Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The direction is controlled by the house and the Senate. One is gop controlled and the other dem controlled. It has to get by both.
What do you think should be the proper procedure to give them raises? Or do you think they shouldn't get raises and should be paid the same amount they were getting paid originally?
Personally, i don't think they should be paid. It's not a job. It's a duty IMO.
Not paying them is an effective way to make sure that only independently wealthy people ever have a say in politics. Now, there are other ways we effectively accomplish the same thing, but I think we should be moving toward a more equitable system, not a less equitable system.
Not all that different than status quo
That's why the sentence you cut out read "Now, there are other ways we effectively accomplish the same thing, but I think we should be moving toward a more equitable system, not a less equitable system."Not all that different than status quo
No complaints. I'm sure the Democratic caucus will take this extra money and distribute it among the working poor in their districts. From (Congress) to those according to their needs.
A lot of dem Congress members claim they are the party of the middle class, but have no issues supporting pay increases when the majority are. Worth millions. They seem to be the New England Patriots of Congress
It’s not the money it’s the principle of it. If I had done my job as poorly as Congress has since 2009 (and long before btw) I wouldn’t have a job much less be discussing a raise. Truth be told if my business functioned like Congress has we’d have been out of business inside of 2 yrs.
How long ago they had one is irrelevant. What matters is how much they make right now. 174k plus great benefits is overpaid for what they do for us.
Then we need to stop reelecting the same mother####ers over and over again. If Americans want change then do it. Quit reelecting these fools .
Do you think your congressman is doing a poor job representing you? Do the majority of voters in your district think that he/she is doing a poor job representing them? If not, you should be working to vote that person out in the next election.
Sure there are definitely some good ones I’m sure. And you are correct they are kind of like a union when they negotiate so yes I’m then viewing them as a whole and comparing the productively of 538 members. It’s the only thing we can do, view them as a whole. And as a whole the are an ineffective partisan self enriching disaster.
I think the exact opposite it true. The only thing any of us have any control over is who our own elected representative is, which was the point of my post above. Looking at congress a a collective instead of as 538 individuals representing their own district is exactly the wrong way to look at it.
For voting purposes I completely agree but for raises I disagree. The idea of giving a raise for 538 people based on the work of one individual makes no sense.
Same amount is more than adequate compensation. This job was meant to be a public servant. Not to be a top 5% income type of position.
I think there a number of people in Congress doing a good job.
I just have a hard time thinking of them as different things. Maybe I'm naive but I have to assume that if someone keeps getting re-elected every two years, their constituents must think they are doing a good job.
That is not the case in many districts. Many in congress run unopposed every election without competition.
If the position paid $20 million a year, I guarantee you that nobody would run unopposed.
You know that is absurd. Considering that the job pays in the top 5% of all earners is a dam good wage.
There is some truth to that, although a certain percentage of voters always vote for the incumbent, irrespective of how poorly they are doing in their job.
The problem I have with the golf is that trump gave Obama a ton of #### for it and now he plays more, at a significant higher cost to taxpayers, than Obama did. It’s absurdly hypocritical and shouldn’t be overlooked as evidence to his credibility.
That too of course. But my understanding is that such cost comes from paying to secure his safety during these trips. So, unless he played Camp David more, the cost to taxpayers is probably around the same whether he plays Trump National or any other country club. In a sense then whether he lines his pockets or some else’s in the private sector it’s essentially irrelevant b/c the cost is the same.
That's his point. Though, I think he means Andrews, not Camp David, as there is not a golf course at Camp David. Or even Ft. Belvoir.
Yeah, it's the people making $160K driving up the cost of living in DC. Definitely not the armies of government contractors and private sector attorneys and lobbyists and tech people making seven figures. That's why the cost of living is so much lower in similar American cities with thriving industries and lower rates of public sector employment like Boston, San Francisco and New York.
