You had the chance to fire them last November. You'll get another chance to fire them in November, 2010.

The Onanist: You had the chance to fire them last November. You'll get another chance to fire them in November, 2010.

We miraculously fired our corrupt POS through the idiocy of his supporters not being aware that there was another election in December. We did our part. Sort of.

It's a nice gesture, but a gesture nonetheless. What's the standard cost of living increase these days? 3.2% or something?

Nabb1: We miraculously fired our corrupt POS through the idiocy of his supporters not being aware that there was another election in December. We did our part. Sort of.

And we elected a Muslim (again).

:)

Diogenes: It's a nice gesture, but a gesture nonetheless.

it's amazing how jaded some of you are.

It's a nice gesture, but I'm not sure its really a good one. Not all House members are rich people. I'd rather they just keep the pay raises but have the richer members of the house pay back the different.

Diogenes: It's a nice gesture, but a gesture nonetheless. What's the standard cost of living increase these days? 3.2% or something?

A gesture which is an attempt to show solidarity and shared sacrifice with those they claim to represent. I don't see a negative here. Besides, if standard of living increases by 3.2% but they don't increase their salary, their life just got 3.2% more expensive ... and that's not just pennies.

As for subby, well, sorry man, you're outnumbered. Maybe the guys you support should have been better stewards of the country the last two decades. Instead, they pulled that "Contract with America" bullshiat in the 90s and it's been all downhill from there.

So, uh, how can they actually enforce this without violating the 27th Amendment? Do they just get the money and then, because Pelosi told them, they give it back?

My wages got frozen this year, and I make significantly less than a Congressman, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

fosborb: So, uh, how can they actually enforce this without violating the 27th Amendment? Do they just get the money and then, because Pelosi told them, they give it back?

They probably can't, which is why they aren't saying the House Republicans can do it. But it's a brilliant political move. And I don't think it's "Pelosi" telling them ... if they agreed to do it, then yeah they just pay it back. But I don't think there's a reason to mention Pelosi as though she's commanding them to do this.

WaltzingMathilda: which is why they aren't saying the House Republicans can must do it

FTFM to actually make sense

Whoa, whoa, whoa folks. I didn't intend to diminish the significance. But let's put it in context. Solidarity with those you represent is a good thing.

Now, the next question is, will the GOP follow suit?

Diogenes: Whoa, whoa, whoa folks. I didn't intend to diminish the significance. But let's put it in context. Solidarity with those you represent is a good thing.

Now, the next question is, will the GOP follow suit?

I didn't think you were, I was just clarifying the significance just in case. And you know there will be plenty of people who will say that if they're not working for free, they're being overpaid.

if they're not working for free, they're being overpaid.

Diogenes: Now, the next question is, will the GOP follow suit?

I could be wrong, but I think if the majority votes to do it, it applies to all members.

WaltzingMathilda: And you know there will be plenty of people who will say that if they're not working for free, they're being overpaid.

thomps: if they're not working for free, they're being overpaid.

Uh...this these.

/dem

I'm sure they will more than make up for it when the kickbacks from the "stimulus package" start rolling in.

lunchinlewis: Diogenes: Now, the next question is, will the GOP follow suit?

I could be wrong, but I think if the majority votes to do it, it applies to all members.

Is it a measure they are passing? Like a law? I would think that violates the 27th. Otherwise, I think they just voluntarily do it.

WaltzingMathilda: Is it a measure they are passing? Like a law? I would think that violates the 27th. Otherwise, I think they just voluntarily do it.

The raises are automatic, unless they vote to reject it. Again, I'm just going from fuzzy memory.

Conservatives would have taken a pay raise to inspire the economy to generate wealth again!

Diogenes: Now, the next question is, will the GOP follow suit?

Sixth paragraph.

lunchinlewis: WaltzingMathilda: Is it a measure they are passing? Like a law? I would think that violates the 27th. Otherwise, I think they just voluntarily do it.

The raises are automatic, unless they vote to reject it. Again, I'm just going from fuzzy memory.

Right, that's what I mean. They would have to pass a law (which would violate the 27th) or just voluntarily give it up (while not specifically legislating a halt on the automatic raise).

WaltzingMathilda: Right, that's what I mean. They would have to pass a law (which would violate the 27th) or just voluntarily give it up (while not specifically legislating a halt on the automatic raise).

H.R.156 (new window). Not really that complicated.

WaltzingMathilda: But I don't think there's a reason to mention Pelosi as though she's commanding them to do this.

Maybe we read a different article.

Pelosi told House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) about the decision before announcing it to her members, and his spokesman said Tuesday night that he is in favor of it.

lunchinlewis: H.R.156 (new window). Not really that complicated.

That varies Congressional pay without an intervening election. How does that not violate the 27th Amendment?

lunchinlewis: WaltzingMathilda: Right, that's what I mean. They would have to pass a law (which would violate the 27th) or just voluntarily give it up (while not specifically legislating a halt on the automatic raise).

H.R.156 (new window). Not really that complicated.

Well, thank you. My first question was "is it a measure they are passing or just a voluntary refusal of the payraise" ... I think it's clear from my context that I knew the raises were automatic, and that legislation revoking that would possibly violate the 27th." Now you've answered my question, and insulted my intelligence (when you should have just attacked me for being lazy and not answering my own question). On the same topic, my confusion lies more with whether that resolution is enforceable given the 27th Amendment. That, my friend, is the complicated part. I didn't think I gave the impression I didn't understand the process of enacting legislation.

Ron Paul tried to do this a month ago. The Dems are just stealing his idea.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/01/05/daily8.html

RON PAUL

Flab: Diogenes: Now, the next question is, will the GOP follow suit?

Sixth paragraph.

You mean I have to read the whole article? ;-)

Good on them, if they do.

fosborb: WaltzingMathilda: But I don't think there's a reason to mention Pelosi as though she's commanding them to do this.

Maybe we read a different article.

Pelosi told House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) about the decision before announcing it to her members, and his spokesman said Tuesday night that he is in favor of it.

Yeah, I saw that, but they all have to agree is my point ... or at least a majority. But I think there are two Pelosi camps: those that think she has absolute power, and those that think she's just a vote with a title and a soapbox.

WaltzingMathilda: Now you've answered my question, and insulted my intelligence (when you should have just attacked me for being lazy and not answering my own question)

Don't hate the player, my friend. Hate on the game.

fosborb: That varies Congressional pay without an intervening election. How does that not violate the 27th Amendment?

Do I look like Thurgood Marshall or something?

lunchinlewis: WaltzingMathilda: Now you've answered my question, and insulted my intelligence (when you should have just attacked me for being lazy and not answering my own question)

Don't hate the player, my friend. Hate on the game.

Ok, well ... I guess it's safe to say our conversation was a total waste of time since we both understand the situation, and neither of us know if this is an unconstitutional measure.

Not that anyone with standing would actually challenge the law if they ever wanted to get elected again.

That's not change we can believe in.

Hope, Change my ass!

[insert other campaign slogans in mocking tone because it's business as usual]

bulldg4life: That's not change we can believe in.

Hope, Change my ass!

[insert other campaign slogans in mocking tone because it's business as usual]

Gloves on your feet, shoes on your hands people! Change means nothing can be the same!

It's a nice gesture. Won't do a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but it does perhaps set a nice example for the rest.

Every little bit helps.

KIA: Ron Paul tried to do this a month ago.

Proving once again that RON PAUL doesn't know dick about the Constitution.

fosborb: Proving once again that RON PAUL doesn't know dick about the Constitution.

Knows dick? Whatever. RON PAUL, dicks, the Constitution, and dicks. That's what's important here.

I applaud this, though I still think members of Congress and the President should have their pay based on the average wage of the American worker. If the average drops, so does their pay.

I should make a clarification: it should be based on the net pay after taxes, not the gross pay.

/and we probably should subtract a bit based on how large the budget deficit is.

Snarfangel: I applaud this, though I still think members of Congress and the President should have their pay based on the average wage of the American worker. If the average drops, so does their pay.

Why? The average worker works 40 hours a week.

DamnYankees: It's a nice gesture, but I'm not sure its really a good one. Not all House members are rich people. I'd rather they just keep the pay raises but have the richer members of the house pay back the different.

One of the peasants butthurt about their lack of financial success? Unpossible!

It just means they'll cheat a little bit more on their taxes this year.

Diogenes: It's a nice gesture, but a gesture nonetheless. What's the standard cost of living increase these days? 3.2% or something?

They'll make it up by increasing some allowance by 10% later on, anyway.

I guess they assume their stimulus isn't going to work so like the rest of America's megacorporations they won't be able to afford a pay increase for cost of living next year. Actions speak louder than words.

/bet they still took one for 2009, pricks

If only we could just have the Republicans in charge of everything. They'd surely know what to do.

Like Barney Frank, they'll be recieving plenty of kickbacks from the folks who get bailed out... no need to be paid by us anymore anyway.

Just curious, can anyone here actually defend the doucheness of Barney Frank? Who in the hell keeps voting for this guy?

Pretty soon they will be able to stay in office indefinetly.

Shaggy_C: I guess they assume their stimulus isn't going to work so like the rest of America's megacorporations they won't be able to afford a pay increase for cost of living next year. Actions speak louder than words.

/bet they still took one for 2009, pricks


Another classic from Shaggy_C. Congratulations! Your posts are the funniest on fark.

I'd rather they vote to have the SEC look in to all of their investment activity.

Well, once the SEC done getting ass raped.

WaltzingMathilda: Not that anyone with standing would actually challenge the law if they ever wanted to get elected again.

I don't know. There are a few House members who are so entrenched in their district that they could get away with it.

In fact, I could see a certain Doctor from Texas challenging the law in court, simply because it was unconstitutional. In fact, I'd almost like to see that happen, or at least hear him make the argument that this violates the 27th.

WaltzingMathilda: As for subby, well, sorry man, you're outnumbered.

Even though I'm not subby, I am outnumbered. Our founding fathers warned us about political dynasties. I am a firm believer in limiting our elected representatives terms - all of them.

I think you should not be able to run for consecutive terms. If you want to run for re-election, go into the private sector after your term is up, and then campaign for re-election on your own time and dime.

Nothing galls my ass more than to know that these clowns that have aspirations for office "serve" us for about 6 months, and then promptly begin working on their re-election campaign - on my time. You're supposed to be working for the taxpayers. Please do that. If I didn't show up for work for 2 years because I was out trying to get a new job, I'd be fired. Should be the same with elected officials.

For crying out loud, Kennedy, Byrd, and the fairly recently deceased Thurmond could/can hardly stay awake, let alone govern effectively.

But on to the pay issue. When 600,000 Americans found themselves out of work last month, and the country slipping deeper into a recession, yeah, taking pay cuts is the responsible thing to do. But how about we do more than that? How about eliminating their pensions? Congress is not supposed to be a career, and despite how well you think you did your job, we, the taxpayers, shouldn't be burdened by paying your salary and health care for the rest of your life.

But, I'm in the minority.