai Lama, that is a very good idea you have.
 
2001-12-26 11:32:00 AM  
thanks for the support, guys...when I run for the presidency, I'll be sure to leak to the press that I'm aka Dalai Lama on FARK.com

Flignir you callin' me a camel?! You rat-bastage, you!!!
 
2001-12-26 11:36:47 AM  
Fj, obviously, there is no accounting for the fringe benifits: they're enormous. But if you look at the only comprable professionals to compare to, (i.e. the corporate world) Congress, as executives are WAY under the mark.

Yeah, everyone is naturally going to be pissed at the concept of anyone giving themselves a raise, but is there anything on which to base the claim that they are getting too much? My point is simply: Assuming they are going to be paid something so that it's at least possible for somone who is not supa-rich or inappropriately supported to do the job, then what would be fair?


Also, the article led me to belive that Congressmen are each expected to pay for their own Washington residence.

 
2001-12-26 11:36:55 AM  
Strom Thurmond could quit the senate and make real bucks by starring in a remake of "Night of the Living Dead".
 
2001-12-26 11:40:31 AM  
Yeah, Flignir, but they don't run the country successfully.
 
2001-12-26 11:40:47 AM  
Dalai Lama: Need a campaign manager? After last years choices a farker should be a shoe-in.
 
2001-12-26 11:43:54 AM  
There are laws governing their pay raises... they control the law... anybody see a circle going here?
 
2001-12-26 11:44:47 AM  
Sorry, Dolly Lama, my bad. But regarding your Congressional payment plan, if Congress were merely paid the average of what Americans made per capita, it would be so relatively low an amount that their pay would be financially negligible. And that's good! If you're law were passed and congressmen were that concerned with their pay, they'd make small felonies and poverty in general punishble by death. That'd bring the average right back up.
 
2001-12-26 11:49:17 AM  
"This time, Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the union, says: "Apparently, they're having trouble paying the rent and buying groceries on $145,000 a year." "


I have ta agree with FJ !!....these farks get so much in bennies its sick...then add $150,000/yr. WTF !! maybe this wouldn't be such a big deal...but look at our economy right now, how many people have been laid off in the past 3 months. Timing is soooo wrong here.
 
2001-12-26 11:49:23 AM  
Philo, the country isn't run successfully? I'm sorry, are there hordes of Babarians raping your mother and stealing your chickens today? Do you not have access to work, food, water, electricity? Are there not 100,000 bad-ass troops chasing down Osama and expelling the Taliban right now? What isn't working? Are you not getting enough welfare benfits?
 
2001-12-26 11:52:33 AM  
Memo to Congress;

[image from rezdogs.com too old to be available]
 
2001-12-26 11:53:42 AM  
What is the opposite of Congress?
PROGRESS !!!
Just line 'em up and AK-47 the useless vermin !!!
Nice of them NOT to get the economic stimulus package going before they went on their break/drug binge/crack whore escapade.
 
2001-12-26 11:54:27 AM  
Flignir it's difficult to speculate on the effects of "my" idea...it would be such a drastic change, I don't think we can even imagine what differences it would make...positive and negative.

Still, I think the main difference would be; people that decided to get into politics would be doing so because they truely want to serve the people...kinda like deciding to be a high school teacher, you don't do it 'cause the pay is marvelous, you do it because you love to teach.

I love my fantasy world.

ha, Dolly :)
 
fj
2001-12-26 11:54:30 AM  
If the country is running successfully, it has nothing to do with our representatives in congress. They do all they can to inhibit growth. If the heads of successful companies worked as hard or as fast as congress, they wouldn't be successful companies.
 
2001-12-26 11:59:08 AM  
Flignir, my mom is dead, so the rape thingy you mentioned isn't an issue. Everything else you mentioned (except the war stuff) happens cuz I work hard for it, not because Congress hands me shiat on a plate. Tanx for the flame. I'll remember that you can't take a joke.
 
2001-12-26 12:05:09 PM  
One thing i don't think they keep in mind:
THEY ARE FARKIN' PUBLIC SERVANTS!!!!
Being a government representative is not suppose to be something you do to further your career or your damn pocket! They are endowed with a sacred public trust. The whole idea originally was for someone to "serve" for a term or two, then return to private life. It is supposed to be a sacrifice that one does to serve and honor one's country!!!

I personally feel that they should be given room, board and transportation.
THAT'S ALL!!!!!!

The phrase "Career politician" should not exist!!!!!
 
2001-12-26 12:07:21 PM  
Well, the 27th Amendment requires that congress go through an election cycle before the raise is implemented. So, go vote out your representatives before they get a chance to enjoy the money, if they voted for it.

Golly, this political science degree is coming in handy.
 
2001-12-26 12:07:56 PM  
Philo, it's not only a joke if you believe it's true. You may work very hard for all I know, but do you think you'd have it anywhere near as good if you were born in Afghanistan or Uzbekistan, for example? The country gives you oppertunities that the hard work of one man can't create in a vacuum.
 
2001-12-26 12:07:57 PM  
Hey what would you do if your boss gave you a 3% raise. I would not be very happy, would you? As far as the never dying milk analogy goes, I bought a gallon yesterday I could not tell you what I paid for it, I guess between 2-3 dollars maybe... But I swear I have no clue...
 
2001-12-26 12:10:02 PM  
Here is another novel idea, not quite as radical as Dalai Lama's.

Since each congressperson is voted into office by a constituency, have the consituency vote to either give their congresspeople a raise or not. So as an example, the people of Georgia would vote on if they felt the senators and representatives of Georgia were doing a worthy job of looking after their interests, and then those people would either earn or fail to earn a raise, independant of the rest of the states.

This would hopefully do two things. It would push the congresspeople to be more in touch with the wishes of the constituency, since the fate of the raise is in those people's hands. And it would also push the constituencies to pay more attention to what their representatives are doing, so that they can make an informed decision.

Of course in reality the American public are lazy and don't tend to care except for really big issues, and congresspeople often have enough other things going for them (book deals, etc) that they don't have to care about a $5000 a year raise. But in the ideal society, this system would have both the people and their representatives working for what both sides want, which is really what you hope for in a representative government.
 
2001-12-26 12:10:03 PM  
But Fugg, if you don't pay them, then it is simply impossible for a so-called regular guy to take the job and do it honestly. If he wasn't obscenely wealthy to begin with, a congressman would have to take bribes, etc. to survive, nevermind live well.
 
43%
2001-12-26 12:14:17 PM  
hmm, fugg, so if i ran for congress (if i could raise the money to run), i shouldn't get paid. How would you support yourself if you were a congressman. That seems to imply that only the independantly wealthy should be in congress.

in my state, the state legislature is part time and is paid like 10 or 20 k a year. this is fine for people who don't (have to) work, but regular people who get into office are screwed, especially in years like this one, when the leg. met for 10 months.

a full time us congressman (if they are not independently wealthy) needs to either get paid or should get a free hotdog cart to push around the Mall
 
2001-12-26 12:15:09 PM  
Vman but at least you went and bought it, and you do have a clue.
Maybe using the milk analogy was bad. I apologize for that.
How about just plain groceries in general. You certainly know what your average weekly expenses are.
You know how much it cost to go see the doctor, whether it's a co-pay or straight out of your pocket. You know how much your prescriptions cost, and you know how much it costs for a haircut.

Congress gets their medical for free, haircuts, the list is endless. I don't buy the "cost of living" crap. They don't have a clue.
 
2001-12-26 12:20:57 PM  
This time, Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the union, says: "Apparently, they're having trouble paying the rent and buying groceries on $145,000 a year."


That's pretty farking sad if that's the case. My husband's and my total income is a fraction of that, and we can take care of ourselves and our newborn on what we make. Maybe these guys live beyond their means...?
 
fj
2001-12-26 12:22:42 PM  
There are many benefits to having constituents vote on their representatives salary. $150,000 may not be much in NYC, but in East Bumfark, Idaho that is living like a king. If this is a cost of living increase, it makes sense that the cost of living is not the same throughout the country.

I agree that they should be paid, but their pay should be relative to their locality and any raises should be merit based.
 
2001-12-26 12:25:10 PM  
Congress payraises should be determined by a neutral diplomatic country.
 
2001-12-26 12:26:59 PM  
I know it sounds ridiculous to most people, but it's only a 3.5% raise for the people who write laws for our country. Of course, they do get huge incentives from lobbyists and interest groups. That aside though, $150,000 is not that much money for what they do.
 
2001-12-26 12:27:40 PM  
Flignir,
OK, on second thought, I agree you have to pay them a living wage. I just get very aggravated about the actions and mindset of most of today's politicians. Politics today bares no semblance to the original idea of government representatives that the originators of our political system had in mind over 200 years ago.

The thought of them giving themselves almost a 5k a year raise when more Americans are out of work today than 10 years ago just makes me sick.

I don't have all the answers, but I know we're in need of a change.

...but I have to agree with Fj, "any raises should be merit based", at least.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.