When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I think the idea of passing legislation without allowing time for it to be adequately reviewed is abhorrent... Also not really democratic.
Also wasn't Pelosi's comment in reaction to folks saying it was too long? So she retorted tat they'll just find out when it's through. Could totally be misremembering though.
GOP Rep Who Complained About Americans Wasting Money on iPhones May Use iPhone Paid for by Donors
A reporter from the Hill pointed out that it's common for campaigns to pay for cellphone services. It's also acceptable under House ethics rules for a member to use a campaign-financed cellphone for official House business. So if Chaffetz uses an iPhone that's paid for by donors—and, using Twitter's API, a Slate staffer found that the congressman's Twitter account does often post messages from an iPhone—it doesn't appear that there wouldn’t be anything illegal or unethical about it unless he was using it for personal business. (Chaffetz's office didn't respond to a request for comment about his phone usage and financing.) Still, having access to a smartphone that you didn't have to spend your own money on is a perk that many Americans who have trouble affording health care don't have.
people really misuse this term... our founders were not found of democracy, fwiw, we shouldnt even be debating govt healthcare had we stuck to republicanism and not democracy.
Do as I say not as I do... Oops!
there's an incredibly huge difference in spending money donated to you, and spending money you took from someone else under threat of violence/jail, and give it to someone else.
do you not understand the difference in the concepts?
there's an incredibly huge difference in spending money donated to you, and spending money you took from someone else under threat of violence/jail, and give it to someone else.
do you not understand the difference in the concepts?
i still dont understand the problem with his statement, or his own use of using an iphone.
I actually didn't have a problem with his statement as I listened to it. Just ironic is all how words come back at you. Wouldn't have been all that long ago when it wouldn't be "news" but now that people can check anything anywhere (but rarely do).
He's a public official and should consider his words a bit more careful instead of coming across like an ******* looking down on "those people ".
Different views on the subject I guess.
So youre an ******* for suggesting to people that they should invest in their own healthcare before toys, goodies, and beer. But you're not an ******* for forcibly taking other people's hard earned money in order to "spread the wealth around" so those people can buy toys, goodies, and beer and not have to worry about paying for healthcare?
So youre an ******* for suggesting to people that they should invest in their own healthcare before toys, goodies, and beer. But you're not an ******* for forcibly taking other people's hard earned money in order to "spread the wealth around" so those people can buy toys, goodies, and beer and not have to worry about paying for healthcare?
No, you're an ******* for suggesting to people that they should invest in their own healthcare before buying an iphone and then using your free ******* iphone that you paid not one ******* dime for while receiving the best healthcare the taxpayers can provide you.
Nice try deflecting the argument. You try to be good at it.
Pretty funny btw using a picture of Sam Wurzelbacher to make your point. His "story" was pretty well debunked but I'll give him credit, he tried really hard to get on that government gravy train we call Congress. As Trumpy would say, he failed "bigly".
You mean these phones I bought for people who live in homes I pay for and eat food I buy and use doctors I pay for? Are those the phones you are referring to?
You mean these phones I bought for people who live in homes I pay for and eat food I buy and use doctors I pay for? Are those the phones you are referring to?
No, you're an ******* for suggesting to people that they should invest in their own healthcare before buying an iphone...
The statement is true regardless of who says it.
Its one thing if you think the guy is an ******* because he gets a free phone from his supporters and free healthcare from taxpayers, it's another if you think he's an ******* for making the statement.
Its one thing if you think the guy is an ******* because he gets a free phone from his supporters and free healthcare from taxpayers, it's another if you think he's an ******* for making the statement.
No, you're an ******* for suggesting to people that they should invest in their own healthcare before buying an iphone and then using your free ******* iphone that you paid not one ******* dime for while receiving the best healthcare the taxpayers can provide you.
Nice try deflecting the argument. You try to be good at it.
how was I deflecting? Watch me squirm: We are discussing what makes you an *******. I disagree that you're an ******* for suggesting to people that they should invest in their own healthcare before buying an iphone and then using your free ******* iphone that you paid not one ******* dime for while receiving the best healthcare the taxpayers can provide you.
With your argument, pretty much all politicians are ******** in every regard and have no right suggesting anything to anyone. The fact the his current employer pays for his healthcare or that he has a free phone has no bearing on his statement. You can't seem to look past that.
How about this: Do you agree that you're NOT an ******* for suggesting to people that they should invest in their own healthcare before buying an iphone, and NOT using a free ******* iphone that you paid not one ******* dime for while paying for your own healthcare?
In other words, is he only an ******* because he receives gov't healthcare, and happens to have a free phone? Or is he an ******* for suggesting people invest in healthcare first, then using leftover discretionary income on things like iPhones? What if he bought a Pixel phone ... does that matter?
Pretty funny btw using a picture of Sam Wurzelbacher to make your point. His "story" was pretty well debunked but I'll give him credit, he tried really hard to get on that government gravy train we call Congress. As Trumpy would say, he failed "bigly".
He's allowed to use donor money to buy the iPhone (and money is fungible, so that rule is kind of pointless anyway). Of course he was spending "his own money", it's money that other people gave him in exchange for him supporting their various causes as a representative. That's how campaign donations work.
Saying that he got a "free iPhone" is the the dumbest thing I've heard so far today (it's only 10 AM though, so I'm sure we can top it).
Say you buy your phone crap every 2 years for around $600. Pre-ACA health care not through an employer for a family of 4 was around $400-500/month (not sure what it costs today +/-).
He's an ******* for comparing something that costs $600 (if both parents get phonzzzze) a year to something that costs $6000 a year.
And he's an ******* for trying to sell my property out from under me so he can get hj's from his rich friends....
The real issue here is whether increasing subsidization of healthcare is going to increase or decrease costs. I know which way I think the data points.
I haven't read the new proposal. Does it really increase subsidization?
This always boils down to a simple question: Healthcare, right or privilege?
If its a privilege then don't subsidize anything, release doctors from their pledges to treat everyone, and let those who can't afford to take care of themselves die off.
If its a right then cut the profit motive completely from the picture and socialize the system.
Or I guess we can keep bitching about the middle ground :P
0
