The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: formerlurker on February 18, 2013, 06:01:19 PM

Title: Really Nancy???
Post by: formerlurker on February 18, 2013, 06:01:19 PM
Quote

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 09:39 AM

Star Member proud2BlibKansan (95,787 posts)

View profile
"Struggling to make ends meet" on $174K a year?? Really Nancy??? [View all]
Nancy Pelosi begs us not to ruin her dignity by cutting her paycheck

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is speaking out against a cut in congressional pay because she says it will undermine the dignity of their positions. "I think we should respect the work we do," Pelosi said. "I think it's necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded." ("Dignity" is apparently a synonym for "fat paycheck.") Pelosi, whose husband, Paul, is a legit real-estate mogul, was quick to add that slicing her own paycheck wouldn’t "mean as much" as those senators who struggle to make ends meet on $174,000 per year. "We are obviously contemplating a sequester," Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) said. "Obviously we are going to take a cut, like everybody else."



http://m.now.msn.com/nancy-pelosi-says-cutting-congress-pay-undermines-dignity-of-job
35
   
   

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2392954

Very large bonfire of quite conflicted primitives.

 :popcorn:
   
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: formerlurker on February 18, 2013, 06:04:31 PM
Quote
181. Do you give regular TV interviews and meet with foreign dignitaries?

View profile

Last edited Mon Feb 18, 2013, 01:33 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
Are you still paying back loans on a law degree from an Ivy League university?
Do you fly across the country several times a month?

The real point is that a CEO of a pretty middling company can make ten times as much as a congressperson. Why are we pissing about complaining about Nancy Pelosi's $174K when it's the multi-million dollar salaries on Wall Street and in insurance and pharmaceutical and defence firms that are sucking this country dry.

If she was really good at coaching baseball nobody would blink an eye at her earning $17 million a year, so how about a little perspective?

The difference is of course that she is being paid with public funds, but please do go on.   She does real live television interviews?  Oh goodness -- GIVE HER A RAISE!!

Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Freeper on February 18, 2013, 06:06:06 PM
If anyone needs a pay cut it is the clowns who run our government.

Because of them our paychecks are smaller and what we have left is stretched more and more due to the non inflation, inflation that is going on.

Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: ColonelCarrots on February 18, 2013, 06:06:46 PM
Poor baby... I'm playing the world's smallest violin right now.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: formerlurker on February 18, 2013, 06:08:40 PM
Quote
madville (943 posts)
19. It really isn't much considering the job

View profile
And the way they have to live. Two households, travel, clothing, etc.

They probably take home around $7,000-8,000 a month after federal tax, social security, Medicare, state income taxes, TSP, mandatory retirement contribution, healthcare premium, dental, life insurance premium, etc, etc.

I'm a federal employee, I make $48,000 a year and take home about $2400 a month after all the deductions and that's in Florida, no state income tax.

Poor dearest dears.  They put up with so much to serve us.   Those bastards want to cut their pay.   :bawl:
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: formerlurker on February 18, 2013, 06:11:58 PM
Quote

Response to zeemike (Reply #163)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 01:36 PM

Egalitarian Thug (5,963 posts)
183. I'm beyond amazed that Americans just don't seem to care at all about the blatant

View profile
graft that has come to be, not just common, but SOP in DC. The entire legislature is made up of rich people who come to make themselves richer or middle class people who come to make themselves rich and all at taxpayer expense. And nobody's doing anything for the people who send them and pay the bills.

Dirty freeper troll!!  Do you have an Ivy League education to pay off at .... how old is Pelosi again?


Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: thundley4 on February 18, 2013, 06:29:40 PM
Congressional pay should be means tested.  Any income from investments or other sources should be deducted from their pay.  That way it protects the ones who are not independently wealthy and went there to do a job.


Something like that anyway. 
Title: Really Nancy???
Post by: JohnnyReb on February 18, 2013, 06:39:44 PM
The woman is worried about dignity??????......hell, she should be embarrassed all to hell, holding such a high office and she can't even read.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Maxiest on February 18, 2013, 06:45:10 PM
My position that most of you won't agree with but we say that we want people from all walks of life and back grounds to be interested in service in Congress and the government.

But Congress truly pays too little for that to really happen. So instead, we get a significantly wealthier and less "normal" distribution of people in Congress because they have to be people that are financially well off enough to not "care" about the money.

I am not saying that I love Congress and think they are always great. But if you compare the level of responsibility and work to anything in the private sector they are truly underpaid.

Since they are underpaid monetarily, we end with a group of legislators that receive the majority of their pay in two ways:

1) Future wages: they garner support from outside groups with plans to one day become lobbyists and the like

2) Power: Many legislators love/enjoy the POWER and Attention their office brings them. Underpaying monetarily means that the people who are attracted to "service" get a significant amount of their compensation from feeding their desire for power.

Both of these "pay" options result in bad outcomes for the American people.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Tucker on February 18, 2013, 07:05:30 PM
The woman is worried about dignity??????......hell, she should be embarrassed all to hell, holding such a high office and she can't even read.

The way she looks, she should be ashamed to be seen in public.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Undies on February 18, 2013, 07:14:53 PM
My position that most of you won't agree with but we say that we want people from all walks of life and back grounds to be interested in service in Congress and the government.


Good Lord Almighty! I've never said such a ridiculous thing.  That's how we end up with socialists clowns like Nancy Pelosi and Shelia Lee.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: USA4ME on February 18, 2013, 07:21:49 PM
What I'm reading there is "Don't pick on Democrats, pick on Republicans."  Had Boehner said what she did the ridicule from the primitives would have received 100% participation.

.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Ptarmigan on February 18, 2013, 07:22:40 PM
Nancy Pelosi is a millionaire. No? I seem to recall that she is one of the richest Congress member.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Tucker on February 18, 2013, 07:22:52 PM
Good Lord Almighty! I've never said such a ridiculous thing.  That's how we end up with socialists clowns like Nancy Pelosi and Shelia Lee.

Nothings stopping Shelia Jackson Lee from running far a political office. I mean, after all, she's a freed slave and can forge her own path.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Freeper on February 18, 2013, 07:38:01 PM
My position that most of you won't agree with but we say that we want people from all walks of life and back grounds to be interested in service in Congress and the government.

But Congress truly pays too little for that to really happen. So instead, we get a significantly wealthier and less "normal" distribution of people in Congress because they have to be people that are financially well off enough to not "care" about the money.

I am not saying that I love Congress and think they are always great. But if you compare the level of responsibility and work to anything in the private sector they are truly underpaid.

Since they are underpaid monetarily, we end with a group of legislators that receive the majority of their pay in two ways:

1) Future wages: they garner support from outside groups with plans to one day become lobbyists and the like

2) Power: Many legislators love/enjoy the POWER and Attention their office brings them. Underpaying monetarily means that the people who are attracted to "service" get a significant amount of their compensation from feeding their desire for power.

Both of these "pay" options result in bad outcomes for the American people.

I think they should get minimum wage or even better a monthly salary that matches the salaries of the enlisted men and women. They start off at E-1 pay and can work their way up with each term up to E-9. To solve the having two house issue we set up barracks in DC and they stay in bunks, they get a chow hall and buses to run them back and forth. They get vouchers to fly in coach seating to go home and to come to DC for each session. I would also limit sessions to one a year and everything else they want to do they can use SKYPE.



Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: docstew on February 18, 2013, 08:51:46 PM
I think they should get minimum wage or even better a monthly salary that matches the salaries of the enlisted men and women. They start off at E-1 pay and can work their way up with each term up to E-9. To solve the having two house issue we set up barracks in DC and they stay in bunks, they get a chow hall and buses to run them back and forth. They get vouchers to fly in coach seating to go home and to come to DC for each session. I would also limit sessions to one a year and everything else they want to do they can use SKYPE.





I've said something along those lines before. I think in my plan the pay was tied to O-3 pay. Since Congress sets the pay charts, there would also have to be some mechanism to prevent them from bumping that payscale up.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Maxiest on February 18, 2013, 09:03:45 PM
Good Lord Almighty! I've never said such a ridiculous thing.  That's how we end up with socialists clowns like Nancy Pelosi and Shelia Lee.

Really?  We are going to end up with them regardless... 
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: 98ZJUSMC on February 18, 2013, 09:08:29 PM
I think they should get minimum wage or even better a monthly salary that matches the salaries of the enlisted men and women. They start off at E-1 pay and can work their way up with each term up to E-9. To solve the having two house issue we set up barracks in DC and they stay in bunks, they get a chow hall and buses to run them back and forth. They get vouchers to fly in coach seating to go home and to come to DC for each session. I would also limit sessions to one a year and everything else they want to do they can use SKYPE.





Just as long as I get to run the fat little useless b*stards through PT every morning.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: DefiantSix on February 18, 2013, 09:36:51 PM
Congressional pay should be means tested.  Any income from investments or other sources should be deducted from their pay.  That way it protects the ones who are not independently wealthy and went there to do a job.


Something like that anyway. 

Even simpler: Congress-shits hereafter (in the universe where I was emperor for a day) would be paid whatever was leftover from that year's tax revenues AFTER all necessary expenditures are covered. If the yearly tax revenues leave $535 million over and above necessary expenditures, then each worthless Congress-shit would take home $1 million. If, after the country's business had been attended to, there was only $535 left in the coffers, well, then sorry; you get to take a dollar home as your pay for being a Congress-shit this year (better luck next year). If, however, the Congress-shits pull their usual number, and run a deficit, then they get the joy of either (a) going back over the budget, and finding which "necessary expenditures" aren't quite as necessary as they first thought; or (b) the whole damnable lot of them are personally on the hook for the deficit amount, payable in full before any of them leave the capitol for any reason.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Jasonw560 on February 18, 2013, 09:38:22 PM
They should do what Texas does.

Ours meets every 2 years, makes an average of (I think) 20K for their time in session.

They pay for hotels on their own dime, and many of them fly/drive home on the weekends.

With all the technology, why can't they have committee meetings and such via SKYPE, as Freeper suggested, or conference calls?

Their main offices should be right smack dab in the middle of the district they represent if they're Reps, and in the poorest shithole in the state if they are Senators.

Want protection? Pay for it yourself. Limo? Your own money. Fancy hotel room in New York? Your dime.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: IassaFTots on February 19, 2013, 08:11:57 AM
The way she looks, she should be ashamed to be seen in public.

Not coffee, but grits.  GRITS!  All over my keyboard.  Damn you Tucker!   :argh:

 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Undies on February 19, 2013, 08:17:00 AM
Nothings stopping Shelia Jackson Lee from running far a political office. I mean, after all, she's a freed slave and can forge her own path.

When "diversity" is the goal, logic, common sense, reality, and even America herself is thrown out the proverbial window.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: diesel driver on February 19, 2013, 08:46:33 AM
Even simpler: Congress-shits hereafter (in the universe where I was emperor for a day) would be paid whatever was leftover from that year's tax revenues AFTER all necessary expenditures are covered. If the yearly tax revenues leave $535 million over and above necessary expenditures, then each worthless Congress-shit would take home $1 million. If, after the country's business had been attended to, there was only $535 left in the coffers, well, then sorry; you get to take a dollar home as your pay for being a Congress-shit this year (better luck next year). If, however, the Congress-shits pull their usual number, and run a deficit, then they get the joy of either (a) going back over the budget, and finding which "necessary expenditures" aren't quite as necessary as they first thought; or (b) the whole damnable lot of them are personally on the hook for the deficit amount, payable in full before any of them leave the capitol for any reason.

The only problem I see with this is the congress-shits raising taxes every year so they get a paycheck + a nice "bonus".

Of course, they will be "exempt" from any said tax hikes, just like now.

I think they should be paid from their STATE treasuries whatever stipend the state legislature deem "appropriate" for their service.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: DefiantSix on February 19, 2013, 09:16:56 AM
The only problem I see with this is the congress-shits raising taxes every year so they get a paycheck + a nice "bonus".

Of course, they will be "exempt" from any said tax hikes, just like now.

I think they should be paid from their STATE treasuries whatever stipend the state legislature deem "appropriate" for their service.

Oooh, I like that...  :devious:
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: vesta111 on February 19, 2013, 09:22:50 AM
The only problem I see with this is the congress-shits raising taxes every year so they get a paycheck + a nice "bonus".

Of course, they will be "exempt" from any said tax hikes, just like now.

I think they should be paid from their STATE treasuries whatever stipend the state legislature deem "appropriate" for their service.

^5 to you, this is the best idea I have seen in years.     Citizens will be more likely to become choosy about their Representatives if they know their taxes could go up if they choose wrong and down if they choose a person that deserves a raise.   
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Big Dog on February 19, 2013, 10:42:00 AM
I think they should get minimum wage or even better a monthly salary that matches the salaries of the enlisted men and women. They start off at E-1 pay and can work their way up with each term up to E-9. To solve the having two house issue we set up barracks in DC and they stay in bunks, they get a chow hall and buses to run them back and forth. They get vouchers to fly in coach seating to go home and to come to DC for each session. I would also limit sessions to one a year and everything else they want to do they can use SKYPE.

I like the way you think.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Dori on February 19, 2013, 11:04:08 AM
Have Reps and Senators always received a pay check?

They used to serve shorter terms and kept their farms and businesses back home. 

Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Maxiest on February 19, 2013, 11:10:53 AM
Have Reps and Senators always received a pay check?

They used to serve shorter terms and kept their farms and businesses back home. 



1789-1815 -- $6.00 per diem
1815-1817 -- $1,500 per annum
1817-1855 -- $8.00 per diem
1855-1865 -- $3,000 per annum
1865-1871 -- $5,000 per annum
1871-1873 -- $7,500 per annum
1873-1907 -- $5,000 per annum
1907-1925 -- $7,500 per annum
1925-1932 -- $10,000 per annum
1932-1933 -- $9,000 per annum
1933-1935 -- $8,500 per annum
1935-1947 -- $10,000 per annum
1947-1955 -- $12,500 per annum
1955-1965 -- $22,500 per annum
1965-1969 -- $30,000 per annum
1969-1975 -- $42,500 per annum
1975-1977 -- $44,600 per annum
1977-1978 -- $57,500 per annum
1979-1983 -- $60,662.50 per annum
1983 -- $69,800 per annum
1984 -- $72,600 per annum
1985-1986 -- $75,100 per annum
1987 (1/1-2/3) -- $77,400 per annum
1987 (2/4) -- $89,500 per annum
1990 (2/1) -- $98,400 per annum
1991 -- $101,900 per annum
1991 (8/15) -- $125,100 per annum
1992 -- $129,500 per annum
1993 -- $133,600 per annum
1994 -- $133,600 per annum
1995 -- $133,600 per annum
1996 -- $133,600 per annum
1997 -- $133,600 per annum
1998 -- $136,700 per annum
1999 -- $136,700 per annum
2000 -- $141,300 per annum
2001 -- $145,100 per annum
2002 -- $150,000 per annum
2003 -- $154,700 per annum
2004 -- $158,100 per annum
2005 -- $162,100 per annum
2006 -- $165,200 per annum
2007 -- $165,200 per annum
2008 -- $169,300 per annum
2009 -- $174,000 per annum
2010 -- $174,000 per annum
2011 -- $174,000 per annum
2012 -- $174,000 per annum
2013 -- $174,000 per annum
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: GOBUCKS on February 19, 2013, 03:27:02 PM
Probably the only way to make our government more corrupt would be to put it in the hands of people who really need their government salaries to support their families.

If you think we have bribery and corruption now, just wait until wage slaves are in charge of everything. Such people used to be called bolsheviks.

I'll take my chances with people who have been successful in life.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Maxiest on February 19, 2013, 03:32:21 PM
Probably the only way to make our government more corrupt would be to put it in the hands of people who really need their government salaries to support their families.

If you think we have bribery and corruption now, just wait until wage slaves are in charge of everything. Such people used to be called bolsheviks.

I'll take my chances with people who have been successful in life.

Yeah, we don't want this guy running the country.

Quote
Average Net Worth: $-534,990*

Minimum Net Worth: $-1,260,972
Maximum Net Worth: $190,993

Seems really financial responsible. 

Joe Biden.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Dori on February 19, 2013, 04:03:07 PM
Yeah, we don't want this guy running the country.

Quote
Average Net Worth: $-534,990*

Minimum Net Worth: $-1,260,972
Maximum Net Worth: $190,993

Seems really financial responsible.  

Joe Biden.
How did he manage to have a negative net worth?
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: formerlurker on February 19, 2013, 04:12:09 PM
Seems really financial responsible.  

Joe Biden.

How did he manage to have a negative net worth?


 Mortgages?

Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Maxiest on February 19, 2013, 04:13:16 PM
Seems really financial responsible.  

Joe Biden.

How did he manage to have a negative net worth?


Obviously can't manage money, but as I look at his resume.  He was a lawyer for 2 years and has been in public office ever since.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Maxiest on February 19, 2013, 04:16:16 PM
Mortgages?



Yep

Liabilities

Quote
J - Wilmington Savings Fund Society   Mortgage on Principal Residence (Including Rental Property)   $500,001 - $1,000,000

J - Wilmington Savings Fund Society   Home Equity LOC   $100,001 - $250,000

J - US Senate Federal Credit Union   Signature Note With Monthly Payments   $15,001 - $50,000

Wilmington Savings Fund Society   Line of Credit   $15,001 - $50,000

Sun National Bank, DE   Co-Signer With Son on LOC, Renewable Every 2 Years   $15,001 - $50,000

Mass Mutual Life Insurance Company Policies Bought Between 1969 and 1983   Loans Against Cash Value of Policies   $15,001 - $50,000

J - Wilmington Savings Fund Society   Home Equity LOC   $15,001 - $50,000
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Dori on February 19, 2013, 04:22:31 PM
Gads....His kids are grown and his wife holds a doctorate and is still working.  Why does he have all this debt?
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: diesel driver on February 19, 2013, 04:39:53 PM
Gads....His kids are grown and his wife holds a doctorate and is still working.  Why does he have all this debt?

He's SOOOOOO much smarter than we are.  We don't understand "higher finance" like those in government do.  [/DU mode off]

And people wonder why the country is in such deep financial SHIT!
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Tucker on February 19, 2013, 05:15:26 PM
Quote
J - Wilmington Savings Fund Society   Mortgage on Principal Residence (Including Rental Property)   $500,001 - $1,000,000

J - Wilmington Savings Fund Society   Home Equity LOC   $100,001 - $250,000

J - US Senate Federal Credit Union   Signature Note With Monthly Payments   $15,001 - $50,000

Wilmington Savings Fund Society   Line of Credit   $15,001 - $50,000

Sun National Bank, DE   Co-Signer With Son on LOC, Renewable Every 2 Years   $15,001 - $50,000

Mass Mutual Life Insurance Company Policies Bought Between 1969 and 1983   Loans Against Cash Value of Policies   $15,001 - $50,000

J - Wilmington Savings Fund Society   Home Equity LOC   $15,001 - $50,000

Didn't the DUmmies throw a conniption over Newts debts? Their contention was that a person with that much debt was unqualified to be President.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: GOBUCKS on February 19, 2013, 05:21:09 PM
Slow Joe is swimming in red ink due to all his charitable giving.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: delilahmused on February 19, 2013, 06:53:29 PM
My position that most of you won't agree with but we say that we want people from all walks of life and back grounds to be interested in service in Congress and the government.

But Congress truly pays too little for that to really happen. So instead, we get a significantly wealthier and less "normal" distribution of people in Congress because they have to be people that are financially well off enough to not "care" about the money.

I am not saying that I love Congress and think they are always great. But if you compare the level of responsibility and work to anything in the private sector they are truly underpaid.

Since they are underpaid monetarily, we end with a group of legislators that receive the majority of their pay in two ways:

1) Future wages: they garner support from outside groups with plans to one day become lobbyists and the like

2) Power: Many legislators love/enjoy the POWER and Attention their office brings them. Underpaying monetarily means that the people who are attracted to "service" get a significant amount of their compensation from feeding their desire for power.

Both of these "pay" options result in bad outcomes for the American people.

With all due respect, that's bullshit. The founders never intended for congress to be a "career" but a way for citizens to give back to this country, "service" as you say. A career in congress and lifetime pension isn't service. Term limits will take care of the power issue because even if that were what they were seeking, it would only be for a short time. Making a ton of money removes them from "the people" every bit as much as Hollywood liberals. Cocktail parties become more important that the issues facing those they were elected to represent. Give them a stipend and put them up in a modest congressional apartment building. I'd bet a fed-owned apartment building where we'd only have to pay for utilities (I'd even be willing to spring for HBO) would be cheaper than what we're paying now. And get rid of their lifetime pension. Every single one of those guys will have an opportunity to make plenty of money after their term is up without us having to pay for them. Lobbying firms, corporations & universities are open to them, as well as plenty of speaking engagements and consulting fees. Taking money from lobbyists while they're supposed to be serving is a CHOICE, not a "have to" so that's a damned lame excuse.

My son is in Afghanistan, what about his dignity? Isn't our military at least as important as congress? Every single man and woman over there (or in other dangerous places in the world) face a lot more danger than someone in congress who might suffer a paper cut and need a congressional band aid. And they don't even get a lifetime pension unless they make the military a career. Granted, the country cannot afford to pay the military those outrageous congressional salaries and these guys really do join to SERVE but it seems to me congress shouldn't be paid quadruple (or more) what these men and women earn. Heck, the closest my son has ever been to a cocktail party is the Marine Corps Ball and he has to buy tickets and pay for his own drinks. So spare me the "they want power and will take money from lobbyists" if we don't pay them enough. There are solutions to these issues that don't involve giving these idiots more money.

Cindie
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: NHSparky on February 19, 2013, 07:36:20 PM
Ladies and gents, considering that San Fran Nan's salary won't even pay her bar tab on her gub'mint flights, color me unimpressed.

Frankly, pay by contract.  X dollars for Y being completed.  Not done, no pay.  No budget?  No pay.  Didn't read the healthcare bill?  No pay.  And so it goes.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Traveshamockery on February 19, 2013, 08:23:03 PM
Isn't Joe Biden like 100 years old?  You'd think by this age, he'd be in better financial shape.  We also know that there is no way old Joe would be allowed to co-sign loans or take out the loans he has without being a senator. 

I'd love to see what his credit score is.  Bet it's not great.

In fact, that should be part of every politician's disclosure forms - their credit score.  Now wouldn't that be interesting?
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Maxiest on February 19, 2013, 09:29:37 PM
Isn't Joe Biden like 100 years old?  You'd think by this age, he'd be in better financial shape.  We also know that there is no way old Joe would be allowed to co-sign loans or take out the loans he has without being a senator. 

I'd love to see what his credit score is.  Bet it's not great.

In fact, that should be part of every politician's disclosure forms - their credit score.  Now wouldn't that be interesting?

I was thinking the same thing earlier.  Hell to be a Vice President, one shouldn't be in the financial shape he is in.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: JohnnyReb on February 20, 2013, 08:58:40 AM
....and to think that I was stupid enough to work my ass off, pinch pennies, do without and save money while democrats like Joe was partying their asses off, enjoying the good life on credit and now they want to take my savings to support themselves in their old age.

They can use a long leaf pine cone on their ass.....it's as large as a pineapple and 10 times stiffer and thornier.
Title: Re: Really Nancy???
Post by: Hathcock on February 20, 2013, 10:22:32 AM
She brings no dignity to the position she holds so why should she be treated with any dignity...
The members of all three branches of government should have their pay directly linked to the deficit. Years that the country is in the red, they don't get paid. Take it a step further and if spending goes over a preset percentage of GDP and no sitting member is eligible for re-election.