That's for sure. It was a poor political move. But how is he wrong?That his constituents will respond well to being told "bull crap."
His taxes are not earmarked to pay his salary. His constituents also pay taxes.That's for sure. It was a poor political move. But how is he wrong?
That's for sure. It was a poor political move. But how is he wrong?
So theirs are earmarked, either. And I'm not sure it matters.His taxes are not earmarked to pay his salary. His constituents also pay taxes.
Erm, by not recognising the fact that the salary of an Oklahoma congressmen is paid for by taxpayers.So where's the flaw in his thinking?
Since there's a debt and deficit, that isn't correct either.He's wrong in saying that his past taxes has paid for his salary now. That money is long gone, spent on other things, including past congressional salaries. Right now, he's paid by current revenue and new debt. In other words, other people's taxes.
Since there's a debt and deficit, that isn't correct either.
He's a taxpayer. And probably pays more than a lot of his constituents.Erm, by not recognising the fact that the salary of an Oklahoma congressmen is paid for by taxpayers.
Why are congressman, senators etc paid? Well without the prospect of a salary the position of politician would be the sole province of the very wealthy. One issue in the UK which I assume is replicated on the US is the idea of unpaid interns being the entry to well paying graduate jobs. This acts as a block on graduates from poor backgrounds since they cannot afford to spend years unpaid, unlike those with family income.
Erm, by not recognising the fact that the salary of an Oklahoma congressmen is paid for by taxpayers.
Why are congressman, senators etc paid? Well without the prospect of a salary the position of politician would be the sole province of the very wealthy. One issue in the UK which I assume is replicated on the US is the idea of unpaid interns being the entry to well paying graduate jobs. This acts as a block on graduates from poor backgrounds since they cannot afford to spend years unpaid, unlike those with family income.
I didn't say he was, did I?Since you just seem to want to argue, why don't you instead explain how he's right.
I didn't say he was, did I?
Good, sadly not the case in the UK.Some states actually don't allow unpaid internship. You have to give them at least minimum wage.
He's a taxpayer. And probably pays more than a lot of his constituents.
...I daresay that it'd be nice if congress creatures remembered that and worked FOR us instead of FOR special interests.
Someone who worked at a good paying job for 30 yrs and paid in thousands in income taxes lost their job through no fault of their own. Now they are making $12 an hr and receiving food stamps, help paying for their health ins. etc.That's for sure. It was a poor political move. But how is he wrong?