Pelosi spends over $2 million on travel over two years

Seems like an unnecessary amount of money. I wouldn't put blame specifically on Pelosi unless it's something unusual though, which that article didn't tell me. That also makes it sound like it took that much money purely for herself when it looks like there were a lot more people involved (still a lot of money and unnecessary alcohol).
 
I tell you, if I were a drinking man, I wouldn't have been at work the day after the 2004 election. I wanted to call in sick as it was.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] I wanted to call in sick as it was.[/QUOTE]

Most of us didn't have to wait the full four years for that.
 
[quote name='Strell']Most of us didn't have to wait the full four years for that.[/QUOTE]

I beat my head against a wall enough times in the first four years. I wanted to call in sick because we were stupid enough to do it all over again.
 
Context or GTFO

p.s. that website is a joke. In case judicial watch doesn't know. She is 2nd in line of succession
 
http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp (most interesting part: forcing the speaker into a private jet was bush's doing, before Pelosi was even speaker)

nobody's gonna read the 2,000 page document cited, and when dealing with that much data, there are about a billion ways to deceptively frame it.

for example, i'm pretty sure the "reserving and then canceling" is due to her opting for the smaller jet when available. i.e. if the weather (wind) is uncertain, she'll book both planes, and if winds turn out weak enough to allow it she'll go with the smaller (cheaper, albeit only slightly) jet. i'd consider that a good thing, as opposed to always taking the larger jet regardless of weather conditions. but of course when you say she reserves & cancels it's gonna sound bad. anything can sound bad if it is the author's intent.



our brains can be used for better things than pretending to care about this non-issue.
 
[quote name='Koggit']http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/jet.asp (most interesting part: forcing the speaker into a private jet was bush's doing, before Pelosi was even speaker)

nobody's gonna read the 2,000 page document cited, and when dealing with that much data, there are about a billion ways to deceptively frame it.

for example, i'm pretty sure the "reserving and then canceling" is due to her opting for the smaller jet when available. i.e. if the weather (wind) is uncertain, she'll book both planes, and if winds turn out weak enough to allow it she'll go with the smaller (cheaper, albeit only slightly) jet. i'd consider that a good thing, as opposed to always taking the larger jet regardless of weather conditions. but of course when you say she reserves & cancels it's gonna sound bad. anything can sound bad if it is the author's intent.



our brains can be used for better things than pretending to care about this non-issue.[/QUOTE]

Firstly, "I'm pretty sure" needs some elaboration. Is this something you thought out for yourself? Documentation? Conjecture? Report? Just assuming the best when there is evidence otherwise I don't think is a convincing argument.

I don't know why you're attempting to excuse her. There are plenty of other examples, and your link doesn't refute what I posted in the OT. This is new information about lavish spending on trips and food/alcohol. Pelosi (along with other Congress-critters) spent over $1.1 million just on their trip to the Copenhagen summit a couple months back, just as a quick additional example.
 
What's legitimate, though? Taking the MegaBus?

That example is snidely made by me, of course, but we need to find a better discussion than the "they spend money!/they have amenities!" dichotomy we have. As in, identifying legitimate costs and illegitimate costs.

I'll give you alcohol; when I travel for conferences I get a per diem that adjusts based on the city I travel to for "whatever." It's supposed to be for food, but I know how to eat on the cheap/free so I have some for alcohol in the evening (but even then it's limited by the amt of the per diem). But I also have a total amount I can spend on the trip itself - the last one I went to killed me b/c the registration costs ($250) ate up a huge portion of my travel budget by itself.

Sparing the boring details, I'm restrained in what I can do while on travel. I'd be happy to see federal politicians meet some similar threshold if one doesn't exist already - that said, the sad part would be that we'd need to spend money on an oversight committee to establish those thresholds and ensure they are met - and additional financial burden to the taxpayer. :rofl:
 
Speaking of the waste of taxpayer money, what's up with the Airforce shelling out $2-$3million a piece for 2 Super Bowl commercials and how about that horrible Dodge Charger commercial that was paid for with the TARP funds that this automaker is never going to pay back?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What's legitimate, though? Taking the MegaBus?

That example is snidely made by me, of course, but we need to find a better discussion than the "they spend money!/they have amenities!" dichotomy we have. As in, identifying legitimate costs and illegitimate costs.

I'll give you alcohol; when I travel for conferences I get a per diem that adjusts based on the city I travel to for "whatever." It's supposed to be for food, but I know how to eat on the cheap/free so I have some for alcohol in the evening (but even then it's limited by the amt of the per diem). But I also have a total amount I can spend on the trip itself - the last one I went to killed me b/c the registration costs ($250) ate up a huge portion of my travel budget by itself.

Sparing the boring details, I'm restrained in what I can do while on travel. I'd be happy to see federal politicians meet some similar threshold if one doesn't exist already - that said, the sad part would be that we'd need to spend money on an oversight committee to establish those thresholds and ensure they are met - and additional financial burden to the taxpayer. :rofl:[/QUOTE]

Obviously I am not suggesting that she take the bus. I don't think that flying commercial is beneath a member of Congress. Living in the D.C. area, I've seen members of Congress flying commercial when flying myself. Yes, I know she's the speaker, but so what? It's as legitimate as members of Congress getting special check-in privileges at National Airport (which they do) -- as in not legitimate. Why should they be treated like royalty? As Judicial Watch notes, the "sense of entitlement" is the most offensive thing.

Obviously the massive expenditures (three military jets to Copenhagen, $100,000+ in food/alcohol) of taxpayer money for what amounts to luxury travel is bullshit, and even more bullshit at a time when many people are out of work and struggling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top