Your congressman just got a raise

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:06 am

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite record low approval ratings, House lawmakers Tuesday embraced a $3,300 pay raise that will increase their salaries to $168,500.

The 2 percent cost-of-living raise would be the seventh straight for members of the House and Senate.

What a joke... The American minimum wage hasn't increased since 1998. What about the public's cost of living?

From:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/13/ ... index.html

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:54 am

Haven't paid that close attention.

How often are they getting these.

Cost of living is understandable for the general public

Cost of living well and playing politics and getting
nothing done or ignoring your voters isn't.

As far as the minimum wage is concerned,
I've never been a proponent for messing with that.
Always of the opinion that the market only should
dictate that. Do a good job = cost of living pay increases.

Maybe I'm wrong?

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:37 pm

I hate to say it, but that is the cost of getting qualified people to leave the corporate world and work in Congress. It sounds high, but there are a lot of travel expenses involved as well.

No minimum wage? Let market forces determine it? That sounds like a classic Libertarian viewpoint to me.

Sankofa · Post by **Sankofa** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:40 pm

=^-..-^= wrote:No minimum wage? Let market forces determine it? That sounds like a classic Libertarian viewpoint to me.

Does the classic Libertarian viewpoint include outsourcing manufacturing to second and third world countries?

DELETED · Post by **DELETED** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:40 pm

DELETED

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:32 pm

Point of clarification:

"not messing with minimum wage"
let the market only determine what wages
are to be paid. More qualified personnel = higher pay!
dumb as box of rocks = lower pay.

eg: if your going to raise the min.wage,... then why
not make it $20.00/hr. $50.00/hr. etc.....

where do you stop? who's qualified to determine this?
Once again,.. I may be wrong.

Is this being a Libertarian? I would say this is Capitalism.
Does this mean jobs are outsourced? This has been going
on in this country for much longer than recently stated.
Jobs going overseas has been going on since the 60's
This country usually picks the slack in other innovative ways.

Outsourcing also happens between the continental 48 states also.
eg: the recent news about (I think its Honda) building a plant
in either Illinois, Indiana or Ohio. (not sure on the specifics)

Chime in!!

Sankofa · Post by **Sankofa** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:48 pm

WBOB wrote:eg: if your going to raise the min.wage,... then why
not make it $20.00/hr. $50.00/hr. etc.....

where do you stop? who's qualified to determine this?

Commonly referred to as the "slippery slope", this same tack has been utilized to hyperbolize many an argument.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:17 pm

Please clarify

DELETED · Post by **DELETED** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:16 pm

DELETED

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:05 pm

I think the minimum wage argument is an incorrect analytical tool when talking about billionaire congressman voting themselves wages for doing a lousy job.

Me to my boss. "Hey, I know I've done a really lousy job for the last few years - well, really, I've always done a pretty lousy job, and honestly you'd probably be better off eliminating my position entirely, but you just can't get rid of me can you? Anyway, I've decided to give myself a raise, and there's nothing you can really do about it, even though, technically, you're my boss."

That's what congress just told the American people. Last I looked, their poll numbers were even worse than Bush's, yet they get a raise?!?!?!? And we're talking about people who are all millionaires and many of them are billionaires.

It's time for term limits. One and done. No pension, no lifetime medical, no nothing. They can go get a job like the rest of us and live with their laws and taxes and spending bills and lack of common sense...

DELETED · Post by **DELETED** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:12 pm

DELETED

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:48 pm

Congressmen already have term limits - they are called ELECTIONS.

Yes, the Libertarian would say outsourcing is a part of their philosophy.

Sankofa · Post by **Sankofa** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:21 pm

=^-..-^= wrote:Congressmen already have term limits - they are called ELECTIONS.

The trouble being the remarkably small percentage of people who make that impact and the reasons behind their votes. The hot button issues will move complainers to voters while both parties do what they can to convince moderates their candidate is the good guy.

Incumbency is strength in an apathetic land.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:38 am

and let's not forget "campaign finance reform", otherwise known as the incumbent protection bill.

And actually, I think Souder would be fine. He's very intelligent and is not one of the "silver spoon" congressmen - Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, etc...

Also, I'm not really talking about term limits so much as putting a legal, permanent end to career politicians. The founding fathers never envisioned full-time, career politicians who stay in office for 40-50 years. All of them were lay people who took some time away from their regular careers to serve their country, but then went back to being blacksmiths, farmers, shop owners, etc... That's the model I'd like to see followed. Go serve a couple of years, then come home and do something truly important - like getting a job.

Sankofa · Post by **Sankofa** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:26 am

bassjones wrote:I'm not really talking about term limits so much as putting a legal, permanent end to career politicians.

The trouble being, even when they leave office, they move down the street and use their connections to earn even more money as lobbyists.