Time to ground Congress

Talk about crazy, ATS. House Republicans have declared that they will only work two days a week this year in an effort, they claim, to be closer to their constituents. The House will be off more days than on and the worst part of all of this is that American citizens paying for it.

House Republican leaders this month did something that should outrage Americans of all parties and creeds: They declared that the people’s representatives will be working only two days a week next year.

The House will be in session just 111 days in 2016. This means the chamber will be closed more weekdays (150) than open, and many of the 111 are partial days. That’s upward of 30 weeks of paid vacation for all 435 members of the House. Is it any wonder the House is not doing what the people want?

Worse, American taxpayers are subsidizing members of Congress so that they can take more time off. Lawmakers have awarded themselves essentially unlimited travel budgets so they can spend more time at home.

My question is do we even need Congress? They don't do anything for the people anymore. They're owned by corporations and shadow entities anyway, people who line their pockets as long as they do their bidding. What says ATS?

www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: lostbook

Well, given that Boehner will go down in history as the most ineffectual Speaker ever, I for one am unsurprised. I wonder if Ryan has realised the poisoned chalice he has been forced into accepting?

Good. Congress was never supposed to be full time. Washington D.C. is an isolation tank for politicians. They need to be more tuned in to their everyday constituents. Maybe things will begin to shrink back to the size it should be.

a reply to: lostbook

Of course we don't need congress. It's function has been lost long ago.

Seems like one of the sweetest jobs though. You hardly work, get gifts and bribes all the time, get a great salary, benefits, pension AND the rare times that you have to work, you don't even have to read or listen. You're told which way you're voting on an issue based on which lobbyist gave you the best fellatio! Sign me up!

The opposite of congress is progress.

a reply to: queenofswords

Good. Congress was never supposed to be full time.

Not good. We're paying them fulltime for two days a week or less. This is an example of tax payers and citizens getting screwed by a government that's supposed to serve the people. Congress just had their way with us again...

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: lostbook

Of course we don't need congress. It's function has been lost long ago.

Seems like one of the sweetest jobs though. You hardly work, get gifts and bribes all the time, get a great salary, benefits, pension AND the rare times that you have to work, you don't even have to read or listen. You're told which way you're voting on an issue based on which lobbyist gave you the best fellatio! Sign me up!

The opposite of congress is progress.

This is 2015....computers, email, text, Skype...you know...technology. Do they really need to be sitting behind a desk reading mounds of paper in order to do their jobs?

I think it is a good idea to get away from Washington D.C. and the thousands of lobbyists within walking distance of the capitol. Get closer to The People.

The less work they do the better off we all are.

I suggest they limit their schedule further and take Dear Leader with them.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: lostbook

Of course we don't need congress. It's function has been lost long ago.

Seems like one of the sweetest jobs though. You hardly work, get gifts and bribes all the time, get a great salary, benefits, pension AND the rare times that you have to work, you don't even have to read or listen. You're told which way you're voting on an issue based on which lobbyist gave you the best fellatio! Sign me up!

The opposite of congress is progress.

Yes, it's the most secure job out there.

a reply to: queenofswords

Good. Congress was never supposed to be full time. Washington D.C. is an isolation tank for politicians. They need to be more tuned in to their everyday constituents. Maybe things will begin to shrink back to the size it should be.

nope and their pay and benefits wasn't suppose as outrageous as it is. for the longest time many congressmen had regular jobs and businesses, the idea was for every person in the U.S. that wanted to be part of government could. not just the elite.

now taxpayers need to demend that they cut their pay and benefits, to match the time of actual working hours.

originally posted by: queenofswords
Good. Congress was never supposed to be full time. Washington D.C. is an isolation tank for politicians. They need to be more tuned in to their everyday constituents. Maybe things will begin to shrink back to the size it should be.

Yeah, well maybe we should "shrink" their salaries and pensions to match their productivity.

Talk about a bunch of "takers!"

Here's a thought. Get rid of corporate cronyism...

Like that's ever going to happen...

We have the best government money can buy! Stand Proud!

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: queenofswords
Good. Congress was never supposed to be full time. Washington D.C. is an isolation tank for politicians. They need to be more tuned in to their everyday constituents. Maybe things will begin to shrink back to the size it should be.

Yeah, well maybe we should "shrink" their salaries and pensions to match their productivity.

Talk about a bunch of "takers!"

We should. That would make them more productive.

I agree their salaries should be cut. But, unfortunately, cutting their salaries has to be done through.....Congress!!!

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: queenofswords
Good. Congress was never supposed to be full time. Washington D.C. is an isolation tank for politicians. They need to be more tuned in to their everyday constituents. Maybe things will begin to shrink back to the size it should be.

Yeah, well maybe we should "shrink" their salaries and pensions to match their productivity.

Talk about a bunch of "takers!"

We should. That would make them more productive.

Either that, or at least very cheap.

Right now, I don't have much confidence in their ability to be productive.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: queenofswords
Good. Congress was never supposed to be full time. Washington D.C. is an isolation tank for politicians. They need to be more tuned in to their everyday constituents. Maybe things will begin to shrink back to the size it should be.

Yeah, well maybe we should "shrink" their salaries and pensions to match their productivity.

Talk about a bunch of "takers!"

Exactly.

Their salaries should be the median income of their districts.

I bet they'd work harder then.

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: queenofswords
Good. Congress was never supposed to be full time. Washington D.C. is an isolation tank for politicians. They need to be more tuned in to their everyday constituents. Maybe things will begin to shrink back to the size it should be.

Yeah, well maybe we should "shrink" their salaries and pensions to match their productivity.

Talk about a bunch of "takers!"

Exactly.

Their salaries should be the median income of their districts.

I bet they'd work harder then.

Really? I bet they would use it to justify taking bribes. Public money going to congress reflects the publics lobbying of congress. Cutting salaries makes it easier for corporations to buy influence.

And as for the idea of Congress being part time, a politician who doesn't need to keep their government job isn't going to listen to anyone, they have no incentive to do so. Career politicians are in the business of keeping their electorate happy.

a reply to: Aazadan

Really? I bet they would use it to justify taking bribes. Public money going to congress reflects the publics lobbying of congress. Cutting salaries makes it easier for corporations to buy influence.

Since that doesn't already happen.

Ideally congress should have their bank statements made available to the public, to show how they're all getting so rich.

I was just suggesting they take a pay cut, do you really think they're worth what we are paying them now?

a reply to: rockintitz

They would take more if we paid them less.

And yes, I do think they're worth what we pay them now. In fact I believe we should pay them more, much more. I want Congress to be so lucrative that the best and brightest compete for it in place of being the moneyed power behind the throne in business. I want them to be so flush with cash that corporations have to pay truly outrageous amounts of money they can't afford in order to offer them something substantial in order to buy a policy.

By having better people in Congress and fewer special interests we will get our money back in improved legislation 100 times over.

If every person in America gives Congress $1 that's $317 million that special interests need to come up with in order to compete. An extra $100 per person on their tax bill would remove almost all corporate influence from Congress.

Not a bad idea and we can pay each citizen a dividend of corporate mining profits then just take out the required amount automatically. Might just work.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


The less work they do the better off we all are.

I suggest they limit their schedule further and take Dear Leader with them.

Immediately what I thought. When they show up to vote its never good for the consumers and mass tax payer, its a direct benefit for the Oligopolies.

A good congress is one that doesn't show up to vote. Sad but reality.