User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:14:31 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Amen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. It was never supposed to be a vocation, it was supposed to be a duty. Amen. This. And I guess he hasn't figured out insider trading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:15:02 PM EDT
[#2]
lol, go fuck yourself, Phil.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:15:34 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. Have you ever read their perks? Do you know they make much more than that in benefits? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:16:08 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was never supposed to be a vocation, it was supposed to be a duty. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. It was never supposed to be a vocation, it was supposed to be a duty. Duty doesn't pay tuition, medical bills, put gas in the car, a roof over our head, or provide a retirement. Money does. People that care about their family care about money. Duty is great...but life still has bills. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:16:12 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've never thought that being a civil servant should warrant a huge salary. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid.
they work for us, and should be paid minimum wage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:27:06 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Check out how much the NH state representatives make, and when the last time they got a raise was. The point is that these positions were never intended to be careers. The idea was that Joe the butcher would take four years and go represent his district, or Bob the baker. Not some self important quasi-royalty "ruling class." It is supposed to be a government OF the people and BY the people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. Check out how much the NH state representatives make, and when the last time they got a raise was. The point is that these positions were never intended to be careers. The idea was that Joe the butcher would take four years and go represent his district, or Bob the baker. Not some self important quasi-royalty "ruling class." It is supposed to be a government OF the people and BY the people. Dude, in that case, you need to pay the position MORE. Why the hell would Bob the Baker, who is running a successful small business, leave his district (and probably see his small business fail in his absence) for shit pay and no certainty of re-election? He could get booted out in two years and come back home to a ruined small business and no prospects. Or, Joe the Butcher might quit his job, go serve for a few years, lose an election, and find out that someone else has taken his position. And if you wanted people truly of no means, like the bottom-rung employee in Bob's Butcher shop, to be able to run for the office then you need to pay a significant salary, too. Think about it: if the pay was $1/year, then only the wealthy could afford to serve as elected representatives. The rest of "the people" would be too busy working. Do you think the guys who ran the CO recall can afford to quit their jobs and run for office? Personally I think a better compensation model would be one that guarantees some degree of stability for one's family even if an election was lost. A transition plan, of sorts. Probably not a lifetime pension, but if you offered politicians a stipend equal to the US median pay for four years after they leave office, a payment to move their family's household goods back to the district, and a GI bill type education stipend (maybe even for their kids, too) then you'd allow people of modest means to take the risk of running for elected office at the national level. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:29:03 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1 The graph below shows the distribution of annual household income in the U.S. If you make more money than 95% of people in the U.S., it's better to keep your mouth shut. This is why it will be easy to beat up on doctor's reimbursement with Obamacare and its eventual complete take-over in the next few years. It's easy for politicians to point to a doctor who is in the top 5% of income in the U.S. and scold them for making too much money. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just shows you how out of touch with the average citizen these schmucks are in DC +1 The graph below shows the distribution of annual household income in the U.S. If you make more money than 95% of people in the U.S., it's better to keep your mouth shut. This is why it will be easy to beat up on doctor's reimbursement with Obamacare and its eventual complete take-over in the next few years. It's easy for politicians to point to a doctor who is in the top 5% of income in the U.S. and scold them for making too much money. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Distribution_of_Annual_Household_Income_in_the_United_States.png Why does that chart go in $5,000 increments, and then in the far right go to $50,000 and open ended < greater than increments? Oh, because that graphic was created to provoke a reaction. If it continued in $5,000 increments up to the trillions of dollars, it would show an infinitely shrinking percentage of the population making an increasing amount of money. Instead, it lumps those households together and makes it look like there's a large class of the population that makes a disproportionate amount of money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:31:02 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Firefighters have enormous responsibilities, yet they make next to nothing. Not here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:34:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Staffers "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. but they'll have to work only 29 hours a week so their employer can escape having to pay for his health insurance |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:36:04 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. For the amount of work they actually do I'd say they're over paid. Seems to me most of their staff either help or actualy do make their decisions for them. When was the last federal budget approved under the Obama administration? Oh that's right... never. Yeah... they're definitely earning their pay. Fuck him and the elephant he rode in on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:38:23 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For the amount of work they actually do I'd say they're over paid. Seems to me most of their staff either help or actualy do make their decisions for them. When was the last federal budget approved under the Obama administration? Oh that's right... never. Yeah... they're definitely earning their pay. Fuck him and the elephant he rode in on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. For the amount of work they actually do I'd say they're over paid. Seems to me most of their staff either help or actualy do make their decisions for them. When was the last federal budget approved under the Obama administration? Oh that's right... never. Yeah... they're definitely earning their pay. Fuck him and the elephant he rode in on. Pileon to my earlier post: How many of you slamming the salary, reading right now, could afford to... 1) Campaign full-time for the next 6 months. You will need to put in 20 hours per week minimum for the first half of that, then 40 hours per week for the last few months. This may require scaling back your real job or quitting. 2) If you win the election, you will likely quit your day job. You will lose any seniority, pension vestment, etc you may have accrued. If you lost the election, well, you're just hosed. Hopefully you can get your day job back. 3) You will need to maintain two households, one in your district and one in DC which has a ridiculous cost of living. If you want to see your family you'll be paying for travel back and forth, too. 4) If you lose an election in two years, you'll be thrown out with very few benefits. You get no pension unless you serve 25 years, or until you hit retirement age, and then it is just FERS like many other federal employees. Someone like Diane Feinstein who is worth millions can easily bear these costs and accept the financial risks. Can you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:40:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Oh jesus christ at the poeple wanting to pay them more. They need to be paid nothing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 6:41:26 PM EDT
[#13]
He should quit and flip burgers like a college grad.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 7:11:11 PM EDT
[#14]
I guarantee you that 90% of the people bitching in this thread agree with the argument he was making. He was fighting a proposal that would exempt legislators and staffers from the new healthcare reforms. Fuck it though...where is my pitchfork. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 7:25:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Hey Philly, don't let the door knob hit ya, where the good lord split ya!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 8:36:22 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then they would be paid exclusively by lobbyists. No thanks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. They shouldn't be paid at all. Then they would be paid exclusively by lobbyists. No thanks. They shouldn't be paid by them either. They should receive no income except for work done elsewhere on their time not ours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/19/2013 8:56:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pileon to my earlier post: How many of you slamming the salary, reading right now, could afford to... 1) Campaign full-time for the next 6 months. You will need to put in 20 hours per week minimum for the first half of that, then 40 hours per week for the last few months. This may require scaling back your real job or quitting. 2) If you win the election, you will likely quit your day job. You will lose any seniority, pension vestment, etc you may have accrued. If you lost the election, well, you're just hosed. Hopefully you can get your day job back. 3) You will need to maintain two households, one in your district and one in DC which has a ridiculous cost of living. If you want to see your family you'll be paying for travel back and forth, too. 4) If you lose an election in two years, you'll be thrown out with very few benefits. You get no pension unless you serve 25 years, or until you hit retirement age, and then it is just FERS like many other federal employees. Someone like Diane Feinstein who is worth millions can easily bear these costs and accept the financial risks. Can you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. For the amount of work they actually do I'd say they're over paid. Seems to me most of their staff either help or actualy do make their decisions for them. When was the last federal budget approved under the Obama administration? Oh that's right... never. Yeah... they're definitely earning their pay. Fuck him and the elephant he rode in on. Pileon to my earlier post: How many of you slamming the salary, reading right now, could afford to... 1) Campaign full-time for the next 6 months. You will need to put in 20 hours per week minimum for the first half of that, then 40 hours per week for the last few months. This may require scaling back your real job or quitting. 2) If you win the election, you will likely quit your day job. You will lose any seniority, pension vestment, etc you may have accrued. If you lost the election, well, you're just hosed. Hopefully you can get your day job back. 3) You will need to maintain two households, one in your district and one in DC which has a ridiculous cost of living. If you want to see your family you'll be paying for travel back and forth, too. 4) If you lose an election in two years, you'll be thrown out with very few benefits. You get no pension unless you serve 25 years, or until you hit retirement age, and then it is just FERS like many other federal employees. Someone like Diane Feinstein who is worth millions can easily bear these costs and accept the financial risks. Can you? Many members of Congress went to Washington the first time poor as a church mouse, then retired from this crappy salary job worth millions some worth tens of millions. Being able to use insider information to play the market helps smooth over the rough spots. Insert worlds small violin gif. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 9:21:33 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_CqtZ6YfaifQ/Sd5fd4SRzSI/AAAAAAAABos/SD7eJhfUYSA/s512/america_reading_is_for_faggots2.jpg I guarantee you that 90% of the people bitching in this thread agree with the argument he was making. He was fighting a proposal that would exempt legislators and staffers from the new healthcare reforms. Fuck it though...where is my pitchfork. Stop that. The flash mob doesn't care he voted to repeal obamadontcare 40 times and opposes exemptions. What if OP changed the headline and posted the truth from breitbart? He must have seen it. He needs primaried but not for this. Obama said his second term will focus on wealth inequity and gun control. Pretty sure Organizing for obama has pivoted to wealth inequity. They'll be calling for tax increases soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 9:24:10 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed, I'm merely stating that their salary is not commensurate with their power or influence. This is probably one of the reasons that so many of them end up being corrupt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. It was never supposed to be a vocation, it was supposed to be a duty. Agreed, I'm merely stating that their salary is not commensurate with their power or influence. This is probably one of the reasons that so many of them end up being corrupt. No, they end up being corrupt because positions of power attract greedy, corrupt assholes. The same people would be skimming from the drawer at 7/11, if that's where they worked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 9:26:51 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now THAT is interesting. What if they get paid the median income in their district? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. It was never supposed to be a vocation, it was supposed to be a duty. I think the salary, if any, needs to be paid by the state that's sending them. And the specific district, at that. Why does my tax money pay for a politician who represents another state? Now THAT is interesting. What if they get paid the median income in their district? Wouldn't that just result in more pork barrel spending to increase the median income in their district instead of doing what's best for the country as a whole? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 9:37:28 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Duty doesn't pay tuition, medical bills, put gas in the car, a roof over our head, or provide a retirement. Money does. People that care about their family care about money. Duty is great...but life still has bills. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. It was never supposed to be a vocation, it was supposed to be a duty. Duty doesn't pay tuition, medical bills, put gas in the car, a roof over our head, or provide a retirement. Money does. People that care about their family care about money. Duty is great...but life still has bills. If you can't pay the bills with $172k/yr then you need to figure out how to run your own life before you get put in charge of anyone else's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 9:38:50 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. they have to be. if the remuneration is competitive with the rest of the market, it makes a congressional seat a career opportunity rather than a position of service. besides, there is already too much money to be made in politics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 9:42:24 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
they have to be. if the remuneration is competitive with the rest of the market, it makes a congressional seat a career opportunity rather than a position of service. besides, there is already too much money to be made in politics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. they have to be. if the remuneration is competitive with the rest of the market, it makes a congressional seat a career opportunity rather than a position of service. besides, there is already too much money to be made in politics. For them it's not about money but power. Why else would anyone run for president at the cost of right around a billion dollars to get a $400k'ish job? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 9:51:16 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. That's fine, and they aren't supposed to be there for money. I think they should be paid the nation's average salary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 9:57:27 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For them it's not about money but power. Why else would anyone run for president at the cost of right around a billion dollars to get a $400k'ish job? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. they have to be. if the remuneration is competitive with the rest of the market, it makes a congressional seat a career opportunity rather than a position of service. besides, there is already too much money to be made in politics. For them it's not about money but power. Why else would anyone run for president at the cost of right around a billion dollars to get a $400k'ish job? exactly. now if you add additional money into the mix, it makes the job even more attractive. i think the utopians who say that legislators shouldn't be paid at all are misguided, but sacrifice is part of service.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 10:26:31 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pileon to my earlier post: How many of you slamming the salary, reading right now, could afford to... 1) Campaign full-time for the next 6 months. You will need to put in 20 hours per week minimum for the first half of that, then 40 hours per week for the last few months. This may require scaling back your real job or quitting. 2) If you win the election, you will likely quit your day job. You will lose any seniority, pension vestment, etc you may have accrued. If you lost the election, well, you're just hosed. Hopefully you can get your day job back. 3) You will need to maintain two households, one in your district and one in DC which has a ridiculous cost of living. If you want to see your family you'll be paying for travel back and forth, too. 4) If you lose an election in two years, you'll be thrown out with very few benefits. You get no pension unless you serve 25 years, or until you hit retirement age, and then it is just FERS like many other federal employees. Someone like Diane Feinstein who is worth millions can easily bear these costs and accept the financial risks. Can you? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. For the amount of work they actually do I'd say they're over paid. Seems to me most of their staff either help or actually do make their decisions for them. When was the last federal budget approved under the Obama administration? Oh that's right... never. Yeah... they're definitely earning their pay. Fuck him and the elephant he rode in on. Pileon to my earlier post: How many of you slamming the salary, reading right now, could afford to... 1) Campaign full-time for the next 6 months. You will need to put in 20 hours per week minimum for the first half of that, then 40 hours per week for the last few months. This may require scaling back your real job or quitting. 2) If you win the election, you will likely quit your day job. You will lose any seniority, pension vestment, etc you may have accrued. If you lost the election, well, you're just hosed. Hopefully you can get your day job back. 3) You will need to maintain two households, one in your district and one in DC which has a ridiculous cost of living. If you want to see your family you'll be paying for travel back and forth, too. 4) If you lose an election in two years, you'll be thrown out with very few benefits. You get no pension unless you serve 25 years, or until you hit retirement age, and then it is just FERS like many other federal employees. Someone like Diane Feinstein who is worth millions can easily bear these costs and accept the financial risks. Can you? So how are they being forced to run? Plenty of other careers too where folks barely get by after costs...not one of them is being forced to do so. It's supposed to be "service" to ones country, sacrifice and short term, not a life long career of perks. Again if they don't like it, feel it doesn't pay enough, don't run or GTFO. Course most of these people have never worked a day in their life and never will, a lot of them just show up once in while for a vote when their not schmoozing with lobbyists and that's it. A good percentage are felons too BTW. If by chance they do leave (usually only by loosing their seat) they will become highly paid consultants or lobbyists themselves or wind up with super high paying board positiions with corporations they wrote sweet heart laws/deals for as a kickback. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 10:35:06 AM EDT
[#27]
If a Congressional Seat or Senate seat came with the pay limits of $80,000.00, a lifetime ban on lobbying, and a ban trading on inside information, and no retirement package how many of the scum bags that have plagued Congress would have run for Federal office. If all the offices were funded alike and Borg like in sameness and bland colors, really who would want the job for 20+ years. People would beg their constituents not to vote for them, guys would be offer uniformed police women money for sex in the hopes that it would destroy their political career and get them a reprieve from going to D.C.. You would have to put a gun to someone's head to get them to file papers for a Congressional Run.
Same for their Congressional Staffers, a ban on lobbying for no less than 10 years, no retirement plans, a shitty medical plan, and a pay limit of $80,000.00 a year. Shit other than guys interning no one would want the damn job, if they did they wouldn't for very long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 10:37:15 AM EDT
[#28]
What is K Street and how do I get one of these $500k jobs? Is he talking hookers?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 10:42:55 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What is K Street and how do I get one of these $500k jobs? Is he talking hookers? K Street is a major thoroughfare in the United States capital of Washington, D.C. known as a center for numerous think tanks, lobbyists, andadvocacy groups.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 11:45:16 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pileon to my earlier post: How many of you slamming the salary, reading right now, could afford to... 1) Campaign full-time for the next 6 months. You will need to put in 20 hours per week minimum for the first half of that, then 40 hours per week for the last few months. This may require scaling back your real job or quitting. 2) If you win the election, you will likely quit your day job. You will lose any seniority, pension vestment, etc you may have accrued. If you lost the election, well, you're just hosed. Hopefully you can get your day job back. 3) You will need to maintain two households, one in your district and one in DC which has a ridiculous cost of living. If you want to see your family you'll be paying for travel back and forth, too. 4) If you lose an election in two years, you'll be thrown out with very few benefits. You get no pension unless you serve 25 years, or until you hit retirement age, and then it is just FERS like many other federal employees. Someone like Diane Feinstein who is worth millions can easily bear these costs and accept the financial risks. Can you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. For the amount of work they actually do I'd say they're over paid. Seems to me most of their staff either help or actualy do make their decisions for them. When was the last federal budget approved under the Obama administration? Oh that's right... never. Yeah... they're definitely earning their pay. Fuck him and the elephant he rode in on. Pileon to my earlier post: How many of you slamming the salary, reading right now, could afford to... 1) Campaign full-time for the next 6 months. You will need to put in 20 hours per week minimum for the first half of that, then 40 hours per week for the last few months. This may require scaling back your real job or quitting. 2) If you win the election, you will likely quit your day job. You will lose any seniority, pension vestment, etc you may have accrued. If you lost the election, well, you're just hosed. Hopefully you can get your day job back. 3) You will need to maintain two households, one in your district and one in DC which has a ridiculous cost of living. If you want to see your family you'll be paying for travel back and forth, too. 4) If you lose an election in two years, you'll be thrown out with very few benefits. You get no pension unless you serve 25 years, or until you hit retirement age, and then it is just FERS like many other federal employees. Someone like Diane Feinstein who is worth millions can easily bear these costs and accept the financial risks. Can you? Quoted:
If a Congressional Seat or Senate seat came with the pay limits of $80,000.00, a lifetime ban on lobbying, and a ban trading on inside information, and no retirement package how many of the scum bags that have plagued Congress would have run for Federal office. If all the offices were funded alike and Borg like in sameness and bland colors, really who would want the job for 20+ years. People would beg their constituents not to vote for them, guys would be offer uniformed police women money for sex in the hopes that it would destroy their political career and get them a reprieve from going to D.C.. You would have to put a gun to someone's head to get them to file papers for a Congressional Run. Same for their Congressional Staffers, a ban on lobbying for no less than 10 years, no retirement plans, a shitty medical plan, and a pay limit of $80,000.00 a year. Shit other than guys interning no one would want the damn job, if they did they wouldn't for very long. They're supposed to be doing it because they want to serve their country in a way aside from joining the military. They're supposed to be elected by the people based on their merit. If they're doing it simply for the benies they're pieces of shit right out of the gate as far as I'm concerned. Once upon a time people served in political positions because they actually wanted to make a positive change in this country... now they're all just power mongers that elitests. Most of them are independantly wealthy of have enough connections that putting that kind of time in to get elected is more of a game for them. You make it sound like they're doing manual labor for all the hours they put in. All they do it travel around begging for money, shaking hands, and having $10,000/plate dinners to pad their campaign wallets. They're hardly breaking a sweat. If they lose the campaign... they go back and do whatever it was they did before until they get another chance or MSNBC hires them as some sort of halfwitted political analyst. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 11:47:59 AM EDT
[#31]
He's a damn civil servant. He chose his profession now deal with it. He forgot to add the kickbacks from lobbyists into the equation as well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 12:36:31 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_CqtZ6YfaifQ/Sd5fd4SRzSI/AAAAAAAABos/SD7eJhfUYSA/s512/america_reading_is_for_faggots2.jpg I guarantee you that 90% of the people bitching in this thread agree with the argument he was making. He was fighting a proposal that would exempt legislators and staffers from the new healthcare reforms. Fuck it though...where is my pitchfork. I'd go so far as to say the OP is just another troll, and is laughing at all the people who aren't reading shit. His has done well with this thread. 
--ETA: Just because the media is biased doesn't mean we need to propagate their headlines, especially when proven false. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/20/2013 12:41:12 PM EDT
[#33]
It used to be an honor to represent the people in your district, not a path to being a multi millionare. These are temps. Their job has an expiration date. It should pay no more than 50k max, and that is being real generous, considering that they are held accountable for NOTHING. It should include no benefits like insurance, of any kind what so ever, and damn sure no retirement. It's a temporary job, period.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2013 9:18:52 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed, I'm merely stating that their salary is not commensurate with their power or influence. This is probably one of the reasons that so many of them end up being corrupt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. It was never supposed to be a vocation, it was supposed to be a duty. Agreed, I'm merely stating that their salary is not commensurate with their power or influence. This is probably one of the reasons that so many of them end up being corrupt. If they were paid based on performance, they would be making minimum wage. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2013 9:20:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. I agree, I wish that they worked on comission (% of what they do not spend). Besides the FF did not desire that our legislators be in power for life, they looked on it as a duty, not a career |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2013 9:29:39 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. Are you mad? What the fuck are soldiers then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2013 9:39:17 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid. So are police, military, and teachers......that's just gubment work. He doesnt even risk his life for that money or do manual labor. In fact, he has an armed security detail and other perks. If he doesn't like it, he can leave. I will gladly switch jobs with him. If you are willing to contribute to his salary by making a donation, go ahead. I shouldn't have to pay more taxes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2013 9:40:11 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've never thought that being a civil servant should warrant a huge salary.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He does have a point. For the importance of their position (not of them personally or of their work product), Congresscritters are very low paid.
Nobody in DC truly believes they are in a position to serve anybody but themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2013 9:53:04 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As of today, there are about 316.7 million Americans and 435 congress members. On the average, congress members are making decisions that affect 728,000 people. 
I know we're supposed to scoff at everything .gov, but their salaries are ridiculously low for such responsibilities. 
This is the biggest load of shit. They don't even read the shit they pass, you know we have to pass it first to find out what's in it. They serve us, just as a police officer. They're on fucking vacation half the time and wait until last minute to do shit. They should be paid per session or what the average public servant get's paid and in my area that tends to be in the $40-$50k range. Military should be paid more than these fucking crooks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2013 10:18:25 PM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2013 10:38:29 PM EDT
[#41]
"Meanwhile I’m stuck here making $172,000 a year,” Rep. Phil Gingrey"
Parasites, complaining that the host's blood is not rich enough for their tastes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2013 12:39:40 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This guy is hoping to replace Chambliss for the Senate seat and you better damn well believe this will get hammered if he becomes the GOP candidate.Oh yeah,one of the others in the hunt for it is this schmuck  http://youtu.be/rikEWuBrkHc
The Ds couldn't be happier with the Rs sometimes. What a fucking moron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2013 1:28:17 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Understanding context is for faggots. He's against them getting a special treatment as a perk. He thinks they shouldn't get it because most staffers leave and get higher paying salaries because of the experience they got. I'm with him. Their access to experience is enough of a perk. They're not anymore special and it's bullshit that Congress can exempt themself from Obamacare to begin with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Understanding context is for faggots. In an argument against a special exemption allowing Hill staffers to buy health insurance. . . I was engaged in a dialogue with some members of our conference who truly believe that Congress should get special treatment. And some also believe that staff members should get special treatment. I happen not to believe that,” he added,” Gingrey said. He's against them getting a special treatment as a perk. He thinks they shouldn't get it because most staffers leave and get higher paying salaries because of the experience they got. I'm with him. Their access to experience is enough of a perk. They're not anymore special and it's bullshit that Congress can exempt themself from Obamacare to begin with. I wanted to quote you to show I get the context - hill staffers aren't exactly underprivileged yoots with no future. They are a slimy bunch, the lot, and sure don't need special legislatively directed perks. I, however, so want to laugh at the idea elsewhere in this thread that a representative's salary is too low. I doubt there is any salary that someone here in GD won't say is too low. It's a fascinating phenomenon. 172,000 will keep you in a nice house in your home district, an apartment in DC, nice cars, private schools for the kids, etc. The people still susceptible to corruption will always be susceptibly to corruption, as there are always people with more money. These guys are hardly needing to sell a vote to feed their kids, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2013 1:34:50 AM EDT
[#44]
I think it's already been said in the thread, but the context was him criticizing what aides and staffers make while he's on fixed salary, and how they're all getting Obamacare exemptions. Contrasting those who make more than him getting exemptions to those like him making relatively less.
It just happens to sound horrendously bad because he's an idiot who's lost his mind, and he forgets that the media will parrot it endlessly because he didn't get that people will forgive a senator for saying things like "clean, articulate, no negro dialect" and other senators doing children prostitutes in the Carribean... because they have Ds and not Rs. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
