Well, you can tell the Democrats are in power again!

[Guard Dog]

Congress eyes pay raise for itself

 

WASHINGTON

Edited July 30, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Laozi]

the same people have their hands *ewww....*of both the puppets on the left and the one on the right, GD. Stop kidding yourself

 

*edited by Walsingham*

[Guard Dog]

the same people have their hands up the asses of both the puppets on the left and the one on the right, GD. Stop kidding yourself

Oh you are not far off there. And you have heard me say as much around here. The pay raise does not piss me off half so much as the tax hike. Or the fact that one follows the other. When I'm getting screwed I'd rather they not be so open about it.

[Pop]

I knew the Democrats were in power again when Congress started trying to get troops out of Iraq.

[WITHTEETH]

I knew the Democrats were in power again when Congress started trying to get troops out of Iraq.

BAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAH! ZING!

[Arkan]

Didn't the republicans do the same thing?

[Pop]

Didn't the republicans do the same thing?

They did once. That it was brought up as a counterbill to Murtha's "redeployment" bill, and that it was voted down overwhelmingly 403-3 suggests that it was never seriously considered as anything more than a stunt. They do the same thing with abortion, sometimes, drafting bills meant to fail. It helps to rally the base.

[Guard Dog]

I knew the Democrats were in power again when Congress started trying to get troops out of Iraq.

Well, I was hoping at least one thread on US politics could avoid Iraq. But, as Laozi put it, I was kidding myself.

 

Pop, Teeth, explain this one to me. Why is it then that after seven months not only have the Dems not ended the war, it has escalated? And they voted to approve it. Oh yes there have been a number of bills to withdraw the troops. Those are of course worthless because the legislature cannot compel the executive to do anything in this manner. Even if the bills did pass which to date they have not. If the Dems really wanted to end the war all they need to do is vote down even one special appropriations bill that pays for it. No money no war and we would begin an immediate withdrawl. But every one has passed handily.

 

Here is the reason why. And this is important so follow me on this one. If I waved a magic wand and put Obama in the White House today, and left the Dems in control of congress, the war would still not end. The reason is simple. If the US pulls out now Iraq will destabilize. The Shia will slaughter the Sunnis in horrifying numbers and there will be a real civil war. The death toll will be staggaring and in the end, the Shias backed by Iran will prevail. That would give Iran de facto control of 26% of the worlds oil. It would make a potentially dangerous enemy into a real threat. And of course it will create another war to be fought 10 years or so down the road.

 

The dems know this. They are NOT stupid. And they know that history would blame them for pulling out even though Bush started the war. Nobody with half a brain will say that the Iraq war was a good thing or the right thing to do. But however right or wrong it was changes nothing about the current situation. There are two ways it can end, victory (where Iraq is stable and independent of it's neighbors), Or defeat (where it becomes another Iran, or worse Afghanistan pre 2001).

 

I posted right here in thes very forum that the Dems taking control of Congress would not change much. So far, I have been right.

[Walsingham]

Nobody with half a brain will say that the Iraq war was a good thing or the right thing to do.

 

 

Er.... has anyone seen my other brain half? Sorry to interrupt the discussion.

[Calax]

I knew the Democrats were in power again when Congress started trying to get troops out of Iraq.

Well, I was hoping at least one thread on US politics could avoid Iraq. But, as Laozi put it, I was kidding myself.

Kinda like cracking a political joke and having nobody get it eh?

[Yuusha]

Stop talking politics. Lest you wanna get this thread locked by the 'great' FIONAVAR!

 

Man I hate tyrants!

[Nick_i_am]

Not as much as they hate you.

[Walsingham]

We've got wyrmsign!

 

 

[Kaftan Barlast]

But how long can the US really afford to keep troops in Iraq? And where does the money come from?

 

 

We've got wyrmsign!

 

 

Hurry up! walk without rythm and we wont attract the worm!

 

 

 

 

p.s

 

raising your own salary when youve already got teh big $$$ is just despiccable.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Kaftan Barlast

[Guard Dog]

I knew the Democrats were in power again when Congress started trying to get troops out of Iraq.

Well, I was hoping at least one thread on US politics could avoid Iraq. But, as Laozi put it, I was kidding myself.

Kinda like cracking a political joke and having nobody get it eh?

A lot like that!

[taks]

raising your own salary when youve already got teh big $$$ is just despiccable.

actually, the money congress makes isn't really big $$$. it's certainly upper class money, but that's not where they get their return in the end. the only way they can get a raise is if they vote one in, otherwise, they'd still be paid the $1000 or so originally intended 200+ years ago. they don't give themselves raises _very_ often, and in today's media frenzy we do tend to hear about it more than say, people 100 years ago heard about it.

 

realistically, if you gauge the amount of work a member of congress is _supposed_ to be doing, their pay is low. however, most aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing, and spend more time worrying about continuing their constituency (i.e. working for reelection) instead. sucks donut.

 

taks

[Sand]

I think the last thing we need now is spending more money on useless government officials.

[taks]

the amount of money they make, including all of their benefits, is in the noise...

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

I think the last thing we need now is spending more money on useless government officials.

Every now and then you post something that is right on the money!

[SteveThaiBinh]

however, most aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing, and spend more time worrying about continuing their constituency (i.e. working for reelection) instead. sucks donut.

Why not limit them to one term, or lengthen the terms? Wouldn't that at least help with that problem?

[Guard Dog]

however, most aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing, and spend more time worrying about continuing their constituency (i.e. working for reelection) instead. sucks donut.

Why not limit them to one term, or lengthen the terms? Wouldn't that at least help with that problem?

I would LOVE to see term limits passed. No more than 3 lifetime terms for a representative, 2 for a senator. The Repubs ran on that in 1994. As soon as they were voted in they dropped that like a hot rock. That is one reason why I seldom vote for republicans.

 

The big problem here is the people in government are so far separated from the people they represent they are almost a different species. Take Ted Kennedy for example. This man has had almost 40 years in elected office. He has never held a job in the private sector yet he is in charge of making policy and law for something he has no knowledge of. It is a real problem.

 

Perfect example. After my failed run for office in 1996 I has talking to Peter Deutsch (Dem). He was gearing up for a 1998 Congressional run (he was elected) and he was asking me about the disparity in military votes between Repubs an Dems. In the 1996 cycle, absentee ballots (which were mostly military) went the repubs way by something like 6-1. So he asked me why the military was so heavily republican. I told him in 1992 when the Dems took Congress and the White House the very first thing the did was vote a pay raise for the Congress and the President. Later that same year they voted down a pay raise for the military. He responded by pointing out that the average pay increase for a lower rank serviceman would only have been $50 per pay period. $50 was nothing why would that upset them. He did not get the principle of the whole thing. Here was a man who had never held a real job, never served in the military and simply could not understand why an extra $100 a month would help a military family scraping by on $16000 per year.

[taks]

given that pay raises are are such an overall minor problem, attempting to pass a law to solve it is probably a waste of resources. that said, congress is the body that would have to get such a law going, and it would have to be a constitutional amendment to boot. very doubtful it could ever be done.

 

also, while on the surface term limits seem like a good idea, there are a bunch of problems associated with them. first, while you limit bad congressmen to some number of terms, you also limit good congressmen as well. many of the functions of congress would end up in a fairly constant state of flux, which might simply serve to increase its already high level of inefficiency. of course, an inefficient congress is not always a bad thing because its hard to spend taxpayer dollars when you can't find your ass with both hands and a map. also, term limits take away the people's choice. if they want their congressmen to stay in office, they should have that right, whether he's a stooge or otherwise. they are representatives of the people in their district, so it is hard to argue the rest of the nation has a right to limit them. the same could be said for presidential term limits, though since WWII, i can't imagine any political climate in which a president could actually stay in office more than two terms anyway. congressional positions are more subject to local politics, which don't necessarily change with the wind as national politics do.

 

personally, i'm probably 50/50 with the idea, just in case you were wondering. in an ideal society, folks running for office would do like others have: self limits. get in, do your bit, get out. oh well, idealism as such is usually misplaced anyway... )

 

taks

[Laozi]

the amount of money they make, including all of their benefits, is in the noise...

 

taks

 

 

 

Luckily theres lobbyist groups so they don't have to do much on their own dollar

[Meshugger]

I am interested in, compared to their previous jobs, are they making more money now than before entering politics? As a whole of course, since there are people like the Kennedy's who has been a career politician throughout his whole life.

[taks]

usually much less. many are accomplished lawyers, some doctors, and all must give up their respective practices. kennedy comes from a ridiculously wealthy family, probably the closest thing to "royalty" we have in the US other than the rockefellers.

 

power equals money, however, and the ties they make from a few terms in office pay dividends for the rest of their lives.

 

^laozi

yes, lobbyists... if i had my way, trust me, there'd be no such thing as a lobbyist. take the government's hand out of the cookie jar, i.e. take away their power over corporate america, and there's no need to bribe politicians. of course, after that the vast majority of the stooges that actually run would plummet because there'd be no way to profit off of it. then we might actually get real leaders for a change.

 

taks