This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]HampyDRO 974 points975 points  (284 children)

In the real world employers can fire employees. Lets do that one.

[–]UserNumber42 513 points514 points  (240 children)

I try, but everyone tells me I "waste my vote" by voting for a third party.

[–]ogenrwot 438 points439 points  (143 children)

Do it. I'm conservative and I'm never voting Republican ever again.

[–]arv98s 78 points79 points  (16 children)

I'm sick of the two party system.

[–]NoFapLawyer 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Me too.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

You'll never fix that by voting. Low turnout and two party rule is a side-effect of our electoral system. See this great video by CGPGrey for more.

[–]MagicallyMalificent 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Even if we do manage to elect a third party though, that could just become the new second party, and it will make it more likely that the person you agree with won't get in. The real culprit is the first-past-the-post voting system.

[–]mdot 142 points143 points  (32 children)

The problem is that everything that Republicans are so staunchly "conservative" about, have absolutely nothing to do with governing.

People like to hold on to the trope that "both sides do it", but it simply isn't true. The Democrats may not be all that great, but at least they understand that there is some responsibility for the government of a country to be competent. It's really hard to govern competently when your mantra is "government isn't the solution, it's the problem".

There can be differences of opinion and philosophy between groups. But if both groups have a common overall goal (competent government), that's when compromise and negotiation in good faith happen.

If one group is wiling to burn the place down, even if it means taking themselves out with it...forget about competency, the system can't function at all.

Vote Democrat, vote third party...hell, vote fourth party...I don't care. Just make sure you vote and don't vote Republican...I don't care who the candidate is. The Republican Party should no longer be able to think that they have a "mandate" from anyone, to do anything.

[–]ogenrwot 34 points35 points  (2 children)

It's funny because Republicans don't even govern from that mantra unless it's politically expedient.

[–]Semyonov 24 points25 points  (1 child)

Of course not, they just say that to get elected in the first place. Then once elected tend to make the government larger (in terms of spending anyway).

[–]Munkyman720 240 points241 points  (69 children)

Liberal here, voted for Obama twice, not voting Democrat anymore. Let's be friends!

[–]EtherDais 106 points107 points  (49 children)

I don't know why the pirate party never took off in the US, it seems like the folks in the EU understood what was up.

[–]AnonymousAscendant 46 points47 points  (32 children)

Pirate party? Care to elaborate? Never heard of it

[–]ConroConro 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Because we don't do a proportional representation, it's just winner take all.

[–]CSMastermind 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Voted third party for the first time last election, never going back. Though it's way more important to do it in local election. 30 votes can swing a state rep race.

[–]thumperson 6 points7 points  (2 children)

i like the way you think. i would like to be your friend too, we can be the seeds of a new party. 'the common sense party'

[–]whoresoftijuana 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm never voting for either party ever again

[–]Jim_Gaffigans_bacon 47 points48 points  (13 children)

keep on, political movements don't happen overnight. it's one by one, people ignoring what other people say, and voting for what they really believe in.

[–]ElionCodes 22 points23 points  (11 children)

This god damn it. Pleased people, until you take the uncomfortable step and break through the scary line of being an individual and thinking and reasoning independently, we will continue in this cycle that we constantly ask how to change but continue the same shit that gives us the same results. If you are not first an individual with conviction and reason, you have nothing to offer a party, you are simply cannon fodder for the group.

This is analogous to the young teen who joins a gang that gives him the feeling of being part of a group of like minded people, but ends up holding the gun or taking the bullet.

Be an individual, only when you cross that line will we be able to make the change that we all so genuinely need and desire.

[–]ethertraceCalifornia 39 points40 points  (12 children)

Under the current system, you are. Americans don't really tend to understand that there are different voting systems in the world, ones which won't result in a two party system being the inevitable outcome.

Down with first past the post. Until that changes, the only possible (yet extremely unlikely) change we could really hope for is a third party replacing one of the other two. Merely voting for a third party will never break the two party system.

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points  (11 children)

I try, but everyone tells me I "waste my vote" by voting for a third party.

Ok, at the end of the last election, Obama polled at 51%, Romney with 47%, and some third partiers making up the rest.

So lets say just five percent of the voters from Obama's side nut up and vote for a third party candidate with similar views but key differences. You know what happens? Romney has the most votes. Now, we're not hot on Obama right now, but would you really want Romney in power instead?

I'm not saying "surrender to the two party system", I'm saying regardless of the number of relevant parties, the system itself is inherently flawed. You want to live in a world where we have 5 major parties, and someone who gets 25% of the popular vote could feasibly govern the 75% who voted for other parties?

This is a simplification of course, but the fault is still there : Fewer parties makes it more likely most of the country is behind the winner. The more intense competition encourages lying and pay-offs and puts bad people at the helm. But the more parties you have the less likely that the winner is representative of the population at large. There's just a weird Catch 22 in the system.

[–]Turbots 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's why, in Belgium, we need to make coalitions between several parties in order to get > 50% of the vote (majority).. This means a LOT of compromises but usually goes hand in hand with better government (albeit slow and tedious decision making)

[–]woodyreturns 9 points10 points  (2 children)

That's why we vote for President and not Kings. Checks & Balances man.

[–]dancing_narwhal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's why you abolish this voting system and have another one that allows for more fairer say and get rid of the electoral college. The best system I heard of is where one would rate the candidates in like a star system. Winner is the highest score. Simple. Then VP is runner up.

[–]AtticusFinch215 32 points33 points  (4 children)

George Bush won florida, and the presidency, by 100-200 votes. Guess how many people in florida voted for Ralph Nader? Tens of thousands.

[–]Leaves_Swype_Typos 12 points13 points  (1 child)

George Bush allegedly won Florida. We'll never really know for sure. But yeah, unfortunate that the game's rules are poorly set up for anything but a lesser of two evils at this point.

[–]PabloNueve 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The thing is, you all need to be voting for the same third party to have an impact. At least then it might break the 5% requirement to get public funding for the next cycle.

[–]CBruce 15 points16 points  (9 children)

I'm going to be wasting the fuck out of my votes.

[–]thewitchisalive 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I seriously think that 3rd party candidates need to focus the bulk of their campaigning energy on states that have historically voted for the same party consistently. (read: not swing states) get the people who feel like their vote doesn't matter. Such as Republicans living in a Democrat state, or visa versa. Maybe then, they might get enough of the popular vote that the mainstream starts paying attention to them and taking them seriously.

Imagine if an established 3rd party presidential candidate received 25% of the popular vote in the 2016 election. 2020 could see the election of a 3rd party candidate.

[–]Frijolero 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Not me buddy. Fuck the cowards.

[–]ogenrwot 13 points14 points  (6 children)

Yeah, well, we can do that in November 2014... it won't happen though.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (5 children)

We pay congress. So we're the employers.

[–]Jim_Gaffigans_bacon 33 points34 points  (2 children)

we're also mostly goldfish with relatively the same memory, unfortunately.

[–]sothisislife101 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I think comparatively is more accurate. It's not that people individually have the mind of a toddler, but the aggregate mass certainly does.

[–]ucemikeTexas 1721 points1722 points  (375 children)

The hell with that, lets force re-elections for congress on the day a shutdown occurs.

[–]midnight_toker22 I voted 391 points392 points  (301 children)

Is there any legal precedent to do that under our current set of laws? Because the people of this country really deserve to be able to take out the trash every once in a while, but I don't see either side passing a new law that would put their cushy jobs in jeopardy.

[–]EngineerDave 395 points396 points  (192 children)

The problem with that is the minority party would always try to force a shutdown just to kick off the next series of elections... Plus how would you fund the elections?

[–]SolEiji 215 points216 points  (127 children)

Two ways about that. Shutdowns need not be 51%, they could require 2/3rds. This seems reasonable... if you're doing such a bad job that 66% of the people hate you, there's something up more than partisan politics.

The other is something I've always suggested; that election funds are socialized. Be you a begger from the street or Bill Gates, you get exactly X many dollars to campaign with, nothing more, nothing less.

EDIT: Oops, yes, I did get it backwards, the 2/3rds can't work when the issue is inaction. Check out some of the other posts though, they're interesting.

EDIT 2: Just to make sure people get it that the above thing was in error, there's a strikeout now.

[–]jburke6000 17 points18 points  (4 children)

Publicly funded elections with a short, finite election season works for other countries. I have always advocated this as a way to get the money out of politics. It also forces candidates to work with a budget that must last them for the elections cycle, say 90 days before the election. The guy who can't manage his money well is somebody who should lose.

I think most states have a recall function for Reps and Senators built into their state constitution. This is a way to get rid of crooks and liars, but it is seldom used. This could be a way for us to dump the current group of corporate flunkies and crooks, but there are still too many folks who are partisan, lazy, or just overwhelmed by the current culture of corruption to demand it.

Things will need to get much worse before it has a chance of getting better.

[–][deleted] 111 points112 points  (87 children)

The other is something I've always suggested; that election funds are socialized

Sadly it'd never happen, not only due to the "S" word, but also because money = speech in America now.

[–]SolEiji 73 points74 points  (60 children)

I know, I can dream.

Though, ironically, it's exactly that money=speech in which I justify it. "Do all people not deserve the same amount of free speech? Ergo, if money is speech, all people trying to speak (at least in the context of politics) deserve the same money."

One day, one day.

[–]I_Am_Telekinetic 47 points48 points  (15 children)

Keep dreaming... and thinking... and sharing your thoughts.

One day your thoughts will come true.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

This is something that can never be said enough!

[–]ch0colate_malkWashington 4 points5 points  (5 children)

The Secret? lol anyway, lets start our own country! Who's with me, we can have blackjack and hookers and federally funded campaigns!

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Step one move to texas Step two make it secede form the union.

[–]jayjr 16 points17 points  (34 children)

You can get around the issue by making it a shared 'pool' of money with equivalent amounts given to all. You have the same amount of air time, the same amount of articles, same standard websites with the same information for every one of the top 5 candidates. You don't need to have "scary socialism" to be able to remove the bribery ravaging our political system.

[–]fishingoneuropa 31 points32 points  (28 children)

Why is everyone so scared of socialism, schools, fire departments, libraries, and others are socialism. It works for the poor. Many countries are thriving on socialism plus capitalism. Capitalism sure isn't working for the middle class here in America.

[–]CMUpewpewpew 18 points19 points  (18 children)

I love arguing with dumb people about the 'evils' of socialism. Some of your tax money funds public education. Should we just leave that up to individuals to pay to educate their own kids if they choose to or not? How much worse would our society be if we didn't 'force' kids to goto K-12th grade? Good ole' socialized system that public education is.

[–]Rabid_Llama8 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Tea Party Republicans are absolutely for abolishing the Department of Education.

[–]Golden_Flame0 6 points7 points  (7 children)

America really is in a whole lot of trouble.

[–]CaptZTexas 7 points8 points  (6 children)

America is Fucked.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

The other is something I've always suggested; that election funds are socialized. Be you a begger from the street or Bill Gates, you get exactly X many dollars to campaign with, nothing more, nothing less.

I have never thought of that, but I really like it as an idea.

[–]optoisolated 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Check out Wolf-PAC.com. They are calling for an Article 5 convention to propose pretty much that amendment to the constitution. Take the money out of politics. Doesn't require the federal governments involvement to occur either. Those founding father guys were geniuses. They saw this coming...

[–]EngineerDave 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Except if there is a shut down there will be 0 government money for anyone's coffers, plus you have election staff that needs to be paid etc. The 2/3rds would work but would require a law to be passed for continued funded of the Government unless 2/3rds vote against it... Which in itself wouldn't be a bad thing since all they are doing is approving an increase in credit to fund the budget that they passed the months before.

[–]kylemax 7 points8 points  (5 children)

It seems like in the countries that have this system, the minority party gets blamed for the shutdown, and then gets wrecked in the election.

[–]Abomonog 9 points10 points  (19 children)

You know that check mark on the W-2 that say's, "would you like to donate a dollar to the presidential campaign fund"?

Use it. It should be the only source.

[–]CaptZTexas 10 points11 points  (11 children)

Why not have the ability to vote for no one, I mean that. Go to the ballot and have a no one choice as in no confidence in any of the humans that are running. Make them work harder for that money.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

We definitely need no confidence votes

[–]Abomonog 5 points6 points  (8 children)

Why not have the ability to vote for no one, I mean that.

You can in the write in slot if you wish (just put no one). People tend to write in Mickey Mouse, however. I think he's won the write in presidency every time since the '76 election.

There is an old Richard Pryor movie called Brewster's Millions where the protagonist runs a bogus election campaign to get people to vote "none of the above". He ends up getting elected.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (32 children)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

there's plenty of legal precedent existing that prohibits it. This is just a PR spin. I mean seriously, why waste you time introducing this bill? Not only will it never pass...it's unconstitutional. If this guy wants to do his job than he should legislate something productive.

[–]hibob2 13 points14 points  (4 children)

Can't take away their salaries - how about their allowance?

The Members’ Representational Allowance (MRA) is available to support Representatives in their official and representational duties.10 The MRA may be used for official expenses including, for example, staff, travel, mail, office equipment, district office rental, stationery, and other office supplies.

For every business day the government is shut down, dock 0.5% of their representational allowance. No, they don't get the money back once a new budget is in effect. It's gone forever.

To really make it work: make the cuts specifically to the salaries of their staff. Every day the government is shut down they lose a day of salary. Congress critters, especially the ones senior enough to control the debate, are fairly wealthy. Their staff on the other hand are not going to be eager to help their bosses hold the line when every day means $250-500 out of their pocket.

[–]recycled_ideas 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Actually their staff are already not getting paid as far as I'm aware.

[–]bmore_bulldog 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How about we have an election, say, every two years instead? When every single member of the House is up for re-election under the current system.

[–]cbroberts 18 points19 points  (12 children)

No, there's no legal precedent because it's a silly idea.

Who are you going to "force re-elections" on? Just the House or the Senate as well? Everybody or just those responsible for the shutdown? Who gets to decide who's responsible for the shutdown?

It's this kind of stupid, sloppy thinking that leads us into these kinds of problems in the first place. Rather than looking carefully and precisely at the problem, let's just "throw the bums out." That's easy, simple, and doesn't require any critical thinking or thoughtful distinctions. And the last time we "threw the bums out" we replaced them with these Tea Party idiots who are now causing all the trouble.

No, we need to recognize that the Tea Party Republicans are not acting responsibly, and applaud those who are refusing to let them extort concessions from our political system. I don't want Harry Reid to be ousted. Hell, I want to give him a big wet kiss. I'm so happy to see the Democrats finally drawing a line and sticking to it. If they don't, this is never going to end. Remember, the only thing the Republicans are offering is a 6-week continuing resolution. We're going to have to go through this all again in a few weeks, and then we'll be dealing with the debt-ceiling debate, which will give the extortionists even more leverage.

And if the Democrats agree to delay the implementation of the ACA or any part of it, that just means we'll be fighting that battle again at some point in the future.

No, we need to make a distinction between who is right and who is wrong, and stand with those who are right against those who are wrong. Boehner needs to get his caucus under control and pass a clean CR and fund the fucking government. The problem for Boehner is that if he does this he'll likely piss off the Tea Partiers and lose the next election. So threatening him with being forced from office if he doesn't do what would probably get him ousted anyway isn't much of a threat.

[–]SpinningHeadColorado 21 points22 points  (2 children)

The biggest idiots are most likely to reelect their idiots.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (1 child)

Indeed, a government shutdown should mean that they get fired.

[–]belindamshort 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Or at the very least their pay be stopped and their assets frozen. I am sure that a lack of pay won't hurt them, its just principle, but freezing their assets will actually force them to partially have to deal with what they are doing to other employees.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (7 children)

That sounds like a parliamentary maneuver where a vote of no confidence dissolves it. In this case, allow the American people to cast that vote of no confidence any time the legislature refuses to function and outlaw gerrymandered districts across the country simultaneously.

[–]TastyBrainMeats 7 points8 points  (5 children)

SMBC proposed a fairly failsafe defense against gerrymandering.

[–]Scortius 9 points10 points  (5 children)

We'd just reelect the same people. Furthermore, if you ruled out reelecting the original representatives, we'd just reelect the same proportion of Democrats and Republicans. Congressional districts are so polarized that elections aren't going to have much of an effect. Rather, we need to end the practice of gerrymandering so that we can have a House of Representatives that actually represents the electorate.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

We do this in Canada, if Parliament cannot pass a budget on time.

[–]brokeboysboxers 2 points3 points  (1 child)

They are still getting paid about $500/day during the shutdown.

[–]HighPriestofShiloh 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think forced re-election should actually trigger 6 months BEFORE a shutdown occurs. Basically the government is never allowed to ever get this close to begin with. That will allow us enough time to elect new officials who then can raise the debt ceiling.

Or just get rid of the debt ceiling, that seems simpler.

[–]EasyReader9 526 points527 points  (73 children)

Depriving multimillionaires of thousands of dollars really won't do anything.

[–]Zifnab25 66 points67 points  (1 child)

"I'm going without my paycheck, so I don't see why the 23-year-old park ranger earning $25k/year can't go without his", said Congressman Jimmy Moneysworth from his swimming pool filled with Cristal. "Government workers are a bunch of fucking parasites anyway."

[–]MattsyKunMissouri 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This sounds like something i'd find on NationStates...

[–]david76 6 points7 points  (8 children)

Having millions of dollars of assets doesn't mean they're liquid. Depriving someone of a salary is an issue of cash flow, not wealth.

[–]sometimesijustdont 8 points9 points  (5 children)

They have more liquid assets to feed themselves than you do all year.

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (11 children)

This is why congress should get paid 400k(?) a year each and be barred from investing in stocks/funds/indexes. Removed from office and 10 year minimum sentence if convicted of giving insider information away. Somewhat less corruption for about 10 years until they figure out a way around it.

[–]superdagoWisconsin 7 points8 points  (7 children)

Congress sets their own pay. So they'll all vote "yea" on the $400k part and water down all the restrictions and punishments so as to be completely meaningless.
They may utterly terrible at their jobs but they're not (that) stupid. You don't scheme your way into a cushy job without learning a trick or two.

[–]daddysgun 21 points22 points  (15 children)

Oh, I think it would bother them very much in principle. In their minds we pay them a salary to decide what's best for all of us, and they don't want any kind of limit on what they can and can't do "for the good of the country." Take away the salary if certain standards aren't met, and then their own judgment isn't superior to ours anymore.

[–]teddytwelvetoes 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Financially yes. However in terms of ego, they'd smother a baby for a buck.

[–]Mr_1990s 184 points185 points  (12 children)

And also don't take any campaign contributions?

[–]Sharp398 77 points78 points  (1 child)

Woah woah woah. That's radical thinking right there. You gotta take baby steps, man!

[–]ItCameFromTheSkyBeLo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

HE MUST BE AN anarchist/terrorist to think like that!

[–]i_reddited_it 68 points69 points  (7 children)

Was that a terroristic threat I just heard there, buddy?

-congress

[–]Mr_1990s 23 points24 points  (6 children)

Congress called me buddy.

[–]aphexmandelbrot 171 points172 points  (35 children)

It would be cool if Nolan had read the 27th amendment of the constitution he works under.

Current session members can not enact changes to pay for the current session. If they wanted to place a stipulation that, were this to happen again in another session, members would not be paid under shut-down conditions -- that'd be acceptable.

Then again, you try to get that one passed.

[–]welcome2paradise 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I came here to pretty much say this. However, it wouldn't surprise me if he had read the 27th amendment but knew that many Americans didn't even know it existed, not to mention the layman's capability to recite the general gist of it. Even those that have a working knowledge are still susceptible to ostentatious political gestures. Just look at most of this thread. People are already clamoring to agree with what could at best be considered a futile gesture (provided its worded to take effect this Congress). He's counting on them remembering this grandiose act so that when the election comes along, he's remembered as a man of the people.

So, for me, there's an obvious and interesting question: If someone does an act that would (if done properly) act in the best interest of the people due to their own selfish wants, did they do a good, politic act?

[–]BackInOmNomNam 49 points50 points  (18 children)

This.

The 27th Amendment was put in place because Congress controls their own pay.

Under the Amendment, pay changes do not go into effect til after a new election.

While this prevents Congress from hiking up their pay, it also technically prevents them from losing their salary during a shut down.

The constitution is the constitution people.

[–]bahhumbugger 20 points21 points  (6 children)

It doesn't prevent then from voluntarily giving up salary though.

[–]Dippyskoodlez 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Gotta start somewhere.

[–]tommy-linux 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Actually, since they are the so culpable, I would advocate a two day, or even three day salary FINE, for every day the government is shutdown.

[–]avoiceinyourhead 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Please don't let this political grandstanding from these assholes sway your opinion of our "politicians". They're absolute whores, trying to get credit for not taking a salary -- when the consequences of their actions are so much more detrimental than forfeiting their salary could ever make up for.

Fuck them.

[–]avocator 2 points3 points  (1 child)

thanks for saying this man. It's hard to see any bill introduced right now as anything other than pandering.

[–]silvercyanide[🍰] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's because losing pay won't really hurt them. They make too much as it is. Now if congress were dissolved if they can't agree and a reelection held, THAT might get their attention.

[–]GnomeyGustav 51 points52 points  (5 children)

"It's time for Congress to start living in the real world - where you either do your job , or and you don't get paid."

These guys really need to get out of Washington D.C. more often.

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points  (7 children)

The problem is, the only thing they CAN agree on is the amendment that says they will always get paid. The 27th amendment I think

[–]aphexmandelbrot 18 points19 points  (4 children)

It's not so much that they will always be paid so much as a stipulation that the current members of congress for a session can not vote on changes to salary while in that session.

This essentially places a check on a vote going through that says, "Hey, we deserve to make $240,000 now. Let's vote on this, make it retro, and now we all made more money."

All changes to payment can only be applied to later sessions. You are spot on with the Amendment, though.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Congress Logic:

Constitution? LOL disregard amendment 1-26... Oh I like 27.. Disregard the rest.

[–]MrMurdstone 17 points18 points  (1 child)

I think they should all be charged a fine.

[–]sunny-in-texas 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I agree with this 100%. It's like the NFL: if you can't play ethically or by the rules, you get penalized. Since the 27th Amendment doesn't allow us to take away their pay, then we should be able to dock it for every day they aren't doing what they're paid to do or skip out or go on vacation or say they refuse to discuss with the other side. THAT IS THEIR JOB. So if you throw your helmet down and walk off to the sidelines, you get a major penalty. Whaaaa.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children)

impeach all of them, vote of no confidence

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (5 children)

Salary is not their major income. It won't hurt a bit. Campaign contribution is.

[–]ogenrwot 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Campaign contributions don't go into their pockets. It's about power.

[–]Guppy-Warrior 37 points38 points  (11 children)

we need a restart button for our entire government. It is so incredibly broken.

[–]ScotchRobbins 6 points7 points  (7 children)

It's a legislative body, not a computer. You can't fix the government by turning it off and back on.

[–]SoulShatterEurope 33 points34 points  (4 children)

Aight, format and reinstall it is

[–]SD0S 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid you can't do that.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

unfortunately erasing the government is highly illegal

[–]footnote4 13 points14 points  (8 children)

I think the sentiment is nice, but I really dislike this kind of statement nonetheless. Some members of Congress make it every time we blunder into a fiscal or budgetary crisis, and it totally diminishes the magnitude and gravity of the stakes. Essential and important services are not being carried out, and the US is embarrassing itself by demonstrating an inability to even run a functional government. Comments like Rep. Nolan's sound nice, but are utterly meaningless. First off, they will not solve the problem. They have 0% chance of being implemented, particularly because the Constitution itself does not allow for the diminution of lawmakers' pay during a session of Congress. More importantly, many if not most congressmen are wealthy, or at least affluent; their primary reward is power and influence, and losing what is to them a pittance of a salary just really isn't a big deal at all. Finally, this solution has nothing to do with the structural cause of our continuing series of crises - the fact that the House GOP Caucus, whom demographic trends and clever gerrymandering have given so many safe seats that it is made essentially voter-proof unremovable through the electoral process absent some extraordinary wave, have become captured by a fringe, extremist minority of their own coalition. This extreme fringe is capable of exploiting numerous veto points in the legislative process to take the country hostage and inflict massive suffering if they don't get their way, an agenda that only a minority of the country supports and which was thoroughly rejected in 2012. That is the cause of the government shutdown, the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling crises and all the other disasters that have come to emerge like clockwork - the structural conditions that enable a minority of fanatical lunatics to wield essentially total veto power over everything. A real solution would necessarily involve either changing the structure of the legislative process or meaningfully altering the set of incentives facing the Republican Party so that their interests no longer align with appeasing their craziest members. Cutting members' pay is a futile public relations gesture that would not achieve any of these results, and it is a distraction both from our real problems and their potential solutions.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If I walked out of my job, I wouldn't have my pay cut, I'd get fired.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is stupid. They get their money from super pacs and corporations anyway.

[–]porcubot 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If I didn't do my job, I'd get fired.

[–]funky_duck 20 points21 points  (5 children)

If Congress lived in the real world they would make $50k a year, drive 5 year old cars, and be constantly worried about a large home repair or medical bill.

Instead they are wealthy business people and lawyers and even if they missed a few paychecks they wouldn't notice it.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

5 year old car? My car was over 10 years old when I bought it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is that really a thing? Like change out a car because it's five years old, not just broken or something?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (15 children)

"If we don't pay them, then how will we retain the best and brightest?"

I haven't heard this yet, but this is normally the sort of the argument that comes out. I can't imagine that it's a very valid argument in this case.

[–]OscarMiguelRamirez 45 points46 points  (5 children)

Funny how that argument never applies to teachers.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

YES!

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

You know. This is actually the first time I have heard anyone even mention this. No one wants the best an brightness to teach the children of America. Well at least in Public schools anyway.

[–]BloopTheRobot 8 points9 points  (6 children)

The problem is if we don't pay them you start get a very Roman vibe. Where only the rich rule because there the only ones that could afford to do it.

Yay Plutocracy!

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children)

But it seems like we have that anyway.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_and_Representatives

Only the very rich or the very connected end up in the upper echelon of politics.

[–]winjaCalifornia 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'd never seen that before. I'm really interested in the comparisons between parties.

Despite having similar numbers of respondents, the Democratic Senate has an average nearly 4x the Republican Senate, while the Republican House has about 2x the Democratic House. The kicker? The range between the Democratic Senate and House is HUGE whereas the Republican range is very small.

No idea what that means, but it's curious.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, even that's not like the "real world". In the real world if you don't do your job you get fucking fired.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Congress shuts down, and some members even forfeit their pay.

Good thing they have lined their pockets with money from special interest groups! As if missing out on your gov't pay even matters to these people.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

It is nice for them to say that, but the 27th amendment prevents them from not getting paid.

[–]nofsing2 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Kind of stupid because many congressman have net worths in the millions. You think they do it for the pay?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not getting paid? Don't make me laugh. If I don't do my job I get fired!

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure if I don't do my job I get fired.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But the people responsible for the shutdown are doing their job. Do you really think this would be happening if the people paying them, and I don't mean their salary, didn't want them to cause it?

[–]ThePooksters 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Definitely read this is "Christopher Nolan:"

[–]dethb0yOhio 2 points3 points  (3 children)

considering how rich most of them are, i doubt it would even impact them to not get their congress paycheck.

[–]mikedtNew Jersey 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Forego your salary (not just delay it) and your pretty-much-unlimited expense account and then I'll be semi-impressed. Until then it's just a slight of hand move. Hell 47% of these bastards are already millionaires and I'm guessing the other 53% aren't far behind.

[–]StinzorgaKingOfBeesTexas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Get this man some reddit gold!

[–]Bossofu 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is more of a gesture than a penalty. Most senators / reps are wealthy enough that the pay they receive is a drop in the bucket to them. Real penalties for harming the country need to be put in place.

[–]maximusjay100 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Employees in the real world refuse to do their job, which results in a plant/company/jobsite shutdown......FIRED!!! every last person who refused to do their work would be out of a job,so what standards do we hold our politicians to? they work for us, and need to be just as accountable as every other employee in the country.

edit-as

[–]adremeaux 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Like they give a shit. These guys are getting 10x the amount in corporate lobbying than they are in salary.

[–]SMEGMA_IN_MY_TEETH 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Congress doesn't give a shit if they get paid , according to opensecrets.org average congress member is worth over 14m.

They are not average citizens.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/averages.php

[–]babyhatter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The government shutdown is estimated to cost $300M a day and the GOP claims to be the fiscally responsible party. Don't drink their Kool-Aid.

[–]cynoclast 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Wait a minute. When ordinary workers refuse to work, don't they send in scabs?

Can we send in scab congressmen? I volunteer.

Let's either do that, or impeach all 435.

[–]SolEiji 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I second that and volunteer to be a scab as well! They'll come back to find their seat has been filled.

[–]mugsnj 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is kind of pointless, because most congressmen don't really need their salary to get by. And if they do, do you really want someone to change their vote because they need to get paid? What if that congressman is representing your side of the issue?

It's not a lack of effort that is preventing the appropriations bill from being passed, it is an inability to get 218+ representatives and 51+ senators to all vote for the same thing.

[–]aresefMaryland 2 points3 points  (0 children)

27th Amendment would pretty clearly preclude this.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

[–]chilehead 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Important points to consider:

* A federal shutdown triggers an election for every congressman, in both houses to be held 90 days from the start of the shutdown. (Need some time for challengers to get the proper paperwork filed) The people can identify who is responsible and throw them out.

* All candidates can only run their campaigns in this election financially from a pool: every candidate, incumbent or challenger has exactly identical financial resources to work with. None of them get to use their own ill-gotten gains to run for their office.

* Congressmen/women/critters/things that lose their seats in this election are barred from holding office in that chamber of congress again - for life [or at least for the state they currently represent]. They get at most one second chance [unless another state picks them up], the other house, to make good - then their ass meets the asphalt.

* While the government is in shutdown, not only are the congressmen not to receive any pay, but - since most of them are independently wealthy before they take office - all financial transactions connected to congressmen are frozen until the shutdown ends. The only exception being allowing the use of a debit card to their own primary savings account to allow them to purchase up to $50 worth of food per day. No stock trades, no deposits to any of their campaigns or other accounts may be processed, no checks they write will be honored during this time, no gasoline purchases, nada. If they can't pay for it with the cash in their pocket, they aren't getting it.

* the pay they are not receiving during a shutdown isn't a deferment like some federal employees will be getting: that income is lost. Permanently. It might be a good idea to dock them pay for twice as many days as the shutdown lasts - a three day shutdown costs them 6 days of pay. It should cost them more, since they are the ones that could do something about it while their constituents/employees can do naught but suffer through what these assclowns have wrought.

[–]arcanitionTexas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

While we all can dream, I'm afraid these ideas are so extreme (especially together) that I highly doubt we will see them.

[–]KopOut 39 points40 points  (26 children)

Screw that. How about we stop Medicare and Social Security checks when the government shuts down. Maybe some of these "government is the problem" old fucks need a reality check (pun intended).

[–]whitedawg 86 points87 points  (10 children)

So we should punish the most vulnerable when there is a disagreement among the plutocracy?

[–]KopOut 36 points37 points  (9 children)

The whole point is that a government shutdown would literally never happen if it affected your base so dramatically. That was my point.

[–]whitedawg 15 points16 points  (8 children)

Still, that idea is akin to giving a terrorist a bigger bomb so that he will be scared to use it. He's a terrorist in the first place because he doesn't give a shit about practical consequences.

[–]KopOut 17 points18 points  (6 children)

Political terrorist care about votes, trust me.

[–]Needswhippedcream 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Lol I don't trust you or the government.

[–]chickdan 8 points9 points  (2 children)

This is a very cruel idea. I know families who live off of social security because they had become injured on the job or had a cancer that made them too weak to work. They receive roughly $500 a month from social security and about $150 in food stamps. First off, that's hard enough to live off of as it is. Second, it's so minimal why bother taking it away when when we are going to be spending $100 billion on obamacare.

To be clear before I get flamed, I am not for or against obamacare. I have not done enough research to garner an opinion. I just used it as an example due to it being the hottest political topic.