Salaries in Congress

[FiveB247]

Click me... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030613/ap_on_go_co/congress_disclosures_9)

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

Why practice democratic values when you can practice capitalism?

[Tall_James]

What is worse...

A millionaire old-money Senator who is out of touch with the basic needs and lifestyle of his/her constituency.

or...

A Senator who makes millions of dollars while they are in office as a primary result of their elected status (i.e. book deals)?

<img src=http://users.rcn.com/jamespatton/PLATE.jpg>

[Wolf]

Are they hiring? I could use a pay raise...

<center>
http://www.frichild.com - Friday's Child
http://www.azpeacemakers.com - Roger Clyne & The Peacemakers
<img src="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/onaarmy/files/cuttericeman/Frichild.jpg">
Who is Cutter-Iceman? </center>

[furie]

and they don't pay social security

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/bixby.jpg" width=300 height=100>
<marquee>"I've never before realized the joy of unadulterated mayhem." David Bruce Banner </marquee>

This message was edited by furie on 6-13-03 @ 3:56 PM

[TheMojoPin]

"For the people, by the people..."

Right?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[NewYorkDragons80]

Damn, look at all the Communists. Is it wrong to want to be represented by someone who has proven themself successful? I guess that one must be a failure in order to find themself in the good graces of ronfez.net.

I can't believe we are trashing people for what is (in about half of the cases) their own merit. We do live in a Meritocracy, don't we?

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig. FREE YERDADDY!!!
<marquee>New York Dragons - THE AFL'S EASTERN DIVISI

[whoopsy]

Is it wrong to want to be represented by someone who has proven themself successful?


I have no problems with successful individuals (particularly self-made successes) but I do think it's a bit off to be represented only by the rich - they have no real way of understanding the daily struggles of their constituents. Of the 50% figure you gave for those who made it based on merit (which seems a bit high), how many came from regular, working class families. Even those who went off and made money on their own came from families with Scrooge McDuck type funds...

[FiveB247]

I don't mock or make comments towards this article due to the fact they have earned some of their fortunes on merit (In some cases they have). But I believe the article says the average salary was about $154,000. Considering the economy is in bad times, they still get pay increases (which always occurs) as well as the believe that their overpaid asses only work part of the time. And that's not to mention they are all part of the tax-cut bracket. Their salaries should be a decent sum, but at the same time be consistent with the incomes of this nation (the one's they represent). Considering the average income for an American is around $25k and they make about 7 times more than that....it'd say it's a bit absurd at the least. Our government has become stagnant and won't adapt to the necessary changes that would mandate the interests of the people back into the forefront of agendas. Campaign finance reform and salaries are just two examples of this.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

Why practice democratic values when you can practice capitalism?

[TheMojoPin]

Damn, look at all the Communists. Is it wrong to want to be represented by someone who has proven themself successful? I guess that one must be a failure in order to find themself in the good graces of ronfez.net.


I'm not saying they CAN'T be successful. It's just indicative of the fact that you really can't find a congressional, presidential or sentaorial candidate these days running for either of the major parties that isn't really "rich" or close to it. That's not to say they aren't out there, by by and large it seems to show that a relative minority (the wealthy) are dictating the policy for everyone else. They can be as rich as they want, go for it...I just like giving my vote to the little guy...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Se7en]

The problem, though, is that the system is set up now so that you need a shitload of money to run a successful campaign. Thus, the "little guy" almost never wins, except maybe in small-time political office positions such as Board of Supervisors or something like that (but even those people have to raise tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending upon which jurisdiction they're running in).

Considering the economy is in bad times, they still get pay increases (which always occurs) as well as the believe that their overpaid asses only work part of the time.

Right. Anyone else find it frustrating that Congress drags its ass to do something like, say, raise the minimum wage but has no problem passing legislation which will give them all nice, fat raises?

I believe I heard on the news lately that someone proposed legislation which would cut the salary of those members of Congress who "miss work", i.e. don't show up for votes and things like that. Didn't seem like a bad idea to me. If our tax dollars are paying their sizable salaries they had better damn work their ass off for it.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">

<br><marquee behavoir=alternate>Cap sez: <b>2%</b> fat skim milk does a body good!</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

Campaign finance reform, dammit.

They all preach it, but while one of the "big two" finally have the balls to do something about it?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

Among the many other reforms necessary by Congress, yes. These guys should get paid, no doubt, but it does look bad when they give themselves raises during a "recession". In a perfect world, these guys would be paid only when they perform and make the country better. Balance the budget? Here's $10,000 for 'ya. Tort Reform? That's worth $25,000. Sounds kinda good to me.

[El Mudo]

Campaign finance reform, dammit.
They all preach it, but while one of the "big two" finally have the balls to do something about it?



How bout because its unconstitutional? People should have the right to give to a candidate how ever much they feel like.




http://images.usatoday.com/sports/bbw/2002-07-11/ted-senators.jpg
Mandelbaum! Mandelbaum! Mandelbaum!

[TheMojoPin]

Because the limits were never intended on how much people may wish to give. It's a matter of how much the candidate or his party can receive from one particular donor or organization, which is perfectly legal.

In fact, even if they chose to specifically say, "you can only give this much", that's nowhere near being unconstitutional. Donating to your candidate is not a right. It's an option.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FiveB247]

El mundo...so you find it ok to literally buy and payoff politicians? I mean it happens regardlessly, but to just completely remove the barrier is silly. Why allow a bad situation to get worse? It would only create more disparity towards the rich making policy in their favor.

It is almost impossible to run and win an election against someone going for re-election. The numbers proving such are overwhelming.

People, groups as well as corporations donate to the party in general. It throws off the disparity and equilibrium of fair campaigning as well as the citizens knowing what a cadidate is all about. In other nations, you vote for a Party cause you know where they stand on issues. In the US you vote for a candidate, not the party. Without proper information and a level playing field...the balance is tilted to those with money and those spending the most. Campaign spending reforms will never be made...why would they change the way they stay in power? It's not unconstitutional, but it does create bad motives, agenda as well disparity in democracy. Lobbying is unconstitutional...they're the only permanent foundation in our government.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

Why practice democratic values when you can practice capitalism?

[HBox]

How bout because its unconstitutional? People should have the right to give to a candidate how ever much they feel like.


And don't even start with the free speech argument. There is nothing free about political donations. It's a ridiculous argument, and I hope that you weren't and aren't going to make it.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Recyclerz]

People, settle down now. It's all over but the shouting:
Bush Fundraisers (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/politics/campaigns/15DONA.html)

Money may not buy happiness*, but it can certainly buy you a government.




* (but I suspect it does.)



[b]You're only young once but you can be immature forever[b]


This message was edited by Recyclerz on 6-14-03 @ 6:55 PM

[El Mudo]

El mundo...so you find it ok to literally buy and payoff politicians?


If politicians are being bought and sold, then its the politicians fault, not the system.

Of course its a speech issue. You're talking about restricting what someone can spend on the candidate of their choice through which they are exhibiting their political opinions.


It is almost impossible to run and win an election against someone going for re-election. The numbers proving such are overwhelming.


Thats because of Incumbency. If someone likes the job their rep is doing, of course they would vote them back.



http://images.usatoday.com/sports/bbw/2002-07-11/ted-senators.jpg
Mandelbaum! Mandelbaum! Mandelbaum!


This message was edited by El Mudo on 6-15-03 @ 4:41 PM

[FiveB247]

Thats because of Incumbency. If someone likes the job their rep is doing, of course they would vote them back.

The impact of campaign spending and money are directly linked and an overall larger factor in winning an election for a candidate up for re-election. Most elections nowadays are simply picking the lessor of two evils more so than actually electing a qualified person who you feel will do a satisfactory job as well as like.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

Why practice democratic values when you can practice capitalism?