Pay Cut For Congress: Yea Or Nay?

[bripat9643]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

The best way to get rich is to serve in Congress. They don't need any more of our money.

Don't you ever wonder how a guy who only makes 170K a year can retire a multi millionaire after a few years serving in Congress?

Yep, and they get a full pension even if they only serve 2 years. How many people would turn down that deal?

 

[rightwinger]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

I don't necessarily want the best and brightest, not at all. I want them to be the most representativist, i.e. the most reflective of my wishes. That's what they're (supposed to be) there for. That doesn't take talent; it just takes integrity.

It's estimated that 37% of Congresscritters are lawyers. Lawyers make up 0.36% of the population. That means attorneys are overrepresented in Congress by a factor of a hundred. At least.

There are way too many damn lawyers in Congress. I understand the advantage of having one there; I don't understand the advantage of having a hundred times the population. That ain't representation.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read

Representative of the population?

 

[Synthaholic]

I think their pay should be cut in half and all perks eliminated. Also every bill they pass into law should apply to them just as it does for everybody else.

I agree except for the cut in pay. The Washington area is very expensive to live in.

Of course, their pay is the least of their concerns. Getting re-elected a few times so that they can later use the revolving door into a lucrative lobbying gig is their real goal.

Remove lobbying by former members of Congress or their family members would be the most effective.

 

[Rozman]

They go before the cameras and tell us that things are rough and the people need to suck it up.
Well it's time for Senators and members of congress to suck it up and take a pay cut.
My message to Princess Pelosi is she can start sucking...

With all due respect....congresswoman.

 

[rightwinger]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

The best way to get rich is to serve in Congress. They don't need any more of our money.

Don't you ever wonder how a guy who only makes 170K a year can retire a multi millionaire after a few years serving in Congress?

Yep, and they get a full pension even if they only serve 2 years. How many people would turn down that deal?

snopes.com: Congressional Pensions

 

[Synthaholic]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

I don't necessarily want the best and brightest, not at all. I want them to be the most representativist, i.e. the most reflective of my wishes. That's what they're (supposed to be) there for. That doesn't take talent; it just takes integrity.

It's estimated that 37% of Congresscritters are lawyers. Lawyers make up 0.36% of the population. That means attorneys are overrepresented in Congress by a factor of a hundred. At least.

There are way too many damn lawyers in Congress. I understand the advantage of having one there; I don't understand the advantage of having a hundred times the population. That ain't representation.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read

Representative of the population?

Maybe Pogo wants Wal*Mart graveyard shift workers in Congress. There are undoubtedly more of them in the country than lawyers.

 

[Unkotare]

I think their pay should be cut in half and all perks eliminated. Also every bill they pass into law should apply to them just as it does for everybody else.

Take it a step further... Cut it to the point that they need to get real jobs. That should eliminate those who seek to get rich off of the taxpayers they are supposed ot serve.

So, you want MORE corruption in government?

 

[GWV5903]

At $177,000 a year

They are underpaid

Underpaid???

They work roughly a 150 days a year, consistently make some of the dumbest mistakes known to man...

So based on your logic (really lack of knowledge), we should pay them more...

And we wonder how we have Oblamer...

RW, your the Idiots Idiot...

Wear it with pride...

Mid level executives make more than that

They would be fired if they performed this bad, so whats your point?

 

[Unkotare]

I don't necessarily want the best and brightest, not at all. I want them to be the most representativist, i.e. the most reflective of my wishes. That's what they're (supposed to be) there for. That doesn't take talent; it just takes integrity.

It's estimated that 37% of Congresscritters are lawyers. Lawyers make up 0.36% of the population. That means attorneys are overrepresented in Congress by a factor of a hundred. At least.

There are way too many damn lawyers in Congress. I understand the advantage of having one there; I don't understand the advantage of having a hundred times the population. That ain't representation.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read

Representative of the population?

Maybe Pogo wants Wal*Mart graveyard shift workers in Congress.

Maybe Pogo needs to stop sniffing glue.

 

[Rozman]

The lefties want CEO's salaries cut because they don't like the way they are running their companies.
Well we want the same.Cut politicians salaries.At least until this administration can get the economy
going in the right direction...( Good luck with that.)

 

[rightwinger]

The lefties want CEO's salaries cut because they don't like the way they are running their companies.
Well we want the same.Cut politicians salaries.At least until this administration can get the economy
going in the right direction...( Good luck with that.)

I'm willing to pay CEOs what Congressmen make

Will that help?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

The best way to get rich is to serve in Congress. They don't need any more of our money.

Don't you ever wonder how a guy who only makes 170K a year can retire a multi millionaire after a few years serving in Congress?

Yep, and they get a full pension even if they only serve 2 years. How many people would turn down that deal?

that is a myth Bri......its 5 years and they will only get 15,000 a year at the age of 62 for 5......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

I don't necessarily want the best and brightest, not at all. I want them to be the most representativist, i.e. the most reflective of my wishes. That's what they're (supposed to be) there for. That doesn't take talent; it just takes integrity.

It's estimated that 37% of Congresscritters are lawyers. Lawyers make up 0.36% of the population. That means attorneys are overrepresented in Congress by a factor of a hundred. At least.

There are way too many damn lawyers in Congress. I understand the advantage of having one there; I don't understand the advantage of having a hundred times the population. That ain't representation.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read

Representative of the population?

well from what i understand my Rep. Loretta Sanchez is the rep for the people in her district # 46 here in Cal..........not anyone elses....

 

[Flopper]

I'm a big believer in paying people that produce. So let's pay congressman commensurate with their productivity.

 

[Rozman]

The lefties want CEO's salaries cut because they don't like the way they are running their companies.
Well we want the same.Cut politicians salaries.At least until this administration can get the economy
going in the right direction...( Good luck with that.)

I'm willing to pay CEOs what Congressmen make

Will that help?

Maybe we should hold politicians to the same standard that we hold people in the private
sector.In the private sector people have to produce,people want and expect results.
Politicians get to show up in Washington a few days a week and pretty much do nothing when there.They are well compensated for what they do.

 

[Flopper]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

I don't necessarily want the best and brightest, not at all. I want them to be the most representativist, i.e. the most reflective of my wishes. That's what they're (supposed to be) there for. That doesn't take talent; it just takes integrity.

It's estimated that 37% of Congresscritters are lawyers. Lawyers make up 0.36% of the population. That means attorneys are overrepresented in Congress by a factor of a hundred. At least.

There are way too many damn lawyers in Congress. I understand the advantage of having one there; I don't understand the advantage of having a hundred times the population. That ain't representation.

Since the job of a congressman is to make laws, I think I would prefer lawyers did it rather than plumbers.

 

[rightwinger]

The lefties want CEO's salaries cut because they don't like the way they are running their companies.
Well we want the same.Cut politicians salaries.At least until this administration can get the economy
going in the right direction...( Good luck with that.)

I'm willing to pay CEOs what Congressmen make

Will that help?

Maybe we should hold politicians to the same standard that we hold people in the private
sector.In the private sector people have to produce,people want and expect results.
Politicians get to show up in Washington a few days a week and pretty much do nothing when there.They are well compensated for what they do.

Congressmen face reelection every 2 years. If they don't cut it, they are fired

They also do more than you see on the Capitol Floor. They have office hours, meet constituents an work with staff and committees

Conservatives elect their representatives to keep anything from being done. Why do you have a problem with that?

 

[Oldguy]

I'm a big believer in paying people that produce. So let's pay congressman commensurate with their productivity.

What would you like them to do? How would you measure it? More laws for us all to deal with?

 

[Flopper]

I'm a big believer in paying people that produce. So let's pay congressman commensurate with their productivity.

What would you like them to do? How would you measure it? More laws for us all to deal with?

Maybe we should ask voters to rate them when they vote. However, judging from the polls, they would would owe their constituent money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really? I'm the only one as of now that says nay? The ONLY one?

My gripe is that we want our lawmakers to be the best and brightest... Most of the people in such positions are talented lawyers and communicators who could make a lot more in private practice as it is. Cutting their pay would be an insult ($174k for Senators, hardly Rockafeller money); and while most of them are already wealthy before they assume office, it's hardly due to the salary they make therein...

My take anyway. :shrug:

We? Is there a mouse in your pocket? Can you point anywhere I ever said our lawmakers should be the best and the brightest? Why would I want Bill Gates working in Congress when he is clearly much better suited to developing computer software?