So, I got a job

[smokecat]

You still just bitchin and moanin...all you do is fight with folks on here. Shit man you should be happy you got a job. But like a typical leftie you bitch about. Not enough money, the govt and my boss is fuckin me, right wingers holding me down.....Even your President Likes regan and sees the value of his policy.
This is what u should be mad about. But i'm sure its OK with you because it the great nancy P


According to previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, Speaker’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period – $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. For example, purchases for one Pelosi-led congressional delegation traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008 included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Creme, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.
On it goes, after the jump.

Judicial Watch also previously uncovered internal Department of Defense documents (DOD) email correspondence detailing attempts by DOD staff to accommodate Pelosi’s numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker’s last minute cancellations and changes. For example, in response to a series of requests for military aircraft, one Defense Department official wrote, “Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?…[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case’… The email also notes that Pelosi’s office had, “a history of canceling many of their past requests.”
“Pelosi’s abusive use of military aircraft demonstrates a shocking lack of regard for the American taxpayer and the men and women who serve in the U.S. Air Force. Speaker Pelosi may have a frequent flyer record for taxpayer-financed luxury jet travel,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Well I'm what I guess you'd refer to as a leftie, and I think this is pretty fucked up. I'm going to look into it, so thank you.

 

[UncleBuck]

Well I'm what I guess you'd refer to as a leftie, and I think this is pretty fucked up. I'm going to look into it, so thank you.

don't get me wrong, yeah it's fucked up. $100K on booze, it that number is accurate, is a lot.

but what does it have to do with the op or anything in this thread for that matter? NOTHING.

also, what type of reference is goven with respect to amounts spent by previous speakers? NOTHING.

 

[UncleBuck]

http://factcheck.org/2009/03/plane-false/

Plane False


March 23, 2009





The conservative Web site Judicial Watch has made public e-mails to and from the Department of Defense regarding Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s travel requests. The organization claims in a press release that these e-mails show Pelosi "issue unreasonable requests for military travel" and "treats the Air Force like her personal airline." A number of readers have asked us for our response to this information, given that we have debunked claims about Pelosi’s air travel. Some readers have even demanded that we correct our story.


However, the e-mails posted by Judicial Watch don’t refute our story — in fact, they back up what we’ve said. Just to recap: In December, e-mail rumors circulated that Pelosi had demanded the use of a lavish Air Force jet at taxpayer expense. We wrote that it had become standard practice after September 11 for the speaker of the House to have access to a military jet for shuttles back to his or her home district for security reasons — the speaker is No. 2 in the line of presidential succession, and the previous speaker, Republican Dennis Hastert, used a military jet, too. Andrews Air Force Base does have a large 45-seat jet, the military version of a Boeing 757 (it’s the one usually used by the vice president as Air Force 2), and according to an Andrews spokesman, Pelosi has used this jet once when no other aircraft was available. More often, she uses the military versions of the Gulfstream III and Gulfstream V planes, even though these much smaller 12-seaters can’t always make the coast-to-coast trip without a refueling stop, depending on headwinds. Pelosi is permitted to bring family members and other members of Congress on these shuttles back to her home city of San Francisco, as long as they reimburse the government to the tune of a commercial coach-class ticket.


Reading through the e-mails provided by Judicial Watch — as opposed to just reading Judicial Watch’s description of them — makes it clear that Pelosi’s family members and congressional colleagues were abiding by this reimbursement rule. Some of the e-mails between DOD and House staffers are devoted to hammering out reimbursement details. It’s also clear that the messages are about the disposition of smaller planes, not the 757-size jet, though Judicial Watch obfuscates that fact. The Web site repeats the rumor about Pelosi "requesting a 42-seat Air Force carrier to ferry the Speaker and her staff back and forth between San Francisco, CA and Washington, DC" and adds that Hastert used a 12-seater, implying that the e-mails catch Pelosi red-handed requesting huge planes for her personal transport. But Judicial Watch’s own chart shows Pelosi using only 12-seater Gulfstream equivalents for her travel to and from San Francisco. And one of the very e-mails the organization quotes specifically discusses the availability of G5s — 12-seaters — for general House use. Others discuss assigning the larger C-40Cs, the military equivalent of a Boeing 737, but again for general House member use, not for Pelosi’s coast-to-coast shuttles.


In fact, the vast majority of the e-mails are not about shuttles to and from Pelosi’s home district at all, but about congressional delegations (CODELs) to other states and countries – trips that are ostensibly for fact-finding purposes, for the most part, and generally take place during congressional recesses. Pelosi’s office oversees transportation for these trips for all members of the House, not just for the speaker herself. For instance, the quote: "This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset Speaker," which Judicial Watch highlights, refers to the DOD’s difficulties finding appropriate planes for every House delegation over the 2007 Fourth of July recess. Pelosi did not head any of the delegations that were seeking aircraft at that time. Judicial Watch has pulled out quotes that make these e-mails sound like unusual or even outrageous requests by the speaker. In fact, they show staffers juggling limited military resources for all House members, not Pelosi asking for special treatment.


For further discussion of the discrepancy between Judicial Watch’s implications and the actual documents the group provides, see this March 11 report from ABC News. The ABC reporters also compared air travel requests by Pelosi with those of Hastert and found that "Pelosi made the equivalent of 20 round-trips between Washington (Andrews Air Force Base) and San Francisco. That’s an average of less than one round-trip per month. In contrast, former Speaker Hastert traveled home to his Illinois district virtually every weekend and, his former aides tell ABC News, he would almost always travel on military aircraft."

 

[UncleBuck]

that's funny, pelosi does not even drink alcohol.

hemlock, do you ever get tired of being wrong?


http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/pelosis-party-plane/

Browse > Home / Ask FactCheck / Pelosi’s Party Plane?
Pelosi’s Party Plane?


March 4, 2010





Q:Has Nancy Pelosi spent $100,000 on food, booze and "partying" during her air travel?
A: No. Pelosi’s congressional delegations do eat well and drink pricey alcohol. But the costs are not as high as critics claim, and they’re comparable to those of her Republican predecessor, Dennis Hastert.

FULL QUESTION
I have received e-mails with links to Web sites that report that Nancy Pelosi has spent $101,000 at taxpayers’ expense on booze and food while traveling by plane back and forth to California from Washington, D.C. I haven’t been able to find anything that debunks this. Do you know if it is true?
FULL ANSWER
The conservative group Judicial Watch obtained 2,000 pages of receipts and expense reports for speaker travel under the Freedom of Information Act. The group says these demonstrate Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s “boorish demands for military travel” are “more about partying than anything else.” Based on that, the conservative WorldNetDaily ran an eye-popping but inaccurate headline that said, "Taxpayers pay $101,000 for Pelosi’s in-flight ‘food, booze.’ " Claims of Pelosi’s extravagant liquor bills spread from there through any number of blogs and chain e-mails, which sometimes attribute the in-flight costs of entire delegations to Pelosi alone on her flights between Washington and her district in California.
But Judicial Watch is wrong in several respects. Our examination of the documents reveals that Judicial Watch overstated the amount of money spent on “in-flight expenses” for Pelosi’s congressional delegations, or CODELs. Furthermore, Judicial Watch, a watchdog group that describes itself as "conservative," failed to compare Pelosi’s costs with those of the previous speaker, Republican Dennis Hastert, even though the Air Force handed over documents covering CODELs that he led, as well as those led by Pelosi. And the fact is that Hastert’s travel, as represented in Judicial Watch’s own documents, was comparable to Pelosi’s.

• Claim: Pelosi spent the Air Force’s money on travel provisions for herself and her family members.
  Fact: Both Pelosi and Hastert CODELs billed the Air Force for some expenses. Air Force funds are never used for spouses or family members.
  The general complaint from Judicial Watch and those picking up the story is that Pelosi spent Air Force money on travel, both for herself and for members of her family. This is partly true. The Air Force pays for some of what members of Congress eat and drink on CODELs — at least, as long as they’re in U.S. territory. Lt. Col. Almarah Belk of the office of the secretary of defense told us that the Air Force covers food and beverage expenses while the CODEL is on U.S. soil, and until members reach their first overseas location. After that, members of Congress reimburse the Air Force for their meals both in-flight and on the ground, either from their State Department per diem or out of pocket. Spouses’ and family members’ meals and lodgings are always reimbursed. Among the Judicial Watch documents is an accounting for each CODEL, showing how much money the Air Force laid aside in advance (often much more than the trip actually cost), how much was spent, how much was collected later, and how much was returned to the Air Force.

• Claim: Pelosi spent over $100,000 on food and alcohol.
  Fact: Her delegations did spend that amount, but not just on food and booze. (And Pelosi doesn’t drink.)
  WorldNetDaily said that Pelosi spent more than $100,000 for "food [and] booze." That’s false. The total includes expenses other than "food and booze," though it’s certainly true that international CODELs routinely show receipts for hundreds of dollars worth of top-shelf alcohol — brands like Maker’s Mark, Courvoisier, Grey Goose and Bombay Sapphire. Pelosi herself does not drink alcohol, her staff told us, but she’s not the only member of Congress on these trips. The ones who do drink are well-supplied.
  The documents also show receipts for hundreds of dollars in food purchases, often from the bulk store Sam’s Club or from the Andrews Air Force Base commissary. (It’s worth noting that, according to Pelosi’s staff, food and beverages left over after a trip are stored for future travel.) Snack items usually include cereals, fruit, chips and candy. Most of the CODELs in Judicial Watch’s sheaf of documents do not provide itemized receipts for the food used to make in-flight meals, but the one that does (a Pelosi CODEL from February 2009) lists provisions including tilapia, lasagna and fancy cakes.
  Judicial Watch calculated that Pelosi’s CODELs spent precisely $101,429.14 over two years for what it calls “in-flight expenses." We asked Judicial Watch for an explanation of its accounting, and the group sent us a spreadsheet that covered three of the nine Pelosi CODELs represented in its documents, plus 47 speaker shuttles to and from Pelosi’s home district. From the three CODELs it covers, it’s clear that Judicial Watch is counting as “in-flight expenses” any non-reimbursable Air Force expenditure besides transportation costs. That category actually includes all non-plane costs of the trip, including baggage fees, meeting room rentals and refreshments, and, frequently, good-will lapel pins — as well as meals, ground transportation and lodging in U.S. territory.
• Claim: Pelosi’s use of military funds constitutes a “scandal.”
  Fact: Whether or not Pelosi’s CODEL spending is considered outrageous, it tracks with spending for Hastert’s delegations.
  Judicial Watch is calling this “Pelosi’s Air Force Scandal.” The group may well feel scandalized, but the truth is that Hastert’s spending was much the same — a fact Judicial Watch overlooked. We did our own apples-to-apples comparison, leaving out speaker shuttles (which are not congressional delegations) and counting all of the CODELs in Judicial Watch’s documents. By our count, the nine Pelosi CODELs represented in the documents spent about $110,000, after the Air Force was reimbursed for expenditures for which it wasn’t responsible (such as overseas meals and lodging and spouses’ expenses). The eight Hastert CODELs spent about $73,000. The costs per official participant were remarkably similar — about $310 for Pelosi CODELs and $302 for Hastert CODELs. Counting in the cost of military air travel, the nine Pelosi CODELs cost $2.4 million. The eight Hastert CODELs cost $2.7 million, not including the air travel costs for one trip, which were not available.
  The liquor receipts for Pelosi and Hastert CODELs also are markedly similar. There’s some variation in particular brands — we never saw a Hastert CODEL stock Starbucks coffee liqueur, as Pelosi’s April 2007 trip did. But international CODELs routinely show receipts for hundreds of dollars worth of top-shelf alcohol, as well as beer and wine.
  Two Hastert CODELs had final stops in Hawaii, where the Air Force was responsible for food and lodging costs, and Judicial Watch’s records are full of lodging, food and drink receipts for the members. One receipt for a Morton’s Steakhouse dinner shows eight congressmen and their wives running up a nearly $1,600 bill, with $844 listed as "chargeable to AF" (the rest of the bill was reimbursed because spouses’ meals are not covered). Drinks included a 12-year Glenfidditch scotch, four Mai Tais and five glasses of wine, and food included $192 worth of crab cakes. The documents also show big dining bills for one domestic Pelosi CODEL – including a dinner for 98 people that came to more than $10,000, with $3,807 of it charged to the Air Force.

• Claim: One Pelosi CODEL went over budget by $5,500.
  Fact: This is true. The rest cost far less than the amount advanced by the Air Force.
  Judicial Watch is right when it says that one Pelosi-led CODEL ended up costing more than the advance taken out by the Air Force. The group writes: “The Department of Defense advanced a CODEL of 56 members of Congress and staff $60,000 to travel to Louisiana and Mississippi July 19-22, 2008, to ‘view flood relief advances from Hurricane Katrina.’ The three-day trip cost the U.S. Air Force $65,505.46, exceeding authorized funding by $5,505.46.” We find these figures to be correct. On other occasions, Pelosi’s CODELs came in between $4,005 and $22,671 under budget, and the rest of the amount advanced was returned to the Air Force.
  None of the Hastert CODELs covered in the documents cost more than the advance. Hastert returned between $1,614 and $15,133.
• Claim: Pelosi led 103 congressional delegations, and brought her family on 31 of them.
  Fact: Pelosi has been on 12 international CODELs and a “handful” of domestic ones, not 103. Judicial Watch also gives data for about 60 shuttles back to her home district in California, of which family members traveled on 21.
  Judicial Watch makes claims about Pelosi’s 103 CODELs, but its documents only cover 17 delegations – nine led by Pelosi, and eight by her predecessor, Dennis Hastert. Of those nine, Pelosi’s husband traveled with her on five CODELs, reimbursing the Air Force for his costs. There are more Pelosi CODELs than the documents show — Pelosi’s office tells us she’s been on 12 international CODELs and a handful of domestic ones since becoming speaker. But that’s still far short of 103, and Judicial Watch offers no supplementary evidence to back up that number, which its own documents contradict.
  Judicial Watch seems to have conflated CODELs with speaker shuttles, where the speaker travels to his or her home district. Since 2001, the speaker has been authorized to use military transport for shuttles, as we explained in an earlier piece when Judicial Watch erroneously claimed that Pelosi used a jumbo jet for these trips. Even that doesn’t bring the total to 103 — the documents Judicial Watch provides cover about 60 Pelosi shuttles and 120 Hastert shuttles. According to the Judicial Watch records, Pelosi had family members accompany her on 21 trips back to California, including 14 where she traveled with her children and two where she brought her grandchildren. The family members traveled on a reimbursable basis, paying the military back for their travel and food. Hastert’s wife also accompanied him on CODELs and speaker shuttles, and the same rules applied.

Members of Congress eat and drink better than most of us do during air travel, to be sure. Expensive alcohol is available on CODELs and the snacks are nothing to sneeze at either. We take no position on whether that’s an appropriate use of Air Force funds. Judicial Watch clearly does, which is its prerogative. But Judicial Watch fails to note that this practice is both bipartisan and of long standing. Its own documents show that Pelosi’s Republican predecessor’s CODELs also provided snacks, alcohol and meals to participating representatives, who were often accompanied by their spouses. If Judicial Watch disapproves of the menus on CODEL flights, its gripe is with Congress and the Air Force, not only with the current speaker.
–Jess Henig

 

[Johnnyorganic]

yet two thirds of corporations pay no federal taxes whatsoever. so i don't think that's it.

I'm going to have to pull the SOURCE card on that one.

Where did you get that number?

and i don't work for the government, so i don't think federal spending is it.

hmmmmm

You don't think that the federal government spending (much of it borrowed) the equivalent of a QUARTER of the entire economic activity in the U.S. is it?

Traditionally is is at 19%.

Money taken out of the private sector and put into the manipulative and greedy paws of politicians.

But you don't think that has anything to do with it.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm going to have to pull the SOURCE card on that one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml

and you can find the report itself here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-957

You don't think that the federal government spending (much of it borrowed) the equivalent of a QUARTER of the entire economic activity in the U.S. is it?

Traditionally is is at 19%.

Money taken out of the private sector and put into the manipulative and greedy paws of politicians.

But you don't think that has anything to do with it.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

and i'll return the favor and ask for your source. you made the claim that the government is taking 31.5% more from the private sector to spend. back it up now.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

From the CBS link:

The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.

Thanks for the link, but a MAJOR fail nontheless.

American owners of many U.S. Corporations are actually double taxed.

Capital Gains taxes, Buck.

And American corporations doing business in foreign lands are double taxed, too.

American Corporations which are required to pay income taxes to foreign countries for overseas revenues have to declare that previously taxed income for tax purposes if they bring the money back home.

Furthermore....

Corporations which post a loss have no income. No income = no income tax.

And you do realize Non-profits are corporations, too.

Right?

 

[Johnnyorganic]

and i'll return the favor and ask for your source. you made the claim that the government is taking 31.5% more from the private sector to spend. back it up now.

When did I cite that number?

 

[hazorazo]

Worked in the Corporate world with a fortune 50 company. All decisions are made with one main thing in mind..PROFIT!! Without profit the shareholders will be angry and start selling the stock, the selling will cause the stock price to plummet precipitously. The Board will have a meeting and the CEO will be outed. You will need to convince the shareholders to be morally superior before you will ever have a CEO that is. You can complain all you want to that it is the board and the CEO who are to blame, but it is ultimately the shareholders who must shoulder that responsibility. And who are the shareholders? People like you and me, people that have 401K and Roth IRA. Do you know what I say?

You are right on with all of this....this is why I left those types of companies....it is all a stupid game. The CEO would shit on the environment if he thought he would eek out a small increase in profit. Like you said, this is why they get paid... to make the shitty decisions that keep money rolling in. Pretty much, it supports my argument, what you said. So thanks, dude. And you are right.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

I don't know where you cooked up that number, Buck.

My source is Art Laffer.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576076353486266330.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

[UncleBuck]

From the CBS link:

Thanks for the link, but a MAJOR fail nontheless.

American owners of many U.S. Corporations are actually double taxed.

Capital Gains taxes, Buck.

And American corporations doing business in foreign lands are double taxed, too.

American Corporations which are required to pay income taxes to foreign countries for overseas revenues have to declare that previously taxed income for tax purposes if they bring the money back home.

Furthermore....

Corporations which post a loss have no income. No income = no income tax.

And you do realize Non-profits are corporations, too.

Right?

also from the cbs link:

More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said.

also, from the HEADLINE:

Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax

GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes

the major fail here was you not reading thoroughly.

don't worry, johnny. i still find you to be an intelligent voice on this board.

 

[UncleBuck]

When did I cite that number?

you said spending went from 19% to 25%, a rise of 31.5%. you also said that money was taken from the private sector.

i will read your article. i am sure i will see the rise in spending, but i highly doubt there will be any evidence that it was all taken from the private sector.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

also from the cbs link:



also, from the HEADLINE:



the major fail here was you not reading thoroughly.

don't worry, johnny. i still find you to be an intelligent voice on this board.

I find you an intelligent voice as well.

I read that 68% of foreign corporations paid no income taxes. I can only presume that is the TWO-THIRDS you referenced.

But nowhere did I see that two-thirds of NON-FOREIGN (American) corporations paid no income taxes.

No comment on the no income = no income taxes point?

No comment of the Non-profit CORPORATION point?

 

[Johnnyorganic]

you said spending went from 19% to 25%, a rise of 31.5%. you also said that money was taken from the private sector.

Would that not be a rise of 6%?

i will read your article. i am sure i will see the rise in spending, but i highly doubt there will be any evidence that it was all taken from the private sector.

Where else would it come from?

 

[UncleBuck]

I find you an intelligent voice as well.

I read that 68% of foreign corporations paid no income taxes. I can only presume that is the TWO-THIRDS you referenced.

But nowhere did I see that two-thirds of NON-FOREIGN (American) corporations paid no income taxes.

No comment on the no income = no income taxes point?

No comment of the Non-profit CORPORATION point?

no comment on the last two points. you have good points there. would be interested to know what percentage they represent. could be significant.

the article does reference us corporations and foreign corporations though.

edit - i can list several majorly profitable corporations that paid no taxes at all last year.

 

[UncleBuck]

Would that not be a rise of 6%?

a rise in spending from 19% to 25% is a total rise of 6%, a 31.5% increase (6/19 = .315 or so)

Where else would it come from?

borrowing, printing money. personal taxes/fees not from what we commonly define as 'the private sector'.

 

[UncleBuck]

I read that 68% of foreign corporations paid no income taxes. I can only presume that is the TWO-THIRDS you referenced.

But nowhere did I see that two-thirds of NON-FOREIGN (American) corporations paid no income taxes.

Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.

the very first line of the article.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

the very first line of the article.

Which, in the second paragraph, is followed by; "68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S."

It's called yellow journalism.

In this case, CBS explains how they made the claim appear more than it ACTUALLY was.

Very clever.

So CBS can claim that they spoke the truth, after all.

 

[DelSlow]

The company/corp. I work for paid $0 in taxes last year. BUT after all expenses like payroll, rent, supplies, etc. the company basically made no profit.

 

[Chad Sexington]

I don't know if it has been said, but congratulations.