5-Minute Solution for fixing the deficit....I think this would work. Seriously.

[FA_Q2]

Barry had eight freaking years. Lefties think they can "fix the deficit in five minutes" during a republican administration. Do the math.

Also immaterial to the OP’s point.


Seriously, did anyone actually read the post?

 

[usmbguest5318]

The cited dollar figures have nothing to do with the point in the OP. He was not stating that the money paid to congressman is remotely significant in the debt. He was stating that the fact they get paid and can continue to do so without consequence to debt is the problem.


IOW, if congressman lost their jobs for spending too much money they would STOP doing so.


The point is correct as well – congressman are rewarded for spending more rather than the opposite. The constituents at home are more likely to give that congressman another term for getting that pork project passed in their home state whether or not the feds actually have the money to do so. Tell that same congressman that if these projects go through he is not going to be allowed to run again and he just might think twice about borrowing the money for it.

That was very generous of you to respond to him. I thought his comment was too absurd to dignify. I do hope he appreciates your greater patience with him than I can muster.

 

[flacaltenn]

The deficit is much akin to the bible and the constitution. They have no relevance other than as instruments with which to bludgeon opponents.

BTW -- the graph in my previous post shows why the Fed is giving a royal screwing to seniors who planned on living on the interest from their savings in retirement. If consumer savings were to be VALUED with interest above the ZERO rate it's been HELD AT --- We would be Greece by now..

BTW -- the graph in my previous post shows why the Fed is giving a royal screwing to seniors who planned on living on the interest from their savings in retirement.

The Fed only sets the rate on overnight loans. The rest are set by the market.

If the banks are getting money for free "from the window" -- what do you think they're gonna pay depositors? It's definitely tied to Fed rate as are most mortgages. Go argue with a bank about you 0.4% interest when the Fed rate is almost zero..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The deficit is much akin to the bible and the constitution. They have no relevance other than as instruments with which to bludgeon opponents.

BTW -- the graph in my previous post shows why the Fed is giving a royal screwing to seniors who planned on living on the interest from their savings in retirement. If consumer savings were to be VALUED with interest above the ZERO rate it's been HELD AT --- We would be Greece by now..

BTW -- the graph in my previous post shows why the Fed is giving a royal screwing to seniors who planned on living on the interest from their savings in retirement.

The Fed only sets the rate on overnight loans. The rest are set by the market.

If the banks are getting money for free "from the window" -- what do you think they're gonna pay depositors? It's definitely tied to Fed rate as are most mortgages. Go argue with a bank about you 0.4% interest when the Fed rate is almost zero..

If the banks are getting money for free "from the window" -

Which banks do you feel did that? When?

 

[flacaltenn]

The deficit is much akin to the bible and the constitution. They have no relevance other than as instruments with which to bludgeon opponents.

BTW -- the graph in my previous post shows why the Fed is giving a royal screwing to seniors who planned on living on the interest from their savings in retirement. If consumer savings were to be VALUED with interest above the ZERO rate it's been HELD AT --- We would be Greece by now..

BTW -- the graph in my previous post shows why the Fed is giving a royal screwing to seniors who planned on living on the interest from their savings in retirement.

The Fed only sets the rate on overnight loans. The rest are set by the market.

If the banks are getting money for free "from the window" -- what do you think they're gonna pay depositors? It's definitely tied to Fed rate as are most mortgages. Go argue with a bank about you 0.4% interest when the Fed rate is almost zero..

If the banks are getting money for free "from the window" -

Which banks do you feel did that? When?

Any bank eligible for the "discount window" -- which is a list that for SOME reason -- the Fed does not publish.
Go to Wiki "discount window" and look at the short term loan rate for "discount" customers and how they relate to the Fed Interest rate policy.. They are pegged. Just like mortgages. With rates that LOW -- they don't NEED customer deposits and can't afford a "price war" with the other banks on saving account rates. It's been below 1% for more than 6 or 8 years. SENIORS are being fleeced. By artificially low interest rate policy.. MUCH bigger deal than then 0.5% to 1.2% stock commissions that the lefties are constantly bellowing about.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This isn't new, but it's worth revisiting.

Some background [1]:

• Salary of retired US Presidents:.. . . . .. . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE.
• Salary of House/Senate members: .. . . . .. . . . . $174,000 FOR LIFE. This is stupid
• Salary of Speaker of the House .. . . . .. . . . . $223,500 FOR LIFE. This is really stupid
• Salary of Majority / Minority Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid
• Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .$40,065
• Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000

So with that as context....."I could end the deficit in five minutes," Warren told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

​

I think Buffett's spot on because today we have leaders who want you and me to fear all sorts of things -- the press, ISIS, global warming, etc. Elected federal leaders, however, have no fear of facing any consequence from not actually doing their job and doing it well.

Note:

1. (Please, don't parrot the "serve one term and collect full retirement for life" thing. First, read this. Congress Members got it good, but not that good. LOL There's a schedule for how much they actually can collect, but whatever they collect, it's for life if they retire "in full" or what some folks might call "fully vested." That's what the figures above refer to.)

Your figures are a bit off.

Okay/ I didn't verify the figures, mainly because the OP's key point doesn't stand on them. The figures are presented to provide a bit of situational context, namely this:

Elected leaders get paid quite nicely and are not held accountable for actually achieving one of the key things they are employed to do. Indeed, often enough they achieve something between none and 1/3rd of it as goes facilitating economic growth at an "acceptable" rate. Moreover, though it's not part of the OP's theme, one might even argue they have a similarly dismal record of achievement with regard to inexplicitly economic targets. Elected officials, in return for their abjectly deficient performance, receive a decent salary with increases at their discretion, excellent benefits, great notoriety (which feels good if nothing else), myriad material perquisites derived from the position/job itself, and most importantly, little chance of actually losing their job, provided, of course, they aren't pellucidly repugnant.

In contrast teachers and soldiers, who in the OP really are just mentioned as analogues for "everyone except Congresspersons, are paid not nearly so well, receive decent benefits, individually garner no great and widespread renown to speak of, have no direct control over their pay increases, enjoy few, if any, material job-related perquisites, but most importantly, if they consistently fail to meet expectations set for their performance, they don't get to keep their jobs. They, like everyone except Congress members, are held accountable for demonstrably achieving results that are objectively measurable.​

.....I'm not sure how or whether you think the degree of the figures' inaccuracy materially alters the main point of the post...The sums merely form the mise-en-scène, as it were. If one doubled, say, the shown teacher and soldier salaries, would that really change the merit (or lack thereof, if that be one's view) of the proposal that the tenure of lawmakers be incumbent on effectively managing economic growth? Not in my mind.

I realize you didn't say that the margin of error do so alter the central theme, but I'm also struggling to grasp why you bothered to note the inaccuracy. Would you care to provide some perspective on why you noted that there is some inaccuracy in the figures? Perhaps it's merely that you note the inaccuracy for the sake of doing so? Maybe even it's that you did so to catalyze a response that would allow you to gauge whether a petty purpose underpinned my listing the sums? (The abundance of pettiness on the forum makes this motive quite possible, sadly....) Perhaps you had some other reason? I don't know. I know only that you did, but as that's all you did, that's all I can claim to know.

The point you miss in your diatribe is that these people number in the hundreds compared to the millions of teachers and members of the military.

My daughter is an Army officer and brings home at the ripe old age of 22 almost as much as her father with 20 years experience.

The comparisons are simply invalid and using incorrect data makes it "fake news' in the grand tradition of CNN.

The cited dollar figures have nothing to do with the point in the OP. He was not stating that the money paid to congressman is remotely significant in the debt. He was stating that the fact they get paid and can continue to do so without consequence to debt is the problem.


IOW, if congressman lost their jobs for spending too much money they would STOP doing so.


The point is correct as well – congressman are rewarded for spending more rather than the opposite. The constituents at home are more likely to give that congressman another term for getting that pork project passed in their home state whether or not the feds actually have the money to do so. Tell that same congressman that if these projects go through he is not going to be allowed to run again and he just might think twice about borrowing the money for it.

You and the OP need to put down the bong and stop hitting it so hard. Go ahead and propose the Amendment necessary and see how many laugh with you as opposed to those who laugh at you.

You would have better luck repealing the law of gravity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The deficit is much akin to the bible and the constitution. They have no relevance other than as instruments with which to bludgeon opponents.

BTW -- the graph in my previous post shows why the Fed is giving a royal screwing to seniors who planned on living on the interest from their savings in retirement. If consumer savings were to be VALUED with interest above the ZERO rate it's been HELD AT --- We would be Greece by now..

BTW -- the graph in my previous post shows why the Fed is giving a royal screwing to seniors who planned on living on the interest from their savings in retirement.

The Fed only sets the rate on overnight loans. The rest are set by the market.

If the banks are getting money for free "from the window" -- what do you think they're gonna pay depositors? It's definitely tied to Fed rate as are most mortgages. Go argue with a bank about you 0.4% interest when the Fed rate is almost zero..

If the banks are getting money for free "from the window" -

Which banks do you feel did that? When?

Any bank eligible for the "discount window" -- which is a list that for SOME reason -- the Fed does not publish.
Go to Wiki "discount window" and look at the short term loan rate for "discount" customers and how they relate to the Fed Interest rate policy.. They are pegged. Just like mortgages. With rates that LOW -- they don't NEED customer deposits and can't afford a "price war" with the other banks on saving account rates. It's been below 1% for more than 6 or 8 years. SENIORS are being fleeced. By artificially low interest rate policy.. MUCH bigger deal than then 0.5% to 1.2% stock commissions that the lefties are constantly bellowing about.

Any bank eligible for the "discount window" -- which is a list that for SOME reason -- the Fed does not publish.

No, but they do publish the amount borrowed.

And the rate has never been zero.

With rates that LOW -- they don't NEED customer deposits

Well, based on Fed purchases alone since the crisis, there are about $3.5 trillion in new customer deposits.

It's been below 1% for more than 6 or 8 years. SENIORS are being fleeced. By artificially low interest rate policy

How much are you expecting to earn on perfectly liquid, perfectly safe cash deposits?

 

[WheelieAddict]

There was a "grand bargain" between Boehner and Obama in I think his first term that was a good idea. Unfortunately that wasn't good enough for the retarded tea party that only wants massive cuts to taxes and nothing else.

 

[flacaltenn]

How much are you expecting to earn on perfectly liquid, perfectly safe cash deposits?

It's not me. I'm not "senior" enough yet to be hurt. But all the guidance was you needed a minimum of 3 to 4% OVERALL in a retirement portfolio. That is -- until the Fed started buying their own debt and capturing interest rates so that the debt to GDP ratio didn't become toxically frightening. So the end result is FORCING seniors to take more RISK in the markets when they SHOULD be more liquid in cash.. And they did that KNOWING that would happen.

Even under the previous Admin where "the market" is a bad word -- they FORCED all the Baby Boomers to shift their "liquidity" into dividend stocks and riskier moves. I thought leftists were all "risk adverse". That they want to banish the word "risk" from everyday life. But when it comes to HIDING the mounting deficit --- I guess Seniors get to walk behind the wagon..

 

[Marion Morrison]

Did someone actually post something that directly addresses the 5-minute fix Buffett proposed? Perhaps by sharing their own thoughts on the efficacy of the idea or the notion of turning the current governance model on its head so that it's government leaders who fear the wrath of the electorate rather than the electorate being convinced by government leaders to fear all manners of third parties?

I like the idea. The question is, how could you get legislators to go for it?

Seriously, how?

There would have to be a grace period as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much are you expecting to earn on perfectly liquid, perfectly safe cash deposits?

It's not me. I'm not "senior" enough yet to be hurt. But all the guidance was you needed a minimum of 3 to 4% OVERALL in a retirement portfolio. That is -- until the Fed started buying their own debt and capturing interest rates so that the debt to GDP ratio didn't become toxically frightening. So the end result is FORCING seniors to take more RISK in the markets when they SHOULD be more liquid in cash.. And they did that KNOWING that would happen.

Even under the previous Admin where "the market" is a bad word -- they FORCED all the Baby Boomers to shift their "liquidity" into dividend stocks and riskier moves. I thought leftists were all "risk adverse". That they want to banish the word "risk" from everyday life. But when it comes to HIDING the mounting deficit --- I guess Seniors get to walk behind the wagon..

But all the guidance was you needed a minimum of 3 to 4% OVERALL in a retirement portfolio.

Fine. Just don't expect more than a fraction of that for your cash holdings.

So the end result is FORCING seniors to take more RISK in the markets when they SHOULD be more liquid in cash..

You can be liquid or you can get yield. Take your pick.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lets fire up the fucking printing press!!! Print some million dollar bills.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lets fire up the fucking printing press!!! Print some million dollar bills.

That still wouldn't be enough for you to buy a clue.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lets fire up the fucking printing press!!! Print some million dollar bills.

That still wouldn't be enough for you to buy a clue.

A few million bucks I wouldn't need one. I'd just laugh in my nice house on the beach.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lets fire up the fucking printing press!!! Print some million dollar bills.

That still wouldn't be enough for you to buy a clue.

A few million bucks I wouldn't need one. I'd just laugh in my nice house on the beach.

The fact that you think you'd be the recipient is further proof of your cluelessness.

 

[flacaltenn]

How much are you expecting to earn on perfectly liquid, perfectly safe cash deposits?

It's not me. I'm not "senior" enough yet to be hurt. But all the guidance was you needed a minimum of 3 to 4% OVERALL in a retirement portfolio. That is -- until the Fed started buying their own debt and capturing interest rates so that the debt to GDP ratio didn't become toxically frightening. So the end result is FORCING seniors to take more RISK in the markets when they SHOULD be more liquid in cash.. And they did that KNOWING that would happen.

Even under the previous Admin where "the market" is a bad word -- they FORCED all the Baby Boomers to shift their "liquidity" into dividend stocks and riskier moves. I thought leftists were all "risk adverse". That they want to banish the word "risk" from everyday life. But when it comes to HIDING the mounting deficit --- I guess Seniors get to walk behind the wagon..

But all the guidance was you needed a minimum of 3 to 4% OVERALL in a retirement portfolio.

Fine. Just don't expect more than a fraction of that for your cash holdings.

So the end result is FORCING seniors to take more RISK in the markets when they SHOULD be more liquid in cash..

You can be liquid or you can get yield. Take your pick.

Don't know why you'd support an arbitrary policy that's sucking $Trills from the Boomer retirement accounts. Are you one of those soulless bankers ??

You know damn well know that REAL inflation, not govt tweaked inflation, is making those liquid assets go NEGATIVE in a way that no previous Federal policy has in our lifetimes. It's OK if you're too quesy to look at the carnage. But the plan really is --- to cover up the immediate results of a skyrocketing debt load at the expense of the BIGGEST cache of personal wealth saved in the history of the planet. Those fucking seniors will be fine. Let them play the market or eat Purina..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much are you expecting to earn on perfectly liquid, perfectly safe cash deposits?

It's not me. I'm not "senior" enough yet to be hurt. But all the guidance was you needed a minimum of 3 to 4% OVERALL in a retirement portfolio. That is -- until the Fed started buying their own debt and capturing interest rates so that the debt to GDP ratio didn't become toxically frightening. So the end result is FORCING seniors to take more RISK in the markets when they SHOULD be more liquid in cash.. And they did that KNOWING that would happen.

Even under the previous Admin where "the market" is a bad word -- they FORCED all the Baby Boomers to shift their "liquidity" into dividend stocks and riskier moves. I thought leftists were all "risk adverse". That they want to banish the word "risk" from everyday life. But when it comes to HIDING the mounting deficit --- I guess Seniors get to walk behind the wagon..

But all the guidance was you needed a minimum of 3 to 4% OVERALL in a retirement portfolio.

Fine. Just don't expect more than a fraction of that for your cash holdings.

So the end result is FORCING seniors to take more RISK in the markets when they SHOULD be more liquid in cash..

You can be liquid or you can get yield. Take your pick.

Don't know why you'd support an arbitrary policy that's sucking $Trills from the Boomer retirement accounts. Are you one of those soulless bankers ??

You know damn well know that REAL inflation, not govt tweaked inflation, is making those liquid assets go NEGATIVE in a way that no previous Federal policy has in our lifetimes. It's OK if you're too quesy to look at the carnage. But the plan really is --- to cover up the immediate results of a skyrocketing debt load at the expense of the BIGGEST cache of personal wealth saved in the history of the planet. Those fucking seniors will be fine. Let them play the market or eat Purina..

You have to do something other than buy a CD to get some yield. So go do it.

Let me know if you need any help.

 

[FA_Q2]

This isn't new, but it's worth revisiting.

Some background [1]:

• Salary of retired US Presidents:.. . . . .. . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE.
• Salary of House/Senate members: .. . . . .. . . . . $174,000 FOR LIFE. This is stupid
• Salary of Speaker of the House .. . . . .. . . . . $223,500 FOR LIFE. This is really stupid
• Salary of Majority / Minority Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid
• Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .$40,065
• Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000

So with that as context....."I could end the deficit in five minutes," Warren told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

​

I think Buffett's spot on because today we have leaders who want you and me to fear all sorts of things -- the press, ISIS, global warming, etc. Elected federal leaders, however, have no fear of facing any consequence from not actually doing their job and doing it well.

Note:

1. (Please, don't parrot the "serve one term and collect full retirement for life" thing. First, read this. Congress Members got it good, but not that good. LOL There's a schedule for how much they actually can collect, but whatever they collect, it's for life if they retire "in full" or what some folks might call "fully vested." That's what the figures above refer to.)

Your figures are a bit off.

Okay/ I didn't verify the figures, mainly because the OP's key point doesn't stand on them. The figures are presented to provide a bit of situational context, namely this:

Elected leaders get paid quite nicely and are not held accountable for actually achieving one of the key things they are employed to do. Indeed, often enough they achieve something between none and 1/3rd of it as goes facilitating economic growth at an "acceptable" rate. Moreover, though it's not part of the OP's theme, one might even argue they have a similarly dismal record of achievement with regard to inexplicitly economic targets. Elected officials, in return for their abjectly deficient performance, receive a decent salary with increases at their discretion, excellent benefits, great notoriety (which feels good if nothing else), myriad material perquisites derived from the position/job itself, and most importantly, little chance of actually losing their job, provided, of course, they aren't pellucidly repugnant.

In contrast teachers and soldiers, who in the OP really are just mentioned as analogues for "everyone except Congresspersons, are paid not nearly so well, receive decent benefits, individually garner no great and widespread renown to speak of, have no direct control over their pay increases, enjoy few, if any, material job-related perquisites, but most importantly, if they consistently fail to meet expectations set for their performance, they don't get to keep their jobs. They, like everyone except Congress members, are held accountable for demonstrably achieving results that are objectively measurable.​

.....I'm not sure how or whether you think the degree of the figures' inaccuracy materially alters the main point of the post...The sums merely form the mise-en-scène, as it were. If one doubled, say, the shown teacher and soldier salaries, would that really change the merit (or lack thereof, if that be one's view) of the proposal that the tenure of lawmakers be incumbent on effectively managing economic growth? Not in my mind.

I realize you didn't say that the margin of error do so alter the central theme, but I'm also struggling to grasp why you bothered to note the inaccuracy. Would you care to provide some perspective on why you noted that there is some inaccuracy in the figures? Perhaps it's merely that you note the inaccuracy for the sake of doing so? Maybe even it's that you did so to catalyze a response that would allow you to gauge whether a petty purpose underpinned my listing the sums? (The abundance of pettiness on the forum makes this motive quite possible, sadly....) Perhaps you had some other reason? I don't know. I know only that you did, but as that's all you did, that's all I can claim to know.

The point you miss in your diatribe is that these people number in the hundreds compared to the millions of teachers and members of the military.

My daughter is an Army officer and brings home at the ripe old age of 22 almost as much as her father with 20 years experience.

The comparisons are simply invalid and using incorrect data makes it "fake news' in the grand tradition of CNN.

The cited dollar figures have nothing to do with the point in the OP. He was not stating that the money paid to congressman is remotely significant in the debt. He was stating that the fact they get paid and can continue to do so without consequence to debt is the problem.


IOW, if congressman lost their jobs for spending too much money they would STOP doing so.


The point is correct as well – congressman are rewarded for spending more rather than the opposite. The constituents at home are more likely to give that congressman another term for getting that pork project passed in their home state whether or not the feds actually have the money to do so. Tell that same congressman that if these projects go through he is not going to be allowed to run again and he just might think twice about borrowing the money for it.

You and the OP need to put down the bong and stop hitting it so hard. Go ahead and propose the Amendment necessary and see how many laugh with you as opposed to those who laugh at you.

You would have better luck repealing the law of gravity.

So still avoiding the actual point.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Your figures are a bit off.

Okay/ I didn't verify the figures, mainly because the OP's key point doesn't stand on them. The figures are presented to provide a bit of situational context, namely this:

Elected leaders get paid quite nicely and are not held accountable for actually achieving one of the key things they are employed to do. Indeed, often enough they achieve something between none and 1/3rd of it as goes facilitating economic growth at an "acceptable" rate. Moreover, though it's not part of the OP's theme, one might even argue they have a similarly dismal record of achievement with regard to inexplicitly economic targets. Elected officials, in return for their abjectly deficient performance, receive a decent salary with increases at their discretion, excellent benefits, great notoriety (which feels good if nothing else), myriad material perquisites derived from the position/job itself, and most importantly, little chance of actually losing their job, provided, of course, they aren't pellucidly repugnant.

In contrast teachers and soldiers, who in the OP really are just mentioned as analogues for "everyone except Congresspersons, are paid not nearly so well, receive decent benefits, individually garner no great and widespread renown to speak of, have no direct control over their pay increases, enjoy few, if any, material job-related perquisites, but most importantly, if they consistently fail to meet expectations set for their performance, they don't get to keep their jobs. They, like everyone except Congress members, are held accountable for demonstrably achieving results that are objectively measurable.​

.....I'm not sure how or whether you think the degree of the figures' inaccuracy materially alters the main point of the post...The sums merely form the mise-en-scène, as it were. If one doubled, say, the shown teacher and soldier salaries, would that really change the merit (or lack thereof, if that be one's view) of the proposal that the tenure of lawmakers be incumbent on effectively managing economic growth? Not in my mind.

I realize you didn't say that the margin of error do so alter the central theme, but I'm also struggling to grasp why you bothered to note the inaccuracy. Would you care to provide some perspective on why you noted that there is some inaccuracy in the figures? Perhaps it's merely that you note the inaccuracy for the sake of doing so? Maybe even it's that you did so to catalyze a response that would allow you to gauge whether a petty purpose underpinned my listing the sums? (The abundance of pettiness on the forum makes this motive quite possible, sadly....) Perhaps you had some other reason? I don't know. I know only that you did, but as that's all you did, that's all I can claim to know.

The point you miss in your diatribe is that these people number in the hundreds compared to the millions of teachers and members of the military.

My daughter is an Army officer and brings home at the ripe old age of 22 almost as much as her father with 20 years experience.

The comparisons are simply invalid and using incorrect data makes it "fake news' in the grand tradition of CNN.

The cited dollar figures have nothing to do with the point in the OP. He was not stating that the money paid to congressman is remotely significant in the debt. He was stating that the fact they get paid and can continue to do so without consequence to debt is the problem.


IOW, if congressman lost their jobs for spending too much money they would STOP doing so.


The point is correct as well – congressman are rewarded for spending more rather than the opposite. The constituents at home are more likely to give that congressman another term for getting that pork project passed in their home state whether or not the feds actually have the money to do so. Tell that same congressman that if these projects go through he is not going to be allowed to run again and he just might think twice about borrowing the money for it.

You and the OP need to put down the bong and stop hitting it so hard. Go ahead and propose the Amendment necessary and see how many laugh with you as opposed to those who laugh at you.

You would have better luck repealing the law of gravity.

So still avoiding the actual point.

What is the point? No pipe dream like that is ever going to come true. The fact you cannot see that speaks volumes about your world view.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Nuke the bastards.

Okay/ I didn't verify the figures, mainly because the OP's key point doesn't stand on them. The figures are presented to provide a bit of situational context, namely this:

Elected leaders get paid quite nicely and are not held accountable for actually achieving one of the key things they are employed to do. Indeed, often enough they achieve something between none and 1/3rd of it as goes facilitating economic growth at an "acceptable" rate. Moreover, though it's not part of the OP's theme, one might even argue they have a similarly dismal record of achievement with regard to inexplicitly economic targets. Elected officials, in return for their abjectly deficient performance, receive a decent salary with increases at their discretion, excellent benefits, great notoriety (which feels good if nothing else), myriad material perquisites derived from the position/job itself, and most importantly, little chance of actually losing their job, provided, of course, they aren't pellucidly repugnant.

In contrast teachers and soldiers, who in the OP really are just mentioned as analogues for "everyone except Congresspersons, are paid not nearly so well, receive decent benefits, individually garner no great and widespread renown to speak of, have no direct control over their pay increases, enjoy few, if any, material job-related perquisites, but most importantly, if they consistently fail to meet expectations set for their performance, they don't get to keep their jobs. They, like everyone except Congress members, are held accountable for demonstrably achieving results that are objectively measurable.​

.....I'm not sure how or whether you think the degree of the figures' inaccuracy materially alters the main point of the post...The sums merely form the mise-en-scène, as it were. If one doubled, say, the shown teacher and soldier salaries, would that really change the merit (or lack thereof, if that be one's view) of the proposal that the tenure of lawmakers be incumbent on effectively managing economic growth? Not in my mind.

I realize you didn't say that the margin of error do so alter the central theme, but I'm also struggling to grasp why you bothered to note the inaccuracy. Would you care to provide some perspective on why you noted that there is some inaccuracy in the figures? Perhaps it's merely that you note the inaccuracy for the sake of doing so? Maybe even it's that you did so to catalyze a response that would allow you to gauge whether a petty purpose underpinned my listing the sums? (The abundance of pettiness on the forum makes this motive quite possible, sadly....) Perhaps you had some other reason? I don't know. I know only that you did, but as that's all you did, that's all I can claim to know.

The point you miss in your diatribe is that these people number in the hundreds compared to the millions of teachers and members of the military.

My daughter is an Army officer and brings home at the ripe old age of 22 almost as much as her father with 20 years experience.

The comparisons are simply invalid and using incorrect data makes it "fake news' in the grand tradition of CNN.

The cited dollar figures have nothing to do with the point in the OP. He was not stating that the money paid to congressman is remotely significant in the debt. He was stating that the fact they get paid and can continue to do so without consequence to debt is the problem.


IOW, if congressman lost their jobs for spending too much money they would STOP doing so.


The point is correct as well – congressman are rewarded for spending more rather than the opposite. The constituents at home are more likely to give that congressman another term for getting that pork project passed in their home state whether or not the feds actually have the money to do so. Tell that same congressman that if these projects go through he is not going to be allowed to run again and he just might think twice about borrowing the money for it.

You and the OP need to put down the bong and stop hitting it so hard. Go ahead and propose the Amendment necessary and see how many laugh with you as opposed to those who laugh at you.

You would have better luck repealing the law of gravity.

So still avoiding the actual point.

What is the point? No pipe dream like that is ever going to come true. The fact you cannot see that speaks volumes about your world view.

Aw man, you're harshing my buzz. I would be pleased as punch if it did happen.