Members of Congress should qualify for an annual cost of living increase.

(06-12-2019 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Members of Congress should qualify for an annual cost of living increase.

Nope. I certainly think they should not be entitled to any raise as long as the budget is not balanced.

And we need a law that they cannot exempt themselves from any law to which other citizens are subject, nor provide for themselves any legal advantages not available to all citizens.

(06-12-2019 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Members of Congress should qualify for an annual cost of living increase.

Nope. I certainly think they should not be entitled to any raise as long as the budget is not balanced.

And we need a law that they cannot exempt themselves from any law to which other citizens are subject, nor provide for themselves any legal advantages not available to all citizens.

Absofrigginlutely! Including opting out of SSI for their own Congressional retirement account. Those hogs should never have been at the trough long enough to qualify for retirement benefits anyway!

(06-12-2019 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Members of Congress should qualify for an annual cost of living increase.

Nope. I certainly think they should not be entitled to any raise as long as the budget is not balanced.

And we need a law that they cannot exempt themselves from any law to which other citizens are subject, nor provide for themselves any legal advantages not available to all citizens.

If the rate of pay does not keep pace with the cost of living then soon the uber affluent will be the only people interested in serving. Limit the terms but pay them fairly... and 175k in Washington DC is not exactly extravagant.

The total salaries of all 535 members of Congress is about equal to the total compensation of the football coaches in the SEC west.

This little twit is paying real taxes for the first time in her life of partying. And what do you know, she is wanting more money. They not only make $175,000 but they have another wealth of perks and freebies. I don’t feel sorry for these greedy money grubbing asses and I never will. If I was king I would cut their pay every time they brought this up.

Find me one of these azholes that had to quit and go back home because they didn’t make enough money. You can’t so there ya go.....

(06-12-2019 07:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Members of Congress should qualify for an annual cost of living increase.

Nope. I certainly think they should not be entitled to any raise as long as the budget is not balanced.

And we need a law that they cannot exempt themselves from any law to which other citizens are subject, nor provide for themselves any legal advantages not available to all citizens.

If the rate of pay does not keep pace with the cost of living then soon the uber affluent will be the only people interested in serving. Limit the terms but pay them fairly... and 175k in Washington DC is not exactly extravagant.

The total salaries of all 535 members of Congress is about equal to the total compensation of the football coaches in the SEC west.

And any coach in the SEC west that produced no better than Congress wouldn't have a job for very long.

(06-12-2019 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Members of Congress should qualify for an annual cost of living increase.

Nope. I certainly think they should not be entitled to any raise as long as the budget is not balanced.

And we need a law that they cannot exempt themselves from any law to which other citizens are subject, nor provide for themselves any legal advantages not available to all citizens.

Like insider trading laws...………...

$175k a year is not enough? Look at how many are already millionaires. And they can make laws to further enrich themselves and their friends. Not to mention being on vacation half the year. And let's not even mention the cushy retirement plan they have set themselves up with. And the only work they want to do is to investigate each other. Public servants! Right!

(06-12-2019 07:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Members of Congress should qualify for an annual cost of living increase.

Nope. I certainly think they should not be entitled to any raise as long as the budget is not balanced.

And we need a law that they cannot exempt themselves from any law to which other citizens are subject, nor provide for themselves any legal advantages not available to all citizens.

If the rate of pay does not keep pace with the cost of living then soon the uber affluent will be the only people interested in serving. Limit the terms but pay them fairly... and 175k in Washington DC is not exactly extravagant.

The total salaries of all 535 members of Congress is about equal to the total compensation of the football coaches in the SEC west.

And I would be willing to bet that the SEC West Division coaches account for more economic production than Congress!

(06-12-2019 07:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Members of Congress should qualify for an annual cost of living increase.

Nope. I certainly think they should not be entitled to any raise as long as the budget is not balanced.

And we need a law that they cannot exempt themselves from any law to which other citizens are subject, nor provide for themselves any legal advantages not available to all citizens.

If the rate of pay does not keep pace with the cost of living then soon the uber affluent will be the only people interested in serving. Limit the terms but pay them fairly... and 175k in Washington DC is not exactly extravagant.

The total salaries of all 535 members of Congress is about equal to the total compensation of the football coaches in the SEC west.

This is why it needs to be a national vote. Let the American taxpayer, ie their employer, vote to see if they need a raise for anything.

For 10+ years this country has been struggling, while members in DC haven't.

I vote no pay raise until they do the job they were elected for.. Passing bills and budgets..

BTW.. I pack a lunch every day for work and my wife cooks most nights.. These @ssholes can do the same.

(06-12-2019 03:44 PM)banker Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 02:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:53 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 09:32 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Everyone's gonna hate me, but I think Congress members need a pay raise. Hear me out.

At $174,000 a year, only a career politician or a very wealthy person would run for office. If that's who you want in Congress, then keep the salaries low.

Congress members have higher expenses than the rest of us:
1) They MUST have two homes/apartments, one of which is in a very expensive city (DC). A 1-bedroom apartment in DC starts at $2000 a month, so that expense alone (including taxes) reduces their salary to $134,000. That's the 82nd percentile of US income.
2) They must spend way more on work clothes and transportation than the rest of us.
3) Unless you want to only have career politicians or professors, they are unpaid while they campaign for office. They also are sacrificing promotion opportunities and vesting service time when they take off from their real job.

Most congress members are independently wealthy because you can't support a family on a Congressional salary.

As it is, about 10% of Congress members live and sleep in their offices when Congress is in session. That's not right, but how else are they supposed to save for retirement or pay for college for their kids?

Sure, some of them have outside earning opportunities (book deals, speaking engagements), but that's only for the leadership. Out of 535 current congress members, I'll bet more than 500 never get significant income from speaking or book deals.

I'll say it again: If you're against Congress getting a raise, you're saying that you're in favor of every congress member being independently wealthy or career politicians.

I agree. Build some dormitories for them to live in while in D.C. and they won't HAVE to live in their offices unless they want to. Problem solved.

They have better benefits than our military. Build them a barracks. Problem solved. I build some really nice EIT barracks at Fort Leonard Wood, MO for the MPs... They can live in those. It was 3 starship barracks, plus site work, $30 million. That's a tax savings.

At $174k a year, they can afford a small place in DC or one of the suburbs. They don't need an expensive home. They're there to work. Not play.

A "small place in DC" is a 1-bedroom apartment. I looked up a few more sources, and they give a range of $1583-2831/month for the average cost of a 1-bedroom apartment in DC. I assume you don't want congresswomen being robbed while walking to work, so that rules out the bottom end of that spectrum.

And rent is paid out of post-tax dollars. They pay 41.95% marginal tax rate (federal 32% + DC 8.5% + 1.45% medicare). So if they pay $2000/month for 1 bedroom apartment, that's $41,343 per year out of their salary.


I'm 100% in favor of giving them the option of living in barracks. That's a lot more humane than forcing the 10% of Congress who aren't rich to live in their office.

Your tax payments are way off. You're applying the top tax bracket to 100% of their wages, not factoring in even a standard deduction, or making any other adjustments. The effective federal tax rate for the typical person making $175K is going to be between 13-18%.

Generally accepted debt/payment ratios say most people can afford 25% of their gross income for housing. That's $43,750 for a person making $175K, or $3,645 per month.

Now, if you want to live beyond your means because you think you are a celebrity instead of a junior House member, I could see where you could have problems. Is she living with her boyfriend that she put on her staff and pays six figures to? That would make things easier. Also, 29 year old bartenders don't usually get elected, she probably had a negative net worth going in, you know, because she had never done anything up to the point she was elected.

They also have to have a home in their district. That's a requirement. That's why the marginal tax rate is the relevant one to use (the % paid on the last dollar earned).

How many people do you know who have to maintain 2 homes in order to keep their job?

AOC is right - she literally couldn't begin working in DC until January because she didn't have a salary yet. In the last 20 years, high rent places like CA and DC have started requiring a ridiculous amount of past history in order to rent an apartment. I despise her politics, but she's a member of Congress and I want her to be able to be in Washington setting up her office and getting ready to work before Day 1.

The bolded part is exactly my point - I want at least a few middle-income Americans in Congress! It shouldn't be just a rich person's club! But Joe the Plumber (or Rosie Riveter, Bob the Builder, etc) would be out of his mind to quit his plumbing job to run for Congress - he'd lose a year of salary while he campaigned, and if he won he'd probably have higher expenses than his salary. If that means Duncan Hunter (richest man in Congress) also gets an extra 100k/year, I think it's worth the tradeoff.

(06-13-2019 07:37 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 03:44 PM)banker Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 02:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:53 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  I agree. Build some dormitories for them to live in while in D.C. and they won't HAVE to live in their offices unless they want to. Problem solved.

They have better benefits than our military. Build them a barracks. Problem solved. I build some really nice EIT barracks at Fort Leonard Wood, MO for the MPs... They can live in those. It was 3 starship barracks, plus site work, $30 million. That's a tax savings.

At $174k a year, they can afford a small place in DC or one of the suburbs. They don't need an expensive home. They're there to work. Not play.

A "small place in DC" is a 1-bedroom apartment. I looked up a few more sources, and they give a range of $1583-2831/month for the average cost of a 1-bedroom apartment in DC. I assume you don't want congresswomen being robbed while walking to work, so that rules out the bottom end of that spectrum.

And rent is paid out of post-tax dollars. They pay 41.95% marginal tax rate (federal 32% + DC 8.5% + 1.45% medicare). So if they pay $2000/month for 1 bedroom apartment, that's $41,343 per year out of their salary.


I'm 100% in favor of giving them the option of living in barracks. That's a lot more humane than forcing the 10% of Congress who aren't rich to live in their office.

Your tax payments are way off. You're applying the top tax bracket to 100% of their wages, not factoring in even a standard deduction, or making any other adjustments. The effective federal tax rate for the typical person making $175K is going to be between 13-18%.

Generally accepted debt/payment ratios say most people can afford 25% of their gross income for housing. That's $43,750 for a person making $175K, or $3,645 per month.

Now, if you want to live beyond your means because you think you are a celebrity instead of a junior House member, I could see where you could have problems. Is she living with her boyfriend that she put on her staff and pays six figures to? That would make things easier. Also, 29 year old bartenders don't usually get elected, she probably had a negative net worth going in, you know, because she had never done anything up to the point she was elected.

They also have to have a home in their district. That's a requirement. That's why the marginal tax rate is the relevant one to use (the % paid on the last dollar earned).

How many people do you know who have to maintain 2 homes in order to keep their job?

AOC is right - she literally couldn't begin working in DC until January because she didn't have a salary yet. In the last 20 years, high rent places like CA and DC have started requiring a ridiculous amount of past history in order to rent an apartment. I despise her politics, but she's a member of Congress and I want her to be able to be in Washington setting up her office and getting ready to work before Day 1.

The bolded part is exactly my point - I want at least a few middle-income Americans in Congress! It shouldn't be just a rich person's club! But Joe the Plumber (or Rosie Riveter, Bob the Builder, etc) would be out of his mind to quit his plumbing job to run for Congress - he'd lose a year of salary while he campaigned, and if he won he'd probably have higher expenses than his salary. If that means Duncan Hunter (richest man in Congress) also gets an extra 100k/year, I think it's worth the tradeoff.

Kinda makes you wonder how someone who was so far in debt was able to run a Congressional campaign..

Oh and she had money in her account.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-...r-scrutiny

(06-12-2019 08:24 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Members of Congress should qualify for an annual cost of living increase.

Nope. I certainly think they should not be entitled to any raise as long as the budget is not balanced.

And we need a law that they cannot exempt themselves from any law to which other citizens are subject, nor provide for themselves any legal advantages not available to all citizens.

Like insider trading laws...………...

I was going to mention that until I read up on it. It appears Lord Zero signed the Stock Act in 2012 that further criminalized such actions - as they were already illegal if largely ignored - but then they came along right after and instituted a procedural change so I have no idea whether it's now illegal or not. I do know they hamstrung anyone's ability to prosecute them under the Stock Act.

(06-12-2019 10:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 07:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Members of Congress should qualify for an annual cost of living increase.

Nope. I certainly think they should not be entitled to any raise as long as the budget is not balanced.

And we need a law that they cannot exempt themselves from any law to which other citizens are subject, nor provide for themselves any legal advantages not available to all citizens.

If the rate of pay does not keep pace with the cost of living then soon the uber affluent will be the only people interested in serving. Limit the terms but pay them fairly... and 175k in Washington DC is not exactly extravagant.

The total salaries of all 535 members of Congress is about equal to the total compensation of the football coaches in the SEC west.

And I would be willing to bet that the SEC West Division coaches account for more economic production than Congress!

Congress produces nothing.

(06-13-2019 07:34 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 07:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Members of Congress should qualify for an annual cost of living increase.

Nope. I certainly think they should not be entitled to any raise as long as the budget is not balanced.

And we need a law that they cannot exempt themselves from any law to which other citizens are subject, nor provide for themselves any legal advantages not available to all citizens.

If the rate of pay does not keep pace with the cost of living then soon the uber affluent will be the only people interested in serving. Limit the terms but pay them fairly... and 175k in Washington DC is not exactly extravagant.

The total salaries of all 535 members of Congress is about equal to the total compensation of the football coaches in the SEC west.

This is why it needs to be a national vote. Let the American taxpayer, ie their employer, vote to see if they need a raise for anything.

For 10+ years this country has been struggling, while members in DC haven't.

I vote no pay raise until they do the job they were elected for.. Passing bills and budgets..

BTW.. I pack a lunch every day for work and my wife cooks most nights.. These @ssholes can do the same.

(06-13-2019 07:43 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:34 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 07:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 05:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 04:23 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Members of Congress should qualify for an annual cost of living increase.

Nope. I certainly think they should not be entitled to any raise as long as the budget is not balanced.

And we need a law that they cannot exempt themselves from any law to which other citizens are subject, nor provide for themselves any legal advantages not available to all citizens.

If the rate of pay does not keep pace with the cost of living then soon the uber affluent will be the only people interested in serving. Limit the terms but pay them fairly... and 175k in Washington DC is not exactly extravagant.

The total salaries of all 535 members of Congress is about equal to the total compensation of the football coaches in the SEC west.

This is why it needs to be a national vote. Let the American taxpayer, ie their employer, vote to see if they need a raise for anything.

For 10+ years this country has been struggling, while members in DC haven't.

I vote no pay raise until they do the job they were elected for.. Passing bills and budgets..

BTW.. I pack a lunch every day for work and my wife cooks most nights.. These @ssholes can do the same.

I'll surprise some people here, but I actually think congressional pay should be higher and I actually sympathize with AOC. Just thinking about it from my own perspective, I could not afford to be in congress. It takes too much time so I'd have to quit my current job. Then I'd either have to get an apartment in DC and abandon my family for about 75% of the year or get rid of my house and move to DC. Cost of living vs going from $110k to $175k is probably close to a wash, but if I wanted to spend any time with my family, I'd have to live in the city itself which means tacking on private school tuition (x3 kids). On that salary with the mortgage or rent on a townhome in a safe enough area to live in, the numbers do not work. To live far enough away to be able to use the public schools, you are looking at least a 90 commute to get to Capitol Hill. Now AOC doesn't and probably never will have kids, but I do recognize that salary with an office in DC is not much and for a middle or upper middle class American means either cut in pay or a cut in quality of life... at least for those of us with families.

(06-13-2019 08:07 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I'll surprise some people here, but I actually think congressional pay should be higher and I actually sympathize with AOC. Just thinking about it from my own perspective, I could not afford to be in congress. It takes too much time so I'd have to quit my current job. Then I'd either have to get an apartment in DC and abandon my family for about 75% of the year or get rid of my house and move to DC. Cost of living vs going from $110k to $175k is probably close to a wash, but if I wanted to spend any time with my family, I'd have to live in the city itself which means tacking on private school tuition (x3 kids). On that salary with the mortgage or rent on a townhome in a safe enough area to live in, the numbers do not work. To live far enough away to be able to use the public schools, you are looking at least a 90 commute to get to Capitol Hill. Now AOC doesn't and probably never will have kids, but I do recognize that salary with an office in DC is not much and for a middle or upper middle class American means either cut in pay or a cut in quality of life... at least for those of us with families.

Same here.

I'm not leaving my young kids for 100 days a year and my family can't fit in a 1 bedroom apartment, so we'd probably have to rent a 4 BR in the DC burbs (2500-3000/month?). Higher travel expenses - my commute now is 10 minutes and I work from home 2-3 days a week, and my family would have to fly to DC & back with me 3-6 times a year. My wife homeschools our kids so no cost there. I did some quick math and it would probably cost me $40-60k to let my wife & kids have the same standard of living during my first term compared to my current job. That's not counting having to own 2 sets of everyday items you can't transport (furniture, kitchen appliances, wardrobe, homeschool supplies)

On top of that I'd have to take off at least 6 months off work to campaign just for the chance to win (which is no guarantee). And 3 months with no salary from November-January after I got elected.

(06-13-2019 07:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:37 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 03:44 PM)banker Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 02:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:53 AM)gdunn Wrote:  They have better benefits than our military. Build them a barracks. Problem solved. I build some really nice EIT barracks at Fort Leonard Wood, MO for the MPs... They can live in those. It was 3 starship barracks, plus site work, $30 million. That's a tax savings.

At $174k a year, they can afford a small place in DC or one of the suburbs. They don't need an expensive home. They're there to work. Not play.

A "small place in DC" is a 1-bedroom apartment. I looked up a few more sources, and they give a range of $1583-2831/month for the average cost of a 1-bedroom apartment in DC. I assume you don't want congresswomen being robbed while walking to work, so that rules out the bottom end of that spectrum.

And rent is paid out of post-tax dollars. They pay 41.95% marginal tax rate (federal 32% + DC 8.5% + 1.45% medicare). So if they pay $2000/month for 1 bedroom apartment, that's $41,343 per year out of their salary.


I'm 100% in favor of giving them the option of living in barracks. That's a lot more humane than forcing the 10% of Congress who aren't rich to live in their office.

Your tax payments are way off. You're applying the top tax bracket to 100% of their wages, not factoring in even a standard deduction, or making any other adjustments. The effective federal tax rate for the typical person making $175K is going to be between 13-18%.

Generally accepted debt/payment ratios say most people can afford 25% of their gross income for housing. That's $43,750 for a person making $175K, or $3,645 per month.

Now, if you want to live beyond your means because you think you are a celebrity instead of a junior House member, I could see where you could have problems. Is she living with her boyfriend that she put on her staff and pays six figures to? That would make things easier. Also, 29 year old bartenders don't usually get elected, she probably had a negative net worth going in, you know, because she had never done anything up to the point she was elected.

They also have to have a home in their district. That's a requirement. That's why the marginal tax rate is the relevant one to use (the % paid on the last dollar earned).

How many people do you know who have to maintain 2 homes in order to keep their job?

AOC is right - she literally couldn't begin working in DC until January because she didn't have a salary yet. In the last 20 years, high rent places like CA and DC have started requiring a ridiculous amount of past history in order to rent an apartment. I despise her politics, but she's a member of Congress and I want her to be able to be in Washington setting up her office and getting ready to work before Day 1.

The bolded part is exactly my point - I want at least a few middle-income Americans in Congress! It shouldn't be just a rich person's club! But Joe the Plumber (or Rosie Riveter, Bob the Builder, etc) would be out of his mind to quit his plumbing job to run for Congress - he'd lose a year of salary while he campaigned, and if he won he'd probably have higher expenses than his salary. If that means Duncan Hunter (richest man in Congress) also gets an extra 100k/year, I think it's worth the tradeoff.

Kinda makes you wonder how someone who was so far in debt was able to run a Congressional campaign..

Oh and she had money in her account.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-...r-scrutiny

Because her family is not poor. They're not wealthy, but they're solidly middle to upper-middle.

Her Dad owned a small architecture firm before he died in 2008. Her parents owned a small home (916 sq ft) in Westchester County and a condo in the Bronx. Her Mom sold the home in 2016 for $355,000.

(06-13-2019 09:28 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:37 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 03:44 PM)banker Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 02:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  A "small place in DC" is a 1-bedroom apartment. I looked up a few more sources, and they give a range of $1583-2831/month for the average cost of a 1-bedroom apartment in DC. I assume you don't want congresswomen being robbed while walking to work, so that rules out the bottom end of that spectrum.

And rent is paid out of post-tax dollars. They pay 41.95% marginal tax rate (federal 32% + DC 8.5% + 1.45% medicare). So if they pay $2000/month for 1 bedroom apartment, that's $41,343 per year out of their salary.


I'm 100% in favor of giving them the option of living in barracks. That's a lot more humane than forcing the 10% of Congress who aren't rich to live in their office.

Your tax payments are way off. You're applying the top tax bracket to 100% of their wages, not factoring in even a standard deduction, or making any other adjustments. The effective federal tax rate for the typical person making $175K is going to be between 13-18%.

Generally accepted debt/payment ratios say most people can afford 25% of their gross income for housing. That's $43,750 for a person making $175K, or $3,645 per month.

Now, if you want to live beyond your means because you think you are a celebrity instead of a junior House member, I could see where you could have problems. Is she living with her boyfriend that she put on her staff and pays six figures to? That would make things easier. Also, 29 year old bartenders don't usually get elected, she probably had a negative net worth going in, you know, because she had never done anything up to the point she was elected.

They also have to have a home in their district. That's a requirement. That's why the marginal tax rate is the relevant one to use (the % paid on the last dollar earned).

How many people do you know who have to maintain 2 homes in order to keep their job?

AOC is right - she literally couldn't begin working in DC until January because she didn't have a salary yet. In the last 20 years, high rent places like CA and DC have started requiring a ridiculous amount of past history in order to rent an apartment. I despise her politics, but she's a member of Congress and I want her to be able to be in Washington setting up her office and getting ready to work before Day 1.

The bolded part is exactly my point - I want at least a few middle-income Americans in Congress! It shouldn't be just a rich person's club! But Joe the Plumber (or Rosie Riveter, Bob the Builder, etc) would be out of his mind to quit his plumbing job to run for Congress - he'd lose a year of salary while he campaigned, and if he won he'd probably have higher expenses than his salary. If that means Duncan Hunter (richest man in Congress) also gets an extra 100k/year, I think it's worth the tradeoff.

Kinda makes you wonder how someone who was so far in debt was able to run a Congressional campaign..

Oh and she had money in her account.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-...r-scrutiny

Because her family is not poor. They're not wealthy, but they're solidly middle to upper-middle.

Her Dad owned a small architecture firm before he died in 2008. Her parents owned a small home (916 sq ft) in Westchester County and a condo in the Bronx. Her Mom sold the home in 2016 for $355,000.

You just contradicted yourself. Either she didn't have money to start working in DC or she had $15 grand. If you can't live off $15k until that first check on the 15th or 30th, maybe you need to re-evaluate your life.