Congress Salary and Compensation Funded by State?

#51
#51
Tyler Durden said:
They're elected by the people in their states/districts, but their job is to create, vote on, and enact laws that will affect the entire nation.
Click to expand...
I think what he is trying to do is get you to see the conflict of interest. The Federal govt writes their checks, but they are supposed to be representing the people of their state.

So are they going to make decisions on the best interest of their state or in the best interests of the body writing their checks?
 
  • Like
Reactions: malinoisvol
#53
#53
Rasputin_Vol said:
I think what he is trying to do is get you to see the conflict of interest. The Federal govt writes their checks, but they are supposed to be representing the people of their state.

So are they going to make decisions on the best interest of their state or in the best interests of the body writing their checks?
Click to expand...
Correct
 
#56
#56
Rasputin_Vol said:
Senators used to be selected by the state legislators until the 17th Amendment made them elected by poplar vote.
Click to expand...
Ah ok. Well no not so much then. As long as they are selected from within the state and CLEARLY BEHOLDEN to the state works for me.

And yes you summarized it nicely. I think it’s a conflict of interest, especially when you consider party funding for re-election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#57
#57
NorthDallas40 said:
Ah ok. Well no not so much then. As long as they are selected from within the state and CLEARLY BEHOLDEN to the state works for me.

And yes you summarized it nicely. I think it’s a conflict of interest, especially when you consider party funding for re-election.
Click to expand...

I hate to see tax money spent for much of anything, but I'm just about to the point that I wish elections were entirely funded by "public money", taxes, extorted funds, or whatever the appropriate term is. Anything to keep politicians from being bought by anybody. Each person vying for a position gets precisely the same amount of money, and I don't have a clue how you deal with incumbents when to comes the position helping or overly oppressive rules that hurt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and NorthDallas40
#59
#59
NorthDallas40 said:
Ah ok. Well no not so much then. As long as they are selected from within the state and CLEARLY BEHOLDEN to the state works for me.

And yes you summarized it nicely. I think it’s a conflict of interest, especially when you consider party funding for re-election.
Click to expand...

You can almost directly tie the deterioration of our country to the 17th amendment.
 
#60
#60
AM64 said:
I hate to see tax money spent for much of anything, but I'm just about to the point that I wish elections were entirely funded by "public money", taxes, extorted funds, or whatever the appropriate term is. Anything to keep politicians from being bought by anybody. Each person vying for a position gets precisely the same amount of money, and I don't have a clue how you deal with incumbents when to comes the position helping or overly oppressive rules that hurt.
Click to expand...
You don't have to have term limits necessarily. You just can't run consecutive terms. That means you don't have incumbents. You can run and win a congressional or senate seat as many times as you want, but you won't be running as an incumbent on any of them. That minimizes these guys campaigning during their term and forces them to live under the laws that they apply to the rest of us.
 
#61
#61
Rasputin_Vol said:
You don't have to have term limits necessarily. You just can't run consecutive terms. That means you don't have incumbents. You can run and win a congressional or senate seat as many times as you want, but you won't be running as an incumbent on any of them. That minimizes these guys campaigning during their term and forces them to live under the laws that they apply to the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I kinda like that, but I'm afraid they would alternate between a legislature and a lobbyist or kept tame politician by corporations prepping them for the next tour in DC. What we need more than anything else, but congress will never do is to change how legislation is prepared and passed. Simply written one topic bills without riders, poison pills, or any other addenda - with complete documentation on who authored any part of it. Do that and it's hard to slip stuff through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#62
#62
hog88 said:
You can almost directly tie the deterioration of our country to the 17th amendment.
Click to expand...

From my limited research, it looks like the Populist Party, a left wing agrarian party, was the first to propose the 17th Amendment in the 1890's.
We could probably expect the seed being laid today for additional populist ideals like elimination of EC and others.
1601848306291.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#63
#63
I vote that Kentucky pays Moscow Mitch in cow pies and lead paint.

But seriously, this is a less pressing issue than term limits IMHO
 
#64
#64
OHvol40 said:
I vote that Kentucky pays Moscow Mitch in cow pies and lead paint.

But seriously, this is a less pressing issue than term limits IMHO
Click to expand...
I like term limits too but as hog and pj have pointed out why should their choice of candidate be arbitrarily limited. I still want term limits but I do acknowledge they have a valid point. I just want to limit the grifting sonofabitches opportunity to grift and I don’t trust us to hold the damn grifters accountable. Look at rate of incumbency re-election info I posted on the first page as applicable information why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#65
#65
NorthDallas40 said:
I like term limits too but as hog and pj have pointed out why should their choice of candidate be arbitrarily limited. I still want term limits but I do acknowledge they have a valid point. I just want to limit the grifting sonofabitches opportunity to grift and I don’t trust us to hold the damn grifters accountable. Look at rate of incumbency re-election info I posted on the first page as applicable information why.
Click to expand...

I agree. Also, I should add the caveat that I know term limits isn’t a cure-all, but it would help. As many have pointed out here as well, getting big money out of politics (specifically the election process) needs to happen, like, yesterday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#67
#67
volfanhill said:
Get rid of all corporate money, Union money, and super Pacs.
Click to expand...
Every bit of it. Every candidate for any given office gets the same funding, same air time, same resources. Imagine how much better our candidate pool would be if candidates actually had to gain votes based on merit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#68
#68
volfanhill said:
Get rid of all corporate money, Union money, and super Pacs.
Click to expand...

I still think it's like drugs and the cartels though - it's taking their money that really hurts them. With congress, if the legislation and who writes it is all de-complicated and made transparent then congress has no way to repay bribes, and that makes the job itself less of a draw for someone willing to trade influence for dollars. That also reduces the incentive for all those sources to pay for something congress critters can't easily deliver.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
#73
#73
OHvol40 said:
I’m missing the blue font, right?
Click to expand...

It was 72 - blue font is inferred much of the time; the problem is figuring out when it is or isn't sometimes. You know how us older guys are ... we always have snarky things to say about women in the driver's seat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1972 Grad
#74
#74
AM64 said:
It was 72 - blue font is inferred much of the time; the problem is figuring out when it is or isn't sometimes. You know how us older guys are ... we always have snarky things to say about women in the driver's seat.
Click to expand...
I kinda figured. Women are definitely still a conundrum to me and I’ve been married 11 years to this point. Understand them less each day. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#75
#75
OHvol40 said:
I kinda figured. Women are definitely still a conundrum to me and I’ve been married 11 years to this point. Understand them less each day. 🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...
I knew more about them at 20 than I do now at 70. They are a moving target, and the woman you have been married to for 11 years now, will not be the same one you will be married to in 20 years or 30 years, even if she has the same name, and looks like the same person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, hog88, OHvol40 and 1 other person
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top