Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

New Constitutional Amendment Proposal

DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 10:55:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hey all,

I would like to propose a constitutional amendment that caps the pay of congress and the President/VP to no more than the median income of American workers.

That means that as of now, congress/pres/vp would be paid no more than $50,000.00

I like this idea because it limits the pay for the federal workers and forces them to get more in touch with the average hard-working American. Moreover, this could save us a lot of money in the long run.

If such an amendment was proposed, would you vote for it or not? Why or why not?
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 12:08:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Petition link https://petitions.whitehouse.gov...
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 12:10:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem with such an amendment is that it reinforces that only the wealthy or career politicians would run. Which is often the case as it is now, anyway, but at least in theory anyone can grow up to be president.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 12:16:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 12:10:15 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The problem with such an amendment is that it reinforces that only the wealthy or career politicians would run. Which is often the case as it is now, anyway, but at least in theory anyone can grow up to be president.

How would the amendment show that only wealthy/career politicans will run? I also want to term limit congress thus limiting career politicians.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
Subutai
Posts: 3,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:17:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem with this is that presidents don't need their salary in the first place. Most presidents, along with most Congressman, are already rich. Laws limiting their salary doesn't solve anything.

The only thing this would accomplish would be to drive out all lower/middle class candidates (not that they had a chance anyway, though - the startup capital to run for president is astounding, even with donations).
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:34:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's a nice idea. Maybe not in practice though. Like the other people said, most career politicians are already backed by wealth. This is why they can afford to run such huge campaigns.

I'm just not sure this would solve any problems.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 2:37:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We also know that most politicians make an income from lobbyists and speeches, and other less legal means...

If you removed their paycheck altogether, they likely wouldn't notice.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 2:50:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What does that solve? With the notoriety of being a politician you have myriad opportunities to earn money elsewhere. At least that's how state politicians get by with only 30k-50k salaries, from my understanding. Also, the idea fails in principle because a worker's salary should be independent of how much wealth that worker produces for others, and be dependent on the value, education, and labor demanded by the work. Given all the very serious social issues in contention, this is the last thing we want to invest something as massive and draining as constitutional revision, on.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 5:36:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 12:16:39 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 7/18/2013 12:10:15 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The problem with such an amendment is that it reinforces that only the wealthy or career politicians would run. Which is often the case as it is now, anyway, but at least in theory anyone can grow up to be president.

How would the amendment show that only wealthy/career politicans will run? I also want to term limit congress thus limiting career politicians.

Actually, you'd just be incentivizing career politicians to make their gains through the more usual means: receiving employment at a lobbyist's client after running.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 5:52:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 12:16:39 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 7/18/2013 12:10:15 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The problem with such an amendment is that it reinforces that only the wealthy or career politicians would run. Which is often the case as it is now, anyway, but at least in theory anyone can grow up to be president.

How would the amendment show that only wealthy/career politicans will run?

I hadn't really considered, but I think there's a definite argument against the salary cap for the reasons given here.

I also want to term limit congress thus limiting career politicians.

This, though, I think has serious potential. I wonder how it would affect the dynamic of Congress. I'm sure there are ways to bypass such an effort, but it would be more obvious. I imagine we'd see some form of passing the torch to ensure that sects stayed in power.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 6:05:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would absolutely vote against it.

Again, I'm an unusual libertarian from what one usually hears. I see no problem paying Congresspeople or the President generous salaries. Those are FAR from easy jobs, and should be paid accordingly.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus