Speakeasy forum: It's gonna be real hard

in passing a bill.

Neither is operating in good faith.

Neither gives a damn about their constituency, only their special interest groups financing them and their individual pet projects.

I don't want to pay them for voting just because a bill is up for it. What's to keep them from padding their wallets by just drafting more legislation? Do we really need to continually make new laws? In my house, the rule is nothing new is purchased until something of equal or greater volume is removed.

As for pay raises, let them tie any raises to the same criteria used for adjustments to Social Security payments. As well, I'd disallow any increase to 1st term representatives. Consider that their probationary period. I'd also like to add something we see in the private sector which decelerates raises once a person has been in the same job long enough that they are no longer growing in value. After so many terms, I'd want to see raises slow or stop.

If there's one law I'd want to see passed, it's that which forbids congress from excluding itself from adhering to any law imposed on the rest of us.

....was for raises for Congress, federal employees AND the vice president, and the increases range from 1/2% to 1%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/obama-pay-raise-congress_n_2377714.html

The last time the presidential salary was increased was in 2000, when it was doubled from $200,000 to $400,000 just in time for Bush's first term. How fortunate for him.

I just threw that in as an aside.

a bill is reported to the floor for a vote by a majority vote within the committee, not by the chairman choice alone.

needing a majority of the majority party

meaning a minority of the members can vote down a bill, it's just like the committees stifling bills, something that's been complained about here enough.

Granted somethings, at least in the Senate require the "super majority" of 60%, but still that's allowing for the individual votes to count.

You require a majority of the majority, and you just disenfranchised every representative of the miniority party, and all their constituents. How does that fit in with any type of representation?

More BS and proof of how little politicians care about the people.

and probably won't if he ignores it this time. That probably meant more to him that just the existence of the precedent, since it is not law. Hopefully if they don't vote, all of them will lose their next election. I'm not conditioning it on passing it, but on allowing it be voted on and a roll call vote too, put them all on record. It may help some, it may hang some.

Still, this is a disenfrachisment rule, it means 51% of 51% can defeat anything.

Let's see, the Republicans won 55% of the house.

That means for the next 4 years, 28% of the House can stop any legislation. So out of 435 elected officials, 122 can kill a bill. That's a representative government, duh.

I know you'll point out about bills not being allowed out of committee, yeah, that sucks too, that should be by committee majority vote IMO, not one person.

It just proves they are not interested in representing their voters.

within the House Republicans started by some who want to replace Boehner? It certainly made him look weak and ineffectual when he proposed the "plan B" and had it shot down by his own party.

Probably an tea party cabel trying to seize the head position.

and no surprise to me they don't care about what happens if they don't do something.

and keep them there. We'd be a lot better off I think.

Are you saying it isn't true? Boehner's affinity for alcohol appears to be well-known on both sides of the aisle.

What does Boehner's drinking have to do with AIDS? And do you even know what a she-male is?

a righteous man who had too much drink, but still acted responsibly, and the one who tried to ridicule him because of it? Whose side was God on? Who was cursed?