How korrupt can they be? No shame. They danced the night away with celebrities using 9/11 victims to have taxpayers pay.

These fukking demokrats are diskusting.

---------------

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159554/Barack-Obama-New-York-President-jets-evening-star-studded-fundraisers.html#ixzz1xrBM6E6y

Mr Obama has now held more fundraising events than the last six presidents combined, leading to his opponents coining the derisive nickname 'Campaigner in Chief'.

He frequently combines the events with his official duties, which allows his re-election campaign to defray the President's travel costs by charging part of them to the public purse.

------------------------------------

twitter @EyeAmU

I'm too lazy to read the entire article... are you just referring to "He frequently combines the events with his official duties, which allows his re-election campaign to defray the President's travel costs by charging part of them to the public purse."?

I'm not sure why that is a problem. Let's say I had to go to London for work. My employer has to pay for my flight. If I stay for an additional two days for a mini vacation (and I pay for hotel/food/etc during that time), are you saying it is wrong to charge my flight? They have to pay for it either way.

My company actually would make me pay a portion of the trip in the example you gave, your company is nice :)

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My company actually would make me pay a portion of
> the trip in the example you gave, your company is
> nice :)


If the flight was more expensive, I could understand. But if it is the same price or cheaper...

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm too lazy to read the entire article... are you
> just referring to "He frequently combines the
> events with his official duties, which allows his
> re-election campaign to defray the President's
> travel costs by charging part of them to the
> public purse."?
>
> I'm not sure why that is a problem. Let's say I
> had to go to London for work. My employer has to
> pay for my flight. If I stay for an additional
> two days for a mini vacation (and I pay for
> hotel/food/etc during that time), are you saying
> it is wrong to charge my flight? They have to pay
> for it either way.

I see what you are saying but he holds a public office and his election campaign needs to be paid for by private funds. There should be no signs of impropriety. Of course in the example give in the OP it does state that we paid for a PORTION for the trip. Meaning he might have kicked in a few bucks.

The real tragedy is that he shouldnt be campaigning at all. Period. 6 times as many fundraisers than the past 5 presidents combined. If thats true, its absurd.

Presidents should serve 1 term for 6 years. Long enough to get some real shit done but not long enough to turn us into a 3rd world shithole. This would solve many problems, including the fact that the President should spend 100% of his time on his current presidential duties, not trying to win another 4.

The amount of time spent campaigning while our country continues to deteriorate into oblivion is sickening. If I spent as much time on personal agenda at my job, Id be fired on the spot.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I see what you are saying but he holds a public
> office and his election campaign needs to be paid
> for by private funds. There should be no signs of
> impropriety. Of course in the example give in the
> OP it does state that we paid for a PORTION for
> the trip. Meaning he might have kicked in a few
> bucks.
>
> The real tragedy is that he shouldnt be
> campaigning at all. Period. 6 times as many
> fundraisers than the past 5 presidents combined.
> If thats true, its absurd.
>
> Presidents should serve 1 term for 6 years. Long
> enough to get some real shit done but not long
> enough to turn us into a 3rd world shithole. This
> would solve many problems, including the fact that
> the President should spend 100% of his time on his
> current presidential duties, not trying to win
> another 4.
>
> The amount of time spent campaigning while our
> country continues to deteriorate into oblivion is
> sickening. If I spent as much time on personal
> agenda at my job, Id be fired on the spot.


There's a prescribed set of guidelines from the FEC which details how the campaigns split various costs for such events. The problem is that the real costs are way above what the guidelines state. For example, the air travel is costed out as something along the lines of the equivalent of a commercial airline seat versus operating AF 1. There was a story on NPR (if I remember right) that I listened to at one point that went through it all. Basically, how they do the accounting and what they get charged is pretty much left to their judgement (subject to audit I suppose) and what they pay is far less than the actual costs.

The bigger issue is what counts as what. To me the speech yesterday was purely a campaign event but I'd guess that the Obama campaign likely considers it to be a policy event.

In any case, the incumbent always has that advantage and I suppose that it works out even over time so nobody pushes for more strict rules too hard.

D. Axelrod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> In any case, the incumbent always has that
> advantage and I suppose that it works out even
> over time so nobody pushes for more strict rules
> too hard.

Yes. This is exactly it. No one in politicks cares because its all a big fucking game to them. There are no real Repubs or Dems in national politics. There is just one bunch of rich fucks laughing at us piss-ons. If you think otherwise, I guess ignorance is bliss.

I was going to attend Barrys dinner but the price tag was $40,000 a plate. Good thing he is watching out for the poor and has my back.