It's Mueller Time!

[TankTop5]

$174K minimum isn't enough? They only work part of the year and if they're on a committee, they make more. I know DC is notoriously expensive WRT real estate, but many live outside of the city, or commute- the trains and flights aren't terribly expensive if they live in a neighboring state. Hell, I had a college professor who commuted to MKE from DC since his wife worked at the Smithsonian.

I don't know anyone who said or thinks only independently wealthy should be in Congress but I don't want them to become too comfortable, either. Complacency leads to bad things when the person in question is in a position of power. Could be corruption or laziness, but that's no place to just go through the motions.

They fly free


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GO-NAD!]

$174K minimum isn't enough? They only work part of the year and if they're on a committee, they make more. I know DC is notoriously expensive WRT real estate, but many live outside of the city, or commute- the trains and flights aren't terribly expensive if they live in a neighboring state. Hell, I had a college professor who commuted to MKE from DC since his wife worked at the Smithsonian.

I don't know anyone who said or thinks only independently wealthy should be in Congress but I don't want them to become too comfortable, either. Complacency leads to bad things when the person in question is in a position of power. Could be corruption or laziness, but that's no place to just go through the motions.

I really don't know if $174K is enough, or not. But, comparing today's congress members with the original members certainly isn't fair. If complacency, corruption or laziness becomes a defining characteristic of any particular member, just vote them out!

I find it refreshing that AOC and Ted Cruz will co-sponsor a bill to ban former members from becoming lobbyists. By itself, that doesn't stop shadow lobbying, but maybe they can include a provision in the bill to plug that loophole.

 

[GO-NAD!]

... . It's a bit unfortunate that the site does not date each article in the article itself, which wold make it easier to put it in context. ...

What a coincidence. In the news today:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/old-news-shared-as-if-its-new-disinformation-1.5172449

 

[RedCharles]

We the people are unhappy with Congress, and have been for some time. Congress is not solving America's toughest problems; they've been kicking the can for decades, so, for the taxpayer, it's hard to see how a raise is justified.

Increasing their pay doesn't bother me, but their pension plans are bullshit.

 

[markw]

Yes, we, as a nation, ARE stupid.

 

[panteragstk]

Yes, we, as a nation, ARE stupid.

View attachment 29807View attachment 29807

Take this source with a grain of salt, but the data is interesting...if true.

Funny thing is your pictures show 2014 as the year for those stats. The site I linked has it even lower at 9% for 2013.

It doesn't have any stats on re-election percentage.

EDIT: Here's one that does.

 

[markw]

Well, as for approval ratings, I found this:

https://wtop.com/congress/2019/03/do-you-approve-of-how-congress-is-doing-its-job/

"Keep in mind, the Gallup Poll found that the job approval rating is only 26 percent. That’s still an improvement — much better than the low of just 13 percent in November of 2017.

As for re-election stats, I found this:

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php

On the whole, I'd say the meme is pretty valid.

 

[panteragstk]

Well, as for approval ratings, I found this:

https://wtop.com/congress/2019/03/do-you-approve-of-how-congress-is-doing-its-job/

"Keep in mind, the Gallup Poll found that the job approval rating is only 26 percent. That’s still an improvement — much better than the low of just 13 percent in November of 2017.

As for re-election stats, I found this:

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php

On the whole, I'd say the meme is pretty valid.

Not disagreeing. Meme just made me curious. I like having data from more than one year.

Begs the question, if we don't like these yahoos, why do they get reelected? Are there just so few options there isn't a choice?

 

[cpd]

Not disagreeing. Meme just made me curious. I like having data from more than one year.

Begs the question, if we don't like these yahoos, why do they get reelected? Are there just so few options there isn't a choice?

I don' t think the meme is valid at all. The two numbers are not comparing the same thing. The job approval of congress may be low, but the re-election numbers are based on the approval of an individual person in that individual person's state for Senators, or congressional district for House members.

We all tend to like the job our own representatives are doing which leads to high re-election numbers. This is especially true (1) in the House since it is a very localized electorate, and (2) in the Senate in states that always vote one way. Conversely, because other geographic areas vote for people that do not share our beliefs, and due to those conflicting beliefs nothing seems to get done, we don't approve of the job congress does as a whole.

 

[markw]

Not disagreeing. Meme just made me curious. I like having data from more than one year.

I hear ya.

Begs the question, if we don't like these yahoos, why do they get reelected? Are there just so few options there isn't a choice?

Well, for starters, I'll repost what started our conversation: "Yes, we, as a nation, ARE stupid. "

Add to that that we are basically lazy. Most don't keep too much of a watch on what their reps do and, unless something bad is publicized, they opt for the devil they think they know, not realizing they may well be part of the reason for the overall dissatisfaction.

And, yes, in many cases it;s the lesser of two evils buy, IMNSHO, if know the guy in now is an ass, I'll give the other guy a chance.

Look at the standard of life in large cities like LA, SFO, Chicago, etc. Their reps have been the same for literally decades. and they are virtually third world countries with tent cities and defecating in the streets. Ya would think they would vote for a change, any change. ...but no...

https://pensivepost.com/the-unfortunate-truth-of-democratic-urban-governance-bce7c8abc2a3

 

[Trell]

I don' t think the meme is valid at all. The two numbers are not comparing the same thing. The job approval of congress may be low, but the re-election numbers are based on the approval of an individual person in that individual person's state for Senators, or congressional district for House members.

We all tend to like the job our own representatives are doing which leads to high re-election numbers. This is especially true (1) in the House since it is a very localized electorate, and (2) in the Senate in states that always vote one way. Conversely, because other geographic areas vote for people that do not share our beliefs, and due to those conflicting beliefs nothing seems to get done, we don't approve of the job congress does as a whole.

Your argument makes much sense, but if we are to take the 11% approval ratings and 94.6% re-elected at face value, I'll side with @markw and say that discrepancy is awfully big. Something is amiss here.

 

[Trell]

...Well, for starters, I'll repost what started our conversation: "Yes, we, as a nation, ARE stupid. " ...

Lucky me, I live in a SMART nation, but hey, I feel your frustration

 

[Trell]

...
Add to that that we are basically lazy. Most don't keep too much of a watch on what their reps do and, unless something bad is publicized, they opt for the devil they think they know, not realizing they may well be part of the reason for the overall dissatisfaction....

Lazy is a bit harsh as I would rather say that we are all quite busy living our lives, though I do agree with you that we should pay much more attention to what our elected representatives (in all countries, of course) are actually doing as opposed what they are saying.

 

[lovinthehd]

Yep lazy definitely fits the murican "democracy"...the drumph being elected as pretty f*cking pathetic.

 

[markw]

Lucky me, I live in a SMART nation, but hey, I feel your frustration

I get really scared when I read stuff like this. These are the ones that would rather have had Hillary in office then Trump. I truly feel that within two generations we're fookin doomed.

"The Gallup survey of a 1,024 adults found that 43 percent of Americans believed that some sort of socialism would be good for the country compared, while 51 percent who said it would by bad. "

https://www.newsweek.com/socialism-america-gallup-poll-1431266

What they don't realize is that we already have "some sort of socialism" in play with schools, fire and police departments, medicaid/medicare and the like. The next step would be total government control over business . Schools have stopped teaching economics and history.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I get really scared when I read stuff like this. These are the ones that would rather have had Hillary in office then Trump. I truly feel that within two generations we're fookin doomed.

"The Gallup survey of a 1,024 adults found that 43 percent of Americans believed that some sort of socialism would be good for the country compared, while 51 percent who said it would by bad. "

https://www.newsweek.com/socialism-america-gallup-poll-1431266

What they don't realize is that we already have "some sort of socialism" in play with schools, fire and police departments, medicaid/medicare and the like. The next step would be total government control over business . Schools have stopped teaching economics and history.

I'm curious as to what you think HRC would have done in office to make America "more" socialist? As Democrats go, she seems conventionally centrist, nothing terribly radical that I can see about her. From outside the USA, it appears that the political spectrum is skewed so far to the right, that ideas that would be considered benignly "centrist" elsewhere are regarded as radically leftist in the USA. It leaves us perplexed.

Do you think schools, fire and police departments and medicaid/medicare should be privatised? How about the military?

As for what constitutes "socialism", it's all in the eye of the beholder. I personally find the left-right political spectrum to be too blunt as an instrument for defining political philosophy. If I support abortion rights, does that make me left-wing? Many would say so, but if it's privately provided and paid for, what's "socialist" about it? If I also support free - but regulated - markets, where do I sit now?

I don't particularly like the left-right bar that we often see. It should be more like a circle to me, where, as the political philosophies diverge at a point on the circle, they eventually meet up at the opposite point as extreme authoritarian. I would no more like to have lived in Nazi Germany than the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union would be the classic example of extreme socialism - pretty much everything owned and operated by the Government. The Chinese government calls itself communist, but it's looking more and more like a mercantilist oligarchy to me.

 

[markw]

When I hear AOC ,and Bernie Sanders railing on about socialism and see their growing following particularly among the young, and then I see their past results of socialist countries, I get worried.

As fir HRC, dunno exactly how she would socialize the country but past results show her main reason for serving is personal enrichment. I still haven't gotten ovre her handling of Benghazi and her failure to accept personal responsibility for ignoring their pleas for help, particularly when hey were notified days ahead of the attack that trouble was imminent. Likewise, why did the clinton charity suddenly fold when she was no longer in a position of power to grant favors, particularly after that generous 146 million donation from Russia

 

[GO-NAD!]

When I hear AOC ,and Bernie Sanders railing on about socialism and see their growing following particularly among the young, and then I see their past results of socialist countries, I get worried

As fir HRC, dunno exactly how she would socialize the country but past results show her main reason for serving is personal enrichment. I still haven't gotten ovre her handling of Benghazi and her failure to accept personal responsibility for ignoring their pleas for help, particularly when hey were notified days ahead of the attack that trouble was imminent. Likewise, why did the clinton charity suddenly fold when she was no longer in a position of power to grant favors, particularly after that generous 146 million donation from Russia

Well, I'm not sure the failures at Benghazi can be entirely dropped at her feet.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/16/fact-checking-benghazi-our-most-recent-round-/

And, the Clinton Foundation?
https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/dec/07/blog-posting/complex-tale-involving-hillary-clinton-uranium-rus/
Not much to see here, as far as I can tell.

I get it - she wasn't the perfect candidate. However, when compared with Trump, she looked squeaky clean. I also understand that if one leans very conservative, it wouldn't matter if the Democrats could resuscitate FDR himself - he wouldn't get a vote either. Heck, Eisenhower or Reagan would probably not make it past the primaries now.

 

[GO-NAD!]

View attachment 29818

Kim Philby.

That didn't take long at all.

 

[Trell]

When I hear AOC ,and Bernie Sanders railing on about socialism and see their growing following particularly among the young, and then I see their past results of socialist countries, I get worried.

From your posts I would guess that you see the Nordic countries as socialist but they have overall done very well with a very high standard of living. The description of the Nordic countries in the linked Wikipedia seems to be similar AOC and Bernie Sanders policies/positions:

"Each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours, but to varying degrees the Nordic countries share the Nordic model of economy and social structure: a market economy is combined with strong labour unions and a universalist welfare sector financed by heavy taxes. There is a high degree of income redistribution and little social unrest and these include support for said "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government; and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade"​

As fir HRC, dunno exactly how she would socialize the country but past results show her main reason for serving is personal enrichment. I still haven't gotten ovre her handling of Benghazi and her failure to accept personal responsibility for ignoring their pleas for help, particularly when hey were notified days ahead of the attack that trouble was imminent. Likewise, why did the clinton charity suddenly fold when she was no longer in a position of power to grant favors, particularly after that generous 146 million donation from Russia

If you think that HRC is all about personal enrichment, not taking responsibility and having a charity with questionable funding, how can you continue to defend Trump so strongly as you do?