For GOP only

[southsider2k5]

Those that think they should be in session more, is it because you want more government? What is it that hasn't been done, and why is it better that they be in session instead of somewhere else?

 

I find it interesting that the small government advocates are the same ones advocating for more hours in Washington for the representatives. I am seriously not trying to bait anyone, I'm interested.

 

You find it interesting that people expect an effecient, hardworking, government for the huge salaries and benefits that we pay them? You must be the greatest boss in the world to work for.

 

Also the correlation between size of government and work ethic is pretty much comical. They have nothing to do with each other, at all.

[Texsox]

You find it interesting that people expect an effecient, hardworking, government for the huge salaries and benefits that we pay them? You must be the greatest boss in the world to work for.

 

Also the correlation between size of government and work ethic is pretty much comical. They have nothing to do with each other, at all.

 

Again, what outcomes are you looking for, something concrete. More legislation? Name something they did not accomplish that could have been accomplished if they work longer hours?

 

When I was managing sales reps, that's what I looked for. Outcomes. In this venue, do you want a CEO whose companies shows a profit of $100,000,000 and works 30 hours or someone who leads the company to a profit of $10,000,000 in 80 hours?

 

And the only work that counts is in Washington? Are you discounting everything they do in the District?

 

Sorry you found my question comical. Do you equate hardworking with hours worked? That somehow a person who completes a project in 3 hours is not working as hard or efficient as someone who completes the same task in 6 hours? I hope you never manage hourly rate employees.

[Texsox]

Bottom line, I wish they could get the sessions down to a week a month and have our elected representative, available, in their districts, the other times. Access to all, not just those that can fly to Washington. I want them in local restaurants, visiting local industry, driving the local roads. My Congressman ran a local business, people knew him. He was a member of our Manufacturing Association. He was in touch. Spending time in Washington, as part of the industry, does not assure us better government. In fact, I think it could produce worst. All they like to do in Washington is produce new laws, get them back in their District to make the government work for the people.

[southsider2k5]

Again, what outcomes are you looking for, something concrete. More legislation? Name something they did not accomplish that could have been accomplished if they work longer hours?

 

When I was managing sales reps, that's what I looked for. Outcomes. In this venue, do you want a CEO whose companies shows a profit of $100,000,000 and works 30 hours or someone who leads the company to a profit of $10,000,000 in 80 hours?

 

And the only work that counts is in Washington? Are you discounting everything they do in the District?

 

Sorry you found my question comical. Do you equate hardworking with hours worked? That somehow a person who completes a project in 3 hours is not working as hard or efficient as someone who completes the same task in 6 hours? I hope you never manage hourly rate employees.

 

Dispite your initial protests, I know you are trying to bait here. You went from talking about not happy with your governments body of work to immediately questioning why anyone would want them to do more... What kind of sense does that make? They have failed, so they should work less. Uh, ok.

[Texsox]

Dispite your initial protests, I know you are trying to bait here. You went from talking about not happy with your governments body of work to immediately questioning why anyone would want them to do more... What kind of sense does that make? They have failed, so they should work less. Uh, ok.

 

I think they would do better if they got their asses out of Washington and came back to see the people they are paid to represent. Not working less. I don't see where they are forced to work less. They are not required to be in Washington. That is very different than not working. The one thing they have to be in Washington for is voting on new laws, I don't think that should be a priority.

 

Does it make sense to say, you have failed, so I want you to keep doing the same thing, only do more of it? Uh, ok.

 

And by the way, you do realize it is an election year and of course they are going to need that time to campaign. Which is the real reason for this.

[southsider2k5]

I think they would do better if they got their asses out of Washington and came back to see the people they are paid to represent. Not working less. I don't see where they are forced to work less. They are not required to be in Washington. That is very different than not working. The one thing they have to be in Washington for is voting on new laws, I don't think that should be a priority.

 

And by the way, you do realize it is an election year and of course they are going to need that time to campaign. Which is the real reason for this.

 

You know what the best campaign of all is to me? Results.

 

Think about all of the broken and worthless programs that exsist today, that get completely ignored, so Congress can pass a bill honoring the Boston Red Sox for winning the World Series. Then they go home and raise more money to get re-elected. Sorry, that bothers me.

 

Get to work on the important stuff. Think about it, we know Social Security is going to go belly up, and the fixes are pretty obvious. Immigration still hasn't been fixed, and it being ignored because they don't have the stones to stand up and fix the problems in one form or another. Medicare/cade is going to suffer a huge SSI-like shortfall in the future, yet that never gets talked about. Our transportation infastructure is failing, nothing has been done there, oh except for a few billion for-show dollars after some people died because of a bridge collapse. Mass transit? disaster. FEMA? Uh, ok. Homeland Security has more holes than the Bears secondary. Our school systems are slipping behind in the world, but hey lets offer free college and $5000 to every kid! Are you happy with the state of health insurance in this country? It doesn't sound like many are to me. Sarbines Oxley is choking off IPOs in the US, is anyone trying to fix that? Nah. China and other nations continue to dump products onto our shores made by no pollution standards, government subsides, currency manipulation, and child labor, not to mention other anti-competitive practices... but we don't want to upset them. Nuclear materials have gone from Pakistan to North Korea to Syria, and probably to Iran as well, they probably should ignore that too.

 

Nope, I can see why they need to be home campaigning... They need to make another wasted Congressional session sound like they actually did something, when in reality all they did was steal our money, again. You can be happy with that, but I am not.

[Texsox]

Exactly what I've been saying. Results, not hours is the key. If you think they have failed because they are not spending enough time together, in Washington, then OK, this is a bad idea.

 

I think they fail when they lose touch with the American public. When they believe the average Americans are the people they see everyday in Washington, they have a warped sense of who we are. They get cozy and comfortable. I'm not advocating working less hours, I believe if they replace the Washington hours with district hours, we will benefit. No more theoretical citizens this bill is going to help, have them meet actual people with real problems.

 

I've always worked jobs where the hardest working people are doing extra work away from the office. The sales reps who travel the streets after working hours canvasing new customers, who are searching the internet for leads, who are out in the community making contacts. Chaining them to a desk for an extra ten hours is not productive. Much like out elected officials should be doing.

[southsider2k5]

How exactly do you work on the details of a bill when no one is in Washington?

[Texsox]

How exactly do you work on the details of a bill when no one is in Washington?

 

Their staffs play a huge role. They email, call, send memos. You don't think they are roaming the halls taking meetings? They are spread out in various office buildings around Washington. They convine to vote. Same thing if they are travelling. It's 2007, we have the technology that replaces face to face meetings. I assume their district offices have the technology to work effectively.

[southsider2k5]

Their staffs play a huge role. They email, call, send memos. You don't think they are roaming the halls taking meetings? They are spread out in various office buildings around Washington. They convine to vote. Same thing if they are travelling. It's 2007, we have the technology that replaces face to face meetings. I assume their district offices have the technology to work effectively.

 

So the technology doesn't work in reverse? They can't forward the local information to Washington, where they actually work? I'd much rather see the Reps and Senators in committees and meetings working together to come up with ideas to actually fix the problems, then seeing them at home at $1000 a plate hot dog luncheons. To me the negotiations that need to take place to fix the countries problems are more critical in being in a face to face setting, then anything that is going to be done in their district. Being in their district isn't going to solve the compromises and negotiations that need to take place in order to actually fix the problems. They have not come up with a technology yet that sovles the intracacies of those types of mass human interactions. If you want to utilize staffs and such, it is much easier for them to send relevant information on to their one rep/sen than it is for all of those reps and sens to negotiation the finer points of immigration reform or social security reform with each other. Going home early is just a cop out so that they can ignore the problems and fund raise for their re-election.

[Texsox]

So the technology doesn't work in reverse? They can't forward the local information to Washington, where they actually work? I'd much rather see the Reps and Senators in committees and meetings working together to come up with ideas to actually fix the problems, then seeing them at home at $1000 a plate hot dog luncheons. To me the negotiations that need to take place to fix the countries problems are more critical in being in a face to face setting, then anything that is going to be done in their district. Being in their district isn't going to solve the compromises and negotiations that need to take place in order to actually fix the problems. They have not come up with a technology yet that sovles the intracacies of those types of mass human interactions. If you want to utilize staffs and such, it is much easier for them to send relevant information on to their one rep/sen than it is for all of those reps and sens to negotiation the finer points of immigration reform or social security reform with each other. Going home early is just a cop out so that they can ignore the problems and fund raise for their re-election.

I agree with almost everything you mention. It's the solution where we differ. Sometimes working longer and harder doing the exact same thing the exact same way is the solution. Sometimes it is stepping back and changing what you are doing. I'd like to see what stepping back and doing something different accomplishes. If they use the day to play golf with lobbyists, it's a waste. If they use it productively, it's a plus. Yet one more way we can evaluate our elected officials. Perhaps emailing our Congressman and asking what their Friday schedule is would be interesting. I hope an enterprising journalist does just that.

 

But remember, we vote. They cannot ignore the problems if we do not allow them to.

 

They have to rely on staffs, there are too many bills, over too wide a range of topics, for them to personally review and understand each one. Like any CEO, they have various levels of staffers with increasing levels of responsibility and earned trust. And just like a CEO, if he is out of the building the work still goes on, and it is that end result that matters. So having staffers that can reduce a 250 page bill into a 25 page summary are invaluable. The Senator can read that anywhere. I assume we can separate the hundreds of mundane bills from the few critical like Social Security, Iraq, etc.

 

I agree having them out fund raising and campaigning is a waste of our time and detracts from the important stuff. It is also the most compelling reason in my mind for term limits. I also agree that there is a time and a place for face to face meetings. I believe they should also spend time in their district offices. It is a balance of time and priorities. I think it is a cop out and an easy excuse to require them to stay nice and cozy in Washington instead of getting off their asses and visit their districts. Not 100% of the time, but 20% feels ok to me. And I guess an argument could be made that campaigning puts them in front of their constituents, which accomplishes partially that goal. I doubt the effectiveness, but a little is better than none, and far better than another lunch with a lobbyist.

 

As for the technology in reverse, you already answered that. There are great reasons for face to face and great reasons for email, phones, etc. Both need to be employed. 80% face to face in Washington and 20% face to face in their district.

[southsider2k5]

I guess the White House isn't the only one that likes to use its editing pen...

 

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi...2007-10-30.html

 

Leading The News

 

Pelosi finesses tax message

By Mike Soraghan

October 30, 2007

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is finessing her support of Rep. Charles Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) controversial new tax bill, highlighting Democrats’ concern about how Republicans plan to use it in the 2008 elections.

 

Following the unveiling of arguably the most politically explosive domestic policy bill of the 110th Congress last Thursday, Pelosi seemed to wholeheartedly support the tax overhaul authored by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rangel.

 

“I certainly support his plan,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) said to the assembled reporters.

 

But when the transcript of the briefing came out, words were inserted — highlighted by brackets — clarifying that she supported his goal, if not his specific proposals.

 

The final transcript read: “I certainly support his plan [to begin tax reform.]”

 

The distinction is an important one. Rangel was immediately criticized by the GOP as he announced his highly controversial tax plan and Republicans started trying to tie the plan to Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.

 

The change makes it clear that the House’s Democratic leader is supporting only the concept of changing tax laws, not every one of Rangel’s proposed changes, which would raise taxes for people with higher incomes and cut them for those with lower incomes.

 

The change didn’t take. Stories in The Associated Press and Congressional Quarterly (CQ) ran the initial quote.

 

The Federal News Service and LexisNexis transcripts don’t include the change. The CQ transcript, which notes at the top, “AS RELEASED BY REP. PELOSI’S OFFICE,” does include the after-the-fact change in brackets.

 

Republicans criticized the change, but irritated Pelosi aides said too much is being made of an innocent change that was not intended to deceive.

 

“It is clear she didn’t say it, but we put in there, in brackets, to clarify her intent,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said in an e-mail exchange. “She personally supports Rangel’s plan/bill to begin tax reform, but Congress will work its will.”

 

Elshami added: “If The Hill feels compelled to report on this ridiculous story, let me then fill in the brackets even further: Tax reform under chairman Rangel’s plan means a permanent repeal of the alternative minimum tax; a refundable child tax credit; an increased standard deduction; and an enhanced earned income tax credit (EITC).

 

Here’s the bottom line: 90 million working families will have more money each year because of the tax cuts in the Tax Reduction and Reform Act of 2007.”

 

What is left unsaid about Congress working its will is Pelosi’s role in altering legislation once it is approved at the committee level. Pelosi this year has significantly changed legislation before it hits the floor, ranging from war supplemental measures to the lobbying reform bill.

 

Pelosi’s changes to bills have triggered some grumbling from a few committee chairmen, though Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and other legislators have defended her right to make alterations.

 

It is not clear how Pelosi would change the bill. However, Rangel’s bill would add a surtax on people making $150,000 a year. Pelosi has suggested the wealthy are defined by those who make more than $500,000 annually.

 

The Rangel measure is not expected to pass this year, with most on Capitol Hill viewing it as a marker for 2009, when Democrats hope to have control of Congress and the White House.

 

GOP operatives are looking to use the Rangel plan as a key facet of their election-year message, targeting House Democrats in conservative-leaning districts.

 

Republicans compared the transcript change to the Soviet-era practice of erasing out-of-favor leaders from Kremlin photos.

 

“You’d expect this from the Politburo, not the U.S. House of Representatives,” said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

 

It’s not the first time that Republicans have faulted Democrats for changing the record. After a vote was incorrectly gaveled to a close too early on Aug. 2, Republicans say Democratic leaders scrubbed from The Congressional Record many of the floor comments of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Boehner.

 

“Don’t like the outcome of a vote? Change it. Don’t like the way transcripts read? Scrub them,” Kennedy added.

 

The entire vote incident is under investigation by a select committee headed by Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.). The change to The Congressional Record is not listed in official documents as a focus of the investigation.

 

President Bush’s aides have also been criticized for their handling of transcripts, although in those cases the alleged changes were not even highlighted with brackets.

 

In November 2005, after a reporter recited a litany of damaging details related to the CIA leak investigation, then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, according to two transcription services, “That is accurate.”

The official White House transcript, however, read, “I don’t think that’s accurate.”

 

When they were asked about the discrepancy, White House officials asked the transcription services to review their transcripts. But after analyzing audio recordings and a video of the briefing available on the White House website, both CQ and the Federal News Service stood by their transcripts.

 

The issue came up again this year when a May transcript quoted Bush as saying, “I’m a commander guy.” But a private transcription service and reporters at the event say Bush actually said, “I’m the commander guy.”

 

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino stood by the White House version at a May 4 press briefing.

 

“It’s been reported that the president said, ‘I’m the commander guy.’ He did not. What I recalled was that he said ‘I’m a commander guy,’ meaning that he’s one of the people that listens to the commanders on the ground.”

 

Klaus Marre contributed to this article.

[southsideirish71]

It amazing how stupid the democrats are on their taxation plans. Goofs like Rangle can't wait to shove his hand in our pockets to steal more money. A Sur tax, kiss my ass.

Edited October 31, 2007 by southsideirish71

[Texsox]

It amazing how stupid the democrats are on their taxation plans. Goofs like Rangle can't wait to shove his hand in my pockets to steal more money. A Sur tax, kiss my ass.

 

Why even tax us? Borrow the damn money, someone else will pay.

[kapkomet]

Why even tax us? Borrow the damn money, someone else will pay.

 

 

[southsideirish71]

Why even tax us? Borrow the damn money, someone else will pay.

 

Taxing is one thing. Boning someone who makes over a certain amount for no good reason is another. At a certain point, your tax rate is higher already the more you make. So whats with the inital kick before they reach in for the rest of the money.

 

 

[Texsox]

Taxing is one thing. Boning someone who makes over a certain amount for no good reason is another. At a certain point, your tax rate is higher already the more you make. So whats with the inital kick before they reach in for the rest of the money.

 

There is no need to tax the wealthy. By not taxing them, they will spend their money, employing more people, and with all that growth will come more money than what the government could ever hope to get by taxing them. It's been proven, just look at the last round of cuts and the resulting surpluses.

[southsideirish71]

There is no need to tax the wealthy. By not taxing them, they will spend their money, employing more people, and with all that growth will come more money than what the government could ever hope to get by taxing them. It's been proven, just look at the last round of cuts and the resulting surpluses.

 

150k is not wealthy. And that is what Rangle is talking about. Tax people, find a rate and tax them. But its kind of funny that we have a sliding scale that the more you make, the more we can dig out of you. And then to add a surcharge, like a little bonus to take out of people its sad. Then you eliminate any items like as FICA caps at 97k, and some of the deductable items. Its nothing more than a shake down. I guess being a thief is okay when you dress up like Robin Hood and tell your voters in your district look I stole from the rich, you get free everything. Woo Hoo Socialism.

 

 

[kapkomet]

150k is not wealthy. And that is what Rangle is talking about. Tax people, find a rate and tax them. But its kind of funny that we have a sliding scale that the more you make, the more we can dig out of you. And then to add a surcharge, like a little bonus to take out of people its sad. Then you eliminate any items like as FICA caps at 97k, and some of the deductable items. Its nothing more than a shake down. I guess being a thief is okay when you dress up like Robin Hood and tell your voters in your district look I stole from the rich, you get free everything. Woo Hoo Socialism.

This is why people can't understand Republican policies, and I'm serious about that. People EXPECT our government to redistribute wealth and get "handouts". We're slowly becoming a nanny state for sure.

 

I also do think that in some cases the REAL (not the $150K a year crowd) rich keep getting richer, but the answer shouldn't be to steal money from them. There should be incentive to invest in the things that need invested in.

[NorthSideSox72]

150k is not wealthy. And that is what Rangle is talking about. Tax people, find a rate and tax them. But its kind of funny that we have a sliding scale that the more you make, the more we can dig out of you. And then to add a surcharge, like a little bonus to take out of people its sad. Then you eliminate any items like as FICA caps at 97k, and some of the deductable items. Its nothing more than a shake down. I guess being a thief is okay when you dress up like Robin Hood and tell your voters in your district look I stole from the rich, you get free everything. Woo Hoo Socialism.

Just curious... are you a proponent of a flat tax? Ala Steve Forbes? There are advantages to it of course. But you do realize that a flat tax is by nature somewhat regressive, because not all costs and spending are completely dynamic on scale. The cost curves for most things people spend on are not as steep as the tax curve, if you will.

 

[Texsox]

SS convinced me the flat tax is the worst idea, ever. It unfairly taxes the lowest income levels who can least afford it.

 

Look at it like homes. If you make $500,000 per year you have a certain home. Perhaps 4-5 bedrooms, a pool, five baths, a four car garage, etc. If you make $20,000 per year you probably rent, or if you do own your home, it is a modest 1,400 sq foot 3 bedroom 2 bath 2 car garage. Each person can afford that home.

 

Now look at taxes paying for the country we live in. Do you want to live in the country that is built based on what the guy that makes $20,000 per year can afford to pay in taxes? That is what a flat tax would create.

 

Instead we have to tax the individuals who can afford it the most, in order to have the security we want, the roads we want, the education we want, etc.

[southsideirish71]

SS convinced me the flat tax is the worst idea, ever. It unfairly taxes the lowest income levels who can least afford it.

 

Look at it like homes. If you make $500,000 per year you have a certain home. Perhaps 4-5 bedrooms, a pool, five baths, a four car garage, etc. If you make $20,000 per year you probably rent, or if you do own your home, it is a modest 1,400 sq foot 3 bedroom 2 bath 2 car garage. Each person can afford that home.

 

Now look at taxes paying for the country we live in. Do you want to live in the country that is built based on what the guy that makes $20,000 per year can afford to pay in taxes? That is what a flat tax would create.

 

Instead we have to tax the individuals who can afford it the most, in order to have the security we want, the roads we want, the education we want, etc.

 

This is not about a flat tax. Its about trying to invent new ways to get more money out of people based on the Robin Hood model. Mr. 500k needs to give more of his money to the community so we can give free matching savings accounts, free insurance, free college, and free housing. In fact, Mr 20k can sit back kick up a chair because Mr 500k will take care of his life for him.

 

Well lets look at it based on the single tax brackets no deductions gross salaries.

 

Mr 20k only pays 15% of his salary to the tax gods.

Mr 500k pays 35% of his salary to the tax gods.

 

Mr 500k pays his fair share of taxes. And I am not complaining about that he pays his share. Its when the democrats decide that his 35% or 175k contribution isnt enough. Its so unfair that he keeps his money we need to get more of it. So lets stop the FICA limit of 97k taxable. That can get more money out of him. Wait not enough, lets get a surcharge out of him. Now we are talking. He might want to use a deduction so lets eliminate that as well.

 

I have a problem when they want to raise tax rates. Maybe he can give near 40% of his salary like back from 93-200 in the Clinton Years. To me Mr 500k pays enough, and contributes enough to the economy. You cant just keep trying to invent new ways to bleed a guy of money because you feel he owes you.

 

[BigSqwert]

You remind me of my father. You get so angry that Mr 500k is "being squeezed" and want to fight tooth and nail to stop it even though you probably don't make a fraction of that salary and it probably doesn't even affect you. (If it did then I would question why some dude who makes 500k/year is spending countless hours on a message board )

 

I wish guys like you and my father had that same passion to fight for child health care.

[kapkomet]

You remind me of my father. You get so angry that Mr 500k is "being squeezed" and want to fight tooth and nail to stop it even though you probably don't make a fraction of that salary and it probably doesn't even affect you. (If it did then I would question why some dude who makes 500k/year is spending countless hours on a message board )

 

I wish guys like you and my father had that same passion to fight for child health care.

Interesting, BS.

 

So let me ask, if you don't mind. What is the incentive for people who are going to get everything they need in a welfare state (which is what you are more or less advocating) to try to earn $500k (or $50K or $100K or $200K or whatever it is...)? Why should people bust their ass, build something that actually turns into money due to the free market society that we live in, just to pay for people to sit on their ass?

 

Why should I have gone back to get my MBA? Why should I have invested in myself to try to earn more to provide for my family and their well being, if the government is going to take care of it for me? Oh, by the way, I get my health insurance and pay for it so my family is taken care of... I don't just decline it so I can go party. Just sayin' - definitely not accusing you or anyone here of ever doing that, but it's an investment in your family that you have to choose to work for. It's not ideal, it's not perfect, but there are systems in place that if people choose to work for it, things can be taken care of instead of things handed to them.

 

In this particular conversation, I'm really not trying to be the typical Kaperbole ™. I'm asking a serious question as to where the line should be drawn and I want to hear your perspective (and others).

[Balta1701]

In this particular conversation, I'm really not trying to be the typical Kaperbole ™. I'm asking a serious question as to where the line should be drawn and I want to hear your perspective (and others).

In an ideal system, your argument leads to the classic "Laffer curve", the assumption that we're on the right hand side of which has been the driving force behind Republican economics for 30 years now and which has helped us build something like $8 trillion in debt.

 

Not to just bash though, I think that curve and your argument gives the answer to your question. For every individual, there is a tax rate beyond which they will decide that it is not worth their time to work more hours because too much will go to the government, and in this case, the high taxes will depress the economy, and therefore, increasing beyond that tax rate does in fact do you no good. On the other hand, the other driving force is that if you cut taxes, you will stimulate the economy somewhat, but you will also have a lower rate. These are 2 forces that move in opposing directions, and therefore, it must be possible to find a tax rate that maximizes revenue to the government by balancing those 2 forces.