How about we give that money to Social Security first.....
House Democrats propose $4,500 pay raise for Congress
House spending leaders want to break a decade long pay freeze and give members of Congress a cost-of-living bump that could pad their salaries with an extra $4,500 next year.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/0...HmivvuLGY4
They have clearly earned it with all of the legislation they have passed this year.
(06-05-2019, 02:56 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]They have clearly earned it with all of the legislation they have passed this year.
</Sarcasm>
(06-05-2019, 03:29 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019, 02:56 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]They have clearly earned it with all of the legislation they have passed this year.
</Sarcasm>
Mods took away the sarcasm button.
Members of Congress make anywhere between $174k and $223k for roughly 130 days of "work" per year.
If anything, Congressional and Presidential pay should be cut. Take us to the Cincinnatus model, where the people who really want to be there will be there. Have it pay enough that people who want to be there can be there, but not so much that it makes members of Congress some of the highest-earners in the country. $100k seems right, given that it's in DC.
Wouldn't go into effect until next term, regardless.
(06-05-2019, 04:11 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Members of Congress make anywhere between $174k and $223k for roughly 130 days of "work" per year.
If anything, Congressional and Presidential pay should be cut. Take us to the Cincinnatus model, where the people who really want to be there will be there. Have it pay enough that people who want to be there can be there, but not so much that it makes members of Congress some of the highest-earners in the country. $100k seems right, given that it's in DC.
The problem is it costs so much to get elected.
If people actually did their own research on every candidate before voting, that'd be one thing, but they don't. A candidate needs to spend much more on advertising to win a seat than they'll ever earn from the salary if they win.
A truism for anyone: you answer to the one who signs your checks. The bigger the checks, the more control the signer has.
It'd be nice if legislators answered to the Treasury, but they answer to big donors, foreign and domestic.
(06-05-2019, 04:11 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Members of Congress make anywhere between $174k and $223k for roughly 130 days of "work" per year.
If anything, Congressional and Presidential pay should be cut. Take us to the Cincinnatus model, where the people who really want to be there will be there. Have it pay enough that people who want to be there can be there, but not so much that it makes members of Congress some of the highest-earners in the country. $100k seems right, given that it's in DC.
These politicians are absolutely useless. The low of the low. The scum of the earth. If your child became a white collar criminal or a porn fluffer it would still be a more noble profession than a politician.
(06-05-2019, 08:02 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019, 06:16 PM)13Coronas Wrote: [ -> ]At what point does the left supporters start to learn the party that promises everything for votes are only in it to pad themselves
https://www.atr.org/do-nothing-house-dem...-pay-raise
Probably never. Their base isn't very bright.
There are some bright and some not very bright people in the world.
It can be hard to tell who is who.
But a guy a who takes a picture of an American president, and portrays him with a crown on his head, while calling himself patriotic, is probably not actually in the category he thinks he is in.
(06-05-2019, 08:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019, 08:02 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Probably never. Their base isn't very bright.
There are some bright and some not very bright people in the world.
It can be hard to tell who is who.
But a guy a who takes a picture of an American president, and portrays him with a crown on his head, while calling himself patriotic, is probably not actually in the category he thinks he is in.
Didn't I ask you to ignore me? Please don't ever respond to me again.
(06-05-2019, 04:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019, 04:11 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Members of Congress make anywhere between $174k and $223k for roughly 130 days of "work" per year.
If anything, Congressional and Presidential pay should be cut. Take us to the Cincinnatus model, where the people who really want to be there will be there. Have it pay enough that people who want to be there can be there, but not so much that it makes members of Congress some of the highest-earners in the country. $100k seems right, given that it's in DC.
The problem is it costs so much to get elected.
If people actually did their own research on every candidate before voting, that'd be one thing, but they don't. A candidate needs to spend much more on advertising to win a seat than they'll ever earn from the salary if they win.
A truism for anyone: you answer to the one who signs your checks. The bigger the checks, the more control the signer has.
It'd be nice if legislators answered to the Treasury, but they answer to big donors, foreign and domestic.
For most politicians, campaign funds are separate from personal wealth. Very few use their own money to run for office, and those who have were already very rich. Congressional salary is not a factor in getting elected.
The real problem is when one gains office and sells influence in order to become wealthy. Most career politicians who started out with no significant bankroll are much wealthier than their salary would imply, even with an aggressive investment strategy. Keeping congressional salaries down does nothing to solve this problem.
(06-05-2019, 10:19 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019, 04:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is it costs so much to get elected.
If people actually did their own research on every candidate before voting, that'd be one thing, but they don't. A candidate needs to spend much more on advertising to win a seat than they'll ever earn from the salary if they win.
A truism for anyone: you answer to the one who signs your checks. The bigger the checks, the more control the signer has.
It'd be nice if legislators answered to the Treasury, but they answer to big donors, foreign and domestic.
For most politicians, campaign funds are separate from personal wealth. Very few use their own money to run for office, and those who have were already very rich. Congressional salary is not a factor in getting elected.
The real problem is when one gains office and sells influence in order to become wealthy. Most career politicians who started out with no significant bankroll are much wealthier than their salary would imply, even with an aggressive investment strategy. Keeping congressional salaries down does nothing to solve this problem.
+1. People don't actually run for higher offices (beyond the local level) without a handful of consultants telling them they can win it and a lot of funding from corporations that want to see them win. More often than not, American politicians are compromised by special interests before they even leave home.
(06-05-2019, 04:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019, 04:11 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Members of Congress make anywhere between $174k and $223k for roughly 130 days of "work" per year.
If anything, Congressional and Presidential pay should be cut. Take us to the Cincinnatus model, where the people who really want to be there will be there. Have it pay enough that people who want to be there can be there, but not so much that it makes members of Congress some of the highest-earners in the country. $100k seems right, given that it's in DC.
The problem is it costs so much to get elected.
If people actually did their own research on every candidate before voting, that'd be one thing, but they don't. A candidate needs to spend much more on advertising to win a seat than they'll ever earn from the salary if they win.
A truism for anyone: you answer to the one who signs your checks. The bigger the checks, the more control the signer has.
It'd be nice if legislators answered to the Treasury, but they answer to big donors, foreign and domestic.
It isn't the responsibility of the American people to reimburse politicians (via salaries) for the money they chose to spend getting their jobs.
They make an absurd amount of money for very little work.
(06-05-2019, 09:27 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019, 08:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There are some bright and some not very bright people in the world.
It can be hard to tell who is who.
But a guy a who takes a picture of an American president, and portrays him with a crown on his head, while calling himself patriotic, is probably not actually in the category he thinks he is in.
Didn't I ask you to ignore me? Please don't ever respond to me again.
I kinda like the crown on Trump as displayed I did hear some mumbling that the only reason Trump is in London that he wants to be King if that True we can start with Trump and follow with the number one son then the number two son and so on and so forth
Now the only hat that would depict Obama would be a SPHINCTER HAT
Are/is there a person that can make create a gif of Obama in a Sphincter hat as a gift so that Mikesez and his people could see what the left falls under
(06-05-2019, 04:11 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Members of Congress make anywhere between $174k and $223k for roughly 130 days of "work" per year.
If anything, Congressional and Presidential pay should be cut. Take us to the Cincinnatus model, where the people who really want to be there will be there. Have it pay enough that people who want to be there can be there, but not so much that it makes members of Congress some of the highest-earners in the country. $100k seems right, given that it's in DC.
DC would be a lot cheaper if politicians were as powerless as they ought to be.
(06-05-2019, 11:44 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019, 04:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is it costs so much to get elected.
If people actually did their own research on every candidate before voting, that'd be one thing, but they don't. A candidate needs to spend much more on advertising to win a seat than they'll ever earn from the salary if they win.
A truism for anyone: you answer to the one who signs your checks. The bigger the checks, the more control the signer has.
It'd be nice if legislators answered to the Treasury, but they answer to big donors, foreign and domestic.
It isn't the responsibility of the American people to reimburse politicians (via salaries) for the money they chose to spend getting their jobs.
They make an absurd amount of money for very little work.
but it is a responsibility of the American people to choose the candidate based on the quality of his ideas rather than the quantity of his advertisements, and we fail in this responsibility every. Time.
(06-06-2019, 06:15 AM)13Coronas Wrote: [ -> ] (06-05-2019, 09:27 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Didn't I ask you to ignore me? Please don't ever respond to me again.
I kinda like the crown on Trump as displayed I did hear some mumbling that the only reason Trump is in London that he wants to be King if that True we can start with Trump and follow with the number one son then the number two son and so on and so forth
Now the only hat that would depict Obama would be a SPHINCTER HAT
Are/is there a person that can make create a gif of Obama in a Sphincter hat as a gift so that Mikesez and his people could see what the left falls under
You are missing the point.
Roman citizens tried to offer crowns to Caesar because they no longer wanted to live under a republic.
Are we a republic, or are you trying to switch to monarchy?
I did not say any thing in relation to republic, monarchy?
You Did
So in just relation to you bashing Stoud for his King GIF I chose to explain that we can keep Trump making sons to fit in the in to office by VOTE
Trump 2020 2024
Son 1: 2024 to 2028. And 2028 to 2032
Son 2: 2032 to 2036
Son on and so forth
So I am asking for my friends to design the hat