this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
75 points (90.3% liked)

politics

19223 readers
3944 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“COL living raise for me but not for thee.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Eh...

So the real solution is to make the House telework, and require all members to have a primary residence in their district where they spend the majority of their time.

However, without doing that I think a raise is warranted. They need to maintain two homes, one of which in an insanely high cost of living area.

Like, when getting a clearance literally the most important thing they look at is finances, because people without resources are susceptible to bribery.

It's open knowledge that special interest groups and "donors" rent luxury living at bottom dollar prices, or even have frat style lodgings for junior House members.

So sure, knee jerk reaction is fuck them they make enough, but they really don't, and that opens the door for a lot of corruption once in office.

It's little things at once, then slowly ramps up until the big shit. You don't start asking a big thing, you reward for small things they're already doing and then slowly get them out of their moral comfort zone, until anything is acceptable.

This isn't a secret, the US government definitely knows how espionage works. So I doubt it's accidental right after Obama won both parties agreed a pay cut was worth it if it makes the poors less likely to run. And the people who do run more likely to be corrupted.

[–] vikingr@lemmy.world 7 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

A raise so they can continue their comfy lifestyles all while doing NOTHING for us? Remember -- these fuckers have socialized healthcare. They don't live in the same reality as those of us who are barely scraping by. They also benefit from insider trading and lavish "gifts."

Nah, fuck all that. Don't lick their boots.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

That’s not what they’re saying at all. I’ll repeat it but they do a very good job explaining it, re-read it if you have to.

The most important point is that the lower the salary, the more someone would find themselves needing to take extras from someone. It has the same basic vibe of being afraid of losing your health insurance so you don’t fight back when your company asks you to do questionable shit. This becomes a huge barrier for people that don’t have the money to ignore bribery and the people that do are way more likely to not be great people in the first place.

Without adequate salary the working class has a way harder time breaking into politics.