NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that the Democrats have finally taken back the house of representatives the job has begun to suck. Up until now congressmen worked only three days a week. Beginning in January the poor congressmen will be expected to show up five days a week.

What's really fucked up is this. Look at how much damage they did working only three days a week. Now consider the fact that they'll have an additional two days per week to fuck things up by passing stupid laws written by lobbyists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501342.html

Ah, but that's an extra two days to read the law texts and increases the chances that they might just find the riders.

Ah, but that's an extra two days to read the law texts and increases the chances that they might just find the riders.

And two fewer days they'll be junketing around on the lobbyists' dime, or exchanging salacious instant messages and e-mails with pages. Besides, after 12 years of Republican rule there's a lot of work to be done.

And two fewer days they'll be junketing around on the lobbyists' dime, or exchanging salacious instant messages and e-mails with pages. Besides, after 12 years of Republican rule there's a lot of work to be done.Yeah, but some of it needs to wait until there's a better President in office that won't dilute the efforts with a threat of a veto.

I don't see how that's a bad thing.

And honestly, it's not like they wouldn't have enough to do in the next years, eh?

My favorite part? "Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."
Guess he'll be sponsoring that mandatory 3 day work week for everyone when he gets back to Congress, huh? :rolleyes:

Yeah, but some of it needs to wait until there's a better President in office that won't dilute the efforts with a threat of a veto.

True, but we need to get started. And if George starts waving the Veto Pen around, it will be so much fun to point out the hypocrisy of his "bipartisan cooperation" platitudes.

My favorite part?
Guess he'll be sponsoring that mandatory 3 day work week for everyone when he gets back to Congress, huh? :rolleyes:

Yeah, I'm sure he will. :rolleyes:

I despise Jack Kingston.

buy an apartment in washington...live with your wife there...have some of your staff still in GA to keep up with public opinion and keep you informed. You know, like everyone else used to do. dumbass.

True, but we need to get started. And if George starts waving the Veto Pen around, it will be so much fun to point out the hypocrisy of his "bipartisan cooperation" platitudes.

And gives us even more to bash the Republican party with in 2008. "Why, Mr. Republican, didnt you vote to overturn the President's veto on the care for homeless children and cute puppies act?"

My favorite part?
Guess he'll be sponsoring that mandatory 3 day work week for everyone when he gets back to Congress, huh? :rolleyes:

Yeah ... maybe he will sponsor some fly home time for those in the military. Dam democrats for making THEM work so hard ... oh wait

True, but we need to get started. And if George starts waving the Veto Pen around, it will be so much fun to point out the hypocrisy of his "bipartisan cooperation" platitudes.
You need to look at Bush's record. With only a single veto so far, he's the best friend a Democratic Congress could have. Hello minimum wage, amnesty for illegals, more money for prescription drugs...

You need to look at Bush's record. With only a single veto so far, he's the best friend a Democratic Congress could have. Hello minimum wage, amnesty for illegals, more money for prescription drugs...

That assumes he continues that trend now that he does not have a congress full of blockers to keep legislation from him that he would veto

My favorite part?
Guess he'll be sponsoring that mandatory 3 day work week for everyone when he gets back to Congress, huh? :rolleyes:

Fortunately, he doesn't represent me. If he did, it wouldn't be for much longer. If he can't put in the time required to do the people's work, he needs to be fired. Although, a part-time Congress might have its merits....

That assumes he continues that trend now that he does not have a congress full of blockers to keep legislation from him that he would veto
It's the other way around. We'll see a minimum wage bill by the end of January. Probably a amnesty bill, too. The few decent Conservatives in Congress have held those back, so far.

I like how a normal work week means that Democrats don't care about marriages.

Is it just me, or did the republicans use to have better things to say to bash democrats.

It's the other way around. We'll see a minimum wage bill by the end of January. Probably a amnesty bill, too. The few decent Conservatives in Congress have held those back, so far.

Um is that not what I said? that he may have to use veto power more sense there are less "Conservatives" in congress to hold those back before they had to be veto'd or passed?

Oh no! Congress has to.... work?! Sweet Jesus, this is an outrage!

Seriously, people did not elect them so they could fly home free of charge to enjoy four day weekends! Running a country should be tough, not a ticket to carefree photo-opt BBQs with the kids. There are people in the United States who have to work 60 hours a week with no benefits just to keep food on the table and some Reps are griping about showing up for a full business week. Let's not even get into the sacrafices the TROOPS make to serve this republic.*grumbles*

Comments like Kingston's are why the G.O.P. went down in horrible flames after the midterm. They are the farthest thing away from "grounded." You'll get the message you messed up when protestors give your secretary a migrane from answering all your mail. The gall that man has.

Um is that not what I said? that he may have to use veto power more sense there are less "Conservatives" in congress to hold those back before they had to be veto'd or passed?

The way I read it was that Congress had held back legislation that Bush would have otherwise vetoed. That was different than saying that Congress has held back legislation that he would have signed.

In other words, with the Democratic majority in Congress, Bush will sign legislation that has previously been killed in Congress by the Conservative element. So Bush is the best friend a Democratic Congress could have.

The way I read it was that Congress had held back legislation that Bush would have otherwise vetoed. That was different than saying that Congress has held back legislation that he would have signed.

In other words, with the Democratic majority in Congress, Bush will sign legislation that has previously been killed in Congress by the Conservative element. So Bush is the best friend a Democratic Congress could have.

Ok thanks for the clarification

But like I said we will have to see, you are basing it off his previous track record with a republican congress. I don't have the faith that you do that his responses are not going to change as the legislation that crosses his desk changes

Generally speaking, our government is at its best when it is doing the least. I hope they go back to working 3 days a week.

My favorite part?
"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

Guess he'll be sponsoring that mandatory 3 day work week for everyone when he gets back to Congress, huh? :rolleyes:

Kinda reminds me of the guy who wants his 22-year murder sentence reduced 'cause jail is "too hard" for him. Except this is lamer still - if Jack Kingston's relationships can't suffer his responsibilities, perhaps he should resign. Or move his family to Washington.

Whining about it is simply unbecoming an elected official.

Ah, but that's an extra two days to read the law texts and increases the chances that they might just find the riders.

Who says they read any of this?

It's the other way around. We'll see a minimum wage bill by the end of January. Probably a amnesty bill, too. The few decent Conservatives in Congress have held those back, so far.

Guess we have different definitions for the word "decent." ;)

The way I read it was that Congress had held back legislation that Bush would have otherwise vetoed. That was different than saying that Congress has held back legislation that he would have signed.

In other words, with the Democratic majority in Congress, Bush will sign legislation that has previously been killed in Congress by the Conservative element. So Bush is the best friend a Democratic Congress could have.

In other words--it's a win-win. :)

If Bush vetoes, we bash him with it. If he doesn't, we've gotten good legislation passed.

In other words--it's a win-win. :)

If Bush vetoes, we bash him with it. If he doesn't, we've gotten good legislation passed.

Kind of like the last election.

We vote for people who say they're going to immediately withdraw from Iraq.

And then they listen to people like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/

So, I can vote Democrat and "feel good" and then be for the war in Iraq, and know we'll always be there...

yeah, right...

Guess he'll be sponsoring that mandatory 3 day work week for everyone when he gets back to Congress, huh? :rolleyes:

ah, but you see, the poor ignorant slobs of america are incapable of feeling the higher pleasures of family and free time experienced by the rich and powerful, on account of their being poor ignorant slobs. so why would we waste it on them? especially when said free time would really just damage their eternal souls and lead them directly to vice. no, the poor must be made to work longer and harder. for their own good, of course.

Kind of like the last election.

We vote for people who say they're going to immediately withdraw from Iraq.

And then they listen to people like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/

So, I can vote Democrat and "feel good" and then be for the war in Iraq, and know we'll always be there...

yeah, right...

Hadn't read that article. That's disturbing, frankly. I've always been a realist about just how much the Congress can do to make us pull out--not much. Bush really does have a lot of power over that, and short of defunding the military, which won't happen, Congress can't do much to countermand Bush's decisions on Iraq. But Reyes's comments bother me, no question.

I'd say we immediately begin a program of "On the job intoxication" for all Senators and Congressmen, they must ingest 8 drinks an hour, for every hour they're on the job. Hopefully they'll pass out by the third hour.

I'd say we immediately begin a program of "On the job intoxication" for all Senators and Congressmen, they must ingest 8 drinks an hour, for every hour they're on the job. Hopefully they'll pass out by the third hour.

Ted Kennedy is way ahead of you.

You need to look at Bush's record. With only a single veto so far, he's the best friend a Democratic Congress could have. Hello minimum wage, amnesty for illegals, more money for prescription drugs...:rolleyes:
And he'll be less inclined to veto things that aren't on his own agenda why exactly?

Ted Kennedy is way ahead of you.

We'll just use a carfentanyl dart on him. If it can take down a moose it should slow down a Kennedy.

:rolleyes:
And he'll be less inclined to veto things that aren't on his own agenda why exactly?

It must be a language thing. The point is that the Democratic party has an agenda that is closer to Bush's than the Republican party agenda was.

Guess we have different definitions for the word "decent." ;)

You do have a remarkable grasp of the obvious. <smile>

The point is that the Democratic party has an agenda that is closer to Bush's than the Republican party agenda was.

¡¡¡

¡¡¡

Myrmidonisia is correct.

Myrmidonisia is correct.

In Bizzarro world, maybe.

In Bizzarro world, maybe.
I guess this is just a good indication of what low regard Conservatives have for Mr Bush.

He has done one good thing, domestically, anyway. That has been to cut taxes. Now, it even appears that he will backtrack on that by eliminating the income cap on Social Security wages. I really enjoy November and December for a number of reasons. One of those is that I quit watching my money disappear into the Social Security abyss. Another is because the kids come home and I can spend that extra on them.

Just to make sure this has some on-topic content, I'll agree that it sucks to be any kind of Democrat.

I guess this is just a good indication of what low regard Conservatives have for Mr Bush.

He has done one good thing, domestically, anyway. That has been to cut taxes. Now, it even appears that he will backtrack on that by eliminating the income cap on Social Security wages. I really enjoy November and December for a number of reasons. One of those is that I quit watching my money disappear into the Social Security abyss. Another is because the kids come home and I can spend that extra on them.

Just to make sure this has some on-topic content, I'll agree that it sucks to be any kind of Democrat.

I kinda like it myself, but then again, I'm on the other end of that income divide. I was reading an article this morning by Paul Krugman in the latest Rolling Stone that talked about just how great the tax disparity has become in this country. At one point, middle class was defined as people making between $100 and $200K a year. I wonder how many people who define themselves as middle class are in the six figure range? I'd certainly have pegged the number about $40K lower than that.

But if you're in that range, then taxes may have gone down for you, if you hit one of the sweet spots in the tax code. But you did a lot better if you made more. Those of us lower down got shit on, because we got no tax relief, and we haven't gotten enough in wage increases to keep up with inflation. So for us, if that cap gets blown off, we might see a little improvement.

I kinda like it myself, but then again, I'm on the other end of that income divide. I was reading an article this morning by Paul Krugman in the latest Rolling Stone that talked about just how great the tax disparity has become in this country. At one point, middle class was defined as people making between $100 and $200K a year. I wonder how many people who define themselves as middle class are in the six figure range? I'd certainly have pegged the number about $40K lower than that.

But if you're in that range, then taxes may have gone down for you, if you hit one of the sweet spots in the tax code. But you did a lot better if you made more. Those of us lower down got shit on, because we got no tax relief, and we haven't gotten enough in wage increases to keep up with inflation. So for us, if that cap gets blown off, we might see a little improvement.

The average income for a family of four in my area is between 90K and 100K per year, with 4 percent of the people in the area falling "below the poverty line" (wherever that is).

I make 175K per year. I appear to live a "middle class" existence in terms of home, car, and disposable income.

The average income for a family of four in my area is between 90K and 100K per year, with 4 percent of the people in the area falling "below the poverty line" (wherever that is).

I make 175K per year. I appear to live a "middle class" existence in terms of home, car, and disposable income.

Fuck the average. What's the median? That's a better determinant. The median down here is somewhere around $54K for a family of four. Combined, my g/f and I make slightly more than that. We drive old cars (neither made in the 21st century), and rent a old apartment. We're comfortable, but priced out of the real estate market, though if it continues to crash, that could change. I thought we were middle class, though certainly on the lower end of it. Doesn't look like it now.

Fuck the average. What's the median? That's a better determinant. The median down here is somewhere around $54K for a family of four. Combined, my g/f and I make slightly more than that. We drive old cars (neither made in the 21st century), and rent a old apartment. We're comfortable, but priced out of the real estate market, though if it continues to crash, that could change. I thought we were middle class, though certainly on the lower end of it. Doesn't look like it now.

Our median is about the same here (100K).

I think the "middle class" depends on where in the US you live.

If you want a single family home around here, you had better be able to buy a 600K home for starters...

Our median is about the same here (100K).

I think the "middle class" depends on where in the US you live.

If you want a single family home around here, you had better be able to buy a 600K home for starters...
You live in a rare place, then, where the median income and the average are close to the same. The difference here is about $20K, last time I checked, skewed upwards by high wage earners, which is usually the case.

I kinda like it myself, but then again, I'm on the other end of that income divide. I was reading an article this morning by Paul Krugman in the latest Rolling Stone that talked about just how great the tax disparity has become in this country. At one point, middle class was defined as people making between $100 and $200K a year. I wonder how many people who define themselves as middle class are in the six figure range? I'd certainly have pegged the number about $40K lower than that.

But if you're in that range, then taxes may have gone down for you, if you hit one of the sweet spots in the tax code. But you did a lot better if you made more. Those of us lower down got shit on, because we got no tax relief, and we haven't gotten enough in wage increases to keep up with inflation. So for us, if that cap gets blown off, we might see a little improvement.
It doesn't take a high paying job to get a family into the $100K per year range. I'd say the average 10-15 year public school teacher in my county makes $50K per year. The electrician working at our house does much better because it's his company, but his helper probably earns about $60K per year because of overtime. Most of our technicians at work are in the same range. Now, you have a joint income of $110K+ per year without using a lot of imagination.

But an increased SS tax on income above $94,500 is just going to reduce what I spend at the mall for Christmas, or on a dinner out; it's not going to do a damned thing for minimum wage workers.

Our median is about the same here (100K).

I think the "middle class" depends on where in the US you live.

If you want a single family home around here, you had better be able to buy a 600K home for starters...

600K for a SINGLE family home?! o_O I thought 200K seemed a bit pricey... Damn. I must be out of touch. =P

Our median is about the same here (100K).

I think the "middle class" depends on where in the US you live.

If you want a single family home around here, you had better be able to buy a 600K home for starters...

Unless "here" is Mission Hills, Kansas, Manhattan, or a suburb of Providence, Rhode Island, you are in about the 98th percentile for income.

Put simply, you aren't middle class. You are the elite. It may suck for you to hear that, but no amount of faux middle-class comraderie and backslapping over cheap domestic beer can change that fact. You make more than the average Congressman does. You could pay for the median home on one or two years of income out-of-pocket. On my current income as a GA, I would have to work rougly 15 years to make the income you make in 1. You are faced with very different economic realities than the average person.

It doesn't take a high paying job to get a family into the $100K per year range. I'd say the average 10-15 year public school teacher in my county makes $50K per year. The electrician working at our house does much better because it's his company, but his helper probably earns about $60K per year because of overtime. Most of our technicians at work are in the same range. Now, you have a joint income of $110K+ per year without using a lot of imagination.

But an increased SS tax on income above $94,500 is just going to reduce what I spend at the mall for Christmas, or on a dinner out; it's not going to do a damned thing for minimum wage workers.

I haven't heard any specific proposals to blow the cap recently, but every discussion on it in the past always involved lowering the rate, so yes, that would help working class earners, and even those currently at or slightly above the cap. Drop the rate by a percentage point or two, you make up more than enough difference and still come out ahead, and what's more important, from my point of view, you benefit a much larger pool of people, people who will spend that money and drive the economy.

You live in a rare place, then, where the median income and the average are close to the same. The difference here is about $20K, last time I checked, skewed upwards by high wage earners, which is usually the case.

The DC Metro area is a strange place...

600K for a SINGLE family home?! o_O I thought 200K seemed a bit pricey... Damn. I must be out of touch. =P
It's a little better than half that where I live, and that's come down in the last six months.

It's a little better than half that where I live, and that's come down in the last six months.

You can easily pay twice that for a single family home around here.

The 600K is for homes in the extreme suburbs, far, far from the center of DC.

Try a two hour commute each way.

You can easily pay twice that for a single family home around here.

The 600K is for homes in the extreme suburbs, far, far from the center of DC.

Try a two hour commute each way.
That's madness. How can anyone hope to pay that off after adding in other costs of living and any other loans someone might have from stuff like cars or college?

That's madness. How can anyone hope to pay that off after adding in other costs of living and any other loans someone might have from stuff like cars or college?

I didn't say it was smart.

This area is an artificial creation of the Federal government - Federal employees, contractors, and the people who service them.

It's why the majority of us have bachelor's degrees or higher, and make outrageous salaries, and why everything here costs so much, it doesn't matter that we make so much money - the money is all gone in the end.

You can easily pay twice that for a single family home around here.

The 600K is for homes in the extreme suburbs, far, far from the center of DC.

Try a two hour commute each way.

600k?

I live in the greater Los Angeles area. I started looking for a STARTER home. I found this cute little house in Burbank, not a lot of sq footage, practically no yard. I nearly had a heart attack when I inquired of the real estate agent the asking price. 1.5 million. The average starter home in the extreme LA suburbs is right at 1.2 million dollars and that's in the Valley or Over the Hill. You would have to deal with a 60+ mile round trip every day in the idiotic LA traffic.

Middle class people out here are leveraged up to their eyeballs just to pay for their homes.

600k?

I live in the greater Los Angeles area. I started looking for a STARTER home. I found this cute little house in Burbank, not a lot of sq footage, practically no yard. I nearly had a heart attack when I inquired of the real estate agent the asking price. 1.5 million. The average starter home in the extreme LA suburbs is right at 1.2 million dollars and that's in the Valley or Over the Hill. You would have to deal with a 60+ mile round trip every day in the idiotic LA traffic.

Middle class people out here are leveraged up to their eyeballs just to pay for their homes.

I've heard horror stories about San Jose.

A lot of people on this forum have no idea what the truly expensive suburbs cost - for what they might see as a run of the mill, small, 30 year old single family home.