UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> Obama: Hey, Thanks for the Raise

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

3/14/08 1:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MetaDevil
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 06/21/2006
Posts: 1564
Anger. Always the anger with you. lol. Whatever. You don't know me from anything. I'm sorry that facts disrupt your perfectly honed worldview. That isn't relevant to whether or not he is violating Senate ethics rules by requesting earmarks for his wife's employer. It kinda is. Why would he violate ethics rules for money if it wasn't necessary? Ya got the smoke, but there's no fire.
3/14/08 1:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
bluedragon
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 02/10/2007
Posts: 4890
everytime I see your posts Chris, I think of the Dan Patrick show. I'm waiting for you to say 5'8 170. DING
3/14/08 1:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
alpo
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 33516
hugojkd, do you even know what the word neocon means? You seem to like using a lot, completely out of context.
3/14/08 1:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
bryanand
19 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 13870
"I wouldn't judge the corporate world based on what you've seen then." Ok, so you are saying it's common in corporate america for employees of 14 years all of a sudden getting their base salary tripled? Not to mention, the circumstances around the timing of it. Damn, my experience at the largest auto maker in the world and a 4 billion dollar/year retail company must not be indicative of corporate america. I'm sorry for sharing my insight into corporate america with you, i didn't realize how worthless it was.
3/14/08 1:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Chris in Cambridge
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7387
"everytime I see your posts Chris, I think of the Dan Patrick show. I'm waiting for you to say 5'8 170. DING" I'm guessing that Dan Patrick is some kind of devastatingly handsome Rhodes Scholar, right?
3/14/08 1:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MetaDevil
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 06/21/2006
Posts: 1565
Mrs. Obama's boss explains September 27, 2006 Hospitals spokesman John Easton said Obama's salary was in line with the compensation received by the not-for-profit medical center's 16 other vice presidents. A tax return for the hospitals covering the 12 months ended June 30, 2005, shows most of the organization's vice presidents earning between $291,000 and $362,000. ... Michael Riordan, who was University of Chicago Hospitals president at the time, said he had planned early on for the position to evolve into a vice president's post as a way of showing the organization's commitment to community outreach. "I knew where I wanted to go with this position," said Riordan, who now is the top executive of the Greenville Hospital System in South Carolina. "I wanted to identify someone to grow into it." ... Easton said the hospitals' management had discussed a promotion to vice president with Obama previously but that she had been reluctant to undertake the commitment until her husband's Senate campaign was finished. In part, she wanted to wait until her family had made a decision on whether to maintain their primary residence in Illinois, which they did, and she had a better sense of the demands on her time as a senator's wife, he said.
3/14/08 1:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
flowerfeeder
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 25606
Meta just PWNED this non-debate. Move along.
3/14/08 2:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Chris in Cambridge
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7390
'Find the post where I singled YOU out as a neocon smart guy?' Okay. (Smarter than you, anyway.) I said: "It is not helpful in a case of corruption to point and say "well, this other guy's worse!". It's a cynical technique meant to distract." You said: 'LOL at necon supporters trying to turn a POSSIBLE conflict of interest into corruption & criminality.' So, there you called me a "necon" supporter. I will accept, but won't hold my breath for, your apology.
3/14/08 2:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Chris in Cambridge
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7391
'some of the other cunts' 'you're getting all cunty' 'STFU' 'a defensive cunt' Again with the anger. Is this a theme or what, folks? Just saw this: 'To the non-neocons or anyone I mislabled as a neocon, I apologize if I offended you.' Seeing the graciousness and generosity of heart with which your apology was offered, how could I possibly refuse?
3/14/08 3:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Timbo
36 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14874
It kinda is. Why would he violate ethics rules for money if it wasn't necessary? Ya got the smoke, but there's no fire. 1) You don't have to have a sinister motive to violate ethics rules. 2) The fact that the recipient of the funds is well respected doesn't provide any exemption to ethics rules. Unethical behavior isn't ok just because the beneficiary of that behavior is well respected. 3) The fact that his wife could be making even more in private practice has no bearing on whether he should be earmarking public dollars for his wife's employer. 4) The fact that they were already receiving some funds doesn't preclude unethical actions to receive even more funds. What his wife might have made in private practice, or how well respected the U of C Hospitals are, have no bearing on whether or not Obama violated ethics rules by engaging in this conflict of interest.
3/14/08 3:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MetaDevil
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 06/21/2006
Posts: 1570
If you're accusing the man of corruption, you have to bring much more to the table than this. Seriously. It's not even a conflict of interest. And I really stress that people need to read up on earmarks and what they really are.
3/14/08 3:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Timbo
36 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14875
It's not even a conflict of interest. Earmarking funds for his wife's employer certainly sounds like a conflict of interest to me, and I think it could very well be classified as such under Senate ethics rules.
3/14/08 4:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MetaDevil
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08 04:47 PM
Member Since: 06/21/2006
Posts: 1575
and I think it could very well be classified as such under Senate ethics rules. You would think wrong. Chapter 3 Senate Ethics Manual (page 69): Both the "principal purpose" and the "limited class" test must be met before the paragraph precludes a senator's involvement in a legislative proposal. As noted, the history states that "legislation may benefit a Senator significantly, but if it also has a broad, general impact on his state or the nation, the prohibitions of the paragraph would not apply." In Interpretative Ruling 171 the Committee ruled that a Member's efforts in supporting tax legislation that would benefit his wife's profession if it were passed did not violate this rule since the legislation would have a broad general impact." Page 93: Neither federal law nor Senate rules specifically preclude a Member's spouse from engaging in any activity on the ground that it could create a conflict of interest with the Member's official duties. ... In Interpretative Ruling No. 397 (May 24, 1985), the committee found that no rule of the Senate prohibited the spouse of a Senator from accepting compensated employment with a tax-exempt educational organization where the spouse's responsibilities were to be focused on educational activities for the public rather than lobbying the Congress. ... As noted, compensated spousal employment must be disclosed by the Senator on the annual financial disclosure statement. Sorry. Obama's wife's salary breaches no ethics rules. Her salary and title is commensurate with her employment history. As in, she didn't jump onboard a defense contractor once her husband was elected, after years as a DA, and lo and behold that contractor received a government contract worth $500 million. There is nothing to indicate that the earmark was dependent on her receiving a promotion or salary increase. Nor is there evidence of impropriety. Her salary was reported to the Senate as required.
3/14/08 4:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
bluedragon
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 02/10/2007
Posts: 4909
I hope you clean up all this blood when you are done MetaD
3/14/08 5:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Timbo
36 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14876
You would think wrong. Maybe, but I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. In Interpretative Ruling 171 the Committee ruled that a Member's efforts in supporting tax legislation that would benefit his wife's profession if it were passed did not violate this rule since the legislation would have a broad general impact." Did this earmark have the "broad general impact" of that example, or was it a specific targeted financial impact to his wife's employer? Neither federal law nor Senate rules specifically preclude a Member's spouse from engaging in any activity on the ground that it could create a conflict of interest with the Member's official duties. Nobody was accusing his wife of having a conflict of interest. She isn't responsible for how her husband votes, or what earmarks he introduces. Obama's wife's salary breaches violates no ethics rules. The question is whether Obama's earmarking funds for his wife's employer violates ethics rules. Issues about how much his wife is making in comparison to other people in the organization, or how much she might have made in private practice aren't relevant. As in, she didn't jump onboard a defense contractor once her husband was elected, after years as a DA, and lo and behold that contractor received a government contract worth $500 million. Not relevant. There is nothing to indicate that the earmark was dependent on her receiving a promotion or salary increase. There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo for his actions to be a conflict of interest. Nor is there evidence of impropriety. There isn't evidence of corruption. It does appear to be (possibly, at least) a conflict of interest, and a breach of ethics. Her salary was reported to the Senate as required. Still not relevant.
3/14/08 5:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Chris in Cambridge
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7414
"Obama's wife's salary breaches no ethics rules." I see grounds for disagreement. An earmark to a specific institution almost certainly does not have "a broad, general impact on his state or the nation", so I don't think you've made your case in that regard. Additionally, your quotes seem to be regarding "tax legislation", which an earmark is not. "There is nothing to indicate that the earmark was dependent on her receiving a promotion or salary increase." Hmmm. "Nothing to indicate". Again, not a stirring defense. "I hope you clean up all this blood when you are done MetaD" Don't be such a drama queen.
3/14/08 5:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
bluedragon
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Mar-08
Member Since: 02/10/2007
Posts: 4910
Don't be such a hypocrite
3/17/08 3:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
thesleeper
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 17-Mar-08
Member Since: 08/31/2007
Posts: 807
If Bush can get reelect... take office again, then anything is possible.

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.