Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on July 15, 2020, 04:20:45 PM
-
With everything else going on, this has been somewhat under the radar, but I've been following it the past few weeks. As of now, Omar has funneled over $1 million dollars to her husband via her 2020 campaign funds, and the year is not over.
Between this and all the other smarmy *expletive deleted*it she does, she has to be one of the most corrupt members of congress. Not to mention most hypocritical members. And she's new. Imagine how much corrupt stuff she would do if she were in as long as Biden.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omars-payments-to-husbands-firm-hit-1-million-in-2020-cycle
-
she has to be one of the most corrupt members of congress.
I doubt it. She's just not as adept at concealing her malfeasance as the folks who have been there for thirty years.
-
That's how it works in the swamp. Then we pay them a big taxpayer funded pension and healthcare the rest of their lives.
-
Is this the husband she used to fraudulently get in the country, the brother/husband, or then new one?
-
Is this the husband she used to fraudulently get in the country, the brother/husband, or then new one?
This is the new one. Her campaign manager or PR person or something? Which I guess is how they're funneling the dough.
-
This is the new one. Her campaign manager or PR person or something? Which I guess is how they're funneling the dough.
1:25-1:42
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg8GUJP-Z4Q&feature=youtu.be&t=85
-
That's how it works in the swamp. Then we pay them a big taxpayer funded pension and healthcare the rest of their lives.
This must change.
-
This is the new one. Her campaign manager or PR person or something? Which I guess is how they're funneling the dough.
He has a campaign consulting company. Most of their business is with the Omar campaign. So most of the campaign money goes straight into their pockets.
I figure most of the federally elected politicians have arrangements like this and that is just the surface level stuff.
-
This must change.
Stop electing incumbents and it may change.
-
Stop electing incumbents and it may change.
I don't like having to pay the lifetime benefits, but I'd be willing to let them keep getting them if we could make a trade for two term limits.
-
I don't like having to pay the lifetime benefits, but I'd be willing to let them keep getting them if we could make a trade for two term limits.
Two terms for senators is 12 years. That's plenty. For representatives, two terms is just four years. I'd be willing to let representatives have 3 terms.
-
Stop electing incumbents and it may change.
That presumes our elections are legitimate.
-
I don't like having to pay the lifetime benefits, but I'd be willing to let them keep getting them if we could make a trade for two term limits.
Nah. All government employees should have to have a minimum of 20 years of service before being eligible for retirement benefits. And there should be a limit of 12 years as a Representative, or Senator, therefore if they want to get 20 years in, they will have to switch jobs at least once.
-
I think they should be putting their retirement into a 401K or .gov equivalent...what's good for the goose is good for the gander. When they are done, no more benefits, find a job like everybody else. Senator limited to 2 terms and Rep limited to 3 terms and they cannot run/serve in the opposite
house chamber.
ETA: Oh and all bills apply to them as well and no automatic pay raises.
ETA: chamber instead of house.
-
What adively said.
-
I think they should be putting their retirement into a 401K or .gov equivalent...
AFAIK, they already get to invest in the gov TSP. I don't know if matching is different for them or not, or if they have other perks like being able to continue to invest in it after leaving gov service (which run of the mill feds cannot do).
-
Ben said,
"I don't like having to pay the lifetime benefits, but I'd be willing to let them keep getting them if we could make a trade for two term limits."
Tempting, but only as a final fallback compromise, not as an initial proposal. The initial proposal has to be a lot tougher than that.
Hasn't your observation of liberal negotiating/compromise techniques over the decades taught you anything?
Propose the extreme, allow negotiation to whittle things down to the result you originally intended and hoped for. Win-win.
Besides, a skilled political artist can probably figure out how to defeat term limits anyway. Look at Bloomberg, who got three terms as Mayor of NYC despite the two-term limit by conveniently switching parties.
Loopholes abound.
And, Terry added, tongue-in-cheek, law training for public office should be a disqualifier, not a qualifier.
Terry
-
Term limits are not a be all and end all, I'll remind the class. Russia has term limits on their president. How's that going for them?
A more effective solution is real and lasting consequences for malfeasance in office. In a just world it would be easier to convict a federal official for corruption and illegal acts than a regular citizen. As it is we have stories like this where graft, corruption , and cronyisim are only the most thinly veiled, if they bother to hide them at all. The issue is not the length of time we allow elected officials to stay, the issue is the officials that we elect.
Until we figure out how to elect honorable people and hold them to real standards of honor, as well as how to get rid of criminals, any talk of reform is mental masturbation. You'd just get another crop of "The Lessor Evil" in.