We need a new Law: If Congress doesn't pass Budget items on time they lose $$$

[task0778]

I say they require a new budget for the next fiscal year by the end of the old one or the current budget rolls over with no changes. Either way, the debt ceiling is automatically raised to cover the expenditures, no more debt ceiling bullshit. If they pass any budget changes or appropriations later, then the debt ceiling gets automatically raised to cover the changes.

 

[Marion Morrison]

A convention of the states can make laws without dealing with Congress, that's what it's for.

Um...they propose and vote on amendments...

Yes, amendments passed by the states and not Congress, dumbass. The states can override Congress and tell them to **** off.

 

[kyzr]

Get right to work on that because it takes a Constitutional Amendment to do that.

Why? What part of the Constitution says they still get paid even when their work isn't done?

Try reading it. That was a requirement in the government classes I taught. I am sometimes amazed that people have no idea what is in the Constitution.

OK, I read the Constitution, I didn't see anything that prohibits a normal law regulating their pay. But I'm a numbers guy, who doesn't like shutdowns or CRs. They need to be able to negotiate to get budgets done on time. Trump won't give in and neither will the dems. So how can we hold their heads under water until they do their jobs?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Get right to work on that because it takes a Constitutional Amendment to do that.

Why? What part of the Constitution says they still get paid even when their work isn't done?

Try reading it. That was a requirement in the government classes I taught. I am sometimes amazed that people have no idea what is in the Constitution.

OK, I read the Constitution, I didn't see anything that prohibits a normal law regulating their pay. But I'm a numbers guy, who doesn't like shutdowns or CRs. They need to be able to negotiate to get budgets done on time. Trump won't give in and neither will the dems. So how can we hold their heads under water until they do their jobs?

I guess you need reading lessons just like a libtard. Did you read the 27th Amendment?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, amendments passed by the states and not Congress, dumbass.

Yes I know gay cowboy, I just told you that.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Yes, amendments passed by the states and not Congress, dumbass.

Yes I know gay cowboy, I just told you that.

Proof?

Despite your fantasies, I do not wear assless chaps.

 

[kyzr]

Get right to work on that because it takes a Constitutional Amendment to do that.

Why? What part of the Constitution says they still get paid even when their work isn't done?

Try reading it. That was a requirement in the government classes I taught. I am sometimes amazed that people have no idea what is in the Constitution.

OK, I read the Constitution, I didn't see anything that prohibits a normal law regulating their pay. But I'm a numbers guy, who doesn't like shutdowns or CRs. They need to be able to negotiate to get budgets done on time. Trump won't give in and neither will the dems. So how can we hold their heads under water until they do their jobs?

I guess you need reading lessons just like a libtard. Did you read the 27th Amendment?

You didn't say the Amendments, but anyway. Found the 27th its mostly about the timing of pay raises.
The framers were worried about Congress giving themselves raises, and they didn't want the president having pay power over them. So the 27th gives them a raise but only after elections. One could add to the 27th: "except for a pro-rated reduction in pay for Congress, the Senate, and the President when the work of completing the budget is not 100% complete on time as prescribed". (or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?)

27th Amendment:
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

 

[BuckToothMoron]

If AOC actually proposed that, I’m shocked. It’s the first intelligent thing I have ever heard from her.

How would you know an "intelligent thing" when you are a self-confessed moron?

Let me help you. That is just a screen name. Nobody here actually thinks you are a dragon, and certainly not a lady.

 

[BluesLegend]

AOC proposed a Law that Congress and the Senate (add the President?) don't get paid during a shutdown, because they didn't do their jobs on time.
I want to go one step further. They lose pay during a budget related shutdown, and do NOT get any money, they get docked pay.

Most of these people are taking bribes on the side that makes their paycheck look like chicken feed, but your heart is in the right place.

Many people elected to congress are a bunch of morons who couldn't land a job in the real world.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Get right to work on that because it takes a Constitutional Amendment to do that.

Why? What part of the Constitution says they still get paid even when their work isn't done?

Try reading it. That was a requirement in the government classes I taught. I am sometimes amazed that people have no idea what is in the Constitution.

OK, I read the Constitution, I didn't see anything that prohibits a normal law regulating their pay. But I'm a numbers guy, who doesn't like shutdowns or CRs. They need to be able to negotiate to get budgets done on time. Trump won't give in and neither will the dems. So how can we hold their heads under water until they do their jobs?

I guess you need reading lessons just like a libtard. Did you read the 27th Amendment?

You didn't say the Amendments, but anyway. Found the 27th its mostly about the timing of pay raises.
The framers were worried about Congress giving themselves raises, and they didn't want the president having pay power over them. So the 27th gives them a raise but only after elections. One could add to the 27th: "except for a pro-rated reduction in pay for Congress, the Senate, and the President when the work of completing the budget is not 100% complete on time as prescribed". (or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?)

27th Amendment:
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

So, you didn't know that the Amendments were part of the Constitution? That takes a lot of guts to admit! Thank you!

You do realize that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with this amendment being ratified. It was passed in 1789 but was not ratified until 1992, over 202 years later.

Now do you see my point? It would take an amendment to change the 27th Amendment to accomplish your goal.

 

[kyzr]

Why? What part of the Constitution says they still get paid even when their work isn't done?

Try reading it. That was a requirement in the government classes I taught. I am sometimes amazed that people have no idea what is in the Constitution.

OK, I read the Constitution, I didn't see anything that prohibits a normal law regulating their pay. But I'm a numbers guy, who doesn't like shutdowns or CRs. They need to be able to negotiate to get budgets done on time. Trump won't give in and neither will the dems. So how can we hold their heads under water until they do their jobs?

I guess you need reading lessons just like a libtard. Did you read the 27th Amendment?

You didn't say the Amendments, but anyway. Found the 27th its mostly about the timing of pay raises.
The framers were worried about Congress giving themselves raises, and they didn't want the president having pay power over them. So the 27th gives them a raise but only after elections. One could add to the 27th: "except for a pro-rated reduction in pay for Congress, the Senate, and the President when the work of completing the budget is not 100% complete on time as prescribed". (or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?)

27th Amendment:
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

So, you didn't know that the Amendments were part of the Constitution? That takes a lot of guts to admit! Thank you!

You do realize that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with this amendment being ratified. It was passed in 1789 but was not ratified until 1992, over 202 years later.

Now do you see my point? It would take an amendment to change the 27th Amendment to accomplish your goal.

I'm old and my attention span has gotten a lot shorter. I like to google and run with the answer. I can't imagine your students reading the entire Constitution without their eyes glazing over. I'm no lawyer, but we need a way to force them to pass budgets on time. You did not answer my question: ...(or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Try reading it. That was a requirement in the government classes I taught. I am sometimes amazed that people have no idea what is in the Constitution.

OK, I read the Constitution, I didn't see anything that prohibits a normal law regulating their pay. But I'm a numbers guy, who doesn't like shutdowns or CRs. They need to be able to negotiate to get budgets done on time. Trump won't give in and neither will the dems. So how can we hold their heads under water until they do their jobs?

I guess you need reading lessons just like a libtard. Did you read the 27th Amendment?

You didn't say the Amendments, but anyway. Found the 27th its mostly about the timing of pay raises.
The framers were worried about Congress giving themselves raises, and they didn't want the president having pay power over them. So the 27th gives them a raise but only after elections. One could add to the 27th: "except for a pro-rated reduction in pay for Congress, the Senate, and the President when the work of completing the budget is not 100% complete on time as prescribed". (or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?)

27th Amendment:
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

So, you didn't know that the Amendments were part of the Constitution? That takes a lot of guts to admit! Thank you!

You do realize that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with this amendment being ratified. It was passed in 1789 but was not ratified until 1992, over 202 years later.

Now do you see my point? It would take an amendment to change the 27th Amendment to accomplish your goal.

I'm old and my attention span has gotten a lot shorter. I like to google and run with the answer. I can't imagine your students reading the entire Constitution without their eyes glazing over. I'm no lawyer, but we need a way to force them to pass budgets on time. You did not answer my question: ...(or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?

A stand-alone law that restricts their pay would immediately be declared unconstitutional. Anyone with any knowledge of the law would know that.

 

[kyzr]

OK, I read the Constitution, I didn't see anything that prohibits a normal law regulating their pay. But I'm a numbers guy, who doesn't like shutdowns or CRs. They need to be able to negotiate to get budgets done on time. Trump won't give in and neither will the dems. So how can we hold their heads under water until they do their jobs?

I guess you need reading lessons just like a libtard. Did you read the 27th Amendment?

You didn't say the Amendments, but anyway. Found the 27th its mostly about the timing of pay raises.
The framers were worried about Congress giving themselves raises, and they didn't want the president having pay power over them. So the 27th gives them a raise but only after elections. One could add to the 27th: "except for a pro-rated reduction in pay for Congress, the Senate, and the President when the work of completing the budget is not 100% complete on time as prescribed". (or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?)

27th Amendment:
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

So, you didn't know that the Amendments were part of the Constitution? That takes a lot of guts to admit! Thank you!

You do realize that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with this amendment being ratified. It was passed in 1789 but was not ratified until 1992, over 202 years later.

Now do you see my point? It would take an amendment to change the 27th Amendment to accomplish your goal.

I'm old and my attention span has gotten a lot shorter. I like to google and run with the answer. I can't imagine your students reading the entire Constitution without their eyes glazing over. I'm no lawyer, but we need a way to force them to pass budgets on time. You did not answer my question: ...(or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?

A stand-alone law that restricts their pay would immediately be declared unconstitutional. Anyone with any knowledge of the law would know that.

In the real world we would call that a "non-answer". We need a solution to the problem, and failure is not an option.
The country can't stand more of these insane shutdowns because the stupid coxuckers won't do their jobs, compromise, and get the Budget passed on time.

OK, so if we can't change the amount of their pay, can we add a "delay penalty" until they get their pay. Something like 10x the shutdown length. A 1-day shutdown would delay their next pay 10-days, a 100-day shutdown would delay their next pay 1000-days? etc. Their compensation is not "varied" its just delayed based on performance.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I guess you need reading lessons just like a libtard. Did you read the 27th Amendment?

You didn't say the Amendments, but anyway. Found the 27th its mostly about the timing of pay raises.
The framers were worried about Congress giving themselves raises, and they didn't want the president having pay power over them. So the 27th gives them a raise but only after elections. One could add to the 27th: "except for a pro-rated reduction in pay for Congress, the Senate, and the President when the work of completing the budget is not 100% complete on time as prescribed". (or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?)

27th Amendment:
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

So, you didn't know that the Amendments were part of the Constitution? That takes a lot of guts to admit! Thank you!

You do realize that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with this amendment being ratified. It was passed in 1789 but was not ratified until 1992, over 202 years later.

Now do you see my point? It would take an amendment to change the 27th Amendment to accomplish your goal.

I'm old and my attention span has gotten a lot shorter. I like to google and run with the answer. I can't imagine your students reading the entire Constitution without their eyes glazing over. I'm no lawyer, but we need a way to force them to pass budgets on time. You did not answer my question: ...(or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?

A stand-alone law that restricts their pay would immediately be declared unconstitutional. Anyone with any knowledge of the law would know that.

In the real world we would call that a "non-answer". We need a solution to the problem, and failure is not an option.
The country can't stand more of these insane shutdowns because the stupid coxuckers won't do their jobs, compromise, and get the Budget passed on time.

OK, so if we can't change the amount of their pay, can we add a "delay penalty" until they get their pay. Something like 10x the shutdown length. A 1-day shutdown would delay their next pay 10-days, a 100-day shutdown would delay their next pay 1000-days? etc. Their compensation is not "varied" its just delayed based on performance.

What part of "Unconstitutional" did you not understand?

"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

They would have to pass a a law, applying to future Congresses, to enact such a penalty for a government shutdown. The chances of Congress doing that would be the same as you getting your third set of teeth!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

 

[kyzr]

You didn't say the Amendments, but anyway. Found the 27th its mostly about the timing of pay raises.
The framers were worried about Congress giving themselves raises, and they didn't want the president having pay power over them. So the 27th gives them a raise but only after elections. One could add to the 27th: "except for a pro-rated reduction in pay for Congress, the Senate, and the President when the work of completing the budget is not 100% complete on time as prescribed". (or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?)

27th Amendment:
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

So, you didn't know that the Amendments were part of the Constitution? That takes a lot of guts to admit! Thank you!

You do realize that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with this amendment being ratified. It was passed in 1789 but was not ratified until 1992, over 202 years later.

Now do you see my point? It would take an amendment to change the 27th Amendment to accomplish your goal.

I'm old and my attention span has gotten a lot shorter. I like to google and run with the answer. I can't imagine your students reading the entire Constitution without their eyes glazing over. I'm no lawyer, but we need a way to force them to pass budgets on time. You did not answer my question: ...(or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?

A stand-alone law that restricts their pay would immediately be declared unconstitutional. Anyone with any knowledge of the law would know that.

In the real world we would call that a "non-answer". We need a solution to the problem, and failure is not an option.
The country can't stand more of these insane shutdowns because the stupid coxuckers won't do their jobs, compromise, and get the Budget passed on time.

OK, so if we can't change the amount of their pay, can we add a "delay penalty" until they get their pay. Something like 10x the shutdown length. A 1-day shutdown would delay their next pay 10-days, a 100-day shutdown would delay their next pay 1000-days? etc. Their compensation is not "varied" its just delayed based on performance.

What part of "Unconstitutional" did you not understand?

"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

They would have to pass a a law, applying to future Congresses, to enact such a penalty for a government shutdown. The chances of Congress doing that would be the same as you getting your third set of teeth!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

OK, can't blame me for trying to keep the government running instead of always shutting down. I have no faith that the 2020 budget will avoid a major shutdown.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So, you didn't know that the Amendments were part of the Constitution? That takes a lot of guts to admit! Thank you!

You do realize that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with this amendment being ratified. It was passed in 1789 but was not ratified until 1992, over 202 years later.

Now do you see my point? It would take an amendment to change the 27th Amendment to accomplish your goal.

I'm old and my attention span has gotten a lot shorter. I like to google and run with the answer. I can't imagine your students reading the entire Constitution without their eyes glazing over. I'm no lawyer, but we need a way to force them to pass budgets on time. You did not answer my question: ...(or a standalone law that does the same. How else can we force them to compromise?

A stand-alone law that restricts their pay would immediately be declared unconstitutional. Anyone with any knowledge of the law would know that.

In the real world we would call that a "non-answer". We need a solution to the problem, and failure is not an option.
The country can't stand more of these insane shutdowns because the stupid coxuckers won't do their jobs, compromise, and get the Budget passed on time.

OK, so if we can't change the amount of their pay, can we add a "delay penalty" until they get their pay. Something like 10x the shutdown length. A 1-day shutdown would delay their next pay 10-days, a 100-day shutdown would delay their next pay 1000-days? etc. Their compensation is not "varied" its just delayed based on performance.

What part of "Unconstitutional" did you not understand?

"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

They would have to pass a a law, applying to future Congresses, to enact such a penalty for a government shutdown. The chances of Congress doing that would be the same as you getting your third set of teeth!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

OK, can't blame me for trying to keep the government running instead of always shutting down. I have no faith that the 2020 budget will avoid a major shutdown.

Why would I blame you? Blame the Democrats who are holding this nation hostage.

 

[Cecilie1200]

AOC proposed a Law that Congress and the Senate (add the President?) don't get paid during a shutdown, because they didn't do their jobs on time.
I want to go one step further. They lose pay during a budget related shutdown, and do NOT get any money, they get docked pay.

I find it interesting that she proposed a law about it, but hasn't actually stopped collecting her checks. Can we say "All talk and no action"?

 

[g5000]

I say they require a new budget for the next fiscal year by the end of the old one or the current budget rolls over with no changes. Either way, the debt ceiling is automatically raised to cover the expenditures, no more debt ceiling bullshit. If they pass any budget changes or appropriations later, then the debt ceiling gets automatically raised to cover the changes.

So here's a funny thing. Trump submitted a budget for FY2019 with a trillion dollar deficit.

If he had submitted Obama's FY2015 budget, we would actually have a two hundred billion dollar deficit for FY2019 instead.

 

[kyzr]

I say they require a new budget for the next fiscal year by the end of the old one or the current budget rolls over with no changes. Either way, the debt ceiling is automatically raised to cover the expenditures, no more debt ceiling bullshit. If they pass any budget changes or appropriations later, then the debt ceiling gets automatically raised to cover the changes.

So here's a funny thing. Trump submitted a budget for FY2019 with a trillion dollar deficit.

If he had submitted Obama's FY2015 budget, we would actually have a two hundred billion dollar deficit for FY2019 instead.

The DOD said they needed more funding to undo the deterioration that happened under Obama. That's why its $719b.

We need to scale back US commitments around the world. We protect Japan & South Korea, we pay $24b to keep troops in the EU, Russia spends $70b on defense, the EU countries $279b. Then Germany pays Russia for gas/pipelines?! We're in AFG & Syria & Iraq, We're in Africa, South Korea, etc.

 

[jc456]

they should pay the salaries of those furloughed. you see any of them supporting their own constituents? nope.