Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scalia: "you can't raise a family on 165K/yr"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
volstork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 09:57 AM
Original message
Scalia: "you can't raise a family on 165K/yr"
Another gem from one of our favorite members of SCOTUS:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4399455.html

Sure, you can't raise a family on $165,000 a year-- how will you ever pay for those Swiss ski trips, Manolos for all the daughters, a new 700 Series BMW for the wife, the new spa addition to the 10,000 square-foot house?
Meanwhile, honest, hardworking Americans are working 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meeet-- to feed and clothe kids they may rarely see because of their long work hours. Families compromise their health eating fast food because it is often the only affordable alternative, and health care grows further and further out of reach.

Boy, Tony, you REALLY have your finger on the pulse of mainstream America!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. When the revolution comes...
I want front row seats for Fat Tony's execution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'll try if he wants to give me a job earning that
I'm all for taking on the project. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyingfysh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. he can raise his salary easily
All he has to do is to quit the Supreme Court, and sign on at one of many law firms who would be happy to take him on as partner, at several times his previous salary.

Tony: why pass up all this money? Do it today!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
4. oh, shudder! You'd have to send your children to PUBLIC schools!
Now that's too horrible for words!


:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
5. A lesson one learns upon growing up: You can be a Supreme Court justice and still be
a complete asshole.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. Thinking about the current makeup of the Supreme Court.....
lots of people took that lesson to heart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
70. No shit...
When I was in high school, I had an American government teacher tell the class that you can criticize the executive and legislative branches, but no matter what you shouldn't criticize the judicial branch because, while presidents and members of Congress could be complete lamebrains, the Supreme Court justices have proven their high level of intellect and savvy by their mere appointment to the Court. That was 35 years ago and it is one of the few things I've remembered from high school. I thought about writing this teacher when Clarence Thomas was confirmed, asking if he had anything to add to his original statement, and even went so far to compose a letter and called the school district to see if there was a mailing address available since he had long retired. The district could not assure me my letter would get delivered, so my task was put on a backburner and never completed. Now, however, it is apparent the Supreme Court justices can be without a "high level of intellect and savvy, and they can be complete lamebrains.

Mr. Dunphy, where ever you are, your thesis no longer stands...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeNearMcChord Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. Hey Tony, just get a 2nd job
Maybe flip burgers, or stock shelves at Best Buy. Cook some more Hamburger Helper and pack PB&J sandwhiches, watch your budget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
32. ho ho good one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllegroRondo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
50. Or sell stuff on ebay - I hear thats a job now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
7. It really bothers me that these guys are under no scrutiny...
They have the most important jobs in the country; what they decide affects every American. But they can say and do anything they please without fear of the consequences because they never have to face the electorate. We need a better way to pick Supreme Court justices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
47. We need to elect better Presidents and Senators
The system ain't broke. We, the electorate are the ones who are broke. Until we learn to think critically and quit falling for campaign tactics that bring us only the most monied, scheming and dastardly leaders by our own choice, we'll get the SC Justices they pick and confirm.

But one thing that would help is a law test. There should be a super bar exam. Judges should be the ones who know the most about the law, not the ones who have the best connections.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #47
58. right on, treestart! well put.
You win your gold star on this issue. IT is not the system, it is how Americans have let the system go to pot. (I wish)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
8. well, some DESERVE to raise families, and some don't...
Edited on Thu Dec-14-06 10:39 AM by npincus
:sarcasm:

...and if they haven't got bread, let them eat cake.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
9. Wow. I hate to tell him this
but most Americans raise their families on much less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
10. Can you maid or chauffer raise their families on less tony? Why?
If there's a better example of the disconnect between the elite, whom are entitled to everything, and the great unwashed, undeserving and disposable masses, I have yet to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lectrobyte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
11. Hey Scalia, try it on 20% of that. Lots of us do it on much much less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Target_For_Exterm Donating Member (540 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
12. He should try raising a family on minimum wage.
With no health insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
13. WTF?
"Families compromise their health eating fast food because it is often the only affordable alternative"

Where did he get that load of crap? Last time I checked, it was cheaper fixing a meal at home than paying close to 15-20 dollars for a family of four at a fast food joint.....what an asshat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
14. Simply uttering those words is reason for impeachment.
He has lost touch with reality.

Anyone who has such a weak grasp on reality in America is unqualified to sit on our highest court.

Even my "conservative" law professors thought Scalia was a kook.

(Conservatives in quotes because that is far fom what they are).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
15. He find 'sympathy' between 'shit' and 'syphllis' in the dictionary. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
17. Ah, so being a cruel fool tool doesn't pay as much as Tony thinks it should?
He is waking up to the ugly fact that HE is not one of the rich and powerful? What does that character on The Simpsons say? Ha HA!

It is getting good when the tools figure out they have been had by the folks in the shadows with the REAL money. Watching the bitterness bubble and the fools seethe is delicious.

Tool, Tony. Yer nothing but a tool. And ya just figured out you're a cheap one at that.

At least millions of the struggling worker bees in America still have their integrity and souls as they kill themselves trying to keep the wolf from busting through their doors.

You, Tony, have $135,000 per year and NOTHING else. And the paltry sum isn't much for what you have done for the fat cats, is it?

ha HA! They're laughing at you, Tony. You cheap whore!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
18. These men have no shame
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aein Donating Member (262 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
19. what i find offensive is....
Scalia implies that 'public-service' minded lawyers aren't smart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
20. hey now - Pimpin ain't easy!
what a douchebag. he should quit.

Although I suppose he has a point that we need more money-grubbers in the SCOTUS... </sarcasm>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
21. you can't raise a family on $165K a year if you want to live like
a Rockefeller...

Sorry but $165K a year is enough to raise a family and squirrel money away for retirement, pay for modest vacations and save for college....however if you aspire to live in a big house, have expensive cars and you waste it keeping up with the Jones's then there are folks who can't live with that kind of money but it is really about their choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
semillama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #21
95. heck, i'd consider myself rich at twice what I make now
and that would still be less than half of what Tony apparently considers the poverty line...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
131. if you notice
scalia was referring to the manhattan district. i dont know if a judge is required to live in the district he holds court in, but considering how much housing is in manhattan, as sad as it sounds 165k may not be enough to be able afford a decent apartment that is big enough for a family of 4.

the costs to live in manhattan are ridiculous, the middle class is being forced out, in exchange for only the ultra wealthy. what else do you expect when to buy a place in manhattan costs $1000 per square foot? ie a 800 sq ft apartment costs $800,000.

i think something should be done about the cost of living in manhattan, not the salary of the judges, as anywhere else $165k is practically a fortune.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aein Donating Member (262 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
22. BUT Wait lets not misquote him (A Judge in Manhatten)
"If you become a federal judge in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), you can't raise a family on what the salary is."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlipperySlope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. What does it cost to live in Manhattan?
Say you are appointed there. What would it cost to rent something like 1,500 to 2,000 square feet of living space?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
84. To be honest, anything less than 100K is pretty much scraping in
Manhattan. I make a little bit less than that and I have to live w/ a roommate, and barely have money left over for the extras. I really do feel like I am scraping by after just paying for the basics here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #27
132. the costs of an apartment
in manhattan is about $1,000 per square foot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MacGregor Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
23. God help me, I'm about to defend Scalia.
Emphasis added:
"If you become a federal judge in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), you can't raise a family on what the salary is," Scalia said during a speech to the Northern Virginia Technology Council.

Federal judges earned salaries of $165,200 in 2006. Scalia said lawyers can easily earn significantly more by staying in the private sector.

It may be a king's ransom in many locales, but I'd be willing to bet that 165 grand -- where he's describing -- minus taxes, 1 mortgage, probably 2 cars, say, 3 kids (and 3 French hens, 2 turtle doves, etc.) could very well be a tight financial proposition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. do federal judges have to live in the district they preside over?
cuz if so...then I can see how that might be a problem given that real estate is really high in NY...

After taxes someone making that is bringing in around $9400/month and if rent or a mortgage is high...let us say $4K a month ...then it is possible but could be tight based on expenses.

However...a federal judge gets a pension. My cousin worked in the financial district in Manhattan and her company had a 401K and that was it...so she made good money but if she didn't save...she would have nothing in her old age.

My father in law is an attorney....he had to self fund his retirement...no pension.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. TIGHT - on 5400 a month??
Oh please. Some people need some damned perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MacGregor Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #30
41. I have perspective.
And I barely take home $5,400 myself in three months. But I'm not heading a household (and all the trappings and responsibilites that come with it) in, presumably, Manhattan or its commuting area. It's a guess, and to me his figure doesn't sound all that outlandish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #30
42. do you live in Manhattan? Can you tell me what it costs?
I have a friend who lives in Chicago...

I know that he paid about $300K for a "fixer upper"...condo...and then dumped a lot of money into fixing it up..

Mortgage is around $2000 a month...then there is the $1000 a month condo fee

Then...this past year he had to pay a $12,000 assessment fee because the condo building was old and it needed major repair work so all the folks in the building had to pony up to fix it..and there was no waiting...the money was due and had to be paid.

He gave up his car because renting a parking space was more than a car payment.

He and his wife work but they are very happy to be leaving because it has been a very pricey place to live.

It is very expensive to live in a city...and depending upon the lifestyle you lead it can be more expensive.

In no way am I saying that $165K is not enough...but given what I know about what people make and expenses...it could be a problem for some folks
.
However a federal judge gets a pension...and federal pensions can be sweet...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #42
56. Gosh - same as here
I'll be danged. I am really fed up with people who don't understand these high housing prices extend to EVERYBODY. If he bought a fixer upper condo - what the hell do you think everybody else in Chicago are buying?? $3000 housing on $10,000 after tax income??

Not tight at all, not by a long shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sir_captain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #42
80. I lived in Manhattan for 25 years
My rent in a tiny rundown *rent-controlled* 1 br apt with no elevator, dishwasher or laundry facility and only one window was $2000. When you added in the utilities (electricity, gas, phone, cable tv since you can't get any reception otherwise) my monthly bill was closer to $2500 a month. And that was me, by myself, living in a closet and eating ramen.

I love NYC to death and would rather live there than anywhere else. And even though I am going to be a physician, I don't think I'll be able to afford to raise a family there. That's simply the reality.

Don't take this to mean that I'm saying anything nice about Scalia, who is a major league scumbag--but he's not wrong about this particular instance, which is what I think you were trying to say as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #30
114. try $8500
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #26
106. So why is it so hard for these people to understand what average families...
have to deal with?

Set a living wage for everyone, then I'll have more empathy for the judges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
110. You would be amazed.
"On the Upper East Side, the report said, the average rent for a three-bedroom apartment in a doorman building was $6,343, up 1.8 percent from $6,231 at the end of last year, and 44.1 percent from $4,401 in 1994. On the Upper West Side, a three-bedroom in a doorman building averaged $6,350, up 4.8 percent from $6,060 in December, and 67.2 percent from $3,796 in 1994. The sample for three-bedroom apartments downtown was too small for a meaningful comparison, the report said. "

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E4DE1438F933A25752C1A9669C8B63

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #23
35. Yes, god help you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frankenforpres Donating Member (763 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #35
43. HE IS RIGHT, poor word choice...
i believe the point he is trying to make is that if you want the best and brightest lawyers to be judges, you cant pay them an amount that would significantly lower their standard of living. i dont believe his point is that 165K is poverty level
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #43
53. True, though that assumes $$ is the only consideration
I actually think he is wrong. He's doing it. There is a perception of power they have that attracts people, too. Fat Tony is really, really into that power.

The executive and legislative branch pay is probably also lower than what those same individuals could make in the private sector, and so it really doesn't matter. Because there is always someone willing to do it.

So feeling sorry for them, not an option. And feeling like there are smarter people out there who would do a better job if we the taxpayers only paid higher salaries? - not that convincing. Those individuals are so interested in $$ only that they will spend the time figuring out how to get more $$, not doing the job well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frankenforpres Donating Member (763 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #53
59. $$$ not the ONLY consideration, but a consideration..
we are talking about a huge difference.


Clinton got rich after he was president, a lot of the other guys are already rich (that run for president). Prestige matters, but money matters too.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G Hawes Donating Member (440 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #43
123. He's right about that point.
Edited on Thu Dec-14-06 11:49 PM by G Hawes
even though he may be wrong about other things.

The reality is that when Supreme Court judges are paid less than 2nd or 3rd year associates at top tier firms, it is impossible to attract the best and brightest to the judiciary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #23
38. Then give judges in Manhattan more money.
Let the cost of living in an area decide the net wage.

If that's what Scalia is about, then I apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #23
49. Who needs two cars in Manhattan?
Anyone who keeps two cars in Manhattan is too stupid to be a judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MacGregor Donating Member (148 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #49
66. Hell, I don't know if they actually have to live there...
...as bleedingheart pointed out. If it's permissible, isn't it possible someone with a family retreats to the (still quite pricey, as I understand it) NY suburbs (or CT?) rather than staying of the Den of Iniquity that is Manhattan? (t-firmly-ic)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
113. Ridiculously high real estate prices in many major cities
Edited on Thu Dec-14-06 06:22 PM by amandabeech
chew up a lot of that $165,000.

I rent in a 3-bedroom townhouse within walking distance of the last station of one of the D.C. metro lines. The place is okay, but nothing special--storage space is virtually nonexistent and the heat/ac bills are horrible due to poor insulation and design.

Similar units go for $600,000-$700,000 even now and real estate taxes are very high.

I'd support some sort of housing allowance for judges sitting in these ridiculously priced area.

Compared to what judges could earn in the private sector around here, $165,000 is a pittance.

Sometimes you have to pay more to get good people although there are certainly non-financial reasons why some lawyers aspire to be judges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XOKCowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #23
119. Scalia said lawyers can easily earn significantly more by staying in the private sector
I humbly invite Justice Scalia to do just that. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G Hawes Donating Member (440 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #119
124. He's right about that.
Edited on Thu Dec-14-06 11:52 PM by G Hawes
Even junior lawyers in top tier firms earn more than Supreme Court justices. Senior lawyers and partners in top tier firms earn many times over what Supreme Court justices earn.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
24. Recommended, for showing just what a moronic dickburger Scalia is.
I mean, it's not like his outrage at the cost of living extends to the plight faced by so much of the "reality-based community"...

:puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #24
71. "dickburger"??? AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!
Never heard that one before!


:D :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
25. If you're a judge in Manhattan, he's right.
From $165,000, subtract out:

Taxes: $60,000 (roughly--it may be more)
Housing expenses: $36,000 a year (bare minimum)
School tuition (you can't bank on getting into a good public school): $20,000

Then you talk about clothes, food, utilities, transportation, etc.

To put things in perspective, first year lawyers who haven't even passed the bar make $165,000 at big NYC lawfirms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. By the time they're judges, they should be wealthy
so their actual salary shouldn't matter anyway. And nobody can bank on getting into a good public school, but I bet if a federal judge's child were in one, it'd GET GOOD.

Once again, this is a top 5% salary. The ones who really have to get some perspective are the ones who earn that much and don't realize how well off they are, no matter where they live, because I guarantee there are people in Manhattan who DON'T make anywhere near that much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #29
45. So, only the wealthy should become federal judges?
Not sure about that . . .

I understand that federal judges won't make what they can make in the private sector.

But, right now they make about 1/10th what they could in the private sector. 1/6th or 1/7th doesn't seem unreasonable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #45
63. I didn't say that
I said by the time an attorney becomes a judge, he should have accumulated some wealth so his salary wouldn't typically be his/her only income anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #63
69. Most attorneys who become judges start their
careers with around $150K in student loans. Plus, if they've lived in NYC, they're not going to have an opportunity to squirrel away a huge amount of wealth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #69
73. You go ahead and feel sorry for them
I'm sorry, I just can't muster up the sympathy. I know teachers who earn a quarter of that with massive student loans as well. They never even get the opportunity to earn $150,000 a year, with the same education as a lawyer. So, once again, I'm in the 'wealthy can go fuck themselves' camp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Just recognize that you're going to get a lot more trust fund
people holding federal judgeships with that attitude. If you really want the best legal minds out there, it's not a good idea to make them choose between sitting on the bench and sending their kids to college.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #74
78. I want people in touch with reality
And if people making that kind of income don't recognize how lucky they are, then I don't want them being judges anyway. I would much rather have trust fund babies who know that they were given benefits others didn't get, then some jackass who thinks he 'earned' his way to the top 5% and doesn't recognize the helping hands that pulled him up along the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Is there something unique about the legal field that requires more of a
"helping hand" than anything else in life?

Law school's not hard but it's not easy. It's a choice - some people chose it, some didn't. What's with the hatred of those who did?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. Who said that?
This isn't about law school or lawyers. It's about jackasses earning over $150,000 a year who don't realize just how goddamn good they've got it - and about me not wanting those jackasses being judges of the rest of us.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/13/magazines/moneymag/scraping_by.moneymag/index.htm?cnn=yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. I took your "jackass" comment as referring to those successful in the legal
field.

Apologies if I was incorrect. However, those "jackass" judges still busted that "ass" and most likely deserve it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #83
87. So does EVERYBODY ELSE
and the most successful have always had a helping hand, or ten or twenty, along the way. Nobody succeeds alone and nobody deserves it any more than anybody else. There's no rhyme or reason as to who gets more money than another in this country. Anybody who doesn't know that, is a jackass, and I don't want one of them on the bench.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. Yeah that was my point. It seems you are saying that they get MORE help than others.
Perhaps those on the same educational level don't deserve any more than each other but if you take the time to better yourself, you deserve more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. But you don't get more
Which is something that the 90% who make considerably less than $165,000 a year know - but the 'deserving' never understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. What on earth makes you think that trust fund kids
have ANY idea what life is like for the other 99.9% of us?

Again, do you think it's a good idea to force the best legal minds to choose between sending their kids to college and sitting on the bench?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #82
86. Are you a trust fund kid?
Is that why you think people can't send their kids to college on $150,000 salaries? They can, they do. By the time they've become a $150,000 judge, they've worked for many many years, and saved the college fund already. If they haven't, they take out a loan on their home. If they're too stupid to have done either - I don't want them on the bench.

Most people born into real wealth know the benefits they've gotten. My experience is that the truly wealthy are the most gracious and generous, the most likely to want to give others the benefit of the doubt and lend a helping hand. The $150,000 wealthy are the biggest assholes, as they are the Republican country club set. If they're complaining about that kind of money in this country and the world, they don't have the right temperament to be a judge, quite simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. So, you love the plutocrats but hate the affluent?
Never mind, your argument is driven by non-rational factors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #88
94. I didn't say that either
I said I don't like people who don't understand how fortunate they are. My experience is that the truly wealthy tend to get it, while the upper-income folks don't. It isn't across the board, the Bushes certainly don't get it either. Of course, I was attacked for suggesting Laura shouldn't be spending $8500 on dresses too. Some people around here mix up defending their own wealth with defending someone else's obscene greed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #69
89. Huh? So college grads going straight to the bench?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #89
111. Not sure I follow what you mean.
They typically have $120-$150K in law school loans, plus whatever they had in undergraduate debt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. What exactly does 150K debt have to do with 165K job that they wouldn't get right out of college?
My sister-in-law has more debt than that from medical school and will make less in her lifetime than most Harvard lawyers. So what does school debt have to do with it? Hell, she pays more than 1/2 that much each year in malpractice insurance. Cost of doing business right?

Couldn't one safely assume that a lawyer would work in the "outside world" for, what, a decade or more before getting appointed as a judge? And, in that time, shouldn't they be working off their school loans? Yeah, sure they have to cough up $ for a house and a Lexus & a Beemer and private school for the 2.2 kids etc. Golly, I feel for them. Cry me a fuckin' river.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #112
118. Here are the raw numbers in that case:
Let's assume an average of $180K per year.

That's $1080K after taxes for the decade.

Subtract another $168,000 in law school loan payments.

Subtract another $300,000 for rent payments over that decade.

Subtract another $125,000 for a kid-related expenses.

Subtract another $52,000 for $100/week in entertainment and restaurant expenses.

Subtract another $30,000 for clothing.

Subtract another $24,000 for groceries.

That leaves $381K to cover all other expenses (including traveling during the holidays, donations to charity, Christmas shopping, family vacations) to last a decade.

Sure, the person will have a comfortable life. But they won't be able to retire for another 15-20 years.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #118
127. I'll say it again, "Cry me a fuckin' river"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
28. He is right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
31. Don't misquote someone like the Repubs do
I am begging my consulting firm to not send me anywhere near NYC because I just wouldn't be able to afford to live there.



Scalia argues for better judicial pay

By MATTHEW BARAKAT Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
TOOLSEmail Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW


McLEAN, Va. — The federal judiciary will increasingly fail to attract the best-qualified lawyers if judges' pay doesn't improve, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday.

"If you become a federal judge in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), you can't raise a family on what the salary is," Scalia said during a speech to the Northern Virginia Technology Council.

Federal judges earned salaries of $165,200 in 2006. Scalia said lawyers can easily earn significantly more by staying in the private sector.

The result, Scalia said, is that the judiciary will increasingly appeal only to those who have made a career out of public-sector work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #31
39. The median income for the county in question is about $47,000.
Edited on Thu Dec-14-06 10:57 AM by tabasco
I guess all those other people living there are not "families" according to Scalia's definition, just more of "the mob."

On edit: changed average to median.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #39
60. You are correct, but I still think his real quote should be used
and not some fake quote that makes us look like filthy freepers. Scalia is an asshole in his own right, we don't need to misquote him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #31
51. "the judiciary will increasingly appeal only to those who have made a career...
out of public-sector work."

There's something wrong with that?

Does he actually want obsessive greedheads who work 84 hours a week in law firms that defend corporate crime to go into the judiciary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. I think Scalia actually does want greedy bloodsuckers,
but salary is a tremendous motivator for a large percentage of people. I want the brightest and best people to judge me if/when I have to go to court. A high salary attracts such people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #31
85. judiciary will increasingly appeal only to those who have made a career out of public-sector work


And that's bad because????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
33. what does a Supreme earn, anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #33
107. Here's a list of everyone's pay
Judicial Branch

* Supreme Court chief justice: $208,100
* Supreme Court associate justices: $199,200
* Circuit judges: $171,800
* District judges: $162,100

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question449.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:53 AM
Original message
The Republic Party; dumber by the minute.
The "have mores" dumber coz they somehow think the average American family earns more than $165K per year.

The "have nots" dumber coz they continue to support the idiot "have mores".

The Republic Party; stupidest MFers on the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
75. Republechs
Not quite as scathing as the whole rat thing, but it might be the best we can get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
34. Surprisingly, Scalia is an ill spoken man.
with (historical) quotes like these:

"More and more, we cannot attract the really bright lawyers. It's too much of a sacrifice," he said.

So, MONEY should be the draw rather than LOVE of the LAW? Seeing Justice done in the name of the LAW?

AND

"Scalia spent most of his speech advocating a theory of constitutional interpretation called "originalism", which seeks to discern the meaning of the Constitution as envisioned by the Founding Fathers."

"He mocked those who interpret the Constitution as a living document that has evolved over time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

Does Justice Scalia expect us to believe, he spends his time (on the taxpayer's dime), looking for exotic interpretations of Constitutional Law that could be interpreted in a way to subvert the current Constitution and the rights of the People, is a non paying job?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
36. Like I told my coworker:
Then go into the private sector.




A government job won't pay nearly as well, but there is longevity.

I'd love to make $165k/yr.

Maybe judicial jobs can be offshored too. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #36
44. When you count the hours actually worked..
the vacations, court closures (summer hrs/ Holiday breaks/ sick time) unlimited Health Care,
hefty pensions at retirement, kudo appreciation perks. He's over paid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
37. Why does the word
TWIT come to mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QueenOfCalifornia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
40. Federal Judges get more than they are worth
I know some federal judges -- They have the cushiest hours ever. The perks are great. They are paid for life for god's sake! They pretty much make their own hours -- nothing interferes with their golf schedule and they have extraordinary benefits. Name one working slob, who wouldn't like to get $165,000 a year for the rest of their life, all while working a lot less than a 40 hour week and keep all those benefits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
46. Okay then, raise minimum wage to 100 buck an hour then!
He's a pig and an embarrassment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
48. actually that is about what you need to make
to have a middle class lifestyle without being in debt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dastard Stepchild Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #48
65. yup...
especially in some regions where the cost of living is high enough to make your eyeballs burst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
52. Somebody pinch me.
I must be dreaming.

I remember, when I was a little girl, Supreme Court Justices were always thought to be wiser than the average person. Scalia & Clarence Thomas have proven that anybody, and I mean ANYBODY can be a Supreme Court Justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian_rd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
55. OMG! Draft Scalia to spearhead an increase in the minimum wage!
For 165K, I'd clean Whitney and Bobby's bathroom (with a bio-suit of course)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
57. A thread on Antonin Scalia and no pic of him doing that gesture?
Who has it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
61. He and Rep. Kingston should start a business together...
and then they could whine about all the handicaps they have as small businessmen. "Let them eat cake" Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
driver8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
62. I'll bet that there are a lot of people who wish that Scalia had
stayed in the private sector.

With people struggling like they are these days, he has a lot of nerve to say something like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dastard Stepchild Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
64. In some regions of the country...
I would hedge my bets that you couldn't live the "traditional" version of well-to-do middle class life with this sum. Not all regions, but perhaps the one in question by Scalia.

I know that in Chicago proper, I can never buy a home. I simply don't have what it takes to purchase a home with a minimum selling price of $500,000. The best I could do is a $200,000 2-bedroom condo in a shitty neighborhood. I would probably need to have a family income that well exceeded $165K to buy a single family home and raise a family in Chicago. Which I would love to do because then I can take advantage of public transportation and all of the joys of my city.

As it is, when it comes time to purchase property, I have to leave the city... a fact I am most definitely sad about. Then I get to go into the burbs and spend a much more modest $300,000 on a home. Which I technically still can't afford. Soooo.... me an property will not be likely pals in the future.

I see his point. But only for people who desire the traditional middle class experience and are located in a particularly expensive region. He isn't wrong completely. And just because families make do on mush less does not mean they would not benefit significantly from these higher incomes. I know I would. I make do and live well, but if I could have more, I wouldn't turn it away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
67. Shit. You mean a judge's spouse might have to work???!!!
Oh the horror! It's grim situations like this that are destroying the American family.

It's beyond sarcasm and into the realm of nightmarish surrealism.

A job that pays $165,000 with good health and retirement benefits? That's good anywhere, even in expensive cities. And if you have a job that is actually interesting, not predatory, and beneficial to your fellow man... that's priceless.

Go fuck yourself with a cholla cactus, Tony. You aren't qualified to pull dead rats out of a clogged toilet, and it has been proved multiple times you are not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

I swear, they ought to turn W's pig farm into a retirement home for conservative idiots like Antonin Scalia, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Ann Coulter, etc., etc.

Hand them all shotguns and chainsaws, fence them in, and let them live out their perverse fantasies in a place where they can't harm others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
68. What a complete embarrassment this man is
Edited on Thu Dec-14-06 12:04 PM by davekriss
He's just adding to my favorite evil quotes. Here's another:

Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.
---Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, First Clinically Insane Member of the Supreme Court

On edit: From the Houston Chronicle article:

    "If you become a federal judge in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), you can't raise a family on what the salary is... More and more, we cannot attract the really bright lawyers. It's too much of a sacrifice," he said.
You know what, he's correct, the example of this Supreme Court from December 12 2000 onward proves beyond all doubt that "we cannot attract the really bright lawyers", Antonin Scalia being exhibit number 1!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
72. Well it is Constitutionally forbidden to decrease the salary of an Article III judge.
Edited on Thu Dec-14-06 12:19 PM by MJDuncan1982
Inflation can be seen as doing just that. In fact, it would be a nice way for the country to stick it to the judiciary.

Just as with the minimum wage, tie federal judicial salaries to inflation after having set it to a predetermined percentage of each state's median income.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
76. Vaffanculo, MR. Scalia n/t
Edited on Thu Dec-14-06 12:30 PM by kgfnally
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
77. If I had $165,000 a year with primo benefits I'd feel like a lottery winner.
These people haven't a clue what the real world is like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurking Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
92. That has got to be
one of the most flat out ludicrous statements I have ever read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
93. If Scalia didn;t have TONS of children, and didn;t live in the DC area
it would be easier..

Tony probably is not in favor of the wife haviing a career (unless its helping out at the local neighborhood thinktank)

maybe Tony should consider stepping down... for the children :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
96. Oh those poor poor six figure salary earners....
:cry:



Oh, the humanity!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strawman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
97. That's not true, but the pay may be too low for the job
There are sales guys in my office who make more than that. I don't think paying 9 justices a more competitive salary will bankrupt the nation. $250K seems reasonable and fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. That's for federal judges
The justices make $203,000 and the Chief Justice makes $212,000. I think that if they have a hard time making ends meet on that income, they might want to consider what that means to the half of workers in the country whose incomes are less than the median of $35,000 a year.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t04.htm

Household income is a bit higher, but that often includes two salaries, that they regularly fail to mention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #98
102. Either that or they should just not accept the job
If Scalia wants to go in the private sector I have no objections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
99. Justice Scalia, there's a great way for you to get paid more
RETIRE

(preferably after 2008)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
100. It's jaw dropping -- the beltway bubble is SO irrationally oblivious. . .
Edited on Thu Dec-14-06 02:07 PM by pat_k
. . .to what life is for a vast majority of America.

And most of those who consider themselves "middle class" too often have NO connections to any Americans who are trapped below the 75 percentile.

Fighting for a decade to buy a place you can call your own, paying a usurious 16% mortgage because the month-to-month existence you and your husband eke out with your two jobs (or three when one of you can land a second) makes you a high risk. Then, when one of you loses their job, exhausting every option -- improvements and increased value ignored; being contemptuously rejected for even imagining you could refinance. The heartbreak of finally just giving up and losing that home - a place you put countless hours of sweat and care into. Kicking yourself for even having your impossible little dream. Feeling stupid for ever thinking you could have something you could call your own.

This is the story of a friend of mine in Mississippi. It's is a story that is repeated for a countless number of Americans every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #100
128. <moved post>
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 04:25 PM by pat_k
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judaspriestess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
101. free healthcare a nice pension on top of 165K a year
and I'm sure he pays little on taxes. join the private sector asshole
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
103. So, over 95% of Americans can't raise a family
because of financial limmitations.

The top 5% earns 157K or more


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Given how ridiculous Scalia's statement is, the best i can make of it is that he's sticking it to us.
This is worse than letting us eat cake. He's discussing how he's short on cakes while most of us have little more than crums.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
104. isn't he giving everyone in the country a raise to $165k a year?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
huskerlaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
105. Actually...
$165,000/year in Manhattan doesn't get you anywhere near living like a Rockefeller.

It's killing me to defend him, and I still think he's being melodramatic, but $165,000 in Manhattan is NOT the same thing as $165,000 in Kansas.

If you actually wanted to own property in Manhattan and you had a couple of kids, $165,000 isn't gonna get you very far. Yes, you can live, of course. Many people do it on far less. But his point was that lawyers in the private sector in Manhattan make far more money. It's true.

I'm not saying that I think they deserve a raise, but he's not entirely incorrect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #105
126. Actually...
It was the way he framed the question that proves he is an asshole.

No matter what else he was thinking before he spilled this shit, the first thing that should have occured to him was that there are many, many families where both parents work in Manhattan, living on less than $165,000.

A Federal Judge who has a spouse working in the private sector, which is not at all impossible, can do quite well in Manhattan.

It's probably not unreasonable to pay Federal judges more, but it displays an astonishing disconnection from reality to frame the question the way Scalia did.

His approach to this problem demonstrates quite well that he is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
108. Tony Tony Tony
You can't rule honestly so why would anyone believe you can't raise kids on 165k? Stop, please stop. Stop the moranity, Tony. You embarrass the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Akoto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
109. Are you kidding me?
$165k/year would be paradise for my family. We scrape by with WAY less than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryOldDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
115. Class warfare, anyone? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #115
120. You said it...
Talk about not having a freakin clue...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #115
121. i'm down with that.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taught_me_patience Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
116. 165k wouldn't get very far here in LA
250k/year would buy an OK home on the westside (culver city), 2 toyotas, 2 kids and not have much left over. Certainly not the lap of luxury.

taught.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalEsto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
117. You can't raise one on $5.15 an hour either
Gee, Scaly One, get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-14-06 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
122. Remember, he thinks all families should have one wage earner and 16 kids.
This is the guy who thinks birth control should be illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
125. I recommend that he quit and look for a better paying job. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
129. Shit, I'd sure like to try
I don't make a third of that now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
130. 95th to 99th percentile: $162,351 to $383,407 | 99th to 100th. . . .
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 04:31 PM by pat_k

From NYT

Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON (NYT) 2525 words
Published: June 5, 2005

Percentile: Income in 2005

BOTTOM 80 PERCENT
Bottom 20: $0-13,478
20-40: $13,478-25,847
40-60: $25,847-44,451
60-80: $44,451-79,562

TOP 20 PERCENT
80-90: $79,562-117,001
90-95: $117,001-162,351
95-99: $162,351-383,407
99-99.5: $383,407-581,019
99.5-99.9: $581,019-1,589,608
Top 0.1: $1,589,608 or more
Top 400 taxpayers (Also included in top 0.1%): $87 million or more*

Percentile: Taxpayers

BOTTOM 80 PERCENT
Bottom 20: 28 million
20-40: 30 million
40-60: 29 million
60-80: 29 million

TOP 20 PERCENT
80-90: 14 million
90-95: 7.2 million
95-99: 5.8 million
99-99.5: 723,000
99.5-99.9: 578,000
Top 0.1: 145,000
Top 400 taxpayers (Also included in top 0.1%): 400
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC