We are discussing whether to pay for something --- say, a TV set --- $300 or $500. You come in and say, why do you need tv in the first place? This may be an interesting argument, but it is unrelated to what we discussed before.
If you care, you might want to consider this question: even if they were employed part-time, by what standards should they NOT get more. They now make in a year what a moron like Adam Sandler makes in two days. I mean it literally: he makes $5M a week. Even if senators were working part-time, isn't it fair that they make at least some fraction of that? They make now about $3,000 per week. A raise to 1/10 of Sander's does not seem excessive, right?
Those are your own words, sir. Don't try to run from them.
The premise of your argument is that "Senator" is a full-time job. If it weren't, then our oh-so-public-minded lawyer wouldn't be having his "salary cut in half", now would he? Hmmm? So I attack the premise. Senator should be a part time job. Very part time.
They now make in a year what a moron like Adam Sandler makes in two days.
BFD. Are we paying folks according to IQ? Hmmm? I think not. No employer ever asked me my IQ. They asked what I could do for them. Adam Sandler entertains folks ... for which they're willing to pay a great deal of money. He's never got a red cent from me, FWIW.
So: what, exactly, are Senators doing for us that's so valuable? They're pumping up the size of the government, in contravention of their charter. They're taking our money at gunpoint, and wasting it on socialism and bureaucracy. They're attempting to micromanage our lives. They're failing to adequately defend this great Republic.
That's worth less, to me, than Adam Sandler's antics. They deserve a pay cut.