http://thehill.com/homenews/house/283341-pelosi-congressional-pay-cut-undermines-dignity-of-the-job-#ixzz2KzVE6lj7

Your approval ratings are at 14%. You should have no dignity left FFS.

Nancy's just pissed that she was demoted from House Queen to Court Jester.

We really need to do something about term limits. I honestly do not know where Pelosi finds the spare brain cells to remember to breath and pee.

definitely in favor of term limits for Congress. Get these old fogeys that have been their forever out and put some new blood in. Congress should be same limits as the President, no one for more than 8 years. Of course, this will never happen because Congress would have to vote on limiting themselves, not going to happen.

gut;1389989 wrote:We really need to do something about term limits. I honestly do not know where Pelosi finds the spare brain cells to remember to breath and pee.

I'm betting that if Congressmen got paid the average wage of a full-time American employee, that problem would be closer to fixing itself than it is now.

I honestly don't mind a lack of term limits at the Congressional level, mostly because if a state honestly wants a person who holds such views to represent them at the national level, I don't think they should be prevented from having that because of a term limit.

O-Trap;1389995 wrote: I honestly don't mind a lack of term limits at the Congressional level, mostly because if a state honestly wants a person who holds such views to represent them at the national level, I don't think they should be prevented from having that because of a term limit.

I get that, although I think candidates typically conform their views with what will get them elected, so you end-up replacing Pelosi with some other dingbat. But term limits would remove the heirarchial power structure and enable new reps to accomplish more and have a bigger impact. If I elect someone new that represents me better, my voting interest really is dimished by the fact that career politicians like Pelosi are pulling the strings.

And I'm not sure the pay would have much impact. The big money comes from leveraging the accumulated power & influence, especially after "retiring" but during as well.

gut;1390007 wrote:And I'm not sure the pay would have much impact. The big money comes from leveraging the accumulated power & influence, especially after "retiring" but during as well.

For those who do get in, I 100% agree. I just wonder if it would actually deter some. Perhaps not. I suppose it would have to be coupled with some way of watching their financials like a hawk to look for traces of kickbacks, buy-offs, or other forms of bribery.

O-Trap;1390088 wrote:For those who do get in, I 100% agree. I just wonder if it would actually deter some. Perhaps not. I suppose it would have to be coupled with some way of watching their financials like a hawk to look for traces of kickbacks, buy-offs, or other forms of bribery.

Maybe. I'm sure power, perceived or otherwise, is still a big draw. That would certainly apply to many career politicians, especially ones already financially secure.

But try to remove it as a path to prosperity, and especially fix the campaign financing, and you'd probably significantly improve the pool of candidates. You'd also have to address the media and it's TMZ-style of digging for dirt - it should only be dirt relevant to the job, and they shouldn't be playing favorites.

gut;1390143 wrote:Maybe. I'm sure power, perceived or otherwise, is still a big draw. That would certainly apply to many career politicians, especially ones already financially secure.

But try to remove it as a path to prosperity, and especially fix the campaign financing, and you'd probably significantly improve the pool of candidates. You'd also have to address the media and it's TMZ-style of digging for dirt - it should only be dirt relevant to the job, and they shouldn't be playing favorites.

The problem with the latter is trying to figure out what "relevant to the job" means. I have a feeling that wherever the gray area ends up, that's where they'll spend their time.

As for forcing them to not play favorites, that can get tricky, because in order to enforce that, you put someone in control of it. So any bribery that goes on now ... just has to go up one level and it controls a lot more. I would sooner see news networks in their current form lose credibility among the population, honestly.

I wasn't really talking about controlling or vetting the media, more just a commentary that the news reflects the dumbing down and general apathy of the public.

And I don't see the media wallowing in the "gray area", I see them going for the salacious and scandalous that usually has no bearing on one's ability to do the job. What you don't see much of is actual objective and rational discussion of policies and proposals, at least with regard to election cycles.

gut;1390150 wrote:I wasn't really talking about controlling or vetting the media, more just a commentary that the news reflects the dumbing down and general apathy of the public.

And I don't see the media wallowing in the "gray area", I see them going for the salacious and scandalous that usually has no bearing on one's ability to do the job. What you don't see much of is actual objective and rational discussion of policies and proposals, at least with regard to election cycles.

Oh I agree. I meant that if we tried to actually control what "relevant" and "favorites" means, they'd go absolutely as far as they could get away with, even if it meant loopholes. There are things that most would agree would be clearly illegal and things that would clearly be acceptable. They wouldn't want to exist in the clearly acceptable. They wouldn't be allowed to exist in the clearly illegal. They'd push the limits as far as they would go ... as far as the gray area would let them.

ccrunner609;1390076 wrote:Pelosi is one of the major players in the problems we are in now. If she did her job we wouldnt be standing in **** right now.

If truth be known, there are 435 major players in the House responsible for the sorry state of affairs. The problem is that you, I and everyone else has a great Representative, in our eyes. We always want to think it's someone else's Representative who is causing the problem, when it's really ALL of them. I'm in favor of one four-year term for both the House and Senate. Right now, they are all worried about re-election. Let's take that worry away from them and demand that they ALL do the jobs we sent them to do.

Pelosi is Obama lap dance bitch ... she has no dignity

Belly35;1392020 wrote:Pelosi is Obama lap dance bitch ... she has no dignity

Please don't project your interracial p*** fetish onto the politics forum...

I have to admit that reading "Pelosi" and "dignity" in the same sentence kinda brings the lulz.

stlouiedipalma;1391954 wrote:If truth be known, there are 435 major players in the House responsible for the sorry state of affairs. The problem is that you, I and everyone else has a great Representative, in our eyes. We always want to think it's someone else's Representative who is causing the problem, when it's really ALL of them. I'm in favor of one four-year term for both the House and Senate. Right now, they are all worried about re-election. Let's take that worry away from them and demand that they ALL do the jobs we sent them to do.

This is absolutely true. Of course, I think both my rep and senator suck and voted for neither. But your general point is spot on. These jackasses keep getting elected, somehow.

justincredible;1392238 wrote:This is absolutely true. Of course, I think both my rep and senator suck and voted for neither. But your general point is spot on. These jackasses keep getting elected, somehow.

Lazy, uninformed voters. I think there are more than a few genuine congresspeople who want to work on solutions but they run into a brick wall patrolled by the power brokers.

Plus, Pelosi, Reid, et al might seem horrible to us (and they are), but they've also used their power and influence to bring home the bacon. So if their constituents vote purely out of self-interest, short-sighted as it may be (but perhaps not), it would actually be pretty rational.

That's basically how these super-pandering career politicians keep getting re-elected. They work up to positions where they're able to funnel plenty of pork back home

gut;1392266 wrote:Lazy, uninformed voters.

/thread

Once most of our elected officials start their first term, they turn to whores.

Whores to the deep pocket special interests, pork projects that bring money to their districts regardless of the need or sense of the actual project, even whores to being re-elected.

This is why we need reform so that people don't look at a job like this as a career thereby serving themselves, but as a way to serve the people. They pay and benefits are way too high. Granted, that may attract people to run, but running to claim the pay and benefits is the absolute wrong reason.

I have volunteered in many capacities in my community, schools, etc..this was not for what it would bring to me personally, but because it was the right thing to do. I'm not asking for applaus or anything else based on that statement, but people who serve in governmental leadership should do it because they are called to...not for the benefits.

wkfan;1392323 wrote:people who serve in governmental leadership should do it because they are called to...not for the benefits.

Maybe a (damn) few of them are doing it because they are called to, but I think the majority of them have other motives. (money, power, fame)

Nice:

http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/NH-House-voting-on-free-ski-passes-for-lawmakers/-/9857858/18588466/-/g631a7z/-/index.html

One law that needs to be passed is that all Federal Congresspeople, Executive Officers (POTUS and VEEP) and Heads of Departments must be subject to the exact same compensation reporting requirements that NEO's of publicly traded companies. That is, each year there must be full compensation and benefits reporting, reporting for all trades and holdings of stock, and trading windows preventing trades during certain sessions.

wkfan;1392323 wrote:Once most of our elected officials start their first term, they turn to whores.

Whores to the deep pocket special interests, pork projects that bring money to their districts regardless of the need or sense of the actual project, even whores to being re-elected.

This is why we need reform so that people don't look at a job like this as a career thereby serving themselves, but as a way to serve the people. They pay and benefits are way too high. Granted, that may attract people to run, but running to claim the pay and benefits is the absolute wrong reason.

I have volunteered in many capacities in my community, schools, etc..this was not for what it would bring to me personally, but because it was the right thing to do. I'm not asking for applaus or anything else based on that statement, but people who serve in governmental leadership should do it because they are called to...not for the benefits.

Nice post. I agree with everything you say, and hats off to you for your volunteer service. That's something we all should be looking into. I think if we spent a little more time doing and less time bi***ing we would all be better off. I've always thought that spending millions to get elected to public office isn't necessarily a sign of a higher calling but rather a chance to get in on the public corruption game. When a small congressional district in Southern Illinois attracts nearly $10 million in outside money (in a losing effort, I might add) then you know something fishy is going on.

Manhattan Buckeye;1392660 wrote: One law that needs to be passed is that all Federal Congresspeople, Executive Officers (POTUS and VEEP) and Heads of Departments must be subject to the exact same compensation reporting requirements that NEO's of publicly traded companies. That is, each year there must be full compensation and benefits reporting, reporting for all trades and holdings of stock, and trading windows preventing trades during certain sessions.

That's a great idea, and pretty practical.

As for needing to lower comp, the counter argument to that would be if you want talent, you have to pay a competitive wage. And although I don't see much talent in Washington, $200k with the headaches and travel isn't pulling more than a mid-level business person or lawyer. Granted, Washington seems filled with mediocrity, which is why I think the media scrutiny is a bigger deterrent for most (lol, my posts on this board would sink me by itself).

stlouiedipalma;1392727 wrote:When a small congressional district in Southern Illinois attracts nearly $10 million in outside money (in a losing effort, I might add) then you know something fishy is going on.

Washington is mostly lawyers - of course it's crooked as all get out.

gut;1392773 wrote:That's a great idea, and pretty practical.

As for needing to lower comp, the counter argument to that would be if you want talent, you have to pay a competitive wage. And although I don't see much talent in Washington, $200k with the headaches and travel isn't pulling more than a mid-level business person or lawyer. Granted, Washington seems filled with mediocrity, which is why I think the media scrutiny is a bigger deterrent for most (lol, my posts on this board would sink me by itself).

I suppose that, at this point, I'll take a less qualified candidate if he is more transparent and is pursuing the job for the right reasons.