Obama Supporters Getting Perks

[duane1969]

I said EVIDENCE. My initial post points out QUITE CLEARLY how the report skews the numbers. You guys are unbelievable.

So we need hard and fast, undeniable evidence for any report to be remotely believable?

Remind me to send a thank you note to HuffPost for making this easy...

The donor, Ed Haddock, the CEO of Full Sail University, a for-profit technical college in Orlando, was set to meet with top aide Pete Rouse, according to the memo title, though when that meeting would take place is not clear. Haddock served on the Obama for America National Finance Committee and was a "bundler" for president during his 2008 run for the office, helping raise more than $200,000. He was viewed by the memo's author Jessica Clark, the Obama campaign's finance director in Florida, as a key figure for the Obama campaign in that critical state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_875986.html

If you need exact hard evidence then it isn't hard to find that either. The list of Obama supporters who have gotten positions and special treatment is long and well documented.

[habsheaven]

So we need hard and fast, undeniable evidence for any report to be remotely believable?

Remind me to send a thank you note to HuffPost for making this easy...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_875986.html

If you need exact hard evidence then it isn't hard to find that either. The list of Obama supporters who have gotten positions and special treatment is long and well documented.

My point is, what do you say about the 282 Obama bundlers that DID NOT get any benefit? THAT LIST IS LONGER!!

[Star_Cards]

yes but it goes to the saying "Its not what you know its who you know". I do not see a problem with getting perks for a little payoff. This goes on in the business world everyday.

I get that it's a who you know world. I'm not naive to think that doesn't matter, but politicians shouldn't be able to place people in jobs because they were given money.

[Star_Cards]

As long as it is not illegal I do not have any isssues with this. It happens all the time and we all do it all the time. We hook up friends because we know them, we give them discounts if we can, we give them free itmes. It happens all the time and I do not see anything wrong with it. It's who you know.

you're comparing a political position being bought to me hooking a friend up with extra fries if I happen to work at mcDonalds?

To the people that think this is okay... do you think what rod blagojevich was convicted of was okay and he shouldn't have lost his job or been punished?

[habsheaven]

I get that it's a who you know world. I'm not naive to think that doesn't matter, but politicians shouldn't be able to place people in jobs because they were given money.

I assume you would like the politician to give the job to the most qualified person, right? What if that person is a donor? Where in this report does it show that the people benefitting are not qualified? Where does it show that they bought positions?

[duane1969]

My point is, what do you say about the 282 Obama bundlers that DID NOT get any benefit? THAT LIST IS LONGER!!

I already responded to that. I said that even 1% getting special treatment is wrong. Our government should not be for sale to the highest bidder/biggest donator.

I work in education and one of the biggest problems I see is people getting jobs because of who they know and not what they know. The net result is people who have no idea how to do their jobs, much less do a good job. And since these people got their job by giving a donation (bribe) then they are equally open to giving special treatment to others for a "donation".

Corruption begets corruption.

[Star_Cards]

I'm not sure what the problem is here.

Are we saying that these Obama bundlers (68 of 350 = 19%) should be automatically EXCLUDED? What does the 81% not getting the perks say about the situation?

Do we honestly expect that these Obama bundlers (250 of 350) would NOT be the ones invited to WH events? What % is the 250 of the total number of invitees to the WH?

The last one is the best, Obama bundlers (30 of 350 = 8%) with "ties" to companies that have or "hope to" conduct business with the government.

Again, are we to expect contributors to political campaigns to be AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED from doing business with the WH?

Let's try and get real for once.

I don't think that any contributor should be excluded, but it does raise some concerns in my opinion. I also agree that it goes on all the time. That's actually why I think they need to reform campaign finance and come up with a better way than the current system.

There are tons of hoops that companies have to jump through to hiring when it comes to sex, race, nationality and so on. Politicians should be upheld to the same standards if they aren't currently.

[habsheaven]

I already responded to that. I said that even 1% getting special treatment is wrong. Our government should not be for sale to the highest bidder/biggest donator.

I work in education and one of the biggest problems I see is people getting jobs because of who they know and not what they know. The net result is people who have no idea how to do their jobs, much less do a good job. And since these people got their job by giving a donation (bribe) then they are equally open to giving special treatment to others for a "donation".

Corruption begets corruption.

And I will ask you again. Where is the evidence of this "special treatment"? You cannot claim that 19% getting perks and 81% NOT getting perks is evidence.

[duane1969]

I don't think that any contributor should be excluded, but it does raise some concerns in my opinion. I also agree that it goes on all the time. That's actually why I think they need to reform campaign finance and come up with a better way than the current system.
There are tons of hoops that companies have to jump through to hiring when it comes to sex, race, nationality and so on. Politicians should be upheld to the same standards if they aren't currently.

I have always supported a "pool". Everyone donates to a general pool and the poll is divided equally between candidate.

[habsheaven]

I don't think that any contributor should be excluded, but it does raise some concerns in my opinion. I also agree that it goes on all the time. That's actually why I think they need to reform campaign finance and come up with a better way than the current system.

There are tons of hoops that companies have to jump through to hiring when it comes to sex, race, nationality and so on. Politicians should be upheld to the same standards if they aren't currently.

This is the part I do not get. Why can't we assume that the 19% that got the perks were the most qualified and the 81% that didn't weren't the most qualified?