Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Cut the Pay and Benefits of Congress
Comments
-
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.
