U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Bobdoletoo]

She still broke the act Bobdoletoo, I'm not sure where you're getting otherwise. The White House spokesman acknowledged as much quite clearly. They changed the designation so they would be responsible for the expenses.

How is she getting special treatment?

The president has decided to overlook the improper political activities of his appointees when in their official capacities. He has effectively said it is OK to politicize the executive branch.

When federal employees violate the Hatch Act, the standard punishment is termination. But since Sebelius is a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee, she isn’t entitled to a review from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) — one that that could reduce her penalty. In Sebelius’ case, she isn’t allowed to have that MSPB board intervene, her future is in Obama’s hands. And, because Obama hasn’t fired her yet, he’s affording Sebelius special treatment that an ordinary government employee who violated the Hatch Act wouldn’t get.

[Wells]

The president has decided to overlook the improper political activities of his appointees when in their official capacities

How has he overlooked it. According to the people responsible for dealing with this what has happened is pretty much in line for the other 100 times a year it happens.

When federal employees violate the Hatch Act, the standard punishment is termination.

You're flat wrong

OSC spokeswoman Ann O'Hanlon said there is no formal rule for dealing with an appointed official in violation of the act. However, the agency investigates at least 100 cases such cases annually with "a great majority" of them being resolved internally and violators getting a suspension.

There has been no special exception made. They did exactly what they were supposed to do.

[Bobdoletoo]

How has he overlooked it. According to the people responsible for dealing with this what has happened is pretty much in line for the other 100 times a year it happens.

You're flat wrong


There has been no special exception made. They did exactly what they were supposed to do.

So now the defender of democrats says it is okay to break laws if you go back and change it after you do it. You do not deny that she broke the law, nor deny that they changed the facts afterwards to make it where she did not break the law.

The standard punishment is termination. The MSPB overturns several and turns them into suspensions based on the severity of the violation. She is not eligible under the MSPB so it is up to obama.

[Grizzly Willy]

However, if the board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of no fewer than 30 days’ suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the board.

From: http://hatchact.uslegal.com/penalties/

The transgression doesn't seem that severe, so a suspension sounds like a reasonable punishment.

[oblivionx]

From: http://hatchact.uslegal.com/penalties/

The transgression doesn't seem that severe, so a suspension sounds like a reasonable punishment.

Wonder how the argument would have been going if it was a Bush cabinet member?

It's ok, we all know how it would be going.

She broke the law, and if it's good for your "cause" it's fine by you.

[Bobdoletoo]

Wonder how the argument would have been going if it was a Bush cabinet member?

It's ok, we all know how it would be going.

She broke the law, and if it's good for your "cause" it's fine by you.

I understand that the theme of obama's campaign is forward, yet democrats have an irresistible need to bring up George Bush all the time. I personally have no problem firing a Bush cabinet member who broke the law. Unlike the democrats on this board, I can separate a law breaker from the party.

[Grizzly Willy]

Wonder how the argument would have been going if it was a Bush cabinet member?

It's ok, we all know how it would be going.

She broke the law, and if it's good for your "cause" it's fine by you.

It's fascinating that you assume this of me. My "cause" is the progression of the American people and of our nation. My "cause" is the ensuring of fairness within our government, regardless of party. My "cause", as you like to put it, is to ensure that we as citizens of the United States of America have a government that looks out for us. I am not beholden to any party, Oblivion, and you should know that. My goal is to look at issues and find the truth, and if it hurts somebody, it hurts them. I have no compunction with calling out Obama on his dismal transparency record. I take no issue with pointing out the flaws in Mitt Romney's ideology. I do take issue with you, and others like you, who try and push this partisan agenda on others.

If you would like me to address you as an intellectual equal who cares about this nation, let me know. Until then, your biases prevent me from doing so.

[Bobdoletoo]

From: http://hatchact.uslegal.com/penalties/

The transgression doesn't seem that severe, so a suspension sounds like a reasonable punishment.

If you have to go back and change things to make it so you don't break the law, in my opinion, it is severe enough.

---------- Post added 2012-09-13 at 10:51 PM ----------

It's fascinating that you assume this of me. My "cause" is the progression of the American people and of our nation. My "cause" is the ensuring of fairness within our government, regardless of party. My "cause", as you like to put it, is to ensure that we as citizens of the United States of America have a government that looks out for us. I am not beholden to any party, Oblivion, and you should know that. My goal is to look at issues and find the truth, and if it hurts somebody, it hurts them. I have no compunction with calling out Obama on his dismal transparency record. I take no issue with pointing out the flaws in Mitt Romney's ideology. I do take issue with you, and others like you, who try and push this partisan agenda on others.

If you would like me to address you as an intellectual equal who cares about this nation, let me know. Until then, your biases prevent me from doing so.

Pretty sure that was aimed at me.

[Grizzly Willy]

If you have to go back and change things to make it so you don't break the law, in my opinion, it is severe enough.

I apologize, I am rather unfamiliar with the issue and am only speaking on the little I've seen of your discussion with Wells. The most I've heard was that no real damage was done. What exactly did she do, and why is she being protected?

[oblivionx]

If you would like me to address you as an intellectual equal who cares about this nation, let me know. Until then, your biases prevent me from doing so.

Yah I know that I replied to you, but I wasn't necessarily addressing just you.

It's more a rhetorical question I was asking.

[Bobdoletoo]

I apologize, I am rather unfamiliar with the issue and am only speaking on the little I've seen of your discussion with Wells. The most I've heard was that no real damage was done. What exactly did she do, and why is she being protected?

She went to a tax payer funded event and addressed them as the secretary of Health and Human Services. At this event she endorsed obama , which violates the hatch act -- which prohibits federal employees from using their official authority or influence to affect the outcome of an election. The OSC said Wednesday that she violated the Hatch act.

Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner wrote to Obama that "Secretary Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services reimbursed the U.S. government for all costs and expenses associated with her travel to the February 25, 2012, event.”

Lerner also wrote: “HHS subsequently reclassified the trip from official to political and issued a statement to that effect. OSC found no evidence that Secretary Sebelius made any other political statements in her official capacity.”

So after she broke the law, they reclassified the trip to make it not offical government , and repaid the government to make sure it was no longer considered a tax payer funded trip.

[Chrysia]

She went to a tax payer funded event and addressed them as the secretary of Health and Human Services. At this event she endorsed obama , which violates the hatch act -- which prohibits federal employees from using their official authority or influence to affect the outcome of an election. The OSC said Wednesday that she violated the Hatch act.

Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner wrote to Obama that "Secretary Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services reimbursed the U.S. government for all costs and expenses associated with her travel to the February 25, 2012, event.”

Lerner also wrote: “HHS subsequently reclassified the trip from official to political and issued a statement to that effect. OSC found no evidence that Secretary Sebelius made any other political statements in her official capacity.”

So after she broke the law, they reclassified the trip to make it not offical government , and repaid the government to make sure it was no longer considered a tax payer funded trip.

Correct, but disciplinary action is still being considered, and they are also handling it just like every other case where this happens.

[Wells]

So now the defender of democrats says it is okay to break laws if you go back and change it after you do it

This isn't complicated. After she made the remarks they changed the designation to political so that they would reimburse the government and it would be on record as what it was.

The standard punishment is termination.

I just linked you the spokesman of the agency handling her case directly contradicting you.

[Naxere]

So what's the take on Obama saying Egypt wasn't an ally, then having everyone dogpile on him to correct it? Even Jimmy Carter got in on it.


[edit] Also, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/soci...-month-left-fy

By the end of August, according to data released Thursday by the U.S. Treasury, the federal government had already paid out record annual amounts in both Social Security and disability benefits during fiscal 2012—even though there was still a month left in the year.

[Wells]

So what's the take on Obama saying Egypt wasn't an ally, then having everyone dogpile on him to correct it? Even Jimmy Carter got in on it.

“You know, I don’t think that we would consider them an ally but we don’t consider them an enemy,” he said in an interview with Telemundo. “They are a new government trying to find its way, they were democratically elected. I think we are going to have to see how they respond to this incident, to see how they respond to maintaining the peace treaty with Israel.”

Seems reasonable.

[obdigore]

So what's the take on Obama saying Egypt wasn't an ally, then having everyone dogpile on him to correct it? Even Jimmy Carter got in on it.

If you look at the Transcript, the question was 'Do you consider the current Egyptian Regime an ally?'. But even so, it was a foolish statement to make on his part.

[Merkava]

If you look at the Transcript, the question was 'Do you consider the current Egyptian Regime an ally?'. But even so, it was a foolish statement to make on his part.

Jimmy Carter and the State Department corrected him.

[obdigore]

Jimmy Carter and the State Department corrected him.

And? Egypt is considered a Non-NATO ally. The new Egyptian Regime, I don't know how good of any ally they will be to the US. Do you? It was a fair answer to the question, but phrased foolishly and the GOP will try to spin it as if Obama does not know what he is talking about.

[Merkava]

And? Egypt is considered a Non-NATO ally. The new Egyptian Regime, I don't know how good of any ally they will be to the US. Do you? It was a fair answer to the question, but phrased foolishly and the GOP will try to spin it as if Obama does not know what he is talking about.

Fair answer? With all due respect, what is a fair answer? Does a fair answer classify as correct or incorrect?

The answer is yes, they are an ally. It may have to be qualified, but it's still yes.

And no, I don't know how good of an ally they will be, but that wasn't the question he was asked.

[obdigore]

Fair answer? With all due respect, what is a fair answer? Does a fair answer classify as correct or incorrect?

The answer is yes, they are an ally. It may have to be qualified, but it's still yes.

And no, I don't know how good of an ally they will be, but that wasn't the question he was asked.

Read the transcript. He was asked

Jose Diaz Balart – Would you consider the current Egyptian regime an ally of the United States?