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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or reality sets in. And if you pay them shit. They'll find even more ways than they currently do to get wealthy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments