Congress has been busy.....

[Meister]

There is a difference. Its the difference between giving someone rights yourself and forcing someone else to provide someone with rights.



Yes, thats correct.



Oy. Ok. Congress has a greater responsibility to federal employees than to individuals in general, since Congress, in a sense, directly employs them. Now. That they have a greater responsibility to one group does not mean they have NO responsibility to the whole.

Seems you need a bit more luck. Care to try again?

Well I'll be damned.... Last time I checked, WE EMPLOY CONGRESS! Now tell me again who they have the greater responsibility to????

Take your time....

They have a greater responsibility to the people in their employ.

Next?

Only in Nicky's world.

Looks like we have a Chris clone here.

 

[alan1]

I didn't say it was necessary for the feds to offer that. I said it was necessary for them to offer compensation. The specific compensation is, of course, not necessary, but some compensation is. And theres no reason to think that gouging federal employees and getting people to work for the cheapest wages possible is in the governments best interest.

Not offering paid leave for childbirth is not gouging.

Well you said that childbirth leave isn't "necessary" and therefore shouldn't be given. Ostensibly you think that any benefits that aren't "necessary" shouldn't be given either. If that were the case, they would be gouged.

I said PAID leave isn't necessary.
See how that one little word makes all the difference in the sentence?
Or are you just making shit up again?
I'm done debating with you since all you want to do is lie about what I said, then argue that lie you just created.

 

[DamnYankee]

Well I'll be damned.... Last time I checked, WE EMPLOY CONGRESS! Now tell me again who they have the greater responsibility to????

Take your time....

They have a greater responsibility to the people in their employ.

Next?

Only in Nicky's world.

Looks like we have a Chris clone here.

Really.... It would be interesting to see an explanation to THE BOSS(es) how there is less obligation to him/her/them than to those who may be employed by the employee. In fact, if one is conducting personal business while being paid by another, that would be grounds for dismissal!

 

[RodISHI]

Hey, aren't those the same federal employees that are paid by tax money? Or are these different federal employees?

Yes, it is. But charges of them "voting for themselves" are pretty baseless.

Does the word 'nepotism' mean anything to you?

:sarcasm: Well who wouldn't want to give their family members these nice little perks?

The spreadsheet mentality is alive and well!

 

[DamnYankee]

Yes, it is. But charges of them "voting for themselves" are pretty baseless.

Does the word 'nepotism' mean anything to you?

:sarcasm: Well who wouldn't want to give their family members these nice little perks?

The spreadsheet mentality is alive and well!

Still hasn't quite worked out that the members of Congress are federal employees and, therefore, are voting for themselves either....

 

[RodISHI]

Do ya think they would vote for anything which would lessen or take away from their benefits? Civil service personnel are also employed by the federal government and they have union representation also. These "daddy" benefits and "mommy" benefits are tools used to enforce the spreadsheet mentality. It's a justification to spend more taxpayer dollars and another excuse for raising taxes. There is not an endless supply of money irregardless of the federal reserve's willingness to print it. The federal reserve is told when to print money and how much to print. The bill is paid by the taxpayer. All future taxpayers and all living living taxpayers must pay the bill these goons are creating.

 

[alan1]

Do ya think they would vote for anything which would lessen or take away from their benefits? Civil service personnel are also employed by the federal government and they have union representation also. These "daddy" benefits and "mommy" benefits are tools used to enforce the spreadsheet mentality. It's a justification to spend more taxpayer dollars and another excuse for raising taxes. There is not an endless supply of money irregardless of the federal reserve's willingness to print it. The federal reserve is told when to print money and how much to print. The bill is paid by the taxpayer. All future taxpayers and all living living taxpayers must pay the bill these goons are creating.

That's exactly the concept that some people don't seem to understand, somebody has to pay for it.

 

[Nik]

Not offering paid leave for childbirth is not gouging.

Well you said that childbirth leave isn't "necessary" and therefore shouldn't be given. Ostensibly you think that any benefits that aren't "necessary" shouldn't be given either. If that were the case, they would be gouged.

I said PAID leave isn't necessary.
See how that one little word makes all the difference in the sentence?
Or are you just making shit up again?
I'm done debating with you since all you want to do is lie about what I said, then argue that lie you just created.

*shrug* then insert the word paid leave, and the sentence has the exact same meaning and content as it previously did. The word makes absolutely no difference in the context of the statement. But feel free to get into a hissy fit and storm off.

 

[Nik]

They have a greater responsibility to the people in their employ.

Next?

Only in Nicky's world.

Looks like we have a Chris clone here.

Really.... It would be interesting to see an explanation to THE BOSS(es) how there is less obligation to him/her/them than to those who may be employed by the employee. In fact, if one is conducting personal business while being paid by another, that would be grounds for dismissal!

Sure. Since you employ them, why don't you try to fire them? Good luck with that. You won't succeed because, interestingly, the description of boss/employee doesn't really work that well with congress and the people who voted them in.

 

[Nik]

Does the word 'nepotism' mean anything to you?

:sarcasm: Well who wouldn't want to give their family members these nice little perks?

The spreadsheet mentality is alive and well!

Still hasn't quite worked out that the members of Congress are federal employees and, therefore, are voting for themselves either....

Really? Does Congress take unpaid leave? Ever? If a Congressperson decided to go to Aruba for 6 months, would they still get paid? My guess is yes. So this legislation has basically no affect on them.

 

[alan1]

Well you said that childbirth leave isn't "necessary" and therefore shouldn't be given. Ostensibly you think that any benefits that aren't "necessary" shouldn't be given either. If that were the case, they would be gouged.

I said PAID leave isn't necessary.
See how that one little word makes all the difference in the sentence?
Or are you just making shit up again?
I'm done debating with you since all you want to do is lie about what I said, then argue that lie you just created.

*shrug* then insert the word paid leave, and the sentence has the exact same meaning and content as it previously did. The word makes absolutely no difference in the context of the statement. But feel free to get into a hissy fit and storm off.

 

[Nik]

I said PAID leave isn't necessary.
See how that one little word makes all the difference in the sentence?
Or are you just making shit up again?
I'm done debating with you since all you want to do is lie about what I said, then argue that lie you just created.

*shrug* then insert the word paid leave, and the sentence has the exact same meaning and content as it previously did. The word makes absolutely no difference in the context of the statement. But feel free to get into a hissy fit and storm off.

As I said, insert the word. If you can't come up with a rejoinder, then admit it, otherwise just explain why I am wrong, since I must so obviously be wrong since you felt the need to post that emoticon

 

[alan1]

*shrug* then insert the word paid leave, and the sentence has the exact same meaning and content as it previously did. The word makes absolutely no difference in the context of the statement. But feel free to get into a hissy fit and storm off.

As I said, insert the word. If you can't come up with a rejoinder, then admit it, otherwise just explain why I am wrong, since I must so obviously be wrong since you felt the need to post that emoticon

I didn't insert the word, you left the word out of my sentence.
But go ahead, keep up your false innocent dumb shit.

 

[Nik]

As I said, insert the word. If you can't come up with a rejoinder, then admit it, otherwise just explain why I am wrong, since I must so obviously be wrong since you felt the need to post that emoticon

I didn't insert the word, you left the word out of my sentence.
But go ahead, keep up your false innocent dumb shit.

You are a fucking moron.

Insert the word. Its me telling you to do something, not me asserting that you've done something in the past. Treat when I said "childbirth leave" as "paid childbirth leave"

Jesus.

 

[DamnYankee]

Well I'll be damned.... Last time I checked, WE EMPLOY CONGRESS! Now tell me again who they have the greater responsibility to????

Take your time....

They have a greater responsibility to the people in their employ.

Next?

Only in Nicky's world.

Looks like we have a Chris clone here.

Really.... It would be interesting to see an explanation to THE BOSS(es) how there is less obligation to him/her/them than to those who may be employed by the employee. In fact, if one is conducting personal business while being paid by another, that would be grounds for dismissal!

Sure. Since you employ them, why don't you try to fire them? Good luck with that. You won't succeed because, interestingly, the description of boss/employee doesn't really work that well with congress and the people who voted them in.

You understand the concept of analogy?

I'm more than willing to entertain your explanation though.....

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Well I'll be damned.... Last time I checked, WE EMPLOY CONGRESS! Now tell me again who they have the greater responsibility to????

Take your time....

They have a greater responsibility to the people in their employ.

Next?

Really.... It would be interesting to see an explanation to THE BOSS(es) how there is less obligation to him/her/them than to those who may be employed by the employee. In fact, if one is conducting personal business while being paid by another, that would be grounds for dismissal!

Sure. Since you employ them, why don't you try to fire them? Good luck with that. You won't succeed because, interestingly, the description of boss/employee doesn't really work that well with congress and the people who voted them in.

You understand the concept of analogy?

I'm more than willing to entertain your explanation though.....

ROFLMAO! nicely put Allbiz ! unfortunately Nik doesn't even understand the concept of reality let alone the concept of analogy .....

 

[DamnYankee]

:sarcasm: Well who wouldn't want to give their family members these nice little perks?

The spreadsheet mentality is alive and well!

Still hasn't quite worked out that the members of Congress are federal employees and, therefore, are voting for themselves either....

Really? Does Congress take unpaid leave? Ever? If a Congressperson decided to go to Aruba for 6 months, would they still get paid? My guess is yes. So this legislation has basically no affect on them.

Well let's see....

How much do they get to spend on expenses?

Every member in the House and the Senate gets an allotment (called a Members Representational Allowance in the House) which they can use to hire and pay staff, buy office supplies, lease office space in their home state or district, mail official documents, answer mail, travel back and forth between Washington and their home, and generally try to serve their constituents. The amount each office gets is based on a formula, but generally it's around $1 million. There are limits on how many people you can hire (18 permanent, 4 part time) and on how much you can pay people (max is $151,000). It varies from member to member, but most offices spend the most on staff salaries, then mail, then office rent, travel, supplies, etc.

Members are expressly prohibited from using their taxpayer-financed office money for campaign activities, personal expenses, or primarily social activities. Members also can't accept support from private sources for their official duties (except for travel).
http://www.house.gov/htbin/crsprodget?/RL30064/site=sitename

So, they can't use office expense money.... But do they get a "paid" leave of absence? Hmmm....


Numerous Congress Members May Have Received Illegal Congressional Pay in 2003-2004

Many current or former Senators and Representatives appear to have taken illegal Congressional salary payments during the current Congress, prior to the October recess.

The chronically absent list is well-represented by candidates who ran for higher office, including those who ran for President or Vice President: Senators John Edwards (D-NC), Bob Graham (D-FL), John Kerry (D-MA), and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), and Congressmen Richard Gephardt (D-MO) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). Senate candidates Brad Carson (D-OK), Mac Collins (R-GA), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Pete Deutsch (D-FL), Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Chris John (D-LA), Denise Majette (D-GA), George Nethercutt (R-WA), and Patrick Toomey (R-PA), who have served in the House during 2003 – 2004, also had numerous unexcused absences. In 2003 now-Kentucky Governor and former Representative Ernie Fletcher (R) missed 27 session days.

Federal law requires Members of Congress to forgo Congressional pay for days missed due to campaign appearances or other unexcused absences. In June 2003 National Taxpayers Union wrote to each of the six Presidential candidates serving in Congress to ask whether they planned "to voluntarily follow this law during your campaign." None of the candidates replied.
Numerous Congress Members May Have Received Illegal Congressional Pay in 2003-2004


So, that 6-month PAID trip to Aruba is OUT -- and you guessed wrong.

 

[DamnYankee]

They have a greater responsibility to the people in their employ.

Next?

Sure. Since you employ them, why don't you try to fire them? Good luck with that. You won't succeed because, interestingly, the description of boss/employee doesn't really work that well with congress and the people who voted them in.

You understand the concept of analogy?

I'm more than willing to entertain your explanation though.....

ROFLMAO! nicely put Allbiz ! unfortunately Nik doesn't even understand the concept of reality let alone the concept of analogy .....

I'm really trying to be diplomatic here. It's getting tough....

 

[Nik]

Well I'll be damned.... Last time I checked, WE EMPLOY CONGRESS! Now tell me again who they have the greater responsibility to????

Take your time....

They have a greater responsibility to the people in their employ.

Next?

Really.... It would be interesting to see an explanation to THE BOSS(es) how there is less obligation to him/her/them than to those who may be employed by the employee. In fact, if one is conducting personal business while being paid by another, that would be grounds for dismissal!

Sure. Since you employ them, why don't you try to fire them? Good luck with that. You won't succeed because, interestingly, the description of boss/employee doesn't really work that well with congress and the people who voted them in.

You understand the concept of analogy?

I'm more than willing to entertain your explanation though.....

Yes, I do. This is what would be termed a "false analogy".

 

[Nik]

Still hasn't quite worked out that the members of Congress are federal employees and, therefore, are voting for themselves either....

Really? Does Congress take unpaid leave? Ever? If a Congressperson decided to go to Aruba for 6 months, would they still get paid? My guess is yes. So this legislation has basically no affect on them.

Well let's see....

How much do they get to spend on expenses?

Every member in the House and the Senate gets an allotment (called a Members Representational Allowance in the House) which they can use to hire and pay staff, buy office supplies, lease office space in their home state or district, mail official documents, answer mail, travel back and forth between Washington and their home, and generally try to serve their constituents. The amount each office gets is based on a formula, but generally it's around $1 million. There are limits on how many people you can hire (18 permanent, 4 part time) and on how much you can pay people (max is $151,000). It varies from member to member, but most offices spend the most on staff salaries, then mail, then office rent, travel, supplies, etc.

Members are expressly prohibited from using their taxpayer-financed office money for campaign activities, personal expenses, or primarily social activities. Members also can't accept support from private sources for their official duties (except for travel).
http://www.house.gov/htbin/crsprodget?/RL30064/site=sitename

So, they can't use office expense money.... But do they get a "paid" leave of absence? Hmmm....


Numerous Congress Members May Have Received Illegal Congressional Pay in 2003-2004

Many current or former Senators and Representatives appear to have taken illegal Congressional salary payments during the current Congress, prior to the October recess.

The chronically absent list is well-represented by candidates who ran for higher office, including those who ran for President or Vice President: Senators John Edwards (D-NC), Bob Graham (D-FL), John Kerry (D-MA), and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), and Congressmen Richard Gephardt (D-MO) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). Senate candidates Brad Carson (D-OK), Mac Collins (R-GA), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Pete Deutsch (D-FL), Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Chris John (D-LA), Denise Majette (D-GA), George Nethercutt (R-WA), and Patrick Toomey (R-PA), who have served in the House during 2003 – 2004, also had numerous unexcused absences. In 2003 now-Kentucky Governor and former Representative Ernie Fletcher (R) missed 27 session days.

Federal law requires Members of Congress to forgo Congressional pay for days missed due to campaign appearances or other unexcused absences. In June 2003 National Taxpayers Union wrote to each of the six Presidential candidates serving in Congress to ask whether they planned "to voluntarily follow this law during your campaign." None of the candidates replied.
Numerous Congress Members May Have Received Illegal Congressional Pay in 2003-2004


So, that 6-month PAID trip to Aruba is OUT -- and you guessed wrong.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Of course the law that you posted doesn't really seem to be enforced, so actually the Aruba trip prolly wouldn't have much of an affect.