Obama Gives Biden, Congress a Raise

[ProVobis]

Well of course with the tax increases for those making over $250k coming soon, Obama wanted to make sure that the “connected” people didn’t suffer any. The Soviet Union was less corrupt than this guy.

Keep in mind the average employee’s wage over at Goldman Sachs is over $500,000 and they all contributed to the Romney campaign. Not accusing him of anything but just trying to put things into proper perspective here.

 

[JIB]

The military is also getting a pay raise…anyone want to tell them they don’t deserve it because we’re facing a fiscal cliff?

Me.

Thy don’t deserve a raise. The military is too bloated as it is.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Me.

Thy don’t deserve a raise. The military is too bloated as it is.

The military isn’t bloated because of soldier wages. Actually a lot of military families qualify for food stamps. Now that is not right. You can’t “support the troops” and then think that little of them and what they do.

 

[Tigg]

The rich in Congress have continued to get richer, according to a new analysis of lawmakers’ net worth by Roll Call.

Three years ago, the collective net worth all representatives and senators was $1.65 billion. By 2010, this amount had increased to more than $2 billion, representing nearly a 25% bump.

Roll Call also determined that almost 90% of the increase was enjoyed by the richest 50 members of Congress, who account for 80% of the total net worth even though there are 535 voting members of Congress.

Within the Senate, Democrats (the majority party) possess about 80% of the wealth. Meanwhile, House Republicans, who control the chamber, command 78% of the riches.

The numbers are skewed by the wealth of one Congressman, Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who is worth at least $294 million. Still, the median net worth for members of Congress, $513,000, is four times that of the median American household.

The wealth totals are, if anything, on the low side because they “vastly underestimate the actual net worth of Members of Congress because they are based on an accounting system that does not include homes and other non-income-generating property, which is likely to tally hundreds of millions of uncounted dollars,” according to the political magazine. SOURCE

allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/members-of-congress-increased-personal-wealth-25-in-two-years?news=843524

 

[Seeker1961]

The military isn’t bloated because of soldier wages. Actually a lot of military families qualify for food stamps. Now that is not right. You can’t “support the troops” and then think that little of them and what they do.

Agreed. There should be cuts to defense, but not at the expense of our soldiers on the ground. Let’s cut some of those defense expenditures that are designed for the Cold War, for example. Eliminate some of those weapons systems.

And let’s put a tax on Wall Street trades, end corporate tax loopholes, penalize companies that move jobs overseas with higher taxes, and make it a little harder for the uber-rich to hide their earnings in the Caymans to avoid paying taxes on money they earned in the US. And let’s go back to the Clinton era tax rates-seems like those rates weren’t stopping anyone from growing businesses or hiring back then.

I’m not saying don’t cut spending-I’m just saying that we need to STOP making the poor, the elderly, our children and the middle class the targets of all the cuts.

 

[rlg94086]

Agreed. There should be cuts to defense, but not at the expense of our soldiers on the ground. Let’s cut some of those defense expenditures that are designed for the Cold War, for example. Eliminate some of those weapons systems.

And let’s put a tax on Wall Street trades, end corporate tax loopholes, penalize companies that move jobs overseas with higher taxes, and make it a little harder for the uber-rich to hide their earnings in the Caymans to avoid paying taxes on money they earned in the US. And let’s go back to the Clinton era tax rates-seems like those rates weren’t stopping anyone from growing businesses or hiring back then.

I’m not saying don’t cut spending-I’m just saying that we need to STOP making the poor, the elderly, our children and the middle class the targets of all the cuts.

The poor, elderly and middle class pay less in taxes than they have in many, many years. You can stop the bogus class warfare.

Oh, and I’ve found a way for you to pay extra…you can have more taken out of your paycheck. It’s very easy to do. The IRS only gives you a return, if you file a claim. I’m sure this will put your mind at ease, and you’ll rush out to get that done…,

 

[Orogeny]

And let’s go back to the Clinton era tax rates-seems like those rates weren’t stopping anyone from growing businesses or hiring back then.

Yes, let’s go back to the Clinton rates. For everyone.

Peace

Tim

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, let’s go back to the Clinton rates. For everyone.

Peace

Tim

Yeah, the “tax the rich” folks never go for that idea, because they don’t want to “target” the poor, elderly, middle class, etc., the way the Clinton administration did.

 

[Geist]

And that whole “just send more of YOUR money to the government” thing sounds really smart when posted on a message board but it’s been debunked thoroughly by economics experts on those pesky non-opinion factual sites.

treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

There ya go. Charity starts with your own wallet and all.

When you say “debunked” do you mean people don’t do it?

People don’t voluntarily fork over even more of their cash to the government? I can’t imagine why not. They use it so well…

 

[Geist]

Yeah, the “tax the rich” folks never go for that idea, because they don’t want to “target” the poor, elderly, middle class, etc., the way the Clinton administration did.

People forget the Clinton years had 1/6th the spending of now and were reinforced by the then un-popped tech bubble. They will not be as effective now.

 

[rlg94086]

treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

There ya go. Charity starts with your own wallet and all.

When you say “debunked” do you mean people don’t do it?

People don’t voluntarily fork over even more of their cash to the government? I can’t imagine why not. They use it so well…

Exactly. As I also described above, any worker can claim zero deductions on their W4 and have additional monies withheld. Since the IRS doesn’t refund unless you file a claim, people can give as much as they want…

irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf
“0” on line 5
Additional on line 6

 

[Ridgerunner]

Agreed. There should be cuts to defense, but not at the expense of our soldiers on the ground. Let’s cut some of those defense expenditures that are designed for the Cold War, for example. Eliminate some of those weapons systems.

And let’s put a tax on Wall Street trades, end corporate tax loopholes, penalize companies that move jobs overseas with higher taxes, and make it a little harder for the uber-rich to hide their earnings in the Caymans to avoid paying taxes on money they earned in the US. And let’s go back to the Clinton era tax rates-seems like those rates weren’t stopping anyone from growing businesses or hiring back then.

I’m not saying don’t cut spending-I’m just saying that we need to STOP making the poor, the elderly, our children and the middle class the targets of all the cuts.

As a member of the “working middle class”, my first moral obligation is to my family, then to the Church and its works, then to people I know who are in need, then to the government. To the extent I get looted to buy votes by this government, either through taxes, through the bureaucratic boondoggle known as “Obamacare”, through debasement of the dollar or through the high interest rates that will inevitably follow, I have little sympathy for those who blame everything on “the rich” who put money they earned overseas in the Caymans. If they earned money in, say, France, and paid French taxes on it, and don’t get taxed on it again by the U.S. unless they bring it here, what is that to me? Those people do not affect me, and certainly not directly. This spendthrift government does.

And, having lauded Obama for looting Medicare, no liberal should ever act as if he wants to protect the elderly.

 

[seekerz]

You Party people out there…
Are you ready to open your eyes yet?
Does Obama have to actually say it out loud?
Actions speak louder than words.
There is no difference between the political parties.
It is political theater.
Hulk Hogan and the old WWF was more credible.

I suspect you’re more than half right…

 

[seekerz]

If we could separate Congress from other federal workers who actually do something, you might have me.

Well said. Most federal workers actually are expected to work.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well said. Most federal workers actually are expected to work.

One should hope so.

But in this era of “leveling”, “redistribution” etc, is there some compelling reason why we should favor federal employees who make considerably more than the average person makes, over the average employee generally, who won’t get a raise?

If we’re going to insist that those who make over $200,000/year pay more taxes “because it’s fair”, why should we not also insist that those who make more than other workers, do without a raise “because it’s fair” as well?

 

[seekerz]

One should hope so.

But in this era of “leveling”, “redistribution” etc, is there some compelling reason why we should favor federal employees who make considerably more than the average person makes, over the average employee generally, who won’t get a raise?

If we’re going to insist that those who make over $200,000/year pay more taxes “because it’s fair”, why should we not also insist that those who make more than other workers, do without a raise “because it’s fair” as well?

It is my understanding that they have been asked to do without a raise since 2009. On the other hand, those who make 250,000 a year have had a raise since Bush instituted his tax cuts. And yes, tax cuts do have a cost to them.

 

[scipio337]

It is my understanding that they have been asked to do without a raise since 2009. On the other hand, those who make 250,000 a year have had a raise since Bush instituted his tax cuts. And yes, tax cuts do have a cost to them.

Letting people keep more of what they earn = pay raise? Most of us take advantage of charitable donation, mortgage and student loan interest “pay raises”.

Oh the humanity!

Federal salary freeze lifted doesn’t move my meter much. I just resent whenever cutting proposed spending increases (3% annual increase vs. 5%) is called a “spending cut”.

 

[JustaServant]

I suspect you’re more than half right…

Then you’re halfway there.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Obama didn’t exactly lift the pay freeze, it was set to expire January 1, 2013 and he is extending it until March 27th. Nice news spin though.

But it will increase the pay of civilian contractors, postal workers, etc in addition to elected officials.

You mean Newsmax spun the story?

Jim

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is my understanding that they have been asked to do without a raise since 2009. On the other hand, those who make 250,000 a year have had a raise since Bush instituted his tax cuts. And yes, tax cuts do have a cost to them.

Not true. They got a raise in 2010. myfederalretirement.com/public/344.cfm
Regardless, pay increases for them if they go up a grade, and we can’t know how any individual’s pay changed, if at all, without knowing the grade shifts.

Of those who are not government employees who are making more than $200,000/year ($250,000 for a couple, not for an individual) from all sources, how many of them who are closer to the $200,000 than to, say a million “got a raise”, and how many of them “peaked” at some point and dropped? I’ll await the statistics. Non-government workers, unlike government workers, bear that risk.

But regardless, it will take quite awhile of “no pay raises” for federal employees to allow the rest of the populace to “catch up”. But I guess this is not the kind of “wealth redistribution” or “fairness” Obama wants.