For the first time, half of US Congress are millionaires; Democrats slightly richer than Republicans - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43511735]Except human/civil rights aren't social issues, but nice try.[/QUOTE] Well then gay marriage should be legal on a federal level because it's not a social issue but a human rights issue.

[QUOTE=froztshock;43513860]Well then gay marriage should be legal on a federal level because it's not a social issue but a human rights issue.[/QUOTE] It is legal on a federal level. Once again, try again.....

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43511735]Except human/civil rights aren't social issues, but nice try.[/QUOTE] What, are they financial issues? What [i]else[/i] would you call them besides social issues?

[QUOTE=catbarf;43514313]What, are they financial issues? What [i]else[/i] would you call them besides social issues?[/QUOTE] They are human/civil rights issues which SHOULD be handled federally anyways. Please the posts again. Looks like you have it backwards there ace....

Congress as a whole is corrupt and incompetent, but if i was forced to choose id pick the dems everytime. At least their party isnt full of reactionaries who have no qualms about treating women, black people, and lgbt minorities as second class citizens

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43514357]They are human/civil rights issues which SHOULD be handled federally anyways. Please the posts again. Looks like you have it backwards there ace....[/QUOTE] Suggesting that social policy which dictates human/civil rights isn't actually a social issue is ass-backwards. You can't just say 'federal government shouldn't handle social issues' and then add on the caveat 'except all the important ones which we know are clear in hindsight and are now defining as something else'.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43514382]Suggesting that social policy which dictates human/civil rights isn't actually a social issue is ass-backwards. You can't just say 'federal government shouldn't handle social issues' and then add on the caveat 'except all the important ones which we know are clear in hindsight and are now defining as something else'.[/QUOTE] So you're saying that there are no such thing as social issues that can be left to the states because every state is stupid and nobody would make the right decision?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43514787]So you're saying that there are no such thing as social issues that can be left to the states because every state is stupid and nobody would make the right decision?[/QUOTE] Well I said absolutely nothing whatsoever to that effect, so no. I'm honestly at a loss as to how you pulled that out of my post. What I am saying is that you clearly don't actually believe that [i]all[/i] social issues should be left to the states to decide, and I doubt many people in this thread do either, considering the colorful history of states making decisions on social issues that affect people at a very personal level. And you're trying to draw some distinction between social issues and civil rights, as if civil rights isn't actually a social issue, which then begs the question as to what actually is a social issue in your book.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43514368]Congress as a whole is corrupt and incompetent, but if i was forced to choose id pick the dems everytime. [B]At least their party isnt full of reactionaries[/B] who have no qualms about treating women, black people, and lgbt minorities as second class citizens[/QUOTE] Except for Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and Barack Obama, who have no qualms about standing on a pile of dead children to push their ideals on a nation.

[QUOTE=darunner;43505435]Why is that? How does making one person's vote worth more than another's solve problems with corruption?[/QUOTE] that's not what a proportional voting system is. a proportional voting system accurately represents the interests of the voting population: [video=youtube;s7tWHJfhiyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/video] this is our voting system. it does not represent the interests of the voting population. a proportional voting system allows for third parties, meaning that interests are less consolidated, there is no gerrymandering, people aren't forced to choose between two parties that don't represent them, and politicians aren't forced to pander to multiple camps at the same time to get votes.

[QUOTE=Stopper;43497195]It absolutely boggles my mind that while the rest of America is in shambles with 1 in 5 under the poverty line, the fucking Congress is setting records for being richer than ever.[/QUOTE] It's not much different than it ever was. Wealth will in most cases continue to naturally coexist with power and influence. Do you think the first seated congress of the United States was anything but rich? What should we do and why is this an issue? I'm not saying it isn't but people love to jump the gun to outrage whenever they see wealth.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43514357]They are human/civil rights issues which SHOULD be handled federally anyways. Please the posts again. Looks like you have it backwards there ace....[/QUOTE] hi im a human rights quant scholar who works pretty intently in politics i would like to inform you that human/civil rights issues, do, indeed, fall into social politics. what you are saying is 100% incorrect. please fix this. if you need me to develop this more, i will. but in reality you should just stop being silly.

[QUOTE=Strider*;43515171]It's not much different than it ever was. Wealth will in most cases continue to naturally coexist with power and influence. Do you think the first seated congress of the United States was anything but rich? What should we do and why is this an issue? I'm not saying it isn't but people love to jump the gun to outrage whenever they see wealth.[/QUOTE] Really, you're asking me why wealth inequality in America is an issue and why the Congress should be paid less?

[QUOTE=Stopper;43518056]Really, you're asking me why wealth inequality in America is an issue and why the Congress should be paid less?[/QUOTE] You think this money is coming from their salaries? And sure, why is wealth inequality of a tiny subset of our society (politicians) inherently an issue? You expect politicians to come from impoverished backgrounds? Poverty can't pay for the educational background or networking it takes to make it in Washington.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;43495703]Even if they weren't millionaires, they still get nice pay checks and benefits. No wonder congress is so disconnected from reality and the American people. It's like "Hey, I'm a millionaire so I know what's best for middle class and bottom class Americans."[/QUOTE] More like "Hey I'm a millionaire and a member of congress!" "I vote we raise our salaries again because our childish bickering is extremely important work for the country!"

[QUOTE=Strider*;43519768]You think this money is coming from their salaries? And sure, why is wealth inequality of a tiny subset of our society (politicians) inherently an issue? [/quote]Because a minority group (wealthy) is "representing" a much larger majority group, and doesn't have any motivation to represent them fairly. [quote]wealth inequality of a tiny subset of our society (politicians)[/quote] There is no wealth inequality in politicians, that's the issue, they're all rich. [quote]You expect politicians to come from impoverished backgrounds? Poverty can't pay for the educational background or networking it takes to make it in Washington.[/QUOTE] Us serfs should know our place.

[QUOTE=Strider*;43519768] You expect politicians to come from impoverished backgrounds? Poverty can't pay for the educational background or networking it takes to make it in Washington.[/QUOTE] Oh my god, I'm sorry, but is this a bad joke? Maybe all the poor and disadvantaged children should just be given McDonald's jobs on their graduation day.

[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;43519895]"I vote we raise our salaries again because our childish bickering is extremely important work for the country!"[/QUOTE] Congressional salary today: $174,000 Congressional salary in 1965: $30,000 Congressional salary of 1965 in 2013 dollars: $222,222 [QUOTE=Stopper;43522001]Oh my god, I'm sorry, but is this a bad joke? Maybe all the poor and disadvantaged children should just be given McDonald's jobs on their graduation day.[/QUOTE] If you really don't think education and political experience should matter in becoming a Congressman, feel free to vote for somebody who didn't graduate high school and has never worked in politics. The only systemic thing preventing poorer people from running for office is that voters expect political candidates to be informed and experienced, and those don't come cheap.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43524462]Congressional salary today: $174,000 Congressional salary in 1965: $30,000 Congressional salary of 1965 in 2013 dollars: $222,222[/QUOTE] I don't see a problem here. The dollar is worth comparatively less [I]because [/I]of the actions of Congress.

[QUOTE=darunner;43515033]Except for Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and Barack Obama, who have no qualms about standing on a pile of dead children to push their ideals on a nation.[/QUOTE] This type of rhetoric is only brought up when a tragedy involving guns occurs. Never anywhere else. If a textile mill fire causes dozens to burn to death, no one says that politicians who want to enforce stricter building codes or safety guidelines are standing on the dead. If poor sanitation in the meat-packing industry causes thousands to become violently ill, no one says that politicians who want to increase health regulations are pushing their ideals on a nation. But when there is a public shooting, anyone who even suggests that maybe we should look into the tools used is obviously just using [B][I]dead school children[/I][/B] to push their [B][I]socialist ideals[/I][/B] on [I][B]America[/B][/I]. I don't really agree with a lot of gun control measures Democrats want to push for* but there is enough to criticize them without resorting to underhanded emotional wordplay. *reminder that absolutely no federal gun laws have passed in the last few years.

[QUOTE=darunner;43515033]Except for Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and Barack Obama, who have no qualms about standing on a pile of dead children to push their ideals on a nation.[/QUOTE] Not to mention how Feinstein basically circlejerks with freshly naturalized immigrants

When Republicans immediately use any shooting to demand that schools or private citizens buy as many guns as possible, are they not standing on a pile of dead children to push their ideals on a nation?

[QUOTE=Stopper;43497195]It absolutely boggles my mind that while the rest of America is in shambles with 1 in 5 under the poverty line, the fucking Congress is setting records for being richer than ever. Someone talk to me - how are you Americans tolerating this?[/QUOTE] From what I can gather from my conservative friends, they cope by preaching about our right to bear arms and how *insert president here* needs to get out and that government should fear it's people. Purely in Sitzkrieg mode obviously, as nothing gets done about it. ...Well, we TRIED with the Occupy Movement, but the media turned that into a colossal circus.

[QUOTE=Stopper;43522001]Oh my god, I'm sorry, but is this a bad joke? Maybe all the poor and disadvantaged children should just be given McDonald's jobs on their graduation day.[/QUOTE] That's not what I'm saying whatsoever. I just don't know if you know what you're attacking here. Almost all of these politicians were rich before they entered politics not the other way around. And you shouldn't be surprised that the poor usually aren't congressmen. In order to make that leap from the streets to politics you usually have to start a career and with a career comes the money. You're confusing the effect for the cause. [editline]13th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=zakedodead;43520306]Because a minority group (wealthy) is "representing" a much larger majority group, and doesn't have any motivation to represent them fairly.[/quote] Do you automatically assume that if someone is wealthy they must have a malicious outlook on governing?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;43527493] but there is enough to criticize them without resorting to underhanded emotional wordplay.[/QUOTE] That's funny because that's usually what they do themselves [editline]13th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;43527567]When Republicans immediately use any shooting to demand that schools or private citizens buy as many guns as possible, are they not standing on a pile of dead children to push their ideals on a nation?[/QUOTE] Perhaps so but that seems to have largely been a response to the opposite aisle doing the same I didn't see that start happening until fairly recently [editline]13th January 2014[/editline] And don't get me wrong, it annoys the fuck out of me either way

[QUOTE=Raidyr;43527567]When Republicans immediately use any shooting to demand that schools or private citizens buy as many guns as possible, are they not standing on a pile of dead children to push their ideals on a nation?[/QUOTE] And who in the GOP did that? [editline]13th January 2014[/editline] Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent are not politicians.

There is a lot of ad hominem in politics, people tend to shove their problems on a politician rather than the issue, which can cause issues due to the majority of politicians having different views on different subjects. An example of this would be how presidents are consistently accused of being the primary causes in financial booms and collapse. Voters should be making an informed decision that would benefit the whole country, not only themselves. I know some politicians aren't the best people in the world, but i truly believe that the majority of them make an earnest effort to better our nation, and have a specific plan in their head in order to accomplishing this... The issue comes with conflicting plans for improving society.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43524462]Congressional salary today: $174,000 Congressional salary in 1965: $30,000 Congressional salary of 1965 in 2013 dollars: $222,222 If you really don't think education and political experience should matter in becoming a Congressman, feel free to vote for somebody who didn't graduate high school and has never worked in politics. The only systemic thing preventing poorer people from running for office is that voters expect political candidates to be informed and experienced, and those don't come cheap.[/QUOTE] I didn't say that. But do you really think that only Harvard and Yale kids should get in politics? How do you expect that the middle and low class citizens will be represented if 100% of Congress members haven't had a day of struggle in their lives? Why do you think the Congress (and hell, most US politicians) are so disconnected from reality? Median household income in 1965 in 2013 dollars: $54,000 Median household income in 2013: $52,000 Statistics like this show nothing other than how crooked the system is.

[QUOTE=darunner;43530736]And who in the GOP did that? [editline]13th January 2014[/editline] Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent are not politicians.[/QUOTE] Louie Gohmert and Rick Perry.

Political party members and government officials shouldn't be paid a salary, imo. The fringe benefits that come along with the title are more than enough.