usmbguest5318
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #81
So still avoiding the actual point.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.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.
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.
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.