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.

Which is why you all should get smart and see that the dems only care for themselves 
Applying the raise
So  get on the Trump Wagon our take you knee  
How much should we charge the freeloaders for entry to USA 1000$ 2000$ 4500$ rather that absorb the process fee

---

“You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results.”
“If you find a way to motivate an idiot you have a motivated idiot”

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.

Which is why you all should get smart and see that the dems only care for themselves 
Applying the raise
So  get on the Trump Wagon our take you knee  
How much should we charge the freeloaders for entry to USA 1000$ 2000$ 4500$ rather that absorb the process fee

I must not be smart enough to understand what you are saying.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Which is why you all should get smart and see that the dems only care for themselves 
Applying the raise
So  get on the Trump Wagon our take you knee  
How much should we charge the freeloaders for entry to USA 1000$ 2000$ 4500$ rather that absorb the process fee

I must not be smart enough to understand what you are saying.

Can’t Fix the left they are destin to hold on till it’s to late

---

“You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results.”
“If you find a way to motivate an idiot you have a motivated idiot”

I think I would offer them a deal: they can get the raise if they stop the insider trading in the stock market.  

Did you know that it is a fact that the very best "stock-pickers" in the world are US Senators?  Their stock market returns are amazing considering their 24/7 service to the country.  Apparently, in their spare time, they can rival Warren Buffet in their stock-picking prowess.  

https://www.investmentu.com/article/deta...Plv2HEpAuV

---

I think I would offer them a deal: they can get the raise if they stop the insider trading in the stock market.  

Did you know that it is a fact that the very best "stock-pickers" in the world are US Senators?  Their stock market returns are amazing considering their 24/7 service to the country.  Apparently, in their spare time, they can rival Warren Buffet in their stock-picking prowess.  

https://www.investmentu.com/article/deta...Plv2HEpAuV

I think you'd have to require them to stop investing altogether.  Freeze their assets while they serve, and require all new money they wish to invest to go to a US Treasury bonds only.

Upside: no insider trading, might make term limits moot because they'd be in a rush to get their money back

Downside: requires a constitutional amendment

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

That's true but irrelevant to the point you made.

---

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.

That's true but irrelevant to the point you made.

My point is that the salary is already not their main source of funds.
They are loyal to their main source of funds.  Just like most people.
We should be thinking about if we can use money to make sure they are loyal to the people who elected them, rather than only those who voted for them. Heck, ideally they"d be loyal to all the people, even the ones who voted for the opponent, but, baby steps, right?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's true but irrelevant to the point you made.

My point is that the salary is already not their main source of funds.
They are loyal to their main source of funds.  Just like most people.
We should be thinking about if we can use money to make sure they are loyal to the people who elected them, rather than only those who voted for them. Heck, ideally they"d be loyal to all the people, even the ones who voted for the opponent, but, baby steps, right?

The words loyalty and politicians shouldn't be in the same sentence. Ever.

---

My point is that the salary is already not their main source of funds.
They are loyal to their main source of funds.  Just like most people.
We should be thinking about if we can use money to make sure they are loyal to the people who elected them, rather than only those who voted for them. Heck, ideally they"d be loyal to all the people, even the ones who voted for the opponent, but, baby steps, right?

The words loyalty and politicians shouldn't be in the same sentence. Ever.

Why not?
I admit, like any cynical person, that a politician's main motive is getting re-elected. Getting personal glory is up there too.
But most of them don't have to worry much about being re-elected. They are in safe districts.
And most of them have no real chance at personal glory. 
So what comes next? Can you  to think of anything more compelling than loyalty to the people who pay them?  They want more funds from the same people.  So they show loyalty.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The words loyalty and politicians shouldn't be in the same sentence. Ever.

Why not?
I admit, like any cynical person, that a politician's main motive is getting re-elected. Getting personal glory is up there too.
But most of them don't have to worry much about being re-elected. They are in safe districts.
And most of them have no real chance at personal glory. 
So what comes next? Can you  to think of anything more compelling than loyalty to the people who pay them?  They want more funds from the same people.  So they show loyalty.

It goes beyond just showing loyalty to the people who pay them.  The people who pay them ask for legislation, and the members of congress not only pass said legislation, they make investments that they know are going to pay off if the legislation is passed.  How the heck do you think these people have beaten the market as consistently as they have?   Pure luck?  Is it the hand of God, blessing them for their years of public service?

Apparently, their motivations go beyond just getting re-elected.  They want to get rich.

---

Why not?
I admit, like any cynical person, that a politician's main motive is getting re-elected. Getting personal glory is up there too.
But most of them don't have to worry much about being re-elected. They are in safe districts.
And most of them have no real chance at personal glory. 
So what comes next? Can you  to think of anything more compelling than loyalty to the people who pay them?  They want more funds from the same people.  So they show loyalty.

It goes beyond just showing loyalty to the people who pay them.  The people who pay them ask for legislation, and the members of congress not only pass said legislation, they make investments that they know are going to pay off if the legislation is passed.  How the heck do you think these people have beaten the market as consistently as they have?   Pure luck?  Is it the hand of God, blessing them for their years of public service?

Apparently, their motivations go beyond just getting re-elected.  They want to get rich.

You're right.
But these are two separate problems.
If we want them to be satisfied with their salaries, rather than seeking more and more big donations, they need good salaries, public financing of campaigns, and a ban on private spending for campaigns.  These are all complicated things with their own pitfalls of course.

If we want to stop insider trading, we just need to hold them to the same standards of disclosure that we hold SEC staff to.

All of the above requires amending the Constitution, sadly.

Don't want to amend it? Then you probably shouldn't complain about these things.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It goes beyond just showing loyalty to the people who pay them.  The people who pay them ask for legislation, and the members of congress not only pass said legislation, they make investments that they know are going to pay off if the legislation is passed.  How the heck do you think these people have beaten the market as consistently as they have?   Pure luck?  Is it the hand of God, blessing them for their years of public service?

Apparently, their motivations go beyond just getting re-elected.  They want to get rich.

You're right.
But these are two separate problems.
If we want them to be satisfied with their salaries, rather than seeking more and more big donations, they need good salaries, public financing of campaigns, and a ban on private spending for campaigns.  These are all complicated things with their own pitfalls of course.

If we want to stop insider trading, we just need to hold them to the same standards of disclosure that we hold SEC staff to.

All of the above requires amending the Constitution, sadly.

Don't want to amend it? Then you probably shouldn't complain about these things.

It doesn't require a Constitutional Amendment at all.  It only requires that the Congress pass enforceable rules on insider trading.

---

You're right.
But these are two separate problems.
If we want them to be satisfied with their salaries, rather than seeking more and more big donations, they need good salaries, public financing of campaigns, and a ban on private spending for campaigns.  These are all complicated things with their own pitfalls of course.

If we want to stop insider trading, we just need to hold them to the same standards of disclosure that we hold SEC staff to.

All of the above requires amending the Constitution, sadly.

Don't want to amend it? Then you probably shouldn't complain about these things.

It doesn't require a Constitutional Amendment at all.  It only requires that the Congress pass enforceable rules on insider trading.

Constitutional amendments are hard but technically possible.
Enforceable rules on insider trading?  I don't think we can logically get any tougher than we are, already.  If you permit public trading, you are permitting the possibility that some of the trading is taking place based on access to privileged information.  Now you have to prove that the person actually knew the information and based their decision to trade on that information.  These things are hard to prove.  When it's provable, it is prosecuted.  It's usually not provable.  We are already being as harsh as we possibly can be, I'm afraid. And I should amend what I said above: what we currently impose on SEC employees doesn't seem to work - a lot of journalists are saying SEC employees are also on the take.

No, probably the only way to get tougher is to pre-emptively freeze the assets of those with access to this kind of privileged information.  
You could probably impose that on SEC employees without a constitutional amendment.  And you could technically impose it on members of Congress, but those same members would be able to lift it quite easily, unless it was a constitutional amendment.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The words loyalty and politicians shouldn't be in the same sentence. Ever.

Why not?
I admit, like any cynical person, that a politician's main motive is getting re-elected. Getting personal glory is up there too.
But most of them don't have to worry much about being re-elected. They are in safe districts.
And most of them have no real chance at personal glory. 
So what comes next? Can you  to think of anything more compelling than loyalty to the people who pay them?  They want more funds from the same people.  So they show loyalty.

Well, if loyalty means prostituting yourself then sure, they're loyal to a fault. The "people" who pay them the real money they're after- those would be corporations and self interest groups- get all the loyalty in the world. Politicians haven't been for the actual people of this country in a very long time.

---

Which is why you all should get smart and see that the dems only care for themselves 
Applying the raise
So  get on the Trump Wagon our take you knee  
How much should we charge the freeloaders for entry to USA 1000$ 2000$ 4500$ rather that absorb the process fee

I must not be smart enough to understand what you are saying.

-1

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Why not?
I admit, like any cynical person, that a politician's main motive is getting re-elected. Getting personal glory is up there too.
But most of them don't have to worry much about being re-elected. They are in safe districts.
And most of them have no real chance at personal glory. 
So what comes next? Can you  to think of anything more compelling than loyalty to the people who pay them?  They want more funds from the same people.  So they show loyalty.

Well, if loyalty means prostituting yourself then sure, they're loyal to a fault. The "people" who pay them the real money they're after- those would be corporations and self interest groups- get all the loyalty in the world. Politicians haven't been for the actual people of this country in a very long time.

That's what I'm saying.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.