Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jun 14, 2006.
Now if only we could tie a cost of living increase to the minimum wage. End pipe dream.
those poor guys and gals. barely scraping by... what great service to their country they do!
Bastards should be ashamed of themselves. $168K for a part time job.
Yep, Congress is out of touch with the American people. Stopping homos from getting married, putting out the rash of flag-burning that's going on, and giving themselves a raise. That's what the American people want to see. Not any action on the situation in Iraq, or the situation in New Orleans, or the corruption in Washington, or high fuel prices, or an expanding economy that is leaving middle class wages behind... No, the American people don't want to see any action in those areas. Just the important stuff. Like raises for politicians whose salaries already put them in the upper echelon of earners.
Ah.. just in time to get the full benefit of those new tax cuts!
Wait, hold on a minute... I've got a congressman?
Man I would really love to see the minimum wage tied to Congress peoples salary. Even if it were as gross as 10x the minimum wage for a 40 hour week 52 weeks a year the Minimum wage would be up to $8.10/hour. That still only equates to $16,850.00/year for minimum wage but it's a lot better than the $10,712.00 that we're currently sitting at...
The Federal Minimum Wage is a joke. And that's no joke.
Lets just vote out all incumbants every single one. Just to see what happens.
Isn't this kind of like giving a raise/bonus to the executives as a company falls deeper and deeper into debt and losses? Shouldn't they be voting themselves a pay cut since the government is so far in debt? (I realize that it would be an insignificant blip on the federal budget but when trying to get debt under control the last thing you do is increase spending in any way no matter how insignificant the amount seems.)
Why don't the pay raises have to pass through a general election? At least the President's salary has to be raised by Congress, why does Congress hold it's own purse strings?
a blip financially, yes, but it would be hugely symbolic. they can't even figure out what a very affordable $2k pay cut each would buy them in terms of goodwill. short-sighted idiots.
it used to be the case that congress had to vote itself a pay raise, now it merely has to not vote itself stopping the pay raise. that's the opposite direction of putting it to the people.
who would probably drop it to minimum wage or less
I completely agree. I only added the disclaimer to avoid the argument that voting themselves a pay cut would not have any significant impact. But it would look really good, and conservatives might actually look *gasp* conservative....
It's actually a very conservative thing to do, you know -- looking out for your pocketbook, even at the expense of everyone else. Bush should be proud that Congress is learning the lessons of the modern conservative movement.
In effect, they do...sort of. The 27th Amendment stipulates that a raise cannot take effect until the next term of Congress.
Term limits would put an end to this nonsense. If a raise would only benefit their successors, you can rest assured they probably wouldn't do it.
Yeah but ... remember, we have to make sure members of Congress are well paid else they'll be bought by big business and tempted by bribes and descend into a mire of corruption ...
... oh, wait a moment ...
Yeah, but term limits introduces a whole new set of problems, as we've discovered in California. The largest of these (besides tossing out any decent people who manage to get themselves elected) is that you aren't likely to have much in-depth knowledge of the areas of the committee that you sit on. And with term limits, as soon as you're really getting to know you subject matter, you're out.
And besides, we've also discovered that term limits don't actually limit the amount of time a bad politician spends in government. It just forces them to move from one elected seat to another every time they are term-limited out of an office. They're still around, just mucking things up in a different place, and still without any real knowledge.
Points well taken, but that raises the question of how many politicians can be labelled "good" (as well as how we arrive at such a decision). Given the current state of things, the benefits just might outweigh the costs.
On a side note, could one of our across-the-pond friends enlighten us as to how much an MP makes, and how that compares to the national median/average/mean/other statistics?
Not to mention, term limiting members of Congress would require an amendment to the Constitution -- which would have to be passed by Congress. So I think we can safely forget about that idea, even if it did have merit.
Constitutional amendments are for important things.. like defining marriage.
Actually the lack of knowledge is far more important than tossing out the (admittedly) few decent politicians. When you have people who don't know beans about transportation issues sitting on the committee for transportation, it's a virtual guarantee that you will get poor legislation that favors the folks who were able to pay to put their wording in the law.