Unreal. Congress Just Gave Itself a $93,000 Raise in Spending Money

[leftupnorth]

Run time: 03:32 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNRt9R7S8aM   Posted on YouTube: January 31, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: February 01, 2009 By DU Member: leftupnorth Views on DU: 2575

 
So, what's up with this?

I know it's Faux Newz, but is this true?

And if so, WTF??? I understand it may be needed, but don't any of them understand the appearance of this supposed action?

[Triana]

1. congressional raises ought to be put to a vote by taxpayers...

...I suspect they'd rarely get one if it were - OR they'd do their damned jobs a lot better to EARN it.

[sandnsea]

2. It's for office expenses

petty cash, not salaries. Which they probably shouldn't take either, but they're using it as an excuse to attack Obama and ignore the shit that Republicans have done for 8 years.

[angrycarpenter]

3. I think it is automatic

They would have to vote not to get it.

[krkaufman]

4. What the hell is that idiot talking about? Congressmen get $1.3-1.6 million dollars?

Ummm.... no.

[DUlover2909]

5. I'll tell you what's up with this.

It's a cursory examination of the facts by a bunch of naysayers. This network is utter idiocy and anything that they report is nothing more than an attempt to attack the Democratic majority in both houses. They'd complain about a one dollar increase in anything. They spent no time at all discussing the $10 billion spent on Iraq (that's 10,000 million dollars) PER MONTH. But a $93k increase in the congressional budget for expenses? That's way over the line. $93k x 435 members = $40.455 million PER YEAR. That's 0.337125% <-- (That's a percent sign) of the Iraq War budget.

[xocet]

6. Is it real or is it not?

Why even use Fox as a news source? Why assert this to be true in the headline and then question it in the body of the original post?

How about some consistency?? Does anyone have any reliable reporting on this topic? One might as well use Free Republic as a source of news....

[leftupnorth]

12. I used the title of the video on Youtube like the posting instructions say.

And I posted this to see if anyone could verify this.

[Hannah Bell]

7. each one gets 93K more for petty cash? & they already get more than that?

[theFrankFactor]

8. Is there one single source for this that's not FUCKIN' Fox news?

[leftupnorth]

13. Exactly why I posted it. I can't find another source for this anywhere which makes me suspicious..

Thanks for all you do Frank, I love your videos!

[cooolandrew]

9. I got a bit of brain melt watching that if they need it they should get it more that than from k st

EOM.

[edc]

10. Geeez

:wtf: C'mon. The perception of things is important. They don't need this money. They could have made a symbolic statement by foregoing it, They just can't help themselves. They're politicians. What the Republicans did doesn't justify this either. How's $93,000 going to help thousands of people in economic distress in their districts? If a Republican majority pulled a crass stunt like this y'all would be enraged. Faith and trust just corrupt politicians and makes them worse. A good swift kick and fear of the electorate helps keep 'em honest.

[L. Coyote]

11. They DO need this money to do their jobs. That's why FIXED has a problem with this.

John Conyers wants to investigate Bush. That has costs! I say, Give him more money, give him more attorneys, give him more staff ........

That's why we have these naysayers saying nay today!!