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 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.
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.
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.
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...
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 don’t want average people representing me. I want people properly incented to leave their career at whatever stage that may be.
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.
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.
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’ll get bigger shitfucks at $63k.
Or extremely wealthy individuals who don’t GAF about $63k
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 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.
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.
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.
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...
Should I call you a Kunt just to get us back on the right foot?
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 don’t want average people representing me. I want people properly incented to leave their career at whatever stage that may be.
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.
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.
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’ll get bigger shitfucks at $63k.
Or extremely wealthy individuals who don’t GAF about $63k
I don’t want a $63k shitfuck
You're starting to sound like Hondo. Does he pay you 200k to flip burgers at his high rolling burger joint?
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you lowered the pay to $63K the only people who could afford to do the job would be people who are already wealthy.
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.
Again, that is the median household income in America. Most of America is living in a fantasy world. Or maybe it's just you, living the fantasy that you will have your interests represented by politicians who are paid several times the median income of the average American citizen.
If Congress wants to increase its own pay, it can start pursuing policies that increase the take home pay of the average American. Policies like decreasing taxes, for example.
OBK ranted about this a year ago before her self imposed exodus. At least she's rolled back the bit about forcing them to sleep in government funded army style barracks.
Term limits is a good starting point. Seems like there is some rare mutual agreement here.
I stand with Throbs on the pay. $63k vs $200k is not going to put a dent in our budget problems. Anyone in Congress is going to work way more than a standard 40 hour work week. There is so much external outreach and stakeholder bullshit that's required. Plus you're constantly getting shit on by some portion of your constituents. The job would suck. I wouldn't do it for $200k and I'm exactly the kind of generational talent that Throbs wants representing him.
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.
If you lowered the pay to $63K the only people who could afford to do the job would be people who are already wealthy.
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.
You are missing one of the primary points of this thread: the fact that Congress only works 1/3 of the year. The average American household has one or more people working 40 hours a week, taking in a median income of 63k. If Congress starts actually doing its job and showing up for work more than 33% of the year, then the pay can be increased.
Should someone who only shows up for work 1/3 of the year get paid for a full year's work?
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.
If you lowered the pay to $63K the only people who could afford to do the job would be people who are already wealthy.
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.
You are missing one of the primary points of this thread: the fact that Congress only works 1/3 of the year. The average American household has one or more people working 40 hours a week, taking in a median income of 63k. If Congress starts actually doing its job and showing up for work more than 33% of the year, then the pay can be increased.
Should someone who only shows up for work 1/3 of the year get paid for a full year's work?
People in Congress "work" way more than 1/3 of the year. That's the dumbest argument you have. Not only is your math incorrect using the number of days in house. In effect, they are "working" on recess as well.
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.
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.
Good. More than half of Congressmen are lawyers or former lawyers, and look where that got us. We need less lawyers in Congress, and wider representation of other occupations. The founders never intended this country to be run by lawyers.
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.
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.
Good. More than half of Congressmen are lawyers or former lawyers, and look where that got us. We need less lawyers in Congress, and wider representation of other occupations. The founders never intended this country to be run by lawyers.
You do realize that the primary job of Congress is to write laws. Right? Don't you think that knowledge of the law would be a prerequisite for most lawmakers?
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.
If you lowered the pay to $63K the only people who could afford to do the job would be people who are already wealthy.
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.
You are missing one of the primary points of this thread: the fact that Congress only works 1/3 of the year. The average American household has one or more people working 40 hours a week, taking in a median income of 63k. If Congress starts actually doing its job and showing up for work more than 33% of the year, then the pay can be increased.
Should someone who only shows up for work 1/3 of the year get paid for a full year's work?
People in Congress "work" way more than 1/3 of the year. That's the dumbest argument you have. Not only is your math incorrect using the number of days in house. In effect, they are "working" on recess as well.
I'm not concerned about anything they do on recess. That is on their own dime. They are not on the clock, and therefore should not get paid. If they want to work harder stumping for votes during recess in order to get a second term, that in itself is incentive enough to keep them working overtime for the people in their district.
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.
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.
Good. More than half of Congressmen are lawyers or former lawyers, and look where that got us. We need less lawyers in Congress, and wider representation of other occupations. The founders never intended this country to be run by lawyers.
Weird - Adams, Jefferson and Madison - the authors of the Constitution...all lawyers.
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.
If you lowered the pay to $63K the only people who could afford to do the job would be people who are already wealthy.
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.
You are missing one of the primary points of this thread: the fact that Congress only works 1/3 of the year. The average American household has one or more people working 40 hours a week, taking in a median income of 63k. If Congress starts actually doing its job and showing up for work more than 33% of the year, then the pay can be increased.
Should someone who only shows up for work 1/3 of the year get paid for a full year's work?
People in Congress "work" way more than 1/3 of the year. That's the dumbest argument you have. Not only is your math incorrect using the number of days in house. In effect, they are "working" on recess as well.
I'm not concerned about anything they do on recess. That is on their own dime. They are not on the clock, and therefore should not get paid. If they want to work harder stumping for votes during recess in order to get a second term, that in itself is incentive enough to keep them working overtime for the people in their district.
So having Town Halls and connecting with their constituents isn't productive to what they are paid for? I'm more concerned with the time they are in DC and how much they waste arguing with each other rather than legislating change for the people who pay them to be there.
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.
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.
Good. More than half of Congressmen are lawyers or former lawyers, and look where that got us. We need less lawyers in Congress, and wider representation of other occupations. The founders never intended this country to be run by lawyers.
You do realize that the primary job of Congress is to write laws. Right? Don't you think that knowledge of the law would be a prerequisite for most lawmakers?
Common sense, business knowledge, negotiating skills, statesmanship, are just as valuable in running a country, if not more so, than anything a lawyer brings to the table. Besides, half of these idiots don't know the first thing about the rule of law. Look at what they're doing in California. Look at what they're doing in the House of Representatives. Not following the law at all.
Comments
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?
You live in a fantasy world at that number.
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.
If Congress wants to increase its own pay, it can start pursuing policies that increase the take home pay of the average American. Policies like decreasing taxes, for example.
Term limits is a good starting point. Seems like there is some rare mutual agreement here.
I stand with Throbs on the pay. $63k vs $200k is not going to put a dent in our budget problems. Anyone in Congress is going to work way more than a standard 40 hour work week. There is so much external outreach and stakeholder bullshit that's required. Plus you're constantly getting shit on by some portion of your constituents. The job would suck. I wouldn't do it for $200k and I'm exactly the kind of generational talent that Throbs wants representing him.
Should someone who only shows up for work 1/3 of the year get paid for a full year's work?