HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Members of Congress –most...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:07 AM

Members of Congress –mostly male and Republican– sleep in their offices to avoid paying rent

They shower and shave in the morning at the gym. Dinners often are warmed up out of a can. And at night, they bunk down in the same cramped offices where, during the day, they conduct the nation’s business.

For about 50 members of the US Congress, the office doubles as home — at least while they’re in the capital.

With Washington embroiled in a raging debate over taxes and spending as lawmakers and the White House try to avoid plunging over the “fiscal cliff”, these members of Congress are living proof that austerity can begin at home.

They reside in their offices because they cannot bear to do anything as wasteful as rent a small apartment or stay in a hotel.

more . . . http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/21/members-of-congress-mostly-male-and-republican-sleep-in-their-offices-to-avoid-paying-rent/#.UNSHQzNSrKA.facebook

143 replies, 7495 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 143 replies Author Time Post
Reply Members of Congress –mostly male and Republican– sleep in their offices to avoid paying rent (Original post)
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 OP
Recursion Dec 2012 #1
Bucky Dec 2012 #13
JHB Dec 2012 #70
LiberalFighter Dec 2012 #129
RavensChick Dec 2012 #143
Flashmann Dec 2012 #2
dawg Dec 2012 #3
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #4
onyourleft Dec 2012 #6
hack89 Dec 2012 #8
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #12
hack89 Dec 2012 #14
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #15
hack89 Dec 2012 #16
unblock Dec 2012 #26
CTyankee Dec 2012 #33
louis-t Dec 2012 #51
CTyankee Dec 2012 #62
spinbaby Dec 2012 #96
CTyankee Dec 2012 #100
jp76 Dec 2012 #47
bettyellen Dec 2012 #48
Recursion Dec 2012 #58
bettyellen Dec 2012 #64
spooky3 Dec 2012 #130
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #135
spooky3 Dec 2012 #136
unblock Dec 2012 #65
bettyellen Dec 2012 #67
HipChick Dec 2012 #104
spooky3 Dec 2012 #132
spooky3 Dec 2012 #134
markbark Dec 2012 #53
unblock Dec 2012 #71
karynnj Dec 2012 #36
CTyankee Dec 2012 #19
Bake Dec 2012 #31
Dyedinthewoolliberal Dec 2012 #23
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #57
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #86
kenny blankenship Dec 2012 #20
CreekDog Dec 2012 #28
jberryhill Dec 2012 #37
Hassin Bin Sober Dec 2012 #97
Nikia Dec 2012 #140
Auntie Bush Dec 2012 #109
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2012 #56
Barack_America Dec 2012 #69
Tikki Dec 2012 #115
spanone Dec 2012 #120
DURHAM D Dec 2012 #5
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #7
onyourleft Dec 2012 #10
former9thward Dec 2012 #22
Daninmo Dec 2012 #24
former9thward Dec 2012 #25
CreekDog Dec 2012 #29
former9thward Dec 2012 #43
CreekDog Dec 2012 #59
former9thward Dec 2012 #72
CreekDog Dec 2012 #73
former9thward Dec 2012 #75
CreekDog Dec 2012 #77
former9thward Dec 2012 #78
CreekDog Dec 2012 #80
former9thward Dec 2012 #95
CreekDog Dec 2012 #98
Bake Dec 2012 #32
former9thward Dec 2012 #42
KansDem Dec 2012 #52
former9thward Dec 2012 #60
CreekDog Dec 2012 #99
former9thward Dec 2012 #103
Bake Dec 2012 #108
former9thward Dec 2012 #111
Bake Dec 2012 #112
former9thward Dec 2012 #113
CreekDog Dec 2012 #114
former9thward Dec 2012 #121
Mariana Dec 2012 #45
former9thward Dec 2012 #49
Mariana Dec 2012 #61
former9thward Dec 2012 #74
CreekDog Dec 2012 #93
former9thward Dec 2012 #94
CreekDog Dec 2012 #117
former9thward Dec 2012 #122
neverforget Dec 2012 #105
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #40
rppper Dec 2012 #9
Rex Dec 2012 #11
apb2637 Dec 2012 #17
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #18
hlthe2b Dec 2012 #21
dballance Dec 2012 #27
CTyankee Dec 2012 #35
Mariana Dec 2012 #46
Recursion Dec 2012 #55
Politicalboi Dec 2012 #30
Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2012 #34
Raine Dec 2012 #38
No Vested Interest Dec 2012 #39
shireen Dec 2012 #41
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #44
GoCubsGo Dec 2012 #66
Freddie Stubbs Dec 2012 #91
Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #50
guardian Dec 2012 #85
KansDem Dec 2012 #54
Jenoch Dec 2012 #63
Little Star Dec 2012 #68
JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2012 #76
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #79
Jenoch Dec 2012 #107
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #118
appleannie1 Dec 2012 #81
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #87
Freddie Stubbs Dec 2012 #90
Jenoch Dec 2012 #82
Little Star Dec 2012 #84
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #89
appleannie1 Dec 2012 #83
Flashmann Dec 2012 #88
sellitman Dec 2012 #92
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #102
sellitman Dec 2012 #138
proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #141
sellitman Dec 2012 #142
shintao Dec 2012 #101
BlueToTheBone Dec 2012 #106
Thedemdragon Dec 2012 #110
whistler162 Dec 2012 #116
spooky3 Dec 2012 #139
RB TexLa Dec 2012 #119
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #123
RB TexLa Dec 2012 #124
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #125
RB TexLa Dec 2012 #126
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #127
RB TexLa Dec 2012 #128
riderinthestorm Dec 2012 #131
RB TexLa Dec 2012 #133
Historic NY Dec 2012 #137

Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:09 AM

1. I thought Boehner had cracked down on that?

Staffers were tired of the smell (seriously).

There used to be bachelor housing for Members, owned by the government and offered at reasonable rates, down by the Navy Yard. I think they killed that in 2000 or so. Sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:38 AM

13. politicians stink

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:13 PM

70. May I suggest a Congressional capsule hotel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_hotel




Think of it as a kennel for congresscritters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:31 PM

129. Make sure there is space for them to relieve themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:02 PM

143. LOL!

That's a good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:11 AM

2. Odd

I would've thought that their masters would include,at least,a studio apartment,as part of their bribes.........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:11 AM

3. I find that to be admirable.

Nothing wrong with being frugal with yourself. It's the miserliness and cruelty towards the needy that I cannot abide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:16 AM

4. And I'm appalled they can't manage their money any better than that.

They are well paid. They can afford decent living quarters. What does this say about their ability to manage the nation's budget?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:30 AM

6. Indeed. I am...

...with you on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:31 AM

8. Maintaining two households can be expensive

perhaps they want to spend their money on other things like college for the kids or family vacations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:37 AM

12. And my spouse and I manage one household on less than half what they earn in Congress.

Imagine that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:38 AM

14. Because your family situation is identical to those 50 congressmen.

got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:43 AM

15. Explain how it IS different, Oh Wise One.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #15)


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:33 PM

26. don't know about you, but most people don't budget for an extra d.c. apartment

in fact most congresscritters take a big pay cut coming out of the private sector. yes, $174,000 is a very nice salary by any reasonble standard and in and of itself is hardly anything to complain about. but even if that were exactly the salary you used to make before congress, you probably bought a house with a mortgage appropriate for that salary and got comfortable with a lifestyle consistent with that salary.

now imagine suddenly you have to maintain an apartment in d.c., i'm guessing $2,000 per month for nothing to write home about. that's an after-tax $24,000 hit to your lifestyle.

so imagine anyone taking a hit of more than 15% or so to their salary because of needing to maintain a second residence that you weren't expecting.

should congresscritters move their primary residences into cheaper housing to accomodate? of course, they can't move out of their district/state if they want to continue to serve, and that may severely limit their choices, never mind that it may entail pulling kids out of school, etc.


in reality, many congress-critters made far more than $174,000 in the private sector, so they face a big pay cut nevermind the extra expense. they rely on savings and/or income from investments to make up the difference.


if your previous job paid only $30,000/year, then this is a non-problem, of course. but that's not the typical background for many congresscritters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:00 PM

33. see my post: they can go in with other congress members and rent an apt. or they can decline

to run for office or cut backtheir lifestyle at home as a sacrifice in order to run for office.

Nobody is holding a gun to their head. Please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:14 PM

51. D.C. is VERY expensive.

I know it for a fact. There are lots of things to criticize repugs for. This isn't one of them. Onward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis-t (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:38 PM

62. I'm only trying to say that running for office is their option and I was offering some

ideas of how to overcome the fact that D.C. is expensive, which I grant you (I used to work there but lived in No Va).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:47 PM

96. So only the wealthy should run for office?

Nothing wrong with a bit of frugality in my book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spinbaby (Reply #96)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:58 PM

100. wealthy people don't have to pool their resources to rent an apt. with others.

I'm obviously not talking about them.

It seems to me that you make a choice when you run for congress. It's part of the deal. I'm all for a dorm situation, that's fine, altho now doesn't quite seem the time to take badly needed funds for the poor, the sick and the elderly for their digs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:38 PM

47. Don't forget everything else

$2000 for rent, then utilities, rental insurance....all for a place that you're not going to be in much, because you'll be back in your home state with your family and constituents, or at work.

It might come out to be cheaper than a hotel, but not by much, I'm guessing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jp76 (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:05 PM

48. that's ridiculous. they could get a fine three bedroom for that and share with two to four other

people. It's to crash in three or four nights a week. I know people who make half their salaries and have places in NYC in addition to their homes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:26 PM

58. A 3br in DC for 2 grand a month??

I'll take that in a heartbeat! ($2k is the rent for a studio in the not-getting-shot-on-your-way-home parts of town.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #58)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:41 PM

64. no 1,200 is the asking for studios in nice buildings in decent neighborhoods- for newcomers

but you really don't think these guys are connected enough to get great deals in DC? LOL.
They can easily get a 2 BR and split six ways. 500 buck a piece. There is no excuse for them sleeping in their offices.
They earn enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:31 PM

130. Studios in nice neighborhoods across the river (Arl., Alex.) are more $ than that.

In a nice neighborhood in the district itself, such as Capitol Hill, they would pay even more.

They can get a 2 BR and split it six ways, but I don't see how that is any better than sleeping in the office and showering in the gym.

They will also have to pay for utilities, cable, transportation to the office, etc., in addition to their families' expenses at home, and travel to and from their district beyond what might be covered. The DC metro area is extremely expensive and an extra $800+ per month even for the college-style apartment sharing could be put to better use at home for many people, I'm sure.

I really don't get why some are so critical of these guys for sleeping in their offices. Their voting records provide plenty of fodder for criticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #130)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:36 PM

135. As long as staffers can live there too, I'm okay with it.

If its okay for congresspeople, then they can share the space with staffers as well imho who make even less money and could really use the perk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #135)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:43 PM

136. Staffers don't have to maintain a second residence in their home districts.

So their situation is different.

But it's hard for most of them to afford DC on staff salaries alone, also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:45 PM

65. as weird as it is for congresscritters to sleep in their offices, it's even most weird, i think,

to expect them to share private living quarters with others.

especially as most of them are married.

it's fine for twenty-somethings who are used to roomies from college, but it's rather odd to expect congresscritters to live like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #65)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:02 PM

67. the pied a terre is actually a common urban scenario in NYC. I've always know people

who have a spare bedroom they rent to someone who works in NYC but lives a few hours away in PA, upstate or CT. They sleep there, shower, eat their takeout and keep spare clothes. And go home for 2-3 day weekends. They usually get a much better deal on rent because they don't really use the shared spaces much at all. Some keep spare apartments because their family would cut them off if they knew they were living with someone else unmarried!
Or some live (what would be overcrowded) group apartments where many of the people travel a whole lot like flight attendants and people who work on cruises. They don't make enough for second homes of course, but do need a home base somewhere.
I think I've know nine or ten people (making half these guys salaries) who've done it for years, in NYC, which is more expensive than DC. It's quite doable, and lots of non cheap skate senators and congressman already do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #67)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:34 PM

104. I did this for a while...travelling to NYC for a few days

then I lucked out, and got a job where I can work from home, at same salary..so I quit...NYC is expensive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #65)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:32 PM

132. agreed that that should not be an expectation - and we all know what happened on C Street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:35 PM

134. Then they have other sources of income. Sorry, I do not believe that anyone who makes < $90K per

year can afford to maintain a place in either NYC or Washington AND another home, unless they have other sources of income, their first home is paid for and in a very low cost community, or some other key fact is being omitted.

You really are being very unrealistic about the COL in the DC area. There is no 3 bedroom within a reasonable commuting distance (traffic is horrible here) and in a safe neighborhood that would go for $2000 or less, with all the other costs unblock and others have mentioned included. Go online and search if you don't believe me. There are several good real estate sites to search.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:17 PM

53. What?

"so imagine anyone taking a hit of more than 15% or so to their salary because of needing to maintain a second residence that you weren't expecting."

I would imagine that year long campaign for the job might have provided them a clue.

"Oh no! I ran for office and got elected... now I have to get an apartment in DC too?!?! Oh woe is me!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markbark (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:14 PM

71. like i said, they probably already have a mortgage, etc., back home.

yes, of course they all (should) understand that they'll need somewhere to sleep while in d.c.

my point is not that they're surprised the day they're sworn in, my point is that they built themselves into a financial structure (mortgage, car payments, etc.) that didn't contemplate needing a second residence in a very expensive area. it can take years to extricate yourselve from that kind of financial situation.

short of moving their family out of their home into cheaper housing in the same district, which is an extraordinarily dim thing to expect representatives to do, i don't understand why people can't see the challenge of a dramatic lowering of income and increase in expense.



and while i understand that everyone loves to hate congresscritters, i certainly don't understand the animus *in a thread about them sleeping in their offices to make ends meet*.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:06 PM

36. True, but it is likely that they lived in a more expensive house than most of us

before they were elected. (Not knowing you at all, the assumption is really on the other side as most people who run have had highly successful, well paid positions.

They often made more than the Congress salary and they need to add a second place to live and DC is expensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:08 PM

19. They "could" get together and rent apts and share the rent.

I'm sorry it is such a terrible sacrifice, but maybe they should have thought about this beforehand. Nobody was forcing them to run for office, were they?

Also, many of them figure that if they are in office they can worm their way eventually into a cushy lobbying job in D.C. and then they'll have it made...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:58 PM

31. I suspect most of them have more than ample funds to do both.

Poor folks don't get elected to office.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:55 PM

23. I agree with you

but want to point out the cost of living in DC is astronomical! So there is that.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:26 PM

57. If I'm not mistaken, the govt would pay for their quarters and meals. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #57)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:53 PM

86. They pay for their lodging out of their own salaries.

But when they stay in their offices, yes, the taxpayers are footing the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:34 PM

20. I don't see anything wrong with it either.

Representatives are only elected to 2 year terms. Maybe some of these folks see themselves as there in Washington to carry out an important mission, a duty tour which might last no more than 24 months, rather than to have a good time and put down roots?

Maybe it would be good for Democrats- from the point of view of getting more recognizably Democratic legislation passed and protecting the vital interests of the majority of Americans- if more elected Democrats would likewise prioritize the mission which their constituents sent them on over their own comforts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:53 PM

28. it's not *frugal*, it's using their employer-provided office as housing to avoid paying rent

it's ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:31 PM

37. It's a mis-use of the facility


I'd be in favor of building some kind of dormitory, because this is really unfair to the cleaning staff and the gym staff. These offices are not intended to be apartments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:01 PM

97. Agree. I suggest all the supporters of this idea inform their...

... employers they intend to permanently sleep/live in their offices.

They'll get laughed out of the room. Their employers will probably get evicted by their landlords.

The only reason they do it is because they are mini-royalty and get away with sponging (even more) off the taxpayer.

Charge them $2000 dollars a month for additional wear and tear, utilities usage and cleaning.

I wonder what city code enforcement says about using an office as a bedroom. Where I come from, there is a completely different set of guidelines for sleeping quarters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #97)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:11 PM

140. I found out that our company rents several rooms by the month

For people from corporate to stay in when they come. A few members of local management who live an hour or more away are allowed to stay there too if they put in more than 14 hours in a day working on something that corporate is demanding. I think that I should have inquired about it when I had to drive home in a blizzard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:01 PM

109. They're a bunch of cheapskates....the kind that want to get rid of food stamps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:24 PM

56. Those are *my* offices.

Dear representative; Find a place to live, because if I'm paying you $174,000 a year, don't expect me to provide you with a place to sleep too - particularly when that couch interferes with the function of the workplace.

That's not frugal, that's exploitive.

It is one thing to crash on the couch for a nap during an occasional all-nighter. It is something else to use it as a flophouse.

That said; I think there's a good argument to be made that a publicly funded apartment should be made available to each member of congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:05 PM

69. Except when you remember they get paid A LOT more than most workers...

...who do not have the ability to use their workplace as a hotel room.

And then you remember the added expense that their water and utility bills cost the American tax payers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:25 PM

115. Are their offices zoned as residential?

I know a small family who would like to spend a few nights a week at their business. It has a
kitchen and bathroom and a place to sleep...It is ILLEGAL for them to do so because of zoning.


Are these repugs breaking the law?


Tikki

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:59 PM

120. they have no pride. car salespersons.

it takes one weird fucker to chase and hold one of these jobs.

difference between frugal and cheap

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:25 AM

5. Every time I see this story I think

They are living in government buildings and I am paying their water, heating and electric bill.

Does anyone of DU have an employer who provides free housing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:30 AM

7. I also think that, and have complained about it

Only (some of) the military get free housing, but that's a special case.

They should be charged rent. These are OFFICE buildings, not dorms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:31 AM

10. Exactly.

I have seen this story several times and always have the same thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:43 PM

22. Should the President have to pay rent?

We are paying all of his bills also. And he makes alot more than congressmen. I don't get this thing where only rich people should be allowed to be in Congress. Because that is what you are saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:11 PM

24. The President

Is the Commander in chief of the Military, top dog so to speak and Military get housing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daninmo (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:14 PM

25. Oh you really think that is why we pay his bills?

Ok whatever gets you going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:54 PM

29. that the president is provided a residence for his unique job doesn't make it okay for them

to use their offices as dorm rooms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:46 PM

43. Doesn't make it ok?

Who makes the rules of what an office can be used for? You? There are four Chicago Democrats who sleep in their offices (Bobby Rush, Dan Lipinski, Luis Gutierrez, and Quigley). Are they part of this scandal too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:35 PM

59. Does what make it okay?

Also, I didn't say it was a scandal, just that it shouldn't be done.

And somehow you are roping Obama in this because he lives n the White House. Fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:19 PM

72. The poster I was replying to was upset

she was paying for the utilities of congressmen. I pointed out we pay the utilities of the President (among many others). If you can't see the analogy then you have Failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:21 PM

73. you failed because you asked me if what I said makes it okay

in other words, you were asking me a question about my post with a question completely unrelated to it.

congratulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:27 PM

75. From your post: "doesn't make it okay for them"

I asked and you didn't answer who is making the rules that "doesn't make it okay for them".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:33 PM

77. the way you formulated the question was completely wrong

if something "doesn't make it okay", you don't need to ask me if I think it "does make it okay"?

try reading next time.

also, about your first response to me:

next time, i recommend not writing to me about what democrats do in a tone that makes it sound like they are as foreign to you as your posts would seem to suggest they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:38 PM

78. I am not a hypocrite.

If Democrats are doing something that a poster says is wrong for Republicans to do then I am going to ask what the difference is. If you don't like that standard nothing forces you to reply to my posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #78)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:42 PM

80. please sober up before continuing this conversation

i said it was wrong to sleep in offices, you argued with me that it wasn't and then cited names of democrats who do it.

i still said it was wrong.

then you suggested i'm a hypocrite for saying it was right for democrats to do, but not Republicans.

now i'm saying to please sober up because you obviously don't know who or what i'm saying and are making up, or worse, intentionally lying about what i'm saying --as well as purposely trying to take multiple positions on this topic in the space of a few messages.

call it a day until someone dumb enough to play your game is willing to join you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #80)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:41 PM

95. There have been plenty of posters carrying on discussion with me.

I guess they are "dumb enough" to do it to use your words. Since I am such an idiot use the ignore feature. It was put there to help people like you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #95)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:18 PM

98. I'm not criticizing their graciousness to you...

However I must correct you on one thing:

It is you that is "carrying on", not them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:59 PM

32. The Prez is on the job 24/7.

Congresspersons are not.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:40 PM

42. Really?

What are their work hours? Is VP Biden on 24/7? He gets housing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:15 PM

52. Well, since Boehner and the GOP left town...

...and are not doing any work regarding "The Cliff," I would say this hour is not one of their "work hours."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:38 PM

60. This is just ridiculous.

Nobody suggest Obama is off his "24/7" when he goes out of town or vacation. Congresspeople have offices in their districts and do meetings and townhalls, etc. when they are not in DC. The President is entitled to his housing and congresspeople can do whatever they want in their offices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:49 PM

99. No they cannot do whatever they want in their offices

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #99)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:26 PM

103. Because you say so?

Check your Constitution. Members of the House and Senate make their own rules. That includes office conduct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #103)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:00 PM

108. I doubt the Capitol office buildings are zoned "residential"

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #108)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:23 PM

111. OMG

You do know, don't you, the Capitol is controlled exclusively by Congress. The city of DC has no jurisdiction over it whatsoever. But please tomorrow call up the DC city hall (202-442-7200) and report a building code violation at the capitol . See what they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #111)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:38 PM

112. I was being snarky

I guess I should have added the tag.

Why are you so anxious to have Congressmen living in their offices?

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #112)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:58 PM

113. I don't care where Congressmen live.

You see I am liberal and in my mind that means being tolerant. Others have turned that word on its head. If people who have to maintain two homes plus other expenses that most of us don't have want to save a few bucks so be it. I know of four congressmen from the city I lived in for 30 years, Chicago, who sleep in their offices (Rush, Quigley, Lipinski and Gutierrez). They are all fine people and if they want to sleep in a cot I think that is just fine.

The better question is why would a liberal be so intolerant of someone's life choice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #113)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:17 PM

114. "lifestyle choice"? where have i heard that before?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #114)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:27 PM

121. You jump in to answer for other posters.

Interesting. Afraid others are "too dumb" -- your words -- to answer themselves? Do you think it is a matter of genes? I want to hear your scientific answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:23 PM

45. The residence is part of the President's compensation.

The President's job is also much more demanding than theirs is, and requires that he be available to go to work at all times. It is not so for members of Congress. They get paid plenty, and it has already been pointed out that several of them could rent a place together and share the expenses. I wouldn't object to making dormitory style housing available to them, but they should not be living in their offices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:06 PM

49. Their office is part of their job.

If they want to save some money they can sleep in it. Congress people have the right to make their own rules. You can always vote against them if you don't like the rules your congressperson has made. You want to make it so only the rich can go to Congress. No thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:38 PM

61. Then let them pass a law that EVERY employer

must allow their employees to sleep at their place of work, if the employees wish to. If it's good and right for the members of Congress to do it, it should be good and right for everyone. Shouldn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mariana (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:22 PM

74. The minute that law was passed you would be screaming.

That employers are going to use that law to intimate employees to stay at work 24/7. You know you would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:11 PM

93. keep posting, you haven't turned people in this thread against the president yet

by the way, how much rent should he be paying?

which law are you citing for this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:38 PM

94. I have a stalker! Cool!

I am not a hypocrite. He should not being paying any rent (Of course I have already posted this). Congresspeople should be able to use their offices as they like. That is called being consistent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #94)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:35 PM

117. you're a dishonest poster who posts barely vield right wing talking points

here's an example of some of the dishonesty you push here on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002135085#post86

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #117)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:34 PM

122. I am not going to re-argue a post from months ago.

It is really, really weird that you want to. However from your link a post by you: So what's the point in arguing with you? So why do you??? As I said in another post use the ignore feature. They made it for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:39 PM

105. The President and his family live in the White House for free but that's it.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/cost-living-white-house

Most of us probably think the Obamas live a lavish life on the taxpayers’ dime, but, according to Kantor, finances are tight in the White House. While rent is free, just about nothing else is. The president and first lady pay for their food, parties, vacations, butlers, housekeepers, ushers… and at Ritz Carleton prices. If they want to bring someone on Air Force One who isn’t in the official traveling delegation, they have to reimburse the American people the equivalent of first-class airfare for the flight.

“People say that there’s kind of a ritual with every new president and first lady. They get to the White House, they move in, they start to live there. A month or so in, they get their first bill, and there is a moment of shock,” says Kantor. Being wealthy gives a first family a real advantage and -- while the Obamas are rich Americans by just about any measure -- they don’t have the kind of personal wealth that can move the needle in the White House. It makes you wonder: can we ever have a truly middle-class president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:22 PM

40. My employer provides free housing and food.

 

Although, technically/ultimately it's taxpayer funded.
What's really messed up is that gas is free... but the car rental is out of my pocket - lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:31 AM

9. I have to admit ...

I would probably do the same....a Murphy bed, hot plate, small fridge and a microwave and I'm good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:32 AM

11. What a bunch of cheapskates.

The article cannot fluff them up enough to make me believe they do it for any other reason than greed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:35 PM

17. Win win

Saving money for tax payers, it is a win win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apb2637 (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:01 PM

18. How do you figure that?

Taxpayers don't pay their rent in DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apb2637 (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:42 PM

21. They aren't saving any money for tax payers.... Only for themselves...

If anything, they are costing taxpayers more with additional utilities and cleaning expenses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:47 PM

27. Why don't we have a dorm for them?

DC is not a cheap city in which to live. I would have no problem at all if we had a dorm in which our legislators were required to live. They would need to pay some basic rent of course. Their salaries and benefits are quite generous.

But seriously, we send all these people to one of the most expensive cities in the nation to live as our representatives. Sure it would be a bit of preferential treatment but I'd rather they be able to focus on governing rather than where they will sleep at night.

A dorm for them could be the spartan accommodation I had in college. A concrete block building with just the barest of necessities. A shared room and shared bathrooms. I'm not advocating putting them up at the Hilton. I'm just advocating we realize DC is an expensive city and we should realize that and make appropriate accommodations for the congress critters. As a contract worker I used to get an uplift in my pay when I worked in cities like NY or Miami because they cost more to live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:03 PM

35. Um, where would they have their "extracurricular" activities?

Oh, wait, maybe that IS a couch in their office...sorry...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:32 PM

46. They could accomplish much the same thing on their own

if they had any interest in doing so, by groups of them renting a simple apartment together and sharing the expenses. If we built the dorm, these guys probably wouldn't use it. They prefer to pay nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:23 PM

55. They used to. Gingrich sold it (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:56 PM

30. We the tax payers

Should charge them rent. They make enough money to own or rent their OWN place. Let them take up a warm bench outside the Capitol. Squatters is what they appear to be. It's not like they are staying there to do the business of the people who put them there.

On edit: How about a private prison? I'm sure one of them can get a deal with a lobbyist somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:01 PM

34. Yeah

most of them aren't really even doing their jobs- just obstructing everything and/or casting "symbolic" votes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:49 PM

38. In a perfect world this would teach them something about what it's like

for people who actually have to live a frugal lifestyle not choose to. I hold out no hope for any of this bunch even the Democrats to really learn. I believe all of them know that after leaving office they will be snapped up by some Lobby group etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:14 PM

39. Rep. Steve Chabot (R- Ohio)

is one who sleeps in his office as well. It was written up in the local paper in recent years.
He, apparently, is very cheap. Had a very old car - Buick, I think.

He's not the brightest bulb in the pack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:55 PM

41. story from 2007 abt 4 Dems living in a house.

D.C. Lawmakers Share 'Animal House'

A pair of white jockey underwear sits on a bookshelf in the living room. Rat traps adorn nooks and crannies of the dilapidated kitchen. In the refrigerator -- a jar of olives maybe five or six years old. In the freezer, venison at least twice, if not three times, as old. Two sagging unmade beds with dingy sheets stand forlornly in opposite corners of the living room.

Believe it or not, this is where four of the most powerful men in the U.S. Congress live when they're in Washington. The number two and three leaders of the U.S. Senate -- Majority Whip Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Democratic caucus Vice Chairman Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. -- share this house with Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., the chairman of a key House subcommittee on human rights, and their landlord, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee and the House Democratic Policy Committee.

All four have houses in their home districts, but crash in this two-bedroom townhouse near the Capitol whenever they overnight in the nation's Capitol, which is quite often. One March night, the four allowed, for the first time, TV cameras into their humble living quarters -- Delahunt calls it a "hovel" -- to discuss their interesting arrangement over some pizza and beer.

"I'm sure think we live in big mansions down here with a lot of servants," Schumer says of their house, which in terms of décor and cleanliness compares unfavorably with the fraternity this reporter belonged to in college.

More at:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=2942649&page=1#.UNu4Fxxx7Wo

Pretty funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:51 PM

44. What I don't like is that it isolates them from making personal connections with their colleagues

and that is a major contributor to our current state of congressional hostility imho.

From what I've read, there used to be more "socializing" amongst the Congressional members so there was more collegiality. They "knew" each other so deal making was easier and far less fraught with drama.

Congress people no longer socialize and a big part of it (I believe) is that they have nowhere to do so. They don't have a "home" so it can't be done. These guys are simply living these solitary lives without any fraternization which has lead to the fracturing of relationships within the Congressional body politic.

If they even got shared dormitory space, or even shared apartments it would help the tensions enormously I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:49 PM

66. Yep. More to it than trying to save money.

They don't want to have to rub elbows with the unwashed masses, also known as "The Public". Just look at the excuse one of them gave about supposedly having to sit for hours in traffic. The public transportation system in DC and the surrounding areas is excellent, and they wouldn't have to sit in traffic for hours if they used it. Not good enough for these clowns, apparently. Nor, is having to eat meals in restaurants with "those people", or having to share pleasantries with the neighbors. Better to hide out in the relative safety of their offices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:59 PM

91. Go to Tortilla Coast on 1st & D St. SE around 8:00 PM on a day the House is in session

There is plenty of socializing between members of the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:07 PM

50. My sympathy ends with people who make even 1 more dollar than I do. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:53 PM

85. "Yet doe I feare thy Nature, It is too full o' th' Milke of humane kindnesse."

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:20 PM

54. Why do they even have to come to DC?

They could legislate and take care of the people's business at home via teleconferencing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:41 PM

63. I don't understand why anyone has

a problem with this. I am sure none of the house members who are doing this have been in the house for too long. There is no way, say a 5 term incumbent, is going to be doing this. Frankly, I kind of like the response from the Michigan repuke, about how it reminds him not to get too comfortable in DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:03 PM

68. It pisses me off. Our tax dollars provide them...

a office not a friggin bedroom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:33 PM

76. Where do their staff stay?

They sleep in their cars? i'm sure they make less than the congress members.

I'm sure the staff is there to make up the folding bed/couch, take stuff to the laundry and dry cleaner, shine his majesty's shoes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:38 PM

79. That's a good point - the office is owned by the taxpayers. So why can't the staff sleep there?

Does the Congressman have the right to deny sleeping privileges to his staff that also work there (probably working there even more than he does since he goes "home" to his own state while the staffers "live" in DC).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:56 PM

107. Congressional staffers

are mostly long-term D.C. area residents. If their guy loses an election they find another office holder to work for so tgey live there for years. The members of congress are supposed to be residents of their district. I don't want them too comfortable out there. I'd rather have them spending a lot of time back home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #107)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:50 PM

118. So you don't think ANY staffers might not want to live for free at their workplace?

And the Congresspeople aren't really "spending their time back home", they are using that time to perpetually troll for campaign dollars - selling their ass to the highest bidders. If they really WERE back home having town halls and meeting with constituents that would be one thing but they're not.

This is just a method of double dipping at taxpayer expense. Its wrong if Dems or Rethugs are doing it but if a taxpayer funded Congressperson is doing it, it should be allowed for taxpayer funded staffers imho.

Why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:46 PM

81. If they can't afford rent on $165,000 a year, shame on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appleannie1 (Reply #81)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:53 PM

87. My thoughts exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appleannie1 (Reply #81)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:56 PM

90. The problem is that they are already maintaining residence in their state as well

And if they have kids, it is difficult to be a two career family when one spouse is out of town much of the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:46 PM

82. I wonder if the same

responses to the OP would would be posted if it were a majority of Democratic house members sleeping in the offices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #82)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:52 PM

84. I would feel the same. No one should be using their tax paid office as a bedroom.....

It's disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #82)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:54 PM

89. This applies across party lines for me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:52 PM

83. Female Congress critters must manage their money better. They can afford apartments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:53 PM

88. sleep in their offices to avoid paying rent

They must be incredibly wealthy.......The stingiest,greediest,tightassiest people I've ever been around have been wealthy...More wealth=more greed and stinginess....These are the motherfuckers who have a $150 dinner/bar tab and leave 75 cent tips,if any.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:00 PM

92. And I should care about this why?

Aren't there much mre important things brewing then where the GOP miscreants live?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sellitman (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:11 PM

102. You don't mind paying their room and board?

I do. Their offices are offices, funded by the taxpayers. They are NOT residential facilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #102)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:03 PM

138. If they had their own apartment

We could save money and not pay for offices?

Spare me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sellitman (Reply #138)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:55 PM

141. They're using utilities that wouldn't be used if no one lived in the office.

This can't be that hard to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #141)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:56 PM

142. OMG!

Save the utilities!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:07 PM

101. I would give them the "Hilton"

 

Errr, a hilton like the POWs had in Hanoi. I have longed for making congress a public service job that is voluntary, and build a big barracks and house them there for free. Have a big mess hall, and feed them all there for free. Provide them public cabs and take away the limos. Provide them commerical airflight.

When a person runs for office knowing their is no salary, then we will get people who actually care about America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:47 PM

106. This is not austerity. This is double dipping again.

They use OUR electricity and facilities so they don't have to pay. Nothing is free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:05 PM

110. Spam deleted by bluesbassman (MIR Team)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:31 PM

116. Interesting regurgitation of a year old story....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-7272636.html

Don't agree with alot of their politics but I find it admirable as a solution to the high cost of housing and commuting in the DC area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whistler162 (Reply #116)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:27 PM

139. thanks for the link - it's interesting and answers some qs raised in this thread

e.g., no stipends for living expenses, no rules/laws prohibiting sleeping in the office

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:54 PM

119. I wouldn't pay money to rent an apartment either. Why waste the money when the offices are plenty


big enough for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #119)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:40 PM

123. So I presume you'd be okay with their staffers sleeping there too? Plenty big enough.

Why not the staffers? They would qualify I presume as taxpayer funded employees sleeping in their taxpayer funded office work space. While they couldn't use the Congressional showers, they could join the nearest Lifetime fitness center and trundle down there to shower and shave every day.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #123)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:57 PM

124. Considering the starting pay for congressional staffers most make the move to DC permanent


and are more inclined to rent an apartment. But it has not been unheard of for them to use offices for sleeping, it's not always their congressional office space.

I wouldn't have a problem with it, frugality is a value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #124)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:02 PM

125. Do you have a link for Congressional staffers living in their offices?

If Congressional staffers are also allowed to do live in the offices alongside their Congressman I would have less of a problem with it. I'd have to see evidence though that this was allowed for anyone who works there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #125)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:04 PM

126. No I don't. It's not a concern of mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #126)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:19 PM

127. Then why make an unsubstantiated claim that staffers live there too?



You obviously are "concerned", you posted on this thread making a claim that staffers live in the offices as well.

If you can't back it up you should retract it.

Staffers make FAR less than Congresspersons. If they are also able to take advantage of the perk of using the office space as living quarters to save on rent, then that makes me feel better. The utilities are paid for by us the US taxpayer, I'd like to know its equitable and offered to anyone working there and not just an elitist perk.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #127)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:27 PM

128. Good Lord, I know because I know people who have done it. I don't have a link for any of the


conversations. Believe what ever you want to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RB TexLa (Reply #128)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:31 PM

131. Unless you come up with a link, I don't believe it.

Unsubstantiated anecdotes aren't persuasive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #131)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:35 PM

133. Good for you. No way to give a shit what you believe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:50 PM

137. Call the Fire Inspector an office isn't a place for overnight accomodations.....

I have a feeling there is a smell wafting amongst the hallways where the lesser Rep. have offices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread