Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mtelesha t1_iqpfjrd wrote

Reply to comment by IamSauerKraut in Pa. Supreme Court Chief Justice Max Baer dies at 74 by finderdj

So only the rich may take political seats? Getting rid of salaries makes it so only people well enough off to take these positions. Seems stupid to me.

2

IamSauerKraut t1_iqpg47s wrote

Your position is unsupported by history. Plus, there is no evidence that poor people make better legislators than do rich folks. Take russ-hole diamond for instance. And keep him, please.

−1

mtelesha t1_iqpth3b wrote

What history? I am dying to know how history shows that non rich people can be legislators with no salary.

2

IamSauerKraut t1_iqqurjg wrote

Who said anything about no salary?

1

mtelesha t1_iqtrsbe wrote

/Who said anything about no salary?

You DID! to quote you exactly.
"They get, what, a hundred bucks a year for their service...' That is not a salary. Representation of the people means there should be a diversity of voices.

1

IamSauerKraut t1_iqtsqn7 wrote

100 bucks =/= no salary. It's a 100 bucks. Seems to work for NH. Paying 100K seems like overkill. Especially for doing little more than naming bridges and highway sections, and going out for drinks with lobbyists.

1

mtelesha t1_iqwfbz8 wrote

Okay $100 is a salary? At minumum wages this is not even a weeks pay.

Your making so many logical falacies and this argument is dead due to you trying to do symantic gymnastics with the legal term salary. You live your life and support your family on $100 a year. $100 is a stipen.

1

IamSauerKraut t1_iqwki3g wrote

100 is not zero.

Is math difficult for you?

1

mtelesha t1_iqxbqtp wrote

SALARY is what you are paid for work. $100 is a stipen you are just hard headed. I said only rich could represent us if they were not paid a salary. If your paid $100for a year's work your missing the meaning of the word salary and your making any payment to mean salary. Your argument skills are frustrating and not productive to communicate your opinion. The thing your arguing is that it's not a big deal if only rich can afford to be full time representative. Your arguing me about salary a totally side subject and even being foolish with your hammering on about the payment of $100 and salary has anything to do with the central argument that a salary or payment that is equal to a full time job is needed so that ecconomically self-sufficient people aka rich would be the sole people who can govern.

1

IamSauerKraut t1_iqxxtcb wrote

100 is not zero.

Is math difficult for you?

1

mtelesha t1_iqybdwz wrote

Logic and debate is hard. Salary as in can you live making $100 a year. Your really bad at this sorry.

1

IamSauerKraut t1_iqyefxz wrote

You have yet to debate. You simply refuse to believe that 100 =/= zero. Which makes you a what, zero?

PA legislators are paid over 100k to name bridges. On the other hand, NH legislators are paid $100/yr to do things of substance. We should follow the NH model.

1

mtelesha t1_ir0gizf wrote

Really? If there is no salary only people who are independently wealthy can take those positions. That therefore is not a representation of our country.

That was way up there and you got caught up on only dealing with salary and $100 was the same thing and said I was wrong with history and I said what about history and you then tried to tell me my math skill was stupid because $100 and salary are the same and I stated you suck at debate.

1

IamSauerKraut t1_ir0hibo wrote

Become familiar with how NH does it. Lots of not-wealthy folks in legislature there.

1