Politicians getting paid...

[Top Cat]

**** to the no.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

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.

Post secondary education is already affordable for in state government funded universities. However if you want to go to an ivy league university in another state, you need wealthy parents or a scholarship. Equal outcomes are not guaranteed, nor should they be. As far as sending all kids to K thru 12, there has never been any real opposition to that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

i have never argued for any sort of autocracy.

Perhaps not intentionally, however when you demand government guarantees of affordable healthcare, secondary education, etc, you are headed on that direction.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Helix]

Post secondary education is already affordable for in state government funded universities. However if you want to go to an ivy league university in another state, you need wealthy parents or a scholarship. Equal outcomes are not guaranteed, nor should they be. As far as sending all kids to K thru 12, there has never been any real opposition to that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Even the state run universities can cause kids to incur a lot of debt. Most of the kids I work with have some serious student loans. That's a pretty poor system unless you want a country full of uneducated people.

 

[Helix]

Perhaps not intentionally, however when you demand government guarantees of affordable healthcare, secondary education, etc, you are headed on that direction.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

False. Many of the programs I support have been the status quo in the rest of the first world for decades.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Even the state run universities can cause kids to incur a lot of debt. Most of the kids I work with have some serious student loans. That's a pretty poor system unless you want a country full of uneducated people.

I respectfully disagree. Other then lab fees and books, they do not incur massive tuition fees. And the taxpayers should not be expected to cover living expenses. Scholarships help if you can qualify for them academically or athletically, however not everyone can expect to go to Harvard or Yale.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

False. Many of the programs I support have been the status quo in the rest of the first world for decades.

We are not the rest of the world. We are a capitalism based representative republic. We take pride in our individual responsibility to take care of ourselves and our families, rather the expecting a nanny government to take care of our every needs. And those handouts in other nations do not always work out. Someone has to pay for all that free stuff and when funding for those programs does not meet needs, those governments cut or delay benefits, just like our government does with Medicare and S.S.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Helix]

I respectfully disagree. Other then lab fees and books, they do not incur massive tuition fees. And the taxpayers should not be expected to cover living expenses. Scholarships help if you can qualify for them academically or athletically, however not everyone can expect to go to Harvard or Yale.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Here are the statistics in real reality.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2018/06/13/student-loan-debt-statistics-2018/

 

[washunut]

If the government shuts down and federal employees are not getting paid... should the politicians keep getting paid?

If politicians promised to do nothing and never show up we should double their pay.

 

[Helix]

We are not the rest of the world. We are a capitalism based representative republic. We take pride in our individual responsibility to take care of ourselves and our families, rather the expecting a nanny government to take care of our every needs. And those handouts in other nations do not always work out. Someone has to pay for all that free stuff and when funding for those programs does not meet needs, those governments cut or delay benefits, just like our government does with Medicare and S.S.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I'll go with the solutions that the rest of the first world figured out decades ago, thanks. It's a matter of voting out the naysayers now.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Here are the statistics in real reality.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2018/06/13/student-loan-debt-statistics-2018/

I don't dispute those figures. My point is that you can get a good secondary education without incurring such massive debt. Like I said, not everyone can go to Harvard or Yale.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I'll go with the solutions that the rest of the first world figured out decades ago, thanks. It's a matter of voting out the naysayers now.

It's not merely about voting out naysayers. You would never accomplish that anyway. Rank and file Americans do not favor single payer schemes or ponzi schemes like Obamacare. And it would also be about coming up with the massive funding for single payer. Even if that were possible, I don't think you realize how much sticker shock you would see on your income tax.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Helix]

It's not merely about voting out naysayers. You would never accomplish that anyway. Rank and file Americans do not favor single payer schemes or ponzi schemes like Obamacare. And it would also be about coming up with the massive funding for single payer. Even if that were possible, I don't think you realize how much sticker shock you would see on your income tax.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I doubt that the younger kids in the workforce are going to be happy with paying much more than anyone else in the first world for similar care. Older people are often insulated from the worst of it because of their legacy plans. My guess is that we move towards single payer in coming decades.

 

[Integrityrespec]

A large portion of the members of Congress can easily get by without their congressional pay for a few months. The solution would be to set a date by which the congressional budget must be funded. If they cannot do that and the government experiences a shutdown then the members should not be paid, just as the employees of the government are not paid. This might encourage Congress to act instead of play political games with our government. The current situation is easy to resolve but it requires a compormise, a true compromise. In the real world, (not congress or politics) this means both sides realize they must give. Simply put, if the split is 60/40 then the side in power gets 60% of what it wants the other gets 40. Not on every issue but as an overall solution to the problem when all factors are considered.
The larger solution to the problems in Congress would be term limits. Never been for it before but it is becoming more and more clear that we need to get rid of the entrenched so called leaders in our congress. They value their power more than they value serving the people and so are concerned about getting re-elected more than doing a good job.

 

[rjay]

I am saying no, although I would entertain an argument for their expenses still being covered.

In my opinion the standard response from both houses should always be to push the bills that keep Government operating. 'at all times'. Regardless of which party control which house, and regardless of which party the President belongs to. This has to become standard operating procedure.,

If it was 'standard operating procedure' then it would never occur to anyone in control of one lever, to use this sledgehammer approach, to force the other levers. It would make negotiating government funding the norm.

As for now if no Senators or Representatives were being paid, then perhaps the bills that have been put forth would actually be voted on in both houses.

We have to remove any incentive that exists for ruining or disrupting the lives of employees, because of policy differences.

The one thing we can be sure of is there will always be policy differences.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Take a look at how many college students flunk out. Why do I want to help pay for that. There are lots of scholarship and grant moneys available to college seeking students. Unfortunately some of them require good high school scores and entrance exam scores, many students blow off academics during the high school years. Do I want to pay their way to college because they didn't prepare for college? I worked throughout college, as did my wife and most of my friends. Many paying the total cost of their college and many others contributing to the cost that parents helped with. Why is working you way through school so unheard of by many? Bite the bullet, cut cost and find a way to go to school. It's your education not mine, not my next door neighbors. Whatever happened to earning your way. There are opportunities out there but many students today seem to want a free ride. Many politicians promise a free ride just to get votes knowing the country cannot afford some of those promises.. It's funny, we cannot afford a tax cut to help business create more business and more jobs, to give middle class a tax break, but we can afford health care for all and free college for all?

 

[Geoist]

If the government shuts down and federal employees are not getting paid... should the politicians keep getting paid?

Why should we have wealthy politicians force the hands of less wealthy politicians?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Why should politicians sit back and do nothing while making $174,000 a year? more than triple the average household income. I'm for term limits to get rid of do nothing politicians and power hungry leaders.

 

[Geoist]

No. Politicians, congress I presume. No, they shouldn't. First off they failed to do their job in getting all 12 appropriations bills passed prior to the end of the fiscal year. Even before the shutdown, we were paying them for failure to do their assigned job. Then our beloved politicians let their ultra partisanship, disregard for the country as a whole to cause a government shutdown when if they were doing their jobs for all the people of this country, they would have worked something out long before the shutdown occurred.

As I understand it, House already voted on a bill. WH even said they’d sign. Trump decided last minute to say no because Coulter and Hannity got in his ear.

 

[Bodi]

Why should we have wealthy politicians force the hands of less wealthy politicians?

Not a bad point...

 

[Geoist]

Not a bad point...

I do understand the frustration you are addressing here. However, like with congressional term limits, I feel the ‘solution’ could potentially be worse than the problem.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Most voters vote blindly without thinking about long term consequences. The founding fathers knew most voters were "uninformed" and thus they put the electoral college in use to help protect from bad decisions. So even though I'm big on the power and right to vote you "can't cure stupid" as they say. Therefore term limits. How often do we see candidates run on one platform and then once elected they govern totally differently?

 

[Perotista]

As I understand it, House already voted on a bill. WH even said they’d sign. Trump decided last minute to say no because Coulter and Hannity got in his ear.

What I understand it, the CR or continuing resolution was passed and signed into law on the 28th of September which funded the government or the remaining departments and agencies covered under the remaining 7 appropriations bills funded through 6 Dec. Which congress failed to pass. Congress had passed 5 of the 12 appropriations bills which Trump signed into law in September on time. Hence the partial government shutdown. Now at the time Trump signed the CR into law Trump stated flat out he wouldn't sign another unless funding for his wall was included.

The Republican House did just that, but it went no where in the senate due to a Democratic filibuster. This in December. Now the Democrats control the House, they also passed a CR, but without funding for the wall. A bill in which McConnell tabled.

Pick your choice as to whom to blame, everyone else does. Trump, he had given warning in September when he signed the last CR about his wall. The Republicans in congress which sat on their butts and didn't pass the remaining 7 appropriations bills on time. Then scrambled once the government was shut down to do so with a CR. The Democrats in the senate which filibuster the GOP House passed bill or CR to fund the remaining 7 departments, agencies because it contained funds for the wall.

there's plenty of blame to go all around the way I see it. But right now the government, partial government is shut down over 5 billion dollars. That is out of the 4 trillion the government will spend this year. That is 0.0125% or a bit more than one one hundredth of a single percentage point. That is what is causing the partial shutdown.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I doubt that the younger kids in the workforce are going to be happy with paying much more than anyone else in the first world for similar care. Older people are often insulated from the worst of it because of their legacy plans. My guess is that we move towards single payer in coming decades.

The younger kids will certainly be suffering from Obamacare sticker shock at least when they turn 27 and can no longer remain on mommy and daddy's policy. However the smart kids will work out that single payer is not the answer either. As you know, it would just be Medicare for all. And I if Medicare went from just the seniors to everyone, it would blow up the monthly premiums. That would be the only way the government could have any chance in hell of paying for it. Right now, it costs less because the providers shift many of the costs over to those not on Medicare. If everyone goes on Medicare, who do you think those costs will shift to? And if we eliminate the profit incentive from healthcare, we get rationing as the number of hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc will shrink rapidly. And again, the only reason other nations get away with it is the United States for all practical purposes are providing for their military defense. Most refuse to pay even 2% of their GDP for their own defense. And we are in effect subsidizing Canada's prescription drug market. My advice is to think in terms of what works here instead of defaulting to what you works elsewhere. Every nation's conditions are not the same. And most do not have the jackpot frivolous malpractice lawsuit system that we have.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

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

Sorry you lose credibility when you toss it at Trump. In my lifetime, the only president with any traits toward a dictatorship was Barack Obama, especially in his second term when he started bypassing Congress with executive orders. And from his first term, Obamacare started with two authoritarian mandates, one of which still remains.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk