Gunboards Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
41 - 60 of 120 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,064 Posts
"If at first you don't succeed cheat"!
The "Republicans" had an opportunity to stop this. If they had supported the President, and if they had actually fought for an investigation of the 2020 election (and provided security to quell the real insurrectionists in this country), we might not be in this situation today. If there are any leaders who actually care about freedom in the U.S., they should be looking for ways to put an end to this current lawlessness once they gain power. The dems showed their hand prior to the election, and they are flaunting it now--they want total, permanent, and absolute control over the United States.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
I think that there is one thing that could keep all of this happening in the future- term limits!

ALL of our problems seem to stem from career politicians (Clintons, Pelosi, Obamas, Bushes, etc..) who keep getting richer and richer. If we limited their time in office and stopped lifetime pensions for one term, this country might prosper again.

Trump's problem was that the "Swamp" he wanted to get rid of was ALL of Washington, D.C.!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,986 Posts
I’m pretty sure the Congress critters don’t get a lifetime pension for one term.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
The pistol brace thing is a joke, if you’re planning on taking an ar pistol and going on a killing rampage (a crime) literally nothing is stopping you from buying a stock and throwing that on the pistol
 

·
Diamond with Oak Clusters Bullet Member
Joined
·
66,407 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
That's true. They must serve 5 years.

Still a pretty good deal...
I wish that we all had such a pension system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Would be nice to be able to vote yourself a raise as well.

All in favor say "Yea"...
Historically if you (the governed) don't pay the politicians somebody else will. I don't really like the handwringing over congressional pay because the alternative is worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
Historically if you (the governed) don't pay the politicians somebody else will. I don't really like the handwringing over congressional pay because the alternative is worse.
How much is enough?

Answer - it's never enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
Now you're getting existential instead of a debate about what the skills in question are worth on a market basis.
Skills? Market? I'm talking about politicians here - not sure about you.

Take it from someone that works for a living - they are overpaid.



" Congressional Salaries

As of 2020, the annual salary for any congressman, from first-term representatives to the most senior members – except those holding leadership positions – was set at $174,000. This was the compensation level set as of January 1, 2009, and frozen by law in the intervening years. Congressional leaders such as the Speaker of the House or majority and minority leaders receive larger salaries, but no first-term congressman would serve in one of these positions, which are driven by seniority. The Speaker of the House makes $223,500 a year, while the party leaders make $193,400 each.
Most Recent Raise

Congress determines its own pay, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. As of 2012, Congress had three ways it could give its members a raise: specific salary legislation, automatic annual adjustment, and through a compensation commission. Although members of the House, including first-term representatives, were scheduled to receive raises in 2017, 2018 and 2019, legislation denied them those increases. The last raise for members of the House thus came with the January 2009 salary, when pay was increased 2.8 percent, from $169,300."


That's a pretty good living, for the skills required, by my standards.

You must not be paying attention to some of the stuff that comes out of their mouths.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Skills? Market? I'm talking about politicians here - not sure about you.

Take it from someone that works for a living - they are overpaid.



" Congressional Salaries

As of 2020, the annual salary for any congressman, from first-term representatives to the most senior members – except those holding leadership positions – was set at $174,000. This was the compensation level set as of January 1, 2009, and frozen by law in the intervening years. Congressional leaders such as the Speaker of the House or majority and minority leaders receive larger salaries, but no first-term congressman would serve in one of these positions, which are driven by seniority. The Speaker of the House makes $223,500 a year, while the party leaders make $193,400 each.
Most Recent Raise

Congress determines its own pay, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. As of 2012, Congress had three ways it could give its members a raise: specific salary legislation, automatic annual adjustment, and through a compensation commission. Although members of the House, including first-term representatives, were scheduled to receive raises in 2017, 2018 and 2019, legislation denied them those increases. The last raise for members of the House thus came with the January 2009 salary, when pay was increased 2.8 percent, from $169,300."


That's a pretty good living, for the skills required, by my standards.

You must not be paying attention to some of the stuff that comes out of their mouths.
Sure it's a skill and there are good ones and bad ones at it like any other profession. Dislike of the profession in question doesn't negate that. I've seen lots of business people, who think their own skills are directly transferrable to everything and especially politics, absolutely flounder if they actually manage to get elected because turns out their skillset is wrong for the job.

$170K a year is not living especially high on the hog if you spend a lot of that time in DC, one of the more expensive cites in the country in addition to your life back home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
Sure it's a skill and there are good ones and bad ones at it like any other profession. Dislike of the profession in question doesn't negate that. I've seen lots of business people, who think their own skills are directly transferrable to everything and especially politics, absolutely flounder if they actually manage to get elected because turns out their skillset is wrong for the job.

$170K a year is not living especially high on the hog
if you spend a lot of that time in DC, one of the more expensive cites in the country in addition to your life back home.
I think they offer on-the-job training.

The skill set for a politician is pretty specific. That's probably why for so many that's all they can do. There are smart and "skilled" politicians I guess, but there are others that couldn't hold a job in a fast food restaurant.

As a politician you are a public servant - so it shouldn't be lucrative. There are plenty of backdoor ways they increase their income.

Compare their pay to the pay for someone in a career like law enforcement - and it looks pretty good.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
379 Posts
Sure it's a skill and there are good ones and bad ones at it like any other profession. Dislike of the profession in question doesn't negate that. I've seen lots of business people, who think their own skills are directly transferrable to everything and especially politics, absolutely flounder if they actually manage to get elected because turns out their skillset is wrong for the job.
Seen the same with professors too.... they figure since they are good at one thing they must be good at everything. Having a bunch of grad students fawning over them helps that a lot.

I'm absolutely NOT impartial on that subject however. I left my last job because professors on both coasts thought they understood my work better than I did myself. They were wrong, that was self evident at the working site.

$170K a year is not living especially high on the hog if you spend a lot of that time in DC, one of the more expensive cites in the country in addition to your life back home.
Yes and no. Members of Congress have a housing allowance available too them, as well as a veritable wealth of similar benefits. Health care plan that makes the average public sector plan look pretty pathetic for example.

Basically though, you are right that no one would do that job were it not for the prestige and fantastic pay + benefits. The pay scale itself I don't find too outrageous (I do find the pension to be outrageous), I think the problem is accountability that goes with the pay. If I were hiring someone to work in DC I would expect much better performance for that level of pay. In a system without effective oversight, increasing pay doesn't boost performance.

Where they really rake in the bucks is from the lobbying industry. Its all kept on the up and up on first glance, but they all still seem to be millionaires after a few terms. Term limits won't fix the problem. The problem is that there is too much power centralized in too few hands, that power brings the moneyed interests eagerly to the bargaining table and bargains are struck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
As far as the specific subject of politicians and firearms, the ones making the new laws and restrictions have little knowledge of the actual piece of equipment they are restricting.

Calling for restrictions on "100-round clips", "AR-14s", "semiautomatic machineguns", "fully-automatic pistols", Assault Weapons", "Weapons of War, and firearms that are "designed to kill", should clearly demonstrate their lack of knowledge on the subject.

How intelligent are these lawmakers?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
I think they offer on-the-job training.

The skill set for a politician is pretty specific. That's probably why for so many that's all they can do. There are smart and "skilled" politicians I guess, but there are others that couldn't hold a job in a fast food restaurant.

As a politician you are a public servant - so it shouldn't be lucrative. There are plenty of backdoor ways they increase their income.

Compare their pay to the pay for someone in a career like law enforcement - and it looks pretty good.
Being a congressperson in office isn't all that lucrative especially if your education affords you other avenues. Also a lot of congresspeople show up to the job rich already because it usually takes a lot of money to run in the first place. What comes after in the way of speaking engagements, lobbying, and other opportunities on the other hand can be quite lucrative at least for some of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Seen the same with professors too.... they figure since they are good at one thing they must be good at everything. Having a bunch of grad students fawning over them helps that a lot.

I'm absolutely NOT impartial on that subject however. I left my last job because professors on both coasts thought they understood my work better than I did myself. They were wrong, that was self evident at the working site.



Yes and no. Members of Congress have a housing allowance available too them, as well as a veritable wealth of similar benefits. Health care plan that makes the average public sector plan look pretty pathetic for example.

Basically though, you are right that no one would do that job were it not for the prestige and fantastic pay + benefits. The pay scale itself I don't find too outrageous (I do find the pension to be outrageous), I think the problem is accountability that goes with the pay. If I were hiring someone to work in DC I would expect much better performance for that level of pay. In a system without effective oversight, increasing pay doesn't boost performance.

Where they really rake in the bucks is from the lobbying industry. Its all kept on the up and up on first glance, but they all still seem to be millionaires after a few terms. Term limits won't fix the problem. The problem is that there is too much power centralized in too few hands, that power brings the moneyed interests eagerly to the bargaining table and bargains are struck.
I know there has been talk in recent years of a housing allowance but I don't think they actually did anything about it.

One good way to reduce the influence and reliance on lobbyists would be to create a big budget for congressional staffers. As it stands now a lot of them are young and come from well off families who can afford to eat the cost of living gap. After a number of years they take off for greener pastures. This situation helps foster an environment where lobbyists are leaned on for a lot of expertise on issues so you end up with more things that generally favor the more influential players. That many of those lobbyists are themselves former legislators is indeed yet another problem.
 
41 - 60 of 120 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top