Congress Gets Theirs Why Shouldn't Seniors
WinCustomize Forums
Cost of living adjustments for whom? Or are you just talking in general? Oh, sorry, didn't see the second line of the post title.
They only require it because that stay in Washington so long, cut back on the time they spend there and make they live back in thier respective states. I'm sure the voters would love that.
Cost of Living Adjustments (Congress Gets Theirs, "Why Shouldn't Seniors") What Do You Think?
Well, here is another way to think about it, everytime there needs to be a cost of living adjustment our taxes should go down. Less taxes the more money we keep and the cost of living adjustment might not be needed. I know, a very radical idea, but it could work. 
Well I would agree with a flat tax and no IRS. The Government still needs money to run the country, just not as much as they think.
My cost of living adjustment is leaving more and more regular items on the supermarket shelves each shopping day, what with a static income and prices constantly rising. Back 12 - 18 months ago I could fill a shopping trolley for AUD $200, now I can fill it to just over half for $240.
The other cost of living adjustment is turning off everything not essential/in use off at the wall to save on electricity costs, what with the power bill going up 45% - 50% over the last 3 years... yet all I get is an extra $8.50 on my disability pension. The thing that really stinks is that a soon as a pension rise is announced, many of the essentials (food, elecricity, gas, etc) go up straight away, so our increase is often spent before we actually receive it.
Ain't that the truth, particularly when pollies get all sorts of allowances and perks on top of already more than generous salaries, then abuse those priveleges by spending on travel, etc, for family members from gov't coffers. When politicians gouge more from the public purse than they actually produce/perform, they are no longer public servants, but rather, public liabilities. It's not cost of living adjustments they need, but rather a reality check and a dose of having to live on the meagre salaries (without the lurks and perks) they expect the majority to survive on.
Being a politician (most of whom are already independently wealthy) should not mean having an open cheque book and a licence to drain the public purse.
Talking about the cost of living adjustments (COLA), there's a great news! It is widely believed that there will be little to no inflation in 2010 and beyond since there will be no COLA for Social security. This is great news to consumers, but not for SS recipients, whose annual increases will depend on consumer price changes in some areas. I just hope there will be a fair judgment with regards to this matter, that it will benefit both the consumers and the SS recipients.
The presidency is limited 8 years, it does not make sense to me that there are no term limits in congress.
With corruption and nepotism running rampant, term limits are a good idea.
This would be too easy
I agree. But those who chase after the vacant seats should, in no uncertain terms, be made aware of what you can and cannot do. One of the cannots ... leave the veterans, disabled folks and those of limited means the hell alone and tax the shit out of those who earn a ton of bucks every year, especially independently wealthy politicians. Let them put their bucks where their mouth is. Talk don't mean diddly, action does and we all know the only actions politicians like are the ones that make their purses fatter than they already are.
Politicians should be on the 'average wage'...no more...no less...and no perks.
None.
Teach the buggers what REAL people live on/with.
THEN it's in THEIR interest to improve the public's well-being....;p
In my opinion the public should decide how much and when anyone in government gets a raise or increase since they are "public servants." If they can't give something like this to the public they shouldn't get one either...period...it's not like they live in a different country...the cost of living goes up for everyone. Actually...they should have term limits as well as pay limits. And any "gifts" they receive monetary or otherwise should go directly to paying down the debt...they should not be allowed to keep anything. They should also get the same healthcare plan as everyone else. And no more freebies!!! Pay their own parking ...haircuts...and go to jail like anyone else when they break a law. There should also be an age limit so they have an actual stake in the future. And no ties to any industry such as gas or oil once they take office. And once their term is over...that's it...no extras like secret service protection or anything else. And if they get caught breaking any laws they get nothing except a jail sentence and lose any benefits they would have received had they finished their term with a clean record.
another year of no increase for SS, bummer.
blame Reagan for taking out housing costs from the COLA formulas.
I think, maybe incorrect, that some states have term limits. the states are represented in Congress ergo it is the state's responsibility to govern their representatives and set the number of terms allowed or not.
That'll happen when Hell freezes over and you can watch sunsets in the East.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
