-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/01/congress-gives-itself-4700-pay-raise.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Obama now says he didn't campaign on the public option. The Google says he did, a lot.
- As President, Obama campaigned for the public option -- to some audiences anyway
- The irony is that DOD's pregnancy anti-pregnancy policy will probably lead to more abortions
- Obama doesn't think he compromised one bit on health care bill
- Gay marriage in Mexico City angers Catholic church and conservatives
Or are they incapable of such adroit maneuvering?
<g> Ha ha ha! Ho ho ho! <LOL!> <Belly laughs!> <ROTFL!>
Gods! You missed your calling in life. Should have been a comedian. You would the unquestioned all time greatest comedian, with monuments to your hilarious, absurd, jokes. Please, tell us another funny one.
At the same time, every person with a net worth less than 5 million dollars should have their federal income tax waived for 1 year.
I also think that every person who received compensation totaling over 1 million dollars in 2008 from any bank or financial institution should have to return 50% of that compensation to offset any funds received by that bank or financial institution from the "bailout".
These rich bastards destroyed this country, THEY, and NOT the common taxpayer, should have to foot the bill.
That said, if you do make $100,000, NO MATTER WHERE in this country you live, you are rich! Guess what? $100,000 per year makes you rich. Your silly yuppie ass will just have to accept & get used to it! And yes, I live in New York City so don't try pulling that cost of living crap with me. I survive here on abou 24K per year for the time being. If I had 4 times my current income, 80% of the problems in my life would be gone. I would not be complaining that the government couldn't spare me $500 while people right down the road are f#cking starving. Get over yourself!!!
Much better.
Therefore my first sentence is true - I don't understand.
That said, I think that in light of Pres. Obama's freezing of the salaries of some in his administration, it sends the wrong signal when Congress gives itself a raise. They need to lead by example. Want to feel my pain? Freeze your salary at least for this year.
Can you imagine how cool it would have been if ALL the Democrats voted against it?
In two days:
Repubs vote against tax breaks for working people while Dems vote for them.
Repubs vote for raises for congressmen while Dems vote against them.
Such a missed opportunity.
You're angry because you think someone's getting a better deal than you are, and it's as simple as that for you. This whole thing you've started on your blog is really all about your personal sense of entitlement. And I suppose that's fine as far as it goes, but I really do wish you wouldn't try to tie it into current events. Whether you know or care (and I really doubt that you do), arguments like yours do a lot of damage, especially when times are tough.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure that you eventually will end up with a larger apartment or a nicer car or whatever it is that you think everybody's getting except for you. The bad news is that it will never be enough, because someone else will always have a bigger one. I suppose in some way you're to be pitied, but you're pretty far down my list.
this isn't rocket science. In fact people at the lowest end of the scale *can't save the money* and spend it right away. We know that already. Study after study has shown it. That money goes right back into the system. Wealthy people can afford to "save" or dither, or pay off their credit cards or whatever. Poor people pay rent, food, gas, electric, school bills. Get off the whinefest. Its just shockingly embarrassing. If it bugs you so much that "people say you are rich" when you feel comparatively, subjectively, poor either *get yourself another fucking job that pays a fortune* or get yourself new friends and family and they'll commiserate with you instead of teasing you. Frankly, this is getting really old.
And stop attacking "the dems" for somethign some person in an elevator said to you. The Republican *base* sure as shit thinks 100,000 dollars a year is good money.
aimai
"bothered going to school"? "Didn't bother getting an education"?
Man, I worked TWO full time jobs while paying my own way through a community college for a two year degree. I haven't had the ABILITY to go back and finish my BS, or MS degree that I was planning on. (Or the PhD I dreamt about) I CAN'T AFFORD IT.
And the bricklayer has a point. You make yourself sound like an elitist asshole when you say "providing an incentive for people to get an education, to live in cities, to actually do something with their lives" - which implies that people who have not gotten an education or don't live in cities aren't doing something with their lives. You'd be damn miserable without the existence of plumbers. (Who make more than I do, by the way, and don't have to go to college. I work in education - small wonder that I don't make much.) And you'd starve without the existence of farmers (who don't live in cities, and also don't have to go to college).
I'm not lecturing you about how well off you are. But you're not making yourself look too good, here.
I'm a bricklayer, jerkface, and I build houses that people live in their whole lives and pass on to their kids. What have you done that's been of any lasting substance? Heh.
Woe is you, Johnny. Arrogance and a sense of entitlement are so unattractive.
What? I'm disgusted at some of the things you've written in this post, particularly this. People who don't have an education or who don't live in a city haven't done something with their lives? What crock, and how elitist. But that's becoming more and more common on this blog.
You don't have to live in a city or have an education to be happy, to be satisfied, or to have made a difference in other people's lives.
And just because someone has an education doesn't mean they still aren't paying loans and only living off a $20-$30,000 a year salary. People making $100,000 a year aren't the only people with hefty loans to pay. They're just the lucky ones making $100,000 a year and not $30,000.
It's really surprising to me that someone as intelligent and educated as you are could take such a judgmental position, based on nothing but your own assumptions. And it's really a slap in the face to the people you've purported to champion on your blog. We support your work, and then you call us peons? Thanks a lot!
"A working class hero is something to be..."
And don't we want the best and brightest to aspire to Congress? Why should they, if they can make much more in the private sector and work less. Being a Senator or a Congressman is a full time 24-7 job, at least for those who want to make their mark in Congress. Lets not carried away by pettiness and an anti-Congressional lynchmob mentality.
Yeah we do, but it (high salaries) hasn't worked yet has it? I mean, look what we've got in Congress. Bush was La Cucaracha, but the current members of Congress seem to have the character, leadership, integrity, honor and intelligence dredged out of the nearest mental hospitals for criminally insane and feeble minded. Yeah, right! Do you really think that Pelosi and Reid or many of their fellow Congress actually represent the Best and the Brightest? Sigh!
Another argument against high salaries is look at the Wall Street CEOs. Their base salaries are at least ten times that of our Congress critters, and they are also taking home vast bonuses. Just how many of those CEOs are that much brighter and better qualified than the janitors who clean their offices, okay, better than in terms of skill, qualifications, knowledge and ability to manage their companies than say our Congress critters?
Imagine if all the CEOs, all the politicians, etc. - everyone whose net worth was more than one million dollars - symbolically took $1 a year pay for a while? Why don't we start a movement? As somebody who makes less than $40k a year and has no savings, I would say if your net worth is over a million, you're in really good shape financially, and can afford it.
I have no issue with congress making that much. You try maintaining two residences (if you aren't from a state near DC), flying all the time back and forth, etc.
As i've said before, yes, we need a regionalized tax code, but currently we don't have one. therefore, by choosing to live in cities, we are choosing to not have as much disposable income. hear the key word their, choice.
stop bithcing about not getting a tax break when you make $90k. I know people who live in and near DC who make much less and get by fine...with massive student loan debt.
And I'll say it again - no one who lives in a part of the country where homes cost $200,000 has any right to lecture anyone else about them making too much money. It is absurd what people have to pay for homes in big cities. And unless we want everyone to move out of the cities, we need to stop prertending that this is communist china where we have to implicitly kill all the intellectuals and everyone who has done well with themselves.
All of us pay for things that benefit other people all the time - trash collection, unemployment checks, medicaid, education, etc. I mean, really, if we accept your argument, weak as it is, than why the hell should everyone pay taxes so that someone else's children can have the opportunity to go to school? And, dammit, why are we all paying taxes to help rebuild New Orleans when those damn people chose to live in a hurricane zone? Because it's about the collective good.
A welfare society? The upper middle class is constantly cut out of the pie? We implicitly kill everyone who has done well with themselves? Contributing $20k a year to retirement? Are you f-ing kidding me? People who are fortunate enough to be able to afford a first-class university education and buy a home are the ones who are suffering? How Republican of you, Mr. Aravosis.
I suggest feeling fortunate that you were born to the parents you were and have reached the status and incredible level of comfort that comes with living in the upper middle class.
You'll get over yourself, John...eventually...you poor, poor thing.
I'm confused.
and gee, if i had load of debt and was so drained with expenses the last thing id do is buy a place and add to it. but isnt that behavior the entire problem with this country?
my girlfriend lives in an apt. in mt pleasant making around 40k (yes they gave her benefits, but not 55K worth), was paying down her student loans, and was doing fine until recently being laid off. now shes screwed but hasnt whined at all. want to trade places?
They are in the 2%
YOU are not
Got it yet?
Comes off little selfish.
$4700 is 38% of my SS check, my only income, for a year. Even giving it to people like me would still leave me at poverty level. And I'm lucky that I live with my son whose own luck may be running out. His work has already dropped off...and we're sweating it out.
aimai
Imagine what kind of congress we would get if the pay was set to average pay across america. how many would drop out immediately? For how many of them is it 'a job'? 80% is my guess...
We should take Frank Zappa's advice: register to vote and run for something...
Published by Communications on January 28, 2009 3:26 PM | Permalink
New members of Congress are worth $1 million more than the average incumbent, Center finds. As they make decisions about the economy, freshmen and incumbents are heavily invested in the struggling financial sector.
WASHINGTON--The new crop of lawmakers that Americans tasked in November with shoring up the ailing economy are wealthier than the group that was already in Congress, a study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has found. And though freshmen might be worth more on average, their investments still look a lot like those of returning members--their money is primarily wrapped up in the ailing finance, insurance and real estate sector.
Congress's new members reported a median net worth of $1.8 million in the required personal financial disclosure forms that they will now have to file annually. That's more than twice the $815,000 median for those incumbents who won re-election.
"The new blood in Congress is mostly blueblood," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "In this troubled and troubling economy, Congress remains short on lawmakers who can personally relate to what the average American is going through financially."
(More at opensecrets.org)
Someone making $100k in Boise can buy more produce than you and they pay less in rent, but they have to live in Boise. You pay a premium to live in the best city in the world. I agree that federal tax rewards should have some location-based adjustment, but I think you might also look at your friends making a pauper's $80k and ask how they can live on crusts of moldy bread alone.
Got it!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109...
All government benefit payments, Soc Sec, SSI, Black Lung, RRB, Civ Serv Pension, received a COLA of 5.8%.
IT AIN'T PORK IF IT'S YOUR PIG.
The BIGGER point here is not that the Congress gives itself $174,000 a year - which is a salary one could live on in DC - it's that almost half of them are MULTI-MILLIONAIRES ALREADY.
I've got no problem with Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) getting $174,000 - because according to her financial report, she's somewhere around $4 million in the hole. But Jane Harman (D-Ca)? Her net worth is around $397,412,077. (Those are commas, not periods.) Darrell Issa (R-Ca)? His is around $343,457,521. Good lord, they're richer than KERRY, and his wife is a frickin' heiress! Can ANYBODY with a straight face tell me that these people need $174,000 more a year?
Here, go look at the list of Congress-critters' net worth - I warn you, though - it'll make you nauseated.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?ty...
I live in Tallahassee, Florida - which is basically southern Georgia, in terms of culture & cost of living. My brother-in-law got a job in California a while back, and got a huge pay raise - why? He was doing the same job there, _for_the_same_company_, that he had been doing _here_ in town. It's because (DUH) living in California is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE.
Let's not get carried away by straw men. I mean, if I made the kind of money John does, I'd be thrilled - but then, I live here - not DC. I understand that. What don't you guys understand about the cost of living being different in different places?
Granted, I'm sure there are lots of things that upper middle class people could give up (gourmet food, eating out, nice clothes, etc.) and I think they're all going to have to do that soon - and those of us who don't even have that to give up won't have a whole lot of sympathy for them. This does not eliminate his point, that Congress seems to be passing laws using numbers that are not flexible based on location, which seems pretty damn dumb.
and i have nothing against the raises either. whats that thing about if (insert job here) got paid higher salaries more quality people would want to be (insert job here)?
Congress has let us down by not providing checks and balances on the Bush regime. Their approval ratings are abysmal and the Fed. deficit is higher than ever. And you cannot say they need a cost of living increase, as we are swimming in deflation/price declines....
This is reason enough to take to the streets like the French. Congress allowing themselves a pay raise just cheapens everything they claim to be fighting for. Obviously, they don't really care.
Nevertheless, both the Greek and Cypriot governments, anxious to find out what happened to the 1,600 Greeks and Greek Cypriots still missing from the Turkish invasion, have said that Olgac has revealed Turkey is guilty of war crimes and Turkey may well find itself at the Hague to answer such charges.
Before leaving for Davos, Erdogan angrily denounced the actor and said it was an insult to the Turkish armed forces to accuse it of war crimes in Cyprus. The facts are, however, that during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus 4.500 Greeks were killed, 1,600 were missing, 200,000 were forced from their homes and there occurred well-documented incidents of massacre, mass rape, looting and so on.
Erdogan said to Peres: "You must feel guilty to be so strong in your words."
Given the current stir in Turkey over war crimes in Cyprus and the furious denials, the same could be said of Erdogan so that maybe what we saw on display in Davos was his – and Turkey's – guilty conscience.
January 29, 2009
09:39 PM GMT
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ambrose_evans-prit...
It's an interest free loan.
It's amazing how insane some people making a decent living (say, $100,000 per year) get when we try to toss some scraps to the poor working fools who have to get by on a housekeeper's / teacher's / busdriver's / sales clerk's / telemarketer's salary.
The DC Metro was built largely with federal dollars - that means tax revenue, most of it from people that will never ride the system.
It does provide DC residents with cheap, relatively efficient transporatation and allows them to live in the district without the expense of a car (insurance, gas, car payment).
I was half-listening to C-SPAN TV a day or two ago, when apparently a caller had suggested just that: salaries for Congress to be $1. Whoever was the guest (I think it was a journalist with The Economist, but might have my guests/days mixed up) said, that really wouldn't work - you'd end up with a bunch of millionaires in Congress, who didn't care about the salary.
However, I'm not talking about forever. I'm just suggesting that the millionaires give up their pay for 2-4 years. Call it patriotic. It would be an absolutely horrific long-term plan, and if that's what the guest was envisioning, I can understand the response. I do think that it would create undesirable results were we to make it permanent.
It's the guest after the Financial Times Word Trade Editor Alan Beattie, who was Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I) Vermont. It's the question just after minute 16:00, when the caller asks if the members of Congress would take a $1 salary, and give the rest of their $175,000, for the rest of their lives, to help the people, Sanders says, it wouldn't work, as first, they don't get $175K for the rest of their lives, they get a pension "comparable to private industry," and also says that only millionaires and billionaires would take the jobs, as only they could afford to take them.
I agree with giving up the salaries for a period of time, to be patriotic. At least don't take the raise!!