Weekly Ad: See Best Buy's new Digital Weekly Ad here! See Deals
Forum Thread

Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

zzyzzx 6,405 546 February 15, 2013 at 03:44 PM
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.

58 Comments

1 2 3 4

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Aug 2006
L6: Yankees 1
4,661 Posts
58 Reputation
#31
Quote from smegalicious View Post :
But why is party affiliation so crucial? Because of the funding & fundraising opportunities that come with it...
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. Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#32
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
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.
The owners in this case being the taxpayers. I'm OK with that given their performance.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
All growth depends upon activity. There is no development physically or intellectually without effort, and effort means work. — Calvin Coolidge
"Under Barack Obama, the only 'change' is that 'hope' is hard to find" - Marco Rubio
Joined Aug 2008
Permanently Banned
23,142 Posts
462 Reputation
#33
Quote from andyfico View Post :
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%
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#34
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
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?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2008
Permanently Banned
23,142 Posts
462 Reputation
#35
Quote from andyfico View Post :
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.....
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#36
Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
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????
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined May 2005
L10: Grand Master
8,643 Posts
210 Reputation
#37
Quote from JackHandey View Post :
I submit that I have seen no evidence that Nancy Pelosi has any dignity to lose.

Agreed!


Maybe, they need to pass a pay cut FIRST ... laugh out loud



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usJ-pMomvLQ
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Aug 2008
Permanently Banned
23,142 Posts
462 Reputation
#38
Quote from andyfico View Post :
That's only your unsubstantiated opinion.
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%.

Quote :
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????
Relevance of this hypothetical? Confused
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by 124nic8 February 18, 2013 at 11:33 AM.
Joined Apr 2011
L4: Apprentice
373 Posts
53 Reputation
#39
Nancy Pelosi being in the house undermines dignity of the American people
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Nov 2005
L10: Grand Master
26,169 Posts
3,540 Reputation
Pro
#40
Quote from TRNT View Post :
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.

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!
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#41
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?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined May 2009
L5: Journeyman
836 Posts
54 Reputation
#42
Quote from Danman114 View Post :
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Jul 2010
... and so does Rodgers!
6,342 Posts
1,451 Reputation
#43
Quote from roughnready View Post :
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]
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Quote :
Never trust a dead Warlock.
Joined Jul 2010
... and so does Rodgers!
6,342 Posts
1,451 Reputation
#44
Quote from TRNT View Post :
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.
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
35,990 Posts
#45
Quote from Favrerox View Post :
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.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 3 of 4
1 2 3 4
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2017. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard