GOP

[Shantel]

Yesterday Lindsey Graham said that since congress was so pathetically lame about doing what Americans are paying them for that they all should consider taking a cut in personal pay and benefits.

Good plan but it will never happen since it's apparently all about them and not us.

[tomthom]

-raises anarachy flag-

in all seriousness though, the GOP and the Dems are both crap. One can't run a country frugally, the other can't be objective in it's decision making.

easy solution. cut military spending to bring it back to simple cut and dry defense. not this whole preemptive strike bull. Half of the problem solved.


Edited for profanity

[tomthom]

it's fear mongering to use chinese statistics on military spending as a reason to keep up our own.

I'll explain why.

1. Inflation. when you are spending billions/trillions on defense already, imagine if you had an inflation of 5% in one year. what's 5% of 800 billion? that's 40,000,000,000. That's a huge number that can incite fear very easily. yes these numbers are out of my ass for use as an example, but you get the idea.

2. China would not dare attack us military to military. That's a fact. one, our military, specifically our navy, is huge. out of 19 aircraft carriers in the world we own 11 of them. they're ridiculous in terms of firepower and sheer blockade power. How many does china own? 0 at the present time, with a projected goal of 5 by 2020, which probably won't happen until 2025.

3. Chine would not instigate a war with it's most profitable "ally." We fuel the Chinese economy more than you can imagine. it would be economic suicide to destroy our materialism based society when they are the largest producers of material goods in the world. It simply would make no sense.

4. World Relations. The UN would undoubtedly take our side in terms of an armed conflict when it comes to the emerging and popular ideal of democracy versus "communism" (china is not functionally communist anymore. they technically have a more laissez faire economy than we do.). These are just a few of the reasons why that will NEVER happen in the coming 5 decades. At least.

[Beth Andrea]

I've always thought that Congress voting itself a pay raise is a conflict of interest...Instead, they should put out one vote (at the mid-term) to the public (in their particular state/district) asking for a raise, based on the perception of the represented that they are doing a "good" job ( = raise), an "acceptable" job ( = no raise), and a "poor" job ( = a pay cut equal to the raise which was asked for).

I don't know, just a thought.

[tomthom]

politics are lovely, aren't they?

[Heather]

What's sick is pitting one group against another group for political reasons.

Because we all know the Republicans never engage in this type of politics.

[spacial]

I've always thought that Congress voting itself a pay raise is a conflict of interest...Instead, they should put out one vote (at the mid-term) to the public (in their particular state/district) asking for a raise, based on the perception of the represented that they are doing a "good" job ( = raise), an "acceptable" job ( = no raise), and a "poor" job ( = a pay cut equal to the raise which was asked for).

I don't know, just a thought.

A rather simpler and more effective means of paying these people would be to say they can only be paid in multipuls of the national average pay. Say, twice for legialators and three times for Executive.

The nation average pay at the moment, in the states is, I believe $40,000 per year, so legistlators will get $80,000 and the executive $120,000 per year.

Everything will be plane and up front. They all get paid the same. It will be in their personal interests to ensure that the economy actually does grow and that inflation is actually kepts in check and that unemployment is kept as low as possible, simply because they won't get paid otherwise.

A similar system could be applied to any society.

[Jamie D]

I've always thought that Congress voting itself a pay raise is a conflict of interest...Instead, they should put out one vote (at the mid-term) to the public (in their particular state/district) asking for a raise, based on the perception of the represented that they are doing a "good" job ( = raise), an "acceptable" job ( = no raise), and a "poor" job ( = a pay cut equal to the raise which was asked for).

I don't know, just a thought.

Beth Andrea, please read the 27th Amendment.  A Congress is not allowed to raise its own pay.  They may only raise, or lower, the next Congress's pay.

[spacial]

Beth Andrea, please read the 27th Amendment.  A Congress is not allowed to raise its own pay.  They may only raise, or lower, the next Congress's pay.

With respect Jamie, that is missing the point. 

[Jamie D]

With respect Jamie, that is missing the point. 

Well, Jill, I addressed the "conflict of interest" issue.  What is interesting is that the issue is not new.  In fact, the 27th Amendment was proposed in 1789, by the very first Congress, as part of the the original "Bill of Rights," but not ratified until two centuries later.

[spacial]

Well, Jill, I addressed the "conflict of interest" issue.  What is interesting is that the issue is not new.  In fact, the 27th Amendment was proposed in 1789, by the very first Congress, as part of the the original "Bill of Rights," but not ratified until two centuries later.

Again, with respect, being an ancient issue that is still in contention doesn't diminish its significance or its importance.

[Kayla]

To counter Jamie's point, when Congress has something like a 90% (if not higher) incumbancy rate, the amendment is sort of moot. Even the 2010 elections retained something like 85% and that was spun by the media as some big "throw the bums out" year. Then again, whenever someone says "throw the bumbs out" they are generally speaking about one party.

Of course, to aid Jamie's point when most people in congress make $174,000 per year, Majority/Minority Leaders & Speaker of the House making slightly more, there really isn't rampant abuse of their pay. $174K for that kind of work does seem rather fair. If anything, one could argue it's on the low side since most of them could go work for lobbying groups at a substantial pay increase. It would seem wise to retain the smarter members of congress instead of losing them to "greener pastures."

[Shantel]

Which is why I'm an Independent.  As tomthom said, both parties are full of it.

However, I don't accept the notion my life is in jeopardy if I don't have multiple massive government beauracracies with me in their crosshairs.... just the opposite actually, I prefer to be take care of myself... always have, always will. HRT didn't weaken my backbone by any means.

    This is ditto for me also!

[Jess42]

I think the GOP and Dems are pretty much one in the same. Spend, spend and then spend some more while you have control and then moan and groan about the other's spending when you don't. A strong military, I have no problem with, its a smaller government I want. I would love to see term limits for all three branches. This putting justices in the supreme court for life just stacks the favor for one party or the other. Also there isn't a member of congress that needs pay, make it a service to their country instead of a career. Sure, pay for housing when they are in DC and provide them transportation there and back but retirement and healthcare for the rest of their lives?

Now with Newtown, new laws are going to be passed that limits my ability to protect myself against possibly the same kind of psycho or psychos that murdered a buch of children. And there will be the GOP following right on the Dems coat tails just far enough to not be recognized. Both sides will claim that they won and in reality they will. It's us who will lose. If someone is in the frame of mind that wants to kill you for who you are or just for their own personal entertainment or for a number of unapperant reasons, do we really think that they will do it with only eight rounds because after all, it will be illegal for a ten round magazine.

Not to mention us girls wanting to go out and even if you can pass, someone tells someone that told someone else about you and then coming across a single psycho or group that just wants to hurt, kill or rape you. I definately feel better packing heat in the purse instead of a cellphone to call 911 and wait for the cops to show up. Plus even if the psychos think you may be armed, they will think twice.

Sorry, kinda went offtopic there. But between the two parties, I hear a lot of differeces but can't see much of one when it comes to bigger government and spending.

[Shantel]

Initially the only responsibility of the Federal government was national security. When women were finally allowed to vote then all of the nanny state laws began to crop up. That's not a slur against women, it's just a fact. Anyone expecting to get reelected from that time on would jeopardize his political future if he slighted women's issues. Most of what is dragging the country into a financial abyss is the spinelessness of the US congress having to deal with stuff that ought to not fall under Federal but under each individual state's order of business.

[Jess42]

Initially the only responsibility of the Federal government was national security. When women were finally allowed to vote then all of the nanny state laws began to crop up. That's not a slur against women, it's just a fact. Anyone expecting to get reelected from that time on would jeopardize his political future if he slighted women's issues. Most of what is dragging the country into a financial abyss is the spinelessness of the US congress having to deal with stuff that ought to not fall under Federal but under each individual state's order of business.

I agree with you. The tenth ammendment is just pretty much ignored by the federal government. The feds always use the threat of pulling federal highway funds if the states don't follow the rule of the Feds. Seatbelt laws being an example. I can remember when some states had them and other's didn't until the lobbyists for the insurance companies "Convinced" the socalled reps and senators. Then if a state didn't want seatbelt laws, fine with the feds, they would just withhold the funds.

[MaidofOrleans]

It's all about the costs, everything the GOP is doing is about cost cutting even if they alienate their constituency and shoot themselves in the foot doing it.

Maybe they shouldnt have blown all our money on useless wars.

[tomthom]

not necessarily useless wars, but they didn't do a cost benefit analysis as the war was fueled solely as a comforting mechanism to help people get over being attacked directly.

[MaidofOrleans]

not necessarily useless wars, but they didn't do a cost benefit analysis as the war was fueled solely as a comforting mechanism to help people get over being attacked directly.

I didn't realize war was comforting 

[tomthom]

comforting as in "oh god they punched me in the nose. I should kick them in the shins and gag them and then pour gasoline on their body."