Instead of Tax Raises how about cutting someone's pay?

Just a little question and quip done right quick.

from JoeUser Forums


Okay I hear the Politicians talking about raises Taxes to pay off the Deficit, but they won't even bring up the subject of cutting their pay, come on, most of those Senators and Congressmen and women make alot of money, do they really need those $100,000 to $180,000 paychecks?

Seriously if they just tighten their collective belts and take a cut in pay there would be less money being spent on them, after all as elected officials they are public servants, do they really need a good wad of cash when they get a load of benefits?

So from GX's Mausoleum I send a Congress 'WTF' is the deal with your pay when you are talking about deficit and stuff, how about a pay cut?

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
politics
8,095 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes they do need thos pay checks, because if you think about it these people are actually taking a paycut to become a senator or congressman, and the more the government pays them the less likley they are to give in to special intrests who give them gifts of special considerations.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
come on, most of those Senators and Congressmen and women make alot of money,


without their chunk of change from the Government paycheck.

Yes they do need thos pay checks, because if you think about it these people are actually taking a paycut to become a senator or congressman, and the more the government pays them the less likley they are to give in to special intrests who give them gifts of special considerations.


Sure keep believeing that your prize Senator or Representative doesn't give into special interests, most of those ladies and gentlemen don't need that government paycheck (Kerry, Edwards, Bush, Cheney) or they poor people that need that extra $100,000 a year?

- GX
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
A public servant should be just that. The oppourtunity itself should be enough for the altruistic. There isn't any reason why no monetary means should be given, but the current amounts are over - compensetory.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Perhaps they should try raising their family on $5.65 an hour...perhaps then they would understand what it is to be "American."
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
All that money, and they still have to steal from taxpayers...
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok, well let me present it this way. George Washington insisted upon have no pay as president. However, he racked up more than $100,000 in a government expense account.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
George Washington insisted upon have no pay as president. However, he racked up more than $100,000 in a government expense account.


so either way, "We the People" have always had to pay...
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
he racked up more than $100,000 in a government expense account.


And that was over how many years? Compare that to the current salaries earned by our elected leaders, and the government expense accounts they still have access to, and the considerable tax benefits they have as well. It's nowhere near the same.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
Not to mention they can send mail FREE!

They get so many benefits it is ridiculous for them to be making over $150,000, now if you brought that down by 50 to 100 grand, right there could the Government save money from it's spending and think of the amount over the years, it adds up.

Trim the fat from their porky vat!

- GX
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #9 By: Grim Xiozan - 10/7/2004 4:07:18 PM
Not to mention they can send mail FREE!

They get so many benefits it is ridiculous for them to be making over $150,000, now if you brought that down by 50 to 100 grand, right there could the Government save money from it's spending and think of the amount over the years, it adds up.

Trim the fat from their porky vat!


Yeah but then they wouldn't be able to afford their fancy houses and expensive cars.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
Yeah but then they wouldn't be able to afford their fancy houses and expensive cars.


So they are supposed to represent the people, last time I checked the BIGGEST CLASS was the Middle Class, so they can drive Middle Class cars and live in Middle Class houses, not to mention, don't most of them get driven around anyways?

- GX
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #11 By: Grim Xiozan - 10/7/2004 4:11:42 PM
Yeah but then they wouldn't be able to afford their fancy houses and expensive cars.


So they are supposed to represent the people, last time I checked the BIGGEST CLASS was the Middle Class, so they can drive Middle Class cars and live in Middle Class houses, not to mention, don't most of them get driven around anyways?


Not ALL the time Or have you forgotten about Kerry's big SUV?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think they should have an HONEST reality show about presidential candidates living like normal middle class citizens. The one that ends up deciding to respond to us, and not the rich is the one to be president. If neither one decides that, then I get to be president...LoL
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
And that was over how many years? Compare that to the current salaries earned by our elected leaders, and the government expense accounts they still have access to, and the considerable tax benefits they have as well. It's nowhere near the same.


It was over 2-4 years. $100,000 at the time is equal to $4,328,190.42 now. How is that the same as what they make now?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
So the next question is, what sorts of things did Washington expense?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
So the next question is, what sorts of things did Washington expense?


does it matter?
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
does it matter?


If Sandy wants to make the point, don't you think it does?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
If Sandy wants to make the point, don't you think it does?


I did not mean that in a bad way... but I don't think that the money spent way back in the 1700's is going to have anything to do with us now...at least as far as I see...

I honestly did not mean that as demeaning in any way, and I am sorry if that is how it was taken.
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
I honestly did not mean that as demeaning in any way, and I am sorry if that is how it was taken.


No I didn't take it in a demeaning way, Sandy's main argument for the pay is that Washington spent $100K back in the 1700s, so Citahellion wants to know what it was spent on.

To ME it really has no bearing on the bloated paychecks of today's Federal Government (though State and Local get some good sized paychecks too, hell I am thinking about running for Congress in State or Federal if I can make that much.)

- GX
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
hell I am thinking about running for Congress in State or Federal if I can make that much


you have to have that much in the first place to be able to run...what with advertising and all...
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
If they are in a part of the government that controls the budget, they should give all of their net worth to the government,
and if the G makes a profit, so do they. If the G goes BK while they serve, so do they. That would show us who the public "Servants" are.
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
Good idea, Sergeant.

If they have more a financial stake in the Government those loons would be more responsible out of fear of going BK.