In sign of belt-tightening, Senate votes down a pay raise
- Thread starter Carmalita
- Start date
Wow. We must really be heading for another Great Depression. I can't think of any other reason why they'd vote themselves out of more dough.
Now that's interesting. What was going on then to make them not take their pay raise?
Figures.Ken King said:
carolinagirl
What's it 2 U
Does this mean the feds won't get a raise either?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
In this latest episode of...
"It never ceases to amaze me" you people think this is a good thing.
Why?
Senators are employees. How many of you who work for somebody else would walk into work tomorrow and, if the power was yours and you co-workers, vote yourselves out of a raise?
Why?
"It never ceases to amaze me" you people think this is a good thing.
Why?
Senators are employees. How many of you who work for somebody else would walk into work tomorrow and, if the power was yours and you co-workers, vote yourselves out of a raise?
Why?
kwillia
n/a
Off the top of my head...because they are over paid to begin with... because they usually give themselves a larger raise each year than the general public actually gets... because they already get many tax payer paid perks that the average joe has to pay for out of his/her paycheck...Larry Gude said:
Last edited:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ok...
...little Miss Off the Top of My Head:
How much SHOULD they get paid?
This is not a larger raise per se; they voted themselves an automatic COLA a while back and they have to vote to NOT take it. This year it amounted to 1.9%. Whooppee.
(I read the story, nah)
And what perks should they get and what perks should they not get?
In closing, this is another $3,000 John has to go beg ThereZah for. Have you know compassion?
In closing of closing, what should be done with the whopping $150,000 this saves our $2,500,000,000,000 budget?
Would you like your $.0005 back?
...little Miss Off the Top of My Head:
How much SHOULD they get paid?
This is not a larger raise per se; they voted themselves an automatic COLA a while back and they have to vote to NOT take it. This year it amounted to 1.9%. Whooppee.
(I read the story, nah)
And what perks should they get and what perks should they not get?
In closing, this is another $3,000 John has to go beg ThereZah for. Have you know compassion?
In closing of closing, what should be done with the whopping $150,000 this saves our $2,500,000,000,000 budget?
Would you like your $.0005 back?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Hmmm...
All my base belong to you?
All my base belong to you?
Anyone else see something wrong with this?
Now if the feds actually stayed within their Constitution authority about 80 to 95 percent of the federal programs and offices would not exist so they would not be funded. Since not all programs are funded at the same level, eliminating the unconstitutional offices and programs would reduce the budget by about 55% give or take. The budget would be $1,125,000,000,000. Can you say fraud, waste, and abuse? I knew you could.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Now typically, I hate to play the role of devils advocate...
...but, what would happen if, tomorrow, the budget were cut in half?
What would be the effect for those not receiving those federal dollars?
Where would those dollars go?
2ndAmendment said:
...but, what would happen if, tomorrow, the budget were cut in half?
What would be the effect for those not receiving those federal dollars?
Where would those dollars go?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Here...
...I'll throw you all a curve ball:
What if we RAISED Senators salaries to, say, $10,000,000 per year?
One simply rule: They can't take a penny from anyone. For campaigns. For mail. For healthcare. For perks of any kind. That means no lunch with Enron or Sierra. No private meetings with the K street crowd. They can only meet with those who they actually work for; individual voters.
That'd be $1 billion a year for the Senate.
What do you think would happen to tax rates?
How about the budget?
As it is, a multi-millionaire Senators making chicken feed of $165,000 a year at work and stoically declining a $3,000 raise, somehow makes you people feel good all while they pass tax breaks and incentives galore to protect their real money.
I'd be happier if we didn't have annual budget increases of $100 billion and more, year after year. I'd be happier if the net effect of increased spending actually hit those who signed off on it.
...I'll throw you all a curve ball:
What if we RAISED Senators salaries to, say, $10,000,000 per year?
One simply rule: They can't take a penny from anyone. For campaigns. For mail. For healthcare. For perks of any kind. That means no lunch with Enron or Sierra. No private meetings with the K street crowd. They can only meet with those who they actually work for; individual voters.
That'd be $1 billion a year for the Senate.
What do you think would happen to tax rates?
How about the budget?
As it is, a multi-millionaire Senators making chicken feed of $165,000 a year at work and stoically declining a $3,000 raise, somehow makes you people feel good all while they pass tax breaks and incentives galore to protect their real money.
I'd be happier if we didn't have annual budget increases of $100 billion and more, year after year. I'd be happier if the net effect of increased spending actually hit those who signed off on it.
Pay off the National debt? :shrug: Cut taxes? :shrug: Let people keep more of what they earn? :shrug: What a concept. I get to save or spend what I earn instead of being allowed to rent my property from the state and have almost half of my income taken by force to pay the bills of the United States (real meaning of the "general welfare" clause) which is Constitutional and to give my hard earned money to some lazy bum watching television and procreating to get a raise which is unconstitutional.Larry Gude said: