What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obscene salaries

Re: Obscene salaries

Bob Gray said:
So, you are against good public service? :eek: I figured that'd be something everyone would support, but I sometimes forget people like you that never miss a chance to try to take a shot.

Oh, and you thinking you know what I have a passion for or don't have a passion for is laughable and if you knew me in daily life you'd realize how silly what you said is.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you misread me as I was not clear. I think you made a point that politicians were driven to politics for the nobility of helping society. My point was that that has changed to be driven by a love of ideology.

LynahFan said:
The issue is much more complex than just ethically questionable "kickbacks." Ex-public officials have potential to earn significant amounts of money in plenty of squeaky-clean ways that nobody would question - speaking fees, consulting (without advocating/lobbying), etc. Sure, Senators may only make $200K while in office, but they are virtually guaranteed to make millions after leaving office. Would doubling or tripling their in-office salaries really incentivize any "better" candidates to run for office?
Click to expand...

It is complex and we don't need to dump money on them. But special interests is absolutely the top public problem facing this country. I think we owe it to ourselves to use the few levers we have to find a solution. And the two would be to address the problem of SI straight on...while backfilling with enough compensation to ensure more pragmatic professional talent.
 
Re: Obscene salaries

I don't know what this means when yhou say "politicians were driven to politics for the nobility of helping society"

All I was saying was that the calling of public service, for the public good, was once a respected career path, but not so much anymore for whatever reason (and there are a number of them).
 
Re: Obscene salaries

mookie1995 said:
Salary of House/Senate....$174,000 FOR LIFE
This is stupid.
Salary of Speaker of the House ....$223,500 FOR LIFE!
This is really stupid.
Salary of Majority/Minority Leader $193,400 FOR LIFE!
Think about this, Nancy Pelosi will retire as a Congress Person
at $174,000 Dollars a year for LIFE.
She has retired as SPEAKER at $223,500 a year, PLUS she will receive an additional $193,400 a year as Minority Leader.
That's $803,700 Dollars a year for LIFE including FREE medical
Click to expand...

This is not true. Members of congress do not draw their full pay for life, and Pelosi certainly will not draw the salary of Speaker of the House plus Minority Leader plus the salary of a congressman. Their pension is determined by a number of factors including length of service, their age at retirement, and when they joined Congress. It also depends on what options they chose when they enroll in the retirement system. The pension can be at most 80% of their salary at the time of retirement, and they have to pay a percentage of their salary into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
 
Re: Obscene salaries

Bob Gray said:
I don't know what this means when yhou say "politicians were driven to politics for the nobility of helping society"

All I was saying was that the calling of public service, for the public good, was once a respected career path, but not so much anymore for whatever reason (and there are a number of them).
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what he said. Most politicians that you read about or slam their mug on TV all the time are in it for power and money and not public service.
 
Re: Obscene salaries

Bob Gray said:
I don't know what this means when yhou say "politicians were driven to politics for the nobility of helping society"

All I was saying was that the calling of public service, for the public good, was once a respected career path, but not so much anymore for whatever reason (and there are a number of them).
Click to expand...

Public good, helping society...close enough for government work. :)

Regardless, ideology drives too many politician careers.
 
Re: Obscene salaries

5mn_Major said:
It is complex and we don't need to dump money on them. But special interests is absolutely the top public problem facing this country. I think we owe it to ourselves to use the few levers we have to find a solution.
Click to expand...

However much we like it or dislike it, "special interests" have a constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment to "peacably assemble to petition the government."

It seems to me that the only salvation available to us is to use the Tenth Amendment to protect ourselves as much as we can: by severely limiting the powers of the federal government.

You cannot move special interests out of politics. Your "special interest" is my lifeblood, my bread and butter. Your bread and butter, on the other hand, is merely one of those pernicious "special interest groups" to me.

If we reduce the power of the federal government substantially, we can at least move the 'special interests' to the state level and, one hopes, make them a lot more transparent. It is much harder for an organized 'special interest' to influence 50 state legislatures compared to one federal legislature.
 
Re: Obscene salaries

BassAle said:
The pension can be at most 80% of their salary at the time of retirement, and they have to pay a percentage of their salary into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great deal to me! Where can I get one of those?


and what do they mean by "retirement"? Losing an election? :(
 
Re: Obscene salaries

LynahFan said:
The issue is much more complex than just ethically questionable "kickbacks." Ex-public officials have potential to earn significant amounts of money in plenty of squeaky-clean ways that nobody would question - speaking fees, consulting (without advocating/lobbying), etc.
Click to expand...

Ben Bernanke is already getting $250K - $500K for each time he opens his mouth in front of a group paying him to speak. Too lazy to find link now, no doubt it is easily available.
 
Re: Obscene salaries

FreshFish said:
However much we like it or dislike it, "special interests" have a constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment to "peacably assemble to petition the government."

It seems to me that the only salvation available to us is to use the Tenth Amendment to protect ourselves as much as we can: by severely limiting the powers of the federal government.
Click to expand...

Well of course you're right about what's said in the first amendment. However, I don't know if the SCOTUS would uphold legislation to limit special interest.

Eliminating/Limiting money options from special interests doesn't limit anyone's right to petition the government.
 
Last edited:
5mn_Major said:
Well of course you're right about what's said in the first amendment. However, I don't know if the SCOTUS would uphold legislation to limit special interest.

Eliminating/Limiting money options from special interests doesn't limit anyone's right to petition the government.
Click to expand...
Read it again. He's not saying to limit groups' right to petition. He's saying that if the federal government were less powerful, it wouldn't be so "lucrative" for special interest groups to do their lobbying, so they would just naturally lose interest in doing it.
 
Re: Obscene salaries

St. Clown said:
Did you learn a new Dem talking points word this week? You're definitely tossing it around much more than usual these last few days.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's a Scooby talking point. Haven't heard the word used once on MSNBC so I know it's not a Dem talking point.
 
Re: Obscene salaries

LynahFan said:
Read it again. He's not saying to limit groups' right to petition. He's saying that if the federal government were less powerful, it wouldn't be so "lucrative" for special interest groups to do their lobbying, so they would just naturally lose interest in doing it.
Click to expand...

I don't need to read it again. I responded to "special interests have a constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment to peacably assemble to petition the government."
 
Re: Obscene salaries

LynahFan said:
Read it again. He's not saying to limit groups' right to petition. He's saying that if the federal government were less powerful, it wouldn't be so "lucrative" for special interest groups to do their lobbying, so they would just naturally lose interest in doing it.
Click to expand...

Well put. Nice turn of phrase. :)
 
Re: Obscene salaries

The crux of the problem seems to come down to the same tired old exchange:

Idealistic progressive: "we have to help people! let's provide them support and assistance!"

Cautious conservative: "don't we want to make sure that what we are doing will actually work?"

and the inability to even hear what the other is saying soon degenerates into name-calling.

From A “WEAPON IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE”: THE RHETORICAL PRESIDENCY IN HISTORICAL AND CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT by Jeffrey Friedman, Critical Review 19 (2–3): 197–240

What is rarely discussed is the possibility that even a carefully crafted, comprehensive, well-funded, and strictly enforced policy “plan,” once enacted (through a combination of high-minded rhetoric and tough-minded “politicking”), might unintentionally do more harm than good.

...

As a practical matter, therefore, measures intended to achieve a certain end will tend to be treated as if they were ends in themselves. If a policy measure is equated with its intended consequences, then one favors the policy simply as a matter of the “values” that dispose one to favor those consequences [whether those intended consequences ever actually occur, or not].
Click to expand...


and then we have this:

A report released this month by the House Budget Committee says there are no fewer than 92 [!] federal programs today aimed at helping low-income Americans. What do we have to show for it? "In 1965, the poverty rate was 17.3 percent. In 2012, it was 15 percent," says the report. And "over the past three years, 'deep poverty' has reached its highest level on record."

Black Americans, who were Lyndon Johnson's main focus back in 1965 when many of these initiatives were launched or greatly expanded, continue to struggle both in absolute terms and relative to whites. In the past decade, the black-white poverty gap has grown, and black poverty is no longer falling. On average, the black unemployment rate has been double the white rate for five decades.
Click to expand...

so what we've been doing for 50 years clearly isn't working (see Mookie's original post), and so the only "compassionate" answer is to do more of it? Seriously?? Let's make life miserable for even MORE people because our intentions are good? Who are we really helping? them, or ourselves (to feel better)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top