• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mitchell, Paul Continue Efforts to Block Congressional Pay Raise

Yeah, Bush didn't see it either, but then his party was beaten up badly. Bush sees it now.
Was Bush running? I thought he was term limited or whatever the hell y'all call it.

Let's see. The Repubs nominate one of the most liberal they have. The Demos nominate the most liberal they have. Who won, again? You nominate two very liberal candidates and the most liberal of the liberals wins.

The good citizens of the USA have proven they want the government to take care of them from pre-cradle to post-grave and there ain't no going back.

As you said, if you don't believe me, look around. You should just accept it. You'll feel beter. ;)
 
Was Bush running? I thought he was term limited or whatever the hell y'all call it.

Let's see. The Repubs nominate one of the most liberal they have. The Demos nominate the most liberal they have. Who won, again? You nominate two very liberal candidates and the most liberal of the liberals wins.

The good citizens of the USA have proven they want the government to take care of them from pre-cradle to post-grave and there ain't no going back.

As you said, if you don't believe me, look around. You should just accept it. You'll feel beter. ;)

Asked and answered many times, but I will answer it again. Bush himself? He was not running. Bush's party? That WAS running, and is the reason the Republican party got its ass totally kicked. Bush was the albatross around the GOP's neck.
 
How on earth would you administer this program?
Dunno, I'm not in charge of it, but would love to see these guys have to jump through the same hoops they impose on others.
 
Asked and answered many times, but I will answer it again. Bush himself? He was not running. Bush's party? That WAS running, and is the reason the Republican party got its ass totally kicked. Bush was the albatross around the GOP's neck.
Thoughout the election cycle when the people of the USA were presented with liberal and more liberal, they picked more liberal, in both the major parties.

How can anyone think this protends a move back to the right?
 
Melodrama aside, Congressional pay is one of the least important issues on the planet. As much as everyone likes to bitch about it, Congressmen (along with most high level government officials) should get paid significantly more than they currently do.

Why, so we can recruit a higher class of lawyers, central planners, do gooders, and other such scoundrels?

I'll pass.

If you want to raise pay significantly, do it with military personal, not the jerks that seek power and prestige.
 
But do they deserve it? There is more to it than just the pay itself. It is the principle behind it. You don't reward people for doing a crappy job, except in government, and that is what I would like to see changed.

The vast majority of Congressmen work their asses off and deserve far more than they are currently getting paid. That's not even mentioning judges, etc.

It's no wonder we are in such economic straights when the pursuit of sensible fiscal policy is pandering.

The total cost of this pay raise is slightly over $2 million. Do you really think this is worth battling over? Why is he flipping out more over this than over other spendings? Because this gets headlines and a whole bunch of Joe Sickpacks saying things exactly like we're seeing in this thread.

Why, so we can recruit a higher class of lawyers, central planners, do gooders, and other such scoundrels?

I'll pass.

If you want to raise pay significantly, do it with military personal, not the jerks that seek power and prestige.

The two are mutually exclusive?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is an absolute travesty that the average 24 year old fresh out of law school working at a big firm makes more than Supreme Court Justices. Ridiculous.
 
This is a nice gesture by Paul, but it is entirely symbolic. A $2000k pay raise is the equivalent of less than one cent per citizen per year. Paul knows this, if he can do math. I hope that his growing constituency is capable of math as well. It has more to do with playing up his base than with selflessness, I imagine.

Perhaps he is right, perhaps the salaries for congressmen are exorbitant, I don't know. But it's just such an overwhelmingly negligible issue. If Mr. Paul is a great congressman or a great leader, it is not because he voted against a pay raise for himself. This is a meaningless, figurative action.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is an absolute travesty that the average 24 year old fresh out of law school working at a big firm makes more than Supreme Court Justices. Ridiculous.

It is. Here is another weird little fact. All judges have law clerks, as you probably know, and those law clerks, by spending one year with a federal judge, will earn the exact same as them when they leave their service because of how much "experience they get." Basically, they will make at least $160k in a big firm, and in two years, be making at least $200k if they do a decent job.

If they clerked for a SCOTUS justice, watch out, they will be making $225k within the year they leave, if they are fresh out of school.

Judicial pay should be an issue, because people leave the profession each year to go to the private sector and make 4x that amount. And give them their COLA, which Congress keeps granting themselves, but denying judges.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is an absolute travesty that the average 24 year old fresh out of law school working at a big firm makes more than Supreme Court Justices. Ridiculous.

I don't see the travesty. I'd go as far as saying your use of the term travesty is absurd hyperbole.

It's unfortunate that we live in such a litigious society that worthless lawyers can draw such a high salary, but why exacerbate the problem by allowing overcompensation in goverment?
 
It is. Here is another weird little fact. All judges have law clerks, as you probably know, and those law clerks, by spending one year with a federal judge, will earn the exact same as them when they leave their service because of how much "experience they get." Basically, they will make at least $160k in a big firm, and in two years, be making at least $200k if they do a decent job.

If they clerked for a SCOTUS justice, watch out, they will be making $225k within the year they leave, if they are fresh out of school.

Judicial pay should be an issue, because people leave the profession each year to go to the private sector and make 4x that amount. And give them their COLA, which Congress keeps granting themselves, but denying judges.

Most top firms offer SCOTUS Clerks $250k signing bonuses.
 
I don't see the travesty. I'd go as far as saying your use of the term travesty is absurd hyperbole.

It's unfortunate that we live in such a litigious society that worthless lawyers can draw such a high salary, but why exacerbate the problem by allowing overcompensation in goverment?

Further example of the populist tripe that this move is designed to encourage.

Do you actually think that judges are "worthless lawyers" or that they don't deserve their salaries?

It's funny, because the people who are bitching about this are the same people who always bitch about how terrible judges are whenever they make bad decisions. Maybe if we actually paid judges what they're worth, we wouldn't have so many bad decisions.
 
The same crowd? Just us pissants, of course - Or at least what you and the other co-call "mainstream" Big Government Republicans think of as pissants. You forget that us pissants all voted for and supported Ronald Reagan. You forget that us pissants all helped "vote in" the Gingrich revolution. We were mainstream Conservatives who solidly supported the Republican party, which happened to have a big tent at the time. Then the GOP went for big government and big spending, with a "my way or the highway" attitude. Gutted was the Conservatism that took them to the top, and enabled them to reclaim the government from the big government, big spending Democrats. They became what they had vanquished. Us pissants were marginalized and called freaks and nuts, while the real nuttery was the new Republican party, which drove our economy off a cliff.

Yes, we are pissants, but we ARE a solid part of Conservative constituency and, frankly, without us, it is going to be very dark and very cold in a Republican party without power. You had better find a way to once again include us, along with some Conservative principles, unless you want to throw in the towel to the Democrats. The ball is in your court. A continued arrogant attitude of the party towards us pissants will result in the slow death of the Republican party.

Nothing can be more ironic than conservative "pissants", as you say, voting for the Democrat or refusing to vote for the Republican candidate out of principle only to get MORE rabid tax and spend Liberals in Government.

:rofl
 
Looks like Ron Paul is still practicing what he preaches, unlike a President, a President to be, and the new President's former campaign opponent.

Kudos to Ron Paul, who never compromised his values. Stuff that pay raise up their collective asses, Ron. They don't deserve it.

Final word - Hey GOP, you picked the wrong guy.

Article is here.

Fascinating how you turn this into a Ron Paul cheer leading event as if he alone is the one who believes this.

Great thread though; it is a travesty that this is not getting mainstream media attention; at least I have not seen any on this.
 
I say do a pay rate based on the job performance, let the scale reset every new congress, with merit based pay, a demerit system to keep these guys honest, a fine system, and any other thing we can come up with. The job they have done deserves a boot in the ass, not a pay raise.

Can we tie it to their approval ratings? Right now we would be getting one hell of a bargain! :rofl
 
And your constituency has been left in the dust. The last election should have taught you that the USA has moved left and is going to continue on that path. Conservatives might as well get used to it. :2wave:

:rofl Well aside from your wishful thinking and denial, the American people need a constant reminder every ten years or so why Liberal politicians should be relegated to the fringes of political power; this majority too shall pass after the current ilk of morons messes things up even more so than those who claim Bush did.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
BTW, most anesthesia equipment is now designed and/or built in Finland, Netherlands, Japan, China, and other EU and Asian countries. I don't think you can say the ingenuity of conservatives has anything to do with their existence. ;)

Do you know the reasons why? Because America has declined to the most litigious give-me-something-for-nothing society in the world as we know it today.

Most manufacturing in this country has been forced offshore for this simple reason. Want to guess where our aircraft industry is headed? Same place the ladder building industry went; South America.

If you think our economic problems are Bush policies, I have a bridge in Arizona I would like to sell you. :rofl
 
Do you know the reasons why? Because America has declined to the most litigious give-me-something-for-nothing society in the world as we know it today.

Link?

Most manufacturing in this country has been forced offshore for this simple reason. Want to guess where our aircraft industry is headed? Same place the ladder building industry went; South America.

If you think that the reason manufacturing is heading off shore is because of lawsuits, you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Link?

If you think that the reason manufacturing is heading off shore is because of lawsuits, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, there's a simple way to prove it isn't there? Why don't you show where I am wrong with some facts and statistics, I will be happy to do the same to counter your points?

While you're at it, also look up at what is the largest cause of the high cost of medical care. (hint: liability insurance)

I look forward to seeing your research.
 
Well, there's a simple way to prove it isn't there? Why don't you show where I am wrong with some facts and statistics, I will be happy to do the same to counter your points?

While you're at it, also look up at what is the largest cause of the high cost of medical care. (hint: liability insurance)

I look forward to seeing your research.

You're the one making ridiculous claims. Knowing your "methods of debate," I'm not wasting my time unless you provide something first.
 
You're the one making ridiculous claims. Knowing your "methods of debate," I'm not wasting my time unless you provide something first.

I see, so you think you can claim my comments are ridiculous without any evidence and it is up to me to prove your statements about my comments are wrong.

If this sounds like Alice in Wonderland where up is down and down is up, you would be correct.

I will leave you in your denial about what is the biggest drag on the American economy and our manufacturing industries because frankly, you calling my comments ridiculous just because you say so doesn't worry me too much.

:2wave:
 
I see, so you think you can claim my comments are ridiculous without any evidence and it is up to me to prove your statements about my comments are wrong.

If this sounds like Alice in Wonderland where up is down and down is up, you would be correct.

I will leave you in your denial about what is the biggest drag on the American economy and our manufacturing industries because frankly, you calling my comments ridiculous just because you say so doesn't worry me too much.

:2wave:

Actually, NYC is right. In any debate, you just can't make wild claims without at least providing a single iota of evidence to back that claim up. It's the way we do things in America.

You have chosen wisely your forum name. You detect truth, right? So, detect some truth today, and show it to the rest of us. Where's the beef?
 
Last edited:
Further example of the populist tripe that this move is designed to encourage.

Do you actually think that judges are "worthless lawyers" or that they don't deserve their salaries?

It's funny, because the people who are bitching about this are the same people who always bitch about how terrible judges are whenever they make bad decisions. Maybe if we actually paid judges what they're worth, we wouldn't have so many bad decisions.


Anything over 50-60k would be well above the skillset required to do the job.

Money doesn't make one impartial or honest, so throwing money at the situation isn't going to do much.
 
Last edited:
Anything over 50-60k would be well above the skillset required to do the job.

:rofl

Right, let's put Joe the Plumber on the Supreme Court! :lol:

YouTube - Idiocracy - Court Battle

We're not quite there yet, but it sounds like you want to hurry us along.

One last question: If the skillset to become a Supreme Court Justice is only worth 50-60k, then how come law firms pay 24 year olds 195k?

Money doesn't make one impartial or honest, so throwing money at the situation isn't going to do much.

Yea, but it goes a long way toward actually getting those qualified people to take the jobs.
 
Last edited:
:rofl

Right, let's put Joe the Plumber on the Supreme Court! :lol:

YouTube - Idiocracy - Court Battle

We're not quite there yet, but it sounds like you want to hurry us along.

The self importance you have placed on your profession is comical but we clearly disagree on how badly the supreme court and the lower courts have mangled things.

One last question: If the skillset to become a Supreme Court Justice is only worth 50-60k, then how come law firms pay 24 year olds 195k?

Crime sometimes does pay, unlike what your daddy might of told you.

Yea, but it goes a long way toward actually getting those qualified people to take the jobs.

So how exactly will more money bring a more honest candidate to the table? You increased the incentive of those in it for the money, I don't see the connection.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom