 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
New Culture Of Irresponsibility
What do the GSA spending scandal, the Secret Service sex scandal and Leon Panetta's expensive weekend trips home have in common? They stem from a culture of irresponsibility set by the man in the White House. When President Obama came to Washington, he promised to usher in a "new era of responsibility," one where everyone would recognize "duties to ourselves, our nation and the world." But Obama has delivered the opposite. He's used the presidency to lavish himself and his family with hugely expensive perks. He's used the Treasury as a piggy bank to reward donors and friends. He's blurred the line between campaign trips and presidential business. And let's not forget the fact that he's driving the country towards a financial cliff. Since taking office, for example, the Obamas have jetted off on 16 vacations, with one — their 2011 Christmas vacation in Hawaii — costing taxpayers more than $1.5 million. His daughter's spring break in Mexico required a massive protection detail. Just for kicks, Obama flew himself and British Prime Minister David Cameron to Ohio for an NCAA basketball game, at a cost of $365,000. When a local TV reporter grilled Obama about his vacationing ways, he airily dismissed the complaint. "I'm raising a family here," he said, and besides, "most folks understand how hard I work." When not treating himself, Obama was showering taxpayer gifts on his friends. The Hoover Institution's Peter Schweizer has revealed that 80% of the "green" companies getting Energy Dept. grants and loans were run or substantially owned by Obama financial backers. And the Washington Post discovered that Obama gave more than half of his 47 biggest fundraisers plum administration jobs. Nor is Obama shy about abusing his office to help his re-election campaign. As ABC News reported recently, Obama crammed 18 fundraisers into four "official" trips in the first two months of the year. All this excess comes when the country is facing financial ruin, with $5 trillion more in debt to pay off, thanks to Obama's reckless fiscal policies. Is it any wonder that officials at General Services Administration — the agency dedicated to managing government procurement — thought nothing of throwing themselves an $823,000 Vegas "conference," complete with clown and mind reader? Or that Secret Service agents thought it perfectly reasonable to arrange a sex party with at least 20 prostitutes while preparing for Obama's arrival in Cartagena? Is it surprising that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would travel home to California almost every weekend, even though the trips cost taxpayers $860,000 so far? Panetta's excuse: "I've gone home because my wife and family are there." Apparently it never occurred to him that a modicum of personal sacrifice is in order while slashing the Pentagon's budget. We're hearing a lot lately about "culture" problems at these agencies and how they contributed to the recent scandals. That's a good point. But guess who is responsible for establishing the cultural environment in Washington in which such recklessness could blossom? |
||||
|
||||
|
The offending people will be gone: More Secret Service resignations expected this week - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
|
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by tomder55
Let me expand on my previous answer... New ERA?? Are you kidding? George W. Bush was responsible for the horrors that occurred under his watch, and I was right there to remind you of that fact. Even though he wasn't in direct command, the people under him could detect when certain behavior is acceptable, EVEN when they're dead wrong. In fact, some people might have thought it was OK to stack up a bunch of human beings/prisoners and make fun of them. Some might think it's OK to be LOOSE with the taxpayers money. But, the guy at the top IS responsible for what goes on under him, no matter what. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
Why is a man under investigation by a government agency permitted to raise money for the man who controls that agency?
Meanwhile, Democrats have launched a plan to amend the first amendment. Sure seems like Democrats are engaging in a war on the constitution if you ask me. I mean, who cares if most or all media outlets are corporations that would be covered under their new gag rules? |
||||
|
||||
|
Well at least this time they are pursuing a Constitutional remedy . What is the wording of the new amendment... "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ,except for corporations they don't like . This provision will not apply to trade unions ,public service unions , press institutions we favor ,or special interests advocacy groups that Democrats approve of ." ?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't think it is about winning or losing. It would be about making a level playing filed. You people complain about the administration doing favours for the corporations they like. In the future a different administration will favor corporations they like. Wouldn't it make sense to make it fairer? In other words, individuals and corporations have the same opportunities in a democracy? Tut |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Perhaps freedom of speech could deliver some working class people into positions of authority in government rather than the rich and mega rich. P.S. I googled it. Tom please tell me you are not using 'Citizens United v Federal Election Commission as an example of a level playing field. Tut |
||||
|
||||
|
Yes I do ,because before Citizens ,Congress tried to exclude speech from the public forum by denying associations of individuals their rights to air political opposition ads. Further ,the restrictions also served to exclude associations of individuals from their freedom of the press ;which I'm sure you would agree ,is not exclusionary to state approved press corporations . In fact , New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971),removed the threat of government censorship from American media under the very logic that the NY Slimes as a corporation had the legal definition of a 'corporate person'. Even the lib justices would not argue that the Slimes does not have the same legal right to speech that an individual has. The only conclusion that I can come to is that the left would deny that same speech rights to corporations that they don't like . Again;you NEVER heard them complain when Unions confiscate money from their membership in the form of dues ,and use the money to influence politics.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
According to Wikipedia, Justice Stevens said in a dissenting opinion he would like to point out that in a previous BCRA challenge it was evident that contributions gained favourable political access, a point that was not contested by the majority. However, it was considered by the majority that this represented insufficient justification to limit free speech. Seems to me you are stuck between a rock and a hard place here. No one disagreed with Justice Stevens, yet, any attempt at implementing some type of political pluralism is seen as an infringement of free speech. Did they forget that free speech doesn't have to be an absolute? You don't have to cut off the nose to spite the face. Tut |
||||
|
||||
|
No one disagreed with Justice Stevens
Steven's over the top dissent did not object to corporate speech as much as object to the very nature of corporations. He talks of Jeffferson's fears of corporations "subverting " the republic; "corporations, it was feared, could concentrate the worst urges of whole groups of men." .He calls them "souless" . This is left wing demagogery at it's worse ,and it has no place in a serious judicial decision. What Steven fails to mention in his Jefferson reference is that in the days of Jefferson ,the corporation were essentially state approved monopolies ,like today's Fannie Mae . Jefferson would've in fact approved such entities as private owed subject to market competition entities. Most of the founders, being enterprising sorts ,would've agreed with the majority opinion . But it clearly demonstrates the divide in the country . Private business is to be held in contempt and suspicion in the eyes of the Stevens of the country . They have to be "comprehensively regulated" by the benevolent Leviathan....all for the public good ;for a "level playing field " and "fairness" .What that he led to is the government seizing banks and auto makers ;... oh yeah ,and a $1 trillion reorganization of the private health-care system, actions that would make Hugo Chavez proud. In the world of the Stevens ,the entities under assault have no right to speak out in their defense or to influence the politics in the nation.. There I addressed Stevens.. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
You did, but for forgot to say Stevens was right. Decisions like these need to be addressed, 'in splendid isolation'. Is there any more a complex issue than the First Amendment. Doesn't common law dictate that a person incite a crowd to riot? Can we only cite the First Amendment when it comes to hate speeches? Does one not have to consider the facts? Tort and/or criminal law will never come into it? Yet, when it comes to the High Court political decision we are suppose to believe that somehow the First Amendment is the fundamental principle. Well, I guess that's right when you are try to ascribe rights to a mythical personhood. When it comes to politics ,free speech meets the requirements of legal fiction. I couldn't think of a better way to drive a wedge between people and the democratic process. There is nothing wrong with corporations. They are not soulless or evil, they are just anti-democratic. Tut |
||||
|
||||
|
Good points TUT, corporations are about profits, and cheap labor is part of that equation. So is spending a lot of money to sway law makers and regulators.Its the business model, and though we see more and more rich guys supporting politicians of both sides, I think its up to the informed voter to know what he is voting for.
There is no lobby for the poor, no pac for the homeless, or the unemployed, just unions who collect voluntary dues, NOT confiscate them (nice spin Tom, inaccurate though it is), and who have to solicit DONATIONS for any political endeavors. So corporations have money, but they can't vote, only people can, and that's where the real power lies. It's the responsibility of the individual voters to elect those who work in the peoples interest, and end the extraction of wealth, and the hoarding of dollars to circulate the economy to reach all of us, not just those who have super pacs and a greedy agenda. I have to tell you Tom, as eloquent of a case you make for the conservative point of view, the cause and effect is sweat shops, low wages, and a lot of poor people, which includes a lot of conservatives, with misdirected anger, and misinformed voting interests. I submit, the corporations have no left, right agenda, just money and power, and they screw you as well as me. They are good at dividing to conquer us, and taking what they want from BOTH sides. So its odd that you would rather get rid of the government of the people and replace them with the corporations of the rich and powerful. Or support in any way the rich and powerful controlling YOUR government. Trust me, they care about the constitution like YOU do, nor do they care about you and yours the way you do. They ain't passing out any silver spoons, nor are they wanting the poor to have food stamps. I mean how easy would it be to limit all workers to 40 hours, or 32 per week, and hire more help?? Naw that hurts the JOB CREATORS bottom line, so forget that. Just work the crap out of the few you have, and get rich. The term job creators, and the excuse to allow them even more extraction is an insult to those who do work, and are poor. It's a big fat lie, and marketing gimmick that make total fools of the ones who believe it. Even the job creators don't believe that fallacy. |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
President Obama at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner
[ 17 Answers ]
Like a boss. Good material: n9mzJhvC-8E
Blame Obama because turn around is fair play.
[ 24 Answers ]
Here is the latest op-ed by the great Victor Davis Hanson in it's entirety. What Our Media Taught Me I've been over here in Europe for about ten days, getting a different perspective on our illustrious media and how it is handling the various Obama “troubles.” Perspective and distance are...
What do you understand by the terms mainstream culture and counter culture in referen
[ 1 Answers ]
What do you understand by the terms mainstream culture and counterculture in reference to the 1960s, was there one counter culture or were there may different counter cultures, what were the characteristics of the counter movements, was there a straightforward distinction between mainstream culture...
What Role did Braham's play in Aryan Culture
[ 1 Answers ]
What role did Braham's play in Aryan Culture?
View more questions Search
|
