Members of the House and Senate make $174,000 time to roll it back to $50,000!!!

[IrishBuckeye]

I'm tired of these jokers complaining about what the common man earns so I need to ask why do House and Congress members who work for us make far more than us!?

Why does the Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker is paid $137,000, use of a car and a home while demanding other workers make far less sacrife benefits!? The average salary for teachers in Wisconsin is about $48000.

The Governor of Ohio, John Kasich is paid $141,708, has use of a house, and who knows what other benefits while the average Ohio teacher salary is $50,300.


These jokes feel they deserve this kind of money but us lowly worker don't deserve even half of what they make!? FK THEM!

[PoliticAverse]

1. While you are at it, replace their pensions with Social Security... n/t

[leftstreet]

2. Make it $20k, give em food stamps, no health insurance

See if they can't come up with some new ideas

[cali]

41. really? you want to make it so a bernie sanders can't afford to be in Congress?

damn, that's stupid.

[SDuderstadt]

43. Isn't this...

Unbelievably stupid?

[cali]

52. just reading this profoundly stupid thread make my head hurt.

[proud2BlibKansan]

91. +1

[TBF]

130. It's an excellent thread. They do nothing for most of us - why should we reward that? nt

[leftstreet]

61. A person like Sanders would use that experience to help others

It would be a profound moment in his life

He'd commit to stop at nothing to see that all citizens have affordable wages, national healthcare, and security in their welfare

Right?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

141. Aren't you forgetting that most of the people in congress are independently wealthy?

[cali]

161. most is not all.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

164. True. But poor people don't get to go to congress.

That is how our system works now.

[cali]

160. huh?

[liberal N proud]

3. That is not how you solve a budget crisis

Giving more to the rich and their corporations while taking it from the poor is how you solve a budget crisis.

:sarcasm:________________________________________________________________:sarcasm:

[bottomofthehill]

4. Not a good idea, then only the rich will be able to serve

we may get the rare public servant like Senator Kennedy, but more likely to get the likes of Congressman Issa

[hobbit709]

7. How many of them are poor now"?

what's the average net worth of a congresscritter?

[cali]

53. none of them are poor.

and too many of them are wealthy, but neither of my Senators are. And neither would be there if the salary was not one they could live on.

[IrishBuckeye]

17. For $50,000 I think many qualified would be willing to work for the people.

And those are the people I want working for me.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. +1

[cali]

55. bzzzzt.

no, you just wouldn't have a Bernie Sanders there.

[disillusioned73]

174. bzzzzt.

That is YOUR opinion, don't state it as fact.

[SDuderstadt]

58. Then why aren't they willing to...

work now?

Duh.

[Kolesar]

182. you just wouldn't have a Sherrod Brown there.

You cannot keep one home in Washington, much less a second home in Ohio on a $50,000 salary.

[SDuderstadt]

184. No, no, no!

According to many in DU's shoot-first, ask-questions-later brigade, Sherrod Brown could just live in a dormitory.

I don't know about you, but I don't want my Senator or member of congress living in a dorm.

[hootinholler]

22. ROFLMAO!

Um, why would anyone spend a $million+ to get a job that pays $175K?

What do you think happens now?

-Hoot

[IrishBuckeye]

23. Over 2/3rds of Senator members are millionaires. /nm

nm

[SDuderstadt]

27. Please prove that...

BTW, your "proposal" would increase whatever percentage it actually is, because people of average means could not afford to be in either house if the pay was only $50K.

[Hannah Bell]

29. Your Senator Is (Probably) a Millionaire

About two-thirds of United States senators were millionaires in 2008, according to a recent analysis of politicians’ fortunes conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/your-senator-is-probably-a-millionaire/

half of the senate & house as a whole are millionaires, too.

[cali]

56. Nope. Neither of my Senators is a millionaire.

[IrishBuckeye]

30. Why not, what do you think the average household income is?

It's around $50,000, if you a congressman and was making $50,000 and have a wife who works you would be above the average income for household in the U.S.

On top of that your travel is paid for, you also get additional money for your household office (as well as your congressional office).

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

191. As of 2009, 44% of congresscritters were millionaires. 237 to be exact.

While that's certainly a lot, it does mean that 56% of our Representatives and Senators are not millionaires, and come from decidedly more middle class backgrounds.

If you aren't paying them enough to live and travel on, you're simply ceding Congress to the rich. 44% is ALREADY too high, IMHO.


Edited to add cite: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5553408-503544.html

[defendandprotect]

5. Exactly ... and no health care benfits -- !!

[defendandprotect]

6. MIC -- $1.2 TRILLION --

[cali]

8. that's absurd.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. you think that is absurd

have you tried living on minimum wage lately? now, that is absurd.

[cali]

44. yeah, I think it's fucking moronic. deeply and profoundly stupid.

is that clear enough for you? And btw, I'm fucking poor. So yeah, I know what it's like, but if you lower the wages that much (not that you can, because duh, Congress sets their own salary) you wouldn't have people like bernie who aren't wealthy in the Congress. There are few enough of them, but your little plan would eliminate them.

[IrishBuckeye]

45. Right, that's why there are so many millionaires who teach..../sarc

I mean could you imagine if we paid are representatives the same wage teachers made? How fucking moronic is that! /Sarc

[fishwax]

124. that argument doesn't make much sense

There are reasons that wealthy folks are willing to spend thousands (or even millions) to get a spot in the senate, and teaching doesn't provide the power or prestige of being in congress.

We should certainly pay teachers more, though.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

47. and you are entitlled to your own fucking opinion --

however deeply moronic and profoundly stupid.

[cali]

50. pathetic.

that's the best you can do? parrot back my words?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

54. cali

darling. :*

how poor are you? are you minimum wage poor and do you really think that only the rich would run if the wages were lowered? really? really?

[SDuderstadt]

57. Do you really not understand...

cause and effect??

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. oh please.

do you really think these people deserve to make the salary and do you really think that the private sector can sustain all these wages. there are no jobs. remember. the tax base is gone. talk about cause and effect.

[SDuderstadt]

63. Thanks for your...

oversimplistic (albeit incoherent) response.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

65. I worry for your reading comprehension skills and one over simplistic

post deserves another.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Why not take my challenge and...

show the math how someone could afford to be a member of Congress on $50K?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

75. why not show me how cali is making it on mimium wage?

what I think should be and what is...is 2 different things, obviously. Have a wonderful day.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Like I suspected...

you cannot show the math.

[cali]

62. Of course only the rich would run

honeypie. That's practically the way it is now- except in my state where people are sane. And yes, I'm minimum wage poor.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. I disagree --

I think a lot of qualified and altruistic people would be interested in serving their country in that capacity. It saddens me to realize that another Democrat would not think so.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Then why don't they do so now?

How would slashing their salary to $50K magically motivate more of them to run (forgetting for a moment that no one in this thread has shown the math for how they even afford to do so)?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

69. because for one thing we need campaign reform and please do not

insult me and then ask me another question. I do not take kindly to verbal abuse.

and on edit. I am out of this thread. The sun is shining and it is too pretty to be inside arguing with someone on the internet. counterproductive, I think.

[SDuderstadt]

72. So, it's a little more complicated...

isn't it? Thanks for making my point.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

78. thanks for being you

sweetipie honeybunch:*

and good bye for real this time

[SDuderstadt]

81. In other words...

you cannot show the math.

Wouldn't that be easier to admit?

[cali]

73. well, I agree with that. We need campaign finance reform. that's the nub of it

not the ridiculous suggestion that the Congress will limit their own salaries to some pittance. And just how would you make them do this? Inquiring minds and all that

[IrishBuckeye]

68. Min wage poor means you make under $20,000 yet $50,000 would be too little to live on

If your a member of Congress? Well $50,000 plus the perks which equate to tens of thousands of more dollars (travel, home office, meals).

[SDuderstadt]

74. Jesus, this is getting stupid n/t

[cali]

79. getting stupid??? It's way beyond that.

It's like the king of stupid.

[cali]

77. Yes, I live on under $20,000 a year.

And the point isn't that someone can't live on $50,000, it's that it wouldn't solve a thing. We need campaign finance reform. And anyway how the fuck are you going to make congress limit its salary? Do tell.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. no bennies either

insurance. who needs it.

[elias49]

11. Sounds more than fair.

Not factored in to their 'salary' are the unimaginable perks, favors, under-the-table gimmes that all these bastards recieve. I worked for the NH House of Reps in the 80's and even in little old NH, the State House was awash in favors, give-backs, 'clean' contributions....it was unbelievable.
But when you're talking about the US House and Senate, I think you start seeing real money, notwithstanding ethics rules and that shit. That shit is for public consumption, mostly.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Yes...we should roll Gabby Giffords' compensation back to...

$50K!

Stupid OP and the kind of thing I'd expect to hear from the Tea Party, not DU.

[IrishBuckeye]

13. Are you saying the deserve this kind of money because it's a hazardous job??

Why do you feel they should be paid $140,000+, do tell!

[SDuderstadt]

15. Do you actually know any members of Congress?

You're just talking off the top of your head.

For example, do you honestly think being a member of Congress doesn't require maintaining two households for almost every member?

Like I said, a stupid OP and something I would expect from the Tea Party.

[IrishBuckeye]

16. LOL that's your defense for justifying $170,000+ salary!?

You're fucking kidding me right? I question if these members of the Senate and Congress can represent the people when their standard of living is well above the people and as far i can tell they can't, roll it back!!!

[SDuderstadt]

18. How much do you think it costs to...

maintain two households?

Anger can be valuable sometimes, but not when it makes people say stupid things.

[snappyturtle]

166. How many congress critters are living in their offices? No one is forced

to run for office and just maybe their primary residence should be downsized. You have a good point but it's time for sacrifices all around.

[SDuderstadt]

167. Well, then...

why don't YOU take my challenge?

Show us the math how someone can serve in Congress on $50K.

[Ignis]

19. That's easy to fix.

Step 1: Buy/lease congressional dormitories in DC.
Step 2: Offer each congresscritter a dorm room.

I travel frequently for work, but I certainly don't expect my company to pay me enough to maintain more than one household for the sake of convenience.

[SDuderstadt]

20. It's not merely a matter of...

"convenience", dude.

Let's say you traveled for work 50 weeks a year. Would you not expect your employer to provide you with a hotel room and rental car? How much do you think that would run?

[Ignis]

34. Hotel room is covered by dorms (they're only travelling to 1 location).

Rental car? Buy a fleet of American-made economy cars that sit in a DC garage for check-out when congresscritters are in town. These should be lent out for use on official congressional business only, of course.

Next problem?

[SDuderstadt]

37. Nevermind...

this has gone beyond stupid.

[Ignis]

38. Because our betters are more deserving than the plebs, or ... what?

I was recently involved in a comparison of the costs for maintaining a small fleet of cars and a few long-term apartment rentals for visits to one of our offshore offices vs. the cost of reimbursing expenses for travel, so I'm unclear why you think this is so incredibly stupid.

:shrug:

Perhaps you should consider whether your argument is grounded in emotion or economics.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LanternWaste]

46. Rather than focus tearing down the pay of a few

"Because our betters are more deserving than the plebs..."

Rather than focus tearing down the pay of a few, maybe we could focus on building up the pay of the many. :shrug:

I believe there is a people's movement in WI doing precisely that.

[IrishBuckeye]

49. Reducing their pay may remind them of what everyday people make.

And then maybe they would be more supportive of raising that. Besides, there is no reason we can't tackle both at the same time.

[LanternWaste]

76. Precisely how would reducing congressional pay prevent

Precisely how would reducing congressional pay prevent the same amount of and/or even more millionaires from getting elected?

If your position does not specifically (and relevantly) address that question, then it would appear that your proposal does absolutely nothing for which you state it does. :shrug:

[Ignis]

82. I don't find them mutually exclusive, but I do support the latter over the former.

However, I find it intellectually lazy to simply throw up one's hands and say "it can't be done" until one has actually done the work and run the numbers.


(Edit: too many prepositions)

[SDuderstadt]

84. Then, run the numbers...

for us. I'm all ears.

[Ignis]

87. Reading is fun and mental. Here's what I said above:

I find it intellectually lazy to simply throw up one's hands and say "it can't be done" until one has actually done the work and run the numbers.

I haven't thrown up my hands in defeat. I've proposed alternative methods to tackle the core problem.

:shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

92. Then take my challenge n/t

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

137. I refuse to reward a display of indolence with hard work.

You expressed a concern regarding the "requirement" that congresscritters maintain two households. I proposed an alternative way to meet that "requirement."

You expressed a concern regarding the amount that congresscritters would be required to pay for ground transportation. I proposed an alternative way to cover those costs.

You threw up your hands and claimed the whole debate--including, presumably, my proposed alternative solutions to your concerns--was "stupid." I asked why, and asked you to support your critique.

So...I'll wait. :hi:


(Edit: one verb per sentence is probably all I need.)

[SDuderstadt]

138. Dude...

your inability to follow a debate thread is not my problem.

At all relevant times we were talking about the premise of the OP and my subsequent challenge. If you want to debate a wholly new premise, start your own OP.

Your game-playing continues to be silly.

[Ignis]

140. I'm not playing games. You're ascribing motives that you cannot know.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

Otherwise, the ball's in your court. And no, it's not a crystal ball. :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

142. Dude...

Read post # 91 very carefully. Note your responses in that subthread. Pay attention to what is actually being debated next time. Stop playing games.

[Ignis]

143. I'll thank you to stop issuing commands.

I'm not your dog. :hi:

[SDuderstadt]

144. I'll thank you to...

stop playing games, dude.

[Ignis]

146. I'm not playing games. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

If not, I'll thank you to stop issuing command and calling me a liar. :hi:

[SDuderstadt]

150. Unless you can show me where...

I called you a liar, this is just more of your game-playing.

I'm done.

[azurnoir]

14. hey isn't that what the average teacher makes?

hell's ya let them live off that

[karynnj]

21. All this will do is keep anyone not independently wealthy out of the Congress

Even at $170,000, there are many who are taking a pay cut from the amount they could make in the private section. You do realize that they must pay for housing in DC in addition to their homes.

[hobbit709]

24. How many millionaires are in Congress compared to the population?

[LanternWaste]

26. Precisely how would a reduction in congressional and senate pay ensure

Precisely how would a reduction in congressional and senate pay ensure fewer "millionaires in congress?"

If the reduction in pay does not specifically address that, it would seem your specific point is, at best, simply post-hoc-ergo-prompter-hoc.

[karynnj]

32. They are overrepresented - however they often were not born into money

Ignoring those how inherited money, don't you think it logical that people who are elected were more successful in private life than average. Not all of them were raised in families headed by millionaires.

Look at my Senators. My senior Senator was born to an immigrant who worked as a laborer in Patterson's silk mills. He joined the service in WWII, went to college on a GI bill and built and sold a company that made him a multi-millionaire. I learned of his father because I went to a Democratic picnic that he came to. Two friends mentioned to him that their parents came from Patterson too. After chatting with them - when speaking to the group he spoke of how that history - and his dad telling him of the conditions that affected the health of the workers - that was pre OSHA and his dad died in his 40s, that led him to run for office. In the Senate, among other things - he is why you don't have to put up with cigarette smoke on airlines.

Now, should we have instead voted in someone who never made more than $50,000?

My junior senator was also a child of immigrants, who grew up in a tenement in Union City. He was a lawyer before he was in Congress.

Here, both these men were richer than average when they entered public service, but it was through their own work.

In fact, even my favorite Senator was not a millionaire when he entered the Senate. He was one of the least wealthy Senators in his first years in the Senate, at one point not being able to afford apartments in both Boston and DC. Though he was born to the social elite, he was not wealthy - which he could have been had he opted to continue being a trial lawyer, which he was for a few years. Now, he heads the list as the wealthiest each year, because his wife is extraordinarily wealthy. The question is if he was acceptably poor before he married Teresa, would you have him leave the Senate because he married the woman he loves? Not to mention, Senator Heinz was an excellent Senator, in spite of being wealthy.

[LanternWaste]

25. I imagine a handful of people would rather...

I imagine a handful of people would rather see a minority make less than they are currently to ensure better living conditions for all, rather than see all make more than we currently do.

That seems to be an ongoing issue in Madison these days...

[toddwv]

28. The longest that Congress has been in session since 1996 was 173 days

So they spend 6 months in session and the rest of the time smoozing with lobbyists.

So they get a huge salary plus benefits that would make some executives blush.

Don't you wish that you were a member of THEIR union?

[IrishBuckeye]

31. But teachers get summers off! /Sarc

nm

[Poboy]

36. Well, the critters do seem to have lots of breaks to go on junkets and golf.

Give them the SAME plan we have to take w/health care as well!

[SDuderstadt]

42. And, of course, they never...

keep office hours or meet with constituents back home, do they...

[butterfly77]

35. Kick,kick,kick &recommended!

:kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. And, teachers actually do something useful..whereas politicians...

could be better employed blowing up balloons.

[cali]

51. really? Peter Shumlin is leading the drive for single payer

you think it would be more useful if he was blowing up balloons?

[jtown1123]

59. This is such a non issue. Most of these people work 70-80 hours a week.

Plus living in D.C. is ridiculously expensive. There are so many other things to harp on than their salaries.

[Jokerman]

66. I would pay elected officials even more...

While severely limiting their ability to earn outside income during, and for at least a few years after their term in office.

I would also eliminate the legalized bribery that is our current campaign financing system.

(edited for typo)

[IrishBuckeye]

71. Now you are really talking crazy! Take away their bread and butter?? /nm

nm

[SDuderstadt]

83. Simple challenge...

dude.

Since this is your unbelievably absurd proposal, why don't you provide us with a reasonably detailed budget showing how someone could afford to be a member of Congress on $50K pre-tax?

I'd love to see your math.

[leftstreet]

85. This is the Electronic Age. Let 'em teleconference from home

No need for housing, drivers, staff, lackeys, etc

:shrug:

[Ignis]

88. I feared the backlash of suggesting this above, but +1.

:thumbsup:

[SDuderstadt]

95. I cannot believe...

we are having this conversation.

[Ignis]

106. Teleconferences are only for private industry, NEVER gov't?

Ooooookay. :freak:

Let's be sure to reinstall the hitching posts in front of the Capitol, too. Them thar new-fangled horseless carriages are sure to be a passing fad.

[SDuderstadt]

108. Dude...

if you can't see why governance isn't like private industry, I can't help you.

[Ignis]

109. I didn't make the claim that they're equivalent.

But they can both make use of the same advances in technology.

If you can't see that, then (insert personal attack here). :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

111. Dude...

the claim is we could do it entirely by teleconference. I'd love to hear you (or anyone else) explain precisely how.

[Ignis]

113. Where did I say "entirely?"

I don't recall having made that claim. Link?

[SDuderstadt]

115. Dude...

read the subthread you were participating in.

Leftstreet says no housing, staff, etc. Duh.

[Ignis]

118. Ah, so you incorrectly attributed someone else's comment to me?

No worries. We all make mistakes--and since I take pains to avoid misrepresenting what others have said, someone has to bring up the average.

[SDuderstadt]

121. No, dude...

I expect you to be able to follow a debate topic. Your argument appears to be with leftstreet, not me.

[Ignis]

122. Oh, so I did say "entirely" after all? Link, please.

[SDuderstadt]

125. Enough of your...

game-playing, dude.

[Ignis]

126. Fair enough, if you'll stop putting words in my mouth.

But you can't sling disingenuity with impunity and not expect to be called on it.

[SDuderstadt]

127. I didn't put words in your mouth, dude.

I said it was the premise of the "debate". More game-playing.

[Ignis]

128. Then use the appropriate possessive determiners, FFS.

If you don't understand the difference between "the claim," "your claim," and "that other poster's claim," then I can't help you.

[SDuderstadt]

129. Dude...

I said "the claim". Does that sound like "your claim" to you?

[Ignis]

131. "Sure, I said "the cat"...but I meant the cat 2 miles away, not the one at our feet!"

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

132. More game-playing n/t

[SDuderstadt]

136. Pay attention, dude

I said "the claim". Does that sound like "your claim" to you?

[Ignis]

145. No. But nor does it sound like "that other poster's claim," either.

Specificity is not a crime.

[SDuderstadt]

148. Dude...

I made it clear which claim I was responding to.

Enough of your games and enough of you. Is that clear enough?

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

89. You have got to be...

kidding.

[leftstreet]

94. You're ignoring the spirit of the OP

That Congress members are out of touch with the working classes they're hired to represent.


Instead you want to change the subject to whether or not the Congress member can survive on $50k a year.

Who gives a shit


How does a person live on $20k a year? How do they meet their needs for housing, food, etc?

[SDuderstadt]

97. Read the OP again n/t

[leftstreet]

98. You first n/t

[SDuderstadt]

99. I did...

it's impractical except to non-practitioners of critical thinking

[leftstreet]

100. I know you are, but what am I?

Let the RICH constituents of our esteemed representatives pick up the tab for 2nd homes, limos, housekeeping staff, travel...

THEY'RE the only ones who are benefitting

[SDuderstadt]

101. Dude...

are you paying attention to what you are saying?

[leftstreet]

102. Yes. It's early enough I'm still sober

Come now. The OP throws out a good discussion point

And why ARE we spending our money on people who write legislation that will just fuck us over?

:shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

104. Dude...

Have you ever heard of the "fallacy of division"?

[leftstreet]

107. sigh

Well, thank you for helping me highlight my points all the same


Our elected officials are representing the ruling class, not us

It's pretty simple

[SDuderstadt]

110. And your "proposal" would make it better...

how?

[leftstreet]

112. Dude n/t

[SDuderstadt]

116. So...

you can't answer a simple question.

Thought so.

[leftstreet]

123. I honestly don't know how to get politicians to quit fucking us over

Ya got me there

It's been suggested we take away their salaries, but shit, their measly gvt salaries are CHUMP change compared to what they rake in from lobbyists, corporations, special interests

There's someone on this thread suggesting we outsource them
Maybe?

:shrug:

So...this florist goes into a barber shop for a haircut. When the barber's done the florist asks, "what's the charge?" The barber says, "I can't take any payment from you this week. I'm doing community service."

The next day, the barber finds a Thank You card and a dozen roses on his doorstep. Later that day a cop comes in for a haircut. When asked about the charges, the barber responds again, "I can't take any payment from you this week. I'm doing community service."

The next morning, what does the barber find on his steps but a Thank You card and a dozen donuts.

That afternoon a Congressman comes in for a haircut. "What do I owe you?" Same response, "...can't charge you anything, I'm doing community service this week"

The next morning the barber finds a dozen Congressmen on his doorstep.

[LanternWaste]

119. Precisely how...

Precisely how will reducing the congressional and senate pay prevent the same amount/more millionaires from being elected to office and thus "represent the people" (as directly implied by both you and the OP) better?

[cali]

153. My congress crittters aren't at all out of touch with those they represent

[IrishBuckeye]

86. Fair enough, I'll break it down later tonight. I'll also include the Perks

Travel, meals, home office expense, etc. After all, the salary is just part of their bloated compensation.

[SDuderstadt]

90. Bullshit n/t

[SDuderstadt]

165. Crickets

Too funny.

[SDuderstadt]

176. I'll even help you, dude

Here's a link to actual numbers, not your made-up nonsense.

http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm

[SDuderstadt]

186. Dude...

you've now had 32 hours. Would you prefer your rather stupid claim die a quiet death?

[SDuderstadt]

187. It's now been...

40+ hrs.

Making any progress? Or, do you concede? Frankly, I would want to avoid further embarrassment, too.

[Shagbark Hickory]

93. And NO BRIBES ALLOWED or you get your penis chopped off.

[proud2BlibKansan]

96. Who buys their plane tickets so they can be back home to meet with constituents?

What about the expense of maintaining 2 residences?

No. This is not a good idea.

[Gormy Cuss]

156. If the model were similar to other government travelers, they'd do just fine on 50K.

The employer would pay for lodging and meals based on the existing per diem rates, airfare for all business trips, and certain incidentals like laundry would also be paid or reimbursed based on expense reports.

I'm not agreeing with the premise that their salaries should be lowered, only that the added expense of living in DC is something that can be handled through direct expensing. There is no inherent need to have a second full residence in the district. Some may choose to go that route of course.

[SDuderstadt]

157. Show us the math n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

158. Show us the math that proves they can't.

For that matter, show us the math that even weakly makes the case that it's not feasible or else stop your bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

159. Dude...

it's YOUR claim. Quit trying to shift the burden of proof.

[Gormy Cuss]

162. Dude

The median income in DC is about 50K. That's all the math that's needed.

[SDuderstadt]

163. Really, dude?

Members of Congress only have to live in D.C.? You know why your argument's wrong, right?

[Gormy Cuss]

170. Really, dude.

Under the hypothetical scenario above, a system where their per diem costs are being paid, they're not paying to "live" in DC any more than anyone traveling as a government contractor. They need only pay to live in their districts and that 50K salary is at or above median income in most of those.

Really dude -- try my challenge. Show that 50K is inadequate.

[SDuderstadt]

175. LOL...

are you now claiming that members of Congress have their living expenses in D.C. covered?

[revolutionnow45]

103. Heck, I think we should outsource them

Think of the money we could save. $1 per day, plus no benefits. We'll save a ton!

And, I think we could trust the Indian people to be a little more honest with our spending, perhaps they would even point out that the military industrial complex consumes the vast majority of US tax dollars and that THE MILITARY CAN BE CUT! (they act like that is not even an option)

[ileus]

114. If they care for their country they should volunteer...

[SDuderstadt]

117. How would a person of average means...

"volunteer"?

[ileus]

192. name the last person of average means in congress or senate

[SDuderstadt]

193. Bernie Sanders...

for one.

I don't know about you, but I'd like more like him in the Senate.

[Posteritatis]

154. Yeah, let's make it even more of a plutocracy than it already is. (nt)

[Codeine]

168. Great. Now how would I pay my mortgage and feed my kids

while volunteering?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

120. Top 5-8% of wage earners.

That's all you need to know.


A different kind of collective bargaining! :think:

[AzDar]

133. K & R

:kick:

[TroglodyteScholar]

134. Or better yet, pay them what they're worth...

A wage equal to that of the lowest-paid state employee.

[cali]

152. I think my reps are worth every cent they're paid

and it's sad that you think that Bernie Sanders is worth so little.

[fittosurvive]

135. I agree, if the US were a business, everyone would be fired.

Nothing is ever the fault of an actual person. It always the system or the bureaucracy's fault.

[hack89]

139. It will certainly make the lobbyist's job easier

because unless you think that there is an inverse relationship between ethics and income, all you have done is make all those "contributions" harder to resist.

[killbotfactory]

147. I find it amusing and sad that people can't comprehend people living on $50k

Welcome to how the majority of Americans live, people.

[cali]

151. that is hardly the point that many of us are trying to impress

[SDuderstadt]

155. How in the world...

do you get that out of the posts here??

[Recursion]

181. Maintaining two residences, one in one of the most expensive housing markets in the country...

...on $50K wouldn't exactly be easy.

[killbotfactory]

188. So they can live in the bad part of town like everyone else making little money

And we can give them food stamps.

It's an anomaly for anybody who isn't rich or well off to make it into congress in the first place.

[Recursion]

189. There isn't all that much "bad part" of town left

Even east of the river is gentrifying now.

[SDuderstadt]

190. I don't want my Representative or Senators...

living in "the bad part of town".

The premise of this OP is remarkably stupid at the outset.

[cali]

149. this has to be one of the more fatuous threads ever to grace our fair

site.

[Codeine]

169. Not counting The Dungeon, this is the stupidest, most bizzarely

reactionary thing I've read on DU in a long time.

[slampoet]

171. Rhode Island paid their congress $5 a day for over 200 years and ended up with the MOST CORRUPT

STATE in the entire USA, with all the congress stealing to make up for their income loss.

[StarsInHerHair]

173. To save money I think ALL the TOP PAYING State, County, & Federal jobs

should AT LEAST have their pay reviewed, to see if a cut can be made............after all times are tough & we all have to make sacrifices......

[loudsue]

177. That is EXACTLY where we need to take the next battle. We need to

"Madison" the U.S. Legislature, and DEMAND that they give up their pensions and take the "sacrifices" that they are demanding of everyone else. Until they start to feel the pinch, there will be no change in the way this country is governed.

While we're at it, we also need to make sure that EVERY primary candidate commits to taking the lower salary if/when elected. It's only fair. And then tell us that they aren't going to want to "collectively" bargain.

Assholes.

[SDuderstadt]

178. Fallacy of division

I don't think all members of Congress are assholes, do you?

[VoteProgressive]

179. Kick!

[Recursion]

180. Few if any are poor enough to care

Hamilton pointed out this would be a bad idea because then only the rich could serve. Pretty much only the rich can serve now, but still it's a valid point. And all those dinners and travel and stuff can be paid for from campaign funds anyways.

[Kolesar]

183. States that don't pay legislators a "professional salary" have the worst governments

Look at the Rhode Island example upthread.

[felix_numinous]

185. Reducing pay would be effective

if also the impetus to gain power and influence were somehow curtailed. Too many government representatives are in it as a player, to consolidate power. Laws have been constructed to enable them tax free shelters, to make money just running for office (where do the millions of donations end up?) and to allow them to invest in companies despite obvious conflicts of interest.

I agree their pay should reflect the fact that they are a public servant, to attract those that wish to work for the American people and not special interests. In the ideal world, our public servants would then have oversight to check corporate, religious and military powers from threatening the safety and welfare of the citizenry. We have strayed too far from this ideal!

[Recursion]

194. Except that cutting their pay would make them even *more* dependent on fundraising

Since any "high life" they wanted would have to come from their campaign funds.