In ba.consumers bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote: : For the House of Representatives!? : <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16065625> : OMG! Elected officials might actually have to DO something for the : $165,200 per year each of them takes from the taxpayers! : Holy crap. I want a job like that. Extended holidays, sleep at your : desk, diddle teenagers, free whores from Homeland Security, travel to : golf in foreign lands, and influence to sell when you leave your "public : service"! : What a DEAL! : Almost TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS base salary *each* per year, and : they don't even have to show up at the office! Of course, that sum : doesn't include the perqs like per diem pay (untaxed), the hired staff, : the bribes and the FANTASTIC health and retirement benefits that you get : 'till the day you die. : And then, when your new boss tells you to at least show up five days per : week; well, then you WHINE about how he doesn't care about your family. : According to one Republican goof-off (er, I mean, "incumbent"): "Keeping : us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who : typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. : "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- : that's what this says." : Your "family", Jack? Your family will probably be overjoyed at your : absence. I know I wouldn't want a lazy, corrupt pompous ass like you : slinking around the house feeling sorry for yourself. I would throw you : out in the red Georgia mud so fast, your head would spin like Linda : Blair's. If you aren't happy in Congress, Jack, maybe you should find a : real job. Why not consider resigning? : You know what, Kingston? I voted third party in the last election, and I : don't give a particular housefly's fart about your fatcat family either, : you bum. I am much more concerned about *my* family, who lives on : slightly more than ONE TENTH of what you made in your freshman year in : Congress, without your benefits and your perqs. : Republicans have gotten away with calling liberals "whiners" for 12 : long, long years. It is time to take a cold hard look at who is whining : now and about what. : The last Congress "worked" a total of 103 days. That is seven fewer days : than the infamous "Do Nothing" congress of 1948. : Assuming-- generously-- that a Republican Congress member worked 8 hours : per day, that is a total work YEAR of 824 hours. Divide that by 52 weeks : in a year-- Kingston and his crybaby Congressional colleagues worked an : average of just under 16 hours per week last year. For that, we pay : these limp dicks a STARTING hourly wage of about $200.49. We give them : an office and a staff. We give them health and retirement benefits. We : give them a per diem. : And what do we get? An interminable, unwinnable war? Platitudes? Moral : instruction from immoral simpletons? Massive debt? Restricted liberty? : Official thugs spying on our private lives? Reduced individual income? A : major American city still lying in rubble more than a year after a : hurricane? Untrustworthy elections? A nation divided, perhaps fatally? : *This* is what we are paying you for? You bastard. : A worker at a real job clocks about 2,080 hours per year. That is 8 : hours per day, five days per week, 52 weeks per year. He doesn't tell : you what to do. He doesn't take his money out of your paycheck before : you even see it. Most don't blame their boss for destroying their : family. : But the 109th Congress is special. So special, they need a special : place. With bars. And no golf. They need a REAL reason to whine about : being separated from their families. Perhaps we should be happy that they only worked 103 days. Think of the damage they could do if they worked 260 days like the rest of us. We might be better off to pay them not to work at all! Government will only improve when political action begins in local neighborhood groups (and that is a lot of work on top of our 260 days of work). Wayne remove "spamthis." toreply

zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote > bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote >> A worker at a real job clocks about 2,080 hours per year. That is 8 >> hours per day, five days per week, 52 weeks per year. He doesn't tell >> you what to do. He doesn't take his money out of your paycheck before >> you even see it. Most don't blame their boss for destroying their family. > And not to mention so many get shit on, paid much less than their work is worth, Easy to claim. > and have the ever present "if you don't like this job, > there is a illegal immigrant or a man in India that > would be happy to take your place" over their heads. Only if you've been stupid enough to be qualified for jobs where that is even possible. > As an added bonus, if they lose their job and become homeless, Only a fool becomes homeless and cant get another job with an unemployment rate of 5%. > they get accused of being "lazy bums" or "drug users". Which is precisely what they are if they end up in that situation with an unemployment rate of 5% > Isn't runaway capitalism wonderful? Nothing runaway about it, and it leaves the alternatives for dead anyway.

In <1165442512.289953.3000@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, Larry Bud wrote: > >bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote: >> For the House of Representatives!? >> >> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16065625> >> >> OMG! Elected officials might actually have to DO something for the >> $165,200 per year each of them takes from the taxpayers! > >Sounds like a HORRIBLE idea. I'd rather have politicians get NOTHING >done than time to think up new ways to tax us. Or worse still, new/additional spending without taxation to support such spending, so that the taxpayers pay later plus interest rather than now! Remember how between maybe the 1963 tax cut and now (late 2006) the Federal government has mostly been ridden with deficits, with a big exeption being Clinton's second term where the President faced a hostile Congress? Well, Reagan had to face an opposite-party Congress in his second term, but back then people voted for Democrat congresscritters to "bring home the pork" and voted for a Republican president to protect themselves from Democrat congresscritters other than their own. Also, every fiscal year Reagan submitted to Congress a budget request with deficits close to those that finally resulted. Not that I consider Clinton some great angel - earlier in his administration before the surpluses that he presided over, he did oppose a deficit reduction bill known as "Penney-Kasich". And now and in recent years, I hear less about budget battles and deficit reduction while I hear as much as ever about pork! Some fiscal year in his first term Dubla requested an $8B "energy bill" and did not veto the $14B one returned to him! Makes me think that Eisenhower was the last "fiscal conservative" in the White House! (Eisenhower even presided over cuts in Defense spending, and in 1960 boosting Defense spending was one reason for Americans to vote Democrat!) - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)