politics inside. Generic.

"PartyPooper2012" (PartyPooper2012) 01/03/2019 at 13:39 • Filed to: None

0

91

Government shutdown...

Someone is not willing to play ball - I am not referring to this shut down specifically. There have been several in recent years.

How is about - after certain number of days of government shut down, congress and senate are dismissed - like... fired. All states hold new elections. People who were dismissed cannot run again for some years - that way they cannot be re-elected and come back to same old impasse.

If new congress and senate can’t negotiate to re-open government, they are dismissed - fired... All states hold new elections... rinse repeat until we have a functioning government.

I don’t want to bash one political party or support another. I just want to know if these mechanics would work or if there is a flaw there somewhere still?

I’ll be honest. I don’t know if dismissing the third branch of government - President is a good idea. Imagine a world where US President is fired and we are without a president for some time. Our enemies would be at our door in a heartbeat.

There might have to be a clause in there somewhere that states that even if you have been dismissed, in the event of attack on the country, you would have to return to senate/congress to make decisions to protect the country... That way we still have someway of legitimately protecting ourselves.

Future next gen S2000 owner > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 13:56

2

Sounds good but would take too much time. Would be better if it stated you simply couldn’t seek re-election ever again. On the flip side it’s not like gov’t employees don’t get a benefit. They get some time off and always get back pay. Just sucks waiting for it.

facw > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 14:00

1

Yeah, that’s a pretty horrible idea. It would give the President huge new power, and firing everyone wouldn’t fix the shutdown problem it would just ensure the government remains shutdown for months while new elections are executed. Even then, you’d have an entire branch of government replaced with political neophytes with very little idea of what they are doing.

If you wanted to do this, you’d definitely want to get rid of the President as well, to address your concerns, why wouldn’t you just have the current government (both Congress and the President) keep serving until a new government can be seated? You still have a bunch of problems there, but at least you make shutting down the government a lose/lose scenario.

PartyPooper2012 > Future next gen S2000 owner 01/03/2019 at 14:01

0

Yeah. Elections would take up some time... Alternatively, during regular senatorial/congressional elections, a substitute is voted for but sub is not permitted to partake in govt shenanigans. This way they are not biased.

I am looking at it from point of view of a citizen. Why should citizens suffer because party 1 can’t agree on some shit with party 2?

Both are out. Use a sub. Can’t agree still. Both are out. Sub is in. Surely someone will come to an arrangement where everyone is happy. It’s not rocket science. It’s budget. 

Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 14:05

7

You’ve just created a system whereby the president can hold the nation hostage inde finitely... so no, real bad idea.

PartyPooper2012 > facw 01/03/2019 at 14:06

0

Simply having the firing hanging over your head prevents you from being difficult and brings you to negotiating table.

Your way may work also - have new govt formed before dismissing others, but the rule is/will be well known so the existing govt will know they are on chopping block. Mi ght get malicious.

PartyPooper2012 > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 01/03/2019 at 14:08

0

I don’t know if that’s true. President isn’t the one firing them. It’s a rule. If govt is shut down for say 5 days, senate and congress are dismissed. If new senate and congress agree and president objects, checks and balances and all that and they override presidents veto. 

Svend > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 14:17

4

But the president is still able to hold the country hostage to get what s/he wants, what if what s/he wants just isn’t right. Such as wasting $5billion on a wall that is going to cost eight times more to complete, adding much unwan ted debt to the country on something totally impractical. 

BaconSandwich is tasty. > Future next gen S2000 owner 01/03/2019 at 14:17

2

How about no re-election, and no pension? I bet that would get some butts in gear.

Jayhawk Jake > Future next gen S2000 owner 01/03/2019 at 14:17

2

“Just sucks waiting for it” really marginalizes the issue with not being paid. It’s been two weeks now, bills come due, people need to eat, etc. If you’re living paycheck to paycheck, or don’t have a large safety net to rely on to cover your expenses in the short term, not being paid ‘for now’ can really cause issues.

And before you say ‘well maybe they should have savings for a situation like this’, the reality is most people don’t. 

Party-vi > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 14:18

5

How about pay for federal legislators and executive branch personnel is withheld until the government is reopened, or a continuing resolution is passed?

PartyPooper2012 > Svend 01/03/2019 at 14:21

0

if senate and congress say, mr/mrs president, that won’t fly and override president veto, then no, it’s not giving president any more power than he has now.

Also, president isnt one firing and hiring senate/congress.

TorqueToYield > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 14:22

5

The Senate already passed a funding bill and the House is likely to pass a similar bill sending it to....the President. And he’s likely to veto it.

So who again isn’t doing their job?

Future next gen S2000 owner > Bman76 (hates WS6 hoods, is on his phone and has 4 burners now) 01/03/2019 at 14:22

1

I think congress can override a budget veto with 3/4th majority.

facw > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 14:22

1

I bet it doesn’t help as much as you think. Those members of Congress don’t want to be fired, but if their party thinks they can gain full control by clearing everyone out, I suspect they’ll have have no trouble getting them into lucrative lobbying (or even just “ do nothing”) jobs to buy their acquiescence .

Other governments do have ways to dismiss the current government, but they let people get reelected. Such a system would work poorly for our system of divided government though.

PartyPooper2012 > Party-vi 01/03/2019 at 14:24

0

I am OK with it too. As it sits now, it’s an ex ercise in masturbation. We shut down govt. We wait till everyone is happy. And then pay catch- up to people who did no work during the shut down.

Basically, if I had this power, I would always shut down my office from S eptember to M arch and lounge somewhere on the beach around equator. Come back in march. Get paid for missed time and continue working... or shut down office again till S eptember so I can lounge somewhere on the beach around equator.

PartyPooper2012 > TorqueToYield 01/03/2019 at 14:27

1

When senate and congress agree, then we have something. When one passes one thing and other passes something else and to no one’s surprise president vetos it, then no one is doing the work. 

PartyPooper2012 > facw 01/03/2019 at 14:29

0

I am not sure if you caught the part where I said both... congress and senate get dismissed. That way no one party creates an impasse to gain more voting power. 

Cé hé sin > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 14:32

1

I don’t claim to know much about US politics, but I understand that in this case you have a President and Congress at loggerheads with neither minded to back down . W hat you’re suggesting in this scenario is that Congr ess is kicked out and replaced by one which agrees with the President, thus making him or her a dictator.

PartyPooper2012 > Cé hé sin 01/03/2019 at 14:35

0

In US, we have 3 branches of govt. If any two agree, they can override the third.

Senate and congress can create and pass a bill. They throw it up to President who can then sign it and make it a law... or veto it. If its vetoed, then senate and congress can work together and get no less than 2/3 of senate and congress for the bill. This will override the veto.

What I suggest is dismissing congress and senate. Getting new blood in. If they come to agreement, no matter what president wants, they will pass what they want.

facw > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 14:37

2

Umm, why would you think that? I promise you if you held new elections for both houses today you’d end up with different mixes in both houses. They might be similar, but especially with things closely divided, it’s not at all impossible control would be different. Political parties know this, and it would be obvious to them if they were in a situation where they would gain control. Based on the mideterms, r ight now there is a very good chance that the Dems would retake the Senate and k eep the House if you redid the elections. That would give them a strong incentive to force a shutdown. The Repubs will almost certainly be in a similar circumstance at some point in the future. I’m pretty convinced your plan encourages disruption rather than discouraging it.

One very simple change that might actually make a difference is to not pay Congress or the President ( though the current one , regardless of whether he is as rich as he claims, probably doesn’t need his) during the shutdown.

bhtooefr > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 14:39

1

How about, instead, if a budget cannot  be agreed on, the existing budget continues as-is , to maintain functioning of government?

Svend > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 14:39

3

But the present situation is caused by trumpies insistence for funding for the wall which the democrats insist won’t happen, the republicans will in the most part support trump ies politics because it’s in their own interests to do so.

It may not directly be the president firing them all, but when s/hes the one closing down government for what they want then it is s/he firing the government.

This situation i s of trumpies own making. He isn’t going to suffer. It’s the people who suffer either now with the shutdown, the people who will pay for the wall he wants whether it’s completed or not, they are the ones paying for the debt. So replace the senate ad congress as much as you want, it’s the president that is wanting his will done. 

PartyPooper2012 > facw 01/03/2019 at 14:41

0

We already have disruption with government shut down. You are right in that selecting brand new congress and senate may in fact change the seat to one party’s favor or another. Who knows really. But... we would have new blood. There would be no career politicians.

AND. I also like the idea of not paying them... and only them - politicians when government is shut down. Right now all they do is postpone their paycheck. 

PartyPooper2012 > bhtooefr 01/03/2019 at 14:43

0

I don’t think that works.

My house budget includes mortgage, car insurance, house insurance, taxes, transportation, bills etc.

Those numbers don’t always stay the same so your budget may run dry eventually. Same in govt I think. 

PartyPooper2012 > Svend 01/03/2019 at 14:45

1

Like I said earlier. I don’t want to get into details who caused which shut down. I am talking about a generic shut down.

To your point, if senate and congress agree , they can override president’s veto and pass the budget even without his say so.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 14:46

1

Tangentially related, but I just had the largest eye roll after reading this quote from Mitch McTurtle -

“We know that the Senate with a Republican majority is fertile soil for big, bipartisan accomplishments. The question is, will the newly Democratic House join in this good momentum or bring it to a standstill?” he said.

He continued: “It’s a clear choice and will be clear to the American people watching all this at home. Good governance or political performance art? The public interest or political spite? Policymaking or presidential harassment?”

Uhm...does he remember himself from the Obama years??? You think the Republicans have reached the highest heights of hypocrisy possible (you know, with their “fiscal conservatism” and whatnot), but somehow they manage to keep surprising us.

Also, pretty funny for him to say the Senate is fertile soil for accomplishments - while also saying he won’t even bring a bill to a vote unless he knows the President has blessed it. Aren’t you supposed to be a co-equal branch, not a lapdog? It’s Trump’s problem if the House and Senate manage to pass a budget but he doesn’t want to approve it, not yours, Sir.

facw > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 14:49

0

They don’t even postpone it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/10/01/congress-gets-paid-during-a-shutdown-while-staffers-dont-heres-why/   (that article doesn’t mention the President , but the situation is the same for him)

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > TorqueToYield 01/03/2019 at 14:50

3

The House is set to pass a funding bill today that the Senate just passed last month...and it will come back to the Senate. And McTurtle is saying he won’t even bring it to a vote because he won’t present a bill that the President hasn’t blessed. So he’s willing to block a bill that he knows can pass the senate - because he wants a pat on the back from the President.

So I agree with you entirely - there are only two people not willing to do their damn job - the President and the Senate majority leader. 

PartyPooper2012 > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 01/03/2019 at 14:51

0

Free country. He can say whatever he wants. Similarly, NDP can say whatever she wants. 

PartyPooper2012 > facw 01/03/2019 at 14:53

1

You know... the whole thing about them writing laws including laws they write that they then apply to themselves - like paying themselves during shut down, being exempt from insider trading laws, not having to partake in creation of their own called obamacare...

All this seems a bit unfair to a regular citizen like you or I. Seems like someone else should be writing rules for them. Bring them back to a level playing field. 

facw > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 15:02

0

I don’t get the Obamacare complaint. They are just like everyone else there. Like most Americans, they get healthcare through their employer. Personally I think that’s dumb, there’s zero reason for employers to be involved in healthcare, everyone should buying healthcare from the exchange (or better yet have a single-payer system). But it’s nothing bad, they are required to have health insurance like everyone, and they do. Their plan meets all the minimums. Obamacare is designed to prevent people from having no insurance or crappy insurance, and Congress’ coverage doesn’t fall into either of those baskets. One of the selling points of Obamacare was that things wouldn’t change much, if at all for people who already had good insurance. The argument would be different if we had single payer with something like the UK’s NICE, which determines which treatments are cost- effective enough to pay for (a “Death Panel” in Republican terms), and Government exempted t he mselves from its judgements, but that’s not the case at all.  

PartyPooper2012 > facw 01/03/2019 at 15:05

1

If they made it, they should use it. If it’s so great, they should be first to enjoy it’s benefits.

Svend > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 15:05

0

Sorry, my bad. It was hard not to use the present situation as an example.

If the parties can over rule the presidents veto then great.

But firing and then holding elections for each extended shutdown would take much longer and the costs of holding elections for both senate and congress would be massive.

Simply sit them in a room and say no one leaves until something is done, no food, no form or entertainment to help pass the time (ie tablets, mobile phones to play candy crush or listen to music), only non alcoholic drinks and toilet breaks. 

someassemblyrequired > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 15:07

0

Problem would be fixed if any member of the house/senate could bring a bill to the floor.

This current shutdown would be over if what would pass the house could get a vote in the senate, even with a veto threat, but Mitch McConnell won’t let that happen .

RallyWrench > Party-vi 01/03/2019 at 15:08

0

This always seemed like a good idea to me. 

Sovande > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 15:08

1

This is not a solution, nor is this kind of shutdown anything new - there have been something on the order of 21 since 1976. The reason this feels like such a big deal (it’s not) is because of the way the media and it’s pervasive partisa nship has changed since 1976. Trump has already agreed to cut in half his previous absurd demands of $5 billion and once Nancy Pelosi gets finished proving she is the toughest person in the room, progress will be made. It just takes time for all the bloviating and chest pounding to settle down. The thing that everyone needs to remember is that no matter what Trump asked for, he would not have gotten it. It’s art and theater, i t’s nothing more. The people who are not currently getting paid will get back pay when they come back to work.

In the meantime, I am going to revel in the lack of traffic in the District. It’s wonderful when those who suckle the teat of the bloated Fed stay home for a few days so people with real jobs can make it to work unencumbered.

someassemblyrequired > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 15:09

2

Nope, treasury just keeps borrowing. That has other implications, but a de facto continuing resolution would avoid the stupidity of a shutdown.

PartyPooper2012 > Svend 01/03/2019 at 15:10

0

Yeah, but if your job is on a chopping block because you cannot come to agreement, I am sure you would be more open to negotiating and working on some sort of agreement compared to getting undetermined paid time off. 

We would dismiss senate and congress once or twice before everyone plays nice again.

Sovande > Party-vi 01/03/2019 at 15:11

0

The only problem with that plan is that Congress would have to approve it and I don’t think there is a single spine in the whole crowd.

Sovande > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 15:13

0

This ^

Jayhawk Jake > Party-vi 01/03/2019 at 15:15

0

The problem with this is it motivates congress to act in its own best interest too much. They would be asked to make compromises to ensure they get a pay day, rather than doing what’s in the best interest of the country.

Not that there aren’t already situations where they vote on their own pay, but still. More effective would be to not pay legislators or executive personnel at all. Or perhaps not until they retire in the form of a pension/retirement fund. 

someassemblyrequired > Future next gen S2000 owner 01/03/2019 at 15:15

1

Contractors get screwed though, they’re out of luck.

Sovande > facw 01/03/2019 at 15:15

0

What’s not to get?  They voted for a flawed system that none of them even read through and which has no bearing on them personally.  They have healthcare for life.  The rest of us struggle to pay those costs, or burden our employers with the lion share of the cost.  It is essentially the creation of two classes of people:  those who are forced into the system and those who wrote the law and decided they were too good for it.  It’s a fucking embarrassment.

someassemblyrequired > Jayhawk Jake 01/03/2019 at 15:18

2

Wife is in the USCG, they’ve been told to not expect to be paid until February or later, and even then not in a lump sum . We can handle it, but the first and second class enlisted gonna be in a world of hurt soon. They don’t have the option of getting another job, or claiming unemployment.

Also seems kinda dumb to be holding out for extra money for border security when you aren’t paying CBP folks anything at the moment.

Jayhawk Jake > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 15:18

0

You’ve essentially just described the fundamental difference between government pay and private industry pay. Government is paid by federal funding regardless of revenue generated. A private industry cannot simply pay people for no work as work has to be completed in order to earn revenue to pay people.

facw > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 15:20

0

Again, they are not exempt from it. They “use” it in the same way most Americans use it. They are subject to all the same restrictions. And Obamacare insurance is provided by private companies, and not the government. There’s no product to use unless you me an the exchanges, and those are just websites, nothing remotely core (and aside from being a bit buggy during the initial 2013 rollout, the federal exchange is pretty solid). Congress passes all sorts of laws that applies to situations they aren’t in, and which it would be silly for them to be in, and this is one of them. If the exchanges only offered substandard plans, maybe it would make sense to force them to use it, but there’s no restrictions on how generous a plan companies can offer, indeed a chief Republican complaint is that the plans on the exchange aren’t crappy enough, people should be able to “save” money by buying plans that don’t cover much of anything.  

Sovande > TorqueToYield 01/03/2019 at 15:20

2

I want to preface this by saying that I am not a Trump supporter in the least. He has cast a pall on this country that will take years to clear away.

That said, the President is doing his job when he vetoes a bill with which he does not agree. Just because they put something in front of him doesn’t mean he has to sign it. This shutdown is nothing new.  It is gamesmanship.  It’s dick swinging.

facw > Sovande 01/03/2019 at 15:22

0

That’s absurd. They are forced into to the same extent as anyone else with employer funded insurance. It’s like complaining they aren’t forced into using food stamps.

Jayhawk Jake > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 15:23

2

The override power of the senate and house relies on an overwhelming majority. You could have nearly infinite congresses before you found one that would actually pass a 2/3 vote on budget if the President veto’d it.

Thus you give the president significant power. Because all they have to do is say they will veto any budget resolution that comes to their desk else the entirety of congress loses their job. 

PartyPooper2012 > facw 01/03/2019 at 15:25

0

All I am saying is they should be on this program. They should be on food s tamps. They shouldn’t be getting paid anymore than what the average pay in US is. This will give them a taste of their own medicine.

PartyPooper2012 > Jayhawk Jake 01/03/2019 at 15:28

0

If that’s the case, then citizens will be unhappy with president and elect senators and congress people who will surely oppose presidents views and therefore have a majority to override president. 

Sovande > facw 01/03/2019 at 15:29

1

No it’s not. What’s absurd is comparing the national health care system of what should be the greatest nation on the planet to food stamps and being okay with that.

They pay 28% of the cost of their healthcare pre-tax , have free access to Congressional doctors and free access to military hospitals. These are legislated perks not available to rest of the country who these folks have sworn to represent.

facw > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 15:29

0

That sounds like a great way to get a Congress that is even more concerned with what big money interests can do for them.

facw > Sovande 01/03/2019 at 15:34

0

Whether their private plan is too extravagant or not has nothing to do with Obamacare. Nothing in Obamacare prevents anyone from getting a plan with no deductibles, copays, or coinsurance. I don’t think anyone offers such a plan on the exchange because it would look like a terrible deal, even compared to the platinum plans, but such a plan would be fully compliant with the Obamacare rules and for the right price, someone could offer it to you (or your employer).

You are arguing that they are overcompensated, and it leaves them out of touch, which could be true, but it has nothing to do with Obamacare, or the quality of the Obamacare plans.

Sovande > facw 01/03/2019 at 15:44

0

Well certainly cost would prohibit most from getting such a plan. Unless, for instance, you were in a position to create legislation to offset that cost with a very forgiving subsidy for your healthcare.

The subsidy they receive is roughly 25% greater than the subsidy a person earning $25,000 a year would receive for a similar plan. The guy at the 7-11 is paying $200 a month for his healthcare while the guy getting wined and dined by lobbyists is paying $150 a month. I’m not a financial wizard, but I would think the salary of the member of Congress is greater than that of the guy slinging hotdogs and B ackwoods at the local Gas n Sip.

facw > Sovande 01/03/2019 at 15:49

0

None of that is wrong. But as I said, it has nothing to do with Obamacare.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 15:56

1

Well, obviously – but that’s just not a very insightful response. You are the person who made an entire post about how inefficient these fools are being. I point out a prime example of the Republican senate majority leader hamstringing the entire government, and now all you have to say is “oh well, he can say whatever he wants!”?

NP is not the person blocking bills here. The house just passed a funding bill that CAN pass the senate – just that the senate leader doesn’t even want to bring the bill forward because he is working for brownie points from the idiot in the white house.

PartyPooper2012 > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 01/03/2019 at 16:06

0

In my original post and several other times i said I don’t want to pick on current events. I want to discuss things generically speaking. I don’t care which party or person caused the shutdown. Only care how it can be fixed going forward.

You want to pick on people and make fun of their names, go for it. Pardon me if I don’t partake in your shenanigans. 

Sovande > facw 01/03/2019 at 16:22

0

What? It is a prime example of the flaws inherent with that particular piece of legislation. Those who wrote the laws enjoy different benefits than every other citizen of the country.

facw > Sovande 01/03/2019 at 16:30

0

Really? Do you believe every resident of the country should have the exact same compensation as members of Congress?

If that’s the case, it’s still not related to Obamacare. Compensation is a separate issue.

facw > Sovande 01/03/2019 at 16:45

0

Moreover, I just did some reading, and it turn s out that members of Congress are required to buy their plan through the exchange. Since 2014 they have not received the normal federal benefit received by government employees while serving (though they can buy into it in retirement) . If they purchase a Gold or Platinum plan, they receive a subsidy of 75% of the price of the federal health insurance premium, which is obviously nice, but is not a ludicrously generous amount.

See here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43194.pdf

Or here: 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/members-congress-health-care/

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 17:02

2

You want a way to fix it? Here’s one – allow the minority leader to bring a bill to a vote if through a simple raise of hands they can prove that the bill has broad support to pass. End these shenanigans of the majority leader blocking bills that can and should pass just because they want to block it for their personal reasons. Way more conceivable than your pie in the sky proposals of dissolving all of congress - and then what? 

Sure, it was juvenile – but that vile hypocrite of a man deserves every bit of disappointment thrown at him.

WiscoProud > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 17:12

0

The president doesn’t have to actually veto the bill, he can just refuse to sign it, like he did here. Congress came to an agreement to fund the government, and it was derailed by Trump. For once, congressional infighting wasn’t the problem. 

WiscoProud > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 17:14

1

If the president is the only one who is spared in this situation, you just created a huge incentive for him to force his will on congress. Congress won’t put your pet project into the spending bill? Hold out until they’re fired. The new congress will get the message that they better play ball. 

nermal > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 17:46

1

A much easier fix would be for the obstructionist loser D’s to agree to fund The Wall. It would zoom right through, and people could get back to work. 

Sovande > facw 01/03/2019 at 18:05

0

Yes. I believe that all citizens should have the same access to medical benefits and that Congress members should not enjoy greater benefits than Joe Q Public. I also think that if they were impacted in the same the way they, financially, as the rest of the country when buying health care that the rules would be different.

Due to my salary I would not receive a 0% subsidy.  A Congressman, who makes more than me, would receive a 75% subsidy. I think this is bullshit. Couch it however you want, it's a legislated benefit. They voted to make their Healthcare more affordable than the average American and I find it offensive. 

Sovande > facw 01/03/2019 at 18:05

0

Yes, this is what I meant when I mentioned their subsidies for Healthcare. 

facw > Sovande 01/03/2019 at 18:14

0

They voted to make their healthcare less affordable than it was before. And the subsidy is like an employer subsidy, just a part of their compensation , not the low-income subsidy that was included with Obamacare (which the GOP then fucked up).

I believe America obviously should do better with healthcare, as I said elsewhere in thread, I support a support a single-payer universal system as has been both cheaper and more effective pretty much every other developed nation. Failing that, I think we’d be way better off if we abolished employer healthcare (just convert whatever benefits people have now into increased income) and had people buy plans off the exchange (there’s a fair question as to whether people are sophisticated enough to make good choices, but based on my experience I wouldn’t put any more confidence in some HR person making good choices). Better subsidies are still required, especially with the donut hole created by states skipping Medicaid expansion, though really it would make sense to abolish Medicaid and just give a credit if you are putting everyone on the exchange.

I don’t think that slashing Congressional pay or benefits is the right course though. It’s true that it might cause more empathy, but it also seems like it would make them more susceptible to the influence of money, and that’s already a big enough problem .

Sovande > facw 01/03/2019 at 18:33

0

They aren’t employees of a large private corporation, they are public servants making laws which they conveniently skirt through legislation.

We clearly have a different view. I see them all, each and every one, as a crook or a crook in waiting. 

aquila121 > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 01/03/2019 at 18:34

1

Yeah, I wish I could be there like his fucking shadow to drown out McConnell’s every fucking word by shouting “Tell that to Merrick Garland, you blatantly partisan , obstructionist twat-waffle.”

Rico > PartyPooper2012 01/03/2019 at 18:36

1

Our enemies would be at our door in a heartbeat.

They definitely would not be.

facw > Sovande 01/03/2019 at 18:45

0

If you want to have intelligent, talented, and honorable law-makers, you greatly reduce your pool of people if you pay poverty wages. Granted, paying decent wages is obviously not sufficient to weed out the corrupt and stupid, but not many people can afford to take a huge cut in pay and benefits to serve their country. Some will of course, but the corrupt don’t have to worry about it, they can butter their bread elsewhere, and for the most part, if the poor had the skills and wherewithal to be elected to national office, they probably wouldn’t be poor, because they could apply those skills elsewhere. We pay members of the House and Senators $174k a year. That’s a lot (median personal income is around $31k) and puts them in the top 10% of earners. It is not however a huge amount for a professional position, especially considering that most maintain two households, one in DC, and one in their home state/district. If they were paying themselves millions, I might agree with you, but I don’t think it’s too ludicrous.

There’s no reason why government shouldn’t pay its employees similarly to private industry. Not doing so is a recipe for terrible, incompetent government .

Sovande > facw 01/03/2019 at 18:55

0

I’ve never advocated paying them less, nor do I think them to be necessarily overpaid. 

facw > Sovande 01/03/2019 at 19:02

0

Benefits are basically the same as benefits. If you are saying they should receive no subsidy instead of the 75%, you are cutting there total compensation by thousands of dollars (and directly in this case, since they receive that benefit as a dollar amount instead of something less tangible). Unless you think they should receive no subsidy, but a pay raise equal to their subsidy, of course.

Sovande > facw 01/03/2019 at 20:08

0

So they will be in the same boat as the Americans for whom they are passing laws. They are essentially passing two sets of laws: one for themselves and one for the rest of America. It bothers me.

Are you in Congress? 

facw > Sovande 01/03/2019 at 20:14

0

Nope, I’m pretty unelectable . But I don’t see how you can say it’s two sets of laws? They have the same laws as everyone else. And they get paid like everyone else. It’s weird in the sense their pay and benefits are set by them, but obviously they have to have pay and benefits, and someone has to set those, and it is there responsibility. It might be less corrupting to convene a independent panel to set their compensation, but making them truly independent would be hard, and it’s not like corporate boards have done anything to control executive pay. 

Sovande > facw 01/03/2019 at 20:49

0

Semantics. 

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > nermal 01/04/2019 at 00:59

2

Are those the same obstructionist D’s that agreed to the R senate plan for gov funding before trump threw his hissy fit and raised the price from 1.6 to 5B?

“Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that Democrats would support the stopgap measure.” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mcconnell-announces-stopgap-funding-measure-would-avert-shutdown-n949821 https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/senate/418507-schumer-dems-oppose-spending-more-than-16b-on-border-security%3famp The Senate passed $1.6 billion in wall funding in its Homeland Security appropriations bill, in line with the White House’s original request. But Trump has since upped the ante to $5 billion, an amount the House included in its version of the spending bill.

PartyPooper2012 > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 01/04/2019 at 05:59

0

The wall just got 10 feet higher so the bill is now 10 billion

PartyPooper2012 > WiscoProud 01/04/2019 at 06:01

0

nothing says president’s party gets into congress and senate. It could be opposing party and they can work together on passing what they agree on. 

PartyPooper2012 > ZHP Sparky, the 5th 01/04/2019 at 06:04

0

Lets be honest here. Both parties are blocking one thing or another to spite opposing party.

I can say same thing about s anders and p elosi and mccain. 

Jayhawk Jake > PartyPooper2012 01/04/2019 at 07:45

1

L M A O

Have the last two years not proved to you that’s wrong? Blind support will always override logic.

I get what you’re going for, but I think you need to go back to the drawing board with a dose of reality.

nermal > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 01/04/2019 at 09:43

0

It’s not about the $$$ at this point, and arguably hasn’t been for a while. 

WiscoProud > PartyPooper2012 01/04/2019 at 10:14

1

You’re right, but in a worst case scenario, the president could then just refuse to sign that congress’s bill, forcing another one, etc. etc. etc.

Eventually either one of the congress’s caves to his demand, or the opposition is able to build a majority big enough to overwrite a veto. Considering how gerrymandered many red states are, that’s could be near impossible. 

PartyPooper2012 > WiscoProud 01/04/2019 at 10:25

0

Maybe... But at least we won’t have career politicians.

Serving the country for a living shouldn’t be a thing. 

WiscoProud > PartyPooper2012 01/04/2019 at 10:32

1

There’s an argument that you want to have experienced people in positions of government, but i would put term limits on all elected positions.

If there are no consequences for the president, but consequences for congress, you are shifting a significant amount of power to the executive branch. 

PartyPooper2012 > WiscoProud 01/04/2019 at 10:44

0

Let’s elaborate on my proposed example and say if there is a govt shut down - all 3 branches are dismissed.

It gives a whole lot of power to just one branch - any branch to say nope. We don’t like the current setup. We will throw out the current government and let the next elected officials rule.

That’s just madness. We will never have a working govt because every time someone didn’t get their sticky pads, we have to elect new government. 

WiscoProud > PartyPooper2012 01/04/2019 at 10:52

0

You’re assuming those politicians don’t have a sense of self-preservation. Power comes with politics and there are very few people willing to give that up willingly. I believe this will drive them to come to compromise, as they know they’re out of a job if they don’t. 

PartyPooper2012 > WiscoProud 01/04/2019 at 11:00

0

So then I was sorta on the right track. Let’s dismiss everyone if they can’t play nice. Useless government is useless.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > PartyPooper2012 01/04/2019 at 11:16

0

Ah yes, the both sides argument. Bring something specific or just stop it. We’re talking about government shut down – there’s a bill that passed the house. It can pass the senate, except for one specific person preventing it from happening. This is happening now. I like how you’re just throwing vague accusations out there when the exact problem you’re complaining about has a very specific set of people (namely, two) to blame.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > nermal 01/04/2019 at 20:11

0

Ah so we agree it just trump reneging on his budget proposal .

“ The Budget follows through on the President’s commitments on border security. As part of the Administration’s proposal for $18 billion to fund the border wall, the Budget requests $1.6 billion to construct approximately 65 miles of border wall in south Texas.” page 58

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf