Sleeping in your office?

[Skull Pilot]

The only reason I care is that as Congressmen, they are not entitled to any additional privledges that other Americans are offered

I know of no zoning that allows workers to live in their workspace. I imagine DC is the same. There are millions of Americans who struggle paycheck to paycheck and they are not allowed to live in their place of work.

It is not like they have no alternatives. College students in tough financial situations find roomates. No reason that these Congressmen can't share an apartment for $400 a month each.

what extra does it cost for them to sleep in their office?

What extra does it cost a college student to sleep in the classrooms? I'm sure many would do it if it saves $400 a month

And no school would open themselves up to the liability of letting students sleep in the classrooms. As far as I know a congressman can't sue us if he trips in his office at night.

 

[Ernie S.]

no, they are not planing to stay there
you do know they dont stay in DC 24/7 right?

I never said that they are planning to stay in D.C. 24/7. But they are going to be in D.C. for at least the next two years, and if they are living up to their jobs the way the should be, they will be there for 5/7 of their time over the next two years. You're once again trying to twist this around to be something that it's not.

Like I said earlier, if finding something nearby is really so difficult, then why don't they build an on premises dorm with enough small rooms for everyone. Members of Congress can rent rooms out from the government at a reasonable rate, so the project ends up being fiscally responsible, and provides for everyone's needs.

Let's charge obama rent on 1600 Pa. Avenue, while we're at it, huh?

 

[rightwinger]

no, they are not planing to stay there
you do know they dont stay in DC 24/7 right?

I never said that they are planning to stay in D.C. 24/7. But they are going to be in D.C. for at least the next two years, and if they are living up to their jobs the way the should be, they will be there for 5/7 of their time over the next two years. You're once again trying to twist this around to be something that it's not.

Like I said earlier, if finding something nearby is really so difficult, then why don't they build an on premises dorm with enough small rooms for everyone. Members of Congress can rent rooms out from the government at a reasonable rate, so the project ends up being fiscally responsible, and provides for everyone's needs.

Let's charge obama rent on 1600 Pa. Avenue, while we're at it, huh?

Better yet..

He can rent out some rooms to struggling Congressmen. Maybe let them pitch some tents on the great lawn

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never said that they are planning to stay in D.C. 24/7. But they are going to be in D.C. for at least the next two years, and if they are living up to their jobs the way the should be, they will be there for 5/7 of their time over the next two years. You're once again trying to twist this around to be something that it's not.

Like I said earlier, if finding something nearby is really so difficult, then why don't they build an on premises dorm with enough small rooms for everyone. Members of Congress can rent rooms out from the government at a reasonable rate, so the project ends up being fiscally responsible, and provides for everyone's needs.

Let's charge obama rent on 1600 Pa. Avenue, while we're at it, huh?

Better yet..

He can rent out some rooms to struggling Congressmen. Maybe let them pitch some tents on the great lawn

Since when does one have to be "struggling" to want to save money?

 

[MarcATL]

i think this shows fiscal responsibility and that fact they dont plan to become established in the beltway

This argument is just pathetic and a weak attempt to rationalize a position that is unsustainable. There is NOTHING of responsibility, fiscal or otherwise, that is represented by Congresspersons and Senators sleeping in their offices. If they were truly responsible they would have obtained secondary housing. If they were fiscally responsible they would easily manage their finances so that the comparatively small cost of secondary housing became virtually meaningless to their wallet along side their lofty income. It's not like any landlord would make the sign a 10 year lease. So the idea that "they don't plan to become established in the beltway" is hogwash. If I go out of town for the weekend I don't plan to become established in the place I'm visiting, but I still get a motel room. Plans to become established have NOTHING to do with it.

It's just more RW excuses, pablum and claptrap that shows truly how reckless and irresponsible they are at core.

Nice try to twist my words around. Being fiscally responsible is not about how much money you spend. It's about managing your finances so that you can afford your own expenses, needs, and obligations. Let's say I head down to the homeless shelter every night for dinner even though I make more than enough money to provide my own food. Is that fiscally responsible of me? Or is it just me being cheap and trashy?

It's sucking off the government teet. The very thing Conservatives always claim to be rabidly against.

Sure, taking a trip is only a day or two. My needs are less, so I should be expected to provide for my own needs while they are small. But going to D.C. as a member of Congress, that's 2 years at a minimum. Needs are larger, so I guess people shouldn't be expected to provide for their needs in that situation, and should instead rely on the government to provide them. You must be a democrat.

Exactly!

It's their choice to sleep in their offices and it has absolutely no bearing on your life so why the fuck do you care?

It's also people's choice if they want to enjoy some weed smoke in their own home...it matters not...it's illegal. The Zoning Laws do not permit using your workplace as a place of residence.

Snap out of it!

 

[Skull Pilot]

i think this shows fiscal responsibility and that fact they dont plan to become established in the beltway

This argument is just pathetic and a weak attempt to rationalize a position that is unsustainable. There is NOTHING of responsibility, fiscal or otherwise, that is represented by Congresspersons and Senators sleeping in their offices. If they were truly responsible they would have obtained secondary housing. If they were fiscally responsible they would easily manage their finances so that the comparatively small cost of secondary housing became virtually meaningless to their wallet along side their lofty income. It's not like any landlord would make the sign a 10 year lease. So the idea that "they don't plan to become established in the beltway" is hogwash. If I go out of town for the weekend I don't plan to become established in the place I'm visiting, but I still get a motel room. Plans to become established have NOTHING to do with it.

It's just more RW excuses, pablum and claptrap that shows truly how reckless and irresponsible they are at core.

It's sucking off the government teet. The very thing Conservatives always claim to be rabidly against.

Sure, taking a trip is only a day or two. My needs are less, so I should be expected to provide for my own needs while they are small. But going to D.C. as a member of Congress, that's 2 years at a minimum. Needs are larger, so I guess people shouldn't be expected to provide for their needs in that situation, and should instead rely on the government to provide them. You must be a democrat.

Exactly!

It's their choice to sleep in their offices and it has absolutely no bearing on your life so why the fuck do you care?

It's also people's choice if they want to enjoy some weed smoke in their own home...it matters not...it's illegal. The Zoning Laws do not permit using your workplace as a place of residence.

Snap out of it!

Please post the zoning laws for Washington DC to prove your point.

Zoning laws are by no means uniform from town to town. If you ever had to deal with zoning, you'd know that.

And it's the very definition of a victimless "crime" so get over it already.

 

[boedicca]

How nice of you to want to decide how somebody else should spend his personal income.

What a sad control freak.

Your attempts to paint me as some kind of unreasonable "freak" are what is sad. Since when are people NOT expected to supply their own housing needs? People can spend their own money any way they want. But give me one good reason why we the people should NOT expect Congresspeople and Senators to provide their own housing needs? I find it very unprofessional and irresponsible for ANYONE to make a home out of their office. I see no reason for me to provide a special exception to elected officials. If they are unable to get their job done without living in their offices, and they are not able to manage their finances well enough to find room in their very high income to provide for their own housing needs, then I do not see any reason to believe them competent to manage the federal finances. I see nothing unreasonable about these positions, especially since these are the kinds of requirements that the ordinary American has to satisfy in our every day lives.

Also, stop trying to move the goal post. You've gone from failed arguments of financial responsibility, to failed implications of Congressional poverty, and now to a desperate attempt at ad hominems. Two fallacies does not make a positive argument.

The Epic Fail here is all yours, bub.

Thinking that someone can raise a family on $174K and maintain an apartment in one of the highest priced real estate zones in the country is inane. I never said they lived in poverty, merely that sleeping in the office was a sign of personal financial responsibility. You try putting a couple of kids through college, and maintaining two homes on $174K, while trying to save for retirement. $174K is middle class, not rich, and most people would not be able to fulfill their responsibilities to their families while paying for a DC apartment

Your pea green with envy attitude that somebody making more than you do is somehow RICH RICH RICH is sad.

 

[boedicca]

I think the expense of maintaining two households can be unnecessarily burdensome, even if you are making 6 figures.

How so? What burden is there when you have such means? I've met people who were Reservists who maintained timeshares for their weekends when they drill. Their Reservist pay just covers the cost of their weekend housing costs. Like I pointed out, even if we over-estimate $2000 a month rent and utilities for their secondary housing, that still leaves them with $150,000 of net yearly income, which still leaves them in the top 4% of income earners. If it's a burden at all, then they are not fit for the responsibilities of their job. Maybe a more unnecessarily burdensome expense if their outrageous salaries. Maybe Congressional pay should be reduced to $50k a year, and then we can talk about paying for their own rent being "unnecessarily burdensome."

Second, if providing for their own housing needs is too burdensome, then they need to do what the rest of Americans have to do when faced with the dilemma of having personal needs conflict with their ability to get to work every day. They need to reevaluate their situation and if necessary find another job that works out better for them.

God you are an ass. They wouldn't have $150K of net income. They pay income, property and sales taxes like everyone else. Depending upon his deductions and state, said Congress person is paying somewhere between $40-50K of taxes.

 

[rightwinger]

Let's charge obama rent on 1600 Pa. Avenue, while we're at it, huh?

Better yet..

He can rent out some rooms to struggling Congressmen. Maybe let them pitch some tents on the great lawn

Since when does one have to be "struggling" to want to save money?

Cheap ?
Deadbeat?

 

[boedicca]

Let's charge obama rent on 1600 Pa. Avenue, while we're at it, huh?

Better yet..

He can rent out some rooms to struggling Congressmen. Maybe let them pitch some tents on the great lawn

Since when does one have to be "struggling" to want to save money?

From my experience, those who save money do so to avoid having to struggle and be a burden in the future.

It's quite telling the amount of ire being aimed at our representatives who are trying to be responsible to their family obligations while the Mother of All Financial Irresponsibility has been carried out via the Obama Spending Binge for the past two years.

 

[MarcATL]

It figures that Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives would be the bums in Congress...now the saying "throw the bums out of office" makes more sense.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Better yet..

He can rent out some rooms to struggling Congressmen. Maybe let them pitch some tents on the great lawn

Since when does one have to be "struggling" to want to save money?

Cheap ?
Deadbeat?

Frugal, thrifty, fiscally responsible.

You remind me of people who complain about other people with more money than them.

Tell me how many times has some variation of this old chestnut passed your lips;

"Jesus Christ why is he so fucking cheap when he has more money than god?"

What people like you never seem to realize is that because one is frugal is precisely the reason they have money. God forbid people don't spend every penny they earn and then some right?

 

[boedicca]

Perhaps we should have a program in which Lobbyists provide Rent Free apartments to members of Congress, as was done for Rahm Emmanuel for five (Tax Free!) years:

Shortly after Obama's happy inaugural, eyebrows rose slightly upon word that, as a House member, Emanuel had lived the last five years rent-free in a D.C. apartment of Democratic colleague Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and her husband, Stanley Greenberg.

For an ordinary American, that would likely raise some obvious tax liability questions. But like Emanuel, the guy overseeing the Internal Revenue Service now is another Obama insider, Tim Geithner, who had his own outstanding tax problems but skated through confirmation anyway by the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Remember this was all before the letters BP stood for Huge Mess. Even before the Obama administration gave BP a safety award.

Greenberg's consulting firm was a prime architect of BP's recent rebranding drive as a green petroleum company, down to green signs and the slogan "Beyond Petroleum."

Greenberg's company is also closely tied to a sister Democratic outfit -- GCS, named for the last initials of Greenberg, James Carville, another Clinton advisor, and Bob Shrum, John Kerry's 2004 campaign manager.

According to published reports, GCS received hundreds of thousands of dollars in political polling contracts in recent years from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Probably just a crazy coincidence. But you'll never guess who was the chairman of that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dispensing those huge polling contracts to his kindly rent-free landlord.

The ties that bind. Remember Rahm Emanuel's rent-free D.C. apartment? The owner: A BP adviser | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

 

[Skull Pilot]

It figures that Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives would be the bums in Congress...now the saying "throw the bums out of office" makes more sense.

Yeah they should be more like all you other sheep and spend more than they make.

 

[rightwinger]

Since when does one have to be "struggling" to want to save money?

Cheap ?
Deadbeat?

Frugal, thrifty, fiscally responsible.

You remind me of people who complain about other people with more money than them.

Tell me how many times has some variation of this old chestnut passed your lips;

"Jesus Christ why is he so fucking cheap when he has more money than god?"

What people like you never seem to realize is that because one is frugal is precisely the reason they have money. God forbid people don't spend every penny they earn and then some right?

Vagrant?
Moocher?

 

[MarcATL]

It figures that Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives would be the bums in Congress...now the saying "throw the bums out of office" makes more sense.

Yeah they should be more like all you other sheep and spend more than they make.

WTF.com??!??

USD $875.00 - $1,000.00 per month would break their backs to pay in rent with their current salaries?

Let's not forget most of these individuals were already successful business men and women, especially on the Republican side as they worship business owners.

You're arguments are false, not to mention senseless.

 

[boedicca]

^^^ Yet more pea green with envy attitude aimed at people who are middle class and just trying to behave in a responsible fashion to their families.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[Mustang]

It figures that Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives would be the bums in Congress...now the saying "throw the bums out of office" makes more sense.

Yeah they should be more like all you other sheep and spend more than they make.

WTF.com??!??

USD $875.00 - $1,000.00 per month would break their backs to pay in rent with their current salaries?

Let's not forget most of these individuals were already successful business men and women, especially on the Republican side as they worship business owners.

You're arguments are false, not to mention senseless.

I think the gov't should start charging rent to anyone who regularly spends the night in their office.

 

[boedicca]

Fine. Let's start with Obama.