|
Post by onelasttime on Feb 9, 2022 1:29:52 GMT
After seeing where the Queen gets her money from I started to think about our elected officials and how they get their money. No surprise they get it from the taxes we pay. On the local level, on the state level and on the Federal Level. Living in CA I’m ok with what the elected officials are doing in the State. And my state tax dollars are staying in the state and not paying for some freeloader in another state like my Federal tax dollars are. Because on the Federal level we have one political party that is actually working and one that is not. Which means my tax dollars are being used to pay the salary and expenses of a group of individuals that are doing nothing. I asked my friend google what was the roll of Congress. The very first sentence “through legislation debate and compromise, the U.S. Congress makes laws that influence our lives”. Other then the infrastructure bill that only 15 Republican Senators voted for and the Pandemic stimulus bills, what other then dumpster don’s tax cuts, have the Republicans offered in major laws to influence our lives in a beneficial way in the last couple of decades? The trump tax cuts didn’t.. Well they did for businesses and the rich. I don’t agree with everything the Democrats purpose, but they are doing something. A lot of somethings. They’ve got plans it seems for just about everything. Plans they feel will make lives easier for Americans and plans to make this a better country. And the Republicans have? Anything? The Republicans have been very clear what their agenda will be if they take back the majority in the House and Senate. It will be all about revenge and nothing about doing the work the work that should be done in Congress. Once again I asked my friend google a question. This time how much are the taxpayers paying these freeloaders. linkThe average amount we pay a member of Congress would be annual salary and what is called MRA (Members Representative Allowance)the average amount for MRA is $1,382,329. Each individual receives just shy of $1M for personal use on top of their annual salary of $174,000. The rest is for office expenses and official mailings. There are currently 214 Republicans in the House and 50 Republicans in the Senate for a total of 264 Republicans. Do the math. 264 x $1,382,329 = $ 410,870,856. In other words the American taxpayer is paying 264 individuals who do nothing a total of $410,870,856 a year. Talk about a waste of money. I know we can’t do it, but man talk about wasted money that could be put to better use. The numbers come from the linked article above and are the most current I could find. Boy I wish I could get over a million dollars a year for doing nothing, wouldn’t that be nice? No it wouldn’t because I would feel guilty doing it.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,761
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Feb 9, 2022 1:41:26 GMT
A lot of that MRA is spent on offices in their districts - rent and utilities, along with staff salaries. District staffers do a ton of work - they answer phone calls from angry constituents (and often, phone calls from people outside of the district), represent their boss at community events, work with elected officials and their staff from the local area, and constituent casework. Casework is a beast, and it takes a special kind of person to do that casework really well. The constituent caseworkers often cut through red tape and help people solve issues they are having with federal agencies.
Staffers for elected officials often work overtime, each and every week, and in many cases, can't even take off the vacation time they have earned. The vast majority of district staffers earn their salary, and honestly, probably deserve even more money. Oh, and district staffers don't tend to work on political issues, they work for the people in their district.
So not a waste of taxpayer money, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 9, 2022 1:44:28 GMT
NH is one of the best represented states at the state level. We have 1 State Representative for every 3,000 people. They're also the lowest paid, only $100 per year plus mileage. That becomes problematic because they're mostly older, retired or independently wealthy and white. Our state lacks diversity to begin with but the lack of salary only exacerbates that. Nonwhite representation is only 2%. In 2015, the average age of representatives was 66. In 2018, it dropped a little to 61. www.politico.com/interactives/2021/state-legislature-demographics/I guess I'm trying to say be careful what you wish for.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,761
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Feb 9, 2022 1:51:43 GMT
NH is one of the best represented states at the state level. We have 1 State Representative for every 3,000 people. They're also the lowest paid, only $100 per year plus mileage. That becomes problematic because they're mostly older, retired and white. Our state lacks diversity to begin with but the lack of salary only exacerbates that. Nonwhite representation is only 2%. In 2015, the average age of representatives was 66. In 2018, it dropped a little to 61. www.politico.com/interactives/2021/state-legislature-demographics/I guess I'm trying to say be careful what you wish for. Yes!! Florida has a "part-time" Legislature, so people think members are overpaid at around $30/k a year. This ignores the fact that in addition to 60 straight days of regular session in a given year, there are about 8 or 9 committee weeks in the months leading up to session, plus work that needs to be done in the district. Plus, for many members, Tallahassee is 6+ hours away from their home, making travel take at least half a day each way. Then of course, you have to factor in the time campaigning and raising money for your own seat, not to mention the time you have to spend raising money and campaigning for others in your party. It is super difficult for most "regular" people to work a normal job and then spend all of that time being an effective state legislator.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Feb 9, 2022 1:59:00 GMT
NH is one of the best represented states at the state level. We have 1 State Representative for every 3,000 people. They're also the lowest paid, only $100 per year plus mileage. That becomes problematic because they're mostly older, retired and white. Our state lacks diversity to begin with but the lack of salary only exacerbates that. Nonwhite representation is only 2%. In 2015, the average age of representatives was 66. In 2018, it dropped a little to 61. www.politico.com/interactives/2021/state-legislature-demographics/I guess I'm trying to say be careful what you wish for. Yep, states like that you’ll mostly attract the independently wealthy, who can afford to work for a pittance, and not necessarily someone who will be far more representative.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Feb 9, 2022 2:05:34 GMT
A lot of that MRA is spent on offices in their districts - rent and utilities, along with staff salaries. District staffers do a ton of work - they answer phone calls from angry constituents (and often, phone calls from people outside of the district), represent their boss at community events, work with elected officials and their staff from the local area, and constituent casework. Casework is a beast, and it takes a special kind of person to do that casework really well. The constituent caseworkers often cut through red tape and help people solve issues they are having with federal agencies. Staffers for elected officials often work overtime, each and every week, and in many cases, can't even take off the vacation time they have earned. The vast majority of district staffers earn their salary, and honestly, probably deserve even more money. Oh, and district staffers don't tend to work on political issues, they work for the people in their district. So not a waste of taxpayer money, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on. I understand that. But what I want is a working Congress and currently one party has checked out and has no interest in governing which means we have a dysfunctional Congress. And out of that MRA of the estimated $1.3 million each member of Congress receives, the first million goes to that member of Congress for personal expenses with a separate, lot smaller amount for staff and offices. Which would mean a small amount of the estimated total of $174,000 for the Congressperson’s annual salary and $1,382,329 for the annual MRA each member receives goes toward offices and the staff. Which means an awful lot of money is being wasted by that member of Congress. That is not a good return on our tax dollars. And I don’t think its justification enough to keep giving these individuals that much money only to keep some people working. No matter how hard they work. Especially when that money is coming from tax payers.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,761
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Feb 9, 2022 2:15:43 GMT
A lot of that MRA is spent on offices in their districts - rent and utilities, along with staff salaries. District staffers do a ton of work - they answer phone calls from angry constituents (and often, phone calls from people outside of the district), represent their boss at community events, work with elected officials and their staff from the local area, and constituent casework. Casework is a beast, and it takes a special kind of person to do that casework really well. The constituent caseworkers often cut through red tape and help people solve issues they are having with federal agencies. Staffers for elected officials often work overtime, each and every week, and in many cases, can't even take off the vacation time they have earned. The vast majority of district staffers earn their salary, and honestly, probably deserve even more money. Oh, and district staffers don't tend to work on political issues, they work for the people in their district. So not a waste of taxpayer money, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on. I understand that. But what I want is a working Congress and currently one party has checked out and has no interest in governing which means we have a dysfunctional Congress. And out of that MRA of the estimated $1.3 million each member of Congress receives, the first million goes to that member of Congress for personal expenses with a separate, lot smaller amount for staff and offices. Which would mean a small amount of the estimated total of $174,000 for the Congressperson’s annual salary and $1,382,329 for the annual MRA each member receives goes toward offices and the staff. Which means an awful lot of money is being wasted by that member of Congress. That is not a good return on our tax dollars. And I don’t think its justification enough to keep giving these individuals that much money only to keep some people working. No matter how hard they work. Especially when that money is coming from tax payers. I think you need to read more about what the MRA is all about. It's not the slush fund you seem to think it is. ethics.house.gov/official-allowances/members-representational-allowance
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Feb 9, 2022 2:31:39 GMT
I understand that. But what I want is a working Congress and currently one party has checked out and has no interest in governing which means we have a dysfunctional Congress. And out of that MRA of the estimated $1.3 million each member of Congress receives, the first million goes to that member of Congress for personal expenses with a separate, lot smaller amount for staff and offices. Which would mean a small amount of the estimated total of $174,000 for the Congressperson’s annual salary and $1,382,329 for the annual MRA each member receives goes toward offices and the staff. Which means an awful lot of money is being wasted by that member of Congress. That is not a good return on our tax dollars. And I don’t think its justification enough to keep giving these individuals that much money only to keep some people working. No matter how hard they work. Especially when that money is coming from tax payers. I think you need to read more about what the MRA is all about. It's not the slush fund you seem to think it is. ethics.house.gov/official-allowances/members-representational-allowanceFrom the article I posted I understood what the money is used for. And I never said or implied it was a slush fund. But again the total amount of money each member of Congress receives for their salary and expenses is way too much for individuals that aren’t doing anything. Now maybe you think the Republicans in Congress are actually interested in governing and should be paid that amount, but I don’t so we will disagree on that.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 9, 2022 2:46:56 GMT
I'm really unhappy with what the Republicans are doing. And I think their health care benefits are out of control compared to what ordinary Americans have. But, I don't think defunding them is the answer. And I don't think their salaries should be tied to what they accomplish or even worse, based on some kind of commission.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,761
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Feb 9, 2022 2:52:03 GMT
From the article I posted I understood what the money is used for. And I never said or implied it was a slush fund. But again the total amount of money each member of Congress receives for their salary and expenses is way too much for individuals that aren’t doing anything. Now maybe you think the Republicans in Congress are actually interested in governing and should be paid that amount, but I don’t so we will disagree on that. You were complaining about the approximate $1.3 million spent by each member on Congressional offices, staff, and official business. Members of Congress do more then just (attempt to) pass legislation. The work done in districts is incredibly invaluable. We can't just pick and choose how our tax dollars are spent. I don't think you'd like it if conservatives said, well, I don't like how the government spends money on social programs, so I just won't pay my taxes for them. If you are that unhappy, support (with money and time, not just words on the internet) candidates you agree with on ALL levels of government.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 9, 2022 3:00:31 GMT
All good points.. How about requiring 'X' number of PUBLIC townhalls?
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Feb 9, 2022 3:21:06 GMT
From the article I posted I understood what the money is used for. And I never said or implied it was a slush fund. But again the total amount of money each member of Congress receives for their salary and expenses is way too much for individuals that aren’t doing anything. Now maybe you think the Republicans in Congress are actually interested in governing and should be paid that amount, but I don’t so we will disagree on that. You were complaining about the approximate $1.3 million spent by each member on Congressional offices, staff, and official business. Members of Congress do more then just (attempt to) pass legislation. The work done in districts is incredibly invaluable. We can't just pick and choose how our tax dollars are spent. I don't think you'd like it if conservatives said, well, I don't like how the government spends money on social programs, so I just won't pay my taxes for them. If you are that unhappy, support (with money and time, not just words on the internet) candidates you agree with on ALL levels of government. I guess I have not made myself clear enough so you understand what my point is. And I don’t know what I can say so we are on the same page at this point. But I can tell you that I’m happy with the elected officials I have voted for here in CA. I guess because they are Democrats who are doing the job I elected them to do.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 9, 2022 5:08:02 GMT
Maybe this will make you feel better. These 2 were fined $80,000, money taken directly from their paycheck. www.nytimes.com/2021/12/29/us/politics/mask-mandate-fines-greene-clyde.htmlI'm glad you support your elected officials, but not all of us are that lucky to have good ones. And it's not as simple as just voting them out. In red states, the Republicans have rigged the system. I hate what the Republicans are doing, but docking their pay isn't the answer.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,761
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Feb 9, 2022 5:34:51 GMT
You were complaining about the approximate $1.3 million spent by each member on Congressional offices, staff, and official business. Members of Congress do more then just (attempt to) pass legislation. The work done in districts is incredibly invaluable. We can't just pick and choose how our tax dollars are spent. I don't think you'd like it if conservatives said, well, I don't like how the government spends money on social programs, so I just won't pay my taxes for them. If you are that unhappy, support (with money and time, not just words on the internet) candidates you agree with on ALL levels of government. I guess I have not made myself clear enough so you understand what my point is. And I don’t know what I can say so we are on the same page at this point. But I can tell you that I’m happy with the elected officials I have voted for here in CA. I guess because they are Democrats who are doing the job I elected them to do. Did you ever consider that people in red states who voted for Republicans are happy with their elected officials because they are doing the job they elected them to do? (i.e., stopping the Democrats from enacting policies they feel are far too progressive/present an overreach of federal power) Government, especially legislative government, is just as much about killing legislation as it is about passing legislation.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Feb 9, 2022 5:41:26 GMT
Maybe this will make you feel better. These 2 were fined $80,000, money taken directly from their paycheck. www.nytimes.com/2021/12/29/us/politics/mask-mandate-fines-greene-clyde.htmlI'm glad you support your elected officials, but not all of us are that lucky to have good ones. And it's not as simple as just voting them out. In red states, the Republicans have rigged the system. I hate what the Republicans are doing, but docking their pay isn't the answer. It will just ensure we get worse representation. And where I am, it could easily get a whole lot worse.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Feb 9, 2022 6:44:40 GMT
The idea we can stop paying the GOP in Congress is wishful thinking. Having said that when you hire someone to do a job you expect them to do it before you pay them. Right? What we have are Republicans in Congress who have no platform, vote against most if not all bills and if by some miracle one is passed like the infrastructure bill they go back to their state or district and brag about the benefits to their constituents the bill will bring all the while pretending like they didn’t vote against it. What that shows is they are more focused in trying to torpedo the Biden or Obama Administration instead working on and passing legislation that benefits their constituents. It doesn’t matter what they do when they are in their state or district if they deliberately do nothing when they are in DC. Because a large part of their job is to sponsor or co-sponsor bills that they feel benefit their constituents and when they come to a vote they vote for the bills. The current crop of Republicans are not doing that. But yet we pay them $1.5M dollars a year in salary and expenses. That figure does not include the benefits they receive. In 2017 when Sonoma and Napa counties had the first of the wildfires that burned thousands of homes everyday CDF had a news conference to provide an update on the fire. And everyday until the fire was under control and the worst was over Mike Thompson, my representative, and Jared Huffman who represents parts of Napa county that was also burning were at that press conference. Sometimes they would say something or sometimes they were there but didn’t say anything. Mike Thompson has a town hall meeting I know about it. Here is a list of legislation he has either sponsored or co-sponsored. linkIt seems you can get a list for every member of Congress. I compared his to Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan’s legislative lists. Pretty skimpy compared to Thompson’s. I also noticed how much he co-sponsored bills with other members from the California Delegation both in the House and Senate. Working together for the betterment of the Bay Area and state of California. Can you say the same about the current crop of Republicans? Maybe at one time you could say that about Republicans in Congress, but not anymore, not with this new GOP IMO. But yet the tax payers pay them roughly $1.5M dollars a year. And it’s not like the majority of the money is coming out of their state or district. It’s coming out all of our pockets. Paying for a job that is only being half done at best. Shoddy workmanship but still gets paid in full. As to the voting and gerrymandering. I understand all of what is being said. But as troublesome as that is if you are considered the wrong kind of voter, the bigger issue is those who continue to vote for Republicans. And those who continue vote for Republicans chose to do so. No amount of district gerrymandering or voter suppression laws are forcing people to vote for Republicans, they chose to do so. They chose to vote for bad behavior which I will never understand. I mean I could understand if the Republicans running for office actually offered the voters a genuine reason to vote for them over the Democrats, but they don’t and as long as they win elections they never will offer voters genuine reasons to vote for them. I mean why do the work if they don’t have to. And it boils down to they are currently receiving a chunk of money for doing very little. So yes, it’s wishful thinking on my part that don’t get paid until they produce meaningful legislation and stop this obstructionist crap they are pulling.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,761
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Feb 9, 2022 16:04:50 GMT
But those who vote for Republicans chose to do so. No amount of district gerrymandering or voter suppression laws are forcing people to vote for Republicans, they chose to do so. They chose to vote for bad behavior which I will never understand. I mean I could understand if the Republicans running for office actually offered the voters a genuine reason to vote for them over the Democrats, but they don’t and as long as they win elections they never will offer voters genuine reasons to vote for them. I mean why do the work if they don’t have to. You haven't listened to me. The voters who elect those Republicans think that stopping runaway Democratic policies, especially far left/progressive policies *IS* a genuine reason to earn their vote over a Democratic candidate. They want someone to act as an obstacle to ensure more balanced legislation is passed.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Feb 9, 2022 16:09:12 GMT
Yesterday I discovered one could obtain a list of bills sponsored or co-sponsored by members of Congress. Today after reading Marjorie Taylor Greece’s latest rant I decided to check out her list of bills sponsored or co-sponsored along resolutions. After looking at it, if there was ever a case of wasting taxpayer money this is it… link
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Feb 9, 2022 16:33:04 GMT
But those who vote for Republicans chose to do so. No amount of district gerrymandering or voter suppression laws are forcing people to vote for Republicans, they chose to do so. They chose to vote for bad behavior which I will never understand. I mean I could understand if the Republicans running for office actually offered the voters a genuine reason to vote for them over the Democrats, but they don’t and as long as they win elections they never will offer voters genuine reasons to vote for them. I mean why do the work if they don’t have to. You haven't listened to me. The voters who elect those Republicans think that stopping runaway Democratic policies, especially far left/progressive policies *IS* a genuine reason to earn their vote over a Democratic candidate. They want someone to act as an obstacle to ensure more balanced legislation is passed. This is a lot of the reason people vote Republican here. They see them as a check and balance on radical left policies being implemented. That’s all that matters. I don’t agree with it, but to them it is a genuine reason.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,306
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Feb 9, 2022 16:43:56 GMT
You haven't listened to me. The voters who elect those Republicans think that stopping runaway Democratic policies, especially far left/progressive policies *IS* a genuine reason to earn their vote over a Democratic candidate. They want someone to act as an obstacle to ensure more balanced legislation is passed. This is a lot of the reason people vote Republican here. They see them as a check and balance on radical left policies being implemented. That’s all that matters. I don’t agree with it, but to them it is a genuine reason. But can’t the same be said of people who vote Democratic, to keep the far right in check.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,761
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Feb 9, 2022 17:10:21 GMT
Yesterday I discovered one could obtain a list of bills sponsored or co-sponsored by members of Congress. Today after reading Marjorie Taylor Greece’s latest rant I decided to check out her list of bills sponsored or co-sponsored along resolutions. After looking at it, if there was ever a case of wasting taxpayer money this is it… linkI'm a little disappointed you chose to cite such an extreme example as evidence to bolster your argument. You'd be much better off picking a regular working member and looking at his or her legislative successes. MTG has filed legislation, but in a House of Representatives run by Democrats, she isn't going to have any success with her bills. They've stripped her of her committee assignments, so she can't even gain support for her bills by pledging to support the legislation of other members. At this point, I'm sure the people in her district know she isn't going to pass sweeping legislation or broker some compromise between the two parties. She is still in her first term, but she has a primary challenge, so maybe that will change in a few months. If she survives the primary challenge, then they are signaling they are ok with her lack of successful legislation, but they are voting for her because of her voice and her willingness to challenge the people in power. That may not be a valid reason for your myopic view of the role of Congress, but it would seem to be one for her constituents. Regardless, you pay the salary for your own federal elected officials, and you said you are happy with their performance - your tax dollars aren't going to support the Republican members. Finally, I'll leave you with this one legend from Florida state legislative politics. I know the staffer who is rumored to have said this to a constituent, but I don't know if the story is true. A constituent kept calling the member's office, complaining about their politics and votes, and saying that the member was wasting his taxpayer dollars. The staffer calculated the expenses for the member and his office (the member's salary and benefits, the salary and benefits for the staffers, office overhead, etc.), and then she divided that amount by the number of people living in that district. The next time the caller called complaining and spewing invective, she calmly informed him that his share of the cost of the member's office for the year was $12.73. She then asked where he wanted the check sent to refund his taxpayer money, so he would stop calling and wasting far more money than that every time he took her away from her work.
|
|
|
Post by Jen in NCal on Feb 9, 2022 17:21:08 GMT
But those who vote for Republicans chose to do so. No amount of district gerrymandering or voter suppression laws are forcing people to vote for Republicans, they chose to do so. They chose to vote for bad behavior which I will never understand. I mean I could understand if the Republicans running for office actually offered the voters a genuine reason to vote for them over the Democrats, but they don’t and as long as they win elections they never will offer voters genuine reasons to vote for them. I mean why do the work if they don’t have to. You haven't listened to me. The voters who elect those Republicans think that stopping runaway Democratic policies, especially far left/progressive policies *IS* a genuine reason to earn their vote over a Democratic candidate. They want someone to act as an obstacle to ensure more balanced legislation is passed. And this would be perfectly acceptable if they were also trying to work with the other side or at least propose legislation on their own side. Instead, their sole purpose is to stop all legislation from moving forward. They aren't trying to do good, they are trying to be bullies.
|
|
|
Post by Jen in NCal on Feb 9, 2022 17:21:55 GMT
You haven't listened to me. The voters who elect those Republicans think that stopping runaway Democratic policies, especially far left/progressive policies *IS* a genuine reason to earn their vote over a Democratic candidate. They want someone to act as an obstacle to ensure more balanced legislation is passed. This is a lot of the reason people vote Republican here. They see them as a check and balance on radical left policies being implemented. That’s all that matters. I don’t agree with it, but to them it is a genuine reason. So where's the balance? All they want to do is check.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,761
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Feb 9, 2022 17:31:44 GMT
This is a lot of the reason people vote Republican here. They see them as a check and balance on radical left policies being implemented. That’s all that matters. I don’t agree with it, but to them it is a genuine reason. So where's the balance? All they want to do is check. When your party isn't in power, you can do little more than serve as a check. The Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency- Republicans have very little leverage. We'll see what happens after the 2022 elections, as I suspect Republicans will regain at least 1 chamber - that's been the historical trend for midterm elections.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,761
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Feb 9, 2022 17:37:41 GMT
You haven't listened to me. The voters who elect those Republicans think that stopping runaway Democratic policies, especially far left/progressive policies *IS* a genuine reason to earn their vote over a Democratic candidate. They want someone to act as an obstacle to ensure more balanced legislation is passed. And this would be perfectly acceptable if they were also trying to work with the other side or at least propose legislation on their own side. Instead, their sole purpose is to stop all legislation from moving forward. They aren't trying to do good, they are trying to be bullies. For the people who voted them in, stopping progressive programs *IS* doing good - for many voters in red state areas, they feel like *they* are being bullied by progressives and the far left. As an example, I was reading about the change from "master bedrooms" to "primary bedrooms" in real estate listings, and one article mentioned a realtors group in one area recommending that listing photos omit the traditional American flag on the front porch, as that can be divisive/not welcoming. I lived in a highly conservative area of Florida, full of active duty service members and veterans, and such advice would feel like an insult to them and their service. Those are the kinds of things many conservative voters feel bullied about.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 9, 2022 18:45:45 GMT
I'm really unhappy with what the Republicans are doing. And I think their health care benefits are out of control compared to what ordinary Americans have. But, I don't think defunding them is the answer. And I don't think their salaries should be tied to what they accomplish or even worse, based on some kind of commission. Ive said this a hundred times & I fully believe it. Senators & congresspeople should have the EXACT same medical & retirement benefits that all military personnel have, not anything more. That would solve 2 problems right there imho. The military would be more properly cared for while they serve & the VA would be drastically improved if that is the ‘retirement’/post service care that senators had to look forward to as well.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 9, 2022 19:32:17 GMT
And this would be perfectly acceptable if they were also trying to work with the other side or at least propose legislation on their own side. Instead, their sole purpose is to stop all legislation from moving forward. They aren't trying to do good, they are trying to be bullies. For the people who voted them in, stopping progressive programs *IS* doing good - for many voters in red state areas, they feel like *they* are being bullied by progressives and the far left. As an example, I was reading about the change from "master bedrooms" to "primary bedrooms" in real estate listings, and one article mentioned a realtors group in one area recommending that listing photos omit the traditional American flag on the front porch, as that can be divisive/not welcoming. I lived in a highly conservative area of Florida, full of active duty service members and veterans, and such advice would feel like an insult to them and their service. Those are the kinds of things many conservative voters feel bullied about. Really? Black homeowners have been advised to "de-black" their houses for years to avoid alienating white buyers. And I don't understand how this is an example of "liberal bullying" that needs to be checked. It's advice from a realtors' group that anyone is free to ignore. It's not a law.
|
|
casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,525
Jun 29, 2014 14:40:44 GMT
|
Post by casii on Feb 9, 2022 19:40:02 GMT
For the people who voted them in, stopping progressive programs *IS* doing good - for many voters in red state areas, they feel like *they* are being bullied by progressives and the far left. As an example, I was reading about the change from "master bedrooms" to "primary bedrooms" in real estate listings, and one article mentioned a realtors group in one area recommending that listing photos omit the traditional American flag on the front porch, as that can be divisive/not welcoming. I lived in a highly conservative area of Florida, full of active duty service members and veterans, and such advice would feel like an insult to them and their service. Those are the kinds of things many conservative voters feel bullied about. Really? Black homeowners have been advised to "de-black" their houses for years to avoid alienating white buyers. And I don't understand how this is an example of "liberal bullying" that needs to be checked. It's advice from a realtors' group that anyone is free to ignore. It's not a law. Agree, that dog don't hunt. Conversely, can I say I feel bullied because I have neighbors who fly the treason flag? And anyone who gets their knickers twisted about "Master" vs "Primary", again, does not compute. What's wrong with balanced labelling vs exclusively masculine labeling? Regardless, these issues haven't come up on a ballot.
|
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,761
Oct 2, 2017 23:20:46 GMT
|
Post by mich5481 on Feb 9, 2022 19:46:22 GMT
They are a part of a shifting culture that many conservatives feel like progressives are shoving down their throat, which is why the elect Republicans who will put a stop to more left wing policies.
It's no wonder why so many conservative peas either leave the board or stop posting about politics on these boards.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 9, 2022 20:43:18 GMT
They are a part of a shifting culture that many conservatives feel like progressives are shoving down their throat, which is why the elect Republicans who will put a stop to more left wing policies. It's no wonder why so many conservative peas either leave the board or stop posting about politics on these boards. You seem to be saying that recommendations made by business groups in the interest of the people they serve are left wing policies. Am I understanding that correctly?
|
|