Submitted by FranklinDRoosevelt32 t3_107j100 in todayilearned
[deleted]
These days they would argue about it for 10 days, open a few investigations, then take away the majority speakers car instead
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy guy, I think their fighting is more of a show to further divide the US population. These days they would all work together and vote themselves a raise to buy new cars and you probably wouldn't hear anything about it.
Nah I don't believe it's a show. I think it's 100% genuine. I think the only reason Marijuana hasn't been addressed on the federal level is because each side doesn't want to give the other side that "win" with the general public
Meh, I want to believe that, but I was kinda shocked to see 2 states flat out refuse to legalize it in their states during this last election (ND and AR).
I live in AR and am in favor of legalizing marijuana, but the initiative had some major major issues with it, and I voted no on it. It was a very bad bill.
Thanks for your input! I’m not that familiar with the intricacies of the bill, mind elaborating a bit? What was so bad about?
It didn’t include expungement, it gave the right to sell to specific companies (all the rich white men who run the state), it didn’t allow for home grow, etc etc
That sucks. Yet is it still worse than the status quo?
[deleted]
Yes. We have medical here. We are a poor state and arresting black and brown people is a good way to make money.
What about when SD voted to legalize and their governor fought it in court to get it overturned.
Muh both sides !1!
I almost wish I believe that, but sadly, idiots like MTG and Boebert are all too real.
All except about 20.
Well obviously its less right or left and more rich and poor. But gotta keep the poor busy and divided.
And i cant imagine beeing that invested in something i barely understand like so many people in usa with their politics.
Congress hasn't had a salary raise since 2009 and in inflation-adjusted terms their salaries haven't been lower since 1955.
> then take away the majority speakers car instead
Wrong conclusion. Pretty sure they'd give him a more expensive car instead.
And find loop holes to circumvent the $25 limit
Nah after the recent incident it would be a fisticuffs tourney for who gets their car stolen
And a new car only cost $1392.
All the House Representatives want to offer McCarthy is a wedgie.
Salary of a 1947 House Rep was $12,500. The price of the car was $3550. This would similar to the house Democrats buying the current minority leader a Kia. Something he clearly could have bought for himself if he wanted too. Seems more like some kind of stunt by his fellow reps.
The Cadillac Fleetwood was no Kia. Official inflation stats say “only” $47k 2023 USD but it was the top production car from the top luxury brand.
Oh for sure, I just meant the price was, in today's dollars, more what you would pay for an entire of mid-level car, not even the comparable Caddie of today.
[deleted]
Not even close.
$3,550 is 28.4% of $12.5k
House members get paid $174k today. 28.4% of that is $49.5k. That's a BMW 3 series, not a Kia.
A quarter of his salary? What was Joe Taxpayer making?
A quarter of your yearly salary on a car is not that unrealistic. Most people making under 100k a year will still buy a car worth more than 25k.
not in 1947. The words "Car loan" would have got you laughed out of the bank in that era. After the market crash and banking collapse of the Great Depression, consumer loans of any kind just weren't a thing. The idea of a "car loan" as we know it today didn't take off again until the mid 60s.
Save, then buy, you can still do that.
okay boomer
Nope!
The tax rates in 1947 were higher/the brackets were lower. $3550 would have represented almost 6 months’ salary.
Lot of folks spend 6+ month salary on there vehicle.
Not without a car loan
Should have just taken some lobbyists out for dinner
To his credit, he returned the money to his colleagues. No matter how you slice it, the car cost more than $25, which violated his personal rule.
Very interesting story.
More than$25 from an individual donor was the rule.
You may be right but that's not what the article said.
“A man got to have a code.” -Omar
He seemed to have a knack for giving things back including a horse given to him by an oil man and even his wife after a couple of months of marriage
He gave back his wife? Did he forget sales tax or something?
Really puts our current economy into perspective.
Median household income in 1947 was $3,000.
[deleted]
And his limit of 25$ for a gift is equal to 324.25$ now. Pretty expensive personal gifts.
[deleted]
$12,500 a year for hose reps, leadership may have got a bit more. But lets not pretend, that just like today, congressmen didn't have lots of other income sources.
Still a lot of money, but the divid between the 1% and the average American was quite a bit less back then too.
EDIT assuming a seven year loan, which isn't uncommon and no money down that's a 741$ monthly payment.
$741 is a pretty large car payment even by today's standards. I make double the median income for my state and I would consider that frivolous.
Lunch in DC for a congressman, a lobbyist, and each has an assistant.
And the $25 rule is still in effect for government employees today. The limit has never been adjusted for inflation. So you can try to "bribe" a government employee with a gift...just not one worth very much.
[deleted]
Huge difference though is the 1947 number would have been mostly single income households.
I feel like this is a thing which gets overlooked FAR too often with discussion of wages over time.
It used to be that we expected a household to not only survive, but to thrive and flourish on a single income. Now you get looked at like a criminal if you don't have two or three people bringing and income to your house.
[deleted]
Is it supposed to be higher than that now? Asking for a friend.
Supposed to, no.
Should be, well that depends on who you ask. . . And how much they make.
[removed]
Adjusted for inflation, that car would be $66,465.71 today.
The salary for a congressperson in 1947 was $12,500, so that car was 38.4% of a congressperson's annual salary.
Today the salary is $182,189, so about 36.4% of a congressperson's salary. Not a huge difference.
Cadillacs run from high $30Ks to about $80K for an Escalade today. So one could buy someone a Cadillac for less or more than that today.
>Adjusted for inflation, that car would be $66,465.71 today.
and this is a perfect example of why official inflation numbers are so fucked.
The Fleetwood, in its day, was the absolute top model luxury sedan from the absolute top brand luxury car manufacturer. You couldn't get any more car than that without buying something bespoke.
The second-top model sedan Cadillac currently sells is the Blackwing, which tops out at $117,000 if you select all the trim upgrades. Their most expensive car, the Celestiq, has its price listed as "By Inquiry Only". They literally will not tell you how much the car costs, because it's in the "if you care enough to ask, you can't afford it" range.
What's your point? Obviously you shouldn't compute inflation rates by just looking at top end products.
If you compare like to like from any given period, the result is very often a much steeper increase than the official number. Especially on vitals such as food, transportation, and housing.
lol, ask me what my point was, then downvote me when I spell it out for you. O.K.
> Especially on vitals such as food, transportation, and housing.
Food? Food is a much smaller portion of income today than it was in the 1930s. Even after recent inflation. Clothing is much cheaper, too. Housing and medical care have certainly gotten more expensive over the long-term (though they continue to get fancier, too), but not food.
Here is a 2014 article that references income spend on food. I can point you to a 1941 publication with estimates on percent on income spent by category for 1935-1936, too.
Bit of a false comparison. The Blackwing is not the top model luxury sedan. It's the top model luxury sedan with a top model powertrain and performance upgrade
The fleetwood was a luxury car, but it wasn't going toe to toe with NASCAR cars like the blackwing would compete against GTE cars.
https://www.conceptcarz.com/s18626/cadillac-series-60-special-fleetwood.aspx
>Weight : 4375 lbs | 1984.467 kg
>
>V 8 | L-Head
>
>Displacement : 5670 cc | 346.0 cu in. | 5.7 L.
>
>Power : 150 BHP (110.4 KW) @ 3600 RPM
>
>Torque : 274 Ft-Lbs (371 NM) @ 1600 RPM
For comparison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_125_S
>Curb weight 650 kg (1,433 lb) (dry)
>
>1.5 L (1497 cc/91 in³) 60° V12
>
>This engine produced 118 bhp (87 kW) at 6,800 rpm
The Fleetwood would not have beaten the Ferrari at the track due its weight, but it absolutely had a top model power train.
A V-12 that limits at 6,800 is the same as a V8 that limits at 3,600? Lets not even get into fit and finish on a Ferrari vs a Cadillac engine.
I bet you assume a GT2RS 996 and a Ford F-250 powerstroke have similar tier engines because they both put out ~475 horsepower? (lets ignore the fact that the engine on a 996 costs more than the entire truck)
A V8 that outputs 150 HP is in the same league as a V12 that outputs 118, yes.
Gotcha. Friendly advice, when you are this comically uneducated on a subject, don't try and argue it.
lawl. When you have no argument, attack the arguer. classic.
Fine:
No, a Ferrari hand finished performance engine is not the same as a mass produced american big block.
Literally my previous point: The Ford F-250 powerstroke has 475 horsepower. So does the 996. The 996 engine alone is worth more than the F-250. Horsepower alone is a horrible metric to compare engines, and doing so demonstrates a critical lack of understanding to participate in any conversation in an educated manner.
I am not sure about the current Blackwing, but at least the previous generations of the V literally used a variant of GMs top tier racing engine, the one they'd field at LeMans. This is simply not the case for the Fleetwood. It had a very typical engine for it's era.
Just because you aren't educated enough to understand my argument doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't argue calculus problems with a first grader.
>No, a Ferrari hand finished performance engine is not the same as a mass produced american big block.
You're right, it's a lot more expense and complexity for less power output.
This is it, right here. I am trying to talk calculus with a first grader. You simply lack the necessary base knowledge to actually have a conversation on the topic.
Enjoy taking your Toyotta Tundra out to drag race a Lamborghini and wondering why you lost.
>This is it, right here. I am trying to talk calculus with a first grader
keep attacking the arguer because you know you don't have an argument.
or is your argument really "ItS BetTeR BeCaUsE ItS hAnD bUiLt!"?
only things that matter in an engine are performance and reliability.
I'll go ahead and predict your response: "YoU cOulDn'T PoSsIbLy UnNeRsTaNt!!!"
> performance
Exactly. Performance isn't just Horsepower. Which is what you don't understand. That's literally the entire point.
Weight
RPM
Lag
Efficiency
Stability
All of these are important factors in engine performance. Many much more so than raw horsepower. ALL of these you neglected. ALL off these you seem to pretend deosn't exist.
​
A big, heavy, slow, inefficient low RPM engine (Like the Cadi has) is not a top tier engine, even if it has more horsepower than a top tier engine.
>That's literally the entire point.
Then you should try and make that point, instead of saying "YoU cOuLdNt UnTeRsTaNn, mAnN"
I mean, I brought up RPM right away. I also brought up the comparison of a 996 V power stroke engine.
Instead of just ignorantly sticking to your guns, you could have admitted you were wrong and asked a question. you were confidently incorrect, and it's taken like 6 comments deep to breach your ego.
>I mean, I brought up RPM right away
yeah, because more revs == more better? So, my CX500 has a better engine than the Ferrari, right? it goes all the up to 12,000
Exactly. Performance isn't just RPM. Which is what you don't understand. That's literally the entire point.
Weight
Horsepower
Lag
Efficiency
Stability
Displacement (forgot this one, oops)
​
But RPM is a massive component, or better yet, an indicator. Of course, comparing a bike engine to a car engine is sort of comparing apples to oranges, but that's pretty par for the course for this "discussion"
>But RPM is a massive component, or better yet, an indicator.
and this is the other item, aside from your attacking me instead of actually making and argument, which tells me you have no idea what you're talking about.
The function of an engine is to produce mechanical power in a rotating format. The power out the shaft is all that matters. We invented this thing called a "gearbox" which can be used to turn any combination of torque and RPM into any other combination, provided it adds up to the same power as seen by the input shaft (minus the losses in the geartrain).
Cars are do not drive their wheels directly from the crankshaft of the engine. Displacement is irrelevant. RPM of the engine is irrelevant. Torque of the engine is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how much power the engine can output. The gearbox takes care of the rest.
Have a pleasant life, I won't receive whatever reply you care to make.
[deleted]
There’s probably more recent than this. The shift in Congress started around 1996
Imagine buying a brand new Cadillac for $4800.
Imagine what $4,800 in 1947 money is worth in 2023.
It's $64,000.
So, a 2023 Cadillac CT5 is a good value...
$4,800 in 1947 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $64,145.65 today, an increase of $59,345.65 over 76 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.47% per year between 1947 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 1,236.37%.
Price Msrp of 2023 cadillac ct5 Image result for msrp of 2023 cadillac ct5 $37,695 The 2023 CT5 premium midsize sedan lineup starts with the Luxury trim and a manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) of $37,695, plus a destination charge. Premium Luxury and Sport are in the low-to-mid $40K range. CT5-V prices start at $50,495 and hit the $91K for the 2023 CT5 V-Series Blackwing.
"Good Value" is very relative, though. You can't compare what something costs today vs 80 years ago to determine whether it's a good deal, you have to compare it to what else you can get for your money today.
That, and the caddy may not have been a good deal back then. Getting the same basic deal now doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a good deal, it could just be the same crappy deal.
[deleted]
As someone who lives in his former district - can we have this one back? I can get behind refusing to sign the Southern Manifesto, helping to pass the Civil Rights Act and refusing large gifts, all while getting shit done with a low profile.
One of the congressional office buildings is the Rayburn building.
Has a sweet tollroad in Dallas too.
r/BrandNewSentence
Sam Rayburn's family moved (with him as a kid) to West Texas when there was still a chance of Comanches showing up and burning the whole place to the ground because it was their land.
My parents were big fans of Dam Rayburn; so I was pleased to read that he gave back all the money for the care.
The legendary Sam Rayburn is one of the few Congressmen ever to have a House Office building named after him.
Should have gifted him a 1948 one.
[deleted]
“He is not just gay, he is Sam Rayburn gay.”
Stop to appreciate that a Cadillac El Dorado cost a measly $4800 back then.
In the 19-teens, the Ford Model-T cost around $400, back before financing was available, it had to be a cash purchase.
The first iteration had two forward speeds and a reverse.
That's $64,000 today though...
Even self-imposed strictures about not accepting bribery just has to be overcome as a politician. It's principle.
"Rayburn returned all 50 Republican representatives' checks (to avoid a conflict of interest) but graciously thanked them for their gesture."
I was talking about the other guys.
I... see?
They saw a guy not taking money, so they tried to find a loophole?
We getting there yet?
Now a days they would cancel the republican politicians but the democratic ones even though they all had a hand in it
Dude, what?
Oh but his highway has no problem taking money
Given that Rayburn died in 1961 and the Rayburn Tollway didn’t exist until 2006, I’d hardly call it “his” highway. It’s just a road named after an influential person that he seemingly had nothing at all to do with. It also wasn’t named in his honor until 2009. Kind of a silly take, really.
Yes, politicians were just as foul in 1947 as they are today. When oh when we We the People simply demand term limits?
They personally each gave small amounts to someone (across the aisle in some cases) as a gift and we’re calling that foul? I’m sure there was some amount of self-interest involved, but we’d be in a much better place if our representatives could get along this well today. Also, a politician with a personal rule against accepting large gifts even though the law presumably allowed for more. We could use more of that these days. I don’t disagree on term limits, but this really isn’t a great example of why they’re needed.
No, it isn't a great example of why term limits are needed. But the idea of doing a workaround to give a sizable gift is still abhorrent, which is what provoked by comment. If members of the House could serve only one 4-year term, and members of the Senate only one 6-year term, and if both were rotated as the Senate already is, the entire political process would change drastically for the better.
It was his own personal “policy”, not some actual law or rule. He just didn’t want to accept large gifts that left him beholden to the gift-giver. He later returned the money to his colleagues despite their attempt to “work around” this personal policy. This is the rich people equivalent of having someone at work that’s well-liked but doesn’t like people to make a big deal out of it. He could use something to do his job more easily, but it’s kind of expensive so everyone pitches in a little bit to get it for him. If anything, the fact that such an apparently honest man who also went against the segregationist Southern Democrat party line at the risk of his own career to do the right thing stayed in office as long as he did is an argument against term limits.
You think it would be a good idea for the entirety of congress to turnover every 4 years? Do you realize how much of a shit show that would be, even compared to our current system? I realize that there's this push going on to get rid of career politicians, and replace them with "regular people" but we do actually need some people in Washington that know how the system works.
Also, I don't even agree that the "workaround" is abhorrent, as you say. The purpose of limiting the size of a gift is so that an elected official does not feel obliged to act in the interest of the gift giver rather than their own constituents. If the cost of the gift is spread over a couple hundred people who all have different priorities, then the issue of being beholden to any one of them is mostly nullified. It's not remotely the same as the shit that goes on today with lobbyists in Washington. Your take on this makes no sense at all.
I did not say turnover all of the House every four year. I said rotate, as the Senate does now. You may be failing to see the important point; politicians should be receiving no gifts of any size from anybody. Period. Thin edge of the wedge. Moreover, it was a workaround. It's what government operatives do. I'm sure you have noticed.
You said they should be limited to a single 4 year term. This in practice means that nobody in Congress will have more Ethan 4 years of experience being a member of the house. That's absurd and is not how the Senate works so I don't know where you got that from.
Additionally, it wasn't even a law that they were circumventing it was a personal decision for Rayburn not to accept gifts. Your comparison to modern Congress just doesn't make any sense at all.
Seriously?
Sam Rayburn was a good and decent man. He returned all the money that had been donated.
I don't believe you know anything about the man.
I remember his funeral. The service was in the first Baptist Church even though he was a Primitive Baptist because it was larger and could better accommodate the large number of people.
No. Didn't know the man.
I did not say anything about knowing him.
I said knowing anything about him.
Your say tomato, I say .... oh, let's just drop it.
FranklinDRoosevelt32 OP t1_j3mk94p wrote
The reason Rayburn was gifted the car was because he held the Speakership prior to the Republicans gaining the majority of seats, and the House Speaker was provided a government-funded vehicle. The congressmen simply felt bad that the now Minority Leader didn't have a vehicle to drive around Washington.