Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:42 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,185,642 times
Reputation: 18824

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 84 Camaro View Post

I hope you don't vote because you seem to lack the ability to think!
I certainly had enough brainpower not to buy an 84' Camaro.

In any case, 170k a year is good money...obviously. But not for someone who has to maintain two households. Besides, why did you vote for your Congressman if you think he's overpaid for what he does?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:43 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,036,965 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84 Camaro View Post
"Rather go to bed supperless than rise in debt." Ben Franklin
Cute sayings from Old Ben, sold a lot of copy, but during the Constitutional Convention, Ben dispensed with the platitudes and nifty old sayings. Washington likewise didn't rise the issue of a balanced budget, primarily because at the time the United States was in debt to foreign investors to the tune of $11 million dollars. As for Jefferson and Patrick Henry, neither attended the Constitutional Convention.

By the way:

National Debt during the administrations of the Founders:

1800, $82.9 million
1810, $53.1 million
1820, $91.0 million
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:56 PM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,384,945 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Really? The Chinese have fairly high tariffs and they consume everything under the sun.
Because they hold most of the American debt and they're balance of trade far outperforms the US by a large means. They can afford it. They will gladly pay higher taxes on coal to produce more electricity which in turn produces more Christmas presents to the West. They merely pass on the cost and save it in labor. The Chinese consume energy and produce goods. The US consumes energy and mosty produces services. Big difference.

Screw tariffs. We need to eliminate all protective tariffs and stimulate the economy for foreign consumption of US goods, what little we still produce. That will produce American jobs which will in turn produce the taxation to support smaller government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 02:02 PM
 
Location: NJ
240 posts, read 443,160 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001 View Post
Well, I know I haven't read a more idiotic post than yours.

If you make the job of government representative any less desirable, no one will take the job. Forcing them to sleep on army cots and then subjecting them to the angry fools that are their constituents is not something I'd put into the job description, but feel free to run with your suggestion, see what kind of idiot takes the job.

They do have to maintain two households: one in DC, the other in their home state. Most would probably make more money in the private sector. $170K a year is not a lot for the responsibilities involved.

When you think about it, the role of a government representative is to take the responsibilities most of us want no part of. They accept all of the burden and get all of the blame. While I'll admit I think most politicians rank slightly above the level of car salesman, their job is necessary. Now if we could just get them to do it RIGHT.
Maybe we should do a poll here on which point of view is more popular with people?? Mine or yours?? I have absolutely no sympathy for modern day politicians. Since you think I'm an idiot, maybe you could explain the thinking to me of why some very wealthy people(millionaires) spend so much money and so much effort to obtain a "job" that ONLY pays $170,000??? Why do they want that "job" in Washington DC so much?? Could it be for the power, prestige, lifetime benefits package, speaking tours, free car, free gasoline, free auto maintenance etc?? It couldn't possibly be for all those reasons right?? They are just all altruistic Americans who simply want to "serve" their country!

People who think like you do is ONE REASON our country has the problems we do now. Politicians who strive so hard to get elected to a DC political office are usually just interested in enriching themselves with more power, and more money. They are driven by greed, not a servant's mentality. I hate to break it to you, but your argument is going to fall on a lot of deaf ears. People are tired of politicians voting themselves raises and doing business as usual in Washington.

I'm not a Dem or Republican but here is a quote that is appropriate...."We dont' have a trillion dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough, we have a trillion dollar debt because we spend too much!" Ronald Reagan

In summary, too many politicians for too long have gone to Washington and spent too much money(which includes their salaries and their bennies package) and then turned to the American taxpayer and said, "Hey we can't pay our bills, we need to raise taxes!" It has got to stop!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 02:03 PM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,384,945 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
I certainly had enough brainpower not to buy an 84' Camaro.

In any case, 170k a year is good money...obviously. But not for someone who has to maintain two households. Besides, why did you vote for your Congressman if you think he's overpaid for what he does?
Congress was never meant to be a professional occupation. This has corrupted the nation. The business of the government was supposed to take place annually between March up to about June of that same year. Then Congressmen were expected to go home to their regular jobs or return as needed by and for the people. Particularly when the government moved to DC as the weather was unbearable there from July through September/ October. There were no such people as "Professional Politicans". There was Royalty, they were the the "Professionals" and I don't need to explain why we got rid of them. It seems to me the wheel has come full circle and we are now facing the same situation. The US has royal politicians who mostly think they are entitled to their position in DC so they can rule the people as they see fit. Better watch out is all I can say....

Last edited by brien51; 11-22-2010 at 02:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 02:12 PM
 
Location: NJ
240 posts, read 443,160 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
I certainly had enough brainpower not to buy an 84' Camaro.

In any case, 170k a year is good money...obviously. But not for someone who has to maintain two households. Besides, why did you vote for your Congressman if you think he's overpaid for what he does?
Did you miss my post about the military barracks being good enough "housing" for politicians in DC thus eliminating the weak argument that they "need" to maintain two households??

Maybe you also missed the part of history where the founding fathers said that politicial office should NOT be a full time job too??

Regarding my Camaro, it's a classic one you have probably never seen and possibly could never afford. Limited production show car that only leaves the garage when its sunny outside!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 02:26 PM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,384,945 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84 Camaro View Post
Did you miss my post about the military barracks being good enough "housing" for politicians in DC thus eliminating the weak argument that they "need" to maintain two households??

Maybe you also missed the part of history where the founding fathers said that politicial office should NOT be a full time job too??

Regarding my Camaro, it's a classic one you have probably never seen and possibly could never afford. Limited production show car that only leaves the garage when its sunny outside!!
If these current politicians were all about "service" they should contribute their service for the good of their fellow man. They are a bunch of hypocrites and crooks, as we have seen time and again, lately with people like Chas Rangel.

btw, I have a 77 MGB and a 1951 Ford P/U F-3 that also only see sunny days. Smart people invest in solid investments that aren't subject to the whims of the Federal Reserve or an irresponsible Congress. Nice cars those Cameros.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 02:26 PM
 
Location: NJ
240 posts, read 443,160 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Cute sayings from Old Ben, sold a lot of copy, but during the Constitutional Convention, Ben dispensed with the platitudes and nifty old sayings. Washington likewise didn't rise the issue of a balanced budget, primarily because at the time the United States was in debt to foreign investors to the tune of $11 million dollars. As for Jefferson and Patrick Henry, neither attended the Constitutional Convention.

By the way:

National Debt during the administrations of the Founders:

1800, $82.9 million
1810, $53.1 million
1820, $91.0 million
What you label "cute sayings" I consider words to live by. I believe the founding fathers took those "cute sayings" seriously as well.

I noticed you stopped your time line at 1820? Why didn't you continue into the 1830's when the national debt fell below $20 million due the efforts of Andrew Jackson CUTTING TAXES AND CUTTING FED GOV'T SPENDING??

The debt you quote was a result from financing the Revolutionary War. If you are going to masquerade as a historian and an intellectual, then you need to look at the entire picture, not a small section of it which you point to as evidence of what you are saying. Have you ever heard the phrase, "A little knowledge can be dangerous thing?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 02:31 PM
 
Location: On a Long Island in NY
7,800 posts, read 10,104,013 times
Reputation: 7366
Id like to abolish the entire Federal Government with the exception of the State Department, the military, the Department of Justice/federal judicial system (ie: federal courts), federal law enforcement agencies, Commerce, Transportation, Interior, and the President and Vice President and their staffs.

Additionally, I would make Social Security voluntary and allow people to opt out and get their money back. I would also raise the retirement age to 70 effective immediately regardless of one's year of birth.

I would reform the process of giving aid to US territories and possessions based on what that particular territory has to offer for the United States as a nation. The days of the federal government forking over $13 billion/year for the Puerto Ricans, Guamanians, Virgin Islanders, American Samoans, Mariana Islanders, etc only to turn around and act like spoiled, ungrateful, little kindergarten students are over. Such changes could include conscription solely for US territories, military bases, federal government control of all revenue generated in a territory, a return to president appointed governors, and elimination of internal self government. In other words, the benefit of the United States and the American people as a whole comes before the residents of the territory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 02:33 PM
 
783 posts, read 814,833 times
Reputation: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Increase the size of government to employ the jobless. Pay for it by adding countervailing tariffs, increased taxes on off shored businesses and raising upper level taxes by 50+%.

Aside from this I would like to see Federal spending be evenly allocated so each state received as much as it contributed.
Well said i agree with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top