PDA

View Full Version : Religion Should Congress give up their pay?


SBK
03-25-2009, 04:35 PM
With all the calls in these tough economic times for leaders to work for $1, should Congress do the same?

Should our government sacrifice the same they're asking business leaders to?

petegz28
03-25-2009, 04:37 PM
Hell yes! They should also be forced into social security and have a weak ass benefits package like most Americans.

mlyonsd
03-25-2009, 04:38 PM
At the very least, if they create a national health care system they should be forced to use it for them and their families unless they want to pay for their own.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2009, 04:40 PM
With all the calls in these tough economic times for leaders to work for $1, should Congress do the same?

Should our government sacrifice the same they're asking business leaders to?

Absolutely. Then make it based on merit. If the economy is doing well, by that I mean true production, savings, capital formation and wealth. Then they get a raise.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2009, 04:41 PM
At the very least, if they create a national health care system they should be forced to use it for them and their families unless they want to pay for their own.

They'll probably exempt themselves and have a private plan. :D

Hydrae
03-25-2009, 04:45 PM
They'll probably exempt themselves and have a private plan. :D

If they do that I will be more understanding on why they want to ban automatic weapons. :p

wild1
03-25-2009, 04:47 PM
They also should be barred from making any money from "consulting fees" or speaking tours or whatever else.

jAZ
03-25-2009, 04:48 PM
With all the calls in these tough economic times for leaders to work for $1, should Congress do the same?

Should our government sacrifice the same they're asking business leaders to?
No, they shouldn't. And we shouldn't be asking them to.

We should be asking them to do more, not get paid less.

Sure, it would feel great to have them take pay cuts, but many of these people are relatively normal people (on the house side) with families and bills and getting paid $1 wouldn't work for anyone of us normal people.

Their income is so inconsequential to the problem that's it's a waste of time to even disucss it.

Why are you joining the chorus of populist, ignorant, pointless, side-tracking, distracting from the real problems outrage with this thread?

It's a gimmicky disucssion and you are succuming to the distraction instead of the point.

mikey23545
03-25-2009, 04:58 PM
No, they shouldn't. And we shouldn't be asking them to.
We should be asking them to do more, not get paid less.
Why are you joining the chorus of populist, ignorant, pointless, side-tracking, distracting from the real problems outrage with this thread?


Are you talking about all the harpies calling to strip executives of their bonuses?

Couldn't agree more.

jAZ
03-25-2009, 05:07 PM
Are you talking about all the harpies calling to strip executives of their bonuses?

Couldn't agree more.

Re: the AIG bonuses, yes.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=204759

HonestChieffan
03-25-2009, 05:19 PM
No. this is absurd. You would save millions more by requiring them to cut their office budgets by 50%. Salary is a tiny cost of having those idiots do bad work.

wild1
03-25-2009, 05:21 PM
No. this is absurd. You would save millions more by requiring them to cut their office budgets by 50%. Salary is a tiny cost of having those idiots do bad work.

dear GOD... are you suggesting that they... have to make a refueling stop on their way home on the weekends?

THA HORRAAHHHH


THA HORRRAAHHHHHHH!!!

HonestChieffan
03-25-2009, 05:57 PM
Fire 1/2 of their staff. They dont read bills anyway.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 06:06 PM
Their income is so inconsequential to the problem that's it's a waste of time to even disucss it.

Put this on the pile of millions of other things that are inconsequential.

SBK
03-25-2009, 06:09 PM
No, they shouldn't. And we shouldn't be asking them to.

We should be asking them to do more, not get paid less.

Sure, it would feel great to have them take pay cuts, but many of these people are relatively normal people (on the house side) with families and bills and getting paid $1 wouldn't work for anyone of us normal people.

Their income is so inconsequential to the problem that's it's a waste of time to even disucss it.

Why are you joining the chorus of populist, ignorant, pointless, side-tracking, distracting from the real problems outrage with this thread?

It's a gimmicky disucssion and you are succuming to the distraction instead of the point.

I think they should get a part-time income at best, as they are part time employees.

I totally disagree that they should be compensated more. After 1 term they get their salary for life. They have their own health care, pension, etc etc etc....It's a freaking joke. They don't work for us anymore, we are working for them.

I think if they're going to cry out for people to cut their salary, as leaders, they should lead by example and cut theirs as well.

jAZ
03-25-2009, 06:12 PM
I think they should get a part-time income at best, as they are part time employees.

I totally disagree that they should be compensated more. After 1 term they get their salary for life. They have their own health care, pension, etc etc etc....It's a freaking joke. They don't work for us anymore, we are working for them.

I think if they're going to cry out for people to cut their salary, as leaders, they should lead by example and cut theirs as well.

And if they do, it will be yet another distraction that the media will seize on because it gets ratings... but will do nothing but distract from the real problems.

Direckshun
03-25-2009, 06:12 PM
I've heard worse ideas.

SBK
03-25-2009, 06:15 PM
And if they do, it will be yet another distraction that the media will seize on because it gets ratings... but will do nothing but distract from the real problems.

The media isn't gonna cover the real issues anyway. Obama is in office, and they're not going to screw that up.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-25-2009, 06:16 PM
Absolutely. Then make it based on merit. If the economy is doing well, by that I mean true production, savings, capital formation and wealth. Then they get a raise.


LMAO Anyone remember that Dana Carvey skit on SNL where he's playing Ross Perot and offering to be POTUS for just 1% of the governments take? That was comedy gold.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 06:18 PM
I think if they're going to cry out for people to cut their salary, as leaders, they should lead by example and cut theirs as well.

Let's not forget that the business that Congress runs bleeds more red ink than any entity in history. Way more than any of these companies that are tanked.

Garcia Bronco
03-25-2009, 06:24 PM
Howard Taft did it

mlyonsd
03-25-2009, 06:28 PM
And if they do, it will be yet another distraction that the media will seize on because it gets ratings... but will do nothing but distract from the real problems.

Yea, they've been doing a good job for the last 30 years...Heaven forbid America looks at their total return on investment.

banyon
03-25-2009, 06:40 PM
Kansas House backs 10% cut in legislators' pay
Comments (7) Recommend (0)
BY JEANNINE KORANDA
Eagle Topeka bureau

http://www.kansas.com/news/legislature/story/745499.html

TOPEKA - State representatives voted Monday to cut their pay 10 percent in the next budget year.

"I know this is a tough thing, but you have to realize we are laying people off. People are hurting," said Rep. Bill Otto, R-LeRoy, who offered the amendment.

The amendment passed on a voice vote, with a few tentative voices calling out no. The votes were not recorded, so it isn't clear who voted against the proposal.

For the pay cut to take effect, the Senate would also have to agree to the reduction. That chamber will debate its budget proposal today.

"It's probably a good approach. The Legislature needs to be part of the solution," said Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence.

Lawmakers are paid $88.66 a day for the 90-day session and for days they work outside the session. The cut would drop lawmakers' daily pay to $79.80.

They also receive $109 a day for expenses while they are in Topeka; that reimbursement would not be affected.

Between daily pay and the reimbursement for expenses, lawmakers earn $17,789 during the session. The cut to daily pay would reduce that to $16,992.

Lawmakers still would receive an additional expense allowance of $7,165 while not in session for such things as office expenses, phones and postage.

The cut wouldn't affect what lawmakers receive for this legislative session, which is scheduled for first adjournment April 4. The temporary cut would apply to fiscal year 2010, which begins July 1 and includes the 2010 Legislature session.

Kansas lawmakers are paid modestly compared with surrounding states. A study by the Council of State Governments ranked the Sunflower State 43rd in lawmaker compensation based on 2005 pay.

At the time, legislators were paid about $17,000 for a session. That compared with $38,400 for Oklahoma lawmakers, $31,351 in Missouri, $30,000 in Colorado and $12,000 in Nebraska.

Sen. Jean Schodorf, R-Wichita, who sits on the Senate Ways and Means Committee, said she didn't know what kind of support the bill would find in the Senate.

There aren't very many ways to cut the legislative budget except for salary, she said.

"I don't think it is unreasonable," she said of the proposed cut.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 07:41 PM
Huh. And the state's budget is balanced. I'm told that both are totally impossible.

Iowanian
03-25-2009, 07:46 PM
I don't think Congressmen and Senators should ask Americans to do anything they're not willing to legally obligate themselves to by the same standards.

I don't think that any politician, outside a President should be given any better retirment/insurance plan than a typical state employee in Iowa...and they should have to meet the exact same requirements/time input to get access.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-25-2009, 09:25 PM
No they should resign, they aren't worth a dollar which itself is headed to worthless.

bkkcoh
03-26-2009, 07:56 AM
I don't think Congressmen and Senators should ask Americans to do anything they're not willing to legally obligate themselves to by the same standards.

I don't think that any politician, outside a President should be given any better retirment/insurance plan than a typical state employee in Iowa...and they should have to meet the exact same requirements/time input to get access.

While you are at it, make them use the type of healthcare coverage that the average american has to put up with. That will get healthcare reform that would make a little more sense.

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2009, 08:05 AM
The truly wealthy members of Congress....should.

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 08:18 AM
At the very least, if they create a national health care system they should be forced to use it for them and their families unless they want to pay for their own.


You mean like they send their kids to public schools they force everybody elses kids to go to?

:rolleyes:

patteeu
03-26-2009, 11:53 AM
It's a nice "turnabout-is-fair-play" idea, but it wouldn't work anyway. You don't get rich on the salaries of a Congressman or even a Senator, but for the most part they get rich anyway. That suggests that their salaries aren't their primary source of wealth advancement.

Calcountry
03-26-2009, 12:51 PM
With all the calls in these tough economic times for leaders to work for $1, should Congress do the same?

Should our government sacrifice the same they're asking business leaders to?This.

Calcountry
03-26-2009, 12:52 PM
The truly wealthy members of Congress....should.Any Congress member that makes more than 200K is rich. WTF? :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2009, 12:55 PM
Any Congress member that makes more than 200K is rich. WTF? :shrug:

I wouldn't say over 200k--the net worth/annual income level would be higher....but surely you know the vast majority of members of Congress are, indeed, "wealthy."

speak24
03-28-2009, 09:14 AM
They should all resign and never hold office again. New elections to be held and return Congress to a part time job.