Retiring House Republican says $174,000 isn't enough money for members of Congress: 'Most of us don't have wealth'
Retiring House Republican says $174,000 isn't enough money for members of Congress: 'Most of us don't have wealth'
He's not alone: AOC and others have argued lawmakers should be paid more in order to protect against corruption and make the job more accessible.
He's not alone: AOC and others have argued lawmakers should be paid more in order to protect against corruption and make the job more accessible.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Ok, so we haven't tested the hypothesis.
To represent something as fact, when it isn't, for the purposes of drumming up popular support is a type of moral corruption.
I don't think you're corrupt because you're too poor though, I think it's because you're too stupid.
But that actually does drive into a larger (but more difficult) issue... How do you keep stupid people from public office without undermining democracy itself?
It's kind of a chicken and egg problem: education has been gutted so the electorate is pretty stupid, so they get confused about simple things ( like if a hypothesis has been tested ir not) and elect stupid people who just assert things without any actual backing... Taking complex issues and dragging it down to a second grade level (they still all corrupt).
How do you build back education to the point where you could have a functional relationship between candidates of substance and the general electorate, when substance requires the electorate to reject reactionary performative statements (like yours) from people who make them (Like Trump, DeSantis, or you)?
I think at one point, that was the naive dream of the 90s, that the internet would make us all smarter. Unfortunately it just gave retards a platform. It used to be every village had an idiot.
But now all the village 's idiots have been able to find eachother, start a club, and organize around it. So now we have the Tea party and flat earthers. The internet failed us.
Removed for abelist language. Take that out and you're golden.
Ok, so we haven’t tested the hypothesis.
Yes we have. We keep increasing congress' pay like you want, and they keep taking bribes like you want.
If someone did a study on whether raising the minimum wage impacts people's quality of life, raised it a penny, found that people were still in poverty, and said "we should give up on minimum wages," would that convince you? Your statement, that we've raised congressional wages and corruption is still present, is an equivalent argument. No one is arguing that giving politicians any raise will completely eliminate corruption. I would argue that we should give members of congress wages comparable to the amount of money they would get from taking bribes, and the result will be reduced, not eliminated, corruption.
If someone did a study on whether raising the minimum wage impacts people’s quality of life, raised it a penny, found that people were still in poverty, and said “we should give up on minimum wages,” would that convince you?
Comparing someone who makes 6 figures to someone who makes minimum wage is insulting to the latter.
Particularly since the former is responsible for keeping the latter's wages stagnant while whining about how he's not compensated enough for doing so.
You're right. The point I was making was that congressional members are like people with minimum wage. Your response is definitely not dodging my argument.
The point I was making was that congressional members are like people with minimum wage.
The point you were making is that congressturds aren't rich enough and that we should just spam money at them and that will magically make them less corrupt. Bringing up minimum wage workers who haven't seen a raise in decades in that context is utterly disgusting.
That's not the point I was making, and bringing that up isn't disgusting.