Rangel guilty....DUH!

[kirbinster]

Not only is what you say about POTUS true, but it is much worse than that. Rather than surround himself with proven business people that know how to run things as advicers he has chosen university types where everything is theoretical.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Not only is what you say about POTUS true, but it is much worse than that. Rather than surround himself with proven business people that know how to run things as advicers he has chosen university types where everything is theoretical.

You and I disagree on some things...

On this we are 100% in agreement.

I full realize the potential for less than honorable behavior when a business leader gets a presidential cabinet position... just look at Dick Cheney. He did a lot of good... but he did some questionable things also.

My concern is that a young person is usually idealistic. When they have experienced life... they understand what works and what does not. I really do NOT want someone that does not possess that experience (and LOTS OF IT) making the rules I have to live under.

Do we agree on this? Just curious?

[kirbinster]

Agree 100%

[mrs reb77]

Interesting thought Ms Reb...

My reasoning for the compensation (lac of it) is that folks should already have 'made their $$$' before they go into 'public SERVICE'... the emphasis on "serving" the public... as in not there for my gain and not there for a career.

IMO only the folks that have already made their money; and are doing it for the betterment of the country (read that to make it a better place for the grandkids) should be making the rules...
IMO the end result would be folks that have the wisdom of many years of experience... not a bunch of kids with bright ideas that have not been tested yet. (In this regard, I would classify our current POTUS as a kid... because he is testing his bright ideas OJT).

IMO there is nothing like experience... and I really do NOT want a kid making the rules... ONLY an adult that has 'been there' long enough to understand what does and does not work... and more important; WHY!

OK, rant off...

There are many successful people that cannot live on their past 'success' to the tune of $1 a year--nor should they have to if it is indeed a full time job. If they are willing to forgo lucrative private sector salaries for more modest public service positions then the public service position should pay at least enough to subsist. I would however suggest a barracks style of living for our congressmen. You're there for a job just like our service members. Live in a dormitory, do your job and make us proud. After all, it's good enough for those protecting your way of life.

[ga-hvac-tech]

There are many successful people that cannot live on their past 'success' to the tune of $1 a year--nor should they have to if it is indeed a full time job. If they are willing to forgo lucrative private sector salaries for more modest public service positions then the public service position should pay at least enough to subsist. I would however suggest a barracks style of living for our congressmen. You're there for a job just like our service members. Live in a dormitory, do your job and make us proud. After all, it's good enough for those protecting your way of life.

I guess we will need to agree to disagree here Ms Reb... If someone is not successful enough to be financially independent... IMO they do not have enough life experience to run a country as big as the USA.

I have many many customers down here in GA that could qualify by my standards... yet are as wise and humble as anyone you will ever meet.

One of those customers I am thinking of: Teaches at a graduate school of business, is the retired CEO of a publicly traded fortune 500 co, and in his late 50's took off and hiked the Appalacian Trail. Financial wizard also...
Every time I go over there to do service, I plan some time to just listen to Him explain things. Time WELL spent.

This is the kind of person I want running the country... someone that has literally NO interest in anything other than what is in the best interest of the country. And since they are not in it for the $$ (no salary), they cannot be corrupted with $$$.

Remember: Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts... And IMO there are very few that are even close to not being for sale to the highest bidder.

To each their own.

[mrs reb77]

We will have to agree to disagree then. You would be eliminating a huge amount of the population just because they would be WORKING for a living. Gaining a salary for doing the work isn't a dirty thing. As long as they are actually WORKING for the salary. And, as long as that salary is commensurate with the job.

A small amount of devil's advocate:
So, you would only have people that are 'experienced' to the point of not having to have a salary yearly to live on...saying that only RICH people would be eligible to run for office?

Having the drive and fire to serve the people is a different thing than being independently wealthy enough to be able to do it without remuneration. I'm speaking as someone that is currently serving the local citizenry in an elected position but wouldn't be able to do so if I had to abandon my private sector position.

[mrs reb77]

Oh, and I might add---congress is supposed to be a team sport. No one individual 'runs' it nor should they. It's supposed to be representative of the people. And, as representatives of the people I would expect their full time focus upon the job. And, as with any job, expect to pay them for their labors. A fair wage for a fair job.

Maybe there needs to be a 'minimum wage' law for congress. =)

[jim147]

After a story like this the government still wonders way we get upset with the IRS nickle and dimeing us to death?

He might get censured or maybe with enough pressure he'll retire. But I just saw a news story tonight that said we should look at all the the years of service he has not the crimes he has committed. WTF?

The taxman has never looked or cared about the service I have done. I have won five of the last six rounds of guilty until proven innocent with the taxman. (It's funny how you have to prove you don't owe the money. They don't have to prove you do) But it's not their money fighting. It's my money vs. my money and your money. What do they have to lose?

I'm for term limits and flat tax.

jim

[jmac00]

I got 5 bucks that says he gets a slap on the wrist, and a "don't do that again" lecture

After all, this is the "old boys" club, and Rangle is one of the senior members

[ga-hvac-tech]

We will have to agree to disagree then. You would be eliminating a huge amount of the population just because they would be WORKING for a living. Gaining a salary for doing the work isn't a dirty thing. As long as they are actually WORKING for the salary. And, as long as that salary is commensurate with the job.

A small amount of devil's advocate:
So, you would only have people that are 'experienced' to the point of not having to have a salary yearly to live on...saying that only RICH people would be eligible to run for office?

Having the drive and fire to serve the people is a different thing than being independently wealthy enough to be able to do it without remuneration. I'm speaking as someone that is currently serving the local citizenry in an elected position but wouldn't be able to do so if I had to abandon my private sector position.

Yes, better to agree to disagree.

My point has nothing to do with income... rather wealth. The difference in one's attitude towards $$$. A truly wealthy person is not always a rich person... they understand that money in itself is not the goal. Something I might add our country in general seems to not understand.

Again: If someone has 'made their $$$' and has literally NO interest in income... they are less likely to be tempted to vote for special interests rather than the good of the whole country. In simple terms, they and their vote in congress are not for sale. How many folks do you know that truly fit this level of professionalism?

I am not sure there is anyone that is above being tempted... I just think it better if the temptation is lessened by someone that does not have a weakness to be tempted from... In this discussion it would be someone that has decided they have all they need... and as such are doing the job TOTALLY as a service to others.

And just for the record; I have lots of customers that would not be called 'rich'... yet they have more than they need. I think the difference is coming to understand that there is a point where enough $$$ is enough... and more is not better. VS the idea that more is always better... I would hope the folks I elect understand this principle.

However; we have agreed to disagree... so this will be my last post on the subject. THX for the debate.

[ga-hvac-tech]

I got 5 bucks that says he gets a slap on the wrist, and a "don't do that again" lecture

After all, this is the "old boys" club, and Rangle is one of the senior members

You may be right.

Goes along with congress (that is the individuals we elect) being for sale... if they were not for sale, they would not be tempted to do these things.

As noted above: Congress has to be under all the same rules we are... We have created a bunch of prima-donna's (SP), how do we teach them they are PUBLIC SERVANTS?

[bootlen]

Lessee;

TERM LIMITS (max 2 terms, NO exceptions)

MUST have primary residence in the district one represents for 10 years before running for office

TOTAL compensation for serving will be $1/year with no benefits package

NO special benefits (congresscritters have to be involved in Obamacare and SS)

NO exemption from any laws citizens are required to follow

NO special retirement package and NO special healthcare package

NO exemption from TSA scanning/searches and MUST ride public transportation (NO private govt transportation other than AF one).

NO employment in Wash DC after retiring from congress (not eligible to become a lobbyist)

And IMO: anyone running for office has to show proof they have run a business successfully. Reason is that only folks that understand keeping the checkbook in the black are allowed to make the rules.

Totally agree but I also like Mrs. Reb's idea to pay according to attendance and performance.

[ga-hvac-tech]

Totally agree but I also like Mrs. Reb's idea to pay according to attendance and performance.

I would counter that if the person running for office is not professional enough to know his/her responsibilities... why would you vote for him/her? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out who does their job and who does not.

The point of folks SERVING the public as representatives is they do what is right BECAUSE it is right... not because someone is looking over their shoulder. It is called integrity.... something I think few folks understand anymore... sad!

I want a system where there is literally NO gain for serving (no money, no power, no fame, no nothing). That way, only folks that want the best for the country will run.