**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) **Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!** [](/u/savevideo) **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/hM2AHnGTES)!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Median income not gonna be enough to split time in DC and home.


Yep, OP made an amendment to increase plutocracy. That's why people who study this stuff should make proposals. Trump "didn't take the presidential salary" while spending over $150 million at his own golf courses as president.


He’s the only president with a lower financial worth after his term. That’s all you need to now…


That is incorrect, even laughably so. Many presidents in the past went bankrupt. Thomas Jefferson for example died with 2-3 million in todays money of debt even though he inherited 11,000 acres of farmland and slaves from his father. It's not that surprising, considering Jefferson spent roughly 9% of his presidential income on wine.


Jefferson inherited most of his debt from his father in law


Jefferson inherited $4000 of debt from his father in law John Wayles. When he (Jefferson) died he had $107.000 in debt. The wine Jefferson bought during his term as president was worth $16.500.




Probably "TrUmP sAiD sO" The dude is on camera saying two different numbers for his current net worth within the same day. And he famously said something to the effect of "my net worth depends on how I'm feeling." Nobody has any real idea. And it's not like his ass is going to release any official numbers.


My favorite part of that is how amplifying his trashiness caused devaluation of the Trump brand, which certainly played a part in his net worth dropping (along with heavily investing in the wrong asset mix for a pandemic). [Forbes analysis - he pretty much did it to himself](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/10/05/donald-trump-falls-off-the-forbes-400-for-first-time-in-25-years/?sh=f43b13df62b3) [He and his trash family did try their hardest to benefit though](https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trump-legacy-corruption-3700-conflicts-interest/) It was pretty much due to not divesting early on and then getting hit with a once in a century global pandemic. Fucking hilarious.


I recon there are many more reasons for that other than him "not taking the presidential salary". I recon his businesses probably saw a down turn in revenue and worth which will have affected his personal worth.


He was born rich and spent his life hemorrhaging money on bankrupting casinos, hush money, and destroying established businesses. He is literally always less wealthy 4 years later, it was always going to happen.


I'm glad someone said it.


Given how shady his dealings are it’s pretty hard to know that for sure. Then again by all accounts he’s also an idiot so it may well be true.


He lost money with a casino… I don’t doubt that he could somehow both engage and fraud AND still lose money


This isn’t even close to true. For instance Jimmy Carter peanut farm went under while he was in office. Heavily in debt


He lacks critical information.




The rest of his idea is fine but "median income" ruins it. We constantly tell businesses that if they want better performance from their employees they have to pay them more, but for some reason this wouldn't fly in politics. Basically ensures any person capable of making above average income is never going to enter politics.


I would be ok with that tbh


Oh no, we can't have **the poors** create policies to help a plurality of their constituents 😱


This comment made me find out that the difference between the median and average income in the whole of the us is 20000 usd. Pretty large gap in my opinion


>Basically ensures any person capable of making above average income is never going to enter politics. It doesn't drive off any person who is *capable* of making above average income. It drives off people who can't be satisfied without an above average income. Is it controversial to think that people who want to be richer than everyone else aren't the type of people who should be politicians? It's called public service for a reason. Lots of people get fulfillment from things besides money.


They'll just have to pass policies that raise the median income, then.


And when the rich people vote against those policies, because they don't need a wage increase and know it would benefit them to have fewer working class members of Congress, we can enjoy the resulting Congress of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.


There are more poor people than rich people. We currently have a congress of, by, and for the rich.


Yes. So nothing would change.


A Congress full of working class would absolutely tax billionaires. They would learn their place quickly.


But how would this amendment give us a Congress full of working class citizens? That's the issue here.


Did you not hear his answer? A public servant would not be able to earn income from any other source in perpetuity as long as they hold office. That is plenty of incentive for a wealthy person to not run. They shit themselves when someone brings up that they should be taxed appropriately, they wouldn't be able to handle having no income aside from what is provided by the government.


> A public servant would not be able to earn income from any other source in perpetuity as long as they hold office. And I have $500,000,000 sitting in the stock market. Why would I care? I used to be on the board of the pharma company, and I'm going to pass legislation to make their stock rise, it's good for my whole network of associations and it's going to make several of them even richer, and cause the stock to skyrocket, which will help me as well. Nothing in this amendment stops that from happening.


No, it might prevent upper middle class, but rich people don't have salary, they have a portfolio of stocks and other assets. You think Michael Bloomberg wouldn't have ran for president if salary was pegged to median or even for zero salary?


You've got to be high or retarded to answer again without needing the video. No compensation whatsoever in any form, in perpetuity. Those stocks and assets can't gain a thing under this guy's excellent amendment. I bet you're going to reply again with another example clearly covered by the guy in the video. He worded it specifically - you should take a second and listen before replying.


Please just watch the video again


Literally the long term goal of every economic policy ever is to raise the median income. It's not that simple and everyone has different philosophies on how to make that happen.


That's literally not true.


Unfortunately I think the outcome of that would be similar to what we have now, that only people who are already rich would run for office and continue to twist laws in favor of themselves after leaving office and those they would likely work for after leaving office. Mine would be the John Lewis voting rights act, and an amendment to ensure any states cannot continue to make it harder for citizens to legally vote. Nowhere should you need to wait more than 15 minutes to vote. Anything beyond that is an intentional effort to disenfranchise people whose jobs do not allow them time off to vote. Don’t just make it an act, enshrine that shit because democracy should not be allowed to be twisted by bad actors. Then would be the elected/appointed official oversight amendment. That every president, senator, cabinet member, and judge should have the highest level of scrutiny for their actions to ensure they cannot self deal, including divesting from all businesses they own, and appointees to positions must not be from the industries they oversee. You shouldn’t be able to make millions off of the secret service details renting rooms in your hotels, being awarded government contracts, reducing scrutiny for past and potentially future employers, etc.


This amendment works well with the “how’d it get burned” amendment. Any representative upon leaving office is imprisoned in a giant wicker effigy and set ablaze.


Are there any bees involved?


No, No!! Not the bees. NOT THE BEES! aarrrffhfhhfhhdhgghggggg my eyes bllaahahaeeheh… Fucking top shelf acting.


Should have used wasps.


Why, because the 10 billion stinging bees were not adequate? In the Flaming effigy? Where he was locked inside? And you need wasps?


No, to protect the bees.


Wasps can sting more than once.


Wait is ' "how’d it get burned” amendment' a reference to an amendment that exists or reference to joke that I dont understand e: or is the joke the rest of the comment please I don't understand


"How'd it get burned?" is a line delivered repeatedly by Nicholas Cage from the 2006 remake of "The Wicker Man". His delivery of the line, along with the rest of his performance in the film, is widely mocked for its poor quality. The comment above is proposing an amendment similar to (spoilers for the 2006 remake of "The Wicker Man") the fate of Nicholas Cage's character in the film, wherein he is burned alive within a large wicker effigy by cult members.






I live in a very affluent, very blue CA neighborhood, and if I decided to vote in person in a voting booth at 8 am before work, I'd have to wait more than 15 minutes. I'm just not sure your amendment makes any sense. But at the same time, I also never have to wait. I have a ballot mailed to me (everyone in CA does now). I can mail it back. If I don't trust the mail, I can drop it in a drop box. If I don't like that, I can take my completed ballot to a voting location for a week leading up to, and including, election day, skip the line and drop my ballot. And still at popular times, the lines are longer than 15 minutes.


Maybe it’s just where I live, but in my 20 years of voting in 4 different cities in San Diego County I’ve never had to wait more than 2 or 3 minutes to get into a polling place.


Last election I think I went at a good time, and only waited about 15/20 minutes, but the one before I had to wait nearly 2 hours.


Freezing their assets while in office might help too, though I’m sure they’d find a way around jt


> only people who are already rich would run for office Why? People only take jobs to be rich? Have you ever met a teacher.


Only the rich can afford to campaign for Congressional seats. Even at the state level, it's not cheap to run a campaign. You'd never hear about the decent, grass roots candidate because they can't afford a campaign to compete with a rich competitor. Why would they waste what little money they have to campaign for a seat they're highly unlikely to win?


Absolutely. 100%. You have to make elections publicly funded.


How about the British system? Illegal to advertise, caps on the amount you can spend (enforced by a non-govt agency that actually has teeth and hands out fines) and a £500 deposit to run for office that is refunded to you if you get >5% of the vote


>(enforced by a non-govt agency that actually has teeth and hands out fines) As a British person, lmao


Well, yeah, lmao, but compared to the American system of regulatory capture and billion-dollar elections... it could be better but it could be worse!




God please no, we have that shit in Argentina and is yet just another way to steal public funds by signing off millions for the party that is already in congress.


It's tough, but the way it is now isn't much better. They accept money openly and willingly from corporations, and totally favor their constituents over corporations (wink wink, nudge nudge) Having them be publicly funded AND having a limit to the total cost per candidate I think would be the best mix


Just because it hasn't been implemented well in one instance doesn't mean it can't be implemented well.


Thank you. This sentiment infuriates me.


Rather how unpaid internships are expontential career accelerators but only those well off can afford to work for free. It's self selecting.


Because making a government job low-paying means the only people who would be considered viable candidates would be ones who seek them for power and can afford to not be paid well (meaning they’d likely already have a lot of money). It could be seen as incentivizing legislators to make changes to better people’s lives, but it would most likely implode and make things worse.


I don’t think it’s necessarily true people would only do it for power. You don’t think you have good ideas on how things could be done? You don’t think you could make positive change? The median income in my state is $30k a year. I know a lot of people who do less fulfilling work for $14 an hour. And I don’t think most of them would be any less capable than the people currently in those positions. Seems like only rich people run for office now because a) it costs a lot of money to run which SHOULD be corrected by publicly funding elections and b) it’s very lucrative to hold office (and not because of their salary) which this guy’s plan would correct.


First off, nothing is stopping those people who want to do it from doing it now. Senator etc is well paid, so they can actually have a career AND help the community. By lowering salary, all you do is make it less likely that people will do it. For example, I used to teach. I was great at it but the pay is shit. I couldn’t even save money. Now I’m a programmer and I banked 200k in the last 2 years. Why on earth would I teach? It’s not all about money, but being able to afford life is undeniably better. All lowering the salary does is make people more susceptible to bribes and make it even easier for the rich to dominate the job.


I think what’s stopping people is the cost of campaigns. If you’re poor, you probably mostly just know poor people. Who wants to ask their poor friends for money? If elections were publicly funded that wouldn’t be an issue. And ya, a salary of $30k a year is *really* shitty. It’s unrealistic to expect someone to want that. But that’s the *median* in my state. Half the people make less. Which is the real problem not this made up hypothetical ticktok question so maybe the people who are currently attracted to these positions of power ain’t the ones. And as far as bribes, they already get them. This fellow’s plan just makes it illegal.


It’s not all about the money…you just banked 200,000 and I’m over here struggling trying to find change so I can get a sandwich.


I was a teacher and I was good at it. I make 5x as a programmer now. Switching careers was the best decision of my life. I can now afford a house in the Bay Area, I can save money, and I am not emotionally exhausted at the end of the day.


Make voting easier but require national or state IDs to vote. Do you agree?


Make them free and accessible at the time and location of voting and you got yourself a deal!


The issue isn't only the ID being free but also the documents needed. If people need to pay for birth certificates, then its not free for example


Be cool if the government talked to the government so they could just verify that you have a birth certificate on file instead of having to pay to order one


It takes a month just to verify you are a real person so they can give you a drivers license


Yeah people act like ID's are free. They cost money, and sometimes you have none.


they also cost time


been waiting 3 months now for them to process the birth certificate copy i needed to renew my driver's license to be "real ID" compliant. (i found my original fortunately, but it still cost me $22 to order that copy that never came and another $33 just to renew my license, i had to make an appointment just to show up at the DMV and even my renewed license got lost in the mail - they made me wait 30 days before sending a replacement and the replacement didn't arrive until the day after election day, COINCIDENTALLY.)


Oh man, you should hear about "lost canadians", I'm mid-late 20's (don't wanna dox myself lul) and just recently got provincial health coverage, the same coverage that's supposed to be a "right" for all citizens. I never even had a birth certificate filed (when I was born it was the hospital's duty to log certificates, the nurse didn't log mine at all) the worst part of it all? I'm literally mohawk lol, my blood has been here for thousands of years. It sucked when I went into the hospital for hernia related stuff a year ago, and I had somebody with a thick non-canadian accent (I don't want to sound backwards, just hear me out) asking me "where were you living before canada?" 7 times in a row, each time saying it slower, assuming I didn't understand them, before I got angry with them. Shit's infuriating, imagine being told you aren't a citizen in your own homeland, and also having people who weren't born here implying that you're an immigrant. All because some lazy fucking nurse didn't type some numbers into a computer in the 90's end rant


Man I'm in Texas and even here you can get a free ID. I mean, time is an issue. But it's not that much effort, and not everyone can do this, but if you have an hour to go to the DMV you can do it. I've worked five jobs in the past making about $20,000 a year with a full time student schedule and still found the time to do it. It wasn't easy, it was unnecessarily hard to get one, but money isn't a factor unless you can find me a state that doesn't subsidize for low income.


Michigan doesn't unless your over 65 or blind. And I'm happy to hear you were able to accomplish what you set out too, a lot of people can't like you said. You should be proud of yourself for doing it, and we should advocate for a better system so no one else has too go through that. We should always be improving not stagnating and becoming obsolete.


That's nice. When I lost my license and passport, I needed to overnight my birth certificate from a different state. Then I had to take an afternoon off work to go to the DMV. None of that was subsidized. Then there were fees on top of that for the license and, eventually, the passport. Imagine the cluster fuck if I had kids that needed to be attended to while I was handling the license issue. Just because you feel like you were able to accomplish something without significant barriers doesn't mean other people have the same experience.


These people are really out here talking about how it's impossible for pedestrians to get hit by a car because they jay walked successfully once.


Just because there isn't a fee attached the actual procurment of the ID doesn't mean that it was free. You spent time to go out of your way to get it. Perhaps took time off your job to get it. You may have only spent 1hr at the DMV but it maybe it took you 30 mins to get there and back. Your boss isn't gunna let you take off exactly two hours in the middle of your shift to go to the DMV so you have to give up a whole shift in order to make it happen. That two hour trip now just cost you 8hr's in wages. You live in Texas the second largest state in the US. Maybe you live 1hr+ out into the boonies and have to drive to Austin to get to the closest DMV. You can't walk it. Busses don't run out to your house and you likely don't have a horse cause them shits are expensive. So you need a car. Your beater is super unreliable and can't make the long trip without new tires/water pump/gas/etc, AND you can't even drive it legally cause you don't have an ID so that's a no go. Uber it is then, but that can get super pricy too, especially since you are now out 8hr's of wages. This is also complicated by the fact that you need a CC or bank account set up to use Uber which can also be quite expensive just to maintain and it won't let you use your employer issued debit card in the app. So you call a buddy/family member who now foot's that cost to get you to the DMV. Maybe you can contact a non-profit/church group who can come pick you up and help you get around. That can be downright humiliating tho and if you just didn't worry about getting the ID you'd be able to keep working, put food on the table, and not have a panic attack because you had to admit to yourself that you couldn't afford to get a FREE ID card. Free things aren't free. There is always a cost. Your position in society dictates how easily you can absorb that cost. The people who the system is designed to prevent from registering to vote are the most easily susceptible. You luckily don't seem to fall into that group. The effort that should go into getting a state issued ID should be as extensive as dropping an application with an ID photo in the mail or better yet, logging into a state website, using your forward facing camera to snap a pic, and hitting the send application button. One to two weeks later, there should be a fresh new ID in the mail for you.






"Make voting easier for some but make voting harder for others"


Yeah, but you can’t close dmvs in locations that are unlikely to vote for you, which is what was done in Texas, or making only certain types of ID that your “team” is more likely to have acceptable. Like how some states wanted to make NRA cards a valid form of ID, but not college ID cards.


You should be able to receive ID under 15 mins. We have the technology for it, government just wages money on stupid things. I blame both democrats and republicans.


Democrats don't care to implement it, Republicans don't want it. What a great 2 parties we have eh


only if those IDs are assigned to people automatically and for free and there's a way to look someone up if they show up without an ID


I am in favor of this


If they're free and the infrastructure in place to maintain and distribute them can reach those in the margins of society (old, rural, disabled, homeless) with little restriction. If you're going to mandate ID cards you better make sure everyone has one and can get one quickly without hassle, voting not suppose to be a hassle. You have multiple ways to vote but only 1 way to obtain an ID and the way they're administrated limits their availability.


Voting IDs are also dumb because not only does it imply mass votee fraud (which isn't true) but it also keeps the poor and minorities for voting. You don't have a car and live in a rural area, where you rely on mail in voting/the good will of others, I guess you don't get an ID. If you need a secondary ID source to even get your ID, you cut out a good chunk of people too.


Do you think it's possible to ensure that every eligible voter gets an ID?


Idk. Sounds like FUD. “The outcome of change would be worse then the hell your living in now” lmao I welcome any change friend.


That’s what people said about trump, and that led to 4 years of corruption and a nationwide dumpster fire. Sometimes no change might actually be better than some changes.


You’re talking about a system that has been doing the same thing for decades. If you think trumps presidency was any more harmful to the world than others I’d have to say we’re looking at two different systems.


I don’t think he was more harmful than GW bush or Reagan or so many of the others in total. Bush has the blood of around a million people on his hands for what he kicked off. What trump DID do was normalize rampant and open corruption. Also leaning into conspiracy theories his whole presidency and normalizing previously fringe beliefs. He has done an immense amount of lasting harm to this country, but not as much as others.


Why don’t we just make voting digital and online? We all have phones and internet now, doesn’t seem any less feasible or more dangerous than the current system and would be instantaneous. Also, why tf is it 2021 and there still is no way to actually see how your vote is counted? Why does nobody seem to question this? Edit: also yeah, totally for eliminating the ability of elected officials to profit off of their positions by whatever means. Getting paid tens of thousands of dollars for “speeches” or appearances is a joke. Having a spouse move funds around in the market with prior knowledge of legislation is also a problem.


paper ballots are by far the most secure method we have to vote as they cannot be accessed through hacking which we have experience in every election this decade. Also voting should be anonymous so people cant take your phone and figure out how you vote and discriminate against you in that way.


[Electronic voting](https://youtu.be/w3_0x6oaDmI) is a [Bad Idea](https://youtu.be/LkH2r-sNjQs)


With online voting, all someone would have to do is figure out how to exploit the system, hack in, and start changing votes. If you think it wouldn't happen, you're naïve. Hacking happens all the time and if there was ever any one thing people would want to hack, it for sure would be election results. As it stands now, you have to hack a physical terminal, which requires your physical access to it. Much more difficult to pull off.


I totally agree. I'm starting to question people who still voice doubt that we have a serious issue on our hands. We keep finding about all these fake votes in the thousands, and I've heard plenty of horror stories about people giving rides to hobos/illegals to churn out more votes. I like your idea a lot actually, we should have a unique token on each smart phone that verifies identity in a way that can't be abused. It would let us verify our own vote was counted as well as it could send a notification or something, and if it detects someone going to a polling place on election night multiple times it can correct their vote automatically to prevent multiple voting. Maybe we can finally have an election where the person who wins actually gets elected. Here's hoping for next cycle.


Blockchain voting?


Yeah no, politics is already only for the uber rich, this will only exacerbate that. Let's just set caps on funding like we used to have and overturn citizens united. Then, let's RAISE the salaries of certain local and state officials to increase competition and reduce far-leaning single-issue candidates.


I think it's fine for the salary of elected officials to be high. We do want it to be a competitive position and I think it's fine to strive towards the position for the salary. However, elected officials should not receive additional income from private sources, lobbyists, etc. If you let the position pay well (but not obscenely) then people will want to run and want to stay in office, but not be tempted into warping their values for additional cash.


I listened to podcast recently that quoted a study that showed positions with higher pay tend to be more immune to extremist waves, too. So that's ANOTHER good reason for keeping salaries sufficiently high. Also, I can't remember his name but, an old Texas official, years ago, made a statement that local politicians who are underpaid are more susceptible to gifts from lobbyists. And so, once they have a reasonable amount of power and name recognition, they've got all these corporate 'relationships' from back when 'they were nobodies', that they feel obliged to. He argued that1. Higher pay. 2. Higher local turnout would produce better results . TL;DR i totally agree and many others do too.


Singapore pays it's politicians a really high salary. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/in-his-own-words-higher-pay-will-attract-most-talented-team-so-country-can-prosper


Or is it that higher paying jobs tend to have more educated and more rational people 🤔


That's exactly why. (Referring to the study). And, that, if the pay is low, only people who truly feel some type of way about certain issues will run. Like, "I will sacrifice a pay cut and run for office if it means I can help reopen school with no mask mandates" etc.


It could still be proportional. Like 5x median pay of their state or something, just to encourage them to enrich the people they are supposed to represent


This is exactly how countries with historic corruption issues combatted corruption in public service. Give higher remuneration, excellent pensions and benefits, and susceptibility to corruption and bribes go down. Having influence and a low, or average, income inevitably leads to trading influence for income. You just can't trust that people are moral by default. Or that people only very moralistic people want to go into office. Why would I exchange a vote, or a favour for 10K when I have a healthy salary and a plush retirement pension and that could be all taken away if found out. But if I'm making 30-40k a year with crappy benefits those small chunks really seem more appealing. Or I simply see this low paying job with influence as a stepping stone to private work after leaving office.


I'm not making millions a year so I don't know what that kind of money does to a person. But I gotta think I would be harder to corrupt if I was making $500k a year in salary making more money than I could possibly ever need then making $38k watching all my other senator colleagues making the same but also taking life changing money from special interests.


We have literal billionaires running around trying to collect more money, and you guys think we can pay our elected officials enough not to be enticed by outside income? No amount of money would be enough. People will be affected by trying to earn it, save it, or hide it. Outside interests always win.


Are they allowed to receive money? I don’t think so. They get campaign donations but that isn’t a personal piggy bank.


They essentially hold giant fundraisers for elected officials and have conversations about what sort of changes they'd like to see made (or not made). Since they bring a lot of money in, your elected officials are more likely to listen to their concerns than to yours.


Sure. Those changes also influence thousands of employees and jobs and so on. It’s not JUST for the ceo or whoever.


> overturn citizens united. This is a big one. Whatever you think of the way the SC decided, a clear and unambiguous amendment means they can't do shit. Later amendments take precedence over older ones.


Low salary politicians = gateway to rampant corruption. Look at China where politicians make pretty much "minimum wage" (espousing the core concept of socialism, working for the people) and yet their kids go to Harvard and drive lambos, and every single member of China's top ruling class (Politburo) is a USD billionaire. It's almost like OP thinks bribery is not an under the table act.


Agreed. Politics is the only job where some people think paying workers less will attract *better* employees.


Mm yeah. Love the way you worded that sentence.


I don't think people are completely understanding what he said. The elected official's ONLY income would be limited to that of the office. No investments, no businesses, like no other source of income. Throw in a line about limit on campaign funds and it sounds pretty good.


Then the only people who could do would still have to have pre-existing wealth. The median wage of most states would not nearly be enough to sustain a congressperson. So, you still end up with a bunch of wealthy congresspersons, and those that aren’t are ripe for corruption to sustain themselves. The idea of taking away or substantially limiting Congressional pay feels good as a way to stick it to man, but no matter how you slice it, it’s a bad idea.


Dont you think your logic is actually backwards? People is already working on positions for those salaries...


Either Limit how much a candidate can spend on a campaign, or remove the Caps all together. Incumbents current get to build a warchest during their term, that they can pull from for campaigns. Anyone challenging them will never be able to compete with that, unless they campaign for 4 years, and build a similar chest over time with the donation caps we have now. Uncapped donations, would allow people challenging incumbents by being able to raise a similar amount of money, in a shorter period of time. While capped Campaign Spending would require them to be more thoughtful with where the money goes and levels the playing field by preventing incumbents from using their massive warchest.


The immediate response would probably be, the how do I compete with someone else's campaign where they're spending so much without campaign funding? Well, since everyone is now unable to campaign fund, everyone is in the same boat. The problem with this is we'll get to a point where rich people will pay for much better campaigns with their own funds and likely win. There must also be a cap on how much people can spend on campaigns. Or, create a better campaign platform.


or maybe the rich are not allowed to run or use their own funds, maybe we should watch their banking activity. basically if you are gonna run for president you better be financially scrutinized because it’s a matter of public safety at this point


True answer is a equal cap on campaign funding w/ citizens United overturned. No more PACs.


Rich people wanting to help a candidate will buy adds under their own name telling people to vote for that candidate instead of donating that money directly to them. That’s currently the problem with super PACs and, if my understanding of Citizens United is correct, reverting Citizens United will only prevent some of those indirect donations.


This is the main problem that I'm running into trying to figure out how to run for city council in my city. My city council split between corrupt motherfuckers and dumbass motherfuckers, and sometimes the Venn diagram is a circle. I would love to be able to throw my hat in the ring and do better for my city, as a permanently poor person I know exactly how horrible it can be and I would love to see changes to the areas that people like me are forced to live in and services that can better everyone's lives. You know what my city council decided to do about the rising homicide rate in our city? Have an app to mediate between people and also give our police department that caused us a shit ton of lawsuits last year more money.


This is only a good idea on the surface. You have to go deeper. In reality, you'd just be keeping avg individuals from holding office. Running campaigns, along with splitting time between their district and DC is expensive. What's to stop wealthy individuals from forgoing income for a few years, cutting deals, and reaping the benefits after leaving office? Obama went and made millions off Wall St. speeches right after leaving office. Is a speech of his worth that much? Doubt it. It was payback for being so leniant after the 08' crash. How many people were held responsible for wreaking havoc on our economy? Certainly not enough. We have many of the same bankers in charge.


>Obama went and made millions off Wall St. speeches right after leaving office. Is a speech of his worth that much? I can't imagine getting Obama to speak somewhere for less than $200k, so probably.


People don't realize how expensive it is to be a Congressman. Remember when AOC was complaining how expensive it is to rent in DC? She's right. You have to maintain two residences, one in DC and one in your home district. You have an insane amount of other expenses like travel that most people don't have. If you're not rich upon joining Congress you'll actually have some issues on just your base salary. This would make it so only rich people who don't need the salary would become Congressmen. That's the way it was in British parliament, and that's why Congressmen were given a liveable wage taking into account the higher expenses Source: I'm a government professor


Great! Let's build them a dorm-style hotel where they can stay while in DC. Much more efficient use of taxpayer dollars.


Yes that combined with a 70k/year salary (if you're lucky) sounds like something any qualified person would go for.


And provide the means to travel. Literally make it so that it's a public service by the public for the public. Pay for their flights, make a dorms style thing for the governors and representatives, make it so that it's not expensive to be a politician and so that they can focus exclusively on policy making. Also, maybe extend the time a representative can be in office so they aren't focusing on reelection while representing? And put a cap on how many terms both can be in office. None of this McConell and Pelosi and others in office and power for decades


So you think making the job as unappealing as possible will attract better candidates?


What's unappealing about free housing, free travel, free meals, and focusing exclusively on representing the people rather than advancing personal gain? I mean, yeah, the rooms they get are dorm style rooms (which college kids get and make into pretty comfortable living spaces), and you aren't flying first class (just like most people), but I guess not being able to line your own pockets and advance the agendas of the ultra rich is a pretty big turn off. Oh, and also not being able to hold on to power indefinitely, since that's the whole purpose of being an elected official, I forgot.


Changing congressional pay alone won’t change anything. They used to not be paid, and pay was introduced in order to democratize Congress so it wasn’t just people who could afford to work for less. What is needed is a blend of campaign finance reform, spending limits, term limits, AND lower salaries.


Agree with everything else, but the salaries should be higher. Like a lot, a lot higher.


This is so stupid. How is a normal Mississippi congressman supposed to afford the commute and dual housing on a Mississippi median income?


While I can agree with taking money out of politics, the low pay would not be a good idea. No person that takes that position would be of value. No one worthy would purposefully take a low paying job when they could make a metric ton more elsewhere. This would also lead to people getting elected, making policies that benefit a future employer, then leaving government completely. It almost needs to be the no extra money part, but makes 20 times the medium wage or something similar that makes these jobs lucrative and worth holding on to. Only when politicians have no other outside motives, will there truly be change.


So you're saying the median wage in the country is too low? If that's what you're saying, I agree.


Sure, totally agree, but I don't think that was the guy in the video's idea when proposing that amendment. This kind of amendment would push working class individuals out of government, even more than they already are. "Well raise the median wage!" doesn't fix the issue, because the rich benefit from the rich being in power - why would they vote/work to raise the median wage with this amendment in place?


It is definitely too low when your level of power and responsibility is that high. Few people are going to be trying to bribe the guy that hands out the towels at the gym to give them more towels or something, but if someone has a ton of power and a normal person lifestyle and their influence can be bought, you're asking for trouble.


The median wage of their constituents will never support keeping two homes, one in DC and one in their home state. It's just not feasible.


Since only already rich people could afford to work for that little they wouldn't care about raising the median wage. Don't you understand how counterproductive this is? Salary is not the problem (it should attract poorer people and let them serve their constituents comfortably), its all the other ways to get money as a politician that are the problem.




> This would also lead to people getting elected, making policies that benefit a future employer, then leaving government completely. This part already happens. Quite frequently.


Sure, and this amendment doesn't fix that, it just encourages that behavior.


>No one ~~worthy~~ **greedy** would purposefully take a low paying job when they could make a metric ton more elsewhere. FTFY


There's a nonprofit brain drain because they can't afford to retain talent because good feels don't pay mortgages. Perhaps we should not hitch the federal government to the same wagon.


They totally would. People spend millions to get elected to Congress and it only pays $174k. Plenty of greedy people would take a congressional seat even if it didn’t pay at all.


they would take it and they would do dealings under table do you people not know the kind of assholes that get in politics?


The same way I don’t find a person greedy for wanting McDonalds to pay them $20/hour, I will never find someone greedy for not wanting to take a lower wage to work in the national eye in congress. It’s a pitiful job that guarantees at least half the country will hate you. Pay people for the work they are worth. Doing anything else is shameful.


Ah yes. It’s greedy to want to able to afford a house and save money at the same time. Lmao.


You can't maintain a residence in DC on a median salary for the majority of the country.


This is a bad amendment. I immediately thought of several loop holes and several ways this would actually increase corporate power. People are so fixated on politicians being bought that they don’t see all the other ways corporations and private interests influence policy. For example, short term limits means most politicians would be relatively ignorant of systems of governance and specifics of policy, that means they will need to rely on consultants and lobbyists more than their own internal team. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be term limits, but it means there are confounding trade offs where either choice creates opportunities for abuse. There’s just a lot of nuance and complexity to political economics.


People also forget that passionate people like to get paid, well. If passionate and intelligent people can get paid better elsewhere, that's where they go. High income is a necessary but insufficient requirement for attracting good quality people. Median income does not attract skilled people at the government level. It's one of the most persistent issues in government recruiting, that they pay too low relative to industry. Or it's a field where there just aren't tons of jobs in the first place like say epidemiology.


Exactly. People also don’t realize that politicians are basically never qualified to write or pass laws on most topics. A politicians might have one or two specialities, if any. They rely on their staff and those staff are expensive. Most policy analysts and lawyers come from schools where they’ve racked up significant debt and they need money to pay it back. The most qualified staff need good wages to pay for the degrees that make them the most qualified staff. Budgets for staff can come from a lot of places, including from party affiliation (I believe, but I might be wrong there), but the wealth of the politician plays a significant role in the staffing budget. Preventing politicians from accessing their wealth means they’ll need to get expertise from corporate consultants rather than qualified staff. It’s just a legitimately hard problem to solve…


Nah, term limits are strictly bad. They increase corruption and weaken the power of voters.


So... more corruption and lobbying?


Would make them hungry therefore vulnerable to bribes. That’s why there is corruption in the third world politicians and police - low legal income.


Nah, that's boring 28th Amendment: Everybody's gay now


Noble, but wont work. The interest groups can still dangle carrots like "Ill have a cushy job for you waiting when you get OUT of congress....so long as you serve me while in it".


Mean, not median.


This is so dumb and short sighted. It'll just make things worse with the ultra rich running for office.


I'm not sure I understand what this amendment would do exactly. So congressmen from Louisiana now get paid less than congressmen from California? That seems kind of discriminatory and definitely goes against the 14th Amendment. Also why can't congressmen have jobs other than being a congressman? That doesn't make any sense. A better amendment would be to fix the annual salary of congressmen to the medium income of the United States, but I'm not sure that would be enough to afford two permanent places of residence, one in DC and one in their home state, which they need to have if they want to do their job properly. I don't think this guy really thought this through.






Theoretically, sure. Paying them just a normal living wage and whatever extra costs occur from the duties of their job - travel/lodging, etc, sounds great, until you realize that this further encourages them to be corrupt and take kickbacks for all sorts of things. You want me to vote for this bill, rich dude who would benefit from it, pay me. They already do this through campaign contributions, quasi-legally, but reducing their pay would only make it worse. Asking them to suffer along with their constituents isn't going to help them legislate fairly.


Imagine how quickly housing prices would go down


All in favor?


Now that I think about it, how is median income determined?


Too tired to do legalese right now but my amendment would be a universal basic needs guarantee, so that every citizen is rightfully entitled to basic services necessary for living, including but not limited safe housing, healthcare, food and water, as well as public transportation and education.


This doesn’t change anything. The overwhelming share of money any representative receives is through lobbying. An amendment banning any form of financial lobbying would be the most effective. Couple that with publicly funded campaign finance and we may get somewhere.


Yeah, give politician median salary. What will happen? Nobody would even candidate. Oh wait, there will be some candidates. Those who are already rich. Worst idea ever.


That sounds like a good start. How about hard term limits. No more career politicians. Two terms and they’re done. After their term is up they can’t run for a different office for five years.


Terrible idea. First of all, being a good lawmaker and representative is a tough, specialised job. There's not that many of them and you want to pay them median wage? Good luck getting anybody qualified to give up their decent paying job. Then they also have to cut off other income sources? What if they own a business or have some kind of investment.


I thought one of the problems was the other sources of income people get in office. Anyone remember when before the stock market crash in 2020 how many congressmen liquidated positions before the public had a clue? What about donations for votes etc. I don't have a problem with a congressman getting paid 100k, I do think that a congressmen with millions in stocks can have a different agenda than what the people who elected them had in mind.


I wouldn't be mad if y'all repost this. A lot.


Term fucking limits.


Definitely shouldn't allow them to take side money but don't think their pay should equal median income. Regardless of how we feel, this is a critical roles for our society and we should want the best and brightest to vie for the role.


You think we get the best and brightest?


Would be nice


Fuck yes!


Fuck no. This is how you get a plutocracy. Only the really wealthy would have the financial means to fund campaigns and afford travel and living expenses. Everyone else would shy away because they would lose money. Probably lose a lot of money.


Holy shit this guy just fucked lobbying and also raised the minimum wage in one amendment. I say ye!


This ain’t cringe


read the pinned comment


bUt ThAtS sOcIaLiSm!


Screw median income, pay those scum bags minimum wage. I bet it would raise immediately and then every frickin year


Not cringe.


we know. read the pinned comment


Good, but also keep in mind the typical rich congressman gets most their wealth from investing