Republicans Vote Against Funding Troops in Iraq

[jasendorf]

So, the amount of money determines how palatable you find something to be?

Didn't I say "obscene profit"?

 

[hjmick]

Didn't I say "obscene profit"?

Sorry, came in late, missed the opening. You did indeed say obscene.

 

[jasendorf]

So, the amount of money determines how palatable you find something to be?

And, the more I think about it, the more stupid I think this question is.

Uh, yeah, duh... money shades everything. Both good and bad.

And, the amount of money involved shades to different degrees. What are you? Some kind of absolutist moralist who thinks that all money gained is good or all money gained is bad?

Ever hear of the phrase "An honest day's work for an honest day's pay"? You never hear the phrase, "An honest day's work for really crappy pay" or "A lousy day's work for outrageous pay" do you? (Although I'll admit I'd really like an honest week's pay for an honest day's work! )

Exploitation is not a prerequisite of capitalism. If those companies bilked the government for far more than their services were worth and their stock reaped huge profits from those transactions... yeah, I'd say that that is wrong. But, the little cut and paste there says absolutely nothing about how much profit came from those medical supplies. If I sell you $17.8 million worth of medical supplies that cost me $4 million to make... then that's obscene. But his article says nothing of that.

 

[hjmick]

I think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot here, and I think it is my fault. I took your post as an indication that you were okay with Feinstein's profits because they weren't has much as some others. I'm of the opinion that any profits made by military suppliers should be minimal while the government actively executes a war. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

 

[boedicca]

So, let me get this straight, they own a billion dollars worth of stock in companies that made about $30 million?

Worst companies ever!

Those are just examples - but if you are okay with a Senator using her power to benefit her husband's companies to the tune of a minimum of $30M - what is the limit at which it is OBSCENE?

In other words, how much can a government official put in his or her own pockets before it is unethical?

 

[jasendorf]

Those are just examples - but if you are okay with a Senator using her power to benefit her husband's companies to the tune of a minimum of $30M - what is the limit at which it is OBSCENE?

In other words, how much can a government official put in his or her own pockets before it is unethical?

Question is... how much went in to the Senator's pocket?

The story says nothing of that. So, until you come up with some numbers it'll be difficult to determine.

The story is nothing but a bunch of innuendo and conjecture. Barely worthy f reading. Show some corruption and I'll address it.

 

[jasendorf]

Those are just examples - but if you are okay with a Senator using her power to benefit her husband's companies to the tune of a minimum of $30M - what is the limit at which it is OBSCENE?

In other words, how much can a government official put in his or her own pockets before it is unethical?

Oh, and, they're not "her husband's companies"... they are companies he holds stock in. That would be like saying Wal-Mart is "MY" company because one of the mutual funds in my 401(k) owns some Wal-Mart stock.

 

[boedicca]

Okay. Just to be clear. It is okay for an elected representative to use his or her power to provide unlimited financial benefit to family members as long as none of it ends up in his her personal pocket?

 

[boedicca]

Oh, and, they're not "her husband's companies"... they are companies he holds stock in. That would be like saying Wal-Mart is "MY" company because one of the mutual funds in my 401(k) owns some Wal-Mart stock.

Richard Blum is a billionaire financier. You don't understand much about business if you don't grok the power that large investors have with their portfolio companies.

 

[jasendorf]

Richard Blum is a billionaire financier. You don't understand much about business if you don't grok the power that large investors have with their portfolio companies.

I understand plenty... and as a privately traded company... it's not "his" company.

But, I understand your deep desire to frame it as such for maximum propaganda impact. So, it's all good.

 

[jasendorf]

Okay. Just to be clear. It is okay for an elected representative to use his or her power to provide unlimited financial benefit to family members as long as none of it ends up in his her personal pocket?

If you can prove that that is the case... bring it. Bring charges. Drag her before an ethics committee and throw her out.

My guess is that this is nothing more than an attempt to distract from President Bush's veto of funding for our troops and Attorneygate.

 

[boedicca]

Kinda like claiming Cheney is benefiting from Halliburton getting contract in Iraq, eh?



EDIT: About Attorneygate - much ado about nothing. Prosecutors are Executive Branch appointees. If Clinton could fire 93 of them - Bush has every right to fire 8.

 

[jasendorf]

Kinda like claiming Cheney is benefiting from Halliburton getting contract in Iraq, eh?

Did I do that somewhere? If so, please post a link to expose my hypocrisy.

Or, choose a new debating tactic that has you not trying to put words into my mouth.

 

[jasendorf]

EDIT: About Attorneygate - much ado about nothing. Prosecutors are Executive Branch appointees. If Clinton could fire 93 of them - Bush has every right to fire 8.

Then there should be no fear of testifying.

 

[boedicca]

After what happened to Libby? Or are you really one of those Orwellian types who think that people shouldn't mind their privacy being violated if they have nothing to hide?

 

[jasendorf]

After what happened to Libby? Or are you really one of those Orwellian types who think that people shouldn't mind their privacy being violated if they have nothing to hide?

It's the whole basis for the Patriot Act in the first place... the same Act that gave the Attorney General the ability to hire and fire the Attorneys without Congressional oversight.

Oh the irony...

 

[red states rule]

It's the whole basis for the Patriot Act in the first place... the same Act that gave the Attorney General the ability to hire and fire the Attorneys without Congressional oversight.

Oh the irony...

would you keep an employee on the payroll who was not doing their job?

 

[pegwinn]

Question is... how much went in to the Senator's pocket?

The story says nothing of that. So, until you come up with some numbers it'll be difficult to determine.

The story is nothing but a bunch of innuendo and conjecture. Barely worthy f reading. Show some corruption and I'll address it.

It all went in the Senators pocket. They are married. The ol what's mine is yours and what's yours is yours state of insanity, I mean California.

If you are so naive as to believe that a Senator using her influence in committee to pave the way for her husband to expand into China didn't benefit, then you are lost without a compass.

Now, where I grew up that would be called a conflict of interest and an abuse of authority. At least she didn't hide the money in her refrigerator.

 

[Annie]

If you can prove that that is the case... bring it. Bring charges. Drag her before an ethics committee and throw her out.

My guess is that this is nothing more than an attempt to distract from President Bush's veto of funding for our troops and Attorneygate.

What do you call a 'conflict of interest?' Seems Feinstein decided finally that the threshold had been reached. Might be a tad late?

 

[Louie]

scumbag republicans only "support" the troops when it helps them with elections..