Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Wants YouTube Video Covered Up
Hugh Pickens writes "Wisconsin Republicans claim that no one else can republish a video of United States Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) complaining about how he is 'struggling' to get by on his $174,000 salary without their permission, even though they originally released the video on YouTube for the whole world to see. Now the GOP is trying to take legal action to stop anyone else from republishing the video. The tape caused a stir for Duffy, a first-term conservative best known for his past as a reality TV show star on MTV's The Real World after Democrats flagged the comments about his taxpayer-funded salary, which is nearly three times the median income in Wisconsin, and criticisms began to flow Duffy's way. Here's a one-minute clip, excerpted from roughly 45 minutes of video of the public Duffy townhall, that the Polk County GOP doesn't want anyone to see."
... champion of traditional American values like free speech and personal responsibility!
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
It's OK if you use FOIA to threaten academics, but it's not OK if the GOP gets caught with their pants down?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
GO back to your free-market corporation.
WE liberals will go ahead and continue to run government according to socialist principles.
The less freedom-loving libertarians, the better. (hint: it's because freedom is code-word for corporate control.)
I can't believe this story isn't tagged with streisandeffect or something... to that effect.
50,000 characters used to live here.
I'm sure you have a lot in common.
the mostly lower middle class tea party types will understanding that declaring war on the poor and passing laws that reward the rich will actually damage this country far more than the social programs, high taxes, and labor unions they hate. let us hope this is not a third world country when they realize that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
maybe the GOP should let the top 10% income pay even less taxes ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
There's currently a charitable food and clothing drive designed to assist our indigent struggling Republican Senator.
WON'T YOU PLEASE HELP!
http://upt.org/misc/SeanDuffyCharity.jpg
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
State open records act, and FOIA where relevant.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
isn't video/audio of a public servant saying/doing something automagically made public domain?
the internet..brought to you by american tax dollars.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Having 7 kids without the way to pay for them is living outside of your means.
Isn't that what the GOP hates so much? Why is it so righteous to have so many kids? It's not. It's as bad as the welfare mom that has a Cadillac.
EVERYONE in Congress gets $174,000, people. Whatever your opinion is about the video, his salary is irrelevant. Keep that part out of it, unless you want to start asking why Chris Dodd needed a super deal on a Countrywide mortgage with his $174,000 salary, or Charlie Rangel needed to omit his properties and stock holdings from his tax returns, or why VP Biden doesn't donate anything to charity when he makes even more than Congress.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Won't you please take a moment to think of your poor, starving representatives in Washington DC? They barely get by on $476 per day. With your unreported gifts you can help make their lives more comfortable and perhaps get something in return. Please act now, don't wait until it's too late. Send your dollars to: Starving GOP c/o Sean Duffy, Washington DC
Gosh. I feel so stupid and selfish when I complain about my salary and lack of pay increase for over 5 years. I'm truly humbled.
Welp, about lunch time. Have to see what's in the bins around the park.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
living in the Washington DC area is a little more expensive than living in Wisconsin - but he still screwed up pointing it out ...
Just because no one watches CSPAN doesn't mean that we shouldn't be able to watch you talk through other media outlets.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Seriously, liberal and homosexual are good things.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yet another fellow who is going to experience the full blast of the Streisand effect.
...now suddenly puts it in the public domain?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Obviously he should focus on making cuts to his expenditures, because he can't expect hard-working taxpayers to increase his revenue. They're taxed enough already.
Alternatively, he can always hold up a sign: "Will legislate for food", or get a second job to make ends meet.
[What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander]
Babs called... says you're doing it wrong.
Also, something about it all ending in tears.
The Digital Sorceress
Someone or something needs to teach opportunistic politicians the difference between aggressive opportunism, and principled action.
Going to court or to the floor of Congress to force the erasure of your mistakes is definitely in the opportunism column.
The system isn't broken at all. On the contrary, it's working exactly as designed -- not by "the people", but by the executives who run the business of government.
Did anyone really expect any differently? The people who run the business of government work precisely for themselves, just like anybody else. Without strict limits on the scope of government, measured both in revenue and power over the people, government is absolutely guaranteed to get bigger and bigger until corruption is the norm rather than the exception.
I typically vote Republican for the simple reason that they tend to screw me over a little bit less, but with crackpots like this, I might as well just start writing in Homer Simpson for every election.
Assuming we don't want to be forest-dwelling hunter-gatherers, no single person can do everything necessary to survive. Food-production alone is a cooperative effort, not to mention the manufacture of all our modern luxuries, power production etc.
So, we can't be completely free. Somebody somewhere has to do the work. And while there are a few categories of work that people are willing to do for free, we remain completely dependent on the precise sort of manual labor that nobody will do unless forced.
So long as these necessities are in place, there will *always* be an oppressive aristocracy with far greater wealth than they will ever need, and the financial policies they put in place will *always* ensure that the opportunities for upward class mobility are few and far between.
The only way for humanity to achieve any sort of real freedom would be for us to invent a fully automated, self-maintaining robotic labor force. Even then, transitioning to a society built upon such a force would require a fundmental shift of values (not to mention an uprooting of entrenched powers), and as such it would be neither smooth nor short.
the mostly lower middle class tea party types will understanding that declaring war on the poor and passing laws that reward the rich will actually damage this country far more than the social programs, high taxes, and labor unions they hate. let us hope this is not a third world country when they realize that
This is what you get when your education systems turn out a load of morons - people who don't understand Macro Economics, Separation of Powers and Government Finance, but they do know how to have their heads filled with propaganda without so much as the mention of 'critical thinking' and vote against their own best interests.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Listen.
If you want quality talent, and people more difficult to bribe/influence, you MUST pay them well.
What's the average CEO's pay? What's the average salary in any national sports league? What about a successful TV star? Movie star? Race car driver? Author? Put another way, what's the average salary for someone that made it to the TOP of their career?
A federal politician is just that -- at the top of their career chain. You get more for running committees, you get even more if you're the President.
Frankly, I think some of these people are *under* paid. Does the president make any where near what the #1, top billed movie star make? What was the top paid baseball player paid last year? Who makes more -- the top of the largest corporation in the US, or the President?
People need to be paid in line with comparables!
It really annoys me when I see people working on assembly lines, or front line jobs, complaining that their salary isn't any where near what some politician's is. How about this ... work your ass off, clearly be extremely skilled in your field, have a *goal* to make the big bucks,and don't make mistakes that might derail you -- and then complain to me if you don't make it.
It's great to see a media savvy politician who really understands the Internet, having been on 'The Real World' and all, trying to ban a video. Consequences will never be the same!
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
last i recall, a public figure classifies under celebrity status which protects any member of the public from being sued for publishing content about said public figure. the only way this can get you in trouble is if you publish it with the intent of actual malice. i believe the video was published just to reveal the truth. http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/libel.htm if i'm wrong, please let me know.
keep them dumb enough to be in a constant state of propagandized anger, and make sure they die before they wise up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Once the genie escapes theres no putting him back in his bottle.
Struggling on almost a 200k salary? That's pretty sad.
I'll tell you what, lets switch salaries, then you can call that struggling.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Why do Republicans have this preoccupation with things being shoved down their throats ?
And it's a matter of personal responsibility that you maintain the means to secure your own medical care, and not expect society (taxpayers) to foot the bill. Because it's fascism to insist you carry health insurance.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
but it is just a reminder that all politicians suck. They all want to screw with your lives just to enhance their egos.
Government spending is "good" as long as it is for the people who deserve it. People who look like me. People who think like me. Real Americans like me.
Government spending is "bad" when it is for people who don't deserve it. People who don't look like me. People who don't think like me. The people who are ruining this country.
The Daily Show covered this. And they always do a great job.
A banker making $250,000 is barely above the poverty line. Cut them a break! Look at all the good they do for this country!
A teacher making $50,000 is living a lavish lifestyle on the public's dime. They're spending this country into bankruptcy. And they're doing it in only 9 months out of a year.
RE: taxation - I only agree because the top 10% pays zero (ZERO) taxes in America, with our 35% tax rate.
Making that more sane is the first step, but no matter what happens corporations have to step up and pay for doing business in America. Period.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
say hi to Sean
Congressman Wants YouTube Video Covered Up. So what? Why is this new for nerds? Why does this matter? The Huffpo is over there if you want to carp about the Republicans.
Lets just drop that old saw right now. Taxing the top 10% does NOT discourage job creation..... taxes can encourage growth.
Taxes are based upon PROFIT. Give a wealthy man a choice between paying taxes or investing in his assets/employees/business, they will choose to create jobs.
By having low taxes on the top 10%, you encourage them to pocket as much money as they can....and use that money to buy up competition. You are then encouraging larger monopolistic businesses...which I feel are less efficient, worse for the economy, worse for the country, less rewarding to their staff, and then are "too big to fail".
On the contrary, tax the heck out record profits, and you encourage the top 10% to invest in their people/business/assets.....thereby helping the economy.
Am I missing something. Seems like common sense to me. I don't think the democrats understand economics either though....
In the distinguished and comely congressperson's defense, no matter how much money you're making, all you really need to do to cripple yourself financially is buy a house. My wife and I make decent money and went ahead and purchased a small but expensive (well...it *was* expensive...) home in a quiet neighborhood with a tennis club we could walk to. We have extra income still, but we think of how much more of it we might have if our monthly bills for the house hadn't tripled compared to the last house we owned. But it's a choice, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. Same as this guy in the article.
Nope. Your premiums went up because the CxO's in your HMO all got bonuses.
College kids are usually the cheapest for medical insurance. They don't get sick that often. They're healthy.
I don't get it, why don't politicians get paid minimum wage and refuse all other income/gifts? The position of influence is a privilege, the paycheck is not the goal of such a position. If you're repulsed by the position because of the paycheck, then you don't belong there. And if politicians don't believe that minimum wage is enough for them to live off of, then let them raise it.
Twinstiq, game news
The median household income is around $50k. $174k puts his family at an income in the top 5% in the United States. What does this say about his ability to manage money if he can't live within his means on such a high income? Unless I'm missing something. Does he have a child or wife with with special needs?
Looks pretty good to me :(
At some point you have to ask whether or not it's okay to enslave robots that are capable of doing everything humans can do.
Besides, free labor doesn't mean we won't need police, education, etc. You can't have a utopia from free labor alone.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Not sure why this is marked troll, it is a valid point
Like being conservative, being liberal can be good or bad, based on the situation.
As for homosexual. It's not good or bad, it just is.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Letting people choose how they want to live their own lives? Not in my America!
ayn rand writes out of concern for the poor downtrodden captains of industry. it sounds like a joke. nominally, this is an audience of 0.001% of the population with every perk in life you can imagine
but aspirationally, everyone is a future captain of industry inside their own minds. so they actually sympathize with the captains of industry, their "peers." while the real world captains of industry are paying off their elected representatives to betray middle class interests to fatten corporate coffers (less safety regulations, lower wages, less healthcare responsibility, etc.)
joe blow imagines himself a big man, inside his own head. waiting for the day he wins the lottery and joins his rightful place alongside other great men like himself. so of course he happily shafts policies that effects his next door neighbors, his city and town, the future of his children and their education, and even himself, his healthcare. so blinded is he
it's a neat psychological trick: everyone is a legend in their own minds. and it is why political philosophies written for the benefit of ultrarich fat cats robbing the middle class blind are seen as normal and appealing to people who otherwise suffer through every day hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck, with nothing to show for the toil. sad and pathetic, in a way. and completely real, and common
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This guy should be taken behind the chemical shed.
"The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
Duh.
are the ones below 100 on the iq bell curve. its really not that complicated why expenditures that are clearly of benefit to the maintenance of a modern civilization make sense. they do in every other modern country, right?
well, those expenditures don't make sense if you aren't that bright, and corporations who are willing to do anything to make more cash, including sabotaging the society and workers that enable them, propagandize the low of iq on faux news channels, appealing to their emotions rather than their sense of reason
the crime is how money warps the political process with propaganda serving the interest of the moneyed making more money, and not very bright agreeing with the moneyed interests, even though it just means they get poorer, but they are too dumb to realize how important it is to maintain society's standards
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In two years my company will no longer be able to provide deductable free insurance (we aren't a union shop, so no exclusions). So I am rationing my health care to help fund an FSA so that I will have similar insurance to what I had just last year.
"Greed is good".
As long as you're a visionary producer that drives this world.
And let's face it, you ARE! Because you know you are and you're getting paid more than x% of the population. And you did it all on your own! By having the foresight to get the right parents in the right city and the right economic level.
John Galt would want to have a beer with you. He'd think you were pretty cool.
So do what John Galt would do. When you know that you're being oppressed by those who aren't as deserving as you are ... leave.
Find some place away from everyone else and build your own Utopia for you and those like you. Let the rest of the nation rot. Go ahead. John Galt would have done it that way.
Duff-man, take her call. I think she can explain it to you.
Well, I have to say the GOP may have a case here. Releasing it on You Tube 'for the whole world to see' does not mean giving up their rights under copyright. (Yes, there are fair use exceptions - but political attacks don't fall under fair use.)
Of course, you can criticize the party....once.
Welcome to the new conservative USSA, now with exciting new political correctness!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Ask for it to be taken down legally!
While it may seem absurd to think of someone complaining about their $174k salary being low. If he's having to fly back and forth to Wisconsin, picking up his own fare and having to keep dual residences, he may well have some struggles. It all depends on how much of the expenses associated with travel and lodging and other related essentials he is having to keep up with on that salary. I make $68k a year and just with the very minimal amount of travel I have to cover for my family and I, it can be a stretch. And we don't even have to keep up with two homes.
Surely this guy wasn't let out alone? So that means his handlers think what he said wasn't that bad ... so the delusions are epidemic. As a parent of four, yes it does take a pile of money to raise kids. As a parent of four, I respect the fact that was my choice. As a parent of four, I tell Duffy to suck it up, sell the vacation home, and quit complaining about $600 for insurance (try and get that in the real private sector!). Any place the free market and or free choice has touched this guys life he's either whined about it or screwed it up. He must be really really stupid, malicious, or in bed with the Kocks to keep pushing the Republican agenda. Dumb as a bag of hammers.
Using Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, for an example:
CEO Cleve L. Killingsworth gets 26% raise to $3.5m(citation)
Blue Cross Financial results for 2010: $13.4m profit on operating loss of $100.7m and investment profit of $111.4m
BCBSMA % of revenue going to administrative costs: 10%. (Presumably, this includes CEO wages.)
BCBSMA enrollment: 2.9 million members in December 2010.
The thing to remember about soaking the rich is that you're peeing into a very big pool. If you claw back the entirety of the CEO's salary, each member gets just over $1 more of coverage (or rebate) for that year.
Assume for the sake of argument that there are 30 CxO officers getting that same salary. There almost certainly aren't, but we'll pretend for exaggeration purposes. So to be 20% of your insurance premium, you have to be spending no more than $150/year on health insurance. (~$30/year / 20%).
$150/year health insurance is a fantasy. Average annual premium for an individual is over $2,000, for a family, $6,000. (cite)
Could BCBSMA have used a good portion of that $3.5m for coverage? Sure, they could have. But you would not have noticed the difference.
Erh... care to tell me about the homosexual-liberal agendas that affect you negatively?
I don't know much about the homosexual agendas (bluntly, I don't care too much about things that don't affect me...), but I didn't identify anything that I would make me go "oh no, that's going to make my life miserable!"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Go here: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/video-wisconsin-gop-doesnt-want-you-see-gas , get the video and upload it everywhere :) It downloads as a .WMV
Also, having to maintain two houses is living outside your means. Congress members usually have to maintain their home in-state, and also find a place to live inside DC when Congress is in session.
Considering he was already making $150k before being elected, the bump to 175 isn't a whole lot. He's spending more than he needs to, certainly, with a 5-acre house and another vacation home.
Here's the take-away. He probably is struggling, but he also represents the typical American more than any other Congressman out there right now. Spending what he can afford in terms of monthly payments on debt, not paying cash. Adding a place to crash in D.C. probably made this an overall pay cut form him.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/so-how-rich-is-sean-duffy-not-very-for-a-congressman.php
the single biggest thing people forget is that Senators and Representatives have to live in a very expensive city. $174k in Washington, with a family house and a D.C. pad is not a pile of money, although it is generous. I'd rather be generous than risk that every single one of them immediately turn to bribes to get by.
I guess this pusbag hasn't been in Congress long enough to supplement his salary with bribes from America's corporations.
"I found the most convincing part to be the working stiffs, the guys who have a modest home and kids who go to public schools. They make $75,000 to $100,000 a year. That's not much to live on. I don't have to tell you that."
-Jack Valenti, talking about people in the music industry
Most of the average US citizens interactions with their government are fairly poor. Their representatives ignore their requests. The motor vehicle department has poor customer service and poor record keeping skills. Our roads are underfunded and poorly maintained. They hear about fraud waste and corruption in local, state and federal agencies. Outside of firemen, most American citizens do not seem to have great expereinces at all with our services recieved.
Our government has a poor track record, so why would they expect medical care provided by the government to be any different?
On the otherhand, the Federal TSP program has a great rate of return and lower costs than most big name investment firms, yet people who want the Federal government to get involved in health care won't use the same logic for the government getting involved in alternatives to our social spending on the elderly.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Try to live in DC and the surround area. It is painfully expensive. I dropped $260 on food this week for a family of 3.5.
The way I see it, liberal means generous, which is good. And homosexual has the word 'sex' in it, which makes it good too.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That's like saying "7 is a prime number. 7 is a real number. Therefore all real numbers can be prime if they want to be." It just doesn't work like that.
I mean, teachers work 6 hour days for 180 days a year, right? For less than 4x a teacher's salary, the WI legislature is in session for almost 60 days (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/leginfo/session.htm) every single year. I don't know how he ever has a chance to spend time with his family.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
They want limited government, in the sense that they want the government limited to the shit that benefits them.
--Shamelessly misquoted from The Daily Show
And that is probably half the problem right there. Perhaps instead all members of congress/senate/president should be forced to have -no- salary and live in taxpayer provided dorm housing w/ meals. With all upgrades to housing and/or meal plans must be voted on on the national level by the registered voting public -not- by the members of congress themselves.
Perhaps if it was a actual sacrifice to serve your country in that particular capacity again we might get some people who are half decent running.
Ahh so much for wishful thinking...
In my second paragraph above, it should read, "You could argue that if there had not been the Social Security trust fund (and yes, it's an actual trust fund with actual value) the federal deficit would be much much higher."
I apologize for the error. I get all worked up when I see this kind of Right-wing corporatist bullshit and it sometimes causes me to type too fast.
You are welcome on my lawn.
....now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Damn it's true, you've got 26 broken keys!
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
because it truly exposes the real problem in government. Government employee pay is out of control. We have judges retiring in Georgia who make over 100K in retirement, some are close to 200K and they just tens of thousands of government employees retiring with 100k per pay packages. This does not include the cost of their health care or other sundries.
While the focus is currently on unionized government employees the real fight is to reign them all in. If the problems we have at the state level in Georgia are a good example can you imagine what it is like with all 50 states and then topping that off with Federal and local government employees? Yes the guys at the bottom don't have it as good and I have no problem with an acceptable amount of pay and retirement pay. Yet the papers are replete nationally with stories of fire fighters, policemen, and teachers with retirements from 60k to the mid 100k. Guess who isn't being drummed to death over this, the politicians signing off on this. Why? Because they don't want it out that they have it even better than the guys that taking the heat now.
This is what is awakening the public. While the Tea Party gets focus for dragging some of this out because of the candidates they supported all Americans benefit knowing what is being done. Like the treasury example of how they don't think the costs of living are rising because they don't measure the staples what we see here is the total disconnect the government has from reality.
We are living in a country where the truly privileged are the very people we expect to look out for us. While they attack the very wealthy via class warfare they live in an OZ world where we are not supposed to look behind the curtain. We have more deficit spending per year than many G7 countries have total budget but all we see is politicians being vilified for trying to get only $100 billion in cuts - we will lose more than that in interest payments this year!
This guy is just another idiot, like the Chicago doctor who could not live off of 350k. They live beyond their means because they don't think they are part of regular America - they are the "smart ones" - the ones born to lead or do the "hard" work and gloss over their failings by blaming us.
You think the federal debt is bad, go hunt up our pension liabilities, let alone current costs of just paying for the people who run this place
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
It's called rent. And for $1000/mo ($12k/yr) he can easily rent a studio apt in DC that he'll use less than 30 weeks a year (congress has about 22-24 weeks of recess each year). It may even be deductible as a business expense. So for that $25,000, he's got to shell out $12,000 in rent and $3k in utilities.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Anybody who "struggles to meet his bills" while making $174,000 is not qualified to manage any kind of budget.
My bad - he's a US rep - they are in session almost 30 weeks a year - that's closer to 150 days a year. Still, whatever you do, don't throw me into that briar patch.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Wait, he works as a tax assessor for the government, and they call that "welfare"? Do we call corporate accountants "beggars" now too because they accept hand-outs from corporations for their whole life?
No, collecting a paycheck from a government job whilst at the same time complaining that you're anti-government and anti-spending is called hypocrisy.
Putting moderation advice in your
The guy isn't saying hes struggling on his 174k salary, the guy just started getting this level of pay, and if you watch the video hes saying hes only had one paycheck at this salary so far and hes still got alot of debt and what not from his education/family situation. He says once he gets more paychecks he'll probably be doing alot better.
Can we not do the same type of stupid out of context/deliberate misinterpretation slanderous crap that everyone with a brain is already really tired of?
People talking about hypocrisy and integrity about this story are just as bad as the people they are complaining about.
20110401
CN, RU, EU, US totalitarian republics seek new treaty to "Open" share all W3/I3-Silencer software for Globally Assured Security (GAS).
GAS is considered an essential solution to domestic problems. Global religious figures seek partnership with GAS as a pacifier for internal infidel communities.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Let's see how stephan colbert and john stewart feel about this
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Seriously, liberal and homosexual are good things.
What is now called "classical liberalism" i.e. something a lot like libertarianism is a great thing. It's one of the few ideologies that doesn't make the gigantic mistake of drawing an artificial distinction between personal freedom and economic freedom. The result of that false distinction is that anyone with a realistic chance of winning an election is going to restrict freedom of some kind.
Unless you're really worried about population then homosexuality isn't some inherently virtuous affair, no more than heterosexuality. I personally consider what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes to be none of my business and by extension, none of the state's business. I am not striving to make homosexuals approve of my heterosexuality. If it disgusts them, I am indifferent to that and believe their are entitled to their opinion, wasted effort though it may be.
Likewise, any concern any of them have about whether heterosexuals approve of their homosexuality is useless and a complete waste of effort. The only thing that matters is that government doesn't invade the privacy of our homes and tell us what we are and aren't allowed to do there. Far as marriage goes, I can't say there's any really good reason why the state is involved in it at all, for either heteros or homos.
I'd rather marriage be a personal and/or religious affair. A sane tax code, i.e. getting rid of all income taxes and replacing them with sales taxes would make that much more clear (c.f. Fair Tax Act). You can share ownership of property with someone whether or not you're married to them; for example multiple names can be on the deed to a home or the title of a car or the owner of a bank account. All of the couples who currently co-habitate but are not officially married understand this. So what's the overriding reason why anyone requires a legal contract with the state government in order to love someone? None, unless you accept "that's the way we've always done it" as a solid reason. Would not the recognition of that and a respect for the freedom of adults eliminate all the phoney controversies about gay marriage?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
that you are substituting shooting the messenger for manning up and admitting you are wrong.
As I explained before, liberal means generous, and generosity is a good thing. And the word "homosexual" has the word "sex" in it, which makes it good as well. ;)
Economic freedom will not exist without a guaranteed national income, like some European Democratic socialist states have. Flat out take from the rich and give to the poor. Anything else leads to domination by the ultra wealthy.
The so-called "fair tax" is anything but. It is regressive, meaning that a poor person pays a larger percentage of their income in taxes than a rich person, even though the rich person is obviously getting more for their money.
People do not need a contract with the state to love someone. They need a contract to protect their rights. Without such a contract, they will not have inheritance rights, joint property rights, hospital visitation rights, and about 1,000 other rights that come along with marriage.
Classical liberalism is nothing like the bastard anarchy of libertarianism. Libertarianism, as it exists in America today, was invented by the Koch brothers. Anyone practicing it is an unpaid tool of the ultra wealthy owning class elites.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I don't know that he does, but I would speculate it probably costs a lot of money to put six kids through private school. If they could trim most of the public K-12 spending out of the state budget, they could lower his tax rate by $5000 per year. That would help a lot. And keep all those paychecks out of Union Members hands.
Sorry I wasn't more clear.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Charlie Sheen sure plays a good Gov Walker.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
meh, it's always a fine line
So you're saying that our Congress-critters should all start Couchsurfing profiles? Hell, that might actually help this country's political system out more than any other idea I've heard on the table so far.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
his taxpayer-funded salary which is nearly three times the median income in Wisconsin
That would be a damn high median income if true, but in fact the median salary in Wisconsin is $52,103, which closely matches the national average. So either he's making *more* than triple that, or else the figure of $174k for his salary is wrong.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
http://bloggingblue.com/2011/03/31/sean-duffy-aid/
...When you vote one of those spoiled MTV personalities into public office. Why would you ever put anybody who's ever been on any of their shows in charge? MTV has all but become the "glorify horrible people" channel.
It's easy to be generous with someone else's money, isn't it? Forced generosity adminstered by confiscatory taxation isn't generosity at all. Generosity is always voluntary. Perhaps you want to be a modern Robin Hood but you need to call it something else. If you really value generosity so much, persuade those around you to voluntarily help others. Explain to them what enlightened self-interest is all about so they understand that when those around them suffer less, they suffer less. That would be actual generosity.
The minimum wage is a way to put a floor on income.
The reason the ultra wealthy are so dominant is because money can buy political influence. If they simply owned wealth other people could also build wealth and own it too. They don't. They own wealth and they own the political system. They can give their buddies tax breaks and favorable policies while simultaneously raising the barriers to entry for anyone who would compete.
What I'd like to see is the complete elimination of the ruling class. The most practical way to accomplish that is to give all politicians a very generous allocation of public money with which to run their campaigns. Then expand the definition of treason (which has a death penalty) to include bribery of any public official, with "bribery" considered any gift that has any sort of monetary value. Then you can have more wealth than Bill Gates and it won't help you get someone elected.
Why is it that the people who are against the Fair Tax know so little about it? It is simply the most researched piece of legislation in all of history and that's no exaggeration. Simple objections you can make in five minutes have been settled. The Fair Tax includes a monthly tax rebate for all basics such as food. It is designed so that anyone at the poverty level effectively pays zero in taxes.
It also guarantees that the rich pay much more in taxes. Simply put, rich people buy more things than poor people and thus would be paying a lot more of the sales tax.
The only real opposition of the Fair Tax is coming from politicians who stand to lose a tremendous amount of power if it were passed. The income tax gives them the ability to manipulate behavior using carrot-and-stick methods. If they don't want you to do something, it is more heavily taxed. If they want you to do something, they provide tax breaks. There is a good reason a Constitutional amendment had to be passed to allow an income tax at all. It was not because the Founding Fathers never heard of income taxes.
Really? I can make sure that anyone I want inherits my property after I die. It's called a will. Married or not, if you don't have one it's because you don't care. I can share property with anyone I want. All I have to do is either directly give it to them for most household objects, or put their name on the title/deed for things like real estate and cars. If there is some law stating that I am not allowed to tell a hospital "I want this person to be able to visi
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
What sort of revisionist BS are you spouting? Political attacks are *exactly* the core of the 1st amendment. American's having been slinging dirt deserved and otherwise since the days of Thomas Jefferson who was on the receiving end of quite a bit of it. The relevant bit of text from the constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." From Wikipedia: Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government. Note the words *no law*? Copyright and ownership do not apply.
Do pay attention. The issue under discussion is copyright, not the First Amendment.
When you buy a hamburger, is the money still yours, or does it belong to the individual or group that sold you the hamburger? I believe it no longer belongs to you. If you pay your taxes in exchange for living in the society you want to live in, is the money yours or does it belong to the society? I believe that, as you have received the advantages of living in society, and you have paid for those advantages, a valid contract exists between you and your society, and the money you spent for the privilege of living in that society is no longer your money.
The minimum wage does not guarantee an income no matter what, and so, the poor will be desperate, and the rich will take advantage of them. If everyone made a minimum wage no matter what, say $20,000/year, employers would have to offer more value than that in order to attract employees, and they could no longer take advantage of the desperate, because no one would be desperate. If your choices are constrained by circumstance, you are not free. Society can help everyone to have more freedom than they would as isolated individuals, indeed, I believe that is society's purpose.
Wealth can buy political influence because we let it. We don't have to let it. We also don't have to allow some individuals to accumulate millions of times more resources than other individuals. This is how we get rid of the ruling class: place limits on ownership. Ensure everyone has control over some of the means of production, and you have no ruling class.
A will will not always guarantee that the person you love inherits your property. Your relatives can fight it in court. If your lover is of the same sex, they may even win. There is no law forbidding hospital visitation for your gay lover, but there is no law mandating it either, and in practice, many hospitals will not allow your gay lover to visit you. I'd say, the government has the same place in marriage that it has in any other contract, which is the defense of your rights. Register your contract, and get protections. There are two parts to marriage, the contract between the individuals, and the religious or societal part. Let the state enforce the first, and if people want, they can register with their church to enforce the second.
Rich people do not necessarily buy more things than poor people, most often, they invest most of their money. Tax people on their total wealth, and I might be interested in hearing about it. Otherwise, no. The fair tax is not, it is backed by a coalition of cheap labor conservatives, and the purpose of the tax is the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. The founding fathers had most certainly heard of income taxes, and allowed the states to levy them. What the constitution did not originally allow was Federal collection of taxes that were not allocated on a per capita basis.
Libertarians certainly want a police force to protect the property of the rich from the desperate poor, but they do not want police in the marketplace, keeping it free.
I don't want to tell you what to do with your body, life or mind. But I do want to offer you a deal. You see, I'm part of a society that offers great benefits to individuals. You will have more freedom, and more choices, living in my society than living by yourself. But you will have to pay for the deal, like you pay for anything that benefits you. If you do not like the deal, you are free to shop around among the hundreds of world governments for a better deal. Or, you can live as a hermit, out of the way somewhere, and you will not have to pay taxes at all. Up to you.
Libertarianism is the bastard child of the ultra wealthy raping anarchism. The Koch brothers are major backers of modern American libertarianism. They back the party because they do not want police in the market place. They use libertarianism as a tool to get the cops of their backs and let them take advantage of you. You probably don't even know what anarchism means. It does not mean "no government." That would be "anocracy." It means no archons, or tyrants.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
But but but... it's EXPENSIVE to live in Washington DC! Actually it _is_, but here is no excuse for Congressmen to be travelling to Washington DC anyway. Turn Capitol Hill into national monument and build on the Internet so these guys stay home with their constituents.
Seastead this.
Note: I have some experience with this, as I worked in my rural PA hometown Democrat Party's office while in college, and had contacts with both the local congresscritter and our national one...
Most "outside" opportunities that a congresscritter (CC from now on) has for making money are strictly proscribed by ethical and/or legal rules. They're not allowed to take advantage of their high social status in the way that you would think. In addition, their spouse is held to pretty much the same standard, so there's no opportunity for extra income there.
About the only outside income they can make is from a book or media appearances. Book deals are by far the best option for extra cash, but you'd have to be someone already in the media limelight to get it - a hard-working normal CC isn't going to get a book deal. It's only the asshat media-whoring one who will. Media appearance fees for the standard CC also aren't common - they're going to be doing practically all of them for free, for the exposure, and very, very, very few of them are able to charge for an appearance.
So what, you say. $175k is a good salary, right? Well, not so much. Many expenses that a CC incurs being a CC aren't reimbursed by the government. To start with, they generally have to maintain TWO residences - at a minimum, a costly apartment in DC, plus a house in their district. Even a basic apartment in DC suitable for a CC isn't going to be under $30k per year. Personal travel for the CC is covered, but not any family. So, any trips to DC by the family are on you, not the gov't. The CC can get discount meals at the Congressional cafeteria, but since most business is conducted in the restaurants of DC, figure they have to eat out every night in at least a upper-mid-level place. $50/dinner. That's a $10k/year food bill. Cost of living in DC is pretty darned high (6th in the nation, I believe). Plus, since a CC is away from home for vast amounts of time, figure the family has to put up significant child-care costs that they wouldn't normally incur if the CC was working in their hometown. And, a myriad of small thing like that that add up to really large expenses.
They're also not allowed to take "freebies" that you and I would normally just accept. Can't take a paid-for dinner from a friend. Can't take discounts for a lot of stuff - in most cases, they can only accept "available to the public" discounts and prices. Even an ordinary person often gets favors and freebies from their friends - you would be surprised at how much it costs if you were a CC and had to declare (and pay) for all these ordinary freebies. Sure, there are some nice perks to being a CC. But, there are also a whole lot of extra expenses that ordinary citizens don't have, and there's really no opportunity to make extra money to cover them - they're pretty much stuck with their CC salary as their only income.
After they've retired/been kicked out, there's more opportunity to cash in, but while they're in office, there's very little legal/ethical way to make additional cash that isn't normally available to an ordinary citizen of their income bracket.
I'm not saying $175k is poverty-level, but, it's really, really, not that much, given their significant expenses. Overall, I'd estimate that a CC's real salary is closer to $100k, after taking into account costs associated with being a CC. Given that a CC is supposed to be a reasonably senior-level management executive, that's not much. Moreover, the CC's salary ISN'T adjusted by district. So, how fair is it to someone serving San Francisco to be paid the same as someone serving rural PA? The cost of living in one is 3-4x the other (middle class in my PA hometown is $50k/family of 4. Middle class in downtown SF for a family of 4 - $150k).
It's not the sole reason, but the relatively low pay of a CC is one of the major reasons why you see a preponderance of millionaires in Congress - you have to be rich to run, not that you get rich after winning.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
if I recall... everyone hated Duffy that season of the realworld.
If you divide my salary by the number of kids I have, I guess I'm better off than this guy, but I don't feel rich...
It should be illegal for any organization--union or corporation--to take money entrusted to them by shareholders or members and use it for political contributions. This small change would significantly reduce the ability of corporations to buy votes, and would do so in an evenhanded manner.
It is currently against federal law for any union or corporation to contribute money from their organizational budget to a federal political campaign. This has been the law for decades, but it is striking how few people know that, including people like yourself who are clearly passionate about the subject.
Only individual U.S. citizens and PACs can give to federal political campaigns. And PACs can only collect money for federal political contributions from individual U.S. citizens. Corporations and unions can fund an attached PAC's operating expenses, but none of that money may pass through to any federal political campaign.
I have other comments on what you posted, but I'll hold back on so that this message comes through clearly.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
matching carpets, wall colors, and drapes?
or how about a well put together party, with correct wine and cheese?
or having to live next to two guys that won't have kids(if you don't like kids, otherwise the guys are going to adopt 2 orphans)?
umm that's all i have...
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
You can buy *a* house without crippling yourself. Pick something that you can afford to pay off in 25yrs, with a mortgage payment that is a reasonable fraction of your net income, with room left over for interest rate increases.
Do this, and you'll have a house *and* a life.
Prove it. And no, "conservatives like it" is not proof.
Also, having to maintain two houses is living outside your means. Congress members usually have to maintain their home in-state, and also find a place to live inside DC when Congress is in session.
Last I heard, Duffy was living in his office:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/22/eveningnews/main7272636.shtml
That way it never dies.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
So, what do we have in this story? A one minute clip taken out of context from a much longer answer. For people who do not feel like watching the entire 6 min question/answer that Mr. Duffy had with this person, here is what we know: Duffy is a federal employee who's pay and benefits are set at the federal level. He was comparing his benefits (Federal level) to the benefits of the average Wisconsin public employee to show how out of line Wisconsin public employee benfits are compared to what even the federal government gives their workers. In addition he mentions that he was out of work for over 1/2 a year due to his desire to campaign full time and not pass the burden off to the tax payers in his old job as DA.
The reason the GOP wants to get these clips off news websites? If someone took 1 minute of a 6 minute answer out of context to make you look bad would you not want that clip pulled?
Anyways, for the people who care, here is the link to the entire 6 min answer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRId3kNrJcs
But then he would soon have normal teeth and normal hair and then nobody (in the US) would vote for him again.
Clearly the extremely high pay has worked out well for the last 20 years on Wall Street.
All those guys making 10's of millions per year were the top talent and attracting them to Wall Street benefited us all as they steered our economic resources with great facility and avoided one potential crisis after another while steadily growing our economy and thus improving everyone in the USA's overall lot in life. We really owe those investment bankers a huge debt of gratitude.
His first excuse was "I have 6 kids...".
THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM
It's bad enough that every time some woman has a kid her insurance, assuming she has some, has to pay for it. Everyone else on that plan has to pick up the slack for the $30k+ it cost to birth a freak'n kid. Meanwhile, I am a healthy male adult who never gets sick.
I think you should have to goto school and apply for a license to have a kid. I have to do more paperwork to buy a car meanwhile anyone can push out a kid that society has to pay for.
HAVING A KID IS NOT SPECIAL
Every human on the face of this earth, disabilities and illness excluded, can make a kid. You are not special just because you had unprotected sex, this is what happens. Should we celebrate AIDS and HIV because that happens too?
Freak'n ridiculous!
You listen.
If you want quality talent and people more difficult to bribe/influence, you MUST pick them well.
Paying Bernie Madoff a larger salary would not have stopped him from running a pyramid scheme. Overcompensating the CEOs of Fannie May, Freddie Mac, AIG, Enron, or a host of other companies would not have prevented the global financial meltdown.
In fact, there is a general negative correlation between executive compensation and performance, although proper performance measurement can lead to positive correlation.
Given the abysmal rate of turnover in current government offices it is quite clear that salaries should not be significantly raised; the newly elected are rarely better than the incumbents and simply offering more money will not attract the right kind of people. The problem is the broken political system in the U.S. that is crippled by its inability to truly analyze the performance of its elected leaders. Lobbying and cronyism in the political system makes it impossible to choose candidates from the major parties without virtually guaranteeing that the public's interests will not be made a top priority. Who pays for electoral campaigns? Worse; who actually pays attention to the official electoral campaigns and bases their voting decisions on them? Far too many people substitute a few ads on TV for accurate performance analysis.
It really annoys me when I see people working in a government leadership position who have only a meager grasp of economic or political theory and almost never any engineering or scientific experience. Why should we pay such people any more than a manager at mcdonalds where similar interpersonal and leadership skills would be appreciated? Who are the morons who thought such a person should be making policies on scientific research, the Internet, and global finance?
I think I'm misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting $1,000 is the approx cost of rent for a studio apartment in DC? In my experience, most of the studios in DC itself run from around $1,800 to $9,000 a month. And in Arlington, VA it drops to around $1,500 to $3,000.
Yer but the hookers cost about that much again. So he is doing it hard :)
Money helps. That's why Republicans are smart and Democrats dumb. Democrats just don't understand money. It's always been that way. Who has the gold makes the rules. If Democrats weren't dumb they would become Republicans. In turn the people who vote for Democrats are dumb. This is all very apparent, but if you need expert advice you can call Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.Also, it is unhealthy being a Democrat. Gov. Walker made this clear recently he said a certain Democrat leader was sort of a friend but he "isn't one of us". As he thought he was talking to one of the richest men in the World, I assume he was implying the Democrat didn't have enough money? Good question! But I have read the U S Constitution and no where in it does it say people without money have rights. But you would have the right to work for whatever pay and conditions people with money would provide as it is only people with money who should have any say so over this. After all, it is their money and you should be happy they will allow you to work for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd8lP4YnQNE&feature=player_detailpage#t=43s
If your wife comes back to life, she can claim. That she died doesn't stop her from having paid in, it just stops her asking for her money back.
"I don't have any issue with people collecting what they're entitled to or allowed/need, but *if* you're going to collect, don't bitch about the system on which you're taking advantage being the problem"
You mean like all those Randians who complain about taxes but love the tax-paid police, courts, justice system and so on paid from it?
What would have been another "what a fucking douchebag" pause for a minute of my day just became an .mp4 saved to my drive for later repeating ridicule. That's what he was going for, right?
Ideally yes, but this might actually make lobbying easier...
It is what it is.
I'm 110% Conservative, but if this guy is gonna complain that 174K won't do it for him, then it's time Wisconsin looks for a new politician for his seat.
"That ship done sailed" does the GOP not get? Once it goes to YouTube, suppressing it is kind of pointless regardless of the law. Then, there's the Streisand Effect where an attempt to suppress a story puts spreads it massively. Perhaps someone could explain this to them using short words and simple sentences. Also, someone should explain :"going viral". Is the YouTube copy the only one they've got?
Also, lots of foreign jurisdictions where US law doesn't apply.
Tech Public Policy stuff
How many CEOs can build a car? So the TOP of their profession is the top of senior management profession. Now, why is that so much higher than the TOP of the profession of engineers? Why is that so much more than the TOP of the profession of mechanics? Why is that so much higher than the TOP of the profession of janitorial staff?
Get rid of your CEO and your company won't notice, EVER. Get rid of your workers, and you've killed the company when the bills come due.
Who then deserves the most?
And, if the problem of corruption is because they aren't being paid well enough, then surely you should be paying your workers the best, else you're saying that the working class is more trustworthy than the upper class.
Don't forget to consider unintended consequences. One unintended consequence of making legislators wear a hair shirt in public is that they get paid under the table by somebody else. Countries with really low wages for public officials have higher levels of corruption, not lower.
Here's my fantasy. Pay 'em all a million bucks a year, but in return put them under a microscope so they can't do any favors for their "friends". Hell, pay 'em *ten* million apiece. You'd save money, if you could ensure they were working for the public interest. Buying a congressman is tricky; you have to know how to do it without getting into trouble. But once you've sunk the investment in lobbying know-how, the marginal cost of buying a congressman is scandalously low. It's a terrific deal, cause ten or twenty thousand dollars can steer the course of millions of public dollars.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The teabaggers are an outside group that has been swept to power by a powerful anger in the country. But they are totally ignorant of politics. The statement "It's not the lie, it's the coverup" has been widely touted in the press since the days of Watergate but that simple tenet seems to be unknown to Congressman Duffy. This is the second mention of this story I have seen in 24 hours. I am sure if they hadn't done this I wouldn't be aware of this little video clip. It is these kinds of slipups that will doom the teabaggers to a short day in the sun.
Ok everyone, you just put your copy of that video right back where you got it. No hold outs please, them thar civil leaders cant have this sort of thing.
This aint Daytona and you aint Dale Earnhardt. So stop trying to draft on Interstate 40.
Sir, are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?
One that hath name thou can not otter
the single biggest thing people forget is that Senators and Representatives have to live in a very expensive city. $174k in Washington, with a family house and a D.C. pad is not a pile of money, although it is generous. I'd rather be generous than risk that every single one of them immediately turn to bribes to get by.
So maybe we should pay everyone $175K so that they don't turn to crime! Sound right to you?
Maybe someday we'll stop treating white-collar crime like it's no big deal and start locking the fuckers up when they do shit like that. Unfortunately the people that would have to pass those laws include some of the biggest white-collar criminals out there.
Sounds like what another area of the federal government does and has done for years - the military.
No kidding.. :/
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
So living next to a woman and a man without kids is any better?
Why is it acceptable that two people of different sex marry for the tax benefits without the intent to ever have kids?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I sort of understand the need for a certain level of money to maintain the image needed for our politicians to keep the american image clean, you do not want to send our politicans to these banquets to meet ambassadors of different countries, in cheap 600$ suits....I know most do not understand what the level is i talk about, but ask any politician that could be blackmailed for info, money, position of his seat in the house....they need body guards, they need protection, they need a reinforced limo, sometimes....well, anyways, I know we all hate them (me included) when we hear of the major scams they push on us, but if he can prove that 150k a year is not enough to be able to continue his image needed to bring home the bacon from other countries, or make good impressions with other politicians, then i guess what do we even give them seats for...or elect them for....I have yet to see a jeans day in the house of commons, or even any sort of shorts and sandals look, sort of common sense to me....
Not that it matters. After the Republicans take away the teabaggers' social security checks and their Medicare coverage, they'll just blame the Democrats. That's the advantage of building a political base around angry morons.