dagblog - Comments for "America's Biggest Problem - A Greedy, Self-serving, and Unpatriotic Congress"

Much of the country would

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:55:06 +0000

Much of the country would love to save $1000 a year - that doesn't mean anyone making $60,000 is rich. Really, $172K isn't rich - it's upper middle class if you can sustain it for a while, but it also depends on where you live. In NY or DC or LA, you're fighting against housing prices and cost of living that whack your net worth.

The half of the country

rmrd0000 — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 03:11:44 +0000

In reply to Bait-and-switch. Are we

The half of the country living in poverty would love to be able to save $10K per year.The mean US income was just over $44K in 2003. I think the majority of the US population would love to be able to save 23% of their income.

Bait-and-switch. Are we

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:57:54 +0000

In reply to Sigh, The median net worth of

Bait-and-switch. Are we talking about Congresspeople's worth, or their salary? Most don't get their net worth from their salary.

I once had a homeless guy on the street insulting me as a rich cat for having a rusted out 20-year-old van - who knows what a "wide swath of the US citizenry" thinks, but I imagine they're thinking of Paris Hilton and P. Diddy, not Ed Pastor.

The lowest Congressmen are Joe Walsh and Marco Rubio - conservative idiots with negative net worth attacking the poor - does that help the argument here?

The median net worth for incoming freshmen is >$500K - so Ed Pastor is barely ahead of the newcomers after 20+ years of experience.

(Note if Ed saved $10K/year and got 7% on his savings, he'd be where he is after 25 years)

Yes, there are people in

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:52:29 +0000

In reply to It's all in the perception of

Yes, there are people in Nebraska who've never paid $15 in DC to get 10 blocks either, or never paid $15,000 a year for a regular private elementary school or never paid $2500/month for half a rundown townhouse, and the local diner costs $8-12 for breakfast rather than $5.

There's just not enough real difference in lifestyle to make that $174K be "rich", unlike changes that start at say $250K-300K, depending on where you're liviing.

While we can play this "seems rich" game forever - when I was 8 years old, $20 seemed like rich. Presumably most people in the US have TV and know the difference between Joe the Plumber, a local bank director, and Oprah Winfrey or Brad Pitt.

The median Private Banking Director salary in $150K. Median Government Affairs Director is $118K. Median Executive Government Affairs Director is $222K.

A Sr. System Administrator at Washington Post? $100K. Lead Developers at Huffington Post? $110K. CNN Executive Producers? $130K

Somehow a $174K salary for a high profile gov position you raised and spent a year or 2 of income and 2 years of your life campaigning to acquire doesn't seem exorbitant.

(Average campaign cost for incumbents in 2010: $1,163 million. Challengers paid $166,000, though 90% of challengers lose, so money flushed down the toilet)

Congressional incumbent reelection rate, 2008: 94%

Average spent by House race winners, 2008:$1.4 million

Average raised by challengers, 2010: $166,000

Average raised by incumbents, 2010: $1 million

Sigh, The median net worth of

rmrd0000 — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 03:00:37 +0000

In reply to $174K a year isn't rich.

Sigh,

The median net worth of Congress is just over $900K. The man in the middle is Arizona Democrat, Ed Pastor, a member of the House. When he came to Congress in the 1980’s his worth was estimated at $100K. As of 2011, as a multi-term member of Congress, he had increased his dollar value almost tenfold. Comparing mean values, his wealth has tripled.

Half of population of the United States lives in poverty. Millionaires make up half of Congress are millionaires. Congress is disconnected from the average American. $174K is rich to a wide swath of the US citizenry

It's all in the perception of

Aunt Sam — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:47:38 +0000

In reply to $174K a year isn't rich.

It's all in the perception of the individual. For the vast majority of households, according to many research reports, the median income is a bit over $50k. To the average household, $174k does seem, if not rich as those of Romney's ilk, this amount is indeed 'rich' in their reality based lives.

There are far more of the working poor than there are lawyers, CEO's and others who consider a hundred bucks minimal pocket change - to them it instead equates to the ability to obtain necessities such as groceries, heating fuels and/or gas for their much less than new vehicles they need to keep operable to get them to their jobs.

$174K a year isn't rich.

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:37:59 +0000

In reply to Great post. We focus on what

$174K a year isn't rich. $1600/day is hardly a lot for a top lawyer, and the way this is calculated is misleading- Representatives work more than these days. A typical CEO makes much more than this. The federal exec pay scale goes from $120K-$180K.

Great post. We focus on what

AnonymousRm — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:06:30 +0000

In reply to America's Biggest Problem - A Greedy, Self-serving, and Unpatriotic Congress

Great post. We focus on what CEOs make and forget the differential between what Congress makes vs the average citizen.

This may be one reason that tax breaks favor the wealthy over the middle class. A GOO Congress cannot identify with those who can't raise their own salaries.

Good read. Thanks.

trkingmomoe — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:34:51 +0000

In reply to America's Biggest Problem - A Greedy, Self-serving, and Unpatriotic Congress

Good read. Thanks.

Yes we are finally at a

trkingmomoe — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:33:26 +0000

In reply to Well said. I do feel that Our

Yes we are finally at a tipping point. I am worn out from the last 30 years of this. Right now it seems social network is a lot of the force for change. It makes my day when NRA get raked over the coals on the internet.