Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: 50 % cut on ALL politician salaries

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 18, 2012, 2:13 p.m. EST by skordalia18 (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

All politicians should get a 50% salary cut for the next 5 years until the economy is corrected. Why is it that everyone else gets paycuts and not the politicians. Politicians are the cause of the problems, not business and not people. These are the real crooks of our societ. Even with the 50 % cut, politicians still have better health insurance and perks.



Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 6 years ago

Actually, I don't believe any politician should receive more than his or her average constituent. That might cause them to pay more attention to how much each constituent receives in wages.

[-] 2 points by MalCalder (70) from San Francisco, CA 6 years ago

Average? If it's the mean (the usual sense of "average"), then a politician can help drive that up, not by raising income generally within their district but by helping to enrich the already-super-rich, or by encouraging the immigration of super-rich from other districts/states.

Maybe better the median than the mean.

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

I agree and it should apply to ALL government employees of which the citizens pay their salaries as well as incredible benefits........ everyone of them

[-] 4 points by lisa (425) 6 years ago

Cap their pay, they are all millionaires anyway and do not need it. They should live in dormitory style housing while they serve in DC, and in that building have laundry/dry cleaning facilities, a kitchen/cafeteria to feed them, recreation/gym facilities, a full law library for their use, and shuttle vans to get them to and from Congress and Senate buildings. Then we could just pay them a stipend, and their real joy would have to be gotten from serving the people who sent them there.

Why does the President need a salary, he has free housing, transportation, food, he does not have to buy anything during his tenure in the White House? Anywhere he goes he is comped, he never HAS to pay unless he wants to.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 6 years ago

What does he do when he gets out of office?

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

and for sure make thier staff take a pay cut.. they dont deserve more than minimun wage.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

RonPaul voted against congressional pay raises again this year and refused to take a government pension.

"I have never and will never vote to increase Congress' pay; it's shameful that Congress seems to think that they should be raising their own pay at the same time the American people see their taxes increasing, federal spending going up, and the national debt getting larger," said Rep. Paul.

"Many Members of Congress say they spend so much time in D.C. that they need more money. I say that not only does Congress not need a pay raise, we need to return to the Constitution, limit what the federal government has its fingers in, cut the time Congress spends in session, and cut the pay congressmen receive."

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

pusher of sensationalist penny issues

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

As of January 2010, the annual salary of each Representative is $174,000

[-] 1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

Amazing how each of them manage to cost tax payers about 4 million a year.........on top of being overpaid, taxable income, too boot.

How about we just raise the salary to 250,000 a year, cut off ALL benefits, expense accounts and let them pay for EVERYTHING they need out of their own salary? Including their bloated and vulgarly overpaid crony staffs?

[-] 1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

Yeah, sticking to the constitution is truly a penny issue... sure.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

is that about the rights of states to bear arms and whether Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

[-] 1 points by lisa (425) 6 years ago

Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy for their own country's use and that is what they did this past week.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/uk-nuclear-iran-fuel-idUKTRE81D1PS 20120214

Until they do anything else, how does any other country have the right to tell them how to run their country and what type of energy they may use?


[-] -2 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

more penny issues

what Iran does is none of the United States business as long as they are not threatening the sovereignty (sold out proper after WWII) of what is left of our republic

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

I would not say these are a penny issues.


[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

End the wars and end the fed... I just like Dennis Kucinich's approach much more.

Have you ever read the NEED act, HR 2990? It "Ends the Fed" but also helps push for more employment by strengthening and building new infrastructure, education and healthcare. It's basically the liberal version of Ron Paul's plan, and also without increasing taxes, the debt, or causing inflation.

I like a lot about Ron Paul, but I'm worried his "cuts" would be like the austerity measures in Greece and that is not going well at all. What are your thoughts on this?

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 6 years ago

Well, I'll tell you what I think of it, I don't think the government should decide when people retire in the first place. Secondly, people's rights are not decided by the actions of third parties. Just because someone threatens violence if cuts are made, does not follow logically that the cuts should not be made. We can't cave in to thug rule.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Definitely, but you also have to take into account that if you leave a man with nothing they will fight for everything. If people feel threatened they will act out against what's threatening them. Also the people in Greece are also facing the rule of the banks which are the reason the problem exists, and of course bad government as well.

So I see your point, but it's still a concern to take into account. If that's the route Ron wants to take he should better plan the path. That's what I'm suggesting.

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 6 years ago

I can't really think of another path. If these cuts need to be made, I can't see any way around just making the cuts. Caving in to violence is like giving a two-year-old the lollypop he wants because he hit you. It will only encourage more violence, because it worked the first time. I cannot overemphasize the fact that thugs cannot be allowed to dictate the rules, only principles.

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

Well of course they are! You're capable of logical thinking and not willing to blindly follow or dismiss anyone regardless of their gang colors. If they say we'll get out of war with foreign countries and don't, well there is a good reason for it even if those reasons all sound like, and are, bull shit.

Now stop sensationalizing sticking to the constitution and a few little wars the people obviously want fought, even if they are never won or even finished!

[-] 5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

A few little wars? Are you kidding?

We hear about the over 5,000 American soldiers killed in Iraq and 4,000 killed in Afghanistan but what we don't talks about is

  1. 438 Journalists killed
  2. Over 200,000 soldiers injured in combat
  3. Over 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq.
  4. Over 70,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan

And then there is the cost in dollars:

Defense spending is 20% of the federal budget. It is not pennies. In fact Social Security, Medicare, Defense, and interest on the debt make up 80% of the budget. Now we need to cut something.

There is also military spending which is not in the budget like shooting hundreds of millions of dollars of missiles and drones into Libya.

There is nothing sensational about our military policies over the past 40 years. The have done nothing to make us more secure.

There is a rea$on why the establishment parties do not want RonPaul to win.

When you look at it from the point of view of the occupied countries it is easy to paint us as the great Satan and recruit folks to terrorize. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKBDHWDgBo

[-] 2 points by MalCalder (70) from San Francisco, CA 6 years ago

3. Over 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq.

We often hear that figure given as an "estimate". It's not an estimate, it's the figure from Iraq Body Count -- kill figures doubly verified by two independent sources. Actual numbers are certainly much, much higher -- estimates run in the neighborhood of a million.

Also, a friendly suggestion. Nobody can expect to be taken seriously if they oppose "defense" operations or spending. That's why we've been conditioned to call all military "defense". You refer to "military" spending in Libya, yay! But I suggest calling all military things "military" unless they clearly are about actual defense -- in which case "defense" is a fair word choice.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

Yes there is military spending that is for our defense and military spending (the majority) that is for our agendas to protect the assets and revenues of the 1%.

We pretend it is for freedom and humanitarian reasons. If that were true why do we do nothing in Darfur where over a million people were exterminated in the past few years and over 2 million are in concentration camps? What makes Libya and Iraq so special?

[-] 2 points by MalCalder (70) from San Francisco, CA 6 years ago

Of course. There are so many counter-examples to the "America fights for freedom and democracy" meme that it would be easier to list examples that conform. America has, since WWII, been a very, very busy interventionist state.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 6 years ago

Human sacrifice. Someone get killed someone else is getting rich from that death. If bullets aren't used there is no reason to buy more bullets thus used bullets are an excuse to buy more bullets. Sometimes somebody would dislike windows and would break one. I am referring to that fallacy.

[-] 0 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 6 years ago

Are you telling me that people in DC do not want Ron Paul to win?

Next you'll be telling me that having a Ron Paul sticker on my car means I'm on some terrorist list?

If either of those were true, that should be enough for everyone to make sure he was elected.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 6 years ago

What I am saying is the GOP does not like him and the media for some reason ignores him. Even when he won a straw poll and came in second in another primary.

Check out this Daily Show John Stewart clip from November. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo

[-] -2 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

I agree-what's a few million dollars? Give it to the politicians, they work hard enough and deserve it.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

You think they care about their salaries? They get FAR more after leaving office from those they provide favorable legislation to.

[-] 1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

AFTER? Explain how so many become multi-millionaires while in office?

Blatant Insider trading, Land grabs, crony contracts, consulting for interests which have legislation in DC... etc.... and they do this right in front of everyone's' faces.

You mean AFTER while they are not in DC and in session......?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Actually, both. Which only reinforces the notion that the official salary is not the thing they are concerned about.

[-] 1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

Well concerned or not, reduce their pay and force them to be absolutely blatantly corrupt beyond any doubt.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Agreed. The idea doesn't make a lot of sense, but people are pissed, and for good reason.

[-] 3 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

They aren't pissed enough.... the 60 minutes expose has resulted in no impeachments or criminal charges...

only congress further insulting the majority of American morons by placating them with legislation to make something already illegal for them, illegal, while actually trying to legalize the most lucrative of their insider information sales activities.

200 years ago, there would already have been hangings.

They are stealing this money from the citizens who foolishly have money in wall street.

And that's just for starters........

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Agreed again.

But as to citizens having money in Wall Street, there is hardly a choice. People these days need 401Ks to retire, since pensions are mostly gone. indeed, even the few pension funds that still exist are tied up in stocks and bonds.

[-] 2 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

They really need to withdraw their support of wall street and learn how to grow their money themselves. It's very hypocritical and nothing sigificant will ever change until the people protesting are not of the same greedy/lazy wealth extracting cloth as those who blatantly rob them.

Sure enough though, the streeters will indeed figure out a way to extract the best part of that 9 trillion that regular people foolishly still have invested with them.

It will be hard for me to sympathize when it happens, AGAIN.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

I think if people knew of alternatives, they would pursue them. I don't think it's correct to blame ordinary citizens for the misdeeds of of eh banksters. Until there are other ways to grow money that are available, regular folks, especially retirees who've worked hard all of their lives, should be exempt from scorn.

[-] 1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

I don't agree, even religious zealots read not to bury your talent and anyone with any sense knows that something stinks about handing your talent over to strangers and getting back more.

Many would agree that burying it would be better than handing it over to known crooks and bookies.

That money comes from somewhere and where it comes from hurts many of the very large majority of small time extractors.

Now what is wrong with investing money in buying things to sell? What is wrong with starting a local business of one's own?

There are lots of things wrong with investing in the stock market.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

Sorry, but not everyone can simply start a business. If it were that simple, most people would have already done so. It is also not realistic, nor frankly fair to expect retirees to do so; they have already worked their whole lives and are entitled to enjoy as much as possible whatever few healthy years they have left. What's more, their pensions are already tied up. They don't have choices. If a company or a municipality paid into a pension fund, it is that company or municipality that is paying it out.

I think it is far better to focus on cleaning up Wall Street than blaming the average person for trying to secure their retirement. Regular folks are not to blame for the corruption, and they have been hurt by it. Focus on the criminals, not their victims.

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

Ok, we don't disagree, people were created greedy and have been programmed to be dependent on criminals to extract wealth off the backs of working people.

I'm simply amazed so many people get "old enough" to retire without managing to see through the forest and maybe find some morals along the way.

Learn how to grow a little money or invest in appreciating tangibles? Of course, that's rocket science! Money is made only by punching a time clock, of course.

This mindset is why the majority of people are indeed slaves to the minority.

Help enough other people get what they want and one can generally get what one wants.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

I really object to the characterization of greediness you apply to all people. They did not create the pension system. And they have every right to retire after working hard all of their lives.

Growing money is what the stock market has always been for. It is not the people's fault that some Wall Street firms, and certainly not all of them, have acted criminally. Those criminals did not disclose their misdeeds to the general public. The average worker could not very well tell their union or their boss to stop investing in their pensions, now could they? (And why should they?) And those who are retired now have little choice about what to do.

What's more, your solutions (for those NOT yet retired, I assume) are vague and seemingly simplistic.

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

Well maybe irresponsible and lazy, when it comes to money would be more appropriate?

The bottom line is that there has been a large amount of energy expended to make sure people believe as you do. Who expended these resources?

Wall Street and the world banking elite.

The only "retirement" plan any W2 workers are FORCED to participate in is Social Security. Fools did not opt out when the opting out was good.

It defies common sense and the reasonable internal guidance of any even partially actualized person to accept they should hand their money over to put in 401K's or CD's and will be severely penalized if they withdraw it early.

Besides, people have to be gullible to buy into it and not be able to figure things out for themselves.

My solutions? I handle my own and can lay my hands on what will sustain my existence, for today and tomorrow.

In no form or fashion am I advocating screwing over those who have paid in and are owed.

I'm saying it's never been the government's place to control and manage The People's retirement and medical care. When The People passively submitted and allowed it, "the government" had the confirmation it needed as to how inept, dependent, and irresponsible it's people are indeed.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

"Fools" did not opt out of Social Security?

Now I KNOW you talking trash. Social Security has nothing whatsoever to do with the stock market or Wall Street. And it is a system that has helped millions upon millions of people keep from starving in their old age. It is among the very few genuinely morally good things this government has ever done.

I'm glad that you have been "able to figure out things" for your self. I'm glad that you can "handle your own". (The phrase begs some pretty funny questions, like "Do you use lotion"?.) But to judge an entire population to be irresponsible and lazy because they have not been as astute as you (in your own estimation) is frankly repulsive. Who the hell do you think you are, after all?

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

You will now make my point for me.......

"And it is a system that has helped millions upon millions of people keep from starving in their old age. It is among the very few genuinely morally good things this government has ever done."

People are, in large, unable to manage their own money and DESPERATELY NEED big government to do it for them.

Never mind the Fed has invested the trillions of SS monies in debts of nations, never mind that if just the first five years of it had been appropriately handled there would be enough to pay off the national debt today as well as all current obligations...

What should be clear and escapes you is that the government managing the futures of it's people has long since stopped being righteous,instead, it has long since been every bit as criminal as the banksters and streeters.

Yeah, count on the government for moral goodness, let's have tons more as well.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

They should be fired and replaced too

[-] 2 points by Quark (236) 6 years ago

I could we achieve this? How could we make this a reality?

[-] 2 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 6 years ago

I agree as long as they serve

[-] 2 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 6 years ago

Oh god then they'll be even more corrupt because it'll make them more dependent on corporate bribes.

[-] 2 points by kylelee34 (48) 6 years ago


[-] 2 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

Well it's going to take far more than the flagrant and blatant acts of treason all have seen thus far to get the majority of Americans off their asses to act, so this is a good idea.

Too many are complacent and simply accept treasonous federal servants as "that's just how it is and what can I as one person do about it?"

[-] 3 points by jart (1186) from New York, NY 6 years ago

Good luck convincing a group of corrupt people to vote to reduce their own salaries lol

[-] 1 points by OccupyCapitolHill (197) 6 years ago

And make sure you withhold 100% of their pay until they fix the economy and start acting in the people's best interest.

[-] 1 points by STloanhelp (8) from Des Allemands, LA 6 years ago

Congress should not get one red cent from the hard working Americans. If they were really there to help America and do what was needed of them pay wouldn't even be a dicussion. Congress does nothing anyway but try to pass bills that just take up time like they are doing something.

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 6 years ago

We have to think bigger than this if we are serious about real change. We need a direct democracy to clean this mess up. Otherwise you might as well shut up and sit down because nothing is going to change.

"WAKE UP PEOPLE!” Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 6 years ago

Do you know how small a portion of the GDP politician salaries are? Tiny.

[-] 1 points by BearDickinson (125) from Ewing, VA 6 years ago

can we get realistic here ? ron paul is NOT pro choice so - fuck you to all Ron Paul supporters/Idiots - from his own net site - please read ! http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

[-] 0 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 6 years ago

Ron Paul is not pro choice because he believes that there are two lives involved and not just one. He is an obstetrician who delivered over 4,000 babies.

I do not think that abortion is the most important issue facing this country although is is the second most comman medical procedure.

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 6 years ago

Pay cuts encourage effectiveness and ensure people do the right thing?

[-] 2 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

Overpaying them sure hasn't for years.

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 6 years ago

so again, cuts will ensure that?

[-] 2 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

we will only have democracy when there are poor and average persons in office, not the elite

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 6 years ago

I think we should just remove them.

[-] 1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

Don't stop there, cut their benefits and retirement too....

don't stop there either, reduce the average federal salary from 75K to the nation's average of 26K... and the same for their outrageous benefits and retirement

Only in America would citizens pay their elected and appointed federal servants, as well as state and local government hired help, 3 to 20 times the average citizen salary

guess what, if one factors OUT the 20 million plus federal paychecks from the average salary in the US, guess what it falls to?

[-] 2 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 6 years ago

Average salary is not 26k- PuHlease.

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

of course it is, the average HOUSEHOLD INCOME is only around 50K

[-] 2 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 6 years ago

Median household income was 49k in 2010.

NOT Average. Median.........

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

Fine, either way, the feds are all overpaid.

[-] 0 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 6 years ago

oh, and those numbers do include the 20+ million federal salaries... this means the average federal employee has a higher salary than the average American HOUSEHOLD, which census number would be much lower if the federal numbers were not factored in.....

fawk that

[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

How about a 50% cut on the Republican's salaries and a 50% RAISE on Democrat's salaries?

[-] 0 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 6 years ago

ZenFag and WhoreFriday are back at it so....

you can relax on your Democrat-nob-gobbling....

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Awe.......your such a Koch sucker....

[-] -1 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 6 years ago

Awwww.... you're such an ignorant idiot stuffed full of egotistical fecal matter.

Looks like you're getting thrashed good and proper on the education thread, how apropo!

You're wrong much more than you're right.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

Wait.....let me guess......because you are another acronym challenged individual?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Whatever...........You're still a pretender, that couldn't think up your own username.

How lazy is that?.

Pretty damn lazy.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

Forum Post: SOLUTION: Raise the minimum wage to $110,000 per year

Posted 4 hours ago on Nov. 10, 2011, 3:49 p.m. EST by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The problem in society is income inequality. So the ONLY solution that will fix it is income equality.

We produce $15 trillion in income each year which is enough to make every worker wealthy. If that income was allocated equally, for example, it is enough to pay every full time worker $135,000 per year.

That's right, the average income in the U.S. is $135k. And that is more than what 97% of all workers make. That means 97% of all workers make a below-average income. That is simply not fair and the root cause of all our problems.


[-] -1 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

So why not raise the minimum wage to $135,000?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

I wouldn't have a problem with that

however, followers of "free market theory?" believe

humans will achieve more if they are rewarded for their efforts

this suggests some need for income difference

but even then, I don't see why everyone couldn't make $50,000

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

What would happen to the extra income?

[-] -3 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 6 years ago

We could start with Obama's salary and all the liberal democrats YOU voted for to help you from not being poor. They all failed you.