Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51
Thanks Tree22Thanks

Thread: Ohio Issue 2

  1. #11
    No mercy for losers Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    45,584
    Thanks
    22259

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirt Sands View Post
    Didn't read my post before I posted it. There is no reference to Oprah. 268 members of Congress are millionaires. That's up 11 members from from the last election.

    Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
    Don't you dare bring Oprah into this! Sacrilege!

  2. #12
    New Member
    Joined
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    76

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    That's demonstrably untrue. It's certainly true that members of congress are much better off than the average American household, even this article about the incredible wealth in Congress shows that almost half of our national representatives AREN'T millionaires, and some even have negative net worth: One Member of Congress = 18 American Households: Lawmakers' Personal Finances Far From Average - OpenSecrets Blog
    Just Google it man. 268 members of Congress are millionaires

    Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

  3. #13
    New Member
    Joined
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    76

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    But it's a long way from everyone. Anyone we'd want to have as a member of Congress will have skills that will earn them a lot of money. Like any job, to attract decent people we have to compete in a marketplace for labor. Refusing to provide any fringe benefits at all--something that's part of the compensation packages of pretty much all high-skill workers--means 1) you'll attract less-skilled candidates, 2) attract only candidates who literally don't need any income even if they have to support two households, or 2) you'll encourage corruption to make up for the lost benefits.

    Federal workers get fringe benefits. So do teachers, fire fighters, police officers, etc. It's illogical to suggest that the people who determine their compensation should not get fringe benefits--that would also encourage them to end benefits for all those people.
    Congress gets to decide their benefit package. Do you get to decide your benefit package? How are we supposed to elect regular people that represent us if they're all millionaires. What you are claiming is that every member of Congress should be a millionaire. Totally preposterous. You get that in Russia. You're not supposed to get that here. To defend that Congressman should be independently wealthy it's absolutely absurd. We are not supposed to be served by aristocrats. That literally is your argument.

    Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
    Thanks from bajisima

  4. #14
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    60,256
    Thanks
    32413

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirt Sands View Post
    Just Google it man. 268 members of Congress are millionaires

    Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
    I've already stipulated to that. But that means 167 of them AREN'T millionaires. Under your plan, all of them pretty much would need to be.

    Plus, one would have to be worth a lot more than $1 million before fringe benefits would be unimportant to you, especially since to take the job you'd have to maintain two residences.
    Last edited by Rasselas; 7th October 2017 at 06:34 AM.

  5. #15
    New Member
    Joined
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    76

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    Exactly. Many of the same people calling for fringe benefits to be denied for members of Congress are fine with and understand the concept when applied to CEOs. Some justify CEO pay by saying they need to attract the best and the brightest. But they can't apply that to elected officials. I don't understand it.
    The people who are attracted to Congress should not be CEO's they should be public servants. If you don't agree with this?

    Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

  6. #16
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    60,256
    Thanks
    32413

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirt Sands View Post
    The people who are attracted to Congress should not be CEO's they should be public servants. If you don't agree with this?

    Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
    They should be people with high levels of education and skill. People like that get fringe benefits in pretty much any job they'd take.

    You're espousing a noble idea: the reluctant citizen politician who STANDS for election because his neighbors beg him to serve rather than RUNS for election because he wants the job. But that ideal hasn't been operative since about 1800. Like a Republic without political parties, it's an idea that just doesn't work over the long-term. It took less than 20 years for it to break down.
    Last edited by Rasselas; 7th October 2017 at 06:38 AM.

  7. #17
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    60,256
    Thanks
    32413

    From
    in my head
    Hey @Dirt Sands, you should at least be happy with the 27th amendment:
    No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

  8. #18
    New Member
    Joined
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    76

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    That's demonstrably untrue. It's certainly true that members of congress are much better off than the average American household, even this article about the incredible wealth in Congress shows that almost half of our national representatives AREN'T millionaires, and some even have negative net worth: One Member of Congress = 18 American Households: Lawmakers' Personal Finances Far From Average - OpenSecrets Blog
    Did you say more than half of our Congress are millionaires did you say more than half of our Congress are millionaires? Yeah that's what I read.

    Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

  9. #19
    New Member
    Joined
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    76

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    But it's a long way from everyone. Anyone we'd want to have as a member of Congress will have skills that will earn them a lot of money. Like any job, to attract decent people we have to compete in a marketplace for labor. Refusing to provide any fringe benefits at all--something that's part of the compensation packages of pretty much all high-skill workers--means 1) you'll attract less-skilled candidates, 2) attract only candidates who literally don't need any income even if they have to support two households, or 2) you'll encourage corruption to make up for the lost benefits.

    Federal workers get fringe benefits. So do teachers, fire fighters, police officers, etc. It's illogical to suggest that the people who determine their compensation should not get fringe benefits--that would also encourage them to end benefits for all those people.
    Are you saying congressmen need to be millionaires so they are not involved in stealing and Corruption? You also mentioned how their skills with transfer to the private sector where they would also make millions. Why would they steal it from the public if they can get it from the private sector. Maybe we should pay our Congressman $2,000,000 a year on the basis that they would not become correct because they make so much money.

    Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

  10. #20
    New Member
    Joined
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    76

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    Don't you dare bring Oprah into this! Sacrilege!
    By accident. But you might as well get used to saying it because Oprah is the next president.

    Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
    Thanks from Blueneck

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 1st June 2017, 11:53 AM
  2. The people of Ohio notch a win over the Ohio GOP...
    By NightSwimmer in forum Current Events
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 25th May 2016, 11:47 AM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 18th October 2015, 05:38 AM
  4. Ohio Collective Bargaining Law: Fight Over Issue 2 Ends Tuesday
    By jackalope in forum Political Ideologies
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 7th November 2011, 01:29 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed