Jump to content

You're welcome, Congress.


RightSpin

Recommended Posts

Francois_Dumas
Obviously reward, performance and greed are viewed a little differently between CEO's and politicians.

 

*grinning*

Link to comment

This is from my hazy recollection, as opposed to recent research, so I could be wrong here, but I seem to remember when they had to vote each time as to whether or not to give themselves a raise, and the inevitable stink that was generated when people gave them hell for even considering such a thing.

 

Then, it seems, someone got smart and the raises became, more or less, automatic.

 

JMHO, but I really don't think the public, as a whole, makes much (any?) effort to hold their elected officials accountable for much of anything (at least until things really go into the sh@tter): we're the ones who have abdicated our power and allowed things to end up as they have.

Link to comment
Lets_Play_Two
This is from my hazy recollection, as opposed to recent research, so I could be wrong here, but I seem to remember when they had to vote each time as to whether or not to give themselves a raise, and the inevitable stink that was generated when people gave them hell for even considering such a thing.

 

Then, it seems, someone got smart and the raises became, more or less, automatic.

 

JMHO, but I really don't think the public, as a whole, makes much (any?) effort to hold their elected officials accountable for much of anything (at least until things really go into the sh@tter): we're the ones who have abdicated our power and allowed things to end up as they have.

 

As evidenced by the criminals who get reelected or elected. We have a congressman in Florida who was impeached when he was a Federal judge. Some people decided this was the guy they wanted to represent them in Congress. We are toughest on those who cheat on their wife. Some how that dishonesty is the worst transgression.

Link to comment

Flame Suit ON!

 

OK. OK... For the most part I believe that anyone who wants to be or is a politician has something broken between the ears BUT this is not a gigantic raise (compare it against high level execs in all those companies we like to kvetch about) and if your job offered you a raise this year would you turn it down?

yadda, yadda, yadda, public servants, yadda, yadda, yadda giving themselves the raise... whatever.... easier to throw rocks etc..

Link to comment

...and if your job offered you a raise this year would you turn it down?

 

 

If you weren't DOING your job, you wouldn't be offered a raise!!!

 

Sheesh, what does it take to get through to some of you? kboom.gif

Link to comment

...and if your job offered you a raise this year would you turn it down?

 

 

If you weren't DOING your job, you wouldn't be offered a raise!!!

 

Sheesh, what does it take to get through to some of you? kboom.gif

 

There are slackers in every portion of the work force. I just think it's easy to over generalize and blame the whole for faults that exist in the few or in the process. I think too many take the easy route of vilifying large groups or categories of people. I admit that that's something that I'm guilty of as well. I often find that when I cave to this personal fault that I've failed to consider some portion of the larger picture. Someone is certainly about to come up with a series of examples in an attempt to invalidate my opinion and that is fine...to each their own but pointing out the ridiculous doesn't make my statements wrong.

 

For what it's worth I do personally think that they should've voted down the raise. It would be a very easy and inexpensive way (for them) to display some understanding of what most American's are faced with.

Link to comment
Flame Suit ON!

 

OK. OK... For the most part I believe that anyone who wants to be or is a politician has something broken between the ears BUT this is not a gigantic raise (compare it against high level execs in all those companies we like to kvetch about) and if your job offered you a raise this year would you turn it down?

yadda, yadda, yadda, public servants, yadda, yadda, yadda giving themselves the raise... whatever.... easier to throw rocks etc..

 

 

The big difference is that Congress has managed to exempt itself from the laws it passes... Tax free living, freedom from some pesky things as ADA Compliance, EEO, etc, those little things that the small business folk of the world have to comply with.

 

If congress was a) subject to the laws they pass, b) paid the same local, state, and federal taxes as everyone else and c) were subject to term limits like the President, then I might be more willing to let them vote themselves a COLA.

 

Otherwise, I hope they all DIAF...

Link to comment
If you weren't DOING your job, you wouldn't be offered a raise!!!

 

Sheesh, what does it take to get through to some of you? kboom.gif

 

I'm throwing the BS flag on that one! Performance has nothing to do with raises and pay for some...

Link to comment
Lets_Play_Two

I do believe they pay the same taxes at the same rate that we all do, except of course for social security and medicare tax since they do have their own retirement system.

 

Term limits would be good but they would just lower the number of years necessary to fully vest in their retirement benefits and we would be supporting a lot of out of work professional politicians.

Link to comment

I'm throwing the BS flag on that one! Performance has nothing to do with raises and pay for some...

 

 

That prolly needs to have a smiley emo attached comin from...............my friend Richard.

 

 

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday

Technically this wasn't a "raise," which is a salary increase that is traditionally associated with job performance or length of tenure. This was just a cost-of-living adjustment to keep up with inflation on local and national levels. The 2009 GS Salary Table for the DC-Baltimore area indicates a 2.9% national COLA across the board for all federal GS employees. Members of congress of course aren't on the GS schedule, but clearly they are simply being handed the same COLA as everyone else.

 

Having said all that, I'll admit it seems strange to be receiving a salary increase of any kind during such troubled times...

Link to comment
russell_bynum
If you weren't DOING your job, you wouldn't be offered a raise!!!

 

Sheesh, what does it take to get through to some of you? kboom.gif

 

I'm throwing the BS flag on that one! Performance has nothing to do with raises and pay for some...

 

Correct. Sometimes it's based on union contracts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:grin:

 

Link to comment
russell_bynum

Having said all that, I'll admit it seems strange to be receiving a salary increase of any kind during such troubled times...

 

Sure, times are troubled, but this congress has one of the highest approval ratings ever recorded, so it really makes sense to give them an increase.

 

 

:rofl:

 

Link to comment

 

I'm throwing the BS flag on that one! Performance has nothing to do with raises and pay for some...

 

Correct. Sometimes it's based on union contracts.

:grin:

 

headbonk.gif

Link to comment
I do believe they pay the same taxes at the same rate that we all do, except of course for social security and medicare tax since they do have their own retirement system.

 

Term limits would be good but they would just lower the number of years necessary to fully vest in their retirement benefits and we would be supporting a lot of out of work professional politicians.

 

You're right bill, they do pay income tax on their salaries, but they do have the ability to grant themselves other perks.

 

Term limits are a great idea IMO, they keep change more of a constant and help to prevent the chumps from getting too deeply entrenched. Personally, if you want to be a career politician and avoid real work, I don't necessarily have an issue with that. I do have an issue with someone like Ted Kennedy or Jesse Helms or Charlie Bennett sitting in the same seat in the same district for 40+ years.

 

I think they should be limited to 2 consecutive terms in any one office. So... Two house terms means they have sit out 2 years before they can run for the Senate, etc.

 

Wishful thinking I know, but hey! We've got the change we deserved now....

Link to comment
If congress was a) subject to the laws they pass, b) paid the same local, state, and federal taxes as everyone else and c) were subject to term limits like the President, then I might be more willing to let them vote themselves a COLA.

The facts are, a) since 1995 the Congress has been subject to the major employment laws such as ADA, OSHA, and FMLA, b) Congress has always been subject to local, state, and federal income taxes and since 1983 to social security and medicare (along with all other federal employees), c) term limits is a matter of opinion.

Link to comment
We already have a method of limiting terms, the vote.

 

Which has proven not to work, since every doofus thinks "their" congressman is doing a good job.

Link to comment
We already have a method of limiting terms, the vote.

 

Which has proven not to work, since every doofus thinks "their" congressman is doing a good job.

 

...not me.

 

...but the doofus part is a matter of opinion. :grin:

 

 

Link to comment
russell_bynum
We already have a method of limiting terms, the vote.

 

Which has proven not to work, since every doofus thinks "their" congressman is doing a good job.

 

It's worse than that. The average doofus thinks "thier" congressman isn't doing a good job...hence the exceedingly low approval rating. But they re-elect all the same folks anyway.

Link to comment

Does the average doofus even know who there congress persons are?

 

I’ve got to think this is connected to the pork issue. Look at how many congress people are reelected despite criminal activity. Just as long as they ‘bring home the federal bacon’ their constituents continue to turn a blind eye to all the rest. Eliminate the earmarks system and the playing field will level. At least somewhat.

 

Link to comment
Does the average doofus even know who there congress persons are?

 

I’ve got to think this is connected to the pork issue. Look at how many congress people are reelected despite criminal activity. Just as long as they ‘bring home the federal bacon’ their constituents continue to turn a blind eye to all the rest. Eliminate the earmarks system and the playing field will level. At least somewhat.

See "Gas Prices" thread.
Link to comment
I’ve got to think this is connected to the pork issue. Look at how many congress people are reelected despite criminal activity. Just as long as they ‘bring home the federal bacon’ their constituents continue to turn a blind eye to all the rest. Eliminate the earmarks system and the playing field will level. At least somewhat.

 

Ken, we have to bring a lot more bacon home. It's the only way to solve our financial problems. If we can just get congress to spend enough money, we'll bounce right out of this recession. It's so easy, I'm suprised more people don't get it.

Link to comment

i'm tired of these type threads. while i'm not very happy with the current state of affairs do you all truly believe all the fault is in washington?

 

Link to comment
i'm tired of these type threads. while i'm not very happy with the current state of affairs do you all truly believe all the fault is in washington?

 

No, the fault comes right back to the people who put them there in the first place, but in this day and age of blame-accountability, fixating on a single entity (congress, greed, rich, tobacco, oil, etc.) is the easiest way to deal with our problems. And, we're all about easy now a days.

Link to comment
We already have a method of limiting terms, the vote.

 

Which has proven not to work, since every doofus thinks "their" congressman is doing a good job.

 

Let's limit doofi, then.

 

 

Link to comment
We already have a method of limiting terms, the vote.

 

Which has proven not to work, since every doofus thinks "their" congressman is doing a good job.

 

If so, then what is the explanation on the change of control from 2001 to 2009?

Link to comment
We already have a method of limiting terms, the vote.

 

Which has proven not to work, since every doofus thinks "their" congressman is doing a good job.

 

If so, then what is the explanation on the change of control from 2001 to 2009?

It's long been said that if you make something idiot proof, along will come smarter idiots.

 

To that end, I present the incoming congress! :rofl:

Link to comment
We already have a method of limiting terms, the vote.

 

Which has proven not to work, since every doofus thinks "their" congressman is doing a good job.

 

If so, then what is the explanation on the change of control from 2001 to 2009?

It's long been said that if you make something idiot proof, along will come smarter idiots.

 

To that end, I present the incoming congress! :rofl:

 

I like to give people a chance before I'm disappointed in them, and likewise this country did give a chance in 1994 which turned out to be pretty good. A different chance was given in 2000, which has resulted in disappointment and now a change is forthcoming. I hope these people are good at repairing the broken system they will be managing.

Link to comment
Lets_Play_Two
I like to give people a chance before I'm disappointed in them, and likewise this country did give a chance in 1994 which turned out to be pretty good. A different chance was given in 2000, which has resulted in disappointment and now a change is forthcoming. I hope these people are good at repairing the broken system they will be managing.

 

This might be worthwhile if there were any real change. Has the leadership of the incoming Congress changed at all--other than the Waxman for Dingell swap?

Link to comment
russell_bynum
I like to give people a chance before I'm disappointed in them, and likewise this country did give a chance in 1994 which turned out to be pretty good. A different chance was given in 2000, which has resulted in disappointment and now a change is forthcoming. I hope these people are good at repairing the broken system they will be managing.

 

This might be worthwhile if there were any real change. Has the leadership of the incoming Congress changed at all--other than the Waxman for Dingell swap?

 

No.

 

Everyone looks at the Executive branch and jumps up and down about how great "change" is. But, aside from Executive Orders, there isn't much than can be done without the Legislative branch's support. BTW, the Legislative branch has supported (with votes. Ignore the screeching you hear from the media and go look at the voting records.) every one of the things that supposedly need change. (Iraq, finance mess, etc). That's been the case for the last 8 years regardless of which party is in control of the Legislative branch. Idiots like to blame one guy for Iraq, for the finance meltdown, high gas prices, their receding hairline, and anything else they can think of. But without Congress, the President's powers are very limited.

 

Since Iraq seems to be one of the biggest points of contention, consider this: We went to Iraq on a majority vote from Congress. We continue to renew funding for Iraq through majority votes in Congress. The Congress that keeps renewing funding for the war in Iraq is the same Congress that has a 14% approval rating and the same Congress that just got re-elected.

 

Change, my ass.

Link to comment
This might be worthwhile if there were any real change. Has the leadership of the incoming Congress changed at all--other than the Waxman for Dingell swap?

 

no more calls! We have a winner.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...