Cut the Pay and Benefits of Congress
Congress takes a full month off in August, and is about to start their 'Christmas Recess' in October. In October. Let that sink in. Meanwhile the typical American worker will get 1 to 2 weeks off for Christmas, if at all.
Save the taxpayer more money, and cut the pay and benefits of Congress to better reflect the actual time they put in, and value they contribute to society (which isn't very much at all).
Comments
-
Nah. Pay is fine. Nothing special.
Eliminate campaign contribution from unions, PACs and corporations and shit will clean up fast. Limit individual contributions to set amount.
Enact term limits. Two terms in Senate. Four in the House.
Limit employment with government contractors and company boards for five years after term ends unless previously on board prior to election.
Problems pretty well solved.
-
Agree. Members of Congress spend about 2/3rds of their time fundraising. Like Throbber mentioned in another thread get the money out of elections so these representatives can actually spend their time working and less time wooing the all mighty dollar as well.
-
ThisPurpleThrobber said:Nah. Pay is fine. Nothing special.
Eliminate campaign contribution from unions, PACs and corporations and shit will clean up fast. Limit individual contributions to set amount.
Enact term limits. Two terms in Senate. Four in the House.
Limit employment with government contractors and company boards for five years after term ends unless previously on board prior to election.
Problems pretty well solved. -
You're conflating two issues, corruption and Congressional pay and benefits. The issue is saving the taxpayer money by reducing Congressional pay and benefits to something more aligned with what the average American gets paid and the benefits the average American receives upon retirement.PurpleThrobber said:Nah. Pay is fine. Nothing special.
Eliminate campaign contribution from unions, PACs and corporations and shit will clean up fast. Limit individual contributions to set amount.
Enact term limits. Two terms in Senate. Four in the House.
Limit employment with government contractors and company boards for five years after term ends unless previously on board prior to election.
Problems pretty well solved. -
You sound poor. There's zero chance I'd ever work for Congress for only $200k a year. The pay is fine. I agree with throbber other than I'd completely eliminate the lobbying system.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You're conflating two issues, corruption and Congressional pay and benefits. The issue is saving the taxpayer money by reducing Congressional pay and benefits to something more aligned with what the average American gets paid and the benefits the average American receives upon retirement.PurpleThrobber said:Nah. Pay is fine. Nothing special.
Eliminate campaign contribution from unions, PACs and corporations and shit will clean up fast. Limit individual contributions to set amount.
Enact term limits. Two terms in Senate. Four in the House.
Limit employment with government contractors and company boards for five years after term ends unless previously on board prior to election.
Problems pretty well solved. -
You don't have a job. HTH.2001400ex said:
You sound poor. There's zero chance I'd ever work for Congress for only $200k a year. The pay is fine. I agree with throbber other than I'd completely eliminate the lobbying system.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You're conflating two issues, corruption and Congressional pay and benefits. The issue is saving the taxpayer money by reducing Congressional pay and benefits to something more aligned with what the average American gets paid and the benefits the average American receives upon retirement.PurpleThrobber said:Nah. Pay is fine. Nothing special.
Eliminate campaign contribution from unions, PACs and corporations and shit will clean up fast. Limit individual contributions to set amount.
Enact term limits. Two terms in Senate. Four in the House.
Limit employment with government contractors and company boards for five years after term ends unless previously on board prior to election.
Problems pretty well solved. -
Average household median income was $63,000 in 2018. The average pension benefits for someone over 65 in the private sector was 10K.
Reduce Congressional pay to 63,000 a year. If you factor in all the time they take off, it is the same as paying someone 126K who does the same job but who actually works 5 days a week. Reduce their pension from 100K a year to 10K or less.
Serving 2 to 4 years in Congress should not get you a 100K yearly paycheck for life. Funded by the taxpayers. Fund your own damn retirement, or get another jerb. -
You are technically correct for once. Business owners are not employees.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You don't have a job. HTH.2001400ex said:
You sound poor. There's zero chance I'd ever work for Congress for only $200k a year. The pay is fine. I agree with throbber other than I'd completely eliminate the lobbying system.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You're conflating two issues, corruption and Congressional pay and benefits. The issue is saving the taxpayer money by reducing Congressional pay and benefits to something more aligned with what the average American gets paid and the benefits the average American receives upon retirement.PurpleThrobber said:Nah. Pay is fine. Nothing special.
Eliminate campaign contribution from unions, PACs and corporations and shit will clean up fast. Limit individual contributions to set amount.
Enact term limits. Two terms in Senate. Four in the House.
Limit employment with government contractors and company boards for five years after term ends unless previously on board prior to election.
Problems pretty well solved. -
I don’t want average people representing me. I want people properly incented to leave their career at whatever stage that may be.oregonblitzkrieg said:Average household median income was $63,000 in 2018. The average pension benefits for someone over 65 in the private sector was 10K.
Reduce Congressional pay to 63,000 a year. If you factor in all the time they take off, it is the same as paying someone 126K who does the same job but who actually works 5 days a week. Reduce their pension from 100K a year to 10K or less.
Serving 2 to 4 years in Congress should not get you a 100K yearly paycheck for life. Funded by the taxpayers. Fund your own damn retirement, or get another jerb.
I want exceptional people as representatives. People who have achieved some level of success. Exceptional people aren’t settling for what they could probably pull in the private sector.
You get shitfucks and unemployed at $63K.
-
This is not factually correct.oregonblitzkrieg said:Average household median income was $63,000 in 2018. The average pension benefits for someone over 65 in the private sector was 10K.
Reduce Congressional pay to 63,000 a year. If you factor in all the time they take off, it is the same as paying someone 126K who does the same job but who actually works 5 days a week. Reduce their pension from 100K a year to 10K or less.
Serving 2 to 4 years in Congress should not get you a 100K yearly paycheck for life. Funded by the taxpayers. Fund your own damn retirement, or get another jerb.
A senator or representative’s retirement benefits are based on their plan, age and how long they served. No member of Congress is eligible for his or her pension unless he or she has served for at least five years. To collect their full pensions, congressmen must be at least 62, or at least 50 with 25 years of service.
By federal law, senators and representatives cannot earn their full salary in retirement. The most a congressman can earn after the leave office is 80% of their final salary. However, he or she would have had to have served 67 years to earn that top percentage.
https://smartasset.com/retirement/congress-retirement-plans -
Not true. But you don’t know much about corporations. Tell us again how self employment tax works. That was a hoot. Idiot.2001400ex said:
You are technically correct for once. Business owners are not employees.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You don't have a job. HTH.2001400ex said:
You sound poor. There's zero chance I'd ever work for Congress for only $200k a year. The pay is fine. I agree with throbber other than I'd completely eliminate the lobbying system.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You're conflating two issues, corruption and Congressional pay and benefits. The issue is saving the taxpayer money by reducing Congressional pay and benefits to something more aligned with what the average American gets paid and the benefits the average American receives upon retirement.PurpleThrobber said:Nah. Pay is fine. Nothing special.
Eliminate campaign contribution from unions, PACs and corporations and shit will clean up fast. Limit individual contributions to set amount.
Enact term limits. Two terms in Senate. Four in the House.
Limit employment with government contractors and company boards for five years after term ends unless previously on board prior to election.
Problems pretty well solved. -
AOC says hello.PurpleThrobber said:
I don’t want average people representing me. I want people properly incented to leave their career at whatever stage that may be.oregonblitzkrieg said:Average household median income was $63,000 in 2018. The average pension benefits for someone over 65 in the private sector was 10K.
Reduce Congressional pay to 63,000 a year. If you factor in all the time they take off, it is the same as paying someone 126K who does the same job but who actually works 5 days a week. Reduce their pension from 100K a year to 10K or less.
Serving 2 to 4 years in Congress should not get you a 100K yearly paycheck for life. Funded by the taxpayers. Fund your own damn retirement, or get another jerb.
I want exceptional people as representatives. People who have achieved some level of success. Exceptional people aren’t settling for what they could probably pull in the private sector.
You get shitfucks and unemployed at $63K. -
You're never going to get money out of elections. The only way is to reduce the power and the authority of the Congress and the Federal Government so that no one thinks it benefits them to give money in order to curry influence and favor.GDS said:Agree. Members of Congress spend about 2/3rds of their time fundraising. Like Throbber mentioned in another thread get the money out of elections so these representatives can actually spend their time working and less time wooing the all mighty dollar as well.
-
I rest my case.2001400ex said:
AOC says hello.PurpleThrobber said:
I don’t want average people representing me. I want people properly incented to leave their career at whatever stage that may be.oregonblitzkrieg said:Average household median income was $63,000 in 2018. The average pension benefits for someone over 65 in the private sector was 10K.
Reduce Congressional pay to 63,000 a year. If you factor in all the time they take off, it is the same as paying someone 126K who does the same job but who actually works 5 days a week. Reduce their pension from 100K a year to 10K or less.
Serving 2 to 4 years in Congress should not get you a 100K yearly paycheck for life. Funded by the taxpayers. Fund your own damn retirement, or get another jerb.
I want exceptional people as representatives. People who have achieved some level of success. Exceptional people aren’t settling for what they could probably pull in the private sector.
You get shitfucks and unemployed at $63K. -
They have been trying to limit money in elections forever and unless you're going to do things that are plainly unConstitutional it isn't going to work.
Why do people spend so much money to get elected to an office that only pays $180K a year? Because of the power you acquire and the ability to make yourself extremely wealthy if you stay in office long enough.
Change that, and you'll get money out of politics. -
You're over-simplifying one major issue.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You're conflating two issues, corruption and Congressional pay and benefits. The issue is saving the taxpayer money by reducing Congressional pay and benefits to something more aligned with what the average American gets paid and the benefits the average American receives upon retirement.PurpleThrobber said:Nah. Pay is fine. Nothing special.
Eliminate campaign contribution from unions, PACs and corporations and shit will clean up fast. Limit individual contributions to set amount.
Enact term limits. Two terms in Senate. Four in the House.
Limit employment with government contractors and company boards for five years after term ends unless previously on board prior to election.
Problems pretty well solved.
But still... -
The people representing you are career politicians. Not 'exceptional people.' HTFH. If your definition of exceptional is how much money the candidate has made, then someone like Hunter Biden should suffice, right? He qualifies as exceptional under your definition.PurpleThrobber said:
I don’t want average people representing me. I want people properly incented to leave their career at whatever stage that may be.oregonblitzkrieg said:Average household median income was $63,000 in 2018. The average pension benefits for someone over 65 in the private sector was 10K.
Reduce Congressional pay to 63,000 a year. If you factor in all the time they take off, it is the same as paying someone 126K who does the same job but who actually works 5 days a week. Reduce their pension from 100K a year to 10K or less.
Serving 2 to 4 years in Congress should not get you a 100K yearly paycheck for life. Funded by the taxpayers. Fund your own damn retirement, or get another jerb.
I want exceptional people as representatives. People who have achieved some level of success. Exceptional people aren’t settling for what they could probably pull in the private sector.
You get shitfucks and unemployed at $63K.
Your 'exceptional people' have put the country under trillions of dollars of debt, have got us into countless wars, have bilked trillions of dollars of tax payer money for these wars and their endless pet projects. The party representing one half of America wants to shred your constitutional rights. Your exceptional people angle is weak.
By the people for the people. If the average American household makes $63,000 a year, so should the Congressman who is representing that household. He will better serve the interests of the people if he lives under the same conditions as the people he represents. This will eliminate some people who are in it only for the money. So what. That might be a good thing. It won't eliminate people who are only in it for the power, though. Term limits deals with that. That is another issue altogether. -
You could by ending all contributions to candidates, PACs etc but it would cut into people's first amendment rights. According to Open Secrets we? spent 6.5 billion on the 2016 election which supports a lot of "jobs" hence why it will never happen.SFGbob said:
You're never going to get money out of elections. The only way is to reduce the power and the authority of the Congress and the Federal Government so that no one thinks it benefits them to give money in order to curry influence and favor.GDS said:Agree. Members of Congress spend about 2/3rds of their time fundraising. Like Throbber mentioned in another thread get the money out of elections so these representatives can actually spend their time working and less time wooing the all mighty dollar as well.
-
They have been trying to limit money in elections forever and unless you're going to do things that are plainly unConstitutional it isn't going to work.GDS said:
You could by ending all contributions to candidates, PACs etc but it would cut into people's first amendment rights. According to Open Secrets we? spent 6.5 billion on the 2016 election which supports a lot of "jobs" hence why it will never happen.SFGbob said:
You're never going to get money out of elections. The only way is to reduce the power and the authority of the Congress and the Federal Government so that no one thinks it benefits them to give money in order to curry influence and favor.GDS said:Agree. Members of Congress spend about 2/3rds of their time fundraising. Like Throbber mentioned in another thread get the money out of elections so these representatives can actually spend their time working and less time wooing the all mighty dollar as well.
-
Your case is weak.PurpleThrobber said:
I rest my case.2001400ex said:
AOC says hello.PurpleThrobber said:
I don’t want average people representing me. I want people properly incented to leave their career at whatever stage that may be.oregonblitzkrieg said:Average household median income was $63,000 in 2018. The average pension benefits for someone over 65 in the private sector was 10K.
Reduce Congressional pay to 63,000 a year. If you factor in all the time they take off, it is the same as paying someone 126K who does the same job but who actually works 5 days a week. Reduce their pension from 100K a year to 10K or less.
Serving 2 to 4 years in Congress should not get you a 100K yearly paycheck for life. Funded by the taxpayers. Fund your own damn retirement, or get another jerb.
I want exceptional people as representatives. People who have achieved some level of success. Exceptional people aren’t settling for what they could probably pull in the private sector.
You get shitfucks and unemployed at $63K. -
didn't see that reply before I wrote my post. We have agreed on two separate points today...getting awful cold in hell I hear...SFGbob said:
They have been trying to limit money in elections forever and unless you're going to do things that are plainly unConstitutional it isn't going to work.GDS said:
You could by ending all contributions to candidates, PACs etc but it would cut into people's first amendment rights. According to Open Secrets we? spent 6.5 billion on the 2016 election which supports a lot of "jobs" hence why it will never happen.SFGbob said:
You're never going to get money out of elections. The only way is to reduce the power and the authority of the Congress and the Federal Government so that no one thinks it benefits them to give money in order to curry influence and favor.GDS said:Agree. Members of Congress spend about 2/3rds of their time fundraising. Like Throbber mentioned in another thread get the money out of elections so these representatives can actually spend their time working and less time wooing the all mighty dollar as well.
-
You’ll get bigger shitfucks at $63k.oregonblitzkrieg said:
The people representing you are career politicians. Not 'exceptional people.' HTFH. If your definition of exceptional is how much money the candidate has made, then someone like Hunter Biden should suffice, right? He qualifies as exceptional under your definition.PurpleThrobber said:
I don’t want average people representing me. I want people properly incented to leave their career at whatever stage that may be.oregonblitzkrieg said:Average household median income was $63,000 in 2018. The average pension benefits for someone over 65 in the private sector was 10K.
Reduce Congressional pay to 63,000 a year. If you factor in all the time they take off, it is the same as paying someone 126K who does the same job but who actually works 5 days a week. Reduce their pension from 100K a year to 10K or less.
Serving 2 to 4 years in Congress should not get you a 100K yearly paycheck for life. Funded by the taxpayers. Fund your own damn retirement, or get another jerb.
I want exceptional people as representatives. People who have achieved some level of success. Exceptional people aren’t settling for what they could probably pull in the private sector.
You get shitfucks and unemployed at $63K.
Your 'exceptional people' have put the country under trillions of dollars of debt, have got us into countless wars, have bilked trillions of dollars of tax payer money for these wars and their endless pet projects. The party representing one half of America wants to shred your constitutional rights. Your exceptional people angle is weak.
By the people for the people. If the average American household makes $63,000 a year, so should the Congressman who is representing that household. He will better serve the interests of the people if he lives under the same conditions as the people he represents. This will eliminate some people who are in it only for the money. So what. That might be a good thing. It won't eliminate people who are only in it for the power, though. Term limits deals with that. That is another issue altogether.
Or extremely wealthy individuals who don’t GAF about $63k
I don’t want a $63k shitfuck
-
I’d rather have absolute campaign finance campaign reform and term limits.
-
Should I call you a Kunt just to get us back on the right foot?GDS said:
didn't see that reply before I wrote my post. We have agreed on two separate points today...getting awful cold in hell I hear...SFGbob said:
They have been trying to limit money in elections forever and unless you're going to do things that are plainly unConstitutional it isn't going to work.GDS said:
You could by ending all contributions to candidates, PACs etc but it would cut into people's first amendment rights. According to Open Secrets we? spent 6.5 billion on the 2016 election which supports a lot of "jobs" hence why it will never happen.SFGbob said:
You're never going to get money out of elections. The only way is to reduce the power and the authority of the Congress and the Federal Government so that no one thinks it benefits them to give money in order to curry influence and favor.GDS said:Agree. Members of Congress spend about 2/3rds of their time fundraising. Like Throbber mentioned in another thread get the money out of elections so these representatives can actually spend their time working and less time wooing the all mighty dollar as well.
-
You're starting to sound like Hondo. Does he pay you 200k to flip burgers at his high rolling burger joint?PurpleThrobber said:
You’ll get bigger shitfucks at $63k.oregonblitzkrieg said:
The people representing you are career politicians. Not 'exceptional people.' HTFH. If your definition of exceptional is how much money the candidate has made, then someone like Hunter Biden should suffice, right? He qualifies as exceptional under your definition.PurpleThrobber said:
I don’t want average people representing me. I want people properly incented to leave their career at whatever stage that may be.oregonblitzkrieg said:Average household median income was $63,000 in 2018. The average pension benefits for someone over 65 in the private sector was 10K.
Reduce Congressional pay to 63,000 a year. If you factor in all the time they take off, it is the same as paying someone 126K who does the same job but who actually works 5 days a week. Reduce their pension from 100K a year to 10K or less.
Serving 2 to 4 years in Congress should not get you a 100K yearly paycheck for life. Funded by the taxpayers. Fund your own damn retirement, or get another jerb.
I want exceptional people as representatives. People who have achieved some level of success. Exceptional people aren’t settling for what they could probably pull in the private sector.
You get shitfucks and unemployed at $63K.
Your 'exceptional people' have put the country under trillions of dollars of debt, have got us into countless wars, have bilked trillions of dollars of tax payer money for these wars and their endless pet projects. The party representing one half of America wants to shred your constitutional rights. Your exceptional people angle is weak.
By the people for the people. If the average American household makes $63,000 a year, so should the Congressman who is representing that household. He will better serve the interests of the people if he lives under the same conditions as the people he represents. This will eliminate some people who are in it only for the money. So what. That might be a good thing. It won't eliminate people who are only in it for the power, though. Term limits deals with that. That is another issue altogether.
Or extremely wealthy individuals who don’t GAF about $63k
I don’t want a $63k shitfuck
You also just trashed the basic premise of your argument. You said you wanted exceptional people. According to your definition of exceptional, it's the amount of money a candidate makes. So the more money a candidate makes, the more exceptional he will be. The decision making of an extremely wealthy individual who doesn't GAF about $63k and is considering running for office (Trump for example), won't be effected by reducing Congressional pay and benefits. Reducing Congressional pay and benefits will not eliminate these exceptional people from the equation.
Median household income in the USA is 63k. All these people are 'shitfucks' according to you. Why do you hate the American people?
-
Lowering congressional pay would encourage more corruption and dirty money, if only to pay the bills.
-
It won't change anything at all. A corrupt person will still be corrupt, whether they are making 63k or 630k. The 63k figure is based on the median household income and factors in that Congress only works 1/3 of the year. If Congress wants to start working a 5 day work week like most of America does, then the pay can be bumped up to 126K. If they continue taking a ludicrous amount of time off every year, then they can make due with the 63K.PurpleThrobber said:Lowering congressional pay would encourage more corruption and dirty money, if only to pay the bills.
-
63k. Pfft.
You live in a fantasy world at that number. -
Who the fuck would leave a $63k a year job to make the same money dealing with the shit you have to deal with in Washington? Right now the system pays you on the side which is how many become millionaires. Outside of that? You aren't getting a Boeing factory worker let alone someone with actual knowledge of the law for $63k a year.oregonblitzkrieg said:
It won't change anything at all. A corrupt person will still be corrupt, whether they are making 63k or 630k. The 63k figure is based on the median household income and factors in that Congress only works 1/3 of the year. If Congress wants to start working a 5 day work week like most of America does, then the pay can be bumped up to 126K. If they continue taking a ludicrous amount of time off every year, then they can make due with the 63K.PurpleThrobber said:Lowering congressional pay would encourage more corruption and dirty money, if only to pay the bills.
-
If you lowered the pay to $63K the only people who could afford to do the job would be people who are already wealthy.oregonblitzkrieg said:
It won't change anything at all. A corrupt person will still be corrupt, whether they are making 63k or 630k. The 63k figure is based on the median household income and factors in that Congress only works 1/3 of the year. If Congress wants to start working a 5 day work week like most of America does, then the pay can be bumped up to 126K. If they continue taking a ludicrous amount of time off every year, then they can make due with the 63K.PurpleThrobber said:Lowering congressional pay would encourage more corruption and dirty money, if only to pay the bills.
Look I don’t like her politics but someone like AOC is how the system is supposed to work and lowering the pay would pretty much eliminate candidates like her and guys like Dan Crenshaw.
It’s already damn near impossible for someone who only has their Congressional salary to live in DC and maintain a residence back in their district, lowering the pay to $65K would ensure that only the rich can hold office.
