RE: US House votes to give themselves a $4,400 pay raise

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: US House votes to give themselves a $4,400 pay raise

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: US House votes to give themselves a $4,400 pay raise

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: US House votes to give themselves a $4,400 pay raise - 7/7/2007 2:17:47 PM

PoisonRoses

Posts: 65
Joined: 6/12/2006
Status: offline

since you started out stating that 'the democratic lead congress'..   Actually the vote has been brought up numerous times in the past but the democrats refused it saying that until the minimum wage was passed they would not vote for it.
Yep.. minimum wage raised,   so were their wages.
I dont want the old 'you can't compare them' crap.   Of course you can't.   But bottom line is putting all the blame on the dems is plain wrong when you consider the facts

(in reply to SubinMaine)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: US House votes to give themselves a $4,400 pay raise - 7/7/2007 2:50:09 PM

vield

Posts: 354
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

LOL, it does not matter, all of the elected federal politicians pretty much get a free ride for life with insurance and such once they take office.

I think all elected politicians should have all of their (and family) assets frozen and put in an escrow account they can not touch, to which their salary based on minimum wage times hours congress is in session is added as it acrues.

They each should get one debit card for which all expenditures are public record to use for all of their expenses during ther term in office.

_____________________________

As always, your mileage may vary!

vield

(in reply to cyberdude611)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: US House votes to give themselves a $4,400 pay raise - 7/7/2007 3:02:31 PM

FLMaster45

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline

There are huge misconceptions about what kind of benefits members of Congress get.

They do not participate in Social Security (neither do other Federal employees) but they have to contribute 8% of their pay to the Federal Employees Retirement System. Actually, they get exactly the same benefits as any other Federal employees, except that the retirement benefits are slightly more generous for employees without civil service protection (elected and appointed officials), reflecting the fact that they can't count on staying in the same job indefinitely to generate a pension based on long service.

Pensions for judges are different, but that's based on the constitutional requirement that judges' pay not be reduced. Many retired federal judges (for example, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor) continue to hear cases on an as-needed basis.

(in reply to vield)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: US House votes to give themselves a $4,400 pay raise - 7/7/2007 3:45:44 PM

mrbob726

Posts: 155
Joined: 4/15/2007
From: Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

arnuld, is worth upwards of 220 million, and even more now, yet he gets a salary of just over 200 g's

Arnold is not taking his salary as Governor of California. He said he doesn't need it

http://capitalcomments.typepad.com/capital_comments/2007/05/1_salary_for_go.html

< Message edited by mrbob726 -- 7/7/2007 3:52:36 PM >

_____________________________

"Love many, Trust few, Harm none" (Yau Man, Survivor Fiji)

"If builders built buildings the way some programmers write programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization."

(in reply to dragone)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: US House votes to give themselves a $4,400 pay raise - 7/7/2007 7:09:15 PM

dragone

Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

Okay, what's your point? I didn't know he gave up his salary, do I open my veins?

(in reply to mrbob726)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: US House votes to give themselves a $4,400 pay raise - 7/7/2007 7:51:51 PM

dragone

Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline

Hi Sinergy; I've been a working man all my life, while in AZ, ..the only way a person could barely make a livable wage, was to join a union. Which I did. AZ is a 'Right to Work' State, as is NV, and I think CA. The term reads nicely, however, what it really means is...if you accept a job, at less than minumum wage, for instance, you have no complaints. The employer rules the roost, he does not have to allow any union in his shop, nor abide by any state or federal mandates for wages, he can, if he wishes, set his own rules. AZ, at the time was run by one...Barry Goldwater.... of what party do you think.

Arnold, the actor, went into a relationship with IGT, one of the largest gaming firms in the world. IGT, came with a slot machine, 'Terminator'. This was during the time of his bid for CA gov.

Here is the 'reel deal': Since he was running for govenator; he would be sorely critized for having dealings in the gaming industry, citing favortism in legislations. So, he sued for 22 mill. bases being copyright infringment; using his image and voice on the slot machine. IGT pleaded no contest and paid. End of story....no.

The Slot never made it to the casino floor, anywhere, was never introduced at any gaming convention, where new products are commonly introduced. Now, how could Arnold be damaged by IGT? It appears the copyright laws have been ammended, in part it reads that if you copy a product, 'Even Without Monatary Gain' you are subject to copyright infringement. End of story...no.

I have worked extenstively with casinos, and slot manufactures designing various promotional programs, and slot machines. It IS Known Thoughout The Entire Gaming Industry On Every Level, from entry to long term executive level.....one does not USE any image whatsoever from any known enity without first obtaining legal permission usually, if not, every time through the gaming enities legal department.

So, the largest gaming manufacturer in the world, is going to pirate, and use, without permission Arnold's image and voice on their products and promotions?

AS far as your statement of positioning Arnold to be president...I've had my hat handed to me on virtually every occassion where I have brought this up. Even to
'in my face YELLING'..."they,(the gov.) is not going to change the constitution just for Arnold, he is not important".

No, it's not for Arnold...it's to break the main crux of the constitution, once that is ammended, the constitution, as we now know it...is gone forever more. To allow Arnold this, opens the door to any other mega off shore industrialist to rule the USof A. This once great and most advanced, most richest country civilized man has ever known will be reduced to a 4th world 'presidante' piece of real estate.

But, I'm chastised, for not knowing he gave up his salary...does he get a tax write off for doing so, I mean, is the salary still coming from the treasury, if so, how does the state use the salary? Is it deleted off from the laws, just...non-existent?

Arnold is now aligned with some billionaire in NYC, the rag is on the news stands this week, I didn't buy it, so I cannot supply the fools on board with the issue nor the URLs. If anyone is interested enough, they can do the research for themselves. As far as I am concerned, from what I have seen; it's a stacked deck. You are not going to win.

If you play chess.....when the pawn approaches the last rung of the opponents teir, it becomnes the most important piece on the board, leading to checkmate. Arnold is that pawn.

Good evening to you sir.

(in reply to Sinergy)

Profile

Post #: 46