Sleeping in your office?

[gekaap]

if a company sends you to a remote location they generally provide you with some kind of housing
so that analogy FAILS

And if the company does not provide such, do they let you sleep in the building? No, you have to provide your own accommodations. So actually, it's not a fail.

 

[DiveCon]

if a company sends you to a remote location they generally provide you with some kind of housing
so that analogy FAILS

And if the company does not provide such, do they let you sleep in the building? No, you have to provide your own accommodations. So actually, it's not a fail.

name a company that sends employees to places other than their homes that doesnt provide housing for them for the time they are there

 

[gekaap]

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.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

so, according to YOU
being fiscally responsible is spending more money

you MUST be a democrat

 

[DiveCon]

sorry gek, but you are sounding like a ******* MORON
taking a temporary trip is not the same thing and YOU should know it

 

[gekaap]

so, according to YOU
being fiscally responsible is spending more money

you MUST be a democrat

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?

sorry gek, but you are sounding like a ******* MORON
taking a temporary trip is not the same thing and YOU should know it

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.

 

[DiveCon]

so, according to YOU
being fiscally responsible is spending more money

you MUST be a democrat

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?

sorry gek, but you are sounding like a ******* MORON
taking a temporary trip is not the same thing and YOU should know it

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.

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

 

[konradv]

They are vagrants, kick them out

No other worker would be allowed to live in their workplace. Zoning would not allow it and they work in a public building

Let them sleep in homeless shelters

Firemen do.

Firemen sleep in a space designed for sleeping. One's office is not such a place.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They are vagrants, kick them out

No other worker would be allowed to live in their workplace. Zoning would not allow it and they work in a public building

Let them sleep in homeless shelters

Firemen do.

Firemen sleep in a space designed for sleeping. One's office is not such a place.

Designed for sleeping?

You can sleep anywhere design or not.

 

[gekaap]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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

 

[DiveCon]

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.

why should we build something more when what they already have is adequate

 

[DiveCon]

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.

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

i dont see what his problem is with this
they are showing a lot of fiscal responsibility in their own personal finances by this
not setting up a second home in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country

 

[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.

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

i dont see what his problem is with this
they are showing a lot of fiscal responsibility in their own personal finances by this
not setting up a second home in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country

I agree. If this is such a big issue for some I suggest they get a life.

 

[rightwinger]

Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George built a bed under his desk

 

[Skull Pilot]

Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George built a bed under his desk

He was sleeping while on the clock. And even if he was sleeping nights in his office, how does it affect you?

Let me help you out here.

It doesn't affect you at all.

 

[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.

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

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.

 

[DiveCon]

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.

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

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?

 

[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.

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

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

And congressmen have to maintain two homes because most don't move their entire family to DC. The government provides them the offices and as far as I know there is no restriction for them being there 24/7.

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.

Zoning laws are not the issue. Most people work for someone else and the employer does not want to expose himself to additional liability by allowing employees 24/7 access to his property.

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.

There's no real reason they can't sleep on their own couches in an office either. It's an economically sound decision especially since congress critters have to maintain their homes in their districts. Why pay an extra 400 a month when that money can be used to support their families at home?

 

[rightwinger]

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

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