Palin Resigns

[Severian]

Ming Campbell

 

Do you mean the guy who hired a top interior designer to refurbish his small flat in central London at taxpayers’ expense, spending nearly £10,000 on scatter cushions, a king-sized bed and a flat-screen television?

 

Nick Clegg

 

You mean the guy who claimed the maximum amount allowable on his second home, at the expense of the tax payer, and boasted in an interview with GQ magazine that he had boned 30 women?

 

Cory Booker

 

You mean the guy who won the Newark Mayor election by spending 25 times the amount spent by the opposition candidate?

 

Seriously, you expect no one with real integrity ever thinks of serving fellow citizens by government office in honest fashion?

 

The problem is that all these people want to rule, not to serve.

[The Bear's Key]

Do you mean the guy who hired a top interior designer to refurbish his small flat in central London at taxpayers’ expense, spending nearly £10,000 on scatter cushions, a king-sized bed and a flat-screen television?

 

 

You mean the guy who claimed the maximum amount allowable on his second home, at the expense of the tax payer, and boasted in an interview with GQ magazine that he had boned 30 women?

 

 

 

You mean the guy who won the Newark Mayor election by spending 25 times the amount spent by the opposition candidate?

How's any of those corrupt? What else do you have on these guys? You really want some examples to campare against?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Do you mean the guy who hired a top interior designer to refurbish his small flat in central London at taxpayers’ expense, spending nearly £10,000 on scatter cushions, a king-sized bed and a flat-screen television?

£10,000 over two years to redesign his flat in London, which included the purchasing of a king-sized bed, scatter cushions and a small flat screen television.

 

But why not investigate the original source of the Wikipedia factoid yourself?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5314759/Sir-Menzies-Campbell-hired-top-designer-for-10000-overhaul-of-flat-MPs-expenses.html

He wrote: “My flat has remained untouched since 1989 and is in need of decoration and upgrading. You will observe that in recent years I have very substantially underspent my ACA.”

 

The overhaul of the flat was sanctioned by officials five days later. The year before, Sir Menzies had asked whether he could buy a new television from his Additional Costs Allowance.

 

“I should be grateful for some guidance. Am I entitled to replace my 15 year old TV set in my London flat out of the ACA,” he wrote.

 

The fees office replied that he could. Sir Menzies’ claims show that he eventually bought the television, a flat-screen worth £299, as part of the overhaul of the flat.

.....

He was faced with a choice of renting a large property –costing the taxpayer more – or having the flat renovated.

Whoa yeah sounds like a real bad-ass

Edited February 9, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[Sisyphus]

Isn't "flat screen television," like "color television," pretty much redundant at this point? [/changing subject]

[Severian]

Whoa yeah sounds like a real bad-ass

 

Just because something is technically within the rules doesn't make it the right thing to do. We have had the discussion of morality v. legality many times. Anyone who asks the taxpayer to pay for their TV is morally corrupt.

[Sisyphus]

Does that make all government employees morally corrupt, inasmuch as they are paid salaries and buy things with them? Or am I misunderstanding the situation?

[Mr Skeptic]

It is impossible for politicians not to be morally corrupt, because it is impossible for anyone to not be morally corrupt. Largely because morals are arbitrary and people hold conflicting morals. But if you define "corrupt" by any reasonable standards, both politicians and regular people behave appropriately.

 

Another aspect is that you can't really read people's minds. In politics sometimes you have to do things you don't like, whereas frequently sitting on the "moral high horse" guarantees that you cannot accomplish your good objective. Thus, compromise may be the moral imperative, and the "moral high horse" a cowardly way out.

[Phi for All]

Just because something is technically within the rules doesn't make it the right thing to do. We have had the discussion of morality v. legality many times. Anyone who asks the taxpayer to pay for their TV is morally corrupt.

Many things politicians do fall within my personal definition of corrupt, but I'm afraid I'd have to put a TV on a list of legitimate business expenses for someone who needs their finger on the pulse of society.

[Pangloss]

My comment seemed quite well received by Jackson, and when I said I could go and find articles showing how Palin is absolutely corrupt, you might notice that I added that he could find articles to say just the opposite. My point was that with politics, you can find any poll or article or review on the Internet to back up your statements.

 

I feel that my post was completely acceptable.

 

Let me also note that I enjoyed reading your reply Jackson.

 

Your opinion is certainly acceptable; factual statements have to be supported. I'm taking this as an acknowledgement that your statement that "Palin is absolutely corrupt" was an opinion. Thanks for clarifying this.

[Severian]

Many things politicians do fall within my personal definition of corrupt, but I'm afraid I'd have to put a TV on a list of legitimate business expenses for someone who needs their finger on the pulse of society.

 

Don't you think £10,000 seems a little excessive?

[Phi for All]

Don't you think £10,000 seems a little excessive?

I think the price tag from all remodeling work seems excessive, but most of it is legitimate and justifiable expense. Did the "top designer" have any carpentry, plumbing or electrical work done? That kind of work adds up quickly in any kind of renovation. If the designer used a General contractor to coordinate everyone's efforts so the time involved was minimal, that's usually 20% more in cost, but it's often cheaper than renting another space in the meantime. Were the designer and GC paid on a percentage of the total cost basis? This method does little to make them curb costs, but is preferable to paying them flat rate, in which case they will use the cheapest materials and labor in order to inflate their profits.

 

What it boils down to is that Campbell had an ACA budget approved from his fees office, he stayed within it and got the flat updated. You are taking the objectionable parts, like flat screen TVs, king-sized beds and scatter cushions, and equating them to the total cost of the renovation, even though we know he got the TV for £299. He probably paid twice that for the bed, half that for the cushions, leaving almost £9000 for the rest of what the top designer did for his flat. If you have any objections, it should be with whoever sets the budgets, not those who stay within them.

[Severian]

If you have any objections, it should be with whoever sets the budgets, not those who stay within them.

 

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago:

 

Just because something is technically within the rules doesn't make it the right thing to do.

[toastywombel]

Your opinion is certainly acceptable; factual statements have to be supported. I'm taking this as an acknowledgement that your statement that "Palin is absolutely corrupt" was an opinion. Thanks for clarifying this.

 

Thank you for responding, I will try to make it more clear when I am stating an opinion of mine in the future.

[The Bear's Key]

Just because something is technically within the rules doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Nor makes it corrupt. Wasn't "technically" either.

 

Anyone who asks the taxpayer to pay for their TV is morally corrupt.

Really, how? Do public servants have loads of time to get a second job to buy things? It's the same as jobs that give per diem spending money to workers away from home. At least there was enough oversight by the government's Common Fees office.

 

It is impossible for politicians not to be morally corrupt, because it is impossible for anyone to not be morally corrupt. Largely because morals are arbitrary and people hold conflicting morals.

Bull, we'd have no functional justice system were that entirely accurate.

[Phi for All]

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago:

I'm not a big fan of the budget system, it's full of flaws, but I can't think of anything that fixes those flaws without causing a bunch of other flaws. So let's look at it this way, if your employer gave you a budget to put together an office at home, would you spend it all or would you buy only the bare necessities? Would you buy the cheapest desk, the least expensive computer, and not replace the 12-year old carpet so you could spend less of your employer's money?

 

You won't get anything bonus for saving him money and you have to work with the stuff you buy, so making your work day more bearable by getting the bigger monitor and the nicer chair might make you perform better too. Maybe that's part of the reason your employer set the budget where he did. And if you have an extra £299 after all else is purchased, and a new flat screen TV was something that would help you do your job by staying informed, it's not a question of what you deserve, or even what you can get your company to pay for, it's about working within the system that has been set up for you to do your job.

 

There are definitely public servants who go overboard and don't work within the rules and abuse their budgets and their power, but I just don't think what Campbell did is corrupt. Self-serving? Maybe, but is it self-serving if it makes you better at what you do for a living, and if so, is that necessarily bad? There are worse ways to be self-serving.

[Phi for All]

Sarah Palin will Rise!

 

Dont miss with her either,she is just so awesome....

 

O' My Sarah

I was looking for that piece of the puzzle. Thank you.