The Political Discussion Thread

[Falcon Horus]

I read an interesting article in the newspaper this morning.

For all those complaining big companies take their work out of the US, the article I was reading this morning was talking about Chinese textile/clothing companies taking their business to the US because it's cheaper to produce there than in their own country.

It made me laugh.

[pookey]

it dont make zence, doez it

[mad_gater]

I read an interesting article in the newspaper this morning.

For all those complaining big companies take their work out of the US, the article I was reading this morning was talking about Chinese textile/clothing companies taking their business to the US because it's cheaper to produce there than in their own country.

It made me laugh.

guess slave labor isn't as cheap as it used to be

[Coco Pops]

Oh and did anyone from Australia see this gem?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...#ixzz3hpfSOOjO

I can't read this with a straight face...

[Gatefan1976]

Oh and did anyone from Australia see this gem?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...#ixzz3hpfSOOjO

I can't read this with a straight face...

I am wondering what you find -in specific- is funny??

[garhkal]

No, he said the rules are unclear, and again, he was right.
If the rules say you can claim as a perk travel to and from a place, and to stay there as long as you do official business, then she did nothing "wrong" -within the confines of those laws-.
I think we both agree she was abusing the spirit of the laws however.

But how much time must be given to 'Official business" for an entire trip to count? 1 hr? 3? a whole day out of say 9?

That's what i have never understood. How can someone say with a straight face that they went on a 8 day (lets say) business trip, but only 2 hrs of ONE day was spent in a meeting/doing business, while the other 7 were effectively vacation days..

[Gatefan1976]

But how much time must be given to 'Official business" for an entire trip to count? 1 hr? 3? a whole day out of say 9?

That's what i have never understood. How can someone say with a straight face that they went on a 8 day (lets say) business trip, but only 2 hrs of ONE day was spent in a meeting/doing business, while the other 7 were effectively vacation days..

That, my friend is -exactly- why the rules are unclear and why Abbot was actually right in pointing it out.
I would suggest a position of balance, in which if you go away on the taxpayer dollar, more than 50% of that trip must be engaged in governmental meetings, and anything less is a personal trip and the person involved must pay the whole cost of the trip themselves. If their job intrudes on their "by definition" holiday, then tough, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS. Claim the lunch or dinner when you discuss an issue, but not the whole trip.

EDIT:
Providing security is not something you should have to pay for yourself, that is always a function of position, not person.

[Annoyed]

You don't seriously expect public officials to behave ethically, in this or any other matter, do you?

[Gatefan1976]

You don't seriously expect public officials to behave ethically, in this or any other matter, do you?

Nope, just slaughtered when people notice.

[Coco Pops]

I am wondering what you find -in specific- is funny??

All the stuff about health effects. It's unproven.

[Starsaber]

That, my friend is -exactly- why the rules are unclear and why Abbot was actually right in pointing it out.
I would suggest a position of balance, in which if you go away on the taxpayer dollar, more than 50% of that trip must be engaged in governmental meetings, and anything less is a personal trip and the person involved must pay the whole cost of the trip themselves. If their job intrudes on their "by definition" holiday, then tough, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS. Claim the lunch or dinner when you discuss an issue, but not the whole trip.

EDIT:
Providing security is not something you should have to pay for yourself, that is always a function of position, not person.

So for a 24 hour day, they would have to be performing governmental work for 12 hours of it? And would the time in transit count as work time or personal time?

[aretood2]

where do you think the Prez's salary comes from? thin air?

I fail to see your point. It's his salary...he could spend it all on lollipops if he wanted and that wouldn't be wrong at all. I never heard that politicians should spend their own salaries in a certain way.

[Gatefan1976]

So for a 24 hour day, they would have to be performing governmental work for 12 hours of it? And would the time in transit count as work time or personal time?

Good question.
8-10 hours is the average work day for most people, and transit time is on your own dime for most as well (certainly time).
To be fair, I think it is better to look at a trip in it's entirety, rather than any one day. So, if the poli is away for a week, and they spend 40-50 hours of that week performing their job, then I think it is fair to call it a business trip. If they spend 2 days working, and 5 days doing whatever, then no it clearly is not. That said, I do think it is fair if they fly to X, claim those 2 days, and then -stay- at X on their own dime and come back on their own dime.

[Gatefan1976]

All the stuff about health effects. It's unproven.

Ahh, well, fair enough then. Seems a bit of stretch just to not support wind farms.

[garhkal]

That, my friend is -exactly- why the rules are unclear and why Abbot was actually right in pointing it out.
I would suggest a position of balance, in which if you go away on the taxpayer dollar, more than 50% of that trip must be engaged in governmental meetings, and anything less is a personal trip and the person involved must pay the whole cost of the trip themselves. If their job intrudes on their "by definition" holiday, then tough, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS. Claim the lunch or dinner when you discuss an issue, but not the whole trip.

50% or more i can agree to.. Though i would like it to be more like 60-70%.. BUT that's me.

EDIT:
Providing security is not something you should have to pay for yourself, that is always a function of position, not person.

Why? CEOs and such have to provide their OWN security. Why should a politician have his provided for free? IMO only the POTUS and his DIRECT family (Wife, Son/Daughter, NOT mother-brother-sister-cousins etc) should get provided security.. All else should pay up like us Peons do.

I fail to see your point. It's his salary...he could spend it all on lollipops if he wanted and that wouldn't be wrong at all. I never heard that politicians should spend their own salaries in a certain way.

But why does he even NEED a salary? He gets all his food/clothing paid for, his staff, his trips etc.. What exactly is he needing a paycheck for?