comment: >
  
  Incumbents already have the edge simply by virtue of being the incumbent. This isn't realistic. 
  IDK I'd think it would be nice to actually show that you're getting the job done you were hired to do rather than spend the entire time just making a mess of things to keep your name in the headlines.
context: She could step down if she's not enioying it >
  
  As much as I hate her, there is a point to be made here. 174k is a lot to the average person, but the people these politicians are regulating make millions and billions. The less members of Congress make in comparison, the more easily they are bought. >
  
  
  
  174k is a lot to the average person
  
  
  Once upon a time that used to be our representatives. Average people, working part time in Washington DC. Not paid career employees of our business elite. >
  
  This has literally never been true.  The vast majority of congress dating back to pre-revolutionary war have been extremely wealthy for their times. >
  
  The revolution wasn't about freedom it was about rich guys not wanting to pay taxes. >
  
  It’s funny that so few people realize that. The colonies weren’t oppressed, they were asked to give less than many people back in the UK at the time >
  
  If you want an idea of how messed up our founding fathers were:  Pennsylvania made slavery illegal in 1780, and had an emancipation law which allowed the slaves of visitors to claim their freedom after six months’ residence in the state. To evade the statute, George Washington while serving as President in Philadelphia sent his slaves (technically his wife's families slaves) out of state every six months, instructing his secretary to move the slaves “in a way that will deceive both them and the public.” >
  
  Isn’t she now preaching fiscal responsibility? If anything her tax-payer funded salary should be cut in half >
  
  Fun fact: median household income is $65,030 in Georgia according to the census bureau. Her district is lower. >
  
  Great, she should get exactly the median of her district >
  
  This would actually be a great way to ensure you're focused on serving your constituents. Their life gets better, yours does too. >
  
  It should be the only income you're allowed to make, as well. >
  
  Sounds like a great way to get even more corruption >
  
  Wouldn't it be easy to see if they are spending more money than they make? >
  
  If every government official is underpaid, then you just bribe the next one to look the other way. If the only way government officials can make enough money is to be corrupt, then they will be corrupt. >
  
  It's almost like the wealthy and corrupt have been in charge of humanity since we figured out wealth. Funny. >
  
  There's a very simple solution.  She can quit congress and go back to her oh-so-profitable business. >
  
  What's her business? Yelling at a teenage Applebee's employee? >
  
  Thick neck model for company selling shirts with stretched head holes >
  
  She could work for Nintendo as a Goomba face model. >
  
  Have you tried making more money? >
  
  I heard McDonalds is hiring. >
  
  So what you're saying is...you won't seek re-election? >
  
  The election part is the most significant thing in that statement. I know she meant it in a woe is me kind of way but they really do spend their whole term just working on re-election >
  
  The terms are too short and there are too few districts. They have no choice