House Members Seek Pay Raise of $4,400

[Ps104_33]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite low approval ratings and hard feelings from last year's elections, Democrats and Republicans in the House are reaching out for an approximately $4,400 pay raise that would increase their salaries to almost $170,000.
The cost-of-living raise endorsed Wednesday evening gets lawmakers back on track for automatic pay raises after a fight between the parties last year and again in January killed the pay increase due this year. That was the first interruption of the annual congressional pay boost in seven years.

Is the vote going to be by secret ballot?



I know, I know. This is why we need Ron paul as president, right? But it will be interesting to see how he votes.







http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q1QF4O0&show_article=1&catnum=0

 

[KenH]

Ron Paul has never voted to raise congressional pay.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Good for ronnie. But he has his own issues.

 

[KenH]

Who among us doesn't have "his own issues", Timmy?

 

[TomVols]

Who among us is running for president? :laugh: Sorry..couldn't resist. :type:

 

[KenH]

Good point, Tom. :laugh:

 

[JamieinNH]

Who among the people that are running for President don't have issues? Let's not play the perfect game here... as no one is.

However I do believe that if one would truely weigh all canidates, then you would see that Ron Paul's imperfections are minor against some of the others...

Jamie

 

[TomVols]

You actually took some words right off of my keyboard.

Obviously, ethical issues are important, and we want people who have a solid moral footing in the Oval office. We've all seen what can happen if we don't.

What the "Ron Paul has issues" may mean is that he has campaign stances and has made public statements that make people wonder about his credentials, real stances, etc., just as virtually every other candidate has done. That's my take, anyway, and why I'm still completely undecided on my support for an '08 Pres candidate.

 

[KenH]

No one who understands English should have any problem whatsoever in understanding what Congressman Paul's "real" stances are.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

You actually took some words right off of my keyboard.

Obviously, ethical issues are important, and we want people who have a solid moral footing in the Oval office. We've all seen what can happen if we don't.

What the "Ron Paul has issues" may mean is that he has campaign stances and has made public statements that make people wonder about his credentials, real stances, etc., just as virtually every other candidate has done. That's my take, anyway, and why I'm still completely undecided on my support for an '08 Pres candidate.

I did not realize that I had to explain that. Maybe it is just because of a desire to turn what some do not like into something other than what it is.

 

[James_Newman]

I think it means that some people are so adamantly in favor of blowing up things in the middle-east that they would sell their children to China to make sure it keeps happening.

 

[TomVols]

No one who understands English should have any problem whatsoever in understanding what Congressman Paul's "real" stances are.

I understand English quite well, my friend. Because I do, Paul's double-speak worries me. Those have been delineated ad infinitim ad nauseaum. Those who understand English know that :laugh:

 

[TomVols]

I think it means that some people are so adamantly in favor of blowing up things in the middle-east that they would sell their children to China to make sure it keeps happening.

What on earth are you possibly referring to? Who here has mentioned anything about the Middle East? Is this some kind of lame attempt to attack those who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid yet?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

What on earth are you possibly referring to? Who here has mentioned anything about the Middle East? Is this some kind of lame attempt to attack those who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid yet?

Just more liberal rhetoric spued from the DOR's (disciples of ronnie)

 

[James_Newman]

What on earth are you possibly referring to? Who here has mentioned anything about the Middle East? Is this some kind of lame attempt to attack those who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid yet?

Sorry if I spoke out of turn. The only real issue that most people have with Ron Paul is that he is against the continuing interventionism in the middle-east, but maybe there is something else I'm missing.

 

[TomVols]

Sorry if I spoke out of turn. The only real issue that most people have with Ron Paul is that he is against the continuing interventionism in the middle-east, but maybe there is something else I'm missing.

Well, you are. At least as far as I'm concerned. I've yet to decide who to support, and Rep. Paul is as likely as any, but I have legitimate concerns. His non-interventionist stance (Not just for the Middle East) is not one of my concerns necessarily.

 

[KenH]

Paul's double-speak worries me

If you will provide some examples I will be happy to try to help you with them.

 

[KenH]

Just more liberal rhetoric spued from the DOR's (disciples of ronnie)

Timmy,

As a supporter of Congressman Paul, I am a libertarian, not a conservative, not a liberal, not a moderate, not a socialist, not a communist.

If don't understand libertarianism I will be glad to help you with it.

 

[TomVols]

If you will provide some examples I will be happy to try to help you with them.

Like I said earlier, I really don't want to hash and rehash stuff, Ken. You know me; I'm an honest seeker, not a bash Paul kinda guy. While some have been attempted to be assuaged, some Paul supporters shrugged their shoulders with me on them wondering why he seemed to be speaking both ways. I don't believe it is Paul playing to whatever crowd he's listening to It's probably more him caught giving soundbites when he isn't intending to. At any rate, I'm not dodging the question, I just don't want to go open up cans of worms that have been emptied already

 

[Ps104_33]

If don't understand libertarianism I will be glad to help you with it.

I thought Ron Paul was a Republican.