27th Amendment

http://news.yahoo.com/27th-amendment-gets-publicity-budget-battle-111609688.html

So basically theyre saying we cant hold there pay up as plan till they pass a budget due to the 27th adm.?

Chrissy wrote:So basically theyre saying we cant hold there pay up as plan till they pass a budget due to the 27th adm.?

I thought they said they could hold there pay.

bigt wrote:

Chrissy wrote:So basically theyre saying we cant hold there pay up as plan till they pass a budget due to the 27th adm.?

I thought they said they could hold there pay.

I could be confused lol

It seemed like to me that they were going toinvoke this rrely used or even acknowledged admendment because they were being threatened with having thierpay frozen till they come up with a budget.

The way it seems they are using it is that the admendment says during sessionthier pay cant change. well, no pay is certainly a change lol, even though thier pay would be acrueing, wich I think is where the debate lies.

Again, i could be confused, but that was how i read it. I only read it once. Ill check it out again later to see if i mis interpreted it. first glance dont always count.

Chrissy wrote:

bigt wrote:

Chrissy wrote:So basically theyre saying we cant hold there pay up as plan till they pass a budget due to the 27th adm.?

I thought they said they could hold there pay.

I could be confused lol

It seemed like to me that they were going toinvoke this rrely used or even acknowledged admendment because they were being threatened with having thierpay frozen till they come up with a budget.

The way it seems they are using it is that the admendment says during sessionthier pay cant change. well, no pay is certainly a change lol, even though thier pay would be acrueing, wich I think is where the debate lies.

Again, i could be confused, but that was how i read it. I only read it once. Ill check it out again later to see if i mis interpreted it. first glance dont always count.

The article was a little confusing, some say they can hold it, some say not.

bigt wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

bigt wrote:

Chrissy wrote:So basically theyre saying we cant hold there pay up as plan till they pass a budget due to the 27th adm.?

I thought they said they could hold there pay.

I could be confused lol

It seemed like to me that they were going toinvoke this rrely used or even acknowledged admendment because they were being threatened with having thierpay frozen till they come up with a budget.

The way it seems they are using it is that the admendment says during sessionthier pay cant change. well, no pay is certainly a change lol, even though thier pay would be acrueing, wich I think is where the debate lies.

Again, i could be confused, but that was how i read it. I only read it once. Ill check it out again later to see if i mis interpreted it. first glance dont always count.

The article was a little confusing, some say they can hold it, some say not.

But just like private sector jobs pay should be tied to productivity and if that was the case none of them would get paid a dime.

bigt wrote:

bigt wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

bigt wrote:

Chrissy wrote:So basically theyre saying we cant hold there pay up as plan till they pass a budget due to the 27th adm.?

I thought they said they could hold there pay.

I could be confused lol

It seemed like to me that they were going toinvoke this rrely used or even acknowledged admendment because they were being threatened with having thierpay frozen till they come up with a budget.

The way it seems they are using it is that the admendment says during sessionthier pay cant change. well, no pay is certainly a change lol, even though thier pay would be acrueing, wich I think is where the debate lies.

Again, i could be confused, but that was how i read it. I only read it once. Ill check it out again later to see if i mis interpreted it. first glance dont always count.

The article was a little confusing, some say they can hold it, some say not.

But just like private sector jobs pay should be tied to productivity and if that was the case none of them would get paid a dime.

I think there should be some ay th people should have to insure that our gov employees are doing thier job. apparently we keep electing these sorry assed dumbasses or it could be that we really dont have a vote in this country anymore and just think we do. Im pretty cynical at this point.

bigt wrote:

But just like private sector jobs pay should be tied to productivity and if that was the case none of them would get paid a dime.[/quote]

Let's not forget that accountability and productivity in the private sector applies across the board except for those in the financial industry. They can screw up the entire economy of the world and walk away with bonuses. Their pay is protected presumably because they're so important.

Good God, Chrissy, are you having a conversation with your own sock?

Floridatexan wrote:
Good God, Chrissy, are you having a conversation with your own sock?

Playing with yourself is natural. But thats not what I'm doing right now.

Floridatexan wrote:
Good God, Chrissy, are you having a conversation with your own sock?

You freaking idiot! Big T doesnt like guns and is turning out to be a little on the liberal side and you think it is a chrissy sock?

Fuckin moron! Go back to sleep.

Well you got me gunz in fact I just threw out my little 38 I've had for 30 years.

Nightmare oh dreams I can assure you I am not Chrissy's sock, but wouldn't mind being her panties.

bigt wrote:Well you got me gunz in fact I just threw out my little 38 I've had for 30 years.

Nightmare oh dreams I can assure you I am not Chrissy's sock, but wouldn't mind being her panties.