Do salaries of government reflect US citizens?

[gallantwarrior]

Look what they did to Herman Cain. They slaughtered him
And praised Bill Clinton for doing the same thing and condemned anyone that wanted to hold him accountable.
Clinton was guilty of sexual harassment under Federal law at the least.
BUT OH WAIT, HE IS A DEMOCRAT. That is OK.
Free pass. He "cares".

Who exactly was it that slaughtered Herman Cain?

Clinton was impeached for a fucking blow job. What more did you want?

Media.
Clinton was never impeached from office. He was acquitted by the Senate.

And Clinton was not impeached for the blow job, he was impeached for lying about it under oath.

 

[saveusfromnazis]

What would you take if you were elected the "leader of the free world?" I bet you would willingly take a salary hit because you don't think you deserve it. Right?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Equivalent jobs?

Hell they don't work, they just put each other down and blame each other and past Presidents for all the problems.

Sounds like the USMB and we get nothing and some of us pay.

Absolute truth here.........

So, the pres makes a whopping $400,000 per year? Uh-huh.

Harry Reid had a net worth of $85,000 when he first took office waayyy back when. He is now closing in on a net worth of nearly 35 MILLION dollars.

The idiot pelosi is worth how much?

Boehner makes what?

Every person who has held the office of president (in modern times) retired as a multi-millionaire.

Due to the gigantic growth of the Federal Government, the price of real estate in the greater DC area has nearly TRIPLED since 2008. The ONLY area of the country that has seen such growth. Housing prices have sky-rocketed.

As Mel Brooks said in that movie, "History of the World"......

It's GOOD to be da King!!

 

[Flopper]

What would you take if you were elected the "leader of the free world?" I bet you would willingly take a salary hit because you don't think you deserve it. Right?

No one seeks the presidency for the salary. So is it important? Yes, because salary is an expression of the employers confidence.

 

[RandallFlagg]

What would you take if you were elected the "leader of the free world?" I bet you would willingly take a salary hit because you don't think you deserve it. Right?

No one seeks the presidency for the salary. So is it important? Yes, because salary is an expression of the employers confidence.

This is partially true, in my opinion. Only a complete and total moron would spend a Billion dollars to get "elected" to get a $1.6 million dollar return on the investment. $400,000 X 4.

No, these egomaniacs who run for president (ALL of them) do so because they crave power. It really is that simple.

It makes no difference whether it is JFK, or LBJ or Nixon or Bush or Obama. No difference. It's about POWER. And, as we are beginning to see with Obama - "Absolute power corupts absolutely".

Again, by the time the American people shed themselves of this clown, the liberals will be wringing their hands and proclaiming "But we didn't know". You can take that one to the bank.

 

[gallantwarrior]

No shit. Can you imagine that inept GWB getting POTUS upped from 200 K to 400 K with the help of them fiscal conservatives in Congress?

President of the United States and leader of the free world making only 400K.
Far underpaid.

Agreed. Compared to the CEO of a major corporation, it's a pittance.

If you don't like the pay scale, don't take the job.

 

[Koios]

President of the United States and leader of the free world making only 400K.
Far underpaid.

Agreed. Compared to the CEO of a major corporation, it's a pittance.

If you don't like the pay scale, don't take the job.

My guess is the pay scale has little to do with Pols looking to win high office. In fact, some will spend a lot of their own coin, even in failed attempts, i.e. Mitt Romney.

 

[Koios]

Look what they did to Herman Cain. They slaughtered him
And praised Bill Clinton for doing the same thing and condemned anyone that wanted to hold him accountable.
Clinton was guilty of sexual harassment under Federal law at the least.
BUT OH WAIT, HE IS A DEMOCRAT. That is OK.
Free pass. He "cares".

Who exactly was it that slaughtered Herman Cain?

Clinton was impeached for a fucking blow job. What more did you want?

Media.
Clinton was never impeached from office. He was acquitted by the Senate.

Not really an acquittal, per se. The Senate (leaders) agreed to vote against impeachment, which is sort of the equivalent of dismissed with prejudice, and not acquitted in a trial / jury kinda way.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Agreed. Compared to the CEO of a major corporation, it's a pittance.

If you don't like the pay scale, don't take the job.

My guess is the pay scale has little to do with Pols looking to win high office. In fact, some will spend a lot of their own coin, even in failed attempts, i.e. Mitt Romney.

Then why worry about what the POTUS is paid. Obviously, there are other perks of sufficient worth to compensate for lack of pay.

 

[Koios]

If you don't like the pay scale, don't take the job.

My guess is the pay scale has little to do with Pols looking to win high office. In fact, some will spend a lot of their own coin, even in failed attempts, i.e. Mitt Romney.

Then why worry about what the POTUS is paid. Obviously, there are other perks of sufficient worth to compensate for lack of pay.

Exactly (why I do not worry about it)

 

[rightwinger]

Who exactly was it that slaughtered Herman Cain?

Clinton was impeached for a fucking blow job. What more did you want?

Media.
Clinton was never impeached from office. He was acquitted by the Senate.

And Clinton was not impeached for the blow job, he was impeached for lying about it under oath.

Clinton: I did not have sex with that woman

Republicans: High crimes and misdemeanors.

Abuse of power for which Republicans paid dearly

 

[Flopper]

Agreed. Compared to the CEO of a major corporation, it's a pittance.

If you don't like the pay scale, don't take the job.

My guess is the pay scale has little to do with Pols looking to win high office. In fact, some will spend a lot of their own coin, even in failed attempts, i.e. Mitt Romney.

As you can see from the table below, the president does not get a pay raise very often so when it comes, it's a big increase. The top person in an organization has the highest salary so he will make more than the people that work for him. This is true in government just as it is in the private sector. Although the of presidential salary may provide little job incentive, the same can not be said for the jobs below the president.


Presidential pay history

September 24, 1789 $25,000
March 3, 1873 $50,000
March 4, 1909 $75,000
January 19, 1949 $100,000
January 20, 1969 $200,000
January 20, 2001 $400,000

 

[gallantwarrior]

If you don't like the pay scale, don't take the job.

My guess is the pay scale has little to do with Pols looking to win high office. In fact, some will spend a lot of their own coin, even in failed attempts, i.e. Mitt Romney.

As you can see from the table below, the president does not get a pay raise very often so when it comes, it's a big increase. The top person in an organization has the highest salary so he will make more than the people that work for him. This is true in government just as it is in the private sector. Although the of presidential salary may provide little job incentive, the same can not be said for the jobs below the president.


Presidential pay history

September 24, 1789 $25,000
March 3, 1873 $50,000
March 4, 1909 $75,000
January 19, 1949 $100,000
January 20, 1969 $200,000
January 20, 2001 $400,000

Regardless of what their salary is, we, as their employer, have a reasonable expectation that they will do more than campaign constantly, play golf, or see to it that they and their families (and friends) get to jaunt around the world on the taxpayer dollar. Of course, many of us would have hired someone qualified for the job in the first place.

 

[Flopper]

My guess is the pay scale has little to do with Pols looking to win high office. In fact, some will spend a lot of their own coin, even in failed attempts, i.e. Mitt Romney.

As you can see from the table below, the president does not get a pay raise very often so when it comes, it's a big increase. The top person in an organization has the highest salary so he will make more than the people that work for him. This is true in government just as it is in the private sector. Although the of presidential salary may provide little job incentive, the same can not be said for the jobs below the president.


Presidential pay history

September 24, 1789 $25,000
March 3, 1873 $50,000
March 4, 1909 $75,000
January 19, 1949 $100,000
January 20, 1969 $200,000
January 20, 2001 $400,000

Regardless of what their salary is, we, as their employer, have a reasonable expectation that they will do more than campaign constantly, play golf, or see to it that they and their families (and friends) get to jaunt around the world on the taxpayer dollar. Of course, many of us would have hired someone qualified for the job in the first place.

The average cost of a successful senate campaign is about 7 million dollars. Many house seats are costing over a million. In order to raise these sums, congressmen sell their souls to lobbyist, special interest groups, and big corporations. It's been estimated that the average member of the House spends half his time campaigning and fund raising. Nothing will change until we limit campaign financing.

 

[gallantwarrior]

As you can see from the table below, the president does not get a pay raise very often so when it comes, it's a big increase. The top person in an organization has the highest salary so he will make more than the people that work for him. This is true in government just as it is in the private sector. Although the of presidential salary may provide little job incentive, the same can not be said for the jobs below the president.


Presidential pay history

September 24, 1789 $25,000
March 3, 1873 $50,000
March 4, 1909 $75,000
January 19, 1949 $100,000
January 20, 1969 $200,000
January 20, 2001 $400,000

Regardless of what their salary is, we, as their employer, have a reasonable expectation that they will do more than campaign constantly, play golf, or see to it that they and their families (and friends) get to jaunt around the world on the taxpayer dollar. Of course, many of us would have hired someone qualified for the job in the first place.

The average cost of a successful senate campaign is about 7 million dollars. Many house seats are costing over a million. In order to raise these sums, congressmen sell their souls to lobbyist, special interest groups, and big corporations. It's been estimated that the average member of the House spends half his time campaigning and fund raising. Nothing will change until we limit campaign financing.

Oh, I agree. My proposal for campaign finance reform includes the following elements:
1. Campaign contributions can only be made by individuals who actually reside in the precinct, area, or other division served by the office. If you run for mayor, you can only accept contributions from persons qualified to cast their one vote. This is not necessarily limited to currently registered voters but can also include persons who would be qualified to vote, should they chose to register. I might also consider a limit as to how much the individual may contribute based on a percentage of income, similar to the calculations used to determine qualification for a mortgage loan (currently around 30% of income, I believe).
2. The amount a candidate may spend on their campaign would be limited to the amount the salary associated with the position they seek. For example, if the office garners $400,000 per annum for four years, then the candidate is prohibited from spending any more than $1,600,000. Even if subsequent terms might be possible, spending on the current campaign is limited as stated.
3. The candidate may only spend funds to advertise, rally, or conduct other campaign functions in the district or division which will be served by the office.
4. Any funds raised in excess of the spending limit can be contributed to an approved non-profit organization. Maybe put a list of the candidates favorite charities on the ballot then parcel out remaining funds in proportion to the votes cast by the electorate.

I think reforms like these might actually "level the playing field" and make it possible for people with less than millions to raise the funds to run for office. And candidates would not be able to become rich by "retaining" unexpended funds.

 

[Koios]

If you don't like the pay scale, don't take the job.

My guess is the pay scale has little to do with Pols looking to win high office. In fact, some will spend a lot of their own coin, even in failed attempts, i.e. Mitt Romney.

As you can see from the table below, the president does not get a pay raise very often so when it comes, it's a big increase. The top person in an organization has the highest salary so he will make more than the people that work for him. This is true in government just as it is in the private sector. Although the of presidential salary may provide little job incentive, the same can not be said for the jobs below the president.


Presidential pay history

September 24, 1789 $25,000
March 3, 1873 $50,000
March 4, 1909 $75,000
January 19, 1949 $100,000
January 20, 1969 $200,000
January 20, 2001 $400,000

Cabinet level folks are as motivated by the prestige as the president. Same goes with Directors of this and that. Ambassadorships, too, are highly prized. Asst. Director of anything is a career-maker on steroids.

In fact, most higher up government "service," and especially appointed positions have an appeal that far exceeds the salary. Plus with the reveolving door, so called, the payback in the private sector with companies that want an inside track on government / government agencies, is immense.

 

[Flopper]

Regardless of what their salary is, we, as their employer, have a reasonable expectation that they will do more than campaign constantly, play golf, or see to it that they and their families (and friends) get to jaunt around the world on the taxpayer dollar. Of course, many of us would have hired someone qualified for the job in the first place.

The average cost of a successful senate campaign is about 7 million dollars. Many house seats are costing over a million. In order to raise these sums, congressmen sell their souls to lobbyist, special interest groups, and big corporations. It's been estimated that the average member of the House spends half his time campaigning and fund raising. Nothing will change until we limit campaign financing.

Oh, I agree. My proposal for campaign finance reform includes the following elements:
1. Campaign contributions can only be made by individuals who actually reside in the precinct, area, or other division served by the office. If you run for mayor, you can only accept contributions from persons qualified to cast their one vote. This is not necessarily limited to currently registered voters but can also include persons who would be qualified to vote, should they chose to register. I might also consider a limit as to how much the individual may contribute based on a percentage of income, similar to the calculations used to determine qualification for a mortgage loan (currently around 30% of income, I believe).
2. The amount a candidate may spend on their campaign would be limited to the amount the salary associated with the position they seek. For example, if the office garners $400,000 per annum for four years, then the candidate is prohibited from spending any more than $1,600,000. Even if subsequent terms might be possible, spending on the current campaign is limited as stated.
3. The candidate may only spend funds to advertise, rally, or conduct other campaign functions in the district or division which will be served by the office.
4. Any funds raised in excess of the spending limit can be contributed to an approved non-profit organization. Maybe put a list of the candidates favorite charities on the ballot then parcel out remaining funds in proportion to the votes cast by the electorate.

I think reforms like these might actually "level the playing field" and make it possible for people with less than millions to raise the funds to run for office. And candidates would not be able to become rich by "retaining" unexpended funds.

I think people running for parliament in G.B. have a campaign spending cap. The pacs are a problem in the US because they are untouched by campaign finance laws.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The average cost of a successful senate campaign is about 7 million dollars. Many house seats are costing over a million. In order to raise these sums, congressmen sell their souls to lobbyist, special interest groups, and big corporations. It's been estimated that the average member of the House spends half his time campaigning and fund raising. Nothing will change until we limit campaign financing.

Oh, I agree. My proposal for campaign finance reform includes the following elements:
1. Campaign contributions can only be made by individuals who actually reside in the precinct, area, or other division served by the office. If you run for mayor, you can only accept contributions from persons qualified to cast their one vote. This is not necessarily limited to currently registered voters but can also include persons who would be qualified to vote, should they chose to register. I might also consider a limit as to how much the individual may contribute based on a percentage of income, similar to the calculations used to determine qualification for a mortgage loan (currently around 30% of income, I believe).
2. The amount a candidate may spend on their campaign would be limited to the amount the salary associated with the position they seek. For example, if the office garners $400,000 per annum for four years, then the candidate is prohibited from spending any more than $1,600,000. Even if subsequent terms might be possible, spending on the current campaign is limited as stated.
3. The candidate may only spend funds to advertise, rally, or conduct other campaign functions in the district or division which will be served by the office.
4. Any funds raised in excess of the spending limit can be contributed to an approved non-profit organization. Maybe put a list of the candidates favorite charities on the ballot then parcel out remaining funds in proportion to the votes cast by the electorate.

I think reforms like these might actually "level the playing field" and make it possible for people with less than millions to raise the funds to run for office. And candidates would not be able to become rich by "retaining" unexpended funds.

I think people running for parliament in G.B. have a campaign spending cap. The pacs are a problem in the US because they are untouched by campaign finance laws.

The PACs would have no reason to exist. If only individuals resident in the political subdivision are eligible to contribute, that puts such entitities as PACs out of business. I think a system like this might also put the major parties pretty much out of business, too.