Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rep Says Congress Needs Pay Raise

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
    I understand your point, but they GET honest pay and then some. So pay isn't the problem. If they're going to screw us regardless we should at least get screwed on the cheap.
    I don't know about honest pay. DC housing is fiendishly high, and most have to fly back and forth between their home district and DC many times a year. Plus criss-cross their district regularly. Reps with their two year terms are constantly campaigning.

    That's a lot of out-of-pocket expenses.

    If that's cutting into their standard of living, you know there will be lobbyists with a discounted DC apartment, or the use of a private plane waiting in the wings...

    I'm no great fan of Congress, but if you make it a rich man only club, you won't see any improvement.

    Nor is punishing individuals because their 535-person committee is slow and inefficient.

    I'm not sure what the answer is, but I am sure that cutting their salary will not make them better, now or in the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pirateship1982
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    How do you think violent crime stats have declined while the entire CJ system stays overworked?

    Never tie results to statistics. Otherwise its the Vietnam body count business all over again.

    Performance should be evaluated by votes, not pay.

    I'm no fan of Congress. But if the pay sucks, the only guys taking the job will be guys who are looking to get something out of the position, or who are rich enough to take it for ego's sake.

    You want honest men, give honest pay.
    I understand your point, but they GET honest pay and then some. So pay isn't the problem. If they're going to screw us regardless we should at least get screwed on the cheap.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    Term limits could put a quick stop to long term corruption.
    A lot of old time Congressmen are chairmen of certain committees. Their states don't want to lose that power. Besides, we tried that a while back in Louisiana and it did not get rid of the old power brokers. They just changed house! It never affected Congress or the Senate.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Congress needs to get real jobs and not live off of the taxpayer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    Term limits could put a quick stop to long term corruption.
    I agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Term limits could put a quick stop to long term corruption.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    I have not said only the wealthy should run. I have said I would look more seriously at a candidate with other sources of income.

    Pruitt
    Ok, that is a big difference.

    Still, that's no hedge against corruption. Just because someone has money, doesn't mean they don't want more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    I have not said only the wealthy should run. I have said I would look more seriously at a candidate with other sources of income.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    I would feel more comfortable with people running for Congress that had another income coming in. People who would propose to live on just the salary are more likely to take bribes and campaign donations that they would have to repay in some way.

    That Congressman who owes all that money? I bet he is doing everything his creditors tell him to do!

    Pruitt
    Given the number of wealthy people caught in various forms of financial skullduggery, I don't think wealth is insurance against corruption. Just because you see a person as wealthy does not mean they see themselves as wealthy.

    And do we really want the rule to be 'only the wealthy need to apply' in terms of Congress?

    Leave a comment:


  • Savez
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    So then only the rich could be in Congress. Which puts the lie to 'All men are created equal'.

    I'm torn on this issue. I'm no fan of Congress, but the idea that only the rich can hold office does not sit well with me. Yes, most Congressmen are rich, but there's a big difference between most being wealthy, and the rule of law ensuring that only the wealthy may hold the office that does not sit well with me.
    I agree. The wealthy have always seem to have a majority in Congress and even state legislatures. But I also don't believe Congress should "make" one wealthy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    I would feel more comfortable with people running for Congress that had another income coming in. People who would propose to live on just the salary are more likely to take bribes and campaign donations that they would have to repay in some way.

    That Congressman who owes all that money? I bet he is doing everything his creditors tell him to do!

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
    Why Donald Trump specifically? I don't think anyone should be paid to be in Congress.

    As for Trump specifically, I guess he has the potential to do a better job than most of those already in place. The potential to...
    So then only the rich could be in Congress. Which puts the lie to 'All men are created equal'.

    I'm torn on this issue. I'm no fan of Congress, but the idea that only the rich can hold office does not sit well with me. Yes, most Congressmen are rich, but there's a big difference between most being wealthy, and the rule of law ensuring that only the wealthy may hold the office that does not sit well with me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    There is no way that Representative can pay back his debts on a public officeholder's salary. If he got caught before taking money, he will try to take it again. These kind always keep their hand out. I am old enough to remember Adam Clayton Powell and young enough to remember Charles (Cold Cash) Jefferson. One of the crookedest politicians in Louisiana, Edwin Edwards, was never caught by the Feds who wanted him bad. They caught his son and used that to offer him a plea bargain to help his son.

    We really don't need to give this kind of politician more money.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Tsar
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
    Then only the rich can afford to be in the legislature, very few people can afford to go two years without an income.

    Which would be a valid argument (both from you and Arnold) if the rich weren’t the only ones in office now.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Bosses all over America do it to their workers all of the time. Why should these dirtbags be any different?

    This particular Democrat is drowning in millions of dollars in legal bills incurred fighting a mountain of corruption charges.
    if regular citizens can afford to live in Washing, District of Corruption, Congress creatures and Senate slime can do it too, or they can resign and try to get real jobs. No one is forcing them to live with their power and perks, paid for by the rest of us.


    The OP seems to have missed that little point.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ntcmp=HPBucket
    Which is a major point! Here's more;
    EXCERPT:
    Well, it turns out that Rep. Hastings has a few outstanding legal bills from when he was investigated on corruption charges, according to a report at the Washington Free Beacon.
    The debts include:
    • Robert Catz, $500,000 – $1 million debt incurred from 1981 to 1985
    • Terrance Anderson, $1 million – $5 million debt incurred from 1981 to 1989
    • Patricia Williams, $500,000 – $1 million debt incurred from 1981 to 1989
    • Karr and McClain, $100,000 – $250,000 debt incurred from 1983 to 1989
    • Mark McDonald, $15,000 – $50,000 debt incurred from 1981 to 1983
    • Lewis Meyers, $15,000 – $50,000 debt incurred from 1981 to 1983
    • Bright Star (Mortgage), $100,000 – $250,000 debt incurred from 2009

    All told, Rep. Hastings is more than $7.5 million in debt.
    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/05/3270...oon_newsletter
    Flattering image here;

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X