U.S. Congressmen Are Underpaid

71 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Seriously?

** Is this political? Maybe, if so, remove it. It's non-partisan

Moran: 'Members of Congress are Underpaid' AUDIO
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    D.C. is an expensive place to live - especially if you also pay for a family home in another state....

    They seem to have their ways, though the House members don't fare as well as Senate leaders do.

    As Americans Get Poorer, Members of Congress Get Richer - ABC News

    The Great Scam: America's Richest Politicians Get Richer As Democrat, Republican Wealth Converges | Zero Hedge

    A bi-partisan list of increased wealth while "serving":

    http://www.businessinsider.com/congr...y-2011-11?op=1
    Signature
    Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

    Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9080382].message }}
  • Not that I'm implying we should or shouldn't do this, but here's one point to consider:

    If they were underpaid, or served as "citizen legislators," would they be more likely to take bribes?
    Signature

    Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
    _______________________________________________
    "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9080634].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

      Not that I'm implying we should or shouldn't do this, but here's one point to consider:

      If they were underpaid, or served as "citizen legislators," would they be more likely to take bribes?
      There are MULTI MILLIONARES, even heirs to HUGE fortunes, that STILL took bribes. Some of those taking bribes are some of the richest, and some that aren't are some of the poorest, so that is a specious argument.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9080704].message }}
      • Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        There are MULTI MILLIONARES, even heirs to HUGE fortunes, that STILL took bribes. Some of those taking bribes are some of the richest, and some that aren't are some of the poorest, so that is a specious argument.
        Did you ever learn anything about logic?

        It's a logical fallacy to discount an argument just because you can show a counterexample. (Unless the argument is "All X's are Y," which is far from anything I said.)
        Signature

        Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
        _______________________________________________
        "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9080861].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

          Did you ever learn anything about logic?

          It's a logical fallacy to discount an argument just because you can show a counterexample. (Unless the argument is "All X's are Y," which is far from anything I said.)
          I just proved that paying them more will NOT stop them from taking bribes.

          So YOU would pay FAR higher wages on the hope that maybe it is reducing bribes a little? NOW who is being illogical?

          NOBODY could prove that paying only very high wages encourages bribery. There is no way to do that. But it has been proven time and time again that paying very very very high wages doesn't eradicate bribery.

          HERE'S a thought! Let's ENFORCE the laws that are out there and have several disconnected levels of checks. If it fails a check, AUDIT! If it fails an AUDIT, QUESTION! If the answers are incorrect, CONVICT!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9080906].message }}
          • Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            I just proved that paying them more will NOT stop them from taking bribes.

            So YOU would pay FAR higher wages on the hope that maybe it is reducing bribes a little? NOW who is being illogical?

            NOBODY could prove that paying only very high wages encourages bribery. There is no way to do that. But it has been proven time and time again that paying very very very high wages doesn't eradicate bribery.
            When I first came to this forum, I never thought I'd use the ignore feature. If there's one thing that merits it, though, it's someone who not only has to be right about everything, but who also has to put words in people's mouths to "prove" it.

            Don't bother replying to any of my future posts, Steve; I won't be able to see yours.
            Signature

            Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
            _______________________________________________
            "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9080968].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

              Don't bother replying to any of my future posts, Steve; I won't be able to see yours.
              OKY DOKY!
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9081231].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Sarevok
      Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

      Not that I'm implying we should or shouldn't do this, but here's one point to consider:

      If they were underpaid, or served as "citizen legislators," would they be more likely to take bribes?
      Who's more likely to accept cake as a bribe...

      Someone who's morbidly obese, or someone who's fit & trim?



      Food for thought.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9084818].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Sarevok View Post

        Who's more likely to accept cake as a bribe...

        Someone who's morbidly obese, or someone who's fit & trim?



        Food for thought.
        GOOD POINT! They generally call people that make a LOT greedy! And look at the likes of enron, etc... They could have morphed to something legitimate, but kept up the scam. Teachers in the US? They always say MORE MONEY WILL HELP, and all it does is make them richer.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085029].message }}
      • Originally Posted by Sarevok View Post

        Who's more likely to accept cake as a bribe...

        Someone who's morbidly obese, or someone who's fit & trim?



        Food for thought.
        You forgot the starving people. There's a difference between them and the "fit & trim!"
        Signature

        Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
        _______________________________________________
        "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085129].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    I think they're highly overpaid. They do very little and have a high disapproval rating. They would be shit-canned for non-performance of their duties if in the private sector. I think it's sad that they can be so incompetent and still have a guaranteed income.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9080949].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NewParadigm
    CONgress doesn't know the pay BEFORE they run? Don't like it, don't run!

    If you don't like the pay, go get a real job. I guarantee a vast majority of congress could not get a real job w/ equivalent pay/bennies if they tried, outside of the quid pro quo junk jobs by K street lobbyists.
    Signature

    In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9080953].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Frankly, for the messes they have created, it could be argued they owe America billions. Overpaid - pfft.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9080971].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author serryjw
    Yes, they probably do have a family home in another state...BUT They are NOT renting hotel rooms...They can buy a 1 bedroom for $400K...They are never there. They don't pay for any food or entertainment. There is no way they can't live on $175K... a hell of a lot more than 98% of Americans...WHERE is it written that they go to DC to become millionaires? They are SUPPOSE to be public servants.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9080974].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Way over-paid. If you look at the assets of any rep when they take office and then look again at those assets after 4 - 8 years in service, it's usually enough to drop your jaw. They get perks, they get lobby money, they get whatever they want...........and what happens when they don't get it just for being there?

    They create or kill laws that help them get even more. They pull their friends into lucrative positions (called nepotism) and go on to benefit from those people.

    The only thing we can do to put them back into normal ranges is to impose strict term limits. When they sit in office for decades at a time, it gives them a lot of time to build power and financially lucrative systems for themselves.

    And would it make them more corrupt if they didn't get that money? No. That money is why opportunists are flocking into politics. Take that money away and more of your reps will serve because of dedication to their ideas rather than because they know they'll set themselves, their offspring, family, and friends up for life.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9081281].message }}
    • Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      And would it make them more corrupt if they didn't get that money? No. That money is why opportunists are flocking into politics.
      I thought opportunists had always been flocking into politics. The salary can't be the main reason.

      Also, term limits have been in place for a while in many state legislatures. They don't seem to be helping.
      Signature

      Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
      _______________________________________________
      "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9081532].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    If they were underpaid, or served as "citizen legislators," would they be more likely to take bribes?
    I think they might do a better job if they were "citizen legislators" working for less pay than they would earn in the private sector....AND with term limits.

    I think members of the House should be able to "serve" for no more than 2 four year terms....and members of the senate 2 six year terms. Less time would be spent worrying about raising money for the next election cycle - and more about getting work done.

    Instead of a "career" serving in Congress would be a career builder for politicians. If you look at the current leaders - Pelosi, Reid, McConnell and Boehner, only Boehner has real experience working in the business world in a job unrelated to politics.

    The average age of those in Congress has increased in recent years and I think term limits might add some young blood to the halls.

    Congress Age Distribution - Infographic - The Wall Street Journal
    Signature
    Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

    Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9081622].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author serryjw
      Kay in theory it is a great idea BUT...we don't have 'representatives' that serve their constituency NOW, can you image how bad it would be if the congressional aids knew more than the representatives? They are just nameless/faceless power behind the thrones. It takes at least 2 years to find the bathrooms ;-).
      NOW, I would support ONE 6 year term for Prez and 20 years for SCOTUS.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9081698].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    U.S. Congressmen Are Underpaid
    I sent them a cancelled check to help out.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9081862].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    This is certainly not the time to give them a raise.

    Clean up the economic mess and I'll think about it.

    Better yet, if we ever get back to the economy of the 1980s and 1990s then I'm all for it.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9082137].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      This is certainly not the time to give them a raise.

      Clean up the economic mess and I'll think about it.
      OK, hell really may be in for a snow storm!

      I really hope we DO end up better off soon, but I don't think we will. And if we ever DO end up with hyperinflation, it will be CONGRESSES fault. We can blame others, and believe me, I have and will, but CONGRESS is the one allowing it etc...

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9082201].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        if the congressional aids knew more
        They already know more about the "workings" of Congress - just as a good secretary or Admin Asst knows more about what goes on inside a company than a CEO does. The know where the bathrooms are and already do much of the grunt work in D.C.

        We need legislators who bring enthusiasm and fresh ideas to Congress and then dive in to make things happen. Instead we have years of positioning to gain power and the enthusiasm becomes a quest for status.

        We need people to go into Congress realizing how well they work with others and what they accomplish will be part of their resume when they go back to their "regular" career. That means elected officials working for the people - not for the party.
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9082400].message }}
        • Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          They already know more about the "workings" of Congress - just as a good secretary or Admin Asst knows more about what goes on inside a company than a CEO does. The know where the bathrooms are and already do much of the grunt work in D.C.

          We need legislators who bring enthusiasm and fresh ideas to Congress and then dive in to make things happen. Instead we have years of positioning to gain power and the enthusiasm becomes a quest for status.

          We need people to go into Congress realizing how well they work with others and what they accomplish will be part of their resume when they go back to their "regular" career. That means elected officials working for the people - not for the party.
          The way Congress is set up, your ability to get things done depends on the power you position yourself to gain. Unless this can somehow be revamped, salary tweaks and term limits are unlikely to help anyone but the parties' political machines.
          Signature

          Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
          _______________________________________________
          "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9082797].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

            Congressmen no longer vote?
            Well, the Whips and Leaders have more say than many others. The senate Majority leader has enough say to override the entire senate. If they dislike a bill, they can simply not let it come to a vote, and it may die. The Speaker of the house has enough say that they can override the whole house, and even avoid the bill ever going to the senate.

            ALSO apparently the speaker and senate leader can change rules on the fly. Nancy pelosi used the "deem it as passed", which had a vote with no discussion. Harry used the "cloture", which did sort of the same thing.

            ALSO, there are apparently 4 votes!
            1. YES, for the motion.
            2. NO, against the motion.
            3. PRESENT, I'm here, just say I am here, NO VOTE!
            4. ABSTAIN, Pretend I'm not here!

            And you will see people voting present, or abstaining, because they are either disinterested, or they feel voting the way they want to may hurt them in some way. The leader and/or whip may talk with others to determine who to sacrifice on a particular vote, if it may haunt them. That is why so many just barely pass. I believe 1,2,3 can all be seen on CSPAN, but they are often public record. If they are absent, of course, it counts as an abstain.

            So YEAH, they get a vote, but there is collusion and ranking that determines how it is counted. Each actual vote is counted the same, but do you even get a chance? Do you need a simple majority, or more?

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083284].message }}
          • Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

            Congressmen no longer vote?
            A congressman's ability to get things done has a lot more to do with just his own ability to vote. It has to do with his ability to get OTHER congressmen to vote the way he wants them to. In committees as well as on the floor.
            Signature

            Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
            _______________________________________________
            "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083303].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author serryjw
          We need legislators who bring enthusiasm and fresh ideas to Congress

          I think most do UNTIL they recognize that they can't get anything done as a freshman...I don't think the congress is the problem but rather the money needed to get re-elected is. Citizen United and last weeks SCOTUS decision of unlimited campaign donations is...HOW many of us could give $125K in a 4 year cycle....As long as The Koch Bros & Soros can give what ever they want...we are screwed.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083316].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

            I think most do UNTIL they recognize that they can't get anything done as a freshman...I don't think the congress is the problem but rather the money needed to get re-elected is. Citizen United and last weeks SCOTUS decision of unlimited campaign donations is...HOW many of us could give $125K in a 4 year cycle....As long as The Koch Bros & Soros can give what ever they want...we are screwed.
            From what I hear, SOROS has a LOT more money. The Kock bros and Soros are flip sides of the coin.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083376].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author serryjw
              Steven..actually IF you put both brothers together as one( since they politically are identical), they are wealthier than Gates or Buffett. Soros has money but not THAT much. My previous statement was not partisan. I think the system is broken on both sides. You don't have take away FREE elections when SCOTUS's definition is unlimited campaign funds is free speech and corporations have the same 1st amendment rights as you and me...what else is there to say?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083492].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

                Steven..actually IF you put both brothers together as one( since they politically are identical), they are wealthier than Gates or Buffett. Soros has money but not THAT much. My previous statement was not partisan. I think the system is broken on both sides. You don't have take away FREE elections when SCOTUS's definition is unlimited campaign funds is free speech and corporations have the same 1st amendment rights as you and me...what else is there to say?
                I was only saying. I wasn't partisan. Yeah, if a person gets enough support, they should get LIMITED, UNBIASED, FREE advertising! GET RID of the stupid government payments! GET RID of the crass methods. LIMIT personal and total contributions. Provide for interrupted campaigns. FORBID ALL SLANDER, LIBEL, EXTORTION!

                It would be cheaper and fairer for ALL.

                There was this guy once that was a virtual nobody, from what I understand. He had a debate with this guy. This was over 100 years ago. NO INTERNET! NO TV! NO RADIO! As I understand it, this one guy happened to hear his debate, was impressed, and published it in a newspaper. The guys election took off, and he became the 16th president of the US. NOW, Abraham Lincoln is almost a household name in the US. Why can't things be that simple again?

                HECK, even the idea of traveling around, and canvasing. WHY?

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083529].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BTW WHAT is decently? I earlier lived in a way I am sure MOST would say was decent. NOW, I live a bit better. Some of these "reps" live in a way some would call ostentatious. Most of MY income goes to taxes and the basics. THEY get a lot of those basics COVERED and certainly pay lower taxes

    Trey Gowdy: Dem congressman should be 'embarrassed' by pay raise push, calls Congress 'grossly overcompensated' | The Daily Caller
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9082948].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NewParadigm
    CONgress should be made to work from their home state. Today's video conferencing technology is more than enough to conduct business. DC is an isolated cesspool by design. CONgress can go to DC once a month for in person panels/meetings/votes. The rest can be done from home state where they can be kept in check.

    Secondly, all members of CONgress and administration should be required to broadcast their working day streaming live online and archived. Webcams or google glass devices. PERIOD. Only exceptions are legitimate national security. The rest is the peoples' business.

    Sunshine if the best disinfectant and we have the cheap good technology today to put it to use.

    What this does is attack the culture of corruption in DC. Makes it much tougher for behind the scenes scams and lobbyist influence. At least make the lobbyists travel to all obama's 57 states.
    Signature

    In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9082967].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by NewParadigm View Post

      CONgress should be made to work from their home state. Today's video conferencing technology is more than enough to conduct business. DC is an isolated cesspool by design. CONgress can go to DC once a month for in person panels/meetings/votes. The rest can be done from home state where they can be kept in check.

      Secondly, all members of CONgress and administration should be required to broadcast their working day streaming live online and archived. Webcams or google glass devices. PERIOD. Only exceptions are legitimate national security. The rest is the peoples' business.

      Sunshine if the best disinfectant and we have the cheap good technology today to put it to use.

      What this does is attack the culture of corruption in DC. Makes it much tougher for behind the scenes scams and lobbyist influence. At least make the lobbyists travel to all obama's 57 states.
      YEP! The size of washington DC is LIMITED BY LAW under the constitution. And IT is, in the US constitution to be the seat of the US government. Yet lobby organizations and entertainment, etc... are ALL OVER.

      What gets me is that these guys create bills that could take the average person MONTHS to read. Seriously! A bill may tell you a particular statement in a particular paragraph of a particular section of a given version of a given bill should be changed in a given way. It may do this with SEVERAL bills. And THAT doesn't even tell the whole story. ACA is a good example. One of those changes changed 40 hours to 30 hours, and that affected bills that people may not know about for YEARS.

      So how do they do that? Apparently, they don't even necessarily rely on summaries or aids that have sometimes been used. I wonder how many vote based on their agreement with the goal implied by the akronym.

      With ACA, nancy pelosi ACTUALLY SAID that even if they read it they wouldn't know the affects. She said "We have to PASS IT to find out what's in it"!!!! She encouraged people to not even read it, and never gave them a chance to do so. Maybe we should make it illegal to XRAY, CAT scan, or use an MRI on government workers, and stop using scanners on visitors and mail there. Then we can say "But we have to OPERATE to find the problem!", and "You have to open the envelope to find out if it has a poisonous agent!".

      So yeah, I guess they can do the job just as well from MARS! And then they would have NO extra cost for room, board, flight, and travel.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083239].message }}
  • I don't even want to live in a world where Congressman have to live in "small little apartment units".

    I mean, how can anyone expect them to live "decently" on $175k? Have you ever tried paying the mortgage on a million dollar home and sending your children to private school on a tiny six figure income?

    Forget about the people who don't even have jobs or the trillions of dollars of national debt.

    These are our civil servants we're talking about here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083133].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by The Content Professional View Post

      I don't even want to live in a world where Congressman have to live in "small little apartment units".

      I mean, how can anyone expect them to live "decently" on $175k? Have you ever tried paying the mortgage on a million dollar home and sending your children to private school on a tiny six figure income?

      Forget about the people who don't even have jobs or the trillions of dollars of national debt.

      These are our civil servants we're talking about here.
      HECK, If it were illegal to lie and slander, I would be HAPPY to run for $175K. And they CAN instigate rules to effectively give themselves a raise. There is a rule that they can't actually give themselves a DIRECT raise for THIS session, but they CAN give themselves one for the NEXT one. WATCH! The NEXT congress will probably get a raise! And this is just the STARTING salary. A number of things can INCREASE it.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083253].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author NewParadigm
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        HECK, If it were illegal to lie and slander, I would be HAPPY to run for $175K. And they CAN instigate rules to effectively give themselves a raise. There is a rule that they can't actually give themselves a DIRECT raise for THIS session, but they CAN give themselves one for the NEXT one. WATCH! The NEXT congress will probably get a raise! And this is just the STARTING salary. A number of things can INCREASE it.

        Steve

        Did you know CONgress does not have to vote to give themselves a raise? Their raises are AUTOMATIC unless they vote against them. LOL.

        Wouldn't you like that out in the real world? Only in big government in DC do you get that kinda deal.
        Signature

        In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083267].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by NewParadigm View Post

          Did you know CONgress does not have to vote to give themselves a raise? Their raises are AUTOMATIC unless they vote against them. LOL.

          Wouldn't you like that out in the real world? Only in big government in DC do you get that kinda deal.
          YEAH, a LOT of, perhaps ALL, government checks have some kind of COLA("Cost Of Living Adjustment"). Of course, from what I understand, the ones for SS are rather low, and the ones for welfare rather high. CONGRESS is probably higher STILL. But STILL, that might be like $7000(4% COLA, which is in line with welfare, IIRC welfare is about 3%). But I wouldn't be surprised if the next one was closer to $25,000!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083289].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NewParadigm
    I laugh at the hysteria of the Koch brothers.


    Former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer made headlines last month for vowing to raise and spend $100 million to help elect Democrats who will push for legislation intended to stop climate change. Jim Steyer isn’t a billionaire, but he and his brother have founded Next Generation, an advocacy group promoting “children’s issues” and actions against climate change.
    The Kochs are far richer, but Tom Steyer’s $100 million pledge has them looking like cheapskates in the political field. Koch Industries spent $18 million on federal elections from 1989 to 2013, placing it 59th on a list of campaign donors compiled by Open Secrets.


    Read more: The Steyer Brothers: GOP finds Koch rivals who finance Democrats - Washington Times
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

    I suppose the propaganda media will be pretty silent on demonizing the Steyer brothers because they have the "right" agenda.
    Signature

    In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083554].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author serryjw
      The Kochs are far richer, but Tom Steyer’s $100 million pledge has them looking like cheapskates in the political field. Koch Industries spent $18 million on federal elections from 1989 to 2013, placing it 59th on a list of campaign donors compiled by Open Secrets.
      HOW much did the brothers spend personally? After Citizen United, donations don't need to be public. Believe me this is NOT partisan...I want money out of politics. It is out of control and the citizens are not benefiting.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083730].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Actually, now that they can get any amount they want from their corporate sponsor, they could actually live like royalty without even drawing a paycheck. I have not checked this for a fact - but I'd put money on the fact that this new improved statute also includes some "fine print" somewhere that also broadens what they can legally use the money for.

    You and I are totally out of the mix. We have been since we underwent a coup in the 2008 bailout, or didn't anyone notice that? The US is pretty much a fascist state now. Time to wake up and realize that.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083874].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author serryjw
      IF we don't know how much is given, who the hell knows where it goes. Truth be told, elections have nothing to do with us.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083978].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Actually, now that they can get any amount they want from their corporate sponsor, they could actually live like royalty without even drawing a paycheck. I have not checked this for a fact - but I'd put money on the fact that this new improved statute also includes some "fine print" somewhere that also broadens what they can legally use the money for.
      It is FACT! The average politician leaves with FAR more than they ever earned while they were there. There have been TONS of studies! The ONLY question is WHERE it comes from. Possible sources?

      1. BRIBES.
      2. Payments for BRIBES(like from a business for routine business to it)
      3. Donations.
      4. Campaign funds.
      5. Money made by all the FED and stock notifications they get and can act on. The SAME type that would make OTHERS(like martha stewart), FELONS!
      6. Advanced notification on some commodities.
      7. Books playing off inside information or name recognition.
      8. They get all sorts of benefits so they can buy more for less.

      GEE, I have to do more work than they do. I probably READ more than they do. I can't hire assistants to assist me. I have to provide for my retirement, etc... If they say they are underpaid, they should be kicked out of office, LITERALLY!!! They have NO concept of value, etc...

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9084395].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author serryjw
        Steve... Let me ADD to your list on FREE FOOD ( they must have some lobbyist pay for every meal) AND world wide travel...to the best golf courses. I have never been on a private jet...do they know how to fly any other way?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085414].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

          Steve... Let me ADD to your list on FREE FOOD ( they must have some lobbyist pay for every meal) AND world wide travel...to the best golf courses. I have never been on a private jet...do they know how to fly any other way?
          Well, Reid was on a commercial jet. He wanted to be treated like a king, so it made the news!

          Nancy pelosi recently ended up in a seat next to judge napolitano. She recognized him and basically said "OH MY GOD! Can we agree to NOT talk politics?"! Surprisingly, he said she was nice and all.

          SOME representatives have had problems with TSA, etc...

          We have a NICE chain of golf courses they can go to here! They are in 16 states, INCLUDING VIRGINIA!

          Putt-Putt Fun Centers, Inc

          And HEY! They have US climb walls, and THIS gives THEM a way to see what it is like!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085557].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author serryjw
            I thought Pelosi has her own jet...or was that when she was speaker? I'd pay money to see our 'leaders' being frisked by TSA.
            PLEEZE don't make fun of Putt-Putt, I have so much fun there.

            Serry
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085571].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Actually, now that they can get any amount they want from their corporate sponsor, they could actually live like royalty without even drawing a paycheck. I have not checked this for a fact - but I'd put money on the fact that this new improved statute also includes some "fine print" somewhere that also broadens what they can legally use the money for.

      You and I are totally out of the mix. We have been since we underwent a coup in the 2008 bailout, or didn't anyone notice that? The US is pretty much a fascist state now. Time to wake up and realize that.
      I wouldn't be surprised regarding your first paragraph but the second regarding some type of coup - because of a bailout is utter nonsense.
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9084409].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I wouldn't be surprised regarding your first paragraph but the second regarding some type of coup - because of a bailout is utter nonsense.
        Then you do not fully understand how fascism works. When someone says "fascist", what goes through your head? Hitler? Concentration camps and people murdered hundreds at a whack? That's extreme fascism - but it's not all there is to it. We were drifting toward fascism before, but the bail-out was the one act that actually sunk us. If we had fired every one of the reps that voted "yes" right when they did it, we might have turned things around. Must have been some good TV because a vast majority of Americans have no clue what happened.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9086283].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          Then you do not fully understand how fascism works. When someone says "fascist", what goes through your head? Hitler? Concentration camps and people murdered hundreds at a whack? That's extreme fascism - but it's not all there is to it. We were drifting toward fascism before, but the bail-out was the one act that actually sunk us. If we had fired every one of the reps that voted "yes" right when they did it, we might have turned things around. Must have been some good TV because a vast majority of Americans have no clue what happened.
          We may be on the road to fascism but we've got a long way to go before we get there.

          That bailout was the largest in history but without it the financial situation would have been far worse than the great recession.

          Can you say 1929 with 15-25% or more unemployment for 10 years or more?

          The Citizens United ruling by the SCOTUS and their other recent related ruling moves us closer to fascism than the bailout did.

          Now more and even darker money can enter our political process than ever before.
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9086688].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author celente
    Most US congressmen are tied to the elite of u do your reserach properly. The elite are slowly taking down the US and the US economy. No conspiricy, all you need is good old google to do some research! :-)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9084006].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sarevok
    They should be paid minimum wage. Period. End of story. (Can anyone really refute this notion?)

    Or is it unreasonable of me to request that our 'elected officials' live by the standards they govern?

    I know. I'm a fringe lunatic. How dare I request that our congress live by societal standards they they work so hard to establish.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9084502].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Sarevok View Post

      They should be paid minimum wage. Period. End of story. (Can anyone really refute this notion?)

      Or is it unreasonable of me to request that our 'elected officials' live by the standards they govern?

      I know. I'm a fringe lunatic. How dare I request that our congress live by societal standards they they work so hard to establish.

      With how they are NOW, I AGREE with you!!!!!!!

      I slipped up on y last calculations. I used the NEW normalized figure, with the old base hours. THIS formula allows for similar tricks in the future!

      BUT, they ARE supposed to come up with reasonable laws written in NON vague terms, and READ the bills and have PROPER debate! If they did all that, considering the short term, etc... I COULD see $73,515(6.5*((FT-1)*52)) times the ADJUSTED minimum hourly wage, for their yearly wage.) with NONE of the special benefits or isolation. Of course there IS the concern tat they could simply increase the minimum wage. I would suggest that the ADJUSTED minimum wage would have to be no higher that $7.5(in 4/2014 dollars).

      Before you complain, realize that that $7.5 is now only about $.15 in like 1930 dollars. I set it to $10 because I figure that is about where it should be on my terms, if it followed inflation. So they would still get a reasonable amount, and it IS only a STARTING wage, but they couldn't simply quadruple the minimum wage. As for inflation, if they had none of the special benefits, increasing inflation would not help the value of what they are paid.

      BTW Just so you know, before the recent hours change, they would be paid.... $98,865. Middle wage earners took a pay cut! THIS gives THEM the pay cut! HEY, THEY caused it!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9084576].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author serryjw
      I don't associate with people that makes minimum wage...I want my leaders to be smarter than me. I have no problem with $175K...my problem is all the elitist extras.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085422].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by serryjw View Post

        I don't associate with people that makes minimum wage...I want my leaders to be smarter than me. I have no problem with $175K...my problem is all the elitist extras.
        The reps are NOT leaders! If not for all the stupid bills, the bad education system, and reading time, I would say to change this into more of a democracy, and have the PUBLIC vote.

        The reps are supposed to be JUST THAT! REPS! The senate balances out the house by, in principle, giving every state an equal vote. The house balances out the senate by, in principle, being more related to the general population. What they are SUPPOSED to do is see a need(WITHIN the realm of those codified in section 8), codify it, and discuss among themselves whether or not it should pass. They AREN'T leaders. They are all supposed to be SERVANTS!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085539].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author serryjw
          Steve..like it or not they are our 'leaders'...We don't have one statesmen in the whole bunch.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085574].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BTW ANOTHER reference to what I mentioned was:

    House Social Workers Split on Farm Bill • SJS

    In case nobody understands my reference, this welfare program has, HISTORICALLY, been linked to a farm bill, and it was heavily delayed. They argued, etc... Some on the left held the whole thing hostage. The right managed to separate it so they could pass the farm bill NOW, and they did. The left was heavily against it, and SWORE to be against passage. They could then vote on the welfare bill, that I think the right held hostage until the left let it pass.

    That is TYPICAL! DON'T forget, even ACA passed that way. I forget the name for it, but there is a political term for when someone puts an unrelated item into a bill to hold the whole thing hostage or get the inserted portion passed. It is often something that is unwanted. THIS is how things like "the bridge to nowhere" gets passed.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9086814].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      BTW ANOTHER reference to what I mentioned was:

      House Social Workers Split on Farm Bill • SJS

      In case nobody understands my reference, this welfare program has, HISTORICALLY, been linked to a farm bill, and it was heavily delayed. They argued, etc... Some on the left held the whole thing hostage. The right managed to separate it so they could pass the farm bill NOW, and they did. The left was heavily against it, and SWORE to be against passage. They could then vote on the welfare bill, that I think the right held hostage until the left let it pass.

      That is TYPICAL! DON'T forget, even ACA passed that way. I forget the name for it, but there is a political term for when someone puts an unrelated item into a bill to hold the whole thing hostage or get the inserted portion passed. It is often something that is unwanted. THIS is how things like "the bridge to nowhere" gets passed.

      Steve
      The tactic you are speaking of is being used by both parties to allow them to blame voting for and against bills on the other party.

      An example? Please don't mention parties - this is just the example I have of the top without having to do research - so don't get into a party argument over this - I purposely avoided mentioning who did what..........and both parties do the same thing all the time.

      The bill to cut vet's pensions. One party is blaming the other for voting to ditch pensions. It was almost completely a one party vote to cut pensions. What the other party voted against was an attachment that their opponent party put in the bill. Once they voted against that attachment - the other party started screaming that their opponents actually voted against the pensions, when it was them that did that. It's easy to see in the vote records, but most people just look at the memes that circulate, so are completely fooled and are actually raging at the wrong party over it.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9088128].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        The pension cut was, as usually happens, overstated and overhyped. They were very small decreases in planned increases in military pensions.

        For starters, the cuts were spread out to cause minimal pain. They were designed to affect retirees younger than 62. They’d be phased in slowly, the cost of living adjustment to benefits decreasing by 0.25 percent in December 2014, by 0.5 percent in December 2015, and fully engaged by 2016.
        The military, according to what I've read, is scheduled to issue advisories for pension reform in 2015. Are we expecting no cuts then?


        The military would have to, because 12 years of war...boosted pension liabilities, bringing the total to $50 billion annually. “The Defense Department runs the risk of the fate of other corporate and government bureaucracies that were ultimately crippled by personnel costs,” then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress in 2011, “in particular, their retiree benefit packages.”
        Omnibus spending agreement: Congress rushes to restore the puny $6 billion cut to military pensions.

        This wasn't a dirty trick out of the blue and the total to be saved was $6 billion....which is the exact amount announced this week as "missing and unaccounted for contractor payments by the State Dept. in the past 6 years"

        According to the media - cutting $6 billion in military retirement benefits to younger military personnel is horrendous. The same media says losing $6 billion by the State Department is not too big a deal.

        And the wheel turns and turns....
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9088218].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        The tactic you are speaking of is being used by both parties to allow them to blame voting for and against bills on the other party.
        I said that!

        An example? Please don't mention parties - this is just the example I have of the top without having to do research - so don't get into a party argument over this - I purposely avoided mentioning who did what..........and both parties do the same thing all the time.
        Sorry, but it said BOTH did it. I gave an example of each party. I was countering TL that said only ONE side did it!

        The bill to cut vet's pensions. One party is blaming the other for voting to ditch pensions. It was almost completely a one party vote to cut pensions. What the other party voted against was an attachment that their opponent party put in the bill. Once they voted against that attachment - the other party started screaming that their opponents actually voted against the pensions, when it was them that did that. It's easy to see in the vote records, but most people just look at the memes that circulate, so are completely fooled and are actually raging at the wrong party over it.
        You have THAT right, and THAT was my point! This morning, TL pulled the IDT garbage on me and TONIGHT, Alfonzo Rachel a BLACK C......... mentioned that people like him would do this and even mentioned like 4 or 5 things that were EXACTLY what TL said! It was kind of funny! I don't mean he gave examples, or things similar, I mean the EXACT statements! Again though history books, the internet, logic, etc... say it is a LIE. As for AR? He isn't a politician and has no reason to lie there. He is in a black music group. I believe he is the drummer. He was even a D....... earlier!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9088223].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author serryjw
          Did everyone see Matt Taibbi on Cspan, Q and A? Good interview
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9088523].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          I said that!



          Sorry, but it said BOTH did it. I gave an example of each party. I was countering TL that said only ONE side did it!



          You have THAT right, and THAT was my point! This morning, TL pulled the IDT garbage on me and TONIGHT, Alfonzo Rachel a BLACK C......... mentioned that people like him would do this and even mentioned like 4 or 5 things that were EXACTLY what TL said! It was kind of funny! I don't mean he gave examples, or things similar, I mean the EXACT statements! Again though history books, the internet, logic, etc... say it is a LIE. As for AR? He isn't a politician and has no reason to lie there. He is in a black music group. I believe he is the drummer. He was even a D....... earlier!

          Steve
          Did you seriously just call that woman a cunt or does that C stand for something else? I"ve got smoke coming out of my ears. This better be good, Dude.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9094874].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

            Did you seriously just call that woman a cunt or does that C stand for something else? I"ve got smoke coming out of my ears. This better be good, Dude.
            WOW, you do NOT know me very well! Alfonzo, for starters is a MAN. NOPE, the C word HERE is conservative. As for the other word? I don't use that language. I try to stay away from it.

            When I was in High school, in class, I once said the word SHOOT and people were actually SHOCKED because they thought I said the other thing. If anyone ELSE said the other word, there would have been no reaction.

            Rest assured I NEVER used that word, and certainly didn't here.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9094980].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author HeySal
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              WOW, you do NOT know me very well! Alfonzo, for starters is a MAN. NOPE, the C word HERE is conservative. As for the other word? I don't use that language. I try to stay away from it.

              When I was in Hi school, in class, I once said the word SHOOT and people were actually SHOCKED because they thought I said the other thing. If anyone ELSE said the other word, there would have been no reaction.

              Rest assured I NEVER used that word, and certainly didn't here.

              Steve
              Whew. Okay - that was good.

              I didn't know who the person was you were saying that about so just skimmed the name and thought it was a woman. LMAO. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I'm so glad to know I was mistaken.
              Signature

              Sal
              When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
              Beyond the Path

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9096502].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                Whew. Okay - that was good.

                I didn't know who the person was you were saying that about so just skimmed the name and thought it was a woman. LMAO. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I'm so glad to know I was mistaken.
                Well, you can look on youtube. One easy link would be: https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ry=ZoNation%3A It doesn't prestart, and I am not saying anythig partisan here, so hopefully that is allowed.

                OH YEAH, FAIR WARNING! MOST of his videos are partisan, and some have religious references.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9096526].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

            Did you seriously just call that woman a cunt or does that C stand for something else? I"ve got smoke coming out of my ears. This better be good, Dude.
            I know you were upset but I have to confess this was at the coffee-sputter level...
            Signature

            The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

            Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9096768].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

              I know you were upset but I have to confess this was at the coffee-sputter level...
              I guess that is what happens with people that seem to have 2 first names. His last name happened to sound female, and she slipped. But ME!?!?!? COME ON.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9096923].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    A response to Moran from Rep. Trey Gowdy of SC:

    "[T]he notion that you can make $174,000 in this country and be underpaid is laughable. We are better off than 99.9% of the people that we claim to work for, and I would be embarrassed to say that given our job performance and our salary, that we are anything other than grossly overcompensated."
    One congressman gets it, at least.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9087223].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Aniblow
    No amount of money is ever enough for any one. If you increase that pay they'd still complain.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9096546].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Statcode
    The very purpose of paying government officials a large amount of money is to prevent them from being corrupted by money. Ironically, it seem to have the opposite effect.

    If you pay those in office very low, they might not run with the best interest and may try to operate under a "profit seeking" motive like a business without the interest of representing the people.

    If you pay those in office very high, they might get corrupted by it as money is often associated with power.

    In an ideal world, those with a high spiritual maturity should only run for congress, but humans in a complex society have not reach that point yet.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099112].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CoolitDown
    They should get a huge payCUT. They should be paid the average salary of an American in the private sector, at most, but with all *legitimate* expenses while performing in their public capacity covered.

    As an aside, the claim that they "pay" income taxes is all just for show. Their salaries come OUT of the tax pool, so the taxes they pay simply go back into the same pool; no net increase in the govt's tax coffers; it's literally pointless. They don't pay shit, and they know it. They just like to say they're "taxpayers" so they can pretend to empathize with us.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099639].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by CoolitDown View Post

      They should get a huge payCUT. They should be paid the average salary of an American in the private sector, at most, but with all *legitimate* expenses while performing in their public capacity covered.

      As an aside, the claim that they "pay" income taxes is all just for show. Their salaries come OUT of the tax pool, so the taxes they pay simply go back into the same pool; no net increase in the govt's tax coffers; it's literally pointless. They don't pay shit, and they know it. They just like to say they're "taxpayers" so they can pretend to empathize with us.
      HECK YEAH! They are ACTING like highschool dropouts, they should be paid likewise. And the idea that they should be paid more to keep them honest is DUMB. Among other things they have done they have:

      1. created laws to allow them to denigrate any and every one with IMPUNITY!
      2. overlooked major laws, and stopped them from stopping their "careers".
      3. had whole "careers" affecting things they know NOTHING about.
      4. had "careers" DEMANDING intense reading, explanation, and debate, and refuse to do NONE of that.
      5. gotten insider information that the average American doesn't even know EXISTS!
      6. been allowed to use insider information.
      7. been such can possibly kill a person, confess, and STILL go to place a vote for their side or who knows what.
      8. given themselves raises even when the rest of the country suffers.
      9. given themselves bodyguards, special funds, etc...
      10. etc....

      The $175,000 is just what they are OFFICIALLY paid. The government pays them more than that. The DO get insurance and pensions also, to name just two.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9099899].message }}

Trending Topics