Congress votes yes for a raise, I am shocked

[SAWYER]

http://thehill.com/leading-the...-raise-2008-12-17.html

well they so deserve it, all the outstanding and hard work they do.

 

[Farang]

However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.

 

[Vette73]

Yep Fed Employees get 4.78% increase for the DC area.


<-- Fed that works in DC area.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://thehill.com/leading-the...-raise-2008-12-17.html

well they so deserve it, all the outstanding and hard work they do.

they deserve their wage far more than you deserve yours.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
they deserve their wage far more than you deserve yours.

Why? What have they done this year? I haven't seen a single substantial accomplishment by congress for the past several years, and my standards aren't very high: I'd consider a simple federal budget a pretty significant accomplishment at this point.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://thehill.com/leading-the...-raise-2008-12-17.html

well they so deserve it, all the outstanding and hard work they do.

they deserve their wage far more than you deserve yours.

http://www.unclejayexplains.co...news-september-3-2007/

 

[MovingTarget]

Congress, the biggest union of them all...

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Sawyer
http://thehill.com/leading-the...-raise-2008-12-17.html

well they so deserve it, all the outstanding and hard work they do.

they deserve their wage far more than you deserve yours.

Good one! Funny stuff!

 

[Craig234]

One of the most idiotic 'populist' issues is worrying about the salaries of Congress.

These people oversee trillions in spending, and complex issues for all our benefit (or not).

There are trilllion-dollar industries out to 'influence' them, and we want them to have their basic needs met to not need 'outside help' too much from those temptations.

We want highly skilled people attracted to serve, who will usually already be taking big pay cuts. High salaries don't guarantee good leaders, but low ones make bad leaders likely.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Craig234
One of the most idiotic 'populist' issues is worrying about the salaries of Congress.

These people oversee trillions in spending, and complex issues for all our benefit (or not).

There are trilllion-dollar industries out to 'influence' them, and we want them to have their basic needs met to not need 'outside help' too much from those temptations.

We want highly skilled people attracted to serve, who will usually already be taking big pay cuts. High salaries don't guarantee good leaders, but low ones make bad leaders likely.

They make $165,200/year without the increase. If that doesn't cover their "basic needs" there's something seriously wrong. I make $60,000/year and cover not only my "basic needs" but also have enough to keep and insure 2 old Porsches, buy far more photography equipment than I need, and indulge myself in several other hobbies. (Not to mention that about $10,000 of that goes straight to the government in taxes.)

I find it funny that when this same argument is used to justify the pay of CEOs it gets dismissed, yet you're willing to use it to justify the fact that congress voted themselves a raise.

ZV

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Farang

However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.

I am sure the free health insurance they get for the restof their lives makes up for the shortfall.

 

[Slew Foot]

I think its funny that people will bash Palin for not taking a raise, but praise congress for taking one.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Farang

However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.

yes but what percentage increase is it in comparison in terms of the number of dollars extra (not in comparison to former pay)

meaning if congress gets x amount more than they used to, what percentage of that do social security recipients get

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Craig234
One of the most idiotic 'populist' issues is worrying about the salaries of Congress.

These people oversee trillions in spending, and complex issues for all our benefit (or not).

There are trilllion-dollar industries out to 'influence' them, and we want them to have their basic needs met to not need 'outside help' too much from those temptations.

We want highly skilled people attracted to serve, who will usually already be taking big pay cuts. High salaries don't guarantee good leaders, but low ones make bad leaders likely.

They make $165,200/year without the increase. If that doesn't cover their "basic needs" there's something seriously wrong. I make $60,000/year and cover not only my "basic needs" but also have enough to keep and insure 2 old Porsches, buy far more photography equipment than I need, and indulge myself in several other hobbies. (Not to mention that about $10,000 of that goes straight to the government in taxes.)

I find it funny that when this same argument is used to justify the pay of CEOs it gets dismissed, yet you're willing to use it to justify the fact that congress voted themselves a raise.

ZV

Not to mention that many of them find enough time to have ANOTHER JOB besides being a congress person. Oh, and the Free Dental, health care, ect for life. Yep, these poor men really have it tough and deserve this big pay increase, I mean, their doing such a good job.

 

[SAWYER]

Pfft most ethical in history, didn't you hear?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Craig234
One of the most idiotic 'populist' issues is worrying about the salaries of Congress.

These people oversee trillions in spending, and complex issues for all our benefit (or not).

There are trilllion-dollar industries out to 'influence' them, and we want them to have their basic needs met to not need 'outside help' too much from those temptations.

We want highly skilled people attracted to serve, who will usually already be taking big pay cuts. High salaries don't guarantee good leaders, but low ones make bad leaders likely.

They make $165,200/year without the increase. If that doesn't cover their "basic needs" there's something seriously wrong. I make $60,000/year and cover not only my "basic needs" but also have enough to keep and insure 2 old Porsches, buy far more photography equipment than I need, and indulge myself in several other hobbies. (Not to mention that about $10,000 of that goes straight to the government in taxes.)

I find it funny that when this same argument is used to justify the pay of CEOs it gets dismissed, yet you're willing to use it to justify the fact that congress voted themselves a raise.

ZV

Not to mention that many of them find enough time to have ANOTHER JOB besides being a congress person. Oh, and the Free Dental, health care, ect for life. Yep, these poor men really have it tough and deserve this big pay increase, I mean, their doing such a good job.

If you don't know what you are talking about stop posting.

They do not get free healthcare, dental, etc... in fact the Fed gov does not pay for dental and/or eye insurance. They lose their rights to their benifits if they are voted out/leave and do not meet the min. years for retirement.

And their pay is not that great when you figuire they have to support 2 households, 1 in DC and 1 at their home district. Then they have to travel between both very often, and so on...

Their is a reason so many members of congress go their after being rich and/or start taking money/bribes. If the pay was higher then maybe others would step up. Yea for people that live in MD or VA the pay is decent as you only need 1 house and can just ride/drive in. But what about anything west of the Miss. River.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Craig234
One of the most idiotic 'populist' issues is worrying about the salaries of Congress.

These people oversee trillions in spending, and complex issues for all our benefit (or not).

There are trilllion-dollar industries out to 'influence' them, and we want them to have their basic needs met to not need 'outside help' too much from those temptations.

We want highly skilled people attracted to serve, who will usually already be taking big pay cuts. High salaries don't guarantee good leaders, but low ones make bad leaders likely.

They make $165,200/year without the increase. If that doesn't cover their "basic needs" there's something seriously wrong. I make $60,000/year and cover not only my "basic needs" but also have enough to keep and insure 2 old Porsches, buy far more photography equipment than I need, and indulge myself in several other hobbies. (Not to mention that about $10,000 of that goes straight to the government in taxes.)

I find it funny that when this same argument is used to justify the pay of CEOs it gets dismissed, yet you're willing to use it to justify the fact that congress voted themselves a raise.

ZV

We're talking about a relatively small amount of money in the raise, both before and after being under $200K, for people with vast responsibilities, who could mostly make more in the private sector. I don't see much point in nit picking over the small amount of the raise. These people have plenty of expenses, not least of which is maintaining residences both in their home district/state and near the capitol. I see a certain abusiveness among some people in wanting to pay them little as a sort of misguided hatefulness.

That's pretty much guaranteed to do nothing than break and corrupt the system as those people get the government they deserve, officials who abuse them right back.

As for the comparison to CEO's, there's little comparison, because of the vastly difference amounts. No CEO who is part of the compensation controversy makes as little as these politicians. The debate is over things like the huge increase of the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay in recent years, and the corruption of the system to compensate CEO's at extremely high levels for little more reason than that corruption, and the lack of accountability for CEO's who do badly, in their compensation.

Issues ranging from the basic fairness of the compensation compared to workers, to the 'buddy system' of CEO's appointing each other to their boards to protect their interests from shareholders, are what are involved. It's a very different issue from the issue of Congressional compensation.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Pfft most ethical in history, didn't you hear?

Can you prove it isn't, or are you just able to post empty attacks? Can you summarize how it is and isn't more ethical than other Congresses? Ha. The idea of you doing that...

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Craig234
One of the most idiotic 'populist' issues is worrying about the salaries of Congress.

These people oversee trillions in spending, and complex issues for all our benefit (or not).

There are trilllion-dollar industries out to 'influence' them, and we want them to have their basic needs met to not need 'outside help' too much from those temptations.

We want highly skilled people attracted to serve, who will usually already be taking big pay cuts. High salaries don't guarantee good leaders, but low ones make bad leaders likely.

They make $165,200/year without the increase. If that doesn't cover their "basic needs" there's something seriously wrong. I make $60,000/year and cover not only my "basic needs" but also have enough to keep and insure 2 old Porsches, buy far more photography equipment than I need, and indulge myself in several other hobbies. (Not to mention that about $10,000 of that goes straight to the government in taxes.)

I find it funny that when this same argument is used to justify the pay of CEOs it gets dismissed, yet you're willing to use it to justify the fact that congress voted themselves a raise.

ZV

Not to mention that many of them find enough time to have ANOTHER JOB besides being a congress person. Oh, and the Free Dental, health care, ect for life. Yep, these poor men really have it tough and deserve this big pay increase, I mean, their doing such a good job.

If you don't know what you are talking about stop posting.

They do not get free healthcare, dental, etc... in fact the Fed gov does not pay for dental and/or eye insurance. They lose their rights to their benifits if they are voted out/leave and do not meet the min. years for retirement.

And their pay is not that great when you figuire they have to support 2 households, 1 in DC and 1 at their home district. Then they have to travel between both very often, and so on...

Their is a reason so many members of congress go their after being rich and/or start taking money/bribes. If the pay was higher then maybe others would step up. Yea for people that live in MD or VA the pay is decent as you only need 1 house and can just ride/drive in. But what about anything west of the Miss. River.

... If you can't speak English, then don't bother to post...

Government officials are offered a 2/3 plan where the federal government pays 2/3 of the officials medical bills and they pay the other 1/3. So I guess they don't get all their health care paid for, however it is comparable to a regular companies employment.

Air fair IS paid for, so the whole argument that people that live next to Washington get paid more is bunk. Not only that, there is no rule that a congress member has to show up to vote.

So yeah, I was wrong about how much they get free. However they aren't as picked on as you imply.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

it was my naive belief you went to Congress, did the peoples business, and went back to your original occupation.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
it was my naive belief you went to Congress, did the peoples business, and went back to your original occupation.

1. What's that got to do with the fair compensation for legislators?

2. What's wrong with long-term legislators who become expert to serve the public, instead of the power of our elected leaders being diminished by being fresh inexperienced faces?

The expertise of longtime politicians from Waxman to Kennedy to Byrd IMO is invaluable to the institution's effectiveness (and even worth the downsides of the Thurmonds and Helms).

The model you speak of was more relevant to the colonioal times than modern society.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Air fair IS paid for, so the whole argument that people that live next to Washington get paid more is bunk. Not only that, there is no rule that a congress member has to show up to vote.

So yeah, I was wrong about how much they get free. However they aren't as picked on as you imply.

You did not address or acknowledge, though, either the expense of the two residences, nor the relatively low salaries for what these people would otherwise earn.

All in all, again, I think ti's penny wise and pound foolish to obsess over their compensation, and not the issues affecting policy with trillions involved.

The last thing you want to do is to save a few dollars in a way that causes billions to get misspent. If they were making 10 millon a year, there'd be an issue with fairness.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Cogman
Air fair IS paid for, so the whole argument that people that live next to Washington get paid more is bunk. Not only that, there is no rule that a congress member has to show up to vote.

So yeah, I was wrong about how much they get free. However they aren't as picked on as you imply.

You did not address or acknowledge, though, either the expense of the two residences, nor the relatively low salaries for what these people would otherwise earn.

All in all, again, I think ti's penny wise and pound foolish to obsess over their compensation, and not the issues affecting policy with trillions involved.

The last thing you want to do is to save a few dollars in a way that causes billions to get misspent. If they were making 10 millon a year, there'd be an issue with fairness.

I think I did in my previous post. Most of them have enough time to be both a senator and do whatever other job they had before. Also, once they are done in congress, whats to say that they cant sell their house there and collect a fair portion of the funds they dumped into it?

Even if you figure that they spend half of their money on housing, that's 80K to live off of. There are plenty of people that would quickly jump on a 4 day week for 80K a year, and great vacation time. Or are we going to say that most people earn over 100K a year? After all, the argument was that most people can't afford to be a congress person.

 

[ericlp]

You haven't seen anything yet!

Wait till they start asking for a bail out. Mean while, people all over the USA, (their servants) are being thrown out of their homes. Oh well, another day in politics and another corrupted dollar spent. Did you expect much else?

 

[brandonbull]

I'm sorry but some responsible for running an entity into a huge debt does not deserve a raise. People are yelling nonstop about UAW, CEOs, brokers, etc getting a raise or bonus.