Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job
 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house...z2KyqZlxEQ

Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she opposes a cut in congressional pay because it would diminish the dignity of lawmakers' jobs.

Who wants their own or their employees' pay cut?

I, and am sure a lot of people, took a pay cut recently. Does that diminish the dignity of our jobs?

Hey Fatboy Yeah I'm Talking To You

I would like to cut the pay of my representatives and senators. So I would like to cut my employees' pay.

Maybe if they actually did their job instead of taking vacations and bickering like children, their pay wouldn't be getting cut. If an employee behaved the way Congress behaves, they'd have been fired by now.

How much borrowing did she authorize during her speakership?

They may work for you, but they're not your employees.

They don't take orders from you, nor do you pay their full salary.

Just like employees of a company in which you own stock are not your employees.

Sure feels like it, so yeah.

They're being told, "like it or lump it." Nothing dignified about that.

I would increase their pay but would ban making any other kinda money during their terms.

If they cut their pay enough, it will only be rich people who can afford to serve in Congress. Far better, would be to ban trading of individuals stocks by members of Congress while they are serving.

Term Limits 8 years you're out no matter what. The amount of corrupution in DC makes the mob seem like amateurs. On a day to day basis the average american running from point A to B, has little time to even fathom the corruption let alone do anything about it. Oh thats right we can vote them out. To people pulling the strings it does not matter who's in office. The vote is useless its like what flavor do you like your corruption Coke or Pepsi ?

need I say more.

people who are kept in office by public votes and are up for re-election.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/201...58914.html

what they should have done is place it in a very long bill.. Then you could say: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". Rules and regulations by surprise..

As stated previously, reps are not the kind of "employees" to which I was referring.

you said "who wants their own or.. ". Since chances are you're unhappy with your senator/representative.. will the notion of them getting a pay increase rather than take a pay cut diminish your chance of voting for them? Obviously the answer is yes.

Many corporate CEO will take a pay cut to $1. Why? public opinion of course..

The legislators themselves diminish the dignity of the job...

A) I'm not unhappy. B) Senator/reps are not employees of mine (or yours).

Of course NOT. They take their pay in stock options for the cap gains tax rate.

Remove that loophole and that gimmick will disappear.

I submit that I have seen no evidence that Nancy Pelosi has any dignity to lose.

so they take their "pay" in an option to purchase stock positions at a previously set price? Wouldn't that be like working for a coupon for a certain percentage off gas?

If your set price is say $10 per share.. and the stock drops below $10 a share.. what is the loophole? That would push you into a 15% tax rate on something negative.

I'll tell you about another capital gains designed loophole.

so a loophole was created from paying capital gains tax if you don't make a large enough profit on it. But, fear not.. If you sell before 2 years do to health, a new job, or unforeseeable circumstance.. there's yet another loophole to get your out of paying capital gains. If you can't pull that loophole off, then you can use the 2 out of 5 year loophole to escape the majority of capital gains taxes.

The rules are not loopholes. Everything is designed a particular way for a reason.

Semantics: I'm not going to argue about them.

Just don't pretend they are the kind of employees I was talking about.

But I've since realized there are a lot of owners of companies who want to see their employees take a pay cut so they can increase the owner's share.

I agree. Let them keep their pay, but impose term limits.
There's no reason these corrupt bastards should be allowed to hold power for longer than that.

If we do not eliminate the influence of money, term limits would have a small effect. If we eliminate the influence of money in our election and politics, then corrupt people, be it term limited or not, are more likely to be voted out of the office.I think discussions of term limits distract from the more important problem of influence of money.

I think the influence of political parties is far more damaging than the influence of money in this day and age. No matter what we do with funding, to be elected you have to have a D or R in your name. Which inevitably means you're representing other interests than those of your constituents.

Pay with none of the other financial perks.

Amen, brother.

Too many people still vote for corruption time and again in this country, and it ends up hurting us all.
Term limits would seem to be a fit way of dealing with this issue.

But why is party affiliation so crucial? Because of the funding & fundraising opportunities that come with it...

Public - Good lord I'm tired of looking at her/it
Servant - yeah...I doubt she's serving anybody but herself

That's right. Nancy Pelosi shouldn't get a pay cut. She should be FIRED.

And the organization. You could eliminate all the funding to make it an "equal playing field" and third parties would still get trounced.

(BTW, not sure how that would happen, as much funding is considered free speech.)

Maybe the funding needs to be eliminated and an "affirmative action" system set up to assist less established parties into a competitive state. :rolleyes:

The owners in this case being the taxpayers. I'm OK with that given their performance.

Owners being SOME taxpayers. Namely the 1%. Actually more like the .01%

To use your words "^ unsubstantiated opinion". So you think that only the taxes of the 1% pay for Congressional Salaries? How did you figure that out?

That's not what I said.

The owners are the 1%. The rest own squat in comparison. Minority shareholders.....

That's only your unsubstantiated opinion. If we reduce total Congressional pay by $1, how do you determine who amongst the taxpayers contributed how much to that $1 in pay. Unless you are arguing that the rich pay most all of the taxes in this country????

Agreed!


Maybe, they need to pass a pay cut FIRST ... :lol:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usJ-pMomvLQ

It's been well documented and presented numerous times here that the top wealthy in this country own the majority of assets.

Though apparently the majority stake falls somewhere between the top 1% and top 10%.

Relevance of this hypothetical? :confused:

Nancy Pelosi being in the house undermines dignity of the American people

The issue is that money in the long term is governed more by longevity than acute amounts - politicians stop at nothing to get re-elected because 2 or 4 or 6 more years of the gravy train benefits them. So, to eliminate financial incentive, there must be limits on longevity.

There was a point in time when being a Senator, etc was seen as a few years one took out of their "day job" to serve the country, then to retire from and go back to private life. Heck, we didn't have limits on POTUS until relatively recently - the founders didn't intend for people to be career politicians (a career POTUS would be similar to a King, no?), perhaps they were naive enough to believe that people would step down just for the good of the country. Hah!

I disagree on term limits. Congress is the best chance to elect someone that really represents an area. If you have a good Congressman/woman, why force them out with term limits?

Exactly. Moreover, not everyone can pick up and afford to leave a job if their new career in Congress would only be for a fixed number of years.

They are vested after 5 years and most won't need to worry about affording life after Congress.
Congressional Pension [wikipedia.org]

Never gonna happen. Power = money. No way around it. Even if you put some sort of limit on a politician's spending, say 100K per person, per year. You will have the "supporters" buying air-time, billboards, lawn signs, etc and using those for their candidate. It's a free society, there is no way to effectively limit outside money from getting involved.

Free society does not mean you will be free to buy (off) a politician. If it was legal to put a limit on campaign contributions, it is legal to reduce that limit. And if it is/were not legal, it is about time to make it legal.

We need to:

1. drastically reduce the limit people can contribute to politician's campaigns.
2. disallow politicians to invest in individual stocks and accept money for speeches et al.

I agree with all that. I'm just saying it's not possible.

If I have a Million dollars that I want to buy TV time and run a commercial for some candidate/issue I support, there is nothing anyone should be able to do to stop me (assuming good taste in advertising). You can try and limit the candidate directly, but all the indirect "help" is out of reach.

I could be wrong but I thought spending your money on an "issue" is ok but on a "candidate" is not.

Yup. You think that voters don't know what "issue" defines each candidate?

But would that not be a better system than what we have now?

I am kinda baffled why not more people )on both sides of the isle) complain about money in our elections. I think that is our biggest problem.

I hear a lot of people complain about money in the elections. It not just elections though and that's where it's hard to limit when/where outside money has influence. Personally I think they should ban any public broadcast advertising for elections. (TV, radio, etc)

Amen.

So what?

Seriously, wtf does that matter to you other than a perverse emotional appeal? Such a thought/notion is entirely irrelevant. Such a notion reveals more about you than it does about evil, greedy business owners.

Simple: reduce the size and influence of government.

Once you recognize the purpose of money in politics, then the answer is glaringly evident.

Money is a proxy for interests. Interests exist because of government action. Government action comes in the form of legislation and regulation. Individuals and groups rightfully petition the government to either advantage themselves or protect themselves from government action.

Reduce the scope and impact of government and there's less incentive to seek government favor or protection.

Simple.

But then that conflicts with a liberal's need to nanny me around.

Yes, eliminate the gov altogether and you have eliminated corruption altogether.

However, I think gov is necessary. I am not for throwing out the baby with the bath water. Just because we may not have a perfect gov, it does not mean we should give up on the concept of gov or even severely reduce its scope and power. Gov is us. Some gov power is good; some is bad. Gov regulating ins cos is good. Gov imprisoning people indefinitely is bad. Gov passing laws to give yet another advantage to the wealthy is bad. Gov can be improved. Let's start with reducing the influence of the greedy heartless super rich.

We all have to chip in to support our gov. (I hope someone will pick that line as his signature. :lol:)

I neither said eliminate govt or severely reduce it's scope.

You guys are still missing the point and that is why money exists in politics.

So you eliminate that money... What then? You're still left with individuals and groups that will petition their government officials for advantage or relief.

Notwithstanding your need to believe that politicians are bought, the core issue is not the money, but the scope and power of government. There's not an area of our life not regulated in some way by the local, state, and national government. Hence, we naturally seek to gain advantage or relief within that framework.

By the way, you are aware that the rich are hardly the only recipients of government benefits, advantages, etc., right? I mean, half the country is exempt from federal taxes and despite this receive "refunds". Small businesses and minority owned businesses receive massive govt transfers.

I was clarifying/correcting a previous assertion. I was previously referring to managers who want their employees well compensated. Which you would know if you'd read the thread.

It is as relevant as this ^ opinion.

Well, thank you for completely undermining your own assertion.

The original assertion still stands. I just clarified to whom I was not referring: owners who profit from lowering their employees' wages.

Still stands? Your just said it was as valid as my opinion which you held to be invalid... Lol.

Your tortured perversion of the English language doesn't magically convert your emo opinion into a legitimate factual observation.