Congressman Alcee Hastings (D) Says $174K Salary Isn't Enough to Live On

[whitehall]

Hastings won his first election in 1992 when Democrats gerrymandered Florida's 23rd district. Originally it was barely a road wide in some areas. Hastings was redistricted to the 20th around 2003. How many people would love to live in Fla. making an easy 180k with benefits that most Americans can't get?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Congressmen and Senators should earn $250K
The President should earn $1 mil

They would still be under paid

YOU pay them....

 

[rightwinger]

$174K sucks for an executive salary

They aren't executives. They are public servants. Their salary and perks should be cut in half.

You get what you pay for

If you want to hire $85 k executives, that is what you will get

 

[rightwinger]

Congressmen and Senators should earn $250K
The President should earn $1 mil

They would still be under paid

YOU pay them....

I do

 

[thereisnospoon]

At a hearing regarding the 2016 Legislative Branch appropriations bill yesterday, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) said that his salary of $174,000 a year simply isn’t enough to live on in Washington, D.C.

“It’s kind of a sad state of affairs that we are entering the seventh year of Congress not receiving a raise,” Hastings said. “In order for us to get a raise, we have to go to the public and prove that we deserve it. Well, I think we do.”

Congress’ current approval rating is 19 percent.

This poor congressman says he needs a raise because 174 000 isn t enough to live on Rare

The median household income in the U.S. is roughly $52k. It's around $90k in D.C. Hastings, a Democrat, the alleged party of the poor and down trodden, says Congress can't be expected to survive on $174k.

And yet I and many others manage to do so on far less than $174k a year.

Does your job require you to maintain two full-time residences, one of them in the 4th most expensive city in the country?

They can find housing out in the suburbs. They can rent a place and then have one of their higher paid aides as a room mate to offset the cost of housing. One does what hey need to do based on their level of income. They can take the metro which covers a wide area around DC.... It's called living within one's means.

 

[thereisnospoon]

$174K sucks for an executive salary

They aren't executives. They are public servants. Their salary and perks should be cut in half.

You get what you pay for

If you want to hire $85 k executives, that is what you will get

Ok...And who says money is always THE solution?....These people are barely out of reach of the pitchforks. For a group of people paid so well they are no where near earning it.
Do you really think if the salary was say half a million we'd get members of Congress who do twice as well as the ones up there now?....
HA.....Any other jokes you have?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I would love to hear a single argument that Congressmen or Senators should be paid less that isn't based entirely on jealousy and emotion.

I know, it's not fair. But if you work hard and pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, you can make that much too.

In fact, the only reason you're not making that much is because you're not working hard enough.

 

[thereisnospoon]

$174K sucks for an executive salary

Congressman are not executives....they are overpaid clerks.

Nonsense

Hate them or not, they are responsible for running the country

But they don't do their jobs responsibly. In fact our legislative branch is the least fiscally responsible of the Three.
Paying them more would be like giving a fat person more to eat because he promised to lose weight.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

At a hearing regarding the 2016 Legislative Branch appropriations bill yesterday, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) said that his salary of $174,000 a year simply isn’t enough to live on in Washington, D.C.

“It’s kind of a sad state of affairs that we are entering the seventh year of Congress not receiving a raise,” Hastings said. “In order for us to get a raise, we have to go to the public and prove that we deserve it. Well, I think we do.”

Congress’ current approval rating is 19 percent.

This poor congressman says he needs a raise because 174 000 isn t enough to live on Rare

The median household income in the U.S. is roughly $52k. It's around $90k in D.C. Hastings, a Democrat, the alleged party of the poor and down trodden, says Congress can't be expected to survive on $174k.

And yet I and many others manage to do so on far less than $174k a year.

Does your job require you to maintain two full-time residences, one of them in the 4th most expensive city in the country?

one of them in the 4th most expensive city in the country?

Hiring all those bureaucrats with our tax dollars makes the counties around DC the wealthiest in the country.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

At a hearing regarding the 2016 Legislative Branch appropriations bill yesterday, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) said that his salary of $174,000 a year simply isn’t enough to live on in Washington, D.C.

“It’s kind of a sad state of affairs that we are entering the seventh year of Congress not receiving a raise,” Hastings said. “In order for us to get a raise, we have to go to the public and prove that we deserve it. Well, I think we do.”

Congress’ current approval rating is 19 percent.

This poor congressman says he needs a raise because 174 000 isn t enough to live on Rare

The median household income in the U.S. is roughly $52k. It's around $90k in D.C. Hastings, a Democrat, the alleged party of the poor and down trodden, says Congress can't be expected to survive on $174k.

And yet I and many others manage to do so on far less than $174k a year.

Does your job require you to maintain two full-time residences, one of them in the 4th most expensive city in the country?

They can find housing out in the suburbs. They can rent a place and then have one of their higher paid aides as a room mate to offset the cost of housing. One does what hey need to do based on their level of income. They can take the metro which covers a wide area around DC.... It's called living within one's means.

You're not asking them to live "within their means", you're suggesting that they live within your arbitrary decision of what their "needs" are.

Give me a reason that your feelings on this should be relevant to anyone.

 

[norwegen]

If we were to remove all compensation for President, Vice-President, Senators, and Representatives, we would have virtuous officers filling those posts.

And for only one or two terms at a time.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I would love to hear a single argument that Congressmen or Senators should be paid less that isn't based entirely on jealousy and emotion.

I know, it's not fair. But if you work hard and pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, you can make that much too.

In fact, the only reason you're not making that much is because you're not working hard enough.

That's a horsecrap argument.
In fact, members of Congress can get by with doing very little other than show up for important votes and do a very poor job and still get paid gobs of money.
Their salary puts them in the top 3% of all wage earners. Most of them are wealthy one percenters.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I would love to hear a single argument that Congressmen or Senators should be paid less that isn't based entirely on jealousy and emotion.

I know, it's not fair. But if you work hard and pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, you can make that much too.

In fact, the only reason you're not making that much is because you're not working hard enough.

That's a horsecrap argument.
In fact, members of Congress can get by with doing very little other than show up for important votes and do a very poor job and still get paid gobs of money.
Their salary puts them in the top 3% of all wage earners. Most of them are wealthy one percenters.

Ok, we can start there.

What objective measure can you come up with to judge whether a member of Congress is doing a "very poor" job?

"Because you feel that way" doesn't count.

 

[thereisnospoon]

At a hearing regarding the 2016 Legislative Branch appropriations bill yesterday, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) said that his salary of $174,000 a year simply isn’t enough to live on in Washington, D.C.

“It’s kind of a sad state of affairs that we are entering the seventh year of Congress not receiving a raise,” Hastings said. “In order for us to get a raise, we have to go to the public and prove that we deserve it. Well, I think we do.”

Congress’ current approval rating is 19 percent.

This poor congressman says he needs a raise because 174 000 isn t enough to live on Rare

The median household income in the U.S. is roughly $52k. It's around $90k in D.C. Hastings, a Democrat, the alleged party of the poor and down trodden, says Congress can't be expected to survive on $174k.

And yet I and many others manage to do so on far less than $174k a year.

Does your job require you to maintain two full-time residences, one of them in the 4th most expensive city in the country?

They can find housing out in the suburbs. They can rent a place and then have one of their higher paid aides as a room mate to offset the cost of housing. One does what hey need to do based on their level of income. They can take the metro which covers a wide area around DC.... It's called living within one's means.

You're not asking them to live "within their means", you're suggesting that they live within your arbitrary decision of what their "needs" are.

Give me a reason that your feelings on this should be relevant to anyone.

Umm. My discussion is without passion or prejudice. I am simply expressing my expertise with managing a personal budget.
And no I am not asking them to live within their means, I demand they live within their means. They represent US.. They are paid by US. "US" is the rest of the great unwashed masses that are required to.....wait for it.....Live within our means.
I find it so hypocritical of you lefties how you scream your heads off about the "wealthy" and how they 'have enough', 'don't pay their fair share', have too much' 'should pay 90% tax rates'...yet, when it comes to politicians, you offer a hall pass.
Go pound sand.
You'll realize you're looking in the wrong place for sympathy.
Tell ya what, see the Padre on your way out. He'll punch your ticket for you. Get my meaning?

 

[westwall]

$174K sucks for an executive salary

They're not executives. They're committee members, and upper management.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The median household income in the U.S. is roughly $52k. It's around $90k in D.C. Hastings, a Democrat, the alleged party of the poor and down trodden, says Congress can't be expected to survive on $174k.

And yet I and many others manage to do so on far less than $174k a year.

Does your job require you to maintain two full-time residences, one of them in the 4th most expensive city in the country?

They can find housing out in the suburbs. They can rent a place and then have one of their higher paid aides as a room mate to offset the cost of housing. One does what hey need to do based on their level of income. They can take the metro which covers a wide area around DC.... It's called living within one's means.

You're not asking them to live "within their means", you're suggesting that they live within your arbitrary decision of what their "needs" are.

Give me a reason that your feelings on this should be relevant to anyone.

Umm. My discussion is without passion or prejudice. I am simply expressing my expertise with managing a personal budget.

No, all you are doing is making emotional claims as to what you think is "right".

And no I am not asking them to live within their means, I demand they live within their means. They represent US.. They are paid by US. "US" is the rest of the great unwashed masses that are required to.....wait for it.....Live within our means.

You're not making any sense. How are Congressmen currently not "living within their means"?

I find it so hypocritical of you lefties how you scream your heads off about the "wealthy" and how they 'have enough', 'don't pay their fair share', have too much' 'should pay 90% tax rates'...yet, when it comes to politicians, you offer a hall pass.

I find it hypocritical that when it comes to tax increases, 6 figures is "barely middle class", but when it comes to civil salaries, it's somehow supposed to be staggeringly high. You'd have a valid argument if politicians in this country made a thousand times what they make a year now - until then, you're so full of shit your eyes have turned brown.

Go pound sand.
You'll realize you're looking in the wrong place for sympathy.

Who the fuck cares about your sympathy?

Tell ya what, see the Padre on your way out. He'll punch your ticket for you. Get my meaning?

Nope.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I would love to hear a single argument that Congressmen or Senators should be paid less that isn't based entirely on jealousy and emotion.

I know, it's not fair. But if you work hard and pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, you can make that much too.

In fact, the only reason you're not making that much is because you're not working hard enough.

That's a horsecrap argument.
In fact, members of Congress can get by with doing very little other than show up for important votes and do a very poor job and still get paid gobs of money.
Their salary puts them in the top 3% of all wage earners. Most of them are wealthy one percenters.

Ok, we can start there.

What objective measure can you come up with to judge whether a member of Congress is doing a "very poor" job?

"Because you feel that way" doesn't count.

Since you people on the left just adore polls, well, if you haven't been in the country for the last ten years, Congress has about a 10 to 15% approval rating. That means 85 to 90% of us think they are doing a poor job. And because we are paying them, what we say is all that matters.
Here's the rub......When those same people are asked about their Senators or House member, they say their people are doing a fine job. It's the other ones that we don't like. Incumbency.
Now...For specifics.....Oh let's take Civil forfeiture. The country is just finding out abiut this. And there is pressure being brought to bear on Congress to pass legislation to rein in government power on this. Nothing has been done. THAT is doing a poor job......Or how about this....Would you not agree as a liberal that congress is not doing it's job by at least cobbling together a bill on immigration and at least get it out of committee? One that BOTH parties can live with? Would you not argue that Congress is doing a poor job on this issue?
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of our elected representatives acting with any urgency only when an upcoming election is on the line.
Would you not agree that these people act in the interests of those they represent instead of their own interests?
An OP used the term "executive"....Ok. lets put them in the private sector. How long do you think these people would last producing the same way as in Congress? I'd give them a month before they were asked to collect their things and vacate the premises.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I would love to hear a single argument that Congressmen or Senators should be paid less that isn't based entirely on jealousy and emotion.

I know, it's not fair. But if you work hard and pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, you can make that much too.

In fact, the only reason you're not making that much is because you're not working hard enough.

That's a horsecrap argument.
In fact, members of Congress can get by with doing very little other than show up for important votes and do a very poor job and still get paid gobs of money.
Their salary puts them in the top 3% of all wage earners. Most of them are wealthy one percenters.

Ok, we can start there.

What objective measure can you come up with to judge whether a member of Congress is doing a "very poor" job?

"Because you feel that way" doesn't count.

Since you people on the left just adore polls, well, if you haven't been in the country for the last ten years, Congress has about a 10 to 15% approval rating. That means 85 to 90% of us think they are doing a poor job. And because we are paying them, what we say is all that matters.

So you think Congressional "merit" should be decided by a national popular opinion?

Here's the rub......When those same people are asked about their Senators or House member, they say their people are doing a fine job. It's the other ones that we don't like. Incumbency.

Bingo. Since that's who they represent, they're the only ones that matter.

Should I be able to decide how well your Senator is doing?

Now...For specifics.....Oh let's take Civil forfeiture. The country is just finding out abiut this.

Perhaps you're just hearing about it. I've been "hearing about it" for years.

And there is pressure being brought to bear on Congress to pass legislation to rein in government power on this. Nothing has been done. THAT is doing a poor job......Or how about this....Would you not agree as a liberal that congress is not doing it's job by at least cobbling together a bill on immigration and at least get it out of committee? One that BOTH parties can live with? Would you not argue that Congress is doing a poor job on this issue?

Again, in this context "poor" doesn't objectively mean anything.

Quite frankly I am sick and tired of our elected representatives acting with any urgency only when an upcoming election is on the line?
Would you not agree that these people act in the interests of those they represent instead of their own interests?
An OP used the term "executive"....Ok. lets put them in the private sector. How long do you think these people would last producing the same way as in Congress? I'd give them a month before they were asked to collect their things and vacate the premises.

And we finally come to the entire point.

Congress isn't the private sector. It's not supposed to "produce" a lot of things. If anything, it's supposed to "produce" as little as possible.

We don't live in a Democracy, as righties usually love to point out. We don't run our country based on current popular opinion, we run it through elected proxies. If you don't like how your proxy is doing their job, you can vote against them - but you don't get a say over anyone else's proxy.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

$174K sucks for an executive salary

174k is a nice salary no matter the job you stupid greedy fuck. And it is far to nice for the assholes in DC.
Congress should be a 3 or 4 month job with a 30k salary for those 3 months.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And yet I and many others manage to do so on far less than $174k a year.

Does your job require you to maintain two full-time residences, one of them in the 4th most expensive city in the country?

They can find housing out in the suburbs. They can rent a place and then have one of their higher paid aides as a room mate to offset the cost of housing. One does what hey need to do based on their level of income. They can take the metro which covers a wide area around DC.... It's called living within one's means.

You're not asking them to live "within their means", you're suggesting that they live within your arbitrary decision of what their "needs" are.

Give me a reason that your feelings on this should be relevant to anyone.

Umm. My discussion is without passion or prejudice. I am simply expressing my expertise with managing a personal budget.

No, all you are doing is making emotional claims as to what you think is "right".

And no I am not asking them to live within their means, I demand they live within their means. They represent US.. They are paid by US. "US" is the rest of the great unwashed masses that are required to.....wait for it.....Live within our means.

You're not making any sense. How are Congressmen currently not "living within their means"?

I find it so hypocritical of you lefties how you scream your heads off about the "wealthy" and how they 'have enough', 'don't pay their fair share', have too much' 'should pay 90% tax rates'...yet, when it comes to politicians, you offer a hall pass.

I find it hypocritical that when it comes to tax increases, 6 figures is "barely middle class", but when it comes to civil salaries, it's somehow supposed to be staggeringly high. You'd have a valid argument if politicians in this country made a thousand times what they make a year now - until then, you're so full of shit your eyes have turned brown.

Go pound sand.
You'll realize you're looking in the wrong place for sympathy.

Who the fuck cares about your sympathy?

Tell ya what, see the Padre on your way out. He'll punch your ticket for you. Get my meaning?

Nope.

For you to tell me what I mean is not only presumptuous, it is in very poor form...
The "Padre" punching you ticket is a reference to you looking for sympathy for these people. You'll get none from me....Hence you little visit to the Priest. He can pat you opn the head and tell you how he agrees with you.
I cannot believe a person who seems to be of reasonable intelligence would require an explanation....
And now you will reply with some snarky retort. Don't bother. I'm way ahead of you.
Who the fuck says six figures is 'barely middle class".....Look, I don't give a shit where one lives. If the household is grossing over $100k per year, they are well to do....Now, one could take two identical households with identical incomes living in identically priced homes in the same community. One will live well off. The other can be barely getting by. it all boils down to....wait for it.....living within one's means.
No public worker ( see wages here. nj.com/newjerseybythenumbers )should make a six figure income. Yet, there are 250 teachers and faculty in my home school district in NJ that gross over $100k per year. That is HALF of the total faculty and administration.....Prior to 2010, Superintendents were being paid in excess of $300k per year plus bonuses plus expense accounts plus housing allowances. The Christie admin listened to tax payers who are completely tapped out, capped superintendent salaries at $190k per year.
You are not going to change my mind. I am not alone in these ideas. Get it?
You may now have the last word.