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
-
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.PurpleThrobber said:63k. Pfft.
You live in a fantasy world at that number.
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. -
I
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.SFGbob said:
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.
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:I
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.SFGbob said:
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.
Should someone who only shows up for work 1/3 of the year get paid for a full year's work? -
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.2001400ex said:
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.
-
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?oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.
-
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.2001400ex said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:I
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.SFGbob said:
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.
Should someone who only shows up for work 1/3 of the year get paid for a full year's work? -
Weird - Adams, Jefferson and Madison - the authors of the Constitution...all lawyers.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.
-
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:I
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.SFGbob said:
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.
Should someone who only shows up for work 1/3 of the year get paid for a full year's work? -
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.2001400ex said:
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?oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.
-
In this online world, is it even really necessary for Washington to continue to exist as it currently does? Congressmen can live and work in their own districts and hold votes remotely, as well as policy discussions. Removing them physically from DC might actually be a good thing. They can live in their own districts, and receive the median pay that households in their districts receive.2001400ex said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.oregonblitzkrieg said:I
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.SFGbob said:
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.
Should someone who only shows up for work 1/3 of the year get paid for a full year's work? -
I didn't say they all have to be lawyers. But most should be knowledgeable of the law. There are other skills that are valuable. But if you have no one who knows the law, they won't be productive either.oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.2001400ex said:
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?oregonblitzkrieg said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.
-
What does this have to do with 5g mind control technology?
-
Do you think AOC made 63K brewing coffee at Starbucks or wherever it was she worked? Tying Congressional pay to the median household income would incentivize most representatives in Congress to make their primary focus increasing income for all Americans, and not wasting taxpayer money that is not theirs to waste on shit and garbage like Middle East wars. It would lead to lower taxes because by and large, you wouldn't have out of touch loons who are not really affected by tax increases, in office constantly plotting new ways to increase taxation on everyone to fund their pet projects, like the Green New Socialist Deal.SFGbob said:
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. -
Or reality sets in. And if you pay them shit. They'll find even more ways than they currently do to get wealthy.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Do you think AOC made 63K brewing coffee at Starbucks or wherever it was she worked? Tying Congressional pay to the median household income would incentivize most representatives in Congress to make their primary focus increasing income for all Americans, and not wasting taxpayer money that is not theirs to waste on shit and garbage like Middle East wars. It would lead to lower taxes because by and large, you wouldn't have out of touch loons who are not really affected by tax increases, in office constantly plotting new ways to increase taxation on everyone to fund their pet projects, like the Green New Socialist Deal.SFGbob said:
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. -
Your idea is so fucking stupid. Middle East wars MAKE money. Why do you think politicians love them so much? Boeing loves war. Northrop Grumman loves war. Halliburton loves war. Outside of government spending politicians have very little power to increase incomes.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Do you think AOC made 63K brewing coffee at Starbucks or wherever it was she worked? Tying Congressional pay to the median household income would incentivize most representatives in Congress to make their primary focus increasing income for all Americans, and not wasting taxpayer money that is not theirs to waste on shit and garbage like Middle East wars. It would lead to lower taxes because by and large, you wouldn't have out of touch loons who are not really affected by tax increases, in office constantly plotting new ways to increase taxation on everyone to fund their pet projects, like the Green New Socialist Deal.SFGbob said:
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. -
These companies will need to be dealt with in some form or another if their thirst for war profit and bribery of the political system is the driving force behind the international policies of the flunkeys that pretend to serve the interests of the USA and the American people in Congress.Rubberfist said:
Your idea is so fucking stupid. Middle East wars MAKE money. Why do you think politicians love them so much? Boeing loves war. Northrop Grumman loves war. Halliburton loves war. Outside of government spending politicians have very little power to increase incomes.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Do you think AOC made 63K brewing coffee at Starbucks or wherever it was she worked? Tying Congressional pay to the median household income would incentivize most representatives in Congress to make their primary focus increasing income for all Americans, and not wasting taxpayer money that is not theirs to waste on shit and garbage like Middle East wars. It would lead to lower taxes because by and large, you wouldn't have out of touch loons who are not really affected by tax increases, in office constantly plotting new ways to increase taxation on everyone to fund their pet projects, like the Green New Socialist Deal.SFGbob said:
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.
