Congress boosts their spending

[Stampever]

When will these "fiscally responsible" Democrats and Republican's get their act straight?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is beyond time that we require Congress to peg their budgets to the national economy.  If the GDP goes up 5%, their budget and salaries goes up 5%.  If the GDP falls 5%, their budget and salaries fall 5%.  There is no reason why they need an additional $257.6 Million this year.  If they want more money to spend, then they better get their act together and make sure the GDP keeps going up.  Otherwise, they need to feel the economic pinch just like everyone else.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5354108.shtml

[dead0man]

Govts tend to spend more money every year.  Which is one of the reasons they need to be reset from time to time.

The American people are to blame so it makes sense that we are the ones to suffer.

[John Dibble]

When will these "fiscally responsible" Democrats and Republican's get their act straight?

Most likely they'll be dead and our nation bankrupt before that happens. It's fortunate that by then we'll have a whole new batch of corrupt and incompetent politicians who will find new and interesting ways to push our problems onto the next generation.

[Lief 🗽]

Oh no, not more money to pay already underpaid staffers so that Congressmen have some idea of what they're voting on/are better equipped to communicate with their constituents!

CORRUPTION, MORAL DECAY, TAX AND SPEND LIBRULS

[Stampever]

Oh no, not more money to pay already underpaid staffers so that Congressmen have some idea of what they're voting on/are better equipped to communicate with their constituents!

CORRUPTION, MORAL DECAY, TAX AND SPEND LIBRULS

You must be logged in to read this quote.

$1 Million is more than enough for a Congressman to run their office.  They don't need more.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854799133476409.html

[k-onmmunist]

More money down the drain.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm curious, Stamp. Who did you vote for?

[Stampever]

I'm curious, Stamp. Who did you vote for?

Presidential?  Obambie (lesser of two losers)

[Ebowed]

Obambie

So you supported Clinton in the primaries I assume...?

[Stampever]

Obambie

So you supported Clinton in the primaries I assume...?

Nope.  She's nothing like her husband.  She would have been even worse than Obama.  The closest Bill Clinton-esque candidate was Richardson, and even he had his issues.

[Zarn]

We should literally flush money down the toilet. We might as well, at this point.

[Lief 🗽]

Oh no, not more money to pay already underpaid staffers so that Congressmen have some idea of what they're voting on/are better equipped to communicate with their constituents!

CORRUPTION, MORAL DECAY, TAX AND SPEND LIBRULS

You must be logged in to read this quote.

$1 Million is more than enough for a Congressman to run their office.  They don't need more.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854799133476409.html

Er... it's not, did you even read my post? The majority of that $1 million goes to paying staffers and advisers, and any cuts in congressional funding would mean cuts in the salaries and/or the number of staffers hired. This would result in two things:

1) A higher percentage of staffers would be Ivy-league trust fund babies, as they'd be the only ones who could afford to work at a staffer's salary and still pay off their student loans, rent an apartment in DC, etc. Compared to salaries of comparable private sector jobs, those of congressional staffers are pathetic.

2) Cutting congressional staff would also mean that lobbyists would have more influence, as they already fill in the gaps caused by under-staffing, when it comes to advising congressmen about policy and even writing legislation.

Now, I know that you, being a fake Democrat, love lobbyist and rich person influence in government, but I (and most Americans) do not. So get off your reflexively anti-government, populist high horse for a moment and think about the ramifications of the policies you support.

[Stampever]

Er... it's not, did you even read my post? The majority of that $1 million goes to paying staffers and advisers, and any cuts in congressional funding would mean cuts in the salaries and/or the number of staffers hired. This would result in two things:

1) A higher percentage of staffers would be Ivy-league trust fund babies, as they'd be the only ones who could afford to work at a staffer's salary and still pay off their student loans, rent an apartment in DC, etc. Compared to salaries of comparable private sector jobs, those of congressional staffers are pathetic.

2) Cutting congressional staff would also mean that lobbyists would have more influence, as they already fill in the gaps caused by under-staffing, when it comes to advising congressmen about policy and even writing legislation.

Now, I know that you, being a fake Democrat, love lobbyist and rich person influence in government, but I (and most Americans) do not. So get off your reflexively anti-government, populist high horse for a moment and think about the ramifications of the policies you support.

Talk about a stretch.  Many staffers are entry-level individuals, and therefore are not expecting high salaries to begin with.  They're looking to get their foot in the door.  If memory serves me correctly, we had one on this forum a few years back.  For those that are coming into DC from out of the area will either receive financial support from their families or rent a room or have roommates (like most young grads do).  That doesn't automatically make them "trust fund babies."  Of course, just by your own tone, I see where your personal opinion on wealth is.

There are a handful of professional staffers who do earn a higher salary, but not nearly enough to put a huge dent into the $1 Million figure (the article actually says $1.3-1.9 Million, but that includes their bonuses).  By not increasing the budget does not mean that there are going to be cuts.  Again, as the article discusses, a lot of the money is left over and given out as bonuses.  Also, that would not increase the influence of lobbyists.  It is moral character that allows a lobbyist to gain access to a politicians mindset.  In fact, it could easily be argued that if the staff was cut, then a politician wouldn't have time to meet with lobbyists as he/she would be busy doing more of the work themselves.  Nice try though.  I'll give you a cookie for your failed effort.

Maybe you're the one that didn't read what was posted.  But I didn't expect that you would in the first place.  You obviously are all about big government by your tone.  Just can't give the money away fast enough, can you?  Can I expect you to be the first person to volunteer 50% of your gross income for taxes?  Seriously, you need to get out of that leftist group-think bubble and look at reality with your own eyes, that is, once your eyes readjust to the light after years of having your head shoved up your own backside.  (See, I can do that stupid ad hominem crap just like you.) 

[Lief 🗽]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Most staffers are recent graduates, and NEWSFLASH: most graduates' first jobs are entry level positions. The point is, after one graduates, they can get their foot in the door somewhere where they're paid $30,000 a year (in an expensive city like DC, no less) or $50 or 60,000 a year, at some private employer. Now, you can definitely live in DC on only that, but it's nowhere near as comfortable as living on that higher salary, especially with the tens of thousands of dollars of debt most people graduate college with. It's important that incentives are there for our best and brightest to go into public service, regardless of their socio-economic background, and for that to happen, staffer salaries need to be raised or at the very least not cut. And unlike you I don't worship at the feet of the Rich, so I guess that makes me awful. Oh noes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Moral character has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's obvious that you don't really understand how Washington or the legislative process works, but generally lobbyists have taken a far greater role in advising congressmen (either through meetings or through memos or phone calls or emails or whatever) and drafting legislation, two things that paid staffers are normally tasked with. Congressmen have a lot on their plates, they obviously don't have time to be well-read in every single issue, and so they have increasingly turned to lobbyists to inform them on these issues. This isn't always bad, but often these lobbyists have ulterior motives besides simply educating congressmen, and that's why it's better to have government-paid staffers to offer impartial views.

This isn't some sort of conjecture, either. It's happened in state legislatures, where budgets for the legislators and the length of legislative sessions have been cut, staff salaries have dropped to pathetic, part-time amounts, and lobbyists have won more and more influence over the debate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And then you repeat your ignorance by continuing to look at everything through your BIG GOVERNMENT = BAD, NO GOVERNMENT = GOOD false dichotomy glasses. Unlike you, I understand that the important difference is between effective government for the people and ineffective government for the corporate interests, and expanded legislative salaries are one way we can ensure the former. And I'll gladly pay 50% tax rates if I'm ever privileged enough to make enough money to be in those kinds of tax brackets, because I understand that a strong, well-funded government would in large part be responsible for my success. A strong, well-funded government is the reason why I got a basic education and the reason why I can afford to go to college.

[MODU]

When will these "fiscally responsible" Democrats and Republican's get their act straight?

Most likely they'll be dead and our nation bankrupt before that happens. It's fortunate that by then we'll have a whole new batch of corrupt and incompetent politicians who will find new and interesting ways to push our problems onto the next generation.

The sad thing is, you're abosolutely correct. 

[MODU]

And I'll gladly pay 50% tax rates if I'm ever privileged enough to make enough money to be in those kinds of tax brackets, because I understand that a strong, well-funded government would in large part be responsible for my success.

I think he is implying that you would be paying 50% now, not in the future when you could actually afford it.

[Lief 🗽]

And I'll gladly pay 50% tax rates if I'm ever privileged enough to make enough money to be in those kinds of tax brackets, because I understand that a strong, well-funded government would in large part be responsible for my success.

I think he is implying that you would be paying 50% now, not in the future when you could actually afford it.

Why would that be the case? (and I don't even pay taxes now, considering I make a few hundred dollars a year at best) Is he so deluded to think a modern raise in the congressional budget would bankrupt the country and necessitate draconian tax rates?

[opebo]

People who complain about spending only prove their lack of understanding of our economic problem.

[MODU]

And I'll gladly pay 50% tax rates if I'm ever privileged enough to make enough money to be in those kinds of tax brackets, because I understand that a strong, well-funded government would in large part be responsible for my success.

I think he is implying that you would be paying 50% now, not in the future when you could actually afford it.

Why would that be the case? (and I don't even pay taxes now, considering I make a few hundred dollars a year at best) Is he so deluded to think a modern raise in the congressional budget would bankrupt the country and necessitate draconian tax rates?

I would have to say that uncontrolled Congressional spending, or at least unchallenged Congressional spending (that is, Congressional operating costs), will continue to feed upon itself and institutionalize itself to the point where it is expected every year at ever-increasing rates.  I could easily make the case for cost-of-living increases for the budget, but in this current example, that far exceeds C.O.L.  So, if it continues unchallenged, the difference needs to be made up somewhere, and with all of the various spending proposals already floating around Congress, tax hikes are the only way to make up the difference.  Therefore, like in any business, Congress needs to learn how to work with their limited resources and turn a "profit" each year (that means, budgetted funds go unused and put towards the national debt).  Big government most-likely won't be able to do that, especially if it outpaces GDP and the size porportion compared to the public as a whole.

[Zarn]

People who complain about spending only prove their lack of understanding of our economic problem.

Anyone who is okay with this kind of spending has a lack of understanding of history.

[dead0man]

People who complain about spending only prove their lack of understanding of our economic problem.

Everytime you post you prove your lack of understanding of economics.  Well not when your posting in support of child rapists.  Oddly (or not), Lief has your back there too.

[Sewer]

support of child rapists.  Oddly (or not), Lief has your back there too.

So dos PiT.

[Lief 🗽]

People who complain about spending only prove their lack of understanding of our economic problem.

Everytime you post you prove your lack of understanding of economics.  Well not when your posting in support of child rapists.  Oddly (or not), Lief has your back there too.

Feel free to educate me, Professor Economics & Moral Superiority.

[dead0man]

People who complain about spending only prove their lack of understanding of our economic problem.

Everytime you post you prove your lack of understanding of economics.  Well not when your posting in support of child rapists.  Oddly (or not), Lief has your back there too.

Feel free to educate me, Professor Economics & Moral Superiority.

You wouldn't be educated, you're not mentally old enough to handle learning something from someone you dislike.  Too many walls in place now.  Maybe in the future.

(and I don't claim to be an expert in economics, one doesn't have to be an expert in econmics to know opebo's brand of economics is retarded.)

[opebo]

People who complain about spending only prove their lack of understanding of our economic problem.

Everytime you post you prove your lack of understanding of economics.  Well not when your posting in support of child rapists.  Oddly (or not), Lief has your back there too.

Dude, spending is going to happen either way, whether we just let the current powerful class spend it all on golden toilet bowls and infinite generations of perpetual leisure, or we spend it on staffing a nice fat bureaucracy administering a universal dole and/or health care.  There's no 'economics' in any of that - just political choice.