The Cellar
Page 14 of 54 « First 478910111213 14 1516171819202124 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Congress has lost its mind... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=5891)

TheMercenary 12-07-2009 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt (Post 615665)
Sure it's out of line, but it's what I would expect from a pig like Steele. He's just throwing mud and hoping it will stick.

Nothing wrong with recommending a friend or even a lover for a job they are qualified for. The ultimate decision to hire wouldn't have been his, and he wouldn't have been supervising her. I've recommended friends for jobs. Wouldn't you?
Are there no standards for getting people jobs that you are romantically involved with? I do believe there are such rules in government. Anyone who was in the running might be able to file a lawsuit to say there was significant bias in the hiring. It just opens up a number of possibilities for putting the process under a microscope. This is much different than "recommending" a friend for a job.

It just seems to have an appearance of impropriety and that is not a good thing when talking about elected officials getting government jobs for people they are romantically involved with.

glatt 12-07-2009 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 615669)
appearance of impropriety

Based on my reading of your article, this is exactly the opposite of an impropriety. Did you read the article? She was working in his office for him. He fell in love with her. Because he wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety in his office, they thought it would be best if she didn't work for him any more. So he recommended her for another job for which she was qualified. The US Attorney job would have taken her back to the state where she had formerly been a highly regarded state prosecutor. The same type of work she had done so well before, but in a different court system.

It all wound up being moot though, because she found an even better job without his help.

The thing this demonstrates is that the Republicans here are just throwing mud and hoping some will stick. There is nothing to investigate. The facts are all known, and they make Baucus look pretty good and Steele look like a pig.

TheMercenary 12-07-2009 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt (Post 615676)
Based on my reading of your article, this is exactly the opposite of an impropriety. Did you read the article? She was working in his office for him. He fell in love with her. Because he wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety in his office, they thought it would be best if she didn't work for him any more. So he recommended her for another job for which she was qualified. The US Attorney job would have taken her back to the state where she had formerly been a highly regarded state prosecutor. The same type of work she had done so well before, but in a different court system.

It all wound up being moot though, because she found an even better job without his help.

The thing this demonstrates is that the Republicans here are just throwing mud and hoping some will stick. There is nothing to investigate. The facts are all known, and they make Baucus look pretty good and Steele look like a pig.
I guess I read a few of the articles and they ran together. I did not read that, "Because he wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety in his office, they thought it would be best if she didn't work for him any more." But you know that when someone with his power calls up the other guy and says, "hey I have a great person I think you should consider for a job", it appears that favors are being done and preferential treatment is being given for back door deals. If I was one of the other 2 people being considered for the job I would make a huge deal out of it.

glatt 12-07-2009 01:36 PM
Well, the "other guy" here is the POTUS, so the power of a senator isn't really that impressive.

If you were one of the other 2 guys being recommended by the Senator to the POTUS, would you really make a stink about it? Seriously? You have a Senator going to bat for you with the POTUS, and you are going to complain? Once your name starts circulating at that level, you would be foolish to rock the boat.

My comment of "Because he wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety in his office, they thought it would be best if she didn't work for him any more." came from this in the article article you linked.
Quote:
In a statement issued by his office Saturday, Baucus said that "as we grew closer and things progressed, we knew it was time to begin the process of Mel transitioning out of my Senate office."

TheMercenary 12-07-2009 01:45 PM
Well it still smells fishy. And that statement was issued him, I would say something like that too if people started to ask questions. I think they call it cover your ass. I suspect he is being protected.

And here is another example of something similar that happened not to long ago.

Quote:
Here's a poser: Suppose a public official is accused of recommending his girlfriend for a promotion, though he was the one who first flagged the potential conflict of interest and officials had refused to let him recuse himself from decisions about the woman. Should he lose his job?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...644974798.html

TheMercenary 12-09-2009 09:37 PM
Demoncratic Government Forclosure Repayment Help a complete failure. How much did that cost us?

TheMercenary 12-14-2009 04:15 PM
Quote:
WASHINGTON — Drugmaker Merck's political action committee donated more than $572,000 to federal candidates in the 2008 election and racked up $4.6 million in expenses to lobby Congress and the executive branch last year, federal records show.

What federal records don't show is that Merck also spent millions on payments to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and several others that are lobbying intensely on a massive bill to revamp the nation's health care system. In all, Merck spent $6.8 million in 2008 to help underwrite the political activity of eight associations and trade groups, according to the company's website.
Quote:
To date, 50 companies have voluntarily agreed to disclose payments to trade groups, and 24 have started doing so on the Internet, said Maureen O'Brien, the center's research director.

They include health-insurance firm Aetna, which reported $190,000 in political-related payments last year to America's Health Insurance Plans, the insurance industry's trade group, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which reported $128,000 in such dues to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

The drugmakers' trade group has backed the Democratic efforts to revamp the nation's health care system and has successfully lobbied the Senate and House to give brand-name drug companies 12 years of exclusive rights to sell pricey biotech drugs before they face competition from cheaper generic versions. Ken Johnson, senior vice president for the trade group, would not say whether it has imposed higher dues on drug companies in 2009 to fund this year's lobbying battle on health care, but said "activity has been ratcheted up."

The group has pumped nearly $19.9 million into lobbying during the first nine months of 2009, up from $14.1 million during the same period last year, federal records show.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ompanies_N.htm

classicman 12-14-2009 06:46 PM
What are you saying? Big business is buying political clout? Shock!

TheMercenary 12-14-2009 06:49 PM
No, just that anyone who thinks this Congress is looking out for them or the little guy has been fooled.

Insurance companies among others are going to make billions off this deal.

classicman 12-14-2009 06:57 PM
Of course they are, Merc. I don't think anyone here is under that assumption. The typical dwellar is much smarter than the average bear, ya know.

classicman 12-14-2009 07:06 PM
Quote:
WASHINGTON – The Democratic-controlled Senate on Saturday cleared away a Republican filibuster of a huge end-of-year spending bill that rewards most federal agencies with generous budget boosts.

The $1.1 trillion measure combines much of the year's unfinished budget work — only a $626 billion Pentagon spending measure would remain — into a 1,000-plus-page spending bill that would give the Education Department, the State Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and others increases far exceeding inflation.

The 60-34 vote met the minimum threshold to end the GOP filibuster. A final vote was set for Sunday afternoon to send the measure to President Barack Obama.

Democrats held the vote open for an hour to accommodate Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an Orthodox Jew who walked more than three miles to the Capitol to vote on the Sabbath after attending services at his synagogue in the city's Georgetown neighborhood. Lieberman wore a black wool overcoat and brilliant orange scarf — as well as a wide grin — as he provided the crucial 60th vote.

The measure combines $447 billion in operating budgets with about $650 billion in mandatory payments for federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. It wraps together six individual spending bills and also contains more than 5,000 back-home projects sought by lawmakers in both parties.

The measure provides spending increases averaging about 10 percent to programs under immediate control of Congress, blending increases for veterans' programs, NASA and the FBI with a pay raise for federal workers and help for car dealers.

It bundles six of the 12 annual spending bills, capping a dysfunctional appropriations process for budget year that began Oct. 1, dysfunctional appropriations process in which House leaders blocked Republicans from debating key issues and Senate Republicans dragged out debates.
More here

TheMercenary 12-14-2009 07:41 PM
This is what else it paid for.

Quote:
Consolidated Spending Bill – $9,500 per U.S. Family
Posted by Jim Harper, December 10, 2009 at 9:34 am

The House plans to put all but one of the spending bills that haven’t been completed into one and pass it, perhaps as early as today. The damage is about $9,500 in spending per U.S. family.

The Trasnportation/HUD spending bill will be renamed the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010″ and all but one of the remaining bills will be folded into it. The defense spending bill will be treated separately.

We’ll update the cost figures for the transportation/consolidated bill soon, but to get you an idea, here are the bills going into it:

H.R. 2847, The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 – $570 per U.S. family
H.R. 3170, The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2010 – $370 per U.S. family
H.R. 3293, The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 – $6,160 per U.S. family
H.R. 3082, The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2010 – $1,020 per U.S. family
H.R. 3081, The Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 – $380 per U.S. family
H.R. 3288, The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 – $1,070 per U.S. family
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/...er-u-s-family/

TheMercenary 12-14-2009 07:52 PM
Quote:
Billions of stimulus dollars had been spent or allocated in Colorado by the end of the third quarter, but The Denver Post reports [1] that the majority of that money had gone to the wealthiest counties. Seven out of 10 counties with the highest unemployment rates in Colorado rank in the bottom half of per-capita stimulus spending, according to the Post. Part of the problem, one small-town administrator says, is that poorer areas can’t afford to get projects “shovel ready” for federal funds. But stimulus administrators point out that merely taking a per-capita look is insufficient because some areas – like Boulder, where the University of Colorado is located – received more funds because of large research grants.

From the smallest of town councils to entire state governments, politicians have been using their stance on the stimulus package as a way to win political favor, reports msnbc.com [2], and it’s causing some serious headaches. Reporter Mike Stuckey looks at North Platte, Neb., where a former housing authority director got canned for supporting the stimulus, despite the housing authority’s rejection of the funds, and Worland, Wyo., where school district trustees turned down stimulus money, despite having low-ranking elementary and high schools.

And finally, The New York Times reports [3] that it’s déjà vu all over again with the health care reform battle, as the political lines being drawn replicate those from the fight to pass the stimulus bill last winter. A band of centrist lawmakers, including Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, R-Maine, Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., wielded their considerable power to scale back the stimulus bill, and they’re doing it again on health care reform.
http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimul...-bit-more-1214

TheMercenary 12-14-2009 08:09 PM
Pork report. See where your tax dollars went:

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/inde...a-73a0841cefe0

Redux 12-14-2009 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 617498)
This is what else it paid for.

Consolidated Spending Bill – $9,500 per U.S. Family


http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/...er-u-s-family/
Washingotonwatch.com....a libertarian mouthpiece....now there is an unbiased source.

:rotflol:

At least it notes on its own site that it is not really credible:
The figures on WashingtonWatch.com reveal the relative size and significance of proposals, but they are not perfect predictions and they do not tell you everything you should know. Please keep in mind that:

* WashingtonWatch.com does not report the many benefits that may be provided by government regulation and spending, made possible by taxation. Proposals that “cost” the average American may benefit you, your community, your loved ones, or your employer.

* The dollar amounts on WashingtonWatch.com do not reflect the “incidence” of taxes, spending, or regulation...

* .....Adding up all the proposals tracked by WashingtonWatch.com would produce a number that is essentially meaningless.

In summary, the information on WashingtonWatch.com is not the last word on government spending, taxation, and regulation....
$9,500 per family? Uh.....FAILED....essentially meaningless.

The tin foil hat brigade (and its mercenaries) at work!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 617507)
Pork report. See where your tax dollars went:
The 2005 record is not in jeopardy......13,997 projects for a total of $27.3 billion!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 AM.
Page 14 of 54 « First 478910111213 14 1516171819202124 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.