Show of HandsShow of Hands

Mattwall1 August 1st, 2015 4:14pm

We should not want temporary politicians that can only govern because they're wealthy enough to play politician. We should want politicians who have the best skills to govern, and if that means paying them legitimate compensation, so be it.

8 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

ozzy
08/01/15 9:32 am

Disagree. Professional politicians are the problem. I think they should get NO compensation. It should be an honor to be a representative. It should not be your job. Your reasonable expenses should be paid.

Reply
Iamamerican California
08/01/15 11:09 am

We should vote for politicians who are capable of doing what is best for the country while following our laws and constitution.
Sometimes the status quo needs a good rattling as in the case with Donald Trump. He is saying what many Americans feel.

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
08/01/15 9:46 am

In some parts of the country, less than six figures makes it extremely difficult to afford maintaining a home in your base district while also being gone for long stretches of time.

Reply
Arkansas123 Neoconservative
08/01/15 4:26 pm

Congressmen are paid a legitimate compensation. State legislators, not so much.

Reply
skinner Jersey City
08/01/15 5:57 pm

Yes, but I would contend that they are already paid sufficiently and given appropriate benefits.

Reply
Mattwall1
08/01/15 11:53 am

Frankly, it's fair to say that the concept of a patrician upper house and a commons lower house is at best outdated thanks to societal evolution, not to mention the fact that it is far from the most efficient distribution of political labor, so no

Reply
Mattwall1
08/01/15 9:54 am

You're right it should be an honor, but I'd rather have the widest pool of possible public servants, not just those wealthy enough to take time off to legislate. Going in that route simply wastes talent that could serve the country for the better,

Reply
jayblake22
08/01/15 12:42 pm

I agree that we should hire the best for the job. But there are ppl that can successfully govern that aren't politicians. People from a business background can be great leaders too.

Reply
Mattwall1
08/03/15 12:00 pm

In not saying the system if flawless, because it definitely has holes. However, there's a difference between saving money because it makes sense to cut, and saving money because you want to cut, regardless of the consequences.

Reply
dominiclandry
08/01/15 11:42 am

Okay....but you're focusing on the wrong issue. Senators are supposed to be from the more "elite" class. The wealthier members of society. The HoR are supposed to be common folk, with as much at stake as constituents. That's how we turn it around.

Reply
PresWK Minnesota
08/02/15 8:20 pm

But they shouldn't get to set their own salaries

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
08/01/15 9:45 am

Agree, although I don't think the amounts members of congress are paid is insufficient (although I wouldn't be opposed to COLA adjustments for those representing more expensive districts). I imagine many state legislators are underpaid though.

Reply
ChristianCuber Texas
08/02/15 1:59 pm

One of the Greek leaders was a humble farmer who had been raised to dictator when they were invaded, and after winning, withdrew back to his farm.

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
08/03/15 1:20 pm

If the issue is that people who just moved there aren't familiar enough, then it would make sense to add a tenure requirement - not to do away with a requirement (even if not official) that they live in the area they actually represent.

Reply
Mattwall1
08/03/15 11:40 am

The law requires them to live in the state, not the district. However, it's a long held convention that members have a residence in the district, and office space too, since they are that district's representative (even if they can make choices

Reply
Mattwall1
08/03/15 11:41 am

Independent of the electorate). It's also a convention that makes complete sense and although not de jure, is deeply entrenched to the point where it almost may as well be a requirement in fact.

Reply
Dazey Beagles Rule
08/01/15 9:56 am

Maybe. I'm not convinced that's true. Plenty of smart people making 40k that wouldn't be harmed by a 100k salary. I'd wonder if govt housing for the months they serve would be more cost effective than salary increases. Either way, as long as it's

Reply
Dazey Beagles Rule
08/01/15 9:57 am

serve and go home, I don't really care I guess. Oh, and throw in trying to be effective too.

Reply
Mattwall1
08/01/15 6:25 pm

State legislators on the other hand tend to be very underpaid

Reply
mc88 Cleveland OSU
08/01/15 11:29 am

Lol the results. And then another question asks if you support career politicians, and everyone yells no!

Reply
Dazey Beagles Rule
08/01/15 10:05 am

I'm not all the way in the car with you on this one.

Reply
Dazey Beagles Rule
08/01/15 9:26 am

Are you suggesting that a salary less than say six figures means that only the wealthy can afford to govern?

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
08/03/15 5:44 pm

I agree. I'm not saying it's dispositive, just that it's relevant. And two years I would think is a reasonable tenure anyway.

Mattwall1
08/01/15 11:42 am

I never said this was the situation now. Thankfully, we do compensate legislators. That doesn't stop it from being a goal of people

rons Thanks America
08/01/15 10:20 am

Sanders is not Rich! Problem is most gain their wealth after they get elected and that's what bothers me more. Check how fast the Clintons went from broke to mega millionaires. Very suspicious If you ask me. Obama will take the same road.

Mattwall1
08/01/15 11:49 am

My guess is the slogan sounds nice, but once details get brought in...

ran4sh
08/03/15 11:29 am

With the caveat that legitimate funding for government comes from voluntary donations, not tax revenue. Tax should be as low as possible and never more than 10% of income.

Mattwall1
08/01/15 11:53 am

That's now now we should turn this around or focusing on the wrong issue

ran4sh
08/03/15 11:36 am

The law doesn't actually require members of Congress to live in the districts they represent. That's usually only a requirement for government of county or city level and smaller areas.

Mattwall1
08/01/15 9:52 am

Given the amount of expenses they have, as well as compensation, yes, not having a strong compensation can restrict who can serve, though my bigger worry is the mindset above, where they should go unpaid completely, which WOULD restrict who could

Mattwall1
08/01/15 9:52 am

Serve not to the best for office, but he person who can monetarily afford to serve, which is not a good thing

ladyniner81 I need chocolate
08/05/15 10:13 pm

They shouldn't decide how much they're getting paid though

Mattwall1
08/01/15 9:53 am

I'm not saying the rich should be barred from running. I'm saying that it shouldn't be restricted, de facto or de jure, to only the rich being able to run

Mattwall1
08/01/15 9:55 am

And simply creates a wealthy political class and a non wealthy restricted class at levels that would make anything resembling that now seem like paradise

Mattwall1
08/01/15 9:56 am

I don't think current salaries are insufficient (except possibly for some in very high cost districts far from DC). It's the principle at issue here

Mattwall1
08/01/15 6:23 pm

I'm not arguing in favor of giving them a raise now. I'm saying the calls to drastically cut their pay (or get rid of it) go way too far

ran4sh
08/03/15 11:42 am

And that's something that needs to change if the result is that it saves money.

ran4sh
08/03/15 11:46 am

It does NOT make sense for living in the state to be a requirement. The goal is for the politician to be familiar with the district/state, but there's no way to make a law to reflect that. Someone that just moved to the dist. is obv. not familiar...

rons Thanks America
08/01/15 9:18 am

Don't talk about Hillary like that. Maybe any politicians who's net worth in over 50 million can't run for office.

Mattwall1
08/01/15 9:59 am

The likeliest result of a proposal for government housing would be a populist backlash, not agreement (also why the legislature, not the people directly, should control compensation). Being a legislator isn't cheap, they have to have staff in DC and

ran4sh
08/03/15 11:49 am

... even if they're legally eligible. Example, the Clintons lived in AR, how can we really say Hillary was a good Sen for NY? Same for others.

Mattwall1
08/01/15 10:01 am

Their district (or state if a senator or at large congressman), they have to travel regularly between their district/state and DC, etc. Even accounting for things that are covered it isn't cheap, and arbitrarily lowering salaries because people

Mattwall1
08/01/15 10:02 am

Dislike politicians would harm the country long term, but what most people want to hear is a confirmation of their populist backlash

ran4sh
08/03/15 5:23 pm

Yes but how can you determine familiarity by tenure? Someone who has only lived somewhere 2 years but is active in the community can be better than someone who has lived there a long time but is content with sticking to who & what they know

rons Thanks America
08/01/15 12:06 pm

At the local level, at least in my little town compensation does not equal the labor they council uses. They usually have a day job and devote a lot of time to better the town. Good people.