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.
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.
Some day the Liberals will figure out that it's not declaring war on the poor (Heh... You've been "helping" them for decades and we've got more poor each year...) and that the stuff you're peddling is actually hurting the country worse that your claims of the other direction. Simply put, the old saying about Socialism is true- it only works so long as you can keep taking wealth from other people and it quits working when you run out of people to rob.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Ah, but by then they'll all be retired, collecting Social Security and Medicare, but still bitching about the "welfare state". From The Truth About the Tea Party
The article is a sad, revealing story of the hypocrisy of the Tea Party and it's members...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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
National politicians make much more than just their salary. Their influence, leverage, connections and media interest insures that they can all easily be multimillionaires. When you tally up all the opportunities they have, like books and public appearances, as well as private sector opportunities, I'm sure that most national politicians make more than their equivalently ranked counterparts in movies and sports.
His point of view is entirely consistent. He's worked his whole life for a modest paycheck, and his wife sounds like she genuinely needs medicare. He's also been told that there are many, many people out there abusing the system and guidelines that he's worked within his whole life.
The sad part is that he seems completely willing to accept a narrative that would prove false if he'd simply spend a few hours on google.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Let's see, last time we had a depression and recession, it was fixed by raising the taxes on the wealthy (they went up over 75%!!) and then they decided we needed more jobs (despite having lowered unemployment) so we lowered the taxes on the wealthy and businesses considerably. Yet unemployment continued to rise and it didn't change much.
Obviously there are other factors involved here, but it's fairly obvious based on history that taxing the wealthy more will either do nothing or will help. Lowering the taxes on them doesn't create jobs they just concentrate their wealth among themselves. Trickle down economics just doesn't work.
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?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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....
If you want quality talent, and people more difficult to bribe/influence, you MUST pay them well.
Your proposal has 3 major problems:
1. How well? What's comparable to a president, senator, or representative? I mean, if we're going to pay the president the same as a CEO of a major corporation, we're going to be talking about $50 million a year. If we put senators and representatives at a bit lower on the pay scale, then $10 million wouldn't be unreasonable.
2. If you're going to spend that kind of money on politicians, you're going to need to pay for it somehow. Who are you going to tax, or what agency are you going to cut, in order to pay for it? You're talking about $50 billion here, which isn't exactly chump change.
3. There's no clear correlation between bribery and politician salary. For instance, it wouldn't be hard to argue that bribery in the US is more widespread than in the UK, even though MPs are paid less than Congressmen.
I am officially gone from
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.
Actually, the jobs come from businesses. The pool of money a business uses to pay new employees is completely unrelated to personal income taxes of the owners.
Agreed. Why, if GE would've had to pay even a dime of federal taxes this year, the repercussions would've been dire for us all. Dire, I tell you!
An excellent example of exactly what he's talking about. Despite how high taxes are, GE still didn't pay anything. Raising taxes will not change that. The rich who are affected by the high taxes on the rich have the money to pay people to figure out the loopholes so they pay as little as possible. But, with higher taxes, the government expects more money, so they assume they have a larger budget, but when tax time rolls around, oops! No more money than before comes in, putting us further into debt.
Now, tax reform to simplify tax law, reduce loopholes, etc, I think is something both parties can get behind (though getting the politicians to actually vote for it against the wills of the lobbyists would be more difficult). And that, if done right, would actually help.
Not to get in the way of everyone bashing a congressmen (everyone's favorite activity) but he talked about struggling because of a direct question from a constituent angry about his salary level which he didn't choose (it's standard for all congress), and when he JUST became a congressmen (he's gotten 1 check). So he's not really just off the cuff complaining here, he's trying to defuse the situation with the questioner explaining to them that it's not like he's living high on the hog off their money but is instead paying of student loans, driving a used minivan, and paying mortgages on the residences he has to maintain in both his home state and DC (incredibly expensive). He's basically just trying to empathize with the questioner to defuse the situation which he has no control over.
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
I think the real issue is the Republican talking points. Honestly, I'm sure politicians, even the assholes, work hard... and I'll give that they might be worth $175k a year. The asshole nature of this man is that he wants to strip moderate or low paying workers of their rights and telling them "They need to give more" but is NEVER willing to suggest that people who are well off ($175k IS well off) should EVER have to give anything. When I was teaching in Minneapolis, I made $37k a year. I paid for rent in 2 apartments and utilities, bought classroom supplies and commuted 30 miles a day to work. I still had more than enough disposable income to put some away each month. Now assholes like this guy say "Oh but public employees need to give back"... you know what, that's fine, I'm willing to take a pay cut... but the mere NOTION that someone who makes hundreds of thousands, millions or BILLIONS of dollars should have to pay higher taxes is OUTRAGEOUS to republicans and tea party members.
Social services, public employees, working moms, day cares... fuck, you name it, republicans want to cut it... but a wealthy individual should pay 39% taxes instead of 36%... that's UNAMERICAN and it stifles economic development!! Guys like Duffy are the worst kind of asshole... ones with the power to BE an asshole. Democrats might be jerks... but they're not blatant assholes out to strip working people of everything they have left... incensed at the notion that wealthy people should pay more taxes. Mark Dayton, multimillionaire grandson of the founder of Daytons/Target and president of Minnesota advocated raising the top tax rate on wealthy earners such as himself. Republicans like Duffy (and Mike Lemieur, MN 12B - 320-632-3922 ) say No! We need to balance the budget by cutting programs for working families and stripping public employees of their rights... but they'll be DAMNED if you try to raise taxes on high income earners (Sean Duffey, making $175k wouldn't even meet the higher proposed tax bracket... but is STILL an asshole about it).
Fuck this lot of Republicans... THAT'S why people are upset about this. Take take take take... but be damned if themselves or the wealthy should ever have to sacrifice.
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.
"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it."
The thing is, story line that Republicans have fed the public for decades is essentially "Democrats have taken your money via high taxes and given it to black crackhead felons in the inner cities as 'welfare', who use it to buy drugs, bling, and fancy cars." So when someone who's heard nothing but this story and never spent significant time in the inner cities thinks about welfare recipients, what they think is not "that guy in my church who gets by on a government check" but "urban black crackhead felon". So what he's actually saying is "stop giving my hard-earned cash to urban black crackhead felons".
This perception doesn't match reality (most welfare recipients are white, many are rural, most aren't felons, most aren't using illegal drugs), but when it's the only message you've ever heard about the issue, it's what you're going to believe, not because you're stupid but because simply because you've never heard or seen anything to the contrary. It would be sort of like living in a time when everyone knows that all the celestial bodies move around the Earth: It sure looks that way, and you've been hearing your priest (who's almost definitely the most educated guy in town, remember) talk about how God made it that way all your life. Chances are you'd believe it.
I am officially gone from
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...
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?
The American myth of upward mobility is nothing more than that, a myth. Pretending that you can rise into money with nothing but talent is simply not true. It is a story we tell children to help justify the rich's selfishness. The simple fact of the matter is that the number one correlation that exists for a person's wealth in America is their parent's wealth. If you want to be rich, you need a wealthy family, not hard work. But if it makes you feel better, keep believing that everyone that is poor smokes pot all day or does something else to limit themselves. It makes the bitter pill of our horrible class discrepancy go down a little easier. But it is a lie. plain and simple. America is actually ranked quite low globally in upward mobility, and as we let corporations and the rich run amok without regulation and taxes, the situation only gets worse.