Obama to seek freeze on part of budget

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Don't know how accurate it is but I heard $400k and wikianswers provides this:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_d..._President_earn

If wikianswers is right, the official compensation is $669k. But that still doesn't include a lot of the things I mentioned in my other post.

Wow. I remember learning about it in HS about the salary being $250,000. Thats some cost of living raise there!

[Ali G. 37]

$400k is a joke. At least pay the president a million. If some dumb #### athlete earns $25 million, surely the president of the country deserves at least $1 million.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

$400k is a joke. At least pay the president a million. If some dumb #### athlete earns $25 million, surely the president of the country deserves at least $1 million.

What for? They're all already rich by the time they make it there anyhow.

[SMR 368]

$400k is a joke. At least pay the president a million. If some dumb #### athlete earns $25 million, surely the president of the country deserves at least $1 million.

First, if you read my post, you'll see that the president is compensated well over $1million. But that is really beside the point. How many people that are seriously in the running and would make good presidents decided not to become president because the pay was too low? In my opinion, anybody who wouldn't do it for $400k but would do it for $1 million wouldn't make a very good president anyways. The pay is not the major factor that attracts candidates for president and well that it is so.

I agree that in select cases there may be a point to offering a higher salary for certain highly technical positions in the government in order to attract better candidates. This is probably very applicable when talking about public school teachers, for example. It's hard to get highly qualified people to be teachers because the pay is so low.

But for the most part, your argument is like saying that if you go to the grocery store and pay twice as much for the same apples, they will suddenly get better. Do you really think there will be better service in the post office if we raise the pay of postal workers?

In reality, federal employees in positions that require degrees and training are already compensated at or above their value in the private sector. Offering more money for jobs that don't require training will certainly attract more candidates but won't result in a noticeably better outcome.

[I'm Gone 60]

No, but it's part of our national security policy - we pay countries like Egypt to cooperate with the US in countering terrorism.

The bulk of foreign aid goes to Egypt and Israel and has nothing to do with our national security. Just welfare for foreign countries and that should go before one dollar of money for domestic programs is cut.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

BUT.....I am absolutely sure that no such thing would ever happen to health care, cut backs and such, if the government were running that! It only happens to other things the government runs.

[mawilson 2,133]

The bulk of foreign aid goes to Egypt and Israel and has nothing to do with our national security. Just welfare for foreign countries and that should go before one dollar of money for domestic programs is cut.

Israel, perhaps. But Egypt and Pakistan? Imagine if their governments were taken over

by Islamic fundamentalists. Still think it has nothing to do with our national security?

[SMR 368]

Israel, perhaps. But Egypt and Pakistan? Imagine if their governments were taken over

by Islamic fundamentalists. Still think it has nothing to do with our national security?

Remind me who is running them right now.

Anyways, I could agree with the national security argument if the money we were giving them was actually keeping them in power. But in reality, it's just a bribe lining their pockets. In Israel, I think foreign aid could be justified on the ground we are giving them money to fight our enemies, which could be argued. But I'm not sure about that.

[mawilson 2,133]

Remind me who is running them right now.

Not Islamic fundamentalists. Dictators - yes, but friendly to the US.

[Ali G. 37]

But for the most part, your argument is like saying that if you go to the grocery store and pay twice as much for the same apples, they will suddenly get better. Do you really think there will be better service in the post office if we raise the pay of postal workers?

Yes actually. It's usually the first thing someone will notice when traveling to Aus, as per my recent trip. The difference in demeanor from the gate-crew, once you get off the plane, to the person at a supermarket checkout is amazing. How and why? An adult working at a checkout will earn a minimum $14 over there.

I don't even need to use them as I can also use US based companies like Wegmans, Whole foods etc to illustrate the same point. These companies pay well, therefore, I as a customer receive reciprocal service. Now compare staff working in these companies to those at Walmart or Sams club. It's a total contrast in demeanor and attitude. Heck, it was the first thing I noticed since switching to Costco from Sams. Not only are the staff more helpful but they actually enjoy their decent paying job, something that subconsciously impacts my experience too. Good for Costco.

Once again, go to an Aussie post office and check out the difference. They are fast, efficient and modern. How so? Their staff earn a hell of a lot more than those here.

Evidently, getting what you pay for has eluded the US. It's not rocket science by any stretch.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Booyah

[Ali G. 37]

What for? They're all already rich by the time they make it there anyhow.

Unlike those poor shareholders, like the Waltons, or various folks who move up in America due to their name and/or family's balance sheet. Better yet, tell me you are not going to sit here and actually suggest that unlike the government or president, they work/ed hard for their money?

Edited January 27, 2010 by Booyah

[luckytxn 2,265]

Israel, perhaps. But Egypt and Pakistan? Imagine if their governments were taken over

by Islamic fundamentalists. Still think it has nothing to do with our national security?

Makes no difference. It is in our national interest only if we make it so. We are given country welfare plain and simple. If we don't and the people choose to rebel and install a fundamentalist government then what business is it of ours? Now Europe is much closer and uses a lot more of their oil and other resources so let them meddle all they want and spend their citizens hard earned money to prop up the brutal dictators. Why should we keep on spending huge sums to Israel? No reason at all except we want to.

[Pooky 3,825]

Send the Budget up here - it'd freeze all by itself and probably not thaw out 'til April.

[NickD 203]

Did read yesterday that is attempts to block spending was already killed by congress, but can't find that today, but he is worried and has a right to be.

"

WASHINGTON (AP) — Facing a divided Congress and a dissatisfied nation, President Barack Obama will unveil a jobs-heavy agenda in his State of the Union address Wednesday, retooling his message more than his mission.

His goal: Get the economy, the confidence of voters and his own presidency on surer footing.

Obama's speech will be underpinned by two themes — reassuring millions of Americans that he understands their struggles and convincing people that he is working to change Washington even as he finds himself working within its old political ways.

The 9 p.m. EST address has enormous stakes for Obama. He rode a tide of voter frustration into office and now is getting smacked by it himself.

Obama will offer fresh detail about how he wants to help businesses hire again and how he hopes to salvage an overhaul of health care insurance. Yet for all the new wrinkles he offers, the speech will be measured largely by how well he reconnects with the public.

"In this political environment, what I haven't always been successful at doing is breaking through the noise and speaking directly to the American people," Obama conceded to an interviewer last week. This is his chance — speeches like this one can draw 30 million to 50 million viewers, sometimes more.

The agenda will sound familiar. Obama says he will not retreat from the big issues he campaigned on and tried to get done in his first year, when political momentum was strong. He will push for health care, regulation of Wall Street, energy and immigration reform, and continue the global fight against terrorists.

Obama also will prod Congress to enact new jobs legislation, seek a freeze on some domestic spending for three years and try to blunt the impact of a Supreme Court decision that gives corporations much more freedom to influence elections through political advertising.

Meanwhile, his White House is still feeling the jolt of last week's Senate election in Massachusetts. When little-known Republican Scott Brown won the seat held for nearly a half-century by the late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, the result was widely viewed as a symbol of frustration with the economy and the powers that be."

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=16...017〈=en

In comparing my 2009 with my 2008 tax returns, there was no breaks for us, just more BS. And our property tax shot up another 400 bucks again this year with new sales taxes on many other items. Did hear a guy on WPR say we could try to use the argument that our fair market value has drastically decreased with our tax assessor. But if everybody did that, the mil rate would go way up. The government, city, township, county, state, or federal, just does not know how to control spending. But we have to, just to pay our taxes.

[Texanadian 10]

President used to make 250K...Clinton raised it to 400K

Really, the president's salary means nothing. They get free "room and board" hahaha during their time in office. Free flights and transportation, free vacation home, and one heck of a good retirement plan. Plus when they can pull down $100,000 just for giving a speech somewhere after leaving office, let's face it. Money is never the issue behind somebody wanting to run for president. It would be a much easier and certainly less stressful occupation being a lawyer, executive etc.

What a difference a decade makes. In 1999, we had a 1.6 trillion dollar federal budget. And even that seemed ridiculous. I've forgotten how many times the "debt ceiling" has been raised. What's the point of even having it?

I don't know if it's wages or just personal friendliness that affects workers. (re-the Australian style of things). I know here in Texas, that baggers at the grocery store are tremendously upbeat (and sincere, not that fake smile and be happy thing that managers push). I've often wondered why they're so happy. It's a boring job. It pays maybe 7 dollars an hour. Grocery stores in Canada tend to pay higher rates (many of them are unionized) yet I've never found them to be super happy. Don't get me wrong. They're not depressed or anything. It's just different. I'm used to baggers being sedate and quiet.