Be careful who you donate to. In today's Washington Times, there is and article that exposes $99,000 in campaign contributions (PAC) for rent, utilities and accounting expenses in Pelosi's husband's real estate and investment business. Of course, the rules Pelosi and Congress make give her cover by permitting this, maybe. Boy, the guys that make the rules sure have an advantage.

Republicans and Democrats allow this. The Senate balked on banning this practice.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade, a practice of paying a spouse with political donations that she supported banning last year.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/o...-spouses-firm/

Originally Posted by cabo35

Be careful who you donate to. In today's Washington Times, there is and article that exposes $99,000 in campaign contributions (PAC) for rent, utilities and accounting expenses in Pelosi's husband's real estate and investment business. Of course, the rules Pelosi and Congress make give her cover by permitting this, maybe. Boy, the guys that make the rules sure have an advantage.

Republicans and Democrats allow this. The Senate balked on banning this practice.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade, a practice of paying a spouse with political donations that she supported banning last year.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/o...-spouses-firm/

Real estate and investment firm ? ? ?

So, the Pelosi family may have a financial stake in how this bailout/rescue/snowjob goes, and SHE as Speaker of the House is acting so self-righteous about all of this?

And you wonder why I question the panic-act by the politicians on this "event."

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Real estate and investment firm ? ? ?

So, the Pelosi family may have a financial stake in how this bailout/rescue/snowjob goes, and SHE as Speaker of the House is acting so self-righteous about all of this?

And you wonder why I question the panic-act by the politicians on this "event."

Steve, it is terrible. I cannot remember being so angry at Washington DC. From the President having the audacity to propose that he and Paulson control the money to the totall crap going on now to pad this bill with "stuff" to insure passage. You listen to them on various shows (CSNBC,etc) and you KNOW they are speaking on behalf of THEM, nobody else.

This is probably going to pass after they get done patting each other on the butt, but when it does....we are absolutely becoming socialist ! There is no reason to work for anything anymore...the government will give it to you !

I sent this to all my liberal, left wing, the gov't will take care of you, friends. I suspect it'll take 5 or so minutes to get a respose detailing how the Republicans are doing something similar. Somehow, that makes it all ok.

I was right... it only took 2 minutes, however, ever he was shocked. Here's his response:

i am shocked! Hey Scott, I hope you realize by now they are all laughing at us. and furthermore, they have no shame. they will do one thing and try to convince us to do the opposite

Sarah Palin billed taxpayers for 312 nights of working at home during her first 19 months in office. Along with travel expenses for her brood of children and her husband. Sound fair to you???

Here's a breakdown.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...325&s_pos=list

Still much to be explained I think. Oh, I know. Don't bother to comment. This can't possibly be wrong. Same old song.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Sarah Palin billed taxpayers for 312 nights of working at home during her first 19 months in office. Along with travel expenses for her brood of children and her husband. Sound fair to you???

Here's a breakdown.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...325&s_pos=list

Still much to be explained I think. Oh, I know. Don't bother to comment. This can't possibly be wrong. Same old song.

The question should be, what does Alaskan law say is legal or not in this matter? If legal under Alaskan law, then it's a non-issue. If illegal, she should be subject to the law like any citizen.

It's a shame legal and moral can be so far apart, if not diametrically opposed to each other. What Pelosi is (not was, IS) doing is entirely legal. So is what many other Congresspeople are doing in "hiring" their family to work for them. What Palin did in charging the State of Alaska for working at home is probably just is legal. None of these acts are, however, moral. They all speak to a level of greed and disrespect for the U.S. and its citizens.

What a sad state of affairs.

Originally Posted by redwitch

It's a shame legal and moral can be so far apart, if not diametrically opposed to each other. What Pelosi is (not was, IS) doing is entirely legal. So is what many other Congresspeople are doing in "hiring" their family to work for them. What Palin did in charging the State of Alaska for working at home is probably just is legal. None of these acts are, however, moral. They all speak to a level of greed and disrespect for the U.S. and its citizens.

What a sad state of affairs.

At least you mentioned Pelosi as doing something wrong...so many of these threads get "hijacked" in the sense we forget about what started them...good job.

Big problem for me with Pelosi is that the very practice she is engaging in is the one she has spoken against many many times ! That is pretty hypocritical !

Originally Posted by redwitch

It's a shame legal and moral can be so far apart, if not diametrically opposed to each other. What Pelosi is (not was, IS) doing is entirely legal. So is what many other Congresspeople are doing in "hiring" their family to work for them. What Palin did in charging the State of Alaska for working at home is probably just is legal. None of these acts are, however, moral. They all speak to a level of greed and disrespect for the U.S. and its citizens.

What a sad state of affairs.

Great post Red.

OK...let's not get too crazy here.....it is not a lot of money and I can't imagine THIS is why they are in a panic about getting that bail out passed....

We all can't be so naive as to think everyone....rather anyone in public office is going to be perfect. There will be flaws on every single one of them....

I would think it is safe to assume that in this world it is WHO you know versus what you know....

Most everyone...from small town Mayors to State Governors...to the President are going to use whatever and whoever they can to help their families out.

MY guess is we would all do the same....but the other part is...that sometimes the person doesn't even know it is unethical....it just makes sense to them...

Perhaps the thought was this:
"Great...we need space to rent....my husbands firm as some....it's cheap....perfect...that saves me time and aggravation."

It was $99,000 over a 9 year period!! $10,000 a year....what did that really pay for....did that get them anywhere? Not a lot of money...
IMHO

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Sarah Palin billed taxpayers for 312 nights of working at home during her first 19 months in office. Along with travel expenses for her brood of children and her husband. Sound fair to you???

Here's a breakdown.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...325&s_pos=list

Still much to be explained I think. Oh, I know. Don't bother to comment. This can't possibly be wrong. Same old song.

I realize this poster is stressed over this so thought would help out a bit.....instead of presenting it out of context I thought maybe we should see the story in context.....following is a quote from the article and then the link to read (it is short)...

"Many of the trips (graphic) were to ferry her children and husband from their hometown of Wasilla to the state capital of Juneau, which is 600 miles away, The Post reported.

Palin's spokeswoman, Sharon Leighow, said the expenses are not unusual, noting that each of Palin's five children could have claimed a per diem expense and that Palin often did not seek out reimbursement for meals.

Palin has spent far less on travel than her predecessor, former Gov. Frank Murkowski, who spent $463,000 on travel in 2006. Palin spent $93,000 last year, records show."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/was..._expenses.html

AMAZING when you read it in context !!!

Same basic subject, the link below is an article concerning both Gov Palin and Sen Biden's financial situation. It is neither pro or con anyone...simply showing that either of them would be the poorest VP ever !

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...est-of-us.aspx