Capitol police warn House of possible attack tomorrow

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 22, 2011
4,112
2,913
743
33
#81
You mean the hyper rich —- meaning the 1% of households that pay 40% of the nations taxes?
Or the incredibly hyper rich - the .1% that Sen. Warren wants to charge an extra $300B/year in her wealth tax?

Not arguing that hyper rich don’t have significant power, but to make claims that they hold every power level in this country is a simplistic overstatement. Free speech is an important tool fighting that ans with myriad more avenues for speech now available in the last 20 years — power is available to a wider range of people — if they know how to wield.

I think we saw in the last election there is a large flaw in Piketty’s argument about our country’s power structure.
probably more like the .001% bezos, zuckerburg, adelson, koch, cheyneys of the world. You know, the ones that control all of the avenues and algorithms that dominate your life.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,914
4,293
743
#82
Have you ever noticed that folks who want term limits on congress always mean YOUR congressman, not the one they voted in again...
Not me. Start a rotation that gets all current members out within the next 8-12 years. Preferable would be to get the longest serving ones out first.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
18,303
10,774
1,743
41
Fairmont, MN
#83
Not me. Start a rotation that gets all current members out within the next 8-12 years. Preferable would be to get the longest serving ones out first.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Hear me out on this.

Unpopular opinion but term limits are a bad idea and we should pay congressmen enough that it's a desirable job.

With term limits, you would continually have a rotating group of new congressmen. Under the current model freshman representatives look up to colleagues that have been there for a while. I'm not a fan of people that serve their districts for decades but they have a purpose. With term limits, the veteran legislators will only be in office for 4 years at most. Without veteran leadership new congressmen will turn to others for guidance and those people are called lobbyists. With the continual turnover in congress over time the lobbyists would gain more and more power.

As to pay, congressmen make $174K per year. That's a nice check but for DC that goes half as far as it would in rural America. Plus, unless you are in a really safe district almost half your constituents hate you. And heck if you are in a place where your job is safe in the general, in the current climate you are constantly fighting off a hyper partisan idiot in the primary who is forcing you to take an extremist position to keep your job. If I'm in that spot and some lobbying firm calls me saying my 6 years in congress are what they are looking for and $500K per year is their offer, going into the private sector is an attractive option.

I don't want to advocate paying congressmen stupid high amounts of money but they need to be compensated for the bs they have to deal with. And it should be enough to attract bright political minds to the job before they look at unelected or lobbying positions.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,914
4,293
743
#84
Not me. Start a rotation that gets all current members out within the next 8-12 years. Preferable would be to get the longest serving ones out first.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Hear me out on this.

Unpopular opinion but term limits are a bad idea and we should pay congressmen enough that it's a desirable job.

With term limits, you would continually have a rotating group of new congressmen. Under the current model freshman representatives look up to colleagues that have been there for a while. I'm not a fan of people that serve their districts for decades but they have a purpose. With term limits, the veteran legislators will only be in office for 4 years at most. Without veteran leadership new congressmen will turn to others for guidance and those people are called lobbyists. With the continual turnover in congress over time the lobbyists would gain more and more power.

As to pay, congressmen make $174K per year. That's a nice check but for DC that goes half as far as it would in rural America. Plus, unless you are in a really safe district almost half your constituents hate you. And heck if you are in a place where your job is safe in the general, in the current climate you are constantly fighting off a hyper partisan idiot in the primary who is forcing you to take an extremist position to keep your job. If I'm in that spot and some lobbying firm calls me saying my 6 years in congress are what they are looking for and $500K per year is their offer, going into the private sector is an attractive option.

I don't want to advocate paying congressmen stupid high amounts of money but they need to be compensated for the bs they have to deal with. And it should be enough to attract bright political minds to the job before they look at unelected or lobbying positions.
I see what you're saying. Then reform the way pac's and lobbyists interact with officials. But something radical needs to change. These people need to be servants again and not act like rulers. Career politicians have no place because they don't have any idea about what it's truly like to be the little person anymore (or at all with some).

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,481
554
743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#86
You mean the hyper rich —- meaning the 1% of households that pay 40% of the nations taxes?
Or the incredibly hyper rich - the .1% that Sen. Warren wants to charge an extra $300B/year in her wealth tax?

Not arguing that hyper rich don’t have significant power, but to make claims that they hold every power level in this country is a simplistic overstatement. Free speech is an important tool fighting that ans with myriad more avenues for speech now available in the last 20 years — power is available to a wider range of people — if they know how to wield.

I think we saw in the last election there is a large flaw in Piketty’s argument about our country’s power structure.
probably more like the .001% bezos, zuckerburg, adelson, koch, cheyneys of the world. You know, the ones that control all of the avenues and algorithms that dominate your life.
What aspect of the “oligarch’s” POLITICAL power derived directly from their riches has manifested itself such that is currently and clearly detrimental to (1) you, (2) the party you support, and (3) the entire population?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk in
 
Last edited:
Sep 22, 2011
4,112
2,913
743
33
#88
What aspect of the “oligarch’s” POLITICAL power derived directly from their riches has manifested itself such that is currently and clearly detrimental to (1) you, (2) the party you support, and (3) the entire population


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Taxes, healthcare, social media, msm, food production, war, consumer product production, the stock market, regulations, social discourse, the Washington swamp, think tanks, straight party voting, tribalism, energy... the list goes on, if it exists and profit can be squeezed from it, there is a rich, powerful, well connected person at the top of it pulling the strings, if you dont realize that then this world will forever be an enigma to you.
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,481
554
743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#89
Taxes, healthcare, social media, msm, food production, war, consumer product production, the stock market, regulations, social discourse, the Washington swamp, think tanks, straight party voting, tribalism, energy... the list goes on, if it exists and profit can be squeezed from it, there is a rich, powerful, well connected person at the top of it pulling the strings, if you dont realize that then this world will forever be an enigma to you.
Dude, that's called progress in a capitalistic world. Would you have the government be responsible for product and service development, regulate the entire commercial chain, and be the sole beneficiary of the wealth created by such?

Sounds like you simply begrudge the successes of the ultra-rich.

Regardless, give us 3 steps to eliminate the supposed power wielded by the oligarchs.
 
Sep 22, 2011
4,112
2,913
743
33
#91
Dude, that's called progress in a capitalistic world. Would you have the government be responsible for product and service development, regulate the entire commercial chain, and be the sole beneficiary of the wealth created by such?

Sounds like you simply begrudge the successes of the ultra-rich.

Regardless, give us 3 steps to eliminate the supposed power wielded by the oligarchs.
Ban paid lobbying, ban non constituent political donations, stop worrying about culture war BS that divides us and start working on priorities that make life liberty and the pursuit of happiness available to more people.
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,481
554
743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#92
Dude, that's called progress in a capitalistic world. Would you have the government be responsible for product and service development, regulate the entire commercial chain, and be the sole beneficiary of the wealth created by such?

Sounds like you simply begrudge the successes of the ultra-rich.

Regardless, give us 3 steps to eliminate the supposed power wielded by the oligarchs.
Ban paid lobbying, ban non constituent political donations, stop worrying about culture war BS that divides us and start working on priorities that make life liberty and the pursuit of happiness available to more people.
I’m okay if they banned paid lobbying and political donations. But the net result wouldn’t change whatever balance of power you believe needs changing. The ultra-rich would still be the ultra-rich. And our elected officials would still pass laws and vote to keep themselves in office.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
9,258
6,303
1,743
Piedmont, OK
#93
Hear me out on this.

Unpopular opinion but term limits are a bad idea and we should pay congressmen enough that it's a desirable job.

With term limits, you would continually have a rotating group of new congressmen. Under the current model freshman representatives look up to colleagues that have been there for a while. I'm not a fan of people that serve their districts for decades but they have a purpose. With term limits, the veteran legislators will only be in office for 4 years at most. Without veteran leadership new congressmen will turn to others for guidance and those people are called lobbyists. With the continual turnover in congress over time the lobbyists would gain more and more power.

As to pay, congressmen make $174K per year. That's a nice check but for DC that goes half as far as it would in rural America. Plus, unless you are in a really safe district almost half your constituents hate you. And heck if you are in a place where your job is safe in the general, in the current climate you are constantly fighting off a hyper partisan idiot in the primary who is forcing you to take an extremist position to keep your job. If I'm in that spot and some lobbying firm calls me saying my 6 years in congress are what they are looking for and $500K per year is their offer, going into the private sector is an attractive option.

I don't want to advocate paying congressmen stupid high amounts of money but they need to be compensated for the bs they have to deal with. And it should be enough to attract bright political minds to the job before they look at unelected or lobbying positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
Yeah... Gonna have a little difficulty convincing us that we should pay them MORE...
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
18,303
10,774
1,743
41
Fairmont, MN
#94
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth
Yeah... Gonna have a little difficulty convincing us that we should pay them MORE...
Maybe the wealth generated through speaking engagements and book deals shoots a hole in that part of my argument.

It's one thing to take a job that doubles your salary. It's another to have a 30 minute speech followed by a meet and greet that has the same financial impact. I'd suggest some sort of legislation that limits outside income while in congress or the White House but we both know the odds of that happening.