5-Minute Solution for fixing the deficit....I think this would work. Seriously.

[usmbguest5318]

Okay/ I didn't verify the figures, mainly because the OP's key point doesn't stand on them. The figures are presented to provide a bit of situational context, namely this:

Elected leaders get paid quite nicely and are not held accountable for actually achieving one of the key things they are employed to do. Indeed, often enough they achieve something between none and 1/3rd of it as goes facilitating economic growth at an "acceptable" rate. Moreover, though it's not part of the OP's theme, one might even argue they have a similarly dismal record of achievement with regard to inexplicitly economic targets. Elected officials, in return for their abjectly deficient performance, receive a decent salary with increases at their discretion, excellent benefits, great notoriety (which feels good if nothing else), myriad material perquisites derived from the position/job itself, and most importantly, little chance of actually losing their job, provided, of course, they aren't pellucidly repugnant.

In contrast teachers and soldiers, who in the OP really are just mentioned as analogues for "everyone except Congresspersons, are paid not nearly so well, receive decent benefits, individually garner no great and widespread renown to speak of, have no direct control over their pay increases, enjoy few, if any, material job-related perquisites, but most importantly, if they consistently fail to meet expectations set for their performance, they don't get to keep their jobs. They, like everyone except Congress members, are held accountable for demonstrably achieving results that are objectively measurable.​

.....I'm not sure how or whether you think the degree of the figures' inaccuracy materially alters the main point of the post...The sums merely form the mise-en-scène, as it were. If one doubled, say, the shown teacher and soldier salaries, would that really change the merit (or lack thereof, if that be one's view) of the proposal that the tenure of lawmakers be incumbent on effectively managing economic growth? Not in my mind.

I realize you didn't say that the margin of error do so alter the central theme, but I'm also struggling to grasp why you bothered to note the inaccuracy. Would you care to provide some perspective on why you noted that there is some inaccuracy in the figures? Perhaps it's merely that you note the inaccuracy for the sake of doing so? Maybe even it's that you did so to catalyze a response that would allow you to gauge whether a petty purpose underpinned my listing the sums? (The abundance of pettiness on the forum makes this motive quite possible, sadly....) Perhaps you had some other reason? I don't know. I know only that you did, but as that's all you did, that's all I can claim to know.

The point you miss in your diatribe is that these people number in the hundreds compared to the millions of teachers and members of the military.

My daughter is an Army officer and brings home at the ripe old age of 22 almost as much as her father with 20 years experience.

The comparisons are simply invalid and using incorrect data makes it "fake news' in the grand tradition of CNN.

The cited dollar figures have nothing to do with the point in the OP. He was not stating that the money paid to congressman is remotely significant in the debt. He was stating that the fact they get paid and can continue to do so without consequence to debt is the problem.


IOW, if congressman lost their jobs for spending too much money they would STOP doing so.


The point is correct as well – congressman are rewarded for spending more rather than the opposite. The constituents at home are more likely to give that congressman another term for getting that pork project passed in their home state whether or not the feds actually have the money to do so. Tell that same congressman that if these projects go through he is not going to be allowed to run again and he just might think twice about borrowing the money for it.

You and the OP need to put down the bong and stop hitting it so hard. Go ahead and propose the Amendment necessary and see how many laugh with you as opposed to those who laugh at you.

You would have better luck repealing the law of gravity.

So still avoiding the actual point.

What is the point? No pipe dream like that is ever going to come true. The fact you cannot see that speaks volumes about your world view.

Not at all. If you were to have asked a Roman, the Roman Empire wasn't ever going to fall. Christianity was never going to be more than a cult of personality. The Usurper was never going to remain on James II's throne. The treasonous revolters were never going to separate from England's crown. Blacks were never going to be free. Women were never going to vote. Hitler was never going to bring the world into war. Trump was never going to be President.

If the electorate were to actually get behind the idea, it'll happen. Making it happen is first and foremost a matter of will, much like everything else that people think is worth achieving.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Actually Xelor laid out a winner of a strategy here.

Tomorrow is "term limit" day. I hope it goes well. The pessimist in me says probably not.

This means almost everyone will have to back Trump to get term limits done.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Okay/ I didn't verify the figures, mainly because the OP's key point doesn't stand on them. The figures are presented to provide a bit of situational context, namely this:

Elected leaders get paid quite nicely and are not held accountable for actually achieving one of the key things they are employed to do. Indeed, often enough they achieve something between none and 1/3rd of it as goes facilitating economic growth at an "acceptable" rate. Moreover, though it's not part of the OP's theme, one might even argue they have a similarly dismal record of achievement with regard to inexplicitly economic targets. Elected officials, in return for their abjectly deficient performance, receive a decent salary with increases at their discretion, excellent benefits, great notoriety (which feels good if nothing else), myriad material perquisites derived from the position/job itself, and most importantly, little chance of actually losing their job, provided, of course, they aren't pellucidly repugnant.

In contrast teachers and soldiers, who in the OP really are just mentioned as analogues for "everyone except Congresspersons, are paid not nearly so well, receive decent benefits, individually garner no great and widespread renown to speak of, have no direct control over their pay increases, enjoy few, if any, material job-related perquisites, but most importantly, if they consistently fail to meet expectations set for their performance, they don't get to keep their jobs. They, like everyone except Congress members, are held accountable for demonstrably achieving results that are objectively measurable.​

.....I'm not sure how or whether you think the degree of the figures' inaccuracy materially alters the main point of the post...The sums merely form the mise-en-scène, as it were. If one doubled, say, the shown teacher and soldier salaries, would that really change the merit (or lack thereof, if that be one's view) of the proposal that the tenure of lawmakers be incumbent on effectively managing economic growth? Not in my mind.

I realize you didn't say that the margin of error do so alter the central theme, but I'm also struggling to grasp why you bothered to note the inaccuracy. Would you care to provide some perspective on why you noted that there is some inaccuracy in the figures? Perhaps it's merely that you note the inaccuracy for the sake of doing so? Maybe even it's that you did so to catalyze a response that would allow you to gauge whether a petty purpose underpinned my listing the sums? (The abundance of pettiness on the forum makes this motive quite possible, sadly....) Perhaps you had some other reason? I don't know. I know only that you did, but as that's all you did, that's all I can claim to know.

The point you miss in your diatribe is that these people number in the hundreds compared to the millions of teachers and members of the military.

My daughter is an Army officer and brings home at the ripe old age of 22 almost as much as her father with 20 years experience.

The comparisons are simply invalid and using incorrect data makes it "fake news' in the grand tradition of CNN.

The cited dollar figures have nothing to do with the point in the OP. He was not stating that the money paid to congressman is remotely significant in the debt. He was stating that the fact they get paid and can continue to do so without consequence to debt is the problem.


IOW, if congressman lost their jobs for spending too much money they would STOP doing so.


The point is correct as well – congressman are rewarded for spending more rather than the opposite. The constituents at home are more likely to give that congressman another term for getting that pork project passed in their home state whether or not the feds actually have the money to do so. Tell that same congressman that if these projects go through he is not going to be allowed to run again and he just might think twice about borrowing the money for it.

You and the OP need to put down the bong and stop hitting it so hard. Go ahead and propose the Amendment necessary and see how many laugh with you as opposed to those who laugh at you.

You would have better luck repealing the law of gravity.

So still avoiding the actual point.

What is the point? No pipe dream like that is ever going to come true. The fact you cannot see that speaks volumes about your world view.

Not at all. If you were to have asked a Roman, the Roman Empire wasn't ever going to fall. Christianity was never going to be more than a cult of personality. The Usurper was never going to remain on James II's throne. The treasonous revolters were never going to separate from England's crown. Blacks were never going to be free. Women were never going to vote. Hitler was never going to bring the world into war. Trump was never going to be President.

If the electorate were to actually get behind the idea, it'll happen. Making it happen is first and foremost a matter of will, much like everything else that people think is worth achieving.

Will you please share some of what you are smoking so that the libs can get in on your buzz?

 

[usmbguest5318]

The point you miss in your diatribe is that these people number in the hundreds compared to the millions of teachers and members of the military.

My daughter is an Army officer and brings home at the ripe old age of 22 almost as much as her father with 20 years experience.

The comparisons are simply invalid and using incorrect data makes it "fake news' in the grand tradition of CNN.

The cited dollar figures have nothing to do with the point in the OP. He was not stating that the money paid to congressman is remotely significant in the debt. He was stating that the fact they get paid and can continue to do so without consequence to debt is the problem.


IOW, if congressman lost their jobs for spending too much money they would STOP doing so.


The point is correct as well – congressman are rewarded for spending more rather than the opposite. The constituents at home are more likely to give that congressman another term for getting that pork project passed in their home state whether or not the feds actually have the money to do so. Tell that same congressman that if these projects go through he is not going to be allowed to run again and he just might think twice about borrowing the money for it.

You and the OP need to put down the bong and stop hitting it so hard. Go ahead and propose the Amendment necessary and see how many laugh with you as opposed to those who laugh at you.

You would have better luck repealing the law of gravity.

So still avoiding the actual point.

What is the point? No pipe dream like that is ever going to come true. The fact you cannot see that speaks volumes about your world view.

Not at all. If you were to have asked a Roman, the Roman Empire wasn't ever going to fall. Christianity was never going to be more than a cult of personality. The Usurper was never going to remain on James II's throne. The treasonous revolters were never going to separate from England's crown. Blacks were never going to be free. Women were never going to vote. Hitler was never going to bring the world into war. Trump was never going to be President.

If the electorate were to actually get behind the idea, it'll happen. Making it happen is first and foremost a matter of will, much like everything else that people think is worth achieving.

Will you please share some of what you are smoking so that the libs can get in on your buzz?

And, as before, you persist in avoiding the actual point.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The point you miss in your diatribe is that these people number in the hundreds compared to the millions of teachers and members of the military.

My daughter is an Army officer and brings home at the ripe old age of 22 almost as much as her father with 20 years experience.

The comparisons are simply invalid and using incorrect data makes it "fake news' in the grand tradition of CNN.

The cited dollar figures have nothing to do with the point in the OP. He was not stating that the money paid to congressman is remotely significant in the debt. He was stating that the fact they get paid and can continue to do so without consequence to debt is the problem.


IOW, if congressman lost their jobs for spending too much money they would STOP doing so.


The point is correct as well – congressman are rewarded for spending more rather than the opposite. The constituents at home are more likely to give that congressman another term for getting that pork project passed in their home state whether or not the feds actually have the money to do so. Tell that same congressman that if these projects go through he is not going to be allowed to run again and he just might think twice about borrowing the money for it.

You and the OP need to put down the bong and stop hitting it so hard. Go ahead and propose the Amendment necessary and see how many laugh with you as opposed to those who laugh at you.

You would have better luck repealing the law of gravity.

So still avoiding the actual point.

What is the point? No pipe dream like that is ever going to come true. The fact you cannot see that speaks volumes about your world view.

Not at all. If you were to have asked a Roman, the Roman Empire wasn't ever going to fall. Christianity was never going to be more than a cult of personality. The Usurper was never going to remain on James II's throne. The treasonous revolters were never going to separate from England's crown. Blacks were never going to be free. Women were never going to vote. Hitler was never going to bring the world into war. Trump was never going to be President.

If the electorate were to actually get behind the idea, it'll happen. Making it happen is first and foremost a matter of will, much like everything else that people think is worth achieving.

Will you please share some of what you are smoking so that the libs can get in on your buzz?

Dude, everyone is going to have to come together to make term limits and real representation happen.


We may all have to mob the reps to get it done.
As it stands, they will not like it.

Just so you know, that's coming tomorrow

 

[usmbguest5318]

The cited dollar figures have nothing to do with the point in the OP. He was not stating that the money paid to congressman is remotely significant in the debt. He was stating that the fact they get paid and can continue to do so without consequence to debt is the problem.


IOW, if congressman lost their jobs for spending too much money they would STOP doing so.


The point is correct as well – congressman are rewarded for spending more rather than the opposite. The constituents at home are more likely to give that congressman another term for getting that pork project passed in their home state whether or not the feds actually have the money to do so. Tell that same congressman that if these projects go through he is not going to be allowed to run again and he just might think twice about borrowing the money for it.

You and the OP need to put down the bong and stop hitting it so hard. Go ahead and propose the Amendment necessary and see how many laugh with you as opposed to those who laugh at you.

You would have better luck repealing the law of gravity.

So still avoiding the actual point.

What is the point? No pipe dream like that is ever going to come true. The fact you cannot see that speaks volumes about your world view.

Not at all. If you were to have asked a Roman, the Roman Empire wasn't ever going to fall. Christianity was never going to be more than a cult of personality. The Usurper was never going to remain on James II's throne. The treasonous revolters were never going to separate from England's crown. Blacks were never going to be free. Women were never going to vote. Hitler was never going to bring the world into war. Trump was never going to be President.

If the electorate were to actually get behind the idea, it'll happen. Making it happen is first and foremost a matter of will, much like everything else that people think is worth achieving.

Will you please share some of what you are smoking so that the libs can get in on your buzz?

Dude, everyone is going to have to come together to make term limits and real representation happen.


We may all have to mob the reps to get it done.
As it stands, they will not like it.

It doesn't really have to be everybody, but it does need to be a whole lot of people whose resolve is strong.

 

[JBond]

This isn't new, but it's worth revisiting.

Some background [1]:

• Salary of retired US Presidents:.. . . . .. . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE.
• Salary of House/Senate members: .. . . . .. . . . . $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 Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid
• Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .$40,065
• Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000

So with that as context....."I could end the deficit in five minutes," Warren told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

​

I think Buffett's spot on because today we have leaders who want you and me to fear all sorts of things -- the press, ISIS, global warming, etc. Elected federal leaders, however, have no fear of facing any consequence from not actually doing their job and doing it well.

Note:

1. (Please, don't parrot the "serve one term and collect full retirement for life" thing. First, read this. Congress Members got it good, but not that good. LOL There's a schedule for how much they actually can collect, but whatever they collect, it's for life if they retire "in full" or what some folks might call "fully vested." That's what the figures above refer to.)

I'm not a fan of Buffet, after working for one of his companies that refused to pay their taxes, but this is not a horrible idea.

 

[usmbguest5318]

This isn't new, but it's worth revisiting.

Some background [1]:

• Salary of retired US Presidents:.. . . . .. . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE.
• Salary of House/Senate members: .. . . . .. . . . . $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 Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid
• Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .$40,065
• Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000

So with that as context....."I could end the deficit in five minutes," Warren told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

​

I think Buffett's spot on because today we have leaders who want you and me to fear all sorts of things -- the press, ISIS, global warming, etc. Elected federal leaders, however, have no fear of facing any consequence from not actually doing their job and doing it well.

Note:

1. (Please, don't parrot the "serve one term and collect full retirement for life" thing. First, read this. Congress Members got it good, but not that good. LOL There's a schedule for how much they actually can collect, but whatever they collect, it's for life if they retire "in full" or what some folks might call "fully vested." That's what the figures above refer to.)

I'm not a fan of Buffet, after working for one of his companies that refused to pay their taxes, but this is not a horrible idea.

OT:
TY for saying that. It's definitely the kind of open-minded collaborate spirit needed to, in a positive and productive way, advance any discussion. Sincerely "giving the Devil his due" is far more constructive than the typical and, quite frankly, feckless, banal and boring, "liberals this" and "conservatives that" we usually see here. Again, TY.

 

[FA_Q2]

Okay/ I didn't verify the figures, mainly because the OP's key point doesn't stand on them. The figures are presented to provide a bit of situational context, namely this:

Elected leaders get paid quite nicely and are not held accountable for actually achieving one of the key things they are employed to do. Indeed, often enough they achieve something between none and 1/3rd of it as goes facilitating economic growth at an "acceptable" rate. Moreover, though it's not part of the OP's theme, one might even argue they have a similarly dismal record of achievement with regard to inexplicitly economic targets. Elected officials, in return for their abjectly deficient performance, receive a decent salary with increases at their discretion, excellent benefits, great notoriety (which feels good if nothing else), myriad material perquisites derived from the position/job itself, and most importantly, little chance of actually losing their job, provided, of course, they aren't pellucidly repugnant.

In contrast teachers and soldiers, who in the OP really are just mentioned as analogues for "everyone except Congresspersons, are paid not nearly so well, receive decent benefits, individually garner no great and widespread renown to speak of, have no direct control over their pay increases, enjoy few, if any, material job-related perquisites, but most importantly, if they consistently fail to meet expectations set for their performance, they don't get to keep their jobs. They, like everyone except Congress members, are held accountable for demonstrably achieving results that are objectively measurable.​

.....I'm not sure how or whether you think the degree of the figures' inaccuracy materially alters the main point of the post...The sums merely form the mise-en-scène, as it were. If one doubled, say, the shown teacher and soldier salaries, would that really change the merit (or lack thereof, if that be one's view) of the proposal that the tenure of lawmakers be incumbent on effectively managing economic growth? Not in my mind.

I realize you didn't say that the margin of error do so alter the central theme, but I'm also struggling to grasp why you bothered to note the inaccuracy. Would you care to provide some perspective on why you noted that there is some inaccuracy in the figures? Perhaps it's merely that you note the inaccuracy for the sake of doing so? Maybe even it's that you did so to catalyze a response that would allow you to gauge whether a petty purpose underpinned my listing the sums? (The abundance of pettiness on the forum makes this motive quite possible, sadly....) Perhaps you had some other reason? I don't know. I know only that you did, but as that's all you did, that's all I can claim to know.

The point you miss in your diatribe is that these people number in the hundreds compared to the millions of teachers and members of the military.

My daughter is an Army officer and brings home at the ripe old age of 22 almost as much as her father with 20 years experience.

The comparisons are simply invalid and using incorrect data makes it "fake news' in the grand tradition of CNN.

The cited dollar figures have nothing to do with the point in the OP. He was not stating that the money paid to congressman is remotely significant in the debt. He was stating that the fact they get paid and can continue to do so without consequence to debt is the problem.


IOW, if congressman lost their jobs for spending too much money they would STOP doing so.


The point is correct as well – congressman are rewarded for spending more rather than the opposite. The constituents at home are more likely to give that congressman another term for getting that pork project passed in their home state whether or not the feds actually have the money to do so. Tell that same congressman that if these projects go through he is not going to be allowed to run again and he just might think twice about borrowing the money for it.

You and the OP need to put down the bong and stop hitting it so hard. Go ahead and propose the Amendment necessary and see how many laugh with you as opposed to those who laugh at you.

You would have better luck repealing the law of gravity.

So still avoiding the actual point.

What is the point? No pipe dream like that is ever going to come true. The fact you cannot see that speaks volumes about your world view.

Abortion is never going to become illegal. I guess that means you fully support the right to chose.

Of course, I could always base my worldview on what is right and moral rather than what you think is and is not going to happen - only an insane person would do otherwise.

 

[blackhawk]

Yeah good luck getting Congress to pass a bill like that and sending it to the President to sign into law.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yeah good luck getting Congress to pass a bill like that and sending it to the President to sign into law.

That is the point for the ideas presented here: Step 2: 5-Minute Solution -- Implementation approaches.

 

[blackhawk]

Yeah good luck getting Congress to pass a bill like that and sending it to the President to sign into law.

That is the point for the ideas presented here: Step 2: 5-Minute Solution -- Implementation approaches.

As I said good luck with that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yeah good luck getting Congress to pass a bill like that and sending it to the President to sign into law.

That is the point for the ideas presented here: Step 2: 5-Minute Solution -- Implementation approaches.

As I said good luck with that.

Apathy is the enemy of achievement.

 

[blackhawk]

Yeah good luck getting Congress to pass a bill like that and sending it to the President to sign into law.

That is the point for the ideas presented here: Step 2: 5-Minute Solution -- Implementation approaches.

As I said good luck with that.

Apathy is the enemy of achievement.

I'm just looking at the reality of what is being suggested that's not apathy.

 

[Timmy]

How would this plan lower the deficit? It generates no money .

 

[usmbguest5318]

This isn't new, but it's worth revisiting.

Some background [1]:

• Salary of retired US Presidents:.. . . . .. . . . . $180,000 FOR LIFE.
• Salary of House/Senate members: .. . . . .. . . . . $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 Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid
• Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .$40,065
• Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000

So with that as context....."I could end the deficit in five minutes," Warren told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

​

I think Buffett's spot on because today we have leaders who want you and me to fear all sorts of things -- the press, ISIS, global warming, etc. Elected federal leaders, however, have no fear of facing any consequence from not actually doing their job and doing it well.

Note:

1. (Please, don't parrot the "serve one term and collect full retirement for life" thing. First, read this. Congress Members got it good, but not that good. LOL There's a schedule for how much they actually can collect, but whatever they collect, it's for life if they retire "in full" or what some folks might call "fully vested." That's what the figures above refer to.)

.
Obviously we could cure Aids by shooting 97% of the people who have Aids,,,,problem solved...right?

Boy....just how absurd can you be? Do you not see that killing the people who have AIDS doesn't do a damn thing to stop its transmission to others by people who have the malady.

The point of Buffett's proposal is to prevent the perpetuation of ineffectual elected representatives returning to Washington. It dissuades Congress members from accomplishing little to nothing by promising them that if they don't accomplish a specific goal, they won't be allowed to run for their seats. It does so by linking their ability to return to Congress to their actually producing objectively measurable results.

Buffett's proposal calls for placing Congresspersons in control of whether they get to maintain their status as Congresspeople. Your "AIDS idea" entails placing third parties -- the shooters/society -- in control of whether AIDS sufferers get to maintain their status as living beings.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yeah good luck getting Congress to pass a bill like that and sending it to the President to sign into law.

That is the point for the ideas presented here: Step 2: 5-Minute Solution -- Implementation approaches.

As I said good luck with that.

Apathy is the enemy of achievement.

I'm just looking at the reality of what is being suggested that's not apathy.

I didn't say it'd be easy to accomplish, but it's also not impossible to accomplish. What's certain is that it won't be accomplished if nobody works to achieve it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How would this plan lower the deficit? It generates no money .

If you spend less than you take in, your deficit goes away. Good Lord, do you really need this explained to you?

 

[blackhawk]

Yeah good luck getting Congress to pass a bill like that and sending it to the President to sign into law.

That is the point for the ideas presented here: Step 2: 5-Minute Solution -- Implementation approaches.

As I said good luck with that.

Apathy is the enemy of achievement.

I'm just looking at the reality of what is being suggested that's not apathy.

I didn't say it'd be easy to accomplish, but it's also not impossible to accomplish. What's certain is that it won't be accomplished if nobody works to achieve it.

And I didn't say it would be impossible I just pointed how difficult it would be to accomplish.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yeah good luck getting Congress to pass a bill like that and sending it to the President to sign into law.

That is the point for the ideas presented here: Step 2: 5-Minute Solution -- Implementation approaches.

As I said good luck with that.

Apathy is the enemy of achievement.

Yeah, but nobody cares what you think!