Coronavirus Outbreak...

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm sure you don't, Pix. After all - he's "your man" and he gets defended for pretty much everything he does. And I have no clue what the golf trips have to do with this. You just seem to regularly toss in nonsequitors to any conversation.

Sweet irony, you only care because you hate him. Is it egotistical? Sure, is it something to freak out over? No.

[carpedm9587]

I'm in full favor of eliminating the concept of "career politician" from the US. Let's restore the concept that it's a public service by making politics a low-paying part-time job, and strict term limits for every office. Nobody should ever be able to get rich by being a politician.

Low-paying and part-time I don't agree with. If you want to give someone great responsibility - you should be willing to pay them correspondingly. Indeed, I'd rather they had the SAME work schedule as the rest of us - with limited time off.

But strict term limits I 100% agree with. I've long proposed 2 terms in the Senate and 6 terms in the House (12 years total).

[lilpixieofterror]

On the surface, I'd agree with you about it's 'importance' if there was no actually delay in issuing the checks required to put his signature on them.

But this is a campaign year, and that is free advertising for the republican candidate at the federal government and taxpayers expense.

(Or maybe not if it backfires like it should).

[carpedm9587]

Sweet irony, you only care because you hate him.

No. I care...AND I dislike him in the extreme. He's a vile man doing great harm.

Is it egotistical? Sure, is it something to freak out over? No.

It's more than egotistical. It's using the power of his office and apparatus of government for personal and political gain (again). It should be added to the rest of his list of inappropriate behavior and played over and over again until 11/3.

[lilpixieofterror]

No. I care...AND I dislike him in the extreme. He's a vile man doing great harm.

As far as I can tell, he has done no more or worse harm than other presidents have. Again, your hatred colors your opinions.

It's more than egotistical. It's using the power of his office and apparatus of government for personal and political gain (again). It should be added to the rest of his list of inappropriate behavior and played over and over again until 11/3.

Why do you suppose that most presidents, win re-election? Could it be because they have tons of free advertising already, thanks to their position?

[oxmixmudd]

More hypocrisy.

I can see you have no interest in 'being friends'. Just a ploy I guess. A little surprising - I actually had thought you would not sink that low, but unfortunately par for this course.

From this point I will consider any and all gestures from you that appear to be conciliatory as ploys with a pending insult or 'sucker punch' just around the corner.

This is your legacy, but unfortunately crossing this boundary is generally almost impossible to undo.

[oxmixmudd]

pix - no. And you know it. He is demanding his name on the checks. He clearly believes that is in HIS best interests. It certainly serves not one other person on the face of the Earth to have that signature there. And that pretty much says all that needs to be said. If you are not honest enough to admit this is a purely self serving move with an eye to the election (Who's signature was on your relief check - vote for him!) then that is your problem, not mine.

[carpedm9587]

As far as I can tell, he has done no more or worse harm than other presidents have. Again, your hatred colors your opinions.

No - my policy preferences and what a value morally color my opinions. I do not have my positions because I dislike Trump. I dislike Trump because he violates most of my policy and moral positions. The former we can all disagree on. The latter we (the people of the U.S.) usually tend to agree on, but the right has set aside all concerns about morality so they can get their desired policies.

Why do you suppose that most presidents, win re-election?

There are a variety of reasons for this.

Could it be because they have tons of free advertising already, thanks to their position?

What occurs naturally as a function of one's position is not comparable to explicitly using the powers of one's office and the tools of government to achieve free campaign advertising. Trump cannot help being seen if he participates in virus briefings. He CAN control whether or not he turns those briefings into campaign rallies and whether or not he requests (or permits) his name to be put on the checks being issued by the IRS.

[Mountain Man]

Low-paying and part-time I don't agree with. If you want to give someone great responsibility - you should be willing to pay them correspondingly.

I base this on the concept of states with a bi-annual legislature that only meet once every two years. It forces them to prioritize and keeps them from looking for "busy work" and implementing stuff just because they have the time to do it. Obviously allowances have to be made for emergency sessions, but I don't see why a variation of this could not be used for the Federal government. Perhaps limit Congressional sessions to three-months a year and refocus the structure of the US on state sovereignty.

[Cow Poke]

I can see you have no interest in 'being friends'.

Any time you're ready, Jim -- just drop the constant "everybody's out to get me" and the constant "us and them" mentality.

Just a ploy I guess. Not surprising, but par for the course.

Like that ^ crap.

From this point I will consider any and all gestures that appear to be conciliatory as ploys....

From THIS point? Jim, that's all you do! And it's ALWAYS "other people" -- NEVER you.

with a pending insult or 'sucker punch' just around the corner.

This is your legacy, but unfortunately crossing this boundary is generally almost impossible to undo.

And there ya have it -- EVER the victim, and it's ALWAYS "the other guy".

[carpedm9587]

I base this on the concept of states with a bi-annual legislature that only meet once every two years. It forces them to prioritize and keeps them from looking for "busy work" and implementing stuff just because they have the time to do it. Obviously allowances have to be made for emergency sessions, but I don't see why a variation of this could not be used for the Federal government. Perhaps limit Congressional sessions to three-months a year and refocus the structure of the US on state sovereignty.

If someone is going to do the job, I prefer that they be on the job and not splitting their attention between "how do I pay the bills" and "the needs of the country/state." Small states (like Vermont) can get away with part-time legislatures. Large states generally cannot. Scale matters.

[Mountain Man]

If someone is going to do the job, I prefer that they be on the job and not splitting their attention between "how do I pay the bills" and "the needs of the country/state."

I think it would do wonders for economic policy if politicians did have to give thought to "how do I pay the bills". Maybe if a tax increase hit them as hard as it hit us then they would be a lot less eager to raise taxes.

[Cow Poke]

If someone is going to do the job, I prefer that they be on the job and not splitting their attention between "how do I pay the bills" and "the needs of the country/state."

People who have the money to run for office - after all, money is still the mother's milk of politics - will have people to oversee their affairs while they serve in congress or wherever.

Small states (like Vermont) can get away with part-time legislatures. Large states generally cannot. Scale matters.

So, what's your take on people going to Washington and ending up filthy rich at the taxpayers' expense?

[carpedm9587]

I think it would do wonders for economic policy if politicians did have to give thought to "how do I pay the bills". Maybe if a tax increase hit them as hard as it hit us then they would be a lot less eager to raise taxes.

They will - in 12 years....

And if they are being paid for work, they should be equally subject to taxes. It doesn't matter that this work is for the government.

What I WOULD advocate for is an "eat your own dog food" policy so that all politicians have to face the full consequences of the laws they enact. And I think no body should be able to vote for its own pay raise. Salaries should be associated with the mean or median income in the U.S.

[Mountain Man]

They will - in 12 years....

And if they are being paid for work, they should be equally subject to taxes. It doesn't matter that this work is for the government.

What I WOULD advocate for is an "eat your own dog food" policy so that all politicians have to face the full consequences of the laws they enact. And I think no body should be able to vote for its own pay raise. Salaries should be associated with the mean or median income in the U.S.

A tax increase is a lot easier to stomach when you can vote in your own pay raise to compensate. Although I'm not sure what the solution is for that one. If it was left up to the voters, then politicians would never get a pay increase. Perhaps politician pay should be tied in some way to the economy as an automatic mechanism.