By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Americans would save 93 million per year if salaries of congress were eliminated. (last time)

Kasz216 said:
Zlejedi said:
It's populism in it's purest form.

93 milions of USD is nothing in the scale of US budget.

And it's probably less than bombs and rockets dropped in Libya cost each day.

Eh, if it's anything like Somalia, the bombs and rockets we're dropping in Libya are probably bombs that are going to be decomishoned anyway because they're too old.

Still a waste for the jet fuel and transporting the ammo over there though.

Stupid Europeon war that Obama thinks europe is too incompetant to fight on it's own.

 

Obama and Bush are so similar it's scary.  The only people who don't see it are the people who are too far in the dem or repubs camps.

Well he is probably right about Europe being too incompetent to fight in this war. I'd say that experience level and training of soldiers in old continent countries is somewhere beetween terrible and very poor ;)



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Around the Network

Of course they're wealthy. Only wealthy people RUN for Congress, because everyone else seems to despise it.

In the grand scheme of things, $93 million is not a lot of money (a tiny, tiny percentage of federal spending) and cutting it out would:

a) Enormously increase the proportion of millionaires in Congress, because nobody else would be able to afford a full time volunteer job, and
b) Have no impact on the deficit.

Also, guess who has to vote on abolishing the salaries of congressmen?



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Zlejedi said:
Kasz216 said:
Zlejedi said:
It's populism in it's purest form.

93 milions of USD is nothing in the scale of US budget.

And it's probably less than bombs and rockets dropped in Libya cost each day.

Eh, if it's anything like Somalia, the bombs and rockets we're dropping in Libya are probably bombs that are going to be decomishoned anyway because they're too old.

Still a waste for the jet fuel and transporting the ammo over there though.

Stupid Europeon war that Obama thinks europe is too incompetant to fight on it's own.

 

Obama and Bush are so similar it's scary.  The only people who don't see it are the people who are too far in the dem or repubs camps.

Well he is probably right about Europe being too incompetent to fight in this war. I'd say that experience level and training of soldiers in old continent countries is somewhere beetween terrible and very poor ;)

English training is pretty good from what i hear.  Either way it's Libya.  It shouldn't be too hard to beat Libya here... I mean, all of their weapons are outdated weapons sold to them by the western world.



Kasz216 said:
Zlejedi said:
Kasz216 said:
Zlejedi said:
It's populism in it's purest form.

93 milions of USD is nothing in the scale of US budget.

And it's probably less than bombs and rockets dropped in Libya cost each day.

Eh, if it's anything like Somalia, the bombs and rockets we're dropping in Libya are probably bombs that are going to be decomishoned anyway because they're too old.

Still a waste for the jet fuel and transporting the ammo over there though.

Stupid Europeon war that Obama thinks europe is too incompetant to fight on it's own.

 

Obama and Bush are so similar it's scary.  The only people who don't see it are the people who are too far in the dem or repubs camps.

Well he is probably right about Europe being too incompetent to fight in this war. I'd say that experience level and training of soldiers in old continent countries is somewhere beetween terrible and very poor ;)

English training is pretty good from what i hear.  Either way it's Libya.  It shouldn't be too hard to beat Libya here... I mean, all of their weapons are outdated weapons sold to them by the western world.

Well technically sure - but it's desert country defended by muslims with home field advantage - loses would be tremendous and unnaceptable for any politician and then we would have Libians blowing themselves up in our underground stations for next 50 years.
And we can't use "I don't care about human rights" tactics like Russians did in Chechnya.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Vetteman94 said:
mrstickball said:
Vetteman94 said:

There was a 68.6B net in 2010,  it was only speculated that it would go into the red due to an increase in retirings,  but that never happened.  And the increase i am refering to wouldnt increase taxes for everyone, the current taxable shelf for SS is 90k,  which means anyone who makes 90k or more pays the same amount. And in all cases the increase would be minute as SS doesnt make up a huge percentage of taxes anyway. Raising that would eliminate any possible issue that is in the forseeable future.  One being when the Baby boomers retire.  So yes it is still self sustaining.

I never said Obamacare was perfect,  I was only refering to what it did for Medicare.  But what you are refering to can easily be fixed.  Its still a far better plan than Ryan's idea thats for sure.

But thats exactly what I am talking about, moving to states without a heavy union presense kills them in others.  Plus what union has ever killed jobs?  Thats a ridiculous concept.  Is it because a corporation doesnt feel that a blue collar worker should get his fair share?

And taking away regulation would do the same thing to smaller companies.  They would be crushed under the power of the larger corporations who have less regulations on how they do business.  They would never be able to compete with them.  

Well we have had 10 years of lower taxes and we are still in an economic downturn,  tax revenue is at its lowest in 50 years and the deficit is sky rocketing.  Maybe we should raise taxes since thats not working.  Since the tax cuts really didnt help me much and in fact I probably pay more now than I did before.   Probably because Im not in those top brackets yet though.  So yes some of it does have to do with the rich getting richer.  But I agree education is poor in this country,  but whats going to fix that?  Cutting taxes so public schools get worse due to less funding? Privitise it so only people who can afford it can send their kids to school?  Dont both of those situations just help the bad situation that its in currently get worse? 

Even if SS is still sustainable, do you know how poor the interest is on the monies paid in? 2.32% APY. That is barely enough for any retiree to live off of (and I am sure both you and I have family that live off of their paltry pensions which are certainly not enough to live off of). And again, you want to fix the problem by raising taxes. Isn't a 12.4% tax on income enough? How much more wealth do you want to destroy in a system that litterally takes the monies, invests in government debt, then taxes the populace again to pay the interest.

If Obamacare needed 'fixed' to be perfect, then why wasn't such legislation included in the 2,000 page bill that was approved? What about the fact that so many companies are requesting exemption from the bill? Methinks if it was remotely good, you wouldn't have thousands of businesses backing out of it.

What union has killed jobs? The ones that request too much wages and compensation that the business becomes uncompetitive to other businesses in the field. GM and Chrysler would be good examples. Where do you work at? I am curious what part of the employment chain you are in to make such kind of general statements that all unions are inherantly good and only provide value to the business. Certainly, not all unions are bad, but if they were 100% beneficial, you wouldn't see almost every corporation fleeing big union states in order to control costs and remain competitive.

Less regulations wouldn't hurt small companies. Are you registered with the NFIB? Do you know how they vote? The largest block of small business owners are always in favor of less regulations to ensure that big companies cannot explot massive government interventions to their favor (which happens very often with our activist government).

Your assumption about education is far off base. You argue that more money is the inherant fixer of problems, yet all data proves that to be wrong. Go look at educational statistics in America - the states with the best test scores are the ones that spend less, not more. The best way to fix education is to provide real competition through school vouchers - a school should not hold a monopoly on education just because of its location. That is an insane concept that is somehow accepted, which has destroyed many kids' educations, as schools have no incentive to improve. If parents and children were given the power to take their education where they wish, you would find that education would cost less, and scores would drasticly improve.

SO now the arguement is the interest isnt very good?  Thats funny.  As for my family, my fathers pension is currently looking well for when he retires. Couple that with what he will receive from SS and he will be doing quite alright for himself.   I wish I could say the same,  dont have one,  since my company got rid of it to maximize profits and "stay competitive".

About SS, raising taxes is not needed, you obviously didnt understand that part or you are deliberately twisting the words to make it looks worse.  The maximum taxable income for SS is 90K, meaning a person who makes 90K a year, a person who makes 250K a year and people who make 2M a year all pay the same amount to SS.  Raising the maximum taxable amount to say 150K, the person who makes 90K a year wouldnt pay more,  neither would anyone who makes less,  only the people who make more.  But the difference is small on the paycheck itself.  

Obamacare needs fixing because of all the other crap that was forced on it in order for it to be passed,  its barely recognizable from its original form.  It funny that the 2nd best health care system state by state is Mass which has a state run Health care system almost identical to Obamacare.  And a Republican, Mitt Romney, is the man responsible.  Wonder where the uproar for that is.

So basically your arguement is that those people didnt deserve the wages they were making because the corporations said so? The same corporations that pay their execs $20+M, and instead of looking in the mirror they blame it on the workers. As for where I work, I work for Caterpillar INC, so I see first hand how they treat unions as we deal with quite a few.  Plus my father and brother are both in unions themselves. And Im sure I will get a comment that Im baised because of this, so whatever.   Your last statement is a joke though,  corporations flee to non-union states so they can maximise profit by getting the cheapest workers possible.  Its the same reason the outsource jobs to other countries, its cheaper plain and simple.  Its cheaper to open a facility in some countries and hire over 100 engineers, with degrees not worth the paper they were printed on, than to just add 50 here. 

Well i guess then our education system should be getting better and better than since it has less money now that federal funding has been cut for it,  since thats one of the reasons my taxes went up. And one of the reasons the tax cuts dont help people like me.

@ Vetteman94: You think by increasing funding to the public school system is the answer? no, my friend this is what we have been doing over the past couple of decades and it is not working. So many presidents in the past have tried to create new programs all to pump more money into the education system, because thats what they thought it needed. Clinton, Bush, Obama, ect. Things are getting worse and not better. You want to know the real problem in the public school system? Unions, and all the ridiculous guidelines. If you look at the school system today you will see some schools that have many students that excel and get sent onto college.

Then you have other schools where it seems atmosphere is dead and litterly some have more than 50% drop out rates. Why is this? Is it because they are not getting enough funding? No. One of the main issues with Unions in public schools is the tenure. Some of the teachers in the public school system have no business being there, but guess what...A school can't just fire a teacher for not performing well many times, because they are protected by the Union. There are many local issues that are not being corrected, because the Union will not allow bad teachers to be let go and good teachers to be hired on. You do investigating is some of the failing public schools where the drop out rate is high and its due to the Union protecting even the bad teachers. Why is it that when you look at most Charter schools, they are way outperforming most public schools? There is no Unions involved in Charter schools. If a teacher is not performing their duty well and dosn't have a genuine care to help their students learn then they are fired. Simple as that.

The public school system in Amercia will NEVER be improved unless the unions are taken out of the public shool system, or at least make it easy for the schools to fire unperforming teachers. We should not be worried so much about protecting teacher's jobs as much as we should be about giving our children the best education by the best teachers available. In order for a public school teacher to let go there are so many loop holes that have to be gone through that most of the time the school can never get rid of the teacher, or they get moved to a different public school that has a failing record. Therefore that public school goes even further in the hole.




Around the Network

This is what Im talking about:

According to the pro-education reform documentary Waiting for ‘Superman,’ one out of every 57 doctors loses his or her license to practice medicine.

One out of every 97 lawyers loses their license to practice law.

In many major cities, only one out of 1000 teachers is fired for performance-related reasons. Why? Tenure.

Read more here:

http://teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm




Vetteman94 said:
Allfreedom99 said:
Vetteman94 said:

Exactly,  its sad.   Luckily I have insurance,  but for one emergency room visit for me about 3 years ago it was $6k  and I left 4 hours after I got there.  

Sethnintendo, you are right that our health system needs changes. It does need reform. One of the problems in our healthcare system is the amount of tests a hospital has to go through to tell you something the doctor already has probably known. There are so many unnecessary tests that often take place. The problem is all the doctor has to do is breathe on you wrong and the hospital gets sued now days. They do so many tests to cover their butts. Our system can be over thorough many times.

Also @ Vetteman94.  You want the European style health care in America? Why is it that many of the rich in other countries end up coming to the States for their health care? Because its is arguably the best care in the world. You were also talking about how our country can't cut anything from the government programs, because it would hurt the poor people. The problem our nation is facing is with so much money being dumped into medicare, medicade, social security, ect that they are becoming unsustainable. We are becoming more and more a welfare state with an entitlement mentality. how did this nation become so great and prosperous?

1. through the freedom a man/woman has to go out and put his hand to the plow. the freedom a man/woman has to create a product and sell it at a profit. The freedom a man/woman has to buy and invest his money into whatever he wants.

 2. Through hard work and perseverance. The drive to not give up on the pursuit of prosperity and happiness. Through being individually responsible for oneself in providing for his/her needs and their family. The early settlers understood this.

3. It was through charitability in helping your fellow man in hard times to achieve the same goals so that we can prosper as one nation that stands for liberty and freedom. Its the freedom we have to make our own choices without a government telling us what we can and cannot do as individuals.

I think our country has lost some of these view points and has begun to rely more on what our government can provide for us. Its a shame to see so many people out of work. To see so many people on food stamps and on unemployment benefits. What are some of the nations of the world coming to when there are riots in the streets, because a government tries to handle some of its debt by making its people provide a little bit more for themselves? I ask why have we become so reliant on these government programs and then say we want government to provide even more for us? This is a shame. I understand there are those people out there that absolutely have no ability to work and are disabled. Those are the people who need the helping hand, and not the man that has capable hands and feet with a good back that can work and earn an income, but instead sits on his fanny collecting money from the government while his neighbor is working very hard and sees some of his money get distributed to the lazy man.

I see plenty of unemployed that would rather sit at home than honestly seek a job, because the government will pay for their needs. Grant it there are fewer jobs today, but I argue its because of increased regulation and government control rather than greedy corporations not wanting to hire workers. The American entrepreneur's spirit continues to be extinguished as the government promises to provide more and more for its people. Why should one work if he can get paid to do nothing?

I know something is wrong when people ask the government to provide more for them. Yes life is expensive. It requires hard work and dedication to have success. I am sorry if I offend, but I had to respond.

The US is ranked like 30th in the world for health care,  so to argue its one of the best would be a wrong arguement.  The only thing i have seen rich people from other countries come here for is plastic surgery and what few normal physicians they go to for normal things,  everyday people cant go to them due to how expensive they are so why bring them up. Social Security is a self sustaining program,  and its currently sitting at a surplus. And with one small change to the Social Security system, raising the tax ceiling, it will take care of any issue that would arise in the future.  But thats been tried and blocked by the Republicans. And Medicare could cost less if we used its size and number of participants to bargain with the drug companies for lower prices,  but that keeps getting blocked by Republicans because it hurts the drug companies.  Not to mention Medicare is going to start becoming cheaper over the next few years due to ObamaCare,  as it saved a significant amount of money.

There are no jobs to be had in this nation.  Corporations are outsourcing work more and more since it is cheaper and gives them higher profits. Not to mention some are even moving their facilities out of the country cause its cheaper to ship And all the labor jobs are going to illegal immigrants due to low cost to pay them/  The unions are getting busted up and their bargaining rights taken away so whats left of the middle class basically cant fight back against these Coprorations.  But what is this increased regulation and control the government has over these corporations you claim?  Not getting enough H1B Visas for overseas help?   Not getting enough subsidies from the government?  Tax rates not low enough?

And I see plenty of people who are willing to work but cant due to no jobs being available.

And I think there is something wrong with the people in this country when people think its ok for the poor to suffer and the rich prosper and the dividing line between the 2 increases at an exponetial rate.  When they worry about the richest 1% getting more of their money and corporations not have to pay taxes, but to make that happen the poor have to do without and the elderly die from no health care.    But hey its ok,  the rich really need that money more right.

Actually your data is wrong on our health care rating among the world. The number I have for quality of health care is 15th according to the World Health Organization. I agree there needs to be some changes and reform, but people think our health care is abysmal when its not as bad as some people think. I think the ranking system you are referring to has Morocco and Costa Rica higher than the U.S. I don't believe those figures for a second. Much of it is based off of life expectancy due to our nations diet, and also cost ratio to quality ratio. We all know Americans have some of the worst diet habbits. You have to take that into account when ranking our health care among the world. Some of that is not Health Cares fault. Its the fault of being lazy and eating too much of the wrong things.




It still seems fine to me. Here in Brazil the equivalent of you congressman earns, lowballing it, about U$815k per year, all bonuses and benefits included. There goes about U$ 412 million per year, and that's without the senate and like a hundred ministries.



 

 

 

 

 

Zlejedi said:
Kasz216 said:
Zlejedi said:
Kasz216 said:
Zlejedi said:
It's populism in it's purest form.

93 milions of USD is nothing in the scale of US budget.

And it's probably less than bombs and rockets dropped in Libya cost each day.

Eh, if it's anything like Somalia, the bombs and rockets we're dropping in Libya are probably bombs that are going to be decomishoned anyway because they're too old.

Still a waste for the jet fuel and transporting the ammo over there though.

Stupid Europeon war that Obama thinks europe is too incompetant to fight on it's own.

 

Obama and Bush are so similar it's scary.  The only people who don't see it are the people who are too far in the dem or repubs camps.

Well he is probably right about Europe being too incompetent to fight in this war. I'd say that experience level and training of soldiers in old continent countries is somewhere beetween terrible and very poor ;)

English training is pretty good from what i hear.  Either way it's Libya.  It shouldn't be too hard to beat Libya here... I mean, all of their weapons are outdated weapons sold to them by the western world.

Well technically sure - but it's desert country defended by muslims with home field advantage - loses would be tremendous and unnaceptable for any politician and then we would have Libians blowing themselves up in our underground stations for next 50 years.
And we can't use "I don't care about human rights" tactics like Russians did in Chechnya.


Which is all meaningless when all that the current war relies on is bombing the shit out of Libya, ala the Clinton "wars".

Europeon attack planes and rockets should be MORE then enough to hammer Libya with their lack of needed aerial defenses.



shouldn't public service be voluntary?

well maybe just the political kind as washington (law makers Congress, Senate, Mayors, you know wht i mean) gets paid to much for doing nothing.