|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 13 2016 05:28 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 05:26 Plansix wrote:On May 13 2016 05:19 travis wrote:On May 13 2016 05:15 Yurie wrote:On May 13 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:
Yes, the GOP, ruining a function government by fucking with the House of Representatives, one broken rule at a time. Serious, the DNC should run on the platform that they would remove the Hastert Rule once they got control of the house. Just cite how functional government was without it.
And require representatives to live in Washington. But one bridge at a time.
If you add a requirement for them to live in Washington pay for them to live there as well. Not actually living there can be cheaper, expensive city. You might also prefer to live some place else because of family etc. Simplest would be to offer to pay for standard living and if you want better you pay for the difference. Then freeze salary until that is included in it at a reasonable level. What a weird thing to say. I live just outside of DC and I am a poor student. I am pretty sure they can afford to live around DC... Who gives a shit why they want to live somewhere else... they took the job, lol I would not assume that and by adding those costs to being a civil servant, it only attracts people that can afford it. AKA, the very wealthy. Or you get politicians who are working on a thin budget, which is generally not a good thing. You don’t want people with that much power worrying about how to pay their mortgage. what would you not assume? you guys are confusing me dont congressmen make like 175k a year or something? in what way is that not enough money to live in DC?
They all have an address in their home district in say ... Utah. Typically they have some sort of apartment in DC. If you have an expensive wife and a bunch of kids and a house in another state ... 175k isn't very much.
|
On May 13 2016 05:34 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 05:28 travis wrote:On May 13 2016 05:26 Plansix wrote:On May 13 2016 05:19 travis wrote:On May 13 2016 05:15 Yurie wrote:On May 13 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:
Yes, the GOP, ruining a function government by fucking with the House of Representatives, one broken rule at a time. Serious, the DNC should run on the platform that they would remove the Hastert Rule once they got control of the house. Just cite how functional government was without it.
And require representatives to live in Washington. But one bridge at a time.
If you add a requirement for them to live in Washington pay for them to live there as well. Not actually living there can be cheaper, expensive city. You might also prefer to live some place else because of family etc. Simplest would be to offer to pay for standard living and if you want better you pay for the difference. Then freeze salary until that is included in it at a reasonable level. What a weird thing to say. I live just outside of DC and I am a poor student. I am pretty sure they can afford to live around DC... Who gives a shit why they want to live somewhere else... they took the job, lol I would not assume that and by adding those costs to being a civil servant, it only attracts people that can afford it. AKA, the very wealthy. Or you get politicians who are working on a thin budget, which is generally not a good thing. You don’t want people with that much power worrying about how to pay their mortgage. what would you not assume? you guys are confusing me dont congressmen make like 175k a year or something? in what way is that not enough money to live in DC? They all have an address in their home district in say ... Utah. Typically they have some sort of apartment in DC. If you have an expensive wife and a bunch of kids and a house in another state ... 175k isn't very much.
why should anyone ever care, no one is forcing them to take the job. people have to relocate their families for their work all the time.
I mean.. any normal person would *sell their other house*, if they couldn't afford to have two residences. But apparently these guys for some mystery reason are above that?
|
On May 13 2016 05:34 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 05:28 travis wrote:On May 13 2016 05:26 Plansix wrote:On May 13 2016 05:19 travis wrote:On May 13 2016 05:15 Yurie wrote:On May 13 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:
Yes, the GOP, ruining a function government by fucking with the House of Representatives, one broken rule at a time. Serious, the DNC should run on the platform that they would remove the Hastert Rule once they got control of the house. Just cite how functional government was without it.
And require representatives to live in Washington. But one bridge at a time.
If you add a requirement for them to live in Washington pay for them to live there as well. Not actually living there can be cheaper, expensive city. You might also prefer to live some place else because of family etc. Simplest would be to offer to pay for standard living and if you want better you pay for the difference. Then freeze salary until that is included in it at a reasonable level. What a weird thing to say. I live just outside of DC and I am a poor student. I am pretty sure they can afford to live around DC... Who gives a shit why they want to live somewhere else... they took the job, lol I would not assume that and by adding those costs to being a civil servant, it only attracts people that can afford it. AKA, the very wealthy. Or you get politicians who are working on a thin budget, which is generally not a good thing. You don’t want people with that much power worrying about how to pay their mortgage. what would you not assume? you guys are confusing me dont congressmen make like 175k a year or something? in what way is that not enough money to live in DC? They all have an address in their home district in say ... Utah. Typically they have some sort of apartment in DC. If you have an expensive wife and a bunch of kids and a house in another state ... 175k isn't very much.
There is also a good chunk of their travel that isn’t covered by government. Like going back to their districts or birthdays. Unless they move their entire family.
Lots of house reps are only in DC 3 days a week. But 20-30 years ago, they were there 5 days a week.
On May 13 2016 05:38 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 05:34 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 13 2016 05:28 travis wrote:On May 13 2016 05:26 Plansix wrote:On May 13 2016 05:19 travis wrote:On May 13 2016 05:15 Yurie wrote:On May 13 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:
Yes, the GOP, ruining a function government by fucking with the House of Representatives, one broken rule at a time. Serious, the DNC should run on the platform that they would remove the Hastert Rule once they got control of the house. Just cite how functional government was without it.
And require representatives to live in Washington. But one bridge at a time.
If you add a requirement for them to live in Washington pay for them to live there as well. Not actually living there can be cheaper, expensive city. You might also prefer to live some place else because of family etc. Simplest would be to offer to pay for standard living and if you want better you pay for the difference. Then freeze salary until that is included in it at a reasonable level. What a weird thing to say. I live just outside of DC and I am a poor student. I am pretty sure they can afford to live around DC... Who gives a shit why they want to live somewhere else... they took the job, lol I would not assume that and by adding those costs to being a civil servant, it only attracts people that can afford it. AKA, the very wealthy. Or you get politicians who are working on a thin budget, which is generally not a good thing. You don’t want people with that much power worrying about how to pay their mortgage. what would you not assume? you guys are confusing me dont congressmen make like 175k a year or something? in what way is that not enough money to live in DC? They all have an address in their home district in say ... Utah. Typically they have some sort of apartment in DC. If you have an expensive wife and a bunch of kids and a house in another state ... 175k isn't very much. why should anyone ever care, no one is forcing them to take the job. people have to relocate their families for their work all the time.
Yeah, and jobs pay for that shit a lot of the time. My buddy is moving to Sweden for 2 years and they are providing him with a lot of money to do it.
A state rep or senator is your employee who can ruin your business and you can’t fire. Do you really want to have that attitude about their pay and benefits knowing what they can do? Do you think that will attract the best of the best for the job?
|
On May 13 2016 05:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 05:34 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 13 2016 05:28 travis wrote:On May 13 2016 05:26 Plansix wrote:On May 13 2016 05:19 travis wrote:On May 13 2016 05:15 Yurie wrote:On May 13 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:
Yes, the GOP, ruining a function government by fucking with the House of Representatives, one broken rule at a time. Serious, the DNC should run on the platform that they would remove the Hastert Rule once they got control of the house. Just cite how functional government was without it.
And require representatives to live in Washington. But one bridge at a time.
If you add a requirement for them to live in Washington pay for them to live there as well. Not actually living there can be cheaper, expensive city. You might also prefer to live some place else because of family etc. Simplest would be to offer to pay for standard living and if you want better you pay for the difference. Then freeze salary until that is included in it at a reasonable level. What a weird thing to say. I live just outside of DC and I am a poor student. I am pretty sure they can afford to live around DC... Who gives a shit why they want to live somewhere else... they took the job, lol I would not assume that and by adding those costs to being a civil servant, it only attracts people that can afford it. AKA, the very wealthy. Or you get politicians who are working on a thin budget, which is generally not a good thing. You don’t want people with that much power worrying about how to pay their mortgage. what would you not assume? you guys are confusing me dont congressmen make like 175k a year or something? in what way is that not enough money to live in DC? They all have an address in their home district in say ... Utah. Typically they have some sort of apartment in DC. If you have an expensive wife and a bunch of kids and a house in another state ... 175k isn't very much. There is also a good chunk of their travel that isn’t covered by government. Like going back to their districts or birthdays. Unless they move their entire family. Lots of house reps are only in DC 3 days a week. But 20-30 years ago, they were there 5 days a week.
I have no doubt that congressmen get per diem and/or travel reimbursement... In fact, I would expect that they make PROFIT off of their travel.
|
On May 13 2016 05:38 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, and jobs pay for that shit a lot of the time. My buddy is moving to Sweden for 2 years and they are providing him with a lot of money to do it.
A state rep or senator is your employee who can ruin your business and you can’t fire. Do you really want to have that attitude about their pay and benefits knowing what they can do? Do you think that will attract the best of the best for the job?
A relocation allowance is a one time payment, not a recurring payment that will occur month after month year after year. But generally this is something that is offered in competitive positions, not... public servants.
This entire conversation is bonkers, these guys have a higher salary than literally anyone I know. They make 3 to 4 times what both of my parents who worked full time made. They can fly and stay anywhere for free. They get huge chunks of time off to do anything they want. Oh but it's still not enough. What the hell.
|
On May 13 2016 05:47 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 05:38 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, and jobs pay for that shit a lot of the time. My buddy is moving to Sweden for 2 years and they are providing him with a lot of money to do it.
A state rep or senator is your employee who can ruin your business and you can’t fire. Do you really want to have that attitude about their pay and benefits knowing what they can do? Do you think that will attract the best of the best for the job?
A relocation allowance is a one time payment, not a recurring payment that will occur month after month year after year. But generally this is something that is offered in competitive positions, not... public servants. This entire conversation is bonkers, these guys have a higher salary than literally anyone I know. They make 3 to 4 times what both of my parents who worked full time made. They can fly and stay anywhere for free. They get huge chunks of time off to do anything they want. Oh but it's still not enough. What the hell.
They do not fly or go anywhere for free, there are super strict rules for how they can travel on the government’s dime. And I would hope they would make more than anyone you know personally, they hold some of the highest offices in the country. Congressional and executive office workers are notoriously underpaid for their job and skill level. Many of the members of congress made more in the private sector.
I am not saying congress members should be given the moon, but we would all be better off if they spent more time in DC. There are money concerns that come with that.
|
Yes, what a ridiculous discussion. Most people would be glad making 175k a year. A house and an appartment is still plenty afforadble with a wage like that.
|
|
|
there is a problem if people are pursuing the job for purposes of maximizing their income!
the motivation for being a representative of the people should not be money!
sure, they should be compensated (and damn are they ever). But if there are people who want to go do something else because they will make more money then those people probably weren't suited for the job anyways! (and may be a risk to have in public office...)
|
Liberals wanting to cut the pay of congressmen and senators and are then confused why those congressmen and senators get bribed.
Welcome to the left wing.
|
On May 13 2016 05:38 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 05:34 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 13 2016 05:28 travis wrote:On May 13 2016 05:26 Plansix wrote:On May 13 2016 05:19 travis wrote:On May 13 2016 05:15 Yurie wrote:On May 13 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:
Yes, the GOP, ruining a function government by fucking with the House of Representatives, one broken rule at a time. Serious, the DNC should run on the platform that they would remove the Hastert Rule once they got control of the house. Just cite how functional government was without it.
And require representatives to live in Washington. But one bridge at a time.
If you add a requirement for them to live in Washington pay for them to live there as well. Not actually living there can be cheaper, expensive city. You might also prefer to live some place else because of family etc. Simplest would be to offer to pay for standard living and if you want better you pay for the difference. Then freeze salary until that is included in it at a reasonable level. What a weird thing to say. I live just outside of DC and I am a poor student. I am pretty sure they can afford to live around DC... Who gives a shit why they want to live somewhere else... they took the job, lol I would not assume that and by adding those costs to being a civil servant, it only attracts people that can afford it. AKA, the very wealthy. Or you get politicians who are working on a thin budget, which is generally not a good thing. You don’t want people with that much power worrying about how to pay their mortgage. what would you not assume? you guys are confusing me dont congressmen make like 175k a year or something? in what way is that not enough money to live in DC? They all have an address in their home district in say ... Utah. Typically they have some sort of apartment in DC. If you have an expensive wife and a bunch of kids and a house in another state ... 175k isn't very much. why should anyone ever care, no one is forcing them to take the job. people have to relocate their families for their work all the time. I mean.. any normal person would *sell their other house*, if they couldn't afford to have two residences. But apparently these guys for some mystery reason are above that?
It's hard to adequately represent an area if you don't have ties to it anymore. Also, reps are generally (always?) required to be residents of where they represent, which requires a legal residence, plus using it a certain amount of time.
175k is quite a fair bit; but compared to what they could be earning in private sector, it's really not much; an alternate housing allowance (or some pre-built housing for congress in DC) would be fin too.
Personally, I'd expect them to maintain two residences; otherwise I'd question how attached they are to their district.
|
On May 13 2016 06:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Liberals wanting to cut the pay of congressmen and senators and are then confused why those congressmen and senators get bribed.
Welcome to the left wing.
I thought Plansix was a liberal; and the guy wanting to lower congress pay was a conservative (travis iirc)? It's hard to keep track of all the names and who has what views.
|
On May 13 2016 06:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Liberals wanting to cut the pay of congressmen and senators and are then confused why those congressmen and senators get bribed.
Welcome to the left wing.
yeah, because the type of people who take bribes are thinking "oh, well they gave me that extra 20k on top of my normal 15k.. I definitely won't take bribes now".
those poor politicians, only taking bribes to survive.
zlefin, about them being required to keep residence in another state, can you provide proof of this? If so, *that* is actually could be a good justification for bringing up a housing allowance (assuming they did indeed have to live in DC)
|
|
|
Citizen: “$175K is more than enough for the job they are doing! They should be happy we even pay them at all.”
Congressional employee: “You know they could get 800K doing a similar job in the private sector?”
Citizen: “Well, they should go there then, if they don’t like the job! We will just find someone else!”
It is weird that a manager a Reebok Footwear often have a better grasp on this fundamentals of this discussion and why pay is relative.
On May 13 2016 06:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 06:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Liberals wanting to cut the pay of congressmen and senators and are then confused why those congressmen and senators get bribed.
Welcome to the left wing. I thought Plansix was a liberal; and the guy wanting to lower congress pay was a conservative (travis iirc)? It's hard to keep track of all the names and who has what views.
I am only a liberal some of the time. I drift pretty close to the middle on gun ownership and small businesses, but super left when it comes to publicly traded companies.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
index congress salary to private school tuition
|
On May 13 2016 06:30 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 06:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Liberals wanting to cut the pay of congressmen and senators and are then confused why those congressmen and senators get bribed.
Welcome to the left wing. yeah, because the type of people who take bribes are thinking "oh, well they gave me that extra 20k on top of my normal 15k.. I definitely won't take bribes now". those poor politicians, only taking bribes to survive. zlefin, about them being required to keep residence in another state, can you provide proof of this? If so, *that* is actually could be a good justification for bringing up a housing allowance (assuming they did indeed have to live in DC)
Politicians don't take bribes because they need to survive. People take bribes because they are payed less than they are worth.
People take bribes because they should by making X, they actually make X-Y, and then someone offers them Y.
Does that mean congressmen should make 500k-900k a year? No--but it does mean that they should be made aware that their constituents care enough to try giving them a bit more.
Same thing happens in all industries. "I could make X at Google, but this start up is really making a difference even if I make only X - Y." But if that person doesn't feel like they're making a difference, and they don't feel like they're being supported, then a recruiter shows up with offer X--that person will be swayed even if they weren't swayed before.
|
On May 13 2016 06:39 oneofthem wrote:
index congress salary to private school tuition
I would love Congress Salary to be correlated with education spending or infrastructure spending.
|
well we need to find a way to pay congressmen in a way that is enough but it's not necessarily an incentive. plus, that cushy congressional pension plus the benefits/ connections is very nice. beyond that, we see people cash out, like eric cantor lost his seat and immediately went to k street on a seven figure salary.
|
On May 13 2016 06:30 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 06:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Liberals wanting to cut the pay of congressmen and senators and are then confused why those congressmen and senators get bribed.
Welcome to the left wing. yeah, because the type of people who take bribes are thinking "oh, well they gave me that extra 20k on top of my normal 15k.. I definitely won't take bribes now". those poor politicians, only taking bribes to survive. zlefin, about them being required to keep residence in another state, can you provide proof of this? If so, *that* is actually could be a good justification for bringing up a housing allowance (assuming they did indeed have to live in DC)
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Senators_vrd.htm
http://www.house.gov/content/learn/
Both house and senate require members be residents of the state they represent. Before, when air travel was not as viable, congress members would stay in DC for weeks at a time. Members there less than ever before in the current congress.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/politics/congress-work-time/
It may not seem like a big deal, but one of the main reasons congress worked in the past was because they worked together. They didn't fly in, vote and then go home to their district. There staffs worked in the same building. That is the core part of the job. Go to the senate/house, work with the senators/reps and staff. That doesn't happen any more and it is one of the many, many, many problems with modern politics.
There are many problems in DC. But making the people we elected work a full work week in the building we hired them to work in would be a good problem to solve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
