In sign of belt-tightening, Senate votes down a pay raise

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

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.

...but cutting off 1/2 the federal budget stops about 10% of the economy. Surely you can see how disruptive that would be.

How about a, say, 5 year budget freeze? Senators foregoing 3 grand each while they raise the whole budget some 7-10% is a joke, yes?

 

[Carmalita]

"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?

Your question does not fit the situation. In order to be consistent, you should have asked, "If you were on the board of directors of a company that was deeply in debt and getting deeper every second, would you vote yourself a pay raise?"

 

[Ken King]

Your question does not fit the situation. In order to be consistent, you should have asked, "If you were on the board of directors of a company that was deeply in debt and getting deeper every second, would you vote yourself a pay raise?"

Nah, I would just wait to be fired so that I got that multi-million dollar severance package.

 

[Larry Gude]

Let me make this very clear:

Your question does not fit the situation. In order to be consistent, you should have asked, "If you were on the board of directors of a company that was deeply in debt and getting deeper every second, would you vote yourself a pay raise?"

You asked for it:

Federal receipts have gone up significantly and more than expected BECAUSE of very effective tax cuts.

The annual defecit, as a percentage of GDP, is well below recent highs.

Overall US public debt compared to GDP or 'annual income' would make any CEO estatic.

The bonuses due to members of both the House and Senate for this kind of fiscal performance in the private sector would bring them titanic dollars, tens of millions each.

Of course, we can't look at how the US government operates in terms of how a company works because there simply are way to many advantages in government by virtue of rule making power.

But, if you wanna make the analogy for conversations sake then you gotta live with the facts.

 

[Pete]

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.

The services and associated costs for "federal " programs would then fall to the "states" to perform. The overall tax burden would not go down in my opinion, the state and the fed would simply swap which one has their hands deeper in your pocket.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The services and associated costs for "federal " programs would then fall to the "states" to perform. The overall tax burden would not go down in my opinion, the state and the fed would simply swap which one has their hands deeper in your pocket.

Ah, but that is where it is supposed to be. The states were supposed to handle most of government functions. Only very limited functions were delegated to the federal government. That is the way it was intended. The state politicians are closer to the people and more easily controlled, not much, but some.

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." --James Madison, Federalist No. 39

"The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government."

-- Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 9, 1787)

What we have wound up with was foretold by Franklin.

...I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt, too, whether any other Convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution." --Benjamin Franklin

 

[Pete]

Ah, but that is where it is supposed to be. The states were supposed to handle most of government functions. Only very limited functions were delegated to the federal government. That is the way it was intended. The state politicians are closer to the people and more easily controlled, not much, but some. What we have wound up with was foretold by Franklin.

I agree, more control at the state level is needed. Some argue that impoverished states like Mississippi and LA would seriously lag the more wealthy states in all facets of society if the fed didn't redistribute the wealth.

My answer to that is MS and LA have been placing a vacuum on a rear mamary for as long as I can remember and the fed has been practicing wealth distribution the whole time, hasn't done alot of good for them.

 

[Carmalita]

You asked for it:

See me quiver in fear.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

Federal receipts have gone up significantly and more than expected BECAUSE of very effective tax cuts.

<o></o>

That is not proved. And federal receipts have not gone up a FRACTION of the amount that federal expenditures have gone up. <o></o>

<o></o>

The annual defecit, as a percentage of GDP, is well below recent highs.

<o></o>

…yet still at record levels.<o></o>

<o></o>

<o></o>

Overall <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">US</st1lace></st1:country-region> public debt compared to GDP or 'annual income' would make any CEO estatic.

<o></o>

<o></o>
You compare apples to oranges.<o></o>

<o></o>

The bonuses due to members of both the House and Senate for this kind of fiscal performance in the private sector would bring them titanic dollars, tens of millions each.

<o></o>

So you feel that they would be rewarded handsomely for the fact that the company was only ninety-five percent as far down the toilet as it was previously?<o></o>

<o></o>

Of course, we can't look at how the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">US</st1lace></st1:country-region> government operates in terms of how a company works because there simply are way to many advantages in government by virtue of rule making power.<o></o>

But, if you wanna make the analogy for conversations sake then you gotta live with the facts.

<o></o>

If the all of the claims that you make are, in fact true, they are still only straw men. And you have still omitted the most important factor: public perception.<o></o>

<o></o>
In light of your comments, you will be kind to explain how your analogy of a private person giving him/herself a raise is more fitting to the situation.<o></o>

 

[kwillia]

...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?

Well Larry... I'm sure you finally got a good nights sleep now that they've managed to vote themselves more money...

Congress Helps Self to $3,100 Pay Raise

The Republican-controlled Congress helped itself to a $3,100 pay raise on Friday, then postponed work on bills to curb spending on social programs and cut taxes in favor of a two-week vacation.

The cost-of-living increase for members of Congress _ which will put pay for the rank and file at an estimated $165,200 a year _ marked a brief truce in the pitched political battles that have flared in recent weeks on the war and domestic issues.

So much so that the issue was not mentioned on the floor of either the House or Senate as lawmakers worked on legislation whose passage will assure bigger paychecks.

Lawmakers automatically receive a cost of living increase each year, unless Congress votes to block it. By tradition, critics have tried to block increases by attaching a provision to the legislation that provides funding for the Treasury Department. One such attempt succeeded in the Senate earlier in the year, but the provision was omitted from the compromise measure moved toward final approval.