1 posted on
07/18/2002 4:27:30 PM PDT by
tomball
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
To: tomball
"Yes, we may MAKE a lot of money as lawmakers, but we SPEND a lot of money as lawmakers, so it all works out!"
2 posted on
07/18/2002 4:29:29 PM PDT by
zoyd
To: tomball
rank-and-file members of Congress The author doesn't seem to know much about the English language.
They aren't rank and file, they are government supremacists.
To: tomball
Forget the corporate leaders, here is the TRUE criminal class.
5 posted on
07/18/2002 4:35:17 PM PDT by
LostTribe
To: tomball
All that spending is hard work.
6 posted on
07/18/2002 4:39:17 PM PDT by
Moonman62
To: tomball
Well, the arugment usually goes something like this..."if we don't pay more, we will not be able to attract talented people to run for congress". Which brings up the question of the talent of the incumbent making that argument. It seems if this argument is true, then the ones voting to increase the pay (remember they ran for office under the old pay scale that would not attract talented people) are not qualified to make the decision.
To: tomball
Here is a question ...
HAS CONGRESS FUNDED THE MILITARY YET????
OUR MEN & WOMEN IN THE SERVICE DESERVE A PAY RAISE .. NOT THESE MORONS IN CONGRESS THAT CAN ONLY WORK 3 DAYS A WEEK
OUR MEN & WOMEN SERVE OUR COUNTRY AND PUT THEIR BUTTS ON THE LINE SO THAT WE CAN BE FREE
AND ... THESE MOROONS BEST NOT RAISE MY TAXES .. BECAUSE IF I HAVE TO TAKE A PAY CUT .. SO DO THEY
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Thank you for my rant
8 posted on
07/18/2002 4:47:36 PM PDT by
Mo1
To: tomball
Their GROSS incomes have decreased as many corporations have ccut back on congressional bribes. Sure, the labor unions are still paying the democrats ubder the table, but even that revenue stream is dropping. No, these folks have a life style that demands more cash and since they can just pass a bill that increases their own pay and the resultant pensions that their salaries drive, why not? Wouldn't you?
9 posted on
07/18/2002 4:49:35 PM PDT by
Tacis
To: tomball
Nothing's too good for the hired help, eh?
In an election year, you would think a pay raise would be political suicide, wouldn't ya? But they'll sneak it through in the middle of the night or by appending it onto an ag subsidy bill for Burkina Faso, or by phrasing it so that it passes by default.
If you tried to cheat like the Congess does, you'd be in jail.
10 posted on
07/18/2002 4:49:49 PM PDT by
IronJack
To: tomball
I'm a county government employee. I have no problem with a cost-of-living increase (2% this year). Anything beyond that ought to be a MERIT pay increase. Lotsa guvmint employees are on such a system, myself included.
It's been many, many years since Congress was entitled to anything other than cost-of-living increases.
To: tomball
a 258-156 procedural vote at the opening of that debate effectively prevented lawmakers from offering an amendment to kill the raise. Never mind. Passage by default.
12 posted on
07/18/2002 4:51:12 PM PDT by
IronJack
To: tomball
Congress critters make more than ninety-five percent (
95%)of their constituents make. And that doesn't include bribes, theft, haircuts, junkets to all parts of the globe, et. What's wrong with this picture? Get a rope.
Boonie Rat
MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
To: tomball
They want a raise to conduct "business as usual" that wastes, in an audit, of the NEA amounting to 500 Million....MILLION dollars. The NEA can't find it, as so many other government agencies, just can't find it. That is my money, and it's your money, but they don't care, AND they want a raise? Sick, diluted, power obsessed elitists. Then they attack private business. You want a shining example of pi$$ poor corperate management, look to the federal government.
Any congress critter that votes for this should be recalled....PERIOD!
15 posted on
07/18/2002 5:01:51 PM PDT by
timydnuc
To: tomball
Under a 1989 law, congressional pay raises, determined by a complicated formula that includes a measure of private industry employment costs, go into effect automatically unless lawmakers vote to block it.How convenient.
16 posted on
07/18/2002 5:02:20 PM PDT by
altair
To: tomball
Presidents used to get $150,000 a year not so long ago.
Sure pays to be the king(s).
To: tomball
I have a modest proposal:
Every lawmaker's pay should be pegged to the stock market.
The broadest measure of stocks' value is the Wilshire 5000, which includes essentially 100% of the traded equities in the US. As such, it suffers from little sector or capitalization bias.
The Wilshire closed at 8365 today (7/18). Times 20 is 167,300.
Set each lawmaker' pay at 20 times THE PRIOR YEAR'S AVERAGE.
They'll have every incentive to keep taxes and interest rates low, with no incentive to ramp things up just in time for the elections.
To: tomball
Don't you wish we could do that? Must be nice.
19 posted on
07/18/2002 5:12:12 PM PDT by
brat
To: tomball
Wow..this must be the only truly bipartisian issue out there. :(
20 posted on
07/18/2002 5:12:23 PM PDT by
WyldKard
To: tomball
Maybe I'm the only one but I don't think $20,000 over ten years is unreasonable, nor do I think $155,000 is too much for the job required of them. My gripe is when they spend money to buy votes. That's what bugs me.
To: tomball
Wow, big surprise.
The only surprise here is that these crooks didn't vote themselves a 10k per year raise, instead of 5k.
To: tomball
I will not be too concerned until Congressional pay is more than what a utility infielder for the Montreal Expos makes.
I think I would want that much money to have a home in two areas. The only people who don't have to worry about this are those who live close enough like in Virginia. Pay is not the issue, it is performance. Until we start merit pay in the congress, salaries have to be this high, or we will be stuck with a bunch of wealthy trial lawyers who can afford the hit in income to be in congress.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson