posted on July 5, 2002 04:41:50 PM
It had never occured to me that there might be an inherent correlation between the cost of something and its ethical nature. That's an interesting theory and could be valid. That would, of course, make the Bush administration the most unethical in our history.
posted on July 5, 2002 04:45:47 PM
Intersting, KRS. As usual, it is tounge-in-cheek for a lot of it. But there were some interesting links. Here's an except frrom one:
"In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush."
"Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the government took over the Union Banking Corporation, in which Bush was a director. The U.S. Alien Property Custodian seized Union Banking Corp.'s stock shares, all of which were owned by Prescott Bush, E. Roland `` Bunny '' Harriman, three Nazi executives, and two other associates of Bush"
posted on July 5, 2002 04:46:45 PM
As in deficit spending costs the taxpayers more, and therefore is inherently unethical? You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on July 5, 2002 04:52:37 PMIf I understand correctly, you would make no distinction between the expenditure of public funds which are necessary to or promote the interests of the nation and those which would only serve the interests of a president's political party.
Not really. I'm saying there can be excesses in both. There's a happy medium there somewhere. Some may feel a president isn't paying enough attention to our interests in the world and should be traveling more often to promote goodwill. Some may feel a president is spending too much of our taxpayer dollars traveling internationally, too often...unnecessarally. Just like some of us save our money and other's spend every cent they make.
I tried to answer my thoughts on the other post to the travel inside our country. If I'm still not clear, I'm sorry. I don't know how to put it anyother way. All presidents travel to different places in our nation when they are in office. Again, some more than others. Each side always complains that the other side is using their political advantage [being in office] to further their party.
Your objections would be based solely upon the amount of money that is spent. No...see above.
In which case I assume that you would advocate a fixed amount for presidential travel with no accountability to the public, just as long as it did not exceed a certain fixed amount. I think setting limits is great. We as individuals have to do that. There's only so much money that we have to spend. We set our priorities and try to live within our budgets. No accountability to the public. If the public wants to know what expenses are being spent on what, they can check out the government sites where most is public information and available.
posted on July 5, 2002 05:54:43 PM
Sorry Linda! I misinterpreted things and thought you were asking about Bush's general overspending. Cancel my last post!
Thanks, but that's pretty much what I thought that you were saying. I just wanted to be sure. You don't believe that a president should be held accountable for ethical conduct in office, only fiscal conduct.
posted on July 5, 2002 06:08:32 PM
What ethical conduct are you referring to? His travels in the US that all other presidents have done and I can't recall them doing so being called un-ethical.
edited to add: If you want to discuss ethic's then you sure would have had a ton of things to discuss when clinton was in office.
He took advantage of every loop-hole that was ever invented, and then he made some of his own.
posted on July 5, 2002 06:10:11 PM"Not really. I'm saying there can be excesses in both. There's a happy medium there somewhere."
So, in your own words, some crime is allowable by a President. Just so long as it isn't excessive, it's A-OK with you. Just what do you consider a non-excessive amount of crime? A Million dollars illegally spent in criminal fashion? Two Million? How much Criminal Efforts are not OK by a President? And what about all of those kids, terrified by the word "b;low-job", eh? What about "looking up to the President as a role-maodel", eh?
posted on July 5, 2002 06:11:23 PM
The ethical conduct in question was the use of taxpayer money to make a trip to further the interests of his own political party.
posted on July 5, 2002 06:29:04 PM
kraftdinner - Oh...okay, I thought you were referring to what additional expenses were being incurred that only applied to Bush when traveling.
Do you think I don't worry about where we're headed as a nation? I do. Remember, our eldest son will most likely be sent to any war that is initiated. I'm NOT taking any of this lightly. I just don't see issues the same way most here do.
I also worry about the debt we're getting ourselves involved with, but hunting the terrorists, protecting our nation, restructuring our agencies, etc. is not going to come for free. It wouldn't no matter who was in office.
I don't see, as a nation, that we have any other choice but to deal with what we have to. The terrorists aren't going to just suddenly go away and leave us alone.
And, kraftdinner, if I may. I'd like to ask if you are an American citizen living in Canada, or do you have duel citizenship? Just for my own information. I remember you discussing it a long time ago, but wanted to clarify it.
Thanks [if you choose to answer].
posted on July 5, 2002 06:34:29 PM
Antiquary, I pride myself in the fact that I am a very ethical person. Because I share a different opinion doesn't mean I approve of anyone who is unethical.
My answer to your question would be no....that is not how I feel.
I just don't think what's being done is unethical. It's politics.
posted on July 5, 2002 06:41:32 PM
Bush as the anti christ / Hmmm Maybe a drunken fool with a proclivity for tacos and cute sheep But the anti christ ?
Clinton as a role model for what Larry flynts kids ??
posted on July 5, 2002 06:43:55 PM"Borilla - No crime has been committed. You're, and others, are forming/sharing an opinion."
So, what you are saying is that if only some money is spent for personal reasons, it's OK; but if it's more than a certain amount, then it's not-OK? When it's not-OK, Linda, what is it? In other words, what does that mean?
posted on July 5, 2002 06:48:39 PM
Oh. And By The Way, Linda, it IS illegal for President to use Taxpayer monies for personal travel, unless the taxpayer gets reimbursed every penny in a timely fashion. I recall both parties arguing about this issue for decades, air travel, junkets, political rallies, etc. It turns out that if there is some business; that is, the business of the United States, then the taxpayer should foot the bill. To expand, one day of negociations and two weeks of skiing at the taxpayer expense does not qualify as a give-away and must be repaid to the Treasury. But taxpayer funds being spent purely for political rallies is a big no-no, because it conetins NO Business of the United States. And Bush can not just "borrow" the taxpayer money, either.
posted on July 5, 2002 06:48:58 PMI just don't think what's being done is unethical. It's politics.
That's one of the most amazing statements I've seen. So if we just indirectly funded the president's political party from the Federal Treasury, say setting up a campaign office in the White House, as long as it didn't cost too much, I guess that you wouldn't question the ethics of that either
posted on July 5, 2002 06:56:37 PM
Borillar - Maybe you should just point me in the direction of what law exactly you think President Bush is breaking?
There's obviously something I'm missing here. Presidents take personal trips. Presidents take vacations. Anywhere the president goes the taxpayers pay for, while in office. My understanding has always been that if it's personal or on government business, the taxpayers pay for it.
If it's political, the taxpayers pay for 1/2 and the party pays the other half.
posted on July 5, 2002 07:16:34 PM"My understanding has always been that if it's personal or on government business, the taxpayers pay for it."
No. Politicians can and do use governmental resources like Air Force One, but they have to pay for it out of their own pocket.
In NO event is the Treasury of the United States of America a personal loan service for politicians. In other words, if I were President and I wanted to throw a party in my own honor, I can't simply go "borrow" the funds from the American Taxpayer aka the U.S. Treasury. There is no difference between throwing a party for yourself in your own honor and spending the money for political rallies for you and your cohorts.
Is that simple enough?
And Linda, even if I pointed to a link to that law, I seriously doubt your ability to comprehend it. So what's the point of that?
posted on July 5, 2002 07:18:25 PMAntiquary - I sure can identify...when clinton was in office I felt that way all the time.
Therefore, I assume now that you do feel that Bush's action in this instance was unethical. Is that correct? Or do you have different standards for judging the two? I'm a little confused again.
posted on July 5, 2002 07:29:14 PM
Borillar - You insulting me means nothing to me. I've developed alligator skin posting on this board for as long as I have.
You tell me what exact law he's breaking and I'll understand it. You're just trying to use an easy way out.
What we are discussing here, is a judgement call. Practiced forever by most all politicians...and all parties....nothing more. When the democrats were doing many unethical things, few were in this forum protesting. Everything they did was a-okay and explained away by repeatedly saying it was all about sex. It wasn't all about sex. It was about the morals and ethics of clinton. So, you want my definition of unethical, immoral....call him clinton.
You don't want to back up what you're saying? That's fine too.
posted on July 5, 2002 07:35:57 PM
Linda, investigating Clinton became a multimillion dollar industry. All that money and everything under a microscope, and what was found. Sex.
Would Bush fare so well under such scrutiny? You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on July 5, 2002 07:40:59 PM
Well, I think that we are at least all in agreement that Bush's behavior is unethical. That's pretty good progress. Just so long as we don't start any hugfests or stuff like that.
posted on July 5, 2002 07:50:02 PM
Yes Linda, I'm an American but live in Canada. I "became" a Canadian about 10 years ago, so I have dual citizenship. The only thing I can't do is vote here if I want to maintain my dual status...it's either one or the other and I choose to retain my American voting rights should I ever decide to move back. Actually, I've never voted in my life!
I've always been fascinated with American politics. Although Canadian politics are just as bad, I find the U.S. stuff more interesting.
posted on July 5, 2002 09:49:41 PM
It seems odd that a person so versed in the sundry criminality of one president is at a loss when it comes to the next, but selectivity of memory is a precursor to certain other infirmities characteristic of the aged so I guess this oddity can be laid off to that.
To the question; one place to start might well be 5 CFR 2635 PART 2635 Subpart G Sec. 2635.705.
posted on July 5, 2002 10:07:20 PM5 CFR 2635 PART 2635 Subpart G Sec. 2635.705. is the rule that I was reffering to, of course. I still say that Linda won't even read it. Or, if she does, she won't comprehend it and it won't change a thing. That's why I back off at being "put to work" by people who revel in their ignorance. I won't go find links for them and I won't explain anything to them ~ it's useless. Besides, this is only one significant part - there are others; speifically regs on travel and misappropraition of funds. Of course, KRS, you can always "explain it" to Linda as to Why they don't just go arrest the President of the United States of America and throw him into the cooler with the rest of the bums for Processing. (LOL!)
