What is Digg?262 Comments
- reallydigginit, on 10/13/2007, -12/+204Needed more time to spend in men's rooms?
- 309east, on 10/15/2007, -8/+125Now, the next step is to force them to do something productive during those 5 days, like actually read the constitution for a change.
If the constitution became required reading (with tests and quizzes to ensure understanding) we'd see 95% of our current crop of representatives resign, they HATE being accountable! - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -12/+102LOL!! Oh, this is rich!
- RuffRidr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+73Also, make them read the bills they are voting on.
- johndi, on 10/13/2007, -10/+80Congress does enough damage as it is. I shudder to think how much they will screw up with a full work week.
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -15/+82sometimes when people take a new job, they move. no one forced them to take the job, in fact they fought pretty hard for it.
- swrostmore, on 10/15/2007, -4/+60The [109th] Congress ... not only beat but shattered the record for laziness set by the notorious "Do-Nothing" Congress of 1948, which met for a combined 252 days between the House and the Senate. This [109th] Congress -- the Do-Even-Less Congress -- met for 218 days, just over half a year, between the House and the Senate combined.
And even those numbers don't come close to telling the full story. Those who actually work on the Hill will tell you that a great many of those "workdays" were shameless mail-ins, half-days at best. Congress has arranged things now so that the typical workweek on the Hill begins late on Tuesday and ends just after noon on Thursday, to give members time to go home for the four-day weekend. This is borne out in the numbers: On nine of its "workdays" this year, the House held not a single vote -- meeting for less than eleven minutes. The Senate managed to top the House's feat, pulling off three workdays this year that lasted less than one minute. All told, a full fifteen percent of the Senate's workdays lasted less than four hours. Figuring for half-days, in fact, the 109th Congress probably worked almost two months less than that "Do-Nothing" Congress. - sbader, on 10/11/2007, -5/+60Democrats have to fly too.
- MaximusIGN, on 10/13/2007, -3/+45>>>>Did anyone of you even bother attempting to open the link? They chose to resign because of the fact that it would totally and utterly destroy whatever they had left of family time.
How about the soldiers who are on 4 tours in 5 years? Who don't see their families for MONTHS putting their lives on the line and no choice to retire!!! I'm finding it hard to cry for these Republicans with their $170K salaries flying in nice comfy planes. - sensoukami, on 10/13/2007, -14/+53Awwww...the poor overpayed underworked Repugnicans dont wanna work a full-time job for their high salary and Socialized Medicine...awww, ain't that sad.
Having said that, the libertarian in me is worried that harder working Congressman will have more time to create more stupid legislation... - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -4/+37You mean Congressional Democrats are also resigning because of the 5-day work week imposed by Congressional Democrats?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+34Like the war supporters like to say about the soldiers....they knew what they were getting into.
- rhabd0mancer, on 10/11/2007, -11/+39Sorry, reading all of those lengthy bills cuts into Family Time.
Praise Jebus. - casey24601, on 10/13/2007, -6/+30Ron Paul would work 8 days a week. Then he would fly around the world, like in the "Superman" movie, so he could go back in time and work the whole week over again. Afterward, he would find a cure for cancer. Then he would make sweet love to the US Constitution.
- fnaqzna, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25There's a reason they call it "public service." It's not supposed to be easy.
- Ajajadude, on 10/11/2007, -11/+34Well, that's their job. They don't like it, they should've thought about that before they spent all that time and money running for office. No one forced them to run, you know.
- BrandonMills, on 10/13/2007, -10/+32Why do you guys have to make every ****ing story about Ron Paul? Not everything is about Ron Paul, you know.
- Ajajadude, on 10/11/2007, -4/+26These people are supposed to be representing their constituents, most of whom probably work multiple jobs and rarely get to see their families, too.
If you can't "sacrifice" for your country, then why spend all that time, money, and stress on running for office in the first place?
No sympathy from me! - fnaqzna, on 10/11/2007, -4/+25They've been on vacation for the past seven years.
- MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23So how many times have you met with your representatives?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+27Good, we don't need lazy asses running things anyways.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -12/+31So, move your family to Washington, or Northern Virginia, or Maryland. How hard is that??
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Maybe because you're there to represent the state you already live in.
- tarzidil, on 10/11/2007, -6/+24Yet they blocked a bill to give soldiers as much time at home with their families as they spend in combat. Sorry, I can't work up a single tear for those poor republicans and their families.
- Eldorian, on 10/13/2007, -6/+24Being a congressman isn't supposed to be a full time job - it's supposed to be doing your duty as a representative for your country along with your full time job. Unfortunately that stopped becoming the case around 60 years ago.
- thespiff, on 10/15/2007, -17/+33Guys really, these people are representatives of their home states. Meaning they are required to live in their home state. So we have people that have to fly across the country at the beginning of the work week and fly home at the end, every single week. Thsoe of you out there who have full time jobs and families, do you think your family would suffer if you flew in to work early Monday morning and didn't make it back home again until late Friday evening? A lot of you are thinking "Man, who is he to bitch about having to work 5 days a week? I do it all the time and don't complain." No, most of you do not spend as much time far away from home as congressmen do.
- sangjmoon, on 10/13/2007, -4/+19After reading the full article, it is basically saying that most of the same corrupt Democrats who got their party to lose congress in 1994 are still around while Republicans are leaving after they lost power. Frankly, I think both parties are corrupt. Those of you who support Democrats shouldn't crow. This just means that your party is still as corrupt as it was in 1994.
- swordedge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16they MUST maintain residency in the district they represent. Two households people, and not cheap ones either.
- GRTWHT, on 10/15/2007, -13/+28Stop the partisan slant/spin, this applies to ALL the worthless pieces of crap in Washington DC.
- inactive, on 10/14/2007, -9/+24When you're not a rich man, like Ray LaHood, it can be pretty tough to try to maintain two homes. You can't move out of your district because you have to be a resident of the district to represent it in Congress.
- christor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15You mean - why not work on bills rather than investigating the Executive? Oversight is part of their job! It would be like being told - How about writing programs instead of debugging old ones. The absolute lack of any oversight when the Republicans controlled Congress has really altered people's understanding of what Congress is supposed to do..
- fasda, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19how about investigating criminals and have the gumption to actually do something about it.
- geekwithsoul, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16You do realize that they don't actually transport the "bacon" themselves, right? And that when they do come back to their homes, it's not to engage in direct contact with constituents, but to fund raise, meet with local lobbyists, fund raise, campaign for the party's candidates, fund raise, and if they're Democrats to get laid by their significant other (Republicans don't have this problem, they just go to the men's room at Union Station in DC).
- digger711, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17The founding fathers wrote in the constitution that Congress should meet at least once a year. They did not even imagine that being a Congressman would be a full time job. In other words, their idea for the goverment was to be small and one that follows constitution and does not try to create new laws and regulations all the time which does nothing but infringes personal liberties. The less time Congress spends in session, the more time we'll have left to enjoy whatever is left of our rights and freedoms.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17One problem that would occur if they moved would be that people running against them could make a very strong case for them not being on the same page as their constituents because they no longer live in the same state as them.
I tend to agree with you, but I feel that it may be a bit of a double-edged sword for a politician. - forgiste, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16uhm, what?? They're not actually hypocrites UNTIL they move to France. You're labeling them based on an assumption. A rather unlikely one at that.
- hex2bush, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16These people are making a minimum of $165,200 a year plus all of the "perks" that goes with being in Congress. One of them is when you leave, you can get a seven figure lobbying job; which also requires plenty of travel. Or very lucrative speaking jobs.Add in the fact that they're incompetent, they have a really sweet gig!
I have no pity for those bozos.
Source:http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200 ... - gak001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12What, and leave the executive branch with complete dictatorial powers? Right-o.
- Yogitw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12They don't have to go home every weekend. That's why long recesses are built into the year for congress. These guys are just milking it.
- MonsterChaOS, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15EXACTLY!
Hypocrites - redslash, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16umm, hate to say it, but this headline is almost completely inaccurate. Nine aren't running, and ONE of them mentioned the new five-day workweek (in conjunction with several other factors). The others have other reasons, presumably.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12why would the 109th spend time on events which hadn't occured yet?
- haydesigner, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15I believe they also get a housing expense as well.
"Not able to afford it" is not a viable argument. - resplence, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12I think it wouldn't kill them to fly home friday, late on the day.
- darkcooger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13You make a valid point, but it would just be more meaningless political mudslinging. How many of our Congressmen are on the same page as their constituents anyway?
- WiseWeasel, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16Seriously, and that goes for the executive as well. I say half-day work weeks all around!
- sj200, on 10/13/2007, -7/+18Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, you lazy *****!
- jfair, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12"Criticize now, be a hyprocrate later...."
OK, I'll criticize you now. Learn to spell, douchechill. - WarpFox, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14That's what recess time is for. These people are richer than god anyway, they could easily have a place in washington (since they have to be there all week anyway) and their families could live there, then they all fly back to where they're from during recess months. Since I doubt they are shaking hands with constituents on the weekends anyway, they might as well.
- TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Don't you have to BE A RESIDENT in the district you've been elected from?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 263 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is