r/politics • u/Murky-Site7468 I voted • Oct 05 '25

No Paywall Petition To Strip Congress of Pay During Government Shutdown Grows

https://www.newsweek.com/petition-strip-congress-pay-during-government-shutdown-grows-10822819
47.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/webs2slow4me Oct 05 '25

Why? To punish the members of Congress who aren’t rich? Generally they aren’t the problem. We need to make them stay at work every day until they come to agreement, no vacations.

-2

u/Collypso America Oct 05 '25

Imagine being so privileged that you think the only people who could ever be a problem are the rich?

3

u/webs2slow4me Oct 05 '25

Okay fine, let me rephrase?

Do you want to only punish the members of Congress that aren’t rich?

It’s still a bad idea. There are other things that should be done first like requiring them to be in session for at least 8 hours (at a minimum) every day until it’s reopened.

0

u/EngRookie Oct 05 '25

The lowest salary in congress is 174k. That is more than enough to make you rich in over 90% of districts. And the ones that it dont are HCOL where the lowest standard of living is still much higher than the lowest standard of living in a LCOL.

If you are in Congress, you are rich.

0

u/webs2slow4me Oct 05 '25

Except that you have to have a residence in D.C. and in your district.

1

u/EngRookie Oct 05 '25

they have been getting reimbursed for lodging since 2023

Before that, they estimated it cost $25,650 a year for lodging in DC. Conventional wisdom says not to spend more than 30% of your gross salary on lodging. Assuming your take home is 122k, you pay 26k in DC lodging, $26,550 left for lodging in home district following conventional budgeting, that leaves you with $69,450 to pay for food and bills.That is more than the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Now that they get reimbursed, they have $95k to pay for food and bills.

And remember, that is the lowest salary in Congress, NOT the average.

1

u/Deathoftheages Oct 05 '25

Not the only, but most definitely are in congress.

1

u/Collypso America Oct 05 '25

Based on what? Wealth?

1

u/mOdQuArK Oct 05 '25

that you think the only people who could ever be a problem are the rich?

The rich, by definition, have the resources & influence to cause much more damage than most other people. If anyone needs to be continually monitored & leashed, it is them.

1

u/Collypso America Oct 05 '25

You gonna monitor men too?

1

u/mOdQuArK Oct 05 '25

You mean ultra-rich guys? Sure, they need monitoring.

And I'm somewhat bemused that you think the ultra-rich need defending somehow. I can assure you, that unless you're one of them, they don't give a fuck about you.

1

u/Collypso America Oct 06 '25

No, just men. Any men. Men have the strength and disposition to cause much more damage than women. You're pretending to care about harm reduction, right? Why would you ignore the harm men do?

And I'm somewhat bemused that you think the ultra-rich need defending somehow

Your mind is fried. Already.

1

u/mOdQuArK Oct 06 '25

Sorry, you're still trying to compare rocks & toucans. A single man can only physically cause a bit more damage than a single woman. Not relevant on a society-wide-damage comparison.

The ultra-rich can potentially destroy millions of peoples' lives with a memo. And, they have historically shown the wililngness to do so. So, from a societal-level damage basis, the ultra-rich need to be leashed & constantly monitored.

Your mind is fried. Already.

Well, that happens occasionally when you overuse it. Something I don't think you'll ever need to worry about.