Chris Matthews crying a river last night over how politicos in the

u.s.a congress can hardly keep up with their cost of living because of having two houses, kids to put through college--which is usually state run colleges, he said-- ..... and how much they need the money that they give to themselves whenever there is a vote for a pay raise.

GIVE ME A BREAK CHRIS MATTHEWS !!!!!!! let us have the politicos own one house. Rent a Room in any Rooming house when they are in D.C., let us have them depend on FOOD STAMPS if they need it for food for themselves or their families, let us have the politicos cut down on the cost of their medical insurances by having them join the HMOS that the rest of us are being thrown into,let us have the politicos send their kids FOR REAL to State run colleges, which you claim they do (though it is hard to believe), let us have the politicos
live in real america for a while, perhaps you too could join them, and then perhaps you might be crying a river over how arrogantly wicked they are and crying a river over the poor who are being made poorer each day by the bushco fascist neocon empire, and by a congress which does not know how to, or does not want to, stand up for good old fashioned democratic values anymore.

(I could add the perfect BUSH FAMILY CINTILLO here which would be, 'SHAME ON YOU CHRIST MATTHEWS', but i won't...)

:cry::banghead::cry::sarcasm: Give me a break

workers that have to take pay cuts just to keep their fucking jobs? How about all the workers who have had their jobs outsourced? What are they supposed to do, vote themselves a raise?

I cannot believe the idiots they let on tv these days. This guy is an absolute fucking idiot.

They don't seem to understand what "poor" is all about.

Had a student who drives a $40,000 vehicle tell me he was "poor."

I wanted to take him to where poor is on this mountain.

They cut programs for the very neediest and weakest, and piss away billions just for fun.


Cuz they're so poor. :nopity:

... brewing in this--Congressmen are so underpaid that they have to take bribes just to live decently.

We'll ignore, for the moment, that Cunningham was taking bribes to pay for multi-million dollar homes, antique furnishings for them, a Rolls-Royce and maintenance on same, boats and hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, besides.

Matthews is making millions for being a shill for the right wing--it's no wonder he feels sorry for fellow wingers who can't make the same money while serving the party, er, I mean, the public....

:puke:

Matthews is part of the wealthy elite. As such, he empathizes with fellow members of The Class. It is obvious that he sees members of Congress (at least the Republican ones) as deserving fellow members of The Class.

Rolling in ever-growing piles of money, thanks to relentless tax cuts provided their fellow ruling members of The Class, they indulge themselves in pursuits like collecting multiple homes that make The Biltmore look like a tarpaper shack.

This is why Cunningham needed, nay DESERVED, these same things for himself. He would otherwise have been scorned, don't you know, by his fellow members of The Class.

The current minimum salary for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $162,100 per year. I think that's plenty.

http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm

(And if anyone ever apparently needed one, it was the Randy Dukester!)

discuss on DU.

part of the problem;these people socialize with one another and I get the distinct impression that it is Republicans socializing with big media types.

It must frost their asses that someone like Tweety who really justs sits at a television studio and GOSSIPS about what is inside baseball/beltway stuff while THEY do all the work so he and others like him can GOSSIP about what THEY do - It all comes down to ENVY

Maybe Repuugs are just more predisposed to envy/coveting thy neighbors goods

The only time I actually saw a throw pillow inscribed "He who finishes with the most toys wins" was in a Repug house

This Abramoff thing is going to say a lot about this generation of Repugs - with maybe a token Dem thrown in

If we don't pay them generously, only the rich can afford to run for office. That's the ideal at least. As it is now, that's the way it is anyway, but it shouldn't be.

It is entirely possible to limit the amount which can be raised and spent on election campaigns. That and requiring equal coverage on the (ha! ha!) "public" airwaves and in the print media, would even the playing field.

As to the two houses, let them take a page from Rick Santorum. Buy some little 2 bedroom home in an inexpensive neighborhood, rent it out to relatives and call it your "legal" home in the state/district you represent. That's wrong too, of course, but these senators and reps could easily go together to share the rent in some of those huge old DC houses. That's what the state House members in Pennsylvania do.

I think our system really is part of the problem. Especially in the house where they are always campaigning. Every two years means you must always be fund raising...and to get the money it's hard not to vote in ways that will bring the money in.

The cost to get election is just insane and that;s where we need to be looking. Your ideas are good...limit the money that can be spent and equalize coverage.

That might not ease financial living strain, but it would make for much fairer elections. I don't feel bad that they have to budget, I just think we can admit that they do.
I would like their salaries to raise by the same increment as minimum wage or social security and so on and i resent their great coverage when they show their vast indifference to others who have none or poor insurance. I keep thinking that if they thought this rotten Medicare drug plan was good enough for the elderly and disabled, let them take the same plan. They sure have more room in their stretched budgets then most elderly and disabled have in theirs.

Their budgets being stretched don't matter more then others of us who do our best and can't make ends meet. It should give them more respect for struggling citizens, yet those they disregard or worsen in their bills.

I didn't think he was "crying a river" but pointing out a fact for those who have no other income. He did say it was good pay, much higher then most.

My best friend in high school's dad was in US House. That was long ago, the pay is higher but the cost of housing has increased even more. To have a home in DC, a couple of cars (and one of them at least has to be good and get a lot of maintenance since they are constantly campaigning with elections every two years) and all that jazz goes through the pay they get pretty quickly. They have to "keep up appearances" to win elections.
If you have kids in school (or kids you don't have custody of) that stay in the home district you are always traveling or paying for the kids to if you want to be a good parent.

When I wrote about it I sarcastically added alimony and child support, but those are real expenses if you have them and not something to get behind on. His kids always worked for their spending money like anyone else and came out of college in debt like most of us. (As they should)

My friend's dad was one caught up in the check cashing scandal, which Matthews also mentioned. He left the House and the last I heard was no longer having any money problems because he was a lobbyist.

It's not a boo-hoo, but it isn't easy for some of them. Obviously they do have it so much better then so many of the rest of us and they sure have better health care coverage.
I'm not saying they should have it easier, especially with the way they are screwing us over when they do work and pass rotten bills. But Matthews was right if you compare their expenses to their after tax income. They could come out much better off financially if they kept their private sector job that paid well and had just one home.

isn't huge considering the expenses they have.

look at the Clintons, Bill talks about how they never had any money until the books came out and as Gov then Pres he got Goverment Housing to boot!

Congresscritters have to rent homes in DC as well as maintain their homes back in the district and travel back and forth on their own dimes

they aren't in poverty but they sure as hell aren't getting rich on a Congressional salary

but it's still a stretch. Someone suggested renting house in their districts out, but that sure doesn't work if your family is still there.Nor does sharing a house with a group if your family comes and stays with you on weekends you don't get home.

No one was saying it gave them a right to take bribes, just that it can be tight. It can, that's simple math. A lot of us have it tougher, and again with much worse or no health insurance.

It wasn't a pity party for them. I think anyone who knows family people in congress with no other income knows affording it all can be tough.

If money was their main goal they would likely stay home as business men or lawyers or whatever they were. Some are drawn to service, some to the prestige and power.

Domestic Travel (to and from District/State)

House: Included in office expenses is a minimum amount of $9,700 (2003), with additional funding based on a formula that uses the distance from Washington, DC to the farthest point in the Congressional district from Washington.

Senate: The official expense allowance is based overall on population and distance, and includes travel.

http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm

and what about the wife and kiddies? it will pay for the congresscritter (and I assume their staff) but do you think it realistically covers ALL the travel expenses?

My flimsy evidence provides only the amount of the minimum allocation for travel, which would probably cover airfare costs for about 24 trips a year as you say. I am left guessing what the "...additional funding based on a formula..." could amount to.

I somehow got an impression that members of Congress got housing allotments so that they would have a place to stay in DC, but I have not found anything to support this notion.

SOMEONE will own our congrescritters.

might as well be us.

ever say shit like that, Agenda.

be owned by Unions than Corporations

Let's face it folks, they have to get the money somewhere so I'd rather see the money come from middle class interests other than multinational corporate interests

I don't. Too much economic self-interest in Congress. Unless we paid them $25 million per year, they would still be corruptable.
The Professor

He knows his days on TV are numbered, if the repigs get run out of town and he's running scared. About 30 seconds of that screechy voice of his ALWAYS causes me to grab the remote and change the channel to something less depressing. I refuse to watch HARDSUCK anymore. BTW, what is that stuff on tweety's chin?

Try living in a box under a bridge.

(actually his second house, I believe).

Give me a fucking break! I can't imagine what I could do with that much money.

I thought that they rented a home in DC anyway when Congress is in session. Why do they need another house?

He acts like there's not 3rd choice. It's either struggle financially or get a pay raise. How about just quitting congress, going home, (then just the one house) and getting a private sector job? That seems like a viable 3rd option in this "vibrant" economy they helped foster.
The Professor

vote themselves raises while at the same time cutting funding for programs for the poor?? I don't think so!

Chris Matthews can go pound salt....he is clearly out of touch with mainstream America.

FEMA trailer to live in.

and :cry: having a tough go of it. Not counting all the perks, etc.

These elites have no clue of what it takes to survive out there in the real world.
It's hard work - to borrow a phrase from the knucklehead in chief.
:argh:

the absurdity of Matthews is overwhelming.

what else is new?

For tweety to whine about this just indicates that the press is out of touch with this country. Get a frickin life.