A modest proposal.

Author: Greyparrot
3 letter agency

Posts

Total: 27
Topic's author
#1
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The current salary for a US congressman is around $175,000 dollars. Each Representative represents close to a million people. The average salary of a CEO at a fortune 500 company is 16.7 million dollars.

I propose to raise the salary of Congress to 20 million dollars a year with the provision that they must have term limits.  The President will have a salary of 50 million. I base this off of the 400 million dollars Barack Obama accumulated from kickbacks during his 8 years as president.

Here are the reasons:
1) It would be a very small part of the national budget. 10 Billion dollars a year for the salary of Congress is definitely doable.
2) It would make it much harder for a lobbyist to purchase a politician.
3) It would attract much more competition and a higher quality of candidates for the job.

What do you guys think?
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Bribe them before someone else does. Nice plan.
#3
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
I think it’s stupid. Do you understand what public service is? Should a general in the military also be paid 50 million?

You libertarians are something else. You complain about government spending then you come up with an idea to shower them with taxpayer money.

base this off of the 400 million dollars Barack Obama accumulated from kickbacks during his 8 years as president.
You’re also a liar.

#4
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I mean, I doubt it would help and might make it worse. I understand that you need to pay leaders well because if you don't, they will find other ways to earn a living. But there is a limit. 175,000 is already among the top few percent of earnings. Changing it from having them at (i'm making this part up since I don't know) in the top 10% of earners to the top 2% of earners doesn't really change much. They are already well paid. 

Additionally, it would make the job even more valuable to people who don't have their constituents best interests at heart. Getting elected is an instant payday. What wouldn't you say or do to get that kind of money? It would attract candidates that are solely interested in the money. That isn't supposed to the be the point. And I would argue if you start attracting candidates that are solely interested in money, that might make them even more likely to sell out to corporations, because money is the only reason they are there.
#5
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Now we know why GP is hesitant to come out in support of anything. He’s not very bright.

That would explain why he enlisted in the Navy after high school
Topic's author
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
175,000 is already among the top few percent of earnings.

Not of top level CEO's.
Topic's author
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Getting elected is an instant payday. What wouldn't you say or do to get that kind of money? It would attract candidates that are solely interested in the money.

But this is already happening. The vast majority of people in Congress are subsidized by lobbyists, and they are solely interested in their money
#8
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Not of top level CEO's.
and? a member of congress makes more than like 90% of the population. That means that the salary is already attractive to the overwhelming majority of the population. So money is not really a factor in attracting candidates. 

and why would you want to attract CEO's? Their experience is dedicated toward extracting the maximum amount of money out of people as possible. That isn't really the kind of skills you want/need in someone whose primary job is helping people. 

But this is already happening. The vast majority of people in Congress are subsidized by lobbyists, and they are solely interested in their money
I don't see how your plan addresses that. They would make lots of money from their job directly, they could make lots more by selling out. You just also have the added bonus of almost exclusively attracting candidates whose primary, or potentially only, motive is personal profit. 
Topic's author
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Bribe them before someone else does. Nice plan.
Thank you sir.
#10
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,612
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

What a great way to get the top tax rate down to 5 percent.
#11
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,515
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I've always said that if you want to improve yourself you've got to see what the succesful people do.

So, you want to improve or correct the corrupted and mediocre system of the US, right? Who is doing better in this matter in the world? This may be Switzerland, in my humble opinion. This country has a different political system called direct democracy. I suggest you check that out. 
#12
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
You know people sure do like batching that politicians don't make enough and then also bitch that they haven't read a bill. With a higher budget they can have a larger staff and at least have their staff read a bill more thoroughly so they can make a better educated decision. Plus 175k is shit whe. You know they have to have 2 mortgages. One in DC and one in their home state. They have to travel back and forth a lot and need houses good enough to be in safe locations. They should at least make 500k a year bare minimum. We also don't want politics being a rich man's game. Many people can't afford to quit their job for that shit salary, but by raising it to 500k it makes it easier for the average person to afford to be able to take the job, considering g the higher cost of living having that job entails 
#13
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
There is no quicker way to destroy the bill of rights than by having a direct democracy 
Topic's author
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ponikshiy
Plus, direct democracy can only work in a very homogeneous state, otherwise it's an instant recipe for civil war and balkanization.
Topic's author
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ponikshiy
You know people sure do like batching that politicians don't make enough and then also bitch that they haven't read a bill. With a higher budget they can have a larger staff and at least have their staff read a bill more thoroughly so they can make a better educated decision. Plus 175k is shit whe. You know they have to have 2 mortgages. One in DC and one in their home state. They have to travel back and forth a lot and need houses good enough to be in safe locations. They should at least make 500k a year bare minimum. We also don't want politics being a rich man's game. Many people can't afford to quit their job for that shit salary, but by raising it to 500k it makes it easier for the average person to afford to be able to take the job, considering g the higher cost of living having that job entails 

Exactly. We are literally forcing our elected officials to take bribes just to survive. Congress should be people in the upper 1 percent, not the upper 10 percent. It's not a job that 10 percent of Americans have any hope at performing competently.
Topic's author
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
@ponikshiy
This is an interesting read, even though it is published by a far left wacko communist propaganda outlet (Vox)
#17
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,035
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
i wouldn't call that a modest proposal 
Topic's author
#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
What do you think of the Vox article?
#19
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Exactly. We are literally forcing our elected officials to take bribes just to survive. 
That’s ridiculous. Median household income in this country is 65k.

These guys make 174k plus stipends plus whatever they manage to take from their political donations by paying their families to “work” on their campaign.

#20
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Each Representative represents close to a million people.
  • 339,996,563 divided by 535 = 635,508.  Less than 2/3rds of 1 million, averaged.
I propose to raise the salary of Congress to 20 million dollars a year with the provision that they must have term limits. 

  • So your plan to convince legislators to pass legislation you like is to bribe them with cash?  
    • Obviously, your plan is quite corrupt.
The President will have a salary of 50 million.

  • Ridiculous
I base this off of the 400 million dollars Barack Obama accumulated from kickbacks during his 8 years as president.

  • You typo'd or did that Trump thing where he always boasts by 10x the truth. 
    • According to Forbes, the Obamas were worth $40m in 2018, $70m today and are expected to earn roughly $240m post-presidency .
It would be a very small part of the national budget.

  • Enough to build a wall between the US and Mexico as Trump correctly estimated and promised to do. 
    • Unfortunately, the Republicans were so goddamned corrupt they spent $15 billion and only built three miles of wall.
It would make it much harder for a lobbyist to purchase a politician.

  • Why would you think that?  Trump taught us that the greed of some men (Trump, Putin)  is quite unsatisfiable.
It would attract much more competition and a higher quality of candidates for the job.

  • The current salary of $174,000/year is already more than what 95% of Americans make. 4 of that lat 5% inherited thier wealth and couldn't make a democratic decision to save their trust funds. 
    • 100% of Americans who both work for a living and have a certain basic moral level already make less than $174,000/yr so that salary should be sufficiently attracitve to any candidate worth a damn.

The fastest way to reduce corruption in Federal poltics is to take all the weird farmer shit out of the process.

  • Elections should be held when the weather is fair, not when the crop is harvested.
    • All primary and local elections should be held on the Tuesday after Memorial Day.
    • All General and State electins should be held on the Tuesday after Labor Day.
      • Mail-in ballots starting 30 days before the election are mandatory and universal
      • Candidates can only campaign for 30 days before the election.
      • The relevant govt pays a flat sum to all qualified candidates. 
        • The government mandates multiple and pays for multiple forums and debates.
        • Candidates return any leftover sums to the state.
          • The state announces how much money each candidate spent on the day before the election.
          • Paying  any campaign expense with personal or private money is a felony meriting one year in jail.
    • All elections are majority wins.  No foolish farmer era caucus shit
    • All primaries happen on the same day, no corrupt "white states first" rules.  No Iowa State Fair madness.
    • Senators no longer represent states.  We are a nation of democratic people not a nation of congruent land-holdings. 
      • Senators represent the 100 most populous cities in the US. 2 term limit
      • US Reps still represent States and regions with district lines drawn by AI exclusive of political consideration. 4 term limit.
    • No candidate may be younger than 30 or older than 70
    • Only ex-Governors can run for President  or VP and are elected by the House of Representatives.  The House can vote Presidents in and out of office by majority vote.  Presdients can be returned to office as often as Congress sees fit until they are 70.
    • No conventions, no long campaigns with roller coaster primaries.








#21
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
This is the kind of ideas you get from Libertarians like GP
Topic's author
#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
  • 339,996,563 divided by 535 = 635,508.  Less than 2/3rds of 1 million, averaged.
Your math is way off. For House it's 340M/438...

and for Senators it is 340/100 so 3.4 million constituents on average for each senator,

To calculate the weighted average constituents for a random member of the U.S. Congress (combining both the House of Representatives and the Senate), you need to consider the number of representatives in the House and senators in the Senate.
As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, there are 435 members in the House of Representatives and 100 members in the Senate.
Let's calculate the weighted average constituents:
  1. For the House of Representatives:
    • Each representative represents, on average, 340 million / 435 = 781,609 constituents.
  2. For the Senate:
    • Each senator represents, on average, 340 million / 100 = 3,400,000 constituents.
Now, you'll calculate the weighted average constituents by taking into account the number of representatives in the House and senators in the Senate:
Weighted Average = (Number of Representatives * Average Constituents per Representative + Number of Senators * Average Constituents per Senator) / Total Members
Weighted Average = (435 * 781,609 + 100 * 3,400,000) / (435 + 100)
Weighted Average = (340,007,415 + 340,000,000) / 535
Weighted Average ≈ 680,007,415 / 535
Weighted Average ≈ 1,268,646.98 (rounded to the nearest whole number)
So, the weighted average constituents for a random member of the U.S. Congress is approximately:

1,268,647 constituents.

Math-1
Oro-0

Also, Oro had no comment on the Vox article, so he most likely agrees with the far left wacko outlet's view.
#23
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
The current salary for a US congressman is around $175,000 dollars. Each Representative represents close to a million people. The average salary of a CEO at a fortune 500 company is 16.7 million dollars.

I propose to raise the salary of Congress to 20 million dollars a year with the provision that they must have term limits.  The President will have a salary of 50 million. I base this off of the 400 million dollars Barack Obama accumulated from kickbacks during his 8 years as president.

Here are the reasons:
1) It would be a very small part of the national budget. 10 Billion dollars a year for the salary of Congress is definitely doable.
2) It would make it much harder for a lobbyist to purchase a politician.
3) It would attract much more competition and a higher quality of candidates for the job.

What do you guys think?
First let me commend you for not proposing anything "swyft" like eating poor Irish babies, or "indecent" like paying me to pimp out my high school sweetheart, turned wife.

Second, my response is perhaps best exemplified through this question: why would one pay the incompetent more?
#24
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Athias
why would one pay the incompetent more?
GP has it backwards.

We are supposed to punish incompetence.

Lets hope that a pay raise actually turns a corrupt politician into an angel, because thats how it definitely will turn out.

Topic's author
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
Lol, nobody with the average IQ of this site was supposed to get the inside joke :)
Topic's author
#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
why would one pay the incompetent more?
#27
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, nobody with the average IQ of this site was supposed to get the inside joke :)
Yeah, it was easy to recognize. Whenever I see "a modest proposal" in a statement regardless of context, I immediately think of satire, and Jonathan Swift (Swyft.) It's one of my favorite essays. The reference to the film "Indecent Proposal" hopefully didn't go over the heads of some.

Classic.