Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congressman Wants YouTube Video Covered Up

Posted by timothy on from the played-by-ben-afleck-I-hope dept.

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."

37 of 884 comments (clear)

  1. Ah, the Republican Party ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.
    1. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even though I personally think the Republican party is worse there is little integrity from any political party right now. They are for openness until it runs against their own interests then they are against it. They want cuts until it hurts their re-election in their district. They will take any side they are paid to take. Our system has totally broken down and is beginning to resemble the systems that people in the middle east are currently protesting about. It's very sad... the whole thing is going to hell.

    2. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Informative

      ... champion of traditional American values like free speech and personal responsibility!

      The difference between the Democrats and Republicans - In a nutshell:

      When the Democrats do something stupid, it's because it's expected from the diverse, working class roots they largely come from.

      When the Republicans do something stupid, they deny it happened at all and is a liberal conspiracy.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Democrats have done plenty of nasty stuff, to be sure, but I honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this. It's not Duffy's statement itself that gets me, as dumb as it is, as the attempt to use legal means to remove information that's already been deliberately released to the public, which is the exact definition of censorship. The Wikileaks frenzy is similar, but that's a bipartisan madness. This one is all on the Republicans.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And, I've heard the same damn whining and trying to cover up for that lapse of good judgement by the party in question with the Democrats.

      Can you cite a recent example where a Democrat elected to national office said something really dumb which (a) was deliberately propagated by the Democratic Party, and then (b) the party tried to use legal means to make "unhappen" once they realized how dumb it was? The first happens all the time -- they're politicians, after all -- but the second is what makes it really scary.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll take a shot: Have you heard of Obamacare?

      AKA, Romneycare? When you're doing nothing but parroting talking points, it means it's too late to look in the mirror.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    6. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by rthille · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, it allowed me to keep my daughter on my (from work) health insurance even though she's graduated high school... So, I'm in favor.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    7. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by coldfarnorth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My mother-in-law (a small business owner) can afford health insurance now, via the high risk pool in her state. Thanks to "Obamacare" she can get insurance for herself and her husband for $700 a month, rather than the $2,000 a month that the insurance company offers.

      --
      Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
    8. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While I don't think it's fair to compare unions representing 100k's of people for making contributions that benefit them, to the contributions of the 2 Koch brothers which in no way represent the interests of their workers I will grant that in theory the issue is the same on both sides.

      As a serious question, on the issue that both sides give political money to candidates:

      Why is it even legal to give money to an organization associated with a politician? Last I checked that was a 'bribe'. I know the free speech angle, but a bribe is just money for a particular action; how is that conceptually different from giving money to a politicians PAC? It's not like they don't give the donors preferential treatment right?

      I mean if I give money to 'Tony' so that his brother 'Luigi' might go do something I like and Luigi is my representative...that would clearly be illegal wouldn't it?

      Not trying to be snarky here, seriously asking the legal ideas behind this. I'd actually prefer that there be *no* money in politics. Buy all the ads you want I don't care, but if a politician takes money from *anybody* that should be a conflict of interest shouldn't it?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    9. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by HungWeiLo · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...as it has done for the past decade, as it was in my employer's case.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    10. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by Ruke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Buying politicians isn't ever going to go away. Unions are the balance to corporations, which is why corporate-held politicians are pushing so hard to dissolve them. Not only are Unions fighting for anti-corporate working conditions for their members, but they're supporting pro-union politicians that have a chance of replacing the politicians who are more interested in what's good for big-business than working-class people.

    11. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      no your insurance premiums went up because your insurance company is ran by greedy assholes.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know my rates were going up and coverage was getting going down long before Obama took office. In fact it nearly doubled about 5 years ago.

      Do you actually believe that if it were repealed immediately your premiums would drop by 20%?

      Not a chance, your coverage would drop to previous levels, but your premiums certainly wouldn't go down.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    13. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Democrats have done plenty of nasty stuff, to be sure, but I honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this.

      I'm an independent. I hate Republicans for acting like Republicans and I hate Democrats for acting like Republicans. The stuff I'm furious at Obama for isn't all left and socialist; I'm furious at him for all the Bush league stuff he's doing. Unitary executive, expanded wars, expanded deficits, passionate fellation of big business interests, disregard for civil liberties, the plight of the common American, and all the goddamn promises he made when was running for office.

      American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests In Congress
      OCTOBER 6, 2010 | ISSUE 46â40

      Americans hope lobbyist Jack Weldon will finally give them a voice in Washington.

      WASHINGTONâ"Citing a desire to gain influence in Washington, the American people confirmed Friday that they have hired high-powered D.C. lobbyist Jack Weldon of the firm Patton Boggs to help advance their agenda in Congress.

      Known among Beltway insiders for his ability to sway public policy on behalf of massive corporations such as Johnson & Johnson, Monsanto, and AT&T, Weldon, 53, is expected to use his vast network of political connections to give his new client a voice in the legislative process.

      Weldon is reportedly charging the American people $795 an hour.

      "Unlike R.J. Reynolds, Pfizer, or Bank of America, the U.S. populace lacks the access to public officials required to further its legislative goals," a statement from the nation read in part. "Jack Weldon gives us that access."

      "His daily presence in the Capitol will ensure the American people finally get a seat at the table," the statement continued. "And it will allow him to advance our message that everyone, including Americans, deserves to be represented in Washington."

      Enlarge Image

      Weldon says he hopes to spin the American public, above, as a group worth Congress' time.

      The 310-million-member group said it will rely on Weldon's considerable clout to ensure its concerns are taken into account when Congress addresses issues such as education, immigration, national security, health care, transportation, the economy, affordable college tuition, infrastructure, jobs, equal rights, taxes, Social Security, the environment, housing, the national debt, agriculture, energy, alternative energy, nutrition, imports, exports, foreign relations, the arts, and crime.

      Sources confirmed that Weldon is already scheduled to have drinks Monday with several members of the Senate Appropriations Committee to discuss saving the middle class.

      "If you have a problem, say, with America's atrocious treatment of its veterans, you can't just pick up a phone and call your local congressman," Weldon told reporters from his office on K Street Monday. "You need someone on the inside who understands how democracy works; someone who knows how to grease the wheels a little."

      Weldon said that after successfully advocating on behalf of Goldman Sachs and BP, he is relishing the opportunity to lobby for the American people, calling it the "challenge of a lifetime." The veteran D.C. power player admitted that his new client is at a disadvantage because it lacks the money and power of other groups.

      "The goal is to make it seem politically advantageous for legislators to keep the American people in mind when making laws," Weldon said. "Lawmakers are going to ask me, 'Why should I care about the American people? What's in it for me?' And it will be up to me and my team to find some reason why they should consider putting poverty and medical care for children on the legislative docket."

      "To be honest," Weldon added, "the American people have always been perceived as a little naÃve when it comes to their representative government. But having me on their side sends a clear message that they're finally serious and want to play ba

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    14. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Social services are one step away from paying cash for votes.

      Really? Then what would you call a $3.2 billion dollar tax credit given to General Electric on top of zero corporate income tax? What would you call allowing corporations to pay unlimited amounts of money to finance campaigns of people who will vote for giving them this corporate welfare? That's that's not even one step away from "paying cash for votes". That skips over the whole "votes" thing entirely and is simply paying cash for favorable laws.

      "Social services" have not put this country in debt, despite the common meme. The only reason there is a single dollar of government spending in Social Security is because congress after congress sold securities using Social Security money as collateral and now they've got to make those securities good. 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 surplus would be much much higher. Social Security is actually keeping the deficit down not increasing it. Social Security has not added one nickel to our debt or deficit.

      When Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top tier 3%, to a total 39% (which ends up being about 12% (or less) on total income of the wealthiest) we ended up with a surplus.

      Every single time the tax rate on the highest income level went below 50%, GDP dropped, unemployment increased and bubble economies developed because the top income group had to find places to put their money. Every time the tax rate on the highest income levels went ABOVE 50%, GDP increased, unemployment decreased and there were no bubble economies. When tax rates go above 50%, wealthy people start looking for longer term ways to grow their money to avoid paying taxes on it, so they invest in their companies' infrastructure, hire new people, pay dividends, etc.

      If you look at a graph of the US economy and overlay a graph of tax rates on the top incomes, you'll see something very remarkable. The most certain way to increase employment, increase GDP, shrink the debt, prevent economic bubbles and to insure long term growth is to simply increase the tax rates on the richest, even though this does not require them to pay more taxes.

      Instead, we're looking to blame "social programs" and those greedy, freeloading schoolteachers, firemen, police, janitors, garbage men, clerks for our economic woes. The budget that was recently passed by the Republican House of Representatives, cuts nutrition programs to infants and pregnant women in poverty (the "WIC" program) in order to pay for tax cuts for millionaires. What kind of a third-rate country are we going to become with these jackoffs in control?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by scot4875 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A union member, a tea party member, and a CEO are all sitting around a table with a dozen cookies.

      The CEO takes 11 of the cookies. He turns to the tea party member and says, "look out for that union guy. He's trying to take your cookie."

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    16. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What we need, of course, is to ban political contributions by all groups of people working together. If individuals want to donate money and indicate that they are donating money on behalf of an organization, that's fine, but it should have to be the individual writing the check from his or her own bank account.

      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.

      Next, we should make it illegal for someone to accept money in exchange for lobbying. Paid lobbyists unfairly elevate the voices of a small number of individuals (corporate CEOs) over the public as a whole in a way that cannot effectively be countered except with an outright ban on the activity.

      People should be free to lobby for their employers' positions on their own time if they choose to do so, of course, but paid lobbyists are an affront to democracy, and it should be illegal to do so on company time. Similarly, it should be illegal to punish a worker for not lobbying on their own time.

      Finally, we should cut the salaries of everyone in Congress to levels comparable with those of people in their districts, provide members of Congress with free paid government housing in D.C. so that they can afford to come up there to work, and mandate that politicians spend a minimum of two-thirds of their time in their districts to be eligible for reelection. This would ensure that politicians continue to understand what's happening on the ground in their districts.

      When our government was originally conceived, Congresspeople were supposed to meet for a couple of weeks out of the year. It is the perversion of Congressional duties into a year-round job that has done more harm to our government's ability to represent the people than probably any other mistake in its history. Imagine if lobbying firms had to send lobbyists out to a hundred, two hundred, three hundred different towns across the United States instead of sending a couple of people to Washington D.C. You get the picture.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    17. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you have a source for such a graph? Not being a dick here, I'd like to see it.

      Yes. Tax rates from 1900 to date is one dataset. GDP during the same period is another dataset. Employment rates are a third.

      Those are my sources. Both are extremely easy to find. You will notice a slight lag of GDP behind the changes in tax law, because GDP is responding to those changes in tax law.

      I'll let you overlay the graphs yourself, because if I send you to the place where someone has done the work for you, you will say "Oh, those graphs were made by liberals as a way of disregarding the data. If you do it yourself, you won't be able to claim that it's invalid because of the ideology of the economist who put them together. But try it. It works as I describe.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:Ah, the Republican Party ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you look at the 2010 federal budget, you'll see that social security cost $695 billion and health care cost $743 billion. If $1.438 trillion does not contribute to put the country in debt then nothing does, there is no item costing more in the budget.

      But those billions for Social Security and Health Care are spent on Americans and paid for by Americans. And neither of those items is part of the discretionary budget which is what people mean when they talk about "government spending". These are both programs which all Americans qualify for (and only Americans) and are the two most popular programs of the federal government by far.

      And the $700 billion spent on defense (Department of Defense plus Department of Energy) IS part of the discretionary budget (government spending). And unlike Social Security or Medicare, the level of benefit that citizens obtain from that $700 billion is arguable.

      As for taxing the rich, it works only up to the point when they move out of the country.

      We have had top tax rates as high as 90%. Where do you think "the rich" are going to go to avoid taxes? Even under Clinton (when we had a budget surplus) they were paying the lowest income taxes in the developed world. Are they going to move to Sweden? The UK? IAnd should we really set our top tax rates based upon some fictional Galtian blackmail threat that will never occur?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. The hypocrisy of Walkeristan, exposed. by sethstorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. This man is struggling to survive, please help! by merc · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  4. 7 kids? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:7 kids? by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, old Cadillacs are dirt cheap. You can pick one up for around $500. Turns out nobody wants an old, beat-up luxury car.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  5. Re:If I recall correctly... by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nope. Copyright still belongs to the person who made the recording. (The Zapruder film, for instance, which showed the assassination of President Kennedy is owned by the Zapruder family.) However, there is a pretty good case for fair use in this case, especially since this Duffy video is being used for news reporting/commentary purposes.

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
  6. Re:some day by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the mostly lower middle class tea party types will understand...

    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

    • "I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control."
    • (Reporter): "OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?"
    • "Me?" he says proudly. "Oh, I'm a property appraiser. Have been my whole life."
    • I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?"
    • Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!
    • "Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"
    • "Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."
    • "But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"
    • "Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much."

    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. . . .
  7. Re:republicans by UncleTogie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let's just drop that old saw right now. Taxing them more heavily isn't going to FIX anything and it'll actually make things worse.

    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!

    --
    Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
  8. It's "double standard", not "hypocrisy". by khasim · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. Re:republicans by zeroshade · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Republican economic concept Vs common sense by BigDogCH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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....

  11. Nope. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And that is why my insurance premiums went up 20+% last year.

    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.

    1. Re:Nope. by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey man, penicillin isn't free.

      You haven't been visiting the right fridges.

    2. Re:Nope. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some of that is all factored in. The health insurance industry is a for profit industry. Each year they post record profits and increase rates. Logic would say that rates should not increase unless REQUIRED to cover policy holders.

      But thats not the case. The rates are increased to increase profits.

      Yes, malpractice insurance is high.... but for the same DAMN REASON. So you cant say that its malpractices fault, and none of the health insurance industry's.

      Insurance is insurance. Its a for profit industry that has squeezed the living shit out of both doctors and patients.

  12. Re:republicans by cforciea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:republicans by WhirlwindMonk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:bah! by PixelScuba · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:methinks Sen. Larry Craig doth protest too much by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you believe providing healthcare to a country's citizens to be facisim, I'm sure there is space available for you in Somalia (a libertarian paradise). You pay taxes for roads, schools, police and fire protection, regulation that protects YOU (DOT, EPA, etc). Healthcare is no different. We're the only first world country with a pathetic healthcare system, and it'd be cheaper to bitch about it than to go all tea party crazy like you're doing.

  16. Re:7 kids? And vacation home, and a place in D.C. by Roogna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...