I get it - so things are "wrong" based on the fact that I disagree with them. I'm now armed and ready to compete in D&D.
Um, ok. All you can really do is say what you *would* do, so, I can't really hold that against him. Sounds like scoffing to me. I'm pretty sure a member of the House of Representative would need many, many other people to vote with him to reduce their salary (which IIRC, he has introduced in the past, and has been voted down). Whereas a President, I'm guessing, can probably change that at his own discretion.
Did Paul propose cutting congressmen's salary? No The President has to go through the same hoops as congress to adjust his salary.
He has in the past, yes, and of course been voted down. He also proposed they cap pay increases in congress. Also voted down. He's also sent back over $100,000 in unused funds from his office to the treasury. Look, I have my issues with Paul too, but this is *not* one of them. I'm pretty sure the President could get that done. Has a little more sway than a lone Rep. Especially since he would only be tinkering with *his* salary, versus everyone else's.
With that ideology you should go camp out in the mountains of Peru. Get your own food, get your own water, build your own house. Oh yeah. And don't use government-funded roads and infrastructure either. If you're not willing to put money in the system to benefit everyone you shouldn't be able to use anything. At all. The mindset of libertarians is just scary. Collectivism is what gets human progress going, not a bunch of selfish individuals that only look out of themselves.
This. Times 1,000,000. Republicans and Libertarians love to say how they deserve everything that they have earned themselves. But they didn't earn anything. Unless you go outside and cut your trees, move the trees to your factory on your own terms, process that tree into lumber/planks/whatever, and then distribute them yourself... then you are not a libertarian.
Do you think its possible that these elected officials will ever run the government smartly, efficiently, and productively? I'm not so sure.
I don't think you have any idea what a libertarian is. I don't think anybody is arguing that people shouldn't pay for the benefits of having a stable and working government.
Except that he's not running for CEO of AIG or Bank of America, is he? (Nor woulld he ever be considred for such) Actually, if you believe in capitalism at all, as I believe Mr. Paul may, not taking an "unnecessarily high" salary for overseeing the most difficult job on earth, with trillions of dollars of resources at your annual disposal, for what amounts to a comparative pittance, represents an incredible market failure....in fact it undermines the very capitalism he worships and leads to inefficient outcomes according to his own calculus.
Indulge me - how do you fight past inefficient government unproductivity every day? Let me gues, you get onto your home-made car and drive down a road you built yourself on your way to work with your home-schooled colleagues, right?
Mark Dayton while US Senator didn't accept a salary. I think he donated it so presumably Paul could just donate most of his salary except for $40K a year if he wanted to. Anyway Dayton not accepting a salary didn't really affect his reputation much either way and Paul's saying he will only accept $40K / year if he is president doesn't change my opinion of him either way.
Just curious. I several freshman Congressmen this past term who were elected in the Tea Party wave did things like living in their offices, turning down gov. health insurance and giving back part of their salary. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021406723.html Did doing those things change your opinions about those Congressmen?
It didn't for me. I think my original rant at the start of this was that you should judge policymakers by their policy decisions instead of token moves like declining a congressional salary. I'd much rather vote for a candidate that took a salary but made good policy. The thread title after all was made to highlight his pledge to accept less money rather than his insane policy proposal to slash government by a trillion dollars in the same paragraph. This is simply a nice gimmick to get the support of uninformed voters who hear about something as trivial as taking less money as part of a salary. I think this thread is telling in terms of the effectiveness of such meaningless gestures.
He's also not running as an unelected government worker, so, kind of unfair to make that comparison. I'm not sure that's his philosophy when it comes to public monies.
I enjoy farming at 2 a.m., fishing at 5 a.m., and drinking homemade liquor while arguing on the internet for the rest of my waking hours at my shanty in the woods. That's how. And how did you know that I drive a car made from old lawnmowers and garbage cans, on private roads with my fellow home-schoolers!?
