Politicians getting paid...

[Waddy]

Got a link for that?

Sure.

As Lifson explains, and Michael Roberts explains at The Balance Careers here, on Day 30 of the shutdown, a clause is triggered in these federal employment contracts that enables RIF. The Office of Personnel Management oversees the RIF process.

A downsizing plan must be presented to OMB on Day 31. Trump's team needs to act fast. The plan must include all of the people who just sit around texting each other about their next leak to MSNBC, or planning their next protest march in a pink hat. It will take another 30 days to implement the plan. Roughly 800,000 federal employees could be permanently removed under this plan, with an annual savings of roughly $80 billion in salaries alone. Including the pensions; the government vehicles; and the rented office space, furniture, and equipment, it could be $150 billion.

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...umer_and_pelosi_in_a_brilliant_vise_grip.html

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I believe that Trump has foregone his pay but the rest of the cowards in congress who profit from inside trading don't want any part of that.

To be fair what they pay the president is chump change for Trump. Plus most of the presidents get bigger bribes than their paycheck. I mean paid for speeches.

 

[Idiometer]

No.

• "Dictatorship" describes a type of topmost government executive.
• "Benevolent" describes a quality of one's character and behavior.

A dictator can be barbarous, benevolent, or something in between; moreover, s/he can be any of the three at various moments and with regard to his/her promulgation of any given policy or directive.

It may help you to think of it this way: all dictators definitionally are despots (def 1a), but a dictator is not definitionally despotic (adj. form applying to def 1b). Whether a dictator is or isn't despotic depends on the person, not the title.

It was sarcasm.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (I forget who said that.) Who on this planet would we ever trust with such power? No one I've ever heard of.

 

[earthworm]

While I am all in on the shutdown for the sake of getting funding for the border wall, no, I don't think the politicians should get paid during the shutdown. I would go even farther and say they should not get back pay when the shutdown ends. However Trump only takes $1.00 in salary and gives that to charity. Perhaps if congress were not getting paid, the rank and file members of Chuckie and Nancy's party would push them to negotiate and compromise.

Shame bias and prejudice .. or do you really think conservatives are perfect ? .. If so, I'll add delusional ..

 

[Xelor]

(edited due to post length restrictions)


My apologies I just skimmed the link on Congressmen sleeping in their offices and missed the 83 day quote. As regards Ms. Pelosi a couple of links I looked at put her net worth at 120M. She's still wealthy as you note even assuming you're lower number is closer to the truth.

When I quoted 900,000 for net worth I was speaking about House members, though I may have used the word "Congressman". House members median net worth is 900K as your article notes. Senators are by and larger wealthier and skew the median for all Congressmen northward. It's unclear whether that net worth includes real property - it should but the article noted that Congressmen don't have include real estate in their net worth calculations (though some do). When I quoted 900K net worth as solid middle class in the metropolitan NY area (and really most large cities) I was including real estate in that figure.

I'm not sure I agree with your contention that accomplishment can be measured by wealth. I will certainly agree that all wealthy are not accomplished but don't know that it's necessarily true that all accomplished people are wealthy. Nor am I sure that I know what accomplishment means in this context or if accomplishment is even the right measure. You seem to use it to mean "successful under the rules of the game of our society." That may be right measure - I honestly don't know and need to think about it more. I will agree that character as you define it is important. So is the ability to learn, to think critically, to synthesize a mass of information and reach a conclusion that is both sensible and comports with our constitution, to be able to convince others of the rightness of that position. Can wealth be a measure of all of that? Again I'm not sure.

Red:
I think accomplishment can be indicated by wealth, but not measured by wealth.

Even as I am of that mind, I'm well aware there are exceptions. To wit, Donald Trump is wealthy, but he doesn't at all meet my notion of accomplished. He conforms to my notion of wealthy in spite of himself, aka, lucky and hasn't yet been sent to jail. (And I'm not saying either as a political jab. I know quite a few highly accomplished folks in corporate America, and the only noteworthy thing they and "The Donald" have in common is that they're wealthy.)

 

[uptower]

In theory it would have been a great idea to penalise politicians - congress, the president and frankly his/her cabinet - until they could strike a deal. It would have stopped many a shutdown in the past before they started.

But given these days so many politicians are independently rich (if you can call lobbyist money and cushy nominal board positions independent) that many might be willing to bite the bullet, especially to hold out for a deal their donors will reward them for later.

Also now with a sitting president who is already rich enough to donate his whole salary, he personally would lose nothing by stonewalling while congresspeople would suffer. In Trump's case it means he could literally hold the entire government hostage till he gets his wall, not just federally funded workers. That would be just another step toward dictatorship.

Now maybe writing in a constitutional amendment to deal with lengthy impasses by no confidence votes: either against those who draft a bill or presidents who veto it (and no, I haven't really thought through the mechanics) could ensure that those responsible face some sort of censure for not sorting it out sooner. Maybe some sort of snap elections like some parliamentary systems? Any punishment has to be spread evenly, not giving too much leverage to one side or the other.

 

[Xelor]

It was sarcasm.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (I forget who said that.) Who on this planet would we ever trust with such power? No one I've ever heard of.

No need to recall who; it's a famous remark, and we both know so. You're not trying to take credit for it, and that's the most important thing apart from the axiom itself.

FWIW, Lord Acton wrote that in a letter to someone. I don't recall who, a cleric of some stripe, IIRC, but don't hold me to that.


Red:
Well, in the course of history, polities have trusted dictators and their trust has, at times -- not most of the time, but at times -- been well rewarded. Sure, on an individual level, individuals, and plenty of them, have met their ends at the whim of even benevolent dictators (absolute monarchs, or substantively so).

Some of history's benevolent dictators/absolute monarchs whom I can recall from my school days and who, in the main, deserved the general trust the polity placed in them and who didn't arbitrarily/capriciously execute folks "left and right."

• Louis XIV
• Suleiman I, the Magnificent
• Peisistratos
• Augustus
• Marcus Aurelius
• Frederick the Great (Prussia)
• Ataturk
• King Abdullah (current king of Jordan)
• Cyrus the Great (Persia)
• Emperor of Japan around the start of the 20th century (I don't recall his name; I could look it up, but I don't feel like it.)
• Ashoka

Did they "lop off a head" here and there? I suspect all of them did/have (the ones from "way back when" certainly did), but so does the US, it's just that the POTUS doesn't get to order that act.

Be that as it may, I wouldn't split hairs over the comparative "betterness" of a capricious tyrannical monarch vs. that of a similarly minded judiciary, polity on the whole, or legislature. The benefit of constitutions, legislatures, trials by jury, and a host of the other elements of Western-style democracies is that such governmental systems reduce the incidence and possibility of tyrannical heads of state despotically, tyrannically going "too far"...which is to say they may be described as "near depots" and "near tyrants," but it's harder in Western-style democracies for them to in fact, rather than figuratively, be so.

 

[OlNate]

I said yes...at least, the ones saying no to the wall. They're doing their job. :shrug:

Do you really want a multi billion dollar decision rushed so that a few politicians can get paid?

 

[Gaius46]

Red:
I think accomplishment can be indicated by wealth, but not measured by wealth.

Even as I am of that mind, I'm well aware there are exceptions. To wit, Donald Trump is wealthy, but he doesn't at all meet my notion of accomplished. He conforms to my notion of wealthy in spite of himself, aka, lucky and hasn't yet been sent to jail. (And I'm not saying either as a political jab. I know quite a few highly accomplished folks in corporate America, and the only noteworthy thing they and "The Donald" have in common is that they're wealthy.)

Fair enough. You’ve given me something to think a bit about on this cold Monday. Thanks.

 

[HumblePi]

While I am all in on the shutdown for the sake of getting funding for the border wall, no, I don't think the politicians should get paid during the shutdown. I would go even farther and say they should not get back pay when the shutdown ends. However Trump only takes $1.00 in salary and gives that to charity. Perhaps if congress were not getting paid, the rank and file members of Chuckie and Nancy's party would push them to negotiate and compromise.

That wouldn't make a bit of difference. These people in Congress are wealthy people, they don't know what it's like not to have any money to fill the gas tank in their car if they have a car. They don't know what it's like to be so desperate that they have to sell their own plasma to buy food for their kids. Thankfully for them, they will never know such desperation no matter how long that shutdown went on without their own paycheck rolling in.

 

[Roadvirus]

No. And they should not be paid for time during the shutdown like the Fed workers will be when this latest **** ends.

Congress doesn't even deserve their salary period.

 

[Xelor]

That wouldn't make a bit of difference. These people in Congress are wealthy people, they don't know what it's like not to have any money to fill the gas tank in their car if they have a car. They don't know what it's like to be so desperate that they have to sell their own plasma to buy food for their kids. Thankfully for them, they will never know such desperation no matter how long that shutdown went on without their own paycheck rolling in.

Bold:
In general, that may well be so; however, there are enough of them who are from humble beginnings that, unless they "forget from whence they came," they should be able to educate their colleagues. Of course, if one is a cold heartless person, that education will be for naught....

Germane information one has yet disregards is information one may as well not have, because absent it, one at least can't be called cold, callous, catty and cruel.

 

[HumblePi]

Bold:
In general, that may well be so; however, there are enough of them who are from humble beginnings that, unless they "forget from whence they came," they should be able to educate their colleagues. Of course, if one is a cold heartless person, that education will be for naught....

Germane information one has yet disregards is information one may as well not have, because absent it, one at least can't be called cold, callous, catty and cruel.

There are member of Congress who have stated that they will not accept a salary until the shutdown ends. Here's the list of the 100 members of the House and Senate that will not accept their salary during the shutdown and where they will be donating those salaries instead. It's actually really interesting to see how many in Congress have empathy and who does not.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics/congress-members-no-pay-shutdown/index.html

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

that is a lie. i never agued for any kind of dictatorship.

Not directly, however when you you ask for all of those guarantees of this and that, it amounts to an authoritarian government giving you those benefits at the cost of all taxpayers.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I'd be willing to let representatives continue pretending to be nobility in exchange for debt free post secondary education and first world access to health care for everyone.

Problem is it would never be totally debt free.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Benevolent dictatorship ... isn't that an oxymoron?

It is, however the libruls still desire it.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Shame bias and prejudice .. or do you really think conservatives are perfect ? .. If so, I'll add delusional ..

Where did I suggest that conservatives are perfect?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

That wouldn't make a bit of difference. These people in Congress are wealthy people, they don't know what it's like not to have any money to fill the gas tank in their car if they have a car. They don't know what it's like to be so desperate that they have to sell their own plasma to buy food for their kids. Thankfully for them, they will never know such desperation no matter how long that shutdown went on without their own paycheck rolling in.

However they are still massively greedy. I don't see many of them willingly giving up salary. It's a moot point anyway as the constitutionally they must be paid. Same goes with the president. Trump is simply getting around that by only taking a dollar.

 

[HumblePi]

However they are still massively greedy. I don't see many of them willingly giving up salary. It's a moot point anyway as the constitutionally they must be paid. Same goes with the president. Trump is simply getting around that by only taking a dollar.

And the majority of the 100 members of Congress giving up their salaries are donating them to a particular charity of their choosing.

 

[Helix]

Not directly, however when you you ask for all of those guarantees of this and that, it amounts to an authoritarian government giving you those benefits at the cost of all taxpayers.

i have never argued for any sort of autocracy.

 

[Helix]

Problem is it would never be totally debt free.

he naysayers probably argued the same thing when we started sending all kids to high school. either way, making post secondary education more affordable would be a good thing for our nation.

 

[Xelor]

There are member of Congress who have stated that they will not accept a salary until the shutdown ends. Here's the list of the 100 members of the House and Senate that will not accept their salary during the shutdown and where they will be donating those salaries instead. It's actually really interesting to see how many in Congress have empathy and who does not.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics/congress-members-no-pay-shutdown/index.html

Okay, but I'm not sure what that has to do with whether some, enough or many of them have or will have any occasion to confront financial hardship, that being what was the theme of your comments to which I responded. That was your post's theme, wasn't it?

That wouldn't make a bit of difference. These people in Congress are wealthy people, they don't know what it's like not to have any money to fill the gas tank in their car if they have a car. They don't know what it's like to be so desperate that they have to sell their own plasma to buy food for their kids. Thankfully for them, they will never know such desperation no matter how long that shutdown went on without their own paycheck rolling in.

How much empathetic commiseration is there to be found in a comfortable person forgoing a couple months' salary? By my own recollections of paying tuition and all the rest for four kids, even then I could have "gotten by" (that's likely not what most folks would have called it....) for a year or more without really altering my lifestyle. (When that next year's tuition came due, that would have put a noticeable dent in my "savings.")

I can't say how many members of Congress are similarly or better situated, but I suspect all but the very newest who are also "regular" folks who just got elected will be fine without at least a few months wages.

 

[HumblePi]

Okay, but I'm not sure what that has to do with whether some, enough or many of them have or will have any occasion to confront financial hardship, that being what was the theme of your comments to which I responded. That was your post's theme, wasn't it?

​

How much empathetic commiseration is there to be found in a comfortable person forgoing a couple months' salary? By my own recollections of paying tuition and all the rest for four kids, even then I could have "gotten by" (that's likely not what most folks would have called it....) for a year or more without really altering my lifestyle. (When that next year's tuition came due, that would have put a noticeable dent in my "savings.")

I can't say how many members of Congress are similarly or better situated, but I suspect all but the very newest who are also "regular" folks who just got elected will be fine without at least a few months wages.

Yes, and I will stick with that theme by stating that the majority of long-time members of Congress are wealthy.

 

[Xelor]

Yes, and I will stick with that theme by stating that the majority of long-time members of Congress are wealthy.

Red:
Of course; there's no doubt that that is so. Nonetheless, one's being wealthy now doesn't speak to whether one never, as you suggested, has known financial hardship.

For instance, my brother got too spendy in his second semester. He called Dad to ask for more money, but Dad had been crystal clear that we had to make the money he deposited in our bank accounts last the whole semester. My brother "begged borrowed and stole," so to speak, what he could from his friends for a few days until they'd had enough of him, or until he was too chagrined to do so again, for both factors were afoot, and then he called me.

I had an exams the next two days as it was the end of the third fourth of the semester and couldn't help him out. I drove to his school Thursday night and got there at some wee hour Friday morning. I took him to an I-Hop and gave him a $1000 from what I had left of the allowance Dad had given me.

My brother is comfortable these days; he has been since he started his career. Does he know what it's like to abjectly poor? No, but he got a taste of it, or, as he says, two days of tasting literally nothing. On the upside, as he was a collegian, he didn't yet have debts coming due. The foreboding that comes with that would have made matters worse, and to be sure, that's a notable portion of the angst current shutdown sufferers are experiencing.

Do I have any idea of how many members of Congress have a first-hand notion of what even brief penury is? No, not beyond the ~170 of them noted in your image above. Even so, just because they, like my brother, comfortable now, their status thus doesn't mean they lack an understanding of what it's like to be penniless to the point of forgoing necessities.

One can only hope that those who have known such tough times, no matter their current situation, remember them enough to have some empathy for others.

 

[Idiometer]

It is, however the libruls still desire it.

How so? I don't know anyone in America who desires a dictatorship except for Trump.