Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
“you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime.” - Barack Obama
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:14 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Speaking of spending... Quote: Officials noted that Panetta is required to travel by military aircraft for purposes of security and to have access to secure communications, a practice instituted by the George W. Bush administration in 2001.
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Speaking of spending... Quote: Officials noted that Panetta is required to travel by military aircraft for purposes of security and to have access to secure communications, a practice instituted by the George W. Bush administration in 2001.
Quote: Officials noted that Panetta is required to travel by military aircraft for purposes of security and to have access to secure communications, a practice instituted by the George W. Bush administration in 2001.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:25 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:A White House official has said that in 2004, the conference cost $93,000; in 2006, the cost had ballooned to $323,855; and by 2008, it hit $655,025. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/09/obama-points-finger-at-bush-for-gsa-scandal-lurita-doan-administrator-under-bush-blasts-back/ were the Republicans to scream and holler back then? No wonder they thought they could get away with it!! It's totally wrong and completely insane and I'm damned glad it came to light. What a bunch of crazy idiots! Jon Stewart did a hysterical job of covering it. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-5-2012/gsa-holes I can't believe the commemorative coins and...YEARBOOKS?!?! It's insane...as are so many aspects of it. Damned government. The bullshit coming out from the previous GSA is as much "spin" as the Obama Administration "blaming" the Bush Admiistration.Quote:Lurita Doan, the GSA administrator under President George W. Bush, spoke out on America Live, saying, “It’s just so clear that the Obama administration is in crisis mode.” Doan said, “First, I question the numbers and I’d love to see a line item breakdown of what’s in each of these numbers. I’m not going to just trust them out of the gate." http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/09/obama-points-finger-at-bush-for-gsa-scandal-lurita-doan-administrator-under-bush-blasts-back/, of course. At least they had the decency to quote the earlier numbers, for which I give them credit. However, I love that she saysQuote:For Obama to try to blame this poor management, poor leadership on the Bush administration is absolutely abominable. He should be so ashamed of himself.” http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/09/obama-points-finger-at-bush-for-gsa-scandal-lurita-doan-administrator-under-bush-blasts-back/ where was the " poor management, poor leadership" during the Bush Administration? It's just silly. Both are wrong; the GSA is responsible and are the ones who should be brought up by the short hairs. And they are being:Quote:According to an administration source who spoke on condition of not being identified, Foley became the eighth member of the GSA staff to be fired, placed on leave or otherwise removed from their job because of the controversy. http://townhall.com/columnists/taddehaven/2012/04/07/general_services_administration_let_the_taxpayers_eat_cake from both sides of the aisle have been quick to express their outrage. In particular, Republicans are anxious to paint the affair as emblematic of the Obama administration’s fiscal profligacy. Perhaps it is. However, the scandalous abuse of taxpayer money by the GSA isn’t a partisan issue. First, Martha Johnson is the second GSA chief to resign in the last four years. George W. Bush’s GSA chief Lurita Doan resigned in 2008 after a “tumultuous tenure in which she was accused of trying to award work to a friend and misusing her authority for political ends.” Second, bureaucrats have been wasting taxpayer money on conferences for years under the watch of both parties. For example, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) released a report in 2008 that found that federal agencies had spent over $2 billion on conferences from 2000-2006. http://townhall.com/columnists/taddehaven/2012/04/07/general_services_administration_let_the_taxpayers_eat_cake a REPUBLICAN, by the way; I assume you trust him? Why don't they look closer at what their own people spend and go after them, rather than wanting to cut programs for women and the poor? This sort of thing needs to be investigated a LOT more, not left until it comes out. At least this time it DID come out:Quote:The House committee on Oversight and Government Reform circulated the video, which was uncovered by in an investigation by GSA's Inspector General. http://gov.aol.com/2012/04/10/another-gsa-official-on-leave-in-wake-of-spending-scandal/ wish it had come out under Bush; surely they'd have been more careful. What they did shows a complete disregard for...well, sanity!...and the belief that they could get away with whatever they wanted. Bush isn't to "blame" any more than Obama, but both ADMINISTRATIONS are! It's both parties; it's many parts of the government; nobody is exampt from this bullshit. This is just one of the most absurd examples...and it's pretty damned absurd!
Quote:Lurita Doan, the GSA administrator under President George W. Bush, spoke out on America Live, saying, “It’s just so clear that the Obama administration is in crisis mode.” Doan said, “First, I question the numbers and I’d love to see a line item breakdown of what’s in each of these numbers. I’m not going to just trust them out of the gate." http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/09/obama-points-finger-at-bush-for-gsa-scandal-lurita-doan-administrator-under-bush-blasts-back/, of course. At least they had the decency to quote the earlier numbers, for which I give them credit. However, I love that she saysQuote:For Obama to try to blame this poor management, poor leadership on the Bush administration is absolutely abominable. He should be so ashamed of himself.” http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/09/obama-points-finger-at-bush-for-gsa-scandal-lurita-doan-administrator-under-bush-blasts-back/ where was the " poor management, poor leadership" during the Bush Administration? It's just silly. Both are wrong; the GSA is responsible and are the ones who should be brought up by the short hairs. And they are being:Quote:According to an administration source who spoke on condition of not being identified, Foley became the eighth member of the GSA staff to be fired, placed on leave or otherwise removed from their job because of the controversy. http://townhall.com/columnists/taddehaven/2012/04/07/general_services_administration_let_the_taxpayers_eat_cake from both sides of the aisle have been quick to express their outrage. In particular, Republicans are anxious to paint the affair as emblematic of the Obama administration’s fiscal profligacy. Perhaps it is. However, the scandalous abuse of taxpayer money by the GSA isn’t a partisan issue. First, Martha Johnson is the second GSA chief to resign in the last four years. George W. Bush’s GSA chief Lurita Doan resigned in 2008 after a “tumultuous tenure in which she was accused of trying to award work to a friend and misusing her authority for political ends.” Second, bureaucrats have been wasting taxpayer money on conferences for years under the watch of both parties. For example, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) released a report in 2008 that found that federal agencies had spent over $2 billion on conferences from 2000-2006. http://townhall.com/columnists/taddehaven/2012/04/07/general_services_administration_let_the_taxpayers_eat_cake a REPUBLICAN, by the way; I assume you trust him? Why don't they look closer at what their own people spend and go after them, rather than wanting to cut programs for women and the poor? This sort of thing needs to be investigated a LOT more, not left until it comes out. At least this time it DID come out:Quote:The House committee on Oversight and Government Reform circulated the video, which was uncovered by in an investigation by GSA's Inspector General. http://gov.aol.com/2012/04/10/another-gsa-official-on-leave-in-wake-of-spending-scandal/ wish it had come out under Bush; surely they'd have been more careful. What they did shows a complete disregard for...well, sanity!...and the belief that they could get away with whatever they wanted. Bush isn't to "blame" any more than Obama, but both ADMINISTRATIONS are! It's both parties; it's many parts of the government; nobody is exampt from this bullshit. This is just one of the most absurd examples...and it's pretty damned absurd!
Quote:For Obama to try to blame this poor management, poor leadership on the Bush administration is absolutely abominable. He should be so ashamed of himself.” http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/09/obama-points-finger-at-bush-for-gsa-scandal-lurita-doan-administrator-under-bush-blasts-back/ where was the " poor management, poor leadership" during the Bush Administration? It's just silly. Both are wrong; the GSA is responsible and are the ones who should be brought up by the short hairs. And they are being:Quote:According to an administration source who spoke on condition of not being identified, Foley became the eighth member of the GSA staff to be fired, placed on leave or otherwise removed from their job because of the controversy. http://townhall.com/columnists/taddehaven/2012/04/07/general_services_administration_let_the_taxpayers_eat_cake from both sides of the aisle have been quick to express their outrage. In particular, Republicans are anxious to paint the affair as emblematic of the Obama administration’s fiscal profligacy. Perhaps it is. However, the scandalous abuse of taxpayer money by the GSA isn’t a partisan issue. First, Martha Johnson is the second GSA chief to resign in the last four years. George W. Bush’s GSA chief Lurita Doan resigned in 2008 after a “tumultuous tenure in which she was accused of trying to award work to a friend and misusing her authority for political ends.” Second, bureaucrats have been wasting taxpayer money on conferences for years under the watch of both parties. For example, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) released a report in 2008 that found that federal agencies had spent over $2 billion on conferences from 2000-2006. http://townhall.com/columnists/taddehaven/2012/04/07/general_services_administration_let_the_taxpayers_eat_cake a REPUBLICAN, by the way; I assume you trust him? Why don't they look closer at what their own people spend and go after them, rather than wanting to cut programs for women and the poor? This sort of thing needs to be investigated a LOT more, not left until it comes out. At least this time it DID come out:Quote:The House committee on Oversight and Government Reform circulated the video, which was uncovered by in an investigation by GSA's Inspector General. http://gov.aol.com/2012/04/10/another-gsa-official-on-leave-in-wake-of-spending-scandal/ wish it had come out under Bush; surely they'd have been more careful. What they did shows a complete disregard for...well, sanity!...and the belief that they could get away with whatever they wanted. Bush isn't to "blame" any more than Obama, but both ADMINISTRATIONS are! It's both parties; it's many parts of the government; nobody is exampt from this bullshit. This is just one of the most absurd examples...and it's pretty damned absurd!
Quote:According to an administration source who spoke on condition of not being identified, Foley became the eighth member of the GSA staff to be fired, placed on leave or otherwise removed from their job because of the controversy. http://townhall.com/columnists/taddehaven/2012/04/07/general_services_administration_let_the_taxpayers_eat_cake from both sides of the aisle have been quick to express their outrage. In particular, Republicans are anxious to paint the affair as emblematic of the Obama administration’s fiscal profligacy. Perhaps it is. However, the scandalous abuse of taxpayer money by the GSA isn’t a partisan issue. First, Martha Johnson is the second GSA chief to resign in the last four years. George W. Bush’s GSA chief Lurita Doan resigned in 2008 after a “tumultuous tenure in which she was accused of trying to award work to a friend and misusing her authority for political ends.” Second, bureaucrats have been wasting taxpayer money on conferences for years under the watch of both parties. For example, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) released a report in 2008 that found that federal agencies had spent over $2 billion on conferences from 2000-2006. http://townhall.com/columnists/taddehaven/2012/04/07/general_services_administration_let_the_taxpayers_eat_cake a REPUBLICAN, by the way; I assume you trust him? Why don't they look closer at what their own people spend and go after them, rather than wanting to cut programs for women and the poor? This sort of thing needs to be investigated a LOT more, not left until it comes out. At least this time it DID come out:Quote:The House committee on Oversight and Government Reform circulated the video, which was uncovered by in an investigation by GSA's Inspector General. http://gov.aol.com/2012/04/10/another-gsa-official-on-leave-in-wake-of-spending-scandal/ wish it had come out under Bush; surely they'd have been more careful. What they did shows a complete disregard for...well, sanity!...and the belief that they could get away with whatever they wanted. Bush isn't to "blame" any more than Obama, but both ADMINISTRATIONS are! It's both parties; it's many parts of the government; nobody is exampt from this bullshit. This is just one of the most absurd examples...and it's pretty damned absurd!
Quote:The House committee on Oversight and Government Reform circulated the video, which was uncovered by in an investigation by GSA's Inspector General. http://gov.aol.com/2012/04/10/another-gsa-official-on-leave-in-wake-of-spending-scandal/ wish it had come out under Bush; surely they'd have been more careful. What they did shows a complete disregard for...well, sanity!...and the belief that they could get away with whatever they wanted. Bush isn't to "blame" any more than Obama, but both ADMINISTRATIONS are! It's both parties; it's many parts of the government; nobody is exampt from this bullshit. This is just one of the most absurd examples...and it's pretty damned absurd!
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:35 AM
Quote:He was the most expensive vacation president in US history. Not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president. During Bush’s two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s ranch flights. If cost of the flight was the only expense involved to taxpayers Bush’s vacations would still seem rather economical, but there is more, much more. Unlike the Obama’s $4 million Christmas vacation price tag, which includes the cost of everything from transportation to accommodations for the First Family, the White House staff, and the White House press corps, Bush’s numbers only include the cost of flying the president to Crawford. The cost of transporting and accommodating staff, media, friends and family is not included in Bush’s vacation numbers. In response to growing criticism that the president was on vacation too much, the Bush administration adopted the Rovian tactic of scheduling, “work events,” while the president was in Crawford so that they could claim that President Bush’s vacations were working vacations. During his infamous pre-9/11 August vacation, the AP reported that, “Using the ranch as a base, he will promote White House initiatives in Rocky Mountain National Park, Denver, Albuquerque, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and San Antonio.” Bush’s “working vacations” cost taxpayers a small fortune in travel costs because President Bush and his staff would make day trips on Air Force One all across the country in order to counter the criticism that he was on vacation too often. http://www.politicususa.com/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush/ can play tit for tat all day, it's completely as irrelevant.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:54 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:18 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: http://www.politicususa.com/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush/
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:32 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by GEEZER: Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. 77 times in eight years vs. 37 times in 9 months. So if Panetta stays as Sec. of Defense for just four years, he'll make around 200 flights. So at $30,000 a flight after his reembursement at commercial rates, that'd be around $6 million. Regardless of what Bush did or didn't do, that's still a pretty good perk for Panetta.
Quote:During Bush’s two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush’s ranch flights.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:38 AM
Quote:Originally posted by GEEZER: Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: http://www.politicususa.com/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush/ can play tit for tat all day, it's completely as irrelevant. Thinking about this article some more, you do realize that, all the liberal bluster aside, it's pretty much saying that Obama spent 25% of the cost of all of Bush's 77 vacation trips home over eight years... in JUST ONE trip.
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: http://www.politicususa.com/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush/ can play tit for tat all day, it's completely as irrelevant.
Quote:If cost of the flight was the only expense involved to taxpayers Bush’s vacations would still seem rather economical, but there is more, much more. Unlike the Obama’s $4 million Christmas vacation price tag, which includes the cost of everything from transportation to accommodations for the First Family, the White House staff, and the White House press corps, Bush’s numbers only include the cost of flying the president to Crawford. The cost of transporting and accommodating staff, media, friends and family is not included in Bush’s vacation numbers.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:03 AM
BIGDAMNNOBODY
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Speaking of spending... Officials noted that Panetta is required to travel by military aircraft for purposes of security and to have access to secure communications, a practice instituted by the George W. Bush administration in 2001.
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Speaking of spending... Officials noted that Panetta is required to travel by military aircraft for purposes of security and to have access to secure communications, a practice instituted by the George W. Bush administration in 2001.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:14 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Is it the number of flights, or the cost, which has you more upset?
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:30 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: 1) Not 25%. Not quite 20%. Math > Geezer.
Quote:You lay out the TOTAL expense report for the Obama Xmas trip, and stack it up against just the TRAVEL expense of the Bush trips, completely leaving out (on purpose, apparently) all of the other expenses.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:15 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Speaking of spending... Officials noted that Panetta is required to travel by military aircraft for purposes of security and to have access to secure communications, a practice instituted by the George W. Bush administration in 2001. So if the Bush administration instituted the policy it must be carried on by the Obama administration? Is that what you are implying Kwicko? Or did you not think your dig at Geezer through all the way?
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:21 PM
Quote:Originally posted by GEEZER: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Is it the number of flights, or the cost, which has you more upset? It's that no one in the Obama administration seems to think that it'd be a good idea to maybe spend a bit less of the Defense budget on Panetta's weekends. The money Bush spent is gone. The money Panetta hasn't spent yet doesn't seem to be of concern to Obama, or you.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 6:22 PM
Quote:Posted by Geezer: I kind'a doubt [Bush] was flying more friends and media than could fit in Air Force 1 on many trips.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 7:04 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: But what you're doing is bitching about something a Democrat does that you would NEVER have bitched about when a Republican was doing it. As evidence, I simply note that you never brought it up before. So it's quite clear that you don't have a problem with profligate spending; you just have a problem with it when it's done my a Democrat. You'll actively defend it when your beloved GOP does it.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Hey, introduce a bill that will require all Congresspersons, cabinet officials, and other federal government employees in D.C. to live in the area, and I'll be glad to support it. Bring up a bill that requires all such people to pay their own travel expenses out of pocket, and I'm right there with you.
Quote:We're still paying you money for nothing, aren't we?
Quote:But what you're doing is bitching about something a Democrat does that you would NEVER have bitched about when a Republican was doing it. As evidence, I simply note that you never brought it up before.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:19 AM
STORYMARK
Quote:Originally posted by BigDamnNobody: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: But what you're doing is bitching about something a Democrat does that you would NEVER have bitched about when a Republican was doing it. As evidence, I simply note that you never brought it up before. So it's quite clear that you don't have a problem with profligate spending; you just have a problem with it when it's done my a Democrat. You'll actively defend it when your beloved GOP does it. Let's boil down this whole thread right now Kwicko. You said what is being spent on "parties" is a drop in the bucket compared to what was spent on Iraq. Show me where Bush said he was not going to invade Iraq.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:51 AM
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 9:07 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: Possibly the most facile thing you've ever said - which is a saying a lot.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:48 PM
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:52 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Don't recall any Republican Secretary of Defense, or Republican in any government position, traveling from D.C. to California for the weekend 37 (may be more by now) times in 9 months in an Air Force plane.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:55 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Speaking of spending... Officials noted that Panetta is required to travel by military aircraft for purposes of security and to have access to secure communications, a practice instituted by the George W. Bush administration in 2001. So if the Bush administration instituted the policy it must be carried on by the Obama administration? Is that what you are implying Kwicko? Or did you not think your dig at Geezer through all the way? Are you implying that we should get out of Afghanistan today and roll back the Bush tax cuts tomorrow? After all, aren't those "Bush policies" that we were told we had to carry forward? Didn't really think that one through all the way, did ya?
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:47 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Are you implying that we should get out of Afghanistan today and roll back the Bush tax cuts tomorrow? After all, aren't those "Bush policies" that we were told we had to carry forward? Didn't really think that one through all the way, did ya? Looks like BDN is afraid to answer the question. I'll try to hide my surprise. ;)
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:52 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Right after you show me where Panetta said he wasn't going to fly home. Deal?
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:23 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BigDamnNobody: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Right after you show me where Panetta said he wasn't going to fly home. Deal? No deal. What Panetta has to do with presidents saying one thing while the direct opposite happens is beyond me.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:25 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BigDamnNobody: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Are you implying that we should get out of Afghanistan today and roll back the Bush tax cuts tomorrow? After all, aren't those "Bush policies" that we were told we had to carry forward? Didn't really think that one through all the way, did ya? Looks like BDN is afraid to answer the question. I'll try to hide my surprise. ;) I did not answer your question because you are simply trying to obfuscate.
Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:14 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Don't recall any Republican Secretary of Defense, or Republican in any government position, traveling from D.C. to California for the weekend 37 (may be more by now) times in 9 months in an Air Force plane. Ah. The good old "ridiculous extreme" gambit again.
Quote:So again I ask: Is it the number of trips, or the expense?
Quote:Do you recall any Republican government official ever traveling home for the weekend at all?
Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:28 AM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: And again I give the same answer: It's that no one in the Obama administration seems to think that it'd be a good idea to maybe spend a bit less of the Defense budget on Panetta's weekends.
Thursday, April 12, 2012 5:28 AM
Quote: So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch. Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton took the least time off — 28 days. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-20093801.html] President Reagan spent 112 days on vacation during his first 31 months in office according to CBS News. He spent most of his vacation time on his California ranch near Santa Barbara, according to NBC Bay Area News. The White House communications team and national security staff accompanied President Reagan during trips home to his ranch. Taxpayers covered the cost of approximately $8 million for presidential travel during the Reagan's first 6 years in office, according to the LA Times. http://news.yahoo.com/comparison-recent-presidential-vacation-time-160400657.html have to work out what that means compared to Obama's time in office, etc., etc., but I think it's all just pretty ridiculous partisan pettiness. And again, the FACTS are that Obama said you can't do such-and-such; someone in his administration did it anyway, he fired them.
Thursday, April 12, 2012 6:42 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.
Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:20 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch. [sarcasm]But Bush an Reagan were Presidents of the most powerful nation on the planet. Reagan made around $200,000 per year in salary, and Bush $400,000. They could easily have gone to the private sector and make ten times that if not more. So to offset that difference they got some perks. Even at whatever the cost is for all the trips it is still a small amount when you are talking about the national budget. Yep. Well said, Nick.[/sarcasm] Yes. This was sarcasm. Wouldn't want anyone to become confused.
Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:23 AM
Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:50 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Don't recall any Republican Secretary of Defense, or Republican in any government position, traveling from D.C. to California for the weekend 37 (may be more by now) times in 9 months in an Air Force plane. Ah. The good old "ridiculous extreme" gambit again. So you admit that Panetta's 37 trips in 9 months is a "ridiculous extreme". Thanks for that concession.
Quote: Quote:Do you recall any Republican government official ever traveling home for the weekend at all? Not 37 times in 9 months at government expense. If you can show any particular Republican who made trips that frequently on the government's dime...
Thursday, April 12, 2012 7:57 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: But thanks for conceding the point that there are indeed Republicans who have used taxpayer money for more travel than Panetta. I wasn't sure you could do it, but you finally did!
Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:09 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Not 37 times in 9 months at government expense. If you can show any particular Republican who made trips that frequently on the government's dime...
Quote:Not 37 times in 9 months at government expense. If you can show any particular Republican who made trips that frequently on the government's dime...
Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:13 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Per Niki's quote, Bush spent 180 days at his ranch in 31 months, averaging around 6 days a month.
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Reagan spent 112 days at his home in California in 31 months, averaging around 3.5 days a month.
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Panetta has spent at least 37 weekends - lets be conservative and call that 74 days, although reports show some weekends running longer - in 9 months, averaging around 8.25 days a month.
Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:54 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Not 37 times in 9 months at government expense. If you can show any particular Republican who made trips that frequently on the government's dime... *ANY* Republican government official? I'll play. "WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been spending large amounts on airfare as a congressman, flying first class on dozens of taxpayer-funded flights to his home state. The practice conflicts with the image that Paul portrays as the only presidential candidate serious about cutting federal spending. Paul flew first class on at least 31 round-trip flights and 12 one-way flights since May 2009 when he was traveling between Washington and his district in Texas, according to a review by The Associated Press of his congressional office expenses. Four other round-trip tickets and two other one-way tickets purchased during the period were eligible for upgrades to first-class after they were bought, but those upgrades would not be documented in the expense records."
Friday, April 13, 2012 2:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: President, White House was primary residence. President, White House was primary residence. Secretary of Defense going to primary residence. You truly are the king of false equivalents.
Friday, April 13, 2012 2:37 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Ah - so it's NOT just the total number of trips, then. I asked before, but you never would give a coherent answer.
Quote:But nice to see you've added yet another condition to your list. Now it has to be trips flown in an Air Force plane, eh?
Quote:I'm betting you don't include Air Force One in that list somehow.
Quote:Per Niki's quote, Bush spent 180 days at his ranch in 31 months, averaging around 6 days a month. Reagan spent 112 days at his home in California in 31 months, averaging around 3.5 days a month. Panetta has spent at least 37 weekends - lets be conservative and call that 74 days, although reports show some weekends running longer - in 9 months, averaging around 8.25 days a month.
Friday, April 13, 2012 3:02 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: President, White House was primary residence. President, White House was primary residence. Secretary of Defense going to primary residence. You truly are the king of false equivalents. Well, it was Niki and Mike who brought it up, so maybe they're the royalty here.
Friday, April 13, 2012 3:15 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: I see a passing mention, but even if they did, why did you follow.
Quote:Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follow's him?
Friday, April 13, 2012 3:31 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Because I was concerned with the number and frequency of trips, not which end was the primary residence.
Friday, April 13, 2012 7:48 AM
Friday, April 13, 2012 7:57 AM
Friday, April 13, 2012 8:20 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: And if Panetta is in DC for 22 days per month, isn't THAT his de facto "primary residence"?
Friday, April 13, 2012 1:29 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: President, White House was primary residence. President, White House was primary residence. Secretary of Defense going to primary residence. You truly are the king of false equivalents. Well, it was Niki and Mike who brought it up, so maybe they're the royalty here. Bringing something up does not equate presenting a false equivalence. Amazing that you make that simple mistake.... in an effort to present a false equivalence. That's impressive! "Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
Saturday, April 14, 2012 1:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Even more amazing that Geezer, who HATES when people assign statements and positions to him, is now claiming I brought it up.
Monday, April 16, 2012 7:16 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL