Your congressman just got a raise

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jun 14, 2006.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    AP

     
  2. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #2
    Now if only we could tie a cost of living increase to the minimum wage. End pipe dream.
     
  3. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #3
    those poor guys and gals. barely scraping by... what great service to their country they do!
     
  4. rdowns Suspended

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #4
    Bastards should be ashamed of themselves. $168K for a part time job.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    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.
     
  6. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #6
    Ah.. just in time to get the full benefit of those new tax cuts!
     
  7. calculus Guest

    calculus

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    #7
    Wait, hold on a minute... I've got a congressman?
     
  8. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #8
    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...
     
  9. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    The Federal Minimum Wage is a joke. And that's no joke.
     
  10. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #10
    Lets just vote out all incumbants:) every single one. Just to see what happens.
     
  11. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #11
    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?
     
  12. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #12
    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 :)
     
  13. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #13
    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....
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    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.
     
  15. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #15
    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.
     
  16. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #16
    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 ...
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    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.
     
  18. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #18
    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?
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    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.
     
  20. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #20
    Constitutional amendments are for important things.. like defining marriage. :rolleyes:
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    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.
     

Share This Page