why does Congress get paid?

[mwcpa]

It is ridiculous that members of Congress are going to be paid while 800,000 or so hard working people are going to go without a paycheck for an indefinite time span..... all because party is more important than people.....all because Congress did nothing for 5-6 years to properly negotiate changes that may or not be needed in the health care law.... the only changes proposed by the minority is to cancel it or delay it.... nothing else...

The pay law for Congress needs to be changed...(in my opinion)... they should not be paid as they are not doing their job....

[workpublic]

because the foxes run the hen house and they have no respect for the public. they laugh at us. they don't fear us.

[Otto the Orange]

exactly like work public said, they control their own pay, the ultimate conflict of interest

[Deleted]

They should not get paid during shutdown.

They should not get paid as much as they currently are (house or senate).  They should receive 'working stiff' wages and figure out how to write and balance a fuxing budget.

They should not have healthcare provided via different means than Medicare.  

Our government is so much about sweetheart deals for the individuals that it is an embarrassment.  More embarrassing are the constituents that keep voting in these shysters.

[workpublic]

they all need to be replaced. keep voting against incumbents and not along party lines until campaign finance reform is forced on them. convince your non voting friends and relatives to get involved. until this happens nothing will change and it will get worse. we don't want armed struggle(we will surely lose very badly)

[PK Bucko]

Much ado about nothing. Government employees will get paid, just as they did the last time this happened.

Welcome to your "unscheduled" vacation.

[whoisjohngalt]

The question I have is - why do people keep voting for those assholes

All this outrage will somehow disappear come election time.

[thyme4change]

In all the other shut-downs everyone was paid retroactively, even if they did not work during the time off - so, if you have enough money to float yourself a couple of weeks, it might be a pretty good bargain - a paid vacation that doesn't suck up your vacation days.

That said - my husband is a federal employee, and his area has 10 business days of funding reserved, so he will still be paid - at least for the next 2 weeks, after that, he may be required to work without pay, and no guarantee that he will be paid retroactively.  Although, he may not have to work - or may not have to work full time.  So, I'm speaking from a very personal point of view.  I told him this morning I hope those idiots keep this up because I have a big honey-do list for him.

Wish I could get some time off - paid, unpaid, whatever.

[kittensaver]

Once again these clowns show just how much they love America. 1 million taken off work while a bunch of them are working really hard trying to deny healthcare to 30 million others. Now THAT's patriotism!

[djAdvocate]

Oct 1, 2013 6:34:03 GMT -5 Otto the Orange said:

exactly like work public said, they control their own pay, the ultimate conflict of interest

pretty much how corporate America works.  when $60M/year seems "reasonable", you know the game is rigged.

[jkapp]

I agree, congress should be last to be paid during budget/shut down scenarios

[Otto the Orange]

Oct 1, 2013 9:40:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 1, 2013 6:34:03 GMT -5 Otto the Orange said:

exactly like work public said, they control their own pay, the ultimate conflict of interest

pretty much how corporate America works.  when $60M/year seems "reasonable", you know the game is rigged.

except customers voluntarily buy things that indorectly pay corporate salaries

we are forced (taxed) to support government

[Deleted]

I could swear that one of the amendments being thrown around during this whole mess was having Congress, Senate, POTUS (Office Of), and those involved with this mess being held to the same standard they are putting on the public.

I could also swear that many people are blaming those same people for holding everything up.

Pick a side: Should the Federal Government (All of it) be held to the same standard as the American public or not?

[whoisjohngalt]

Oct 1, 2013 10:58:50 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

I could swear that one of the amendments being thrown around during this whole mess was having Congress, Senate, POTUS (Office Of), and those involved with this mess being held to the same standard they are putting on the public.

I could also swear that many people are blaming those same people for holding everything up.

Pick a side: Should the Federal Government (All of it) be held to the same standard as the American public or not?

Not, they shouldn't be held to the same standard.  They should be held to the higher one. 

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2013 11:08:00 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Oct 1, 2013 10:58:50 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

I could swear that one of the amendments being thrown around during this whole mess was having Congress, Senate, POTUS (Office Of), and those involved with this mess being held to the same standard they are putting on the public.

I could also swear that many people are blaming those same people for holding everything up.

Pick a side: Should the Federal Government (All of it) be held to the same standard as the American public or not?

Not, they shouldn't be held to the same standard.  They should be held to the higher one. 

True. However, I meant in the "Should they have to follow the same rules and laws as they put on the American public?" sense.

[resolution]

Oct 1, 2013 10:58:50 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

I could swear that one of the amendments being thrown around during this whole mess was having Congress, Senate, POTUS (Office Of), and those involved with this mess being held to the same standard they are putting on the public.

I could also swear that many people are blaming those same people for holding everything up.

Pick a side: Should the Federal Government (All of it) be held to the same standard as the American public or not?

From what I read, the amendment did the opposite. It prevented their employer from contributing to their health care, and also made them ineligible for the tax credit. The rest of Americans would be able to receive one or the other, if they met the income criteria.

[whoisjohngalt]

Oct 1, 2013 11:13:55 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Oct 1, 2013 11:08:00 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Not, they shouldn't be held to the same standard.  They should be held to the higher one. 

True. However, I meant in the "Should they have to follow the same rules and laws as they put on the American public?" sense.

Of course.  Who would ever disagree with that, right?

[Deleted]

They ARE American Citizens, after all....

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2013 11:23:02 GMT -5 resolution said:

Oct 1, 2013 10:58:50 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

I could swear that one of the amendments being thrown around during this whole mess was having Congress, Senate, POTUS (Office Of), and those involved with this mess being held to the same standard they are putting on the public.

I could also swear that many people are blaming those same people for holding everything up.

Pick a side: Should the Federal Government (All of it) be held to the same standard as the American public or not?

From what I read, the amendment did the opposite. It prevented their employer from contributing to their health care, and also made them ineligible for the tax credit. The rest of Americans would be able to receive one or the other, if they met the income criteria.

Ah...if that's the case then yeah....stupid proposal. I'm not a fan of POTUS, Congress, Senate and their lackeys not having to follow the laws they enact, but I'm perfectly fine with them getting the same benefits as the rest of the American public is getting if they so qualify for them.

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2013 11:30:57 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Oct 1, 2013 11:13:55 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

True. However, I meant in the "Should they have to follow the same rules and laws as they put on the American public?" sense.

Of course.  Who would ever disagree with that, right?

You would think that nobody would.....but some feel they are "special".

[fairlycrazy23]

For the same reason they can not raise there own pay.

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2013 11:34:35 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Oct 1, 2013 11:30:57 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Of course.  Who would ever disagree with that, right?

You would think that nobody would.....but some feel they are "special".

Oh, some of them are "special" alright! 

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2013 11:41:13 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

Oct 1, 2013 11:34:35 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

You would think that nobody would.....but some feel they are "special".

Oh, some of them are "special" alright! 

Haha....I meant the other kind of "special"!

[zibazinski]

There's a constitutional amendment that says they get paid. Wonder how that got put in there, huh?

[djAdvocate]

Oct 3, 2013 16:40:31 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

There's a constitutional amendment that says they get paid. Wonder how that got put in there, huh?

they not only get paid- they get paid FIRST.  it is considered "emergency funding".

[djAdvocate]

Oct 1, 2013 9:49:52 GMT -5 Otto the Orange said:

Oct 1, 2013 9:40:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

pretty much how corporate America works.  when $60M/year seems "reasonable", you know the game is rigged.

except customers voluntarily buy things that indorectly pay corporate salaries

or not.  i refuse to shop at Wal-Mart because of their insane pay structure and shitty products.  however, CostCo pays their employees well, and their CEO gets less than $1M in pay.  that place suits me fine.

we are forced (taxed) to support government

that is rather irrelevant since you can't drive out of your driveway without encountering something paid for by government and used by you.  do you really think that you should be able to access that for free?  do you think that if, say, Wal-Mart was running it, you would?

[happyhoix]

This is my very favorite part - while our illustrious congressmen were farting around inside the Capital yesterday, or leading marches on closed WWII memorials to provide photo ops for Fox News,  there was the car chase/shooting incident on Capital Hill. It was the UNPAID Capitol Police officers who were outside risking their lives trying to contain the crazy woman.

www.nydailynews.com/news/national/capitol-police-risked-lives-shooting-unpaid-article-1.1475736

Unpaid police putting their lives on the line for what? Useless pontificating, finger waving, squabbling, whiny blow hard politicians.

 

[Otto the Orange]

Oct 4, 2013 9:55:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 1, 2013 9:49:52 GMT -5 Otto the Orange said:

except customers voluntarily buy things that indorectly pay corporate salaries

or not.  i refuse to shop at Wal-Mart because of their insane pay structure and shitty products.  however, CostCo pays their employees well, and their CEO gets less than $1M in pay.  that place suits me fine.

we are forced (taxed) to support government

that is rather irrelevant since you can't drive out of your driveway without encountering something paid for by government and used by you.  do you really think that you should be able to access that for free?  do you think that if, say, Wal-Mart was running it, you would?

exactly my point, you have the right not to shop at wal mart if you don't want to and none of your money will go to the CEO's pay -it's a voluntary thing- the game is not "rigged"- no profits= no CEO salary eventually

the tax thing was relevant to my point which you missed, I was responding to your comment that CEO pay was a conflict of an interest, it had nothing to do with that I have an issue with being forced to pay taxes, just pointing out I am forced to pay congressmen who have a conflict of interest in regards to their salary and I am NOT forced to pay CEOs that may or may not have a conflict of interest in regards to their salary

- was it really that hard to understand or did you just want to conflate the argument?

[workpublic]

some aren't taking pay.


www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/10/01/which-lawmakers-will-refuse-their-pay-during-the-shutdown/

here's one with comprehension and cognitive reasoning issues.

dailycaller.com/2013/10/04/dem-rep-i-will-not-be-donating-or-forgoing-my-salary/

[Opti]

Reading your URL it appears that they don't have a way to refuse pay, but some are choosing to donate their shutdown earnings, some are planning to, and others are posturing.

Example:
Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla.): On Twitter Tuesday he said, "Today I asked NOT to be paid until the government reopens. #governmentshutdown"




So explain to me how this accomplishes anything if there is no mechanism for it and likely
anyone who could deal with unusual and possibly unlawful pay requests is furloughed?

I think it is decent of the Democrats and the Republicans who want to resolve this to do so. However, the bottom line is all these people are all getting their money. The only thing seems to be whether they are donating it somewhere, not touching it until after the shutdown, or saying they asked *not* to be paid knowing it sounds good and means nothing. Most places to save payroll costs do direct deposit and no longer cut checks. How do you refuse a direct deposit without closing that account?

"House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.): He is planning to place his pay in escrow for the duration of the shutdown, according to a spokesman."
"Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.): The Senate leader plans to put his shutdown earnings into an escrow account, a spokesman said."


This is better than some who say they won't use it, but how do any of us citizens know if
they do or do not?