She did sell the plane to benefit the citizens of Alaska. She sold the plane for $2.1 million. The plane would have cost the state for pilots, storage, maintenance, fuel she saved the state a lot of money. Add all of that up and subtract the measly amount she's spent on travel and no matter how you want to twist things, Alaska got a good deal.
<<She did sell the plane to benefit the citizens of Alaska. She sold the plane for $2.1 million. The plane would have cost the state for pilots, storage, maintenance, fuel she saved the state a lot of money. Add all of that up and subtract the measly amount she's spent on travel and no matter how you want to twist things, Alaska got a good deal.>>
My SO and I have given 3 $50 contributions to Obama's campaign since Super Tuesday and I can tell you that we are far from rich. We have a baby on the way and we live off of student loans and SO's restaurant job. But we have cut down on other things in order to contribute to his campaign and there are TONS of people just like us doing the same thing. We look at it as an investment in our health care plans, our soon-to-be son's education, and SO's VA benefits. If you're so curious about where Obama gets his money, why don't you do some research? Just because you can't imagine why millions of people would donate money to a political campaign just says that maybe your candidate isn't worth it.
Plus, if what she did was so ethical and she was really just "saving Alaska money," why did she have to go back and edit the expense reports to make it look as though her children were there on official business when they clearly were not? Why be secretive and lie about the travel? That is what I take offense to. Average Joes don't get to take vacations to New York City and stay in $800 a night hotel rooms at taxpayers expense. Sorry.
But this is a trend -- she didn't break the law in letting her husband use her office to intimidate a State employee -- and after all he didn't fire someone who should have been fired so its all good.
Ethics takes a back seat to "ends justify the means"
She didn't give in one area to take in another, it's all the same area....travel. There is no law in Alaska that says her children can't travel with her. The democrats are really trying to make something out of nothing on this one IMO.
"There is no law in Alaska that says her children can't travel with her."
I'm sure this is an ethics violation, and even if it isn't, using taxpayer money to foot the bill for family vacations is in no way good. If she thought it was no big deal, why go back and edit the expense report?
And really, if anyone here decided to bring the family on a business trip and bill the company for a fancy hotel, transport and meals, I'm pretty sure you'd find yourself definitely out of a job, and likely facing financial/legal penalty. Shouldn't Simple Sarah be held to the same standard of not abusing taxpayer dollars?
Oh my. If it had been found out that Obama had been billing the state of Illinois for luxury family trips, I can't even imagine the uproar. Instead, Sarah gets a free pass and plenty of excuses from her supporters. Like usual.
I really don't care what Sarah Palin does or did b/c 1- I'm not an Alaska taxpayer and 2- I was not planning on voting for her anyway so it doesn't affect me. However, I found your statement to be hilarious. So by your logic it would be ok for the President to sell the White House to save taxpayers money and then use part of that money to buy a vacation home for personal use b/c hey, it's all the same area - real estate. You're completely off base on this one.
And btw, she did give in one area and then take in another. She gave to benefit the state but she took to benefit herself. One was hers to give, but the other was not hers to take.
Pages
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
But this is a trend -- she didn't break the law in letting her husband use her office to intimidate a State employee -- and after all he didn't fire someone who should have been fired so its all good.
Ethics takes a back seat to "ends justify the means"
We can only be said to be alive in those moments when our hearts are conscious of our treasures.
"There is no law in Alaska that says her children can't travel with her."
I'm sure this is an ethics violation, and even if it isn't, using taxpayer money to foot the bill for family vacations is in no way good. If she thought it was no big deal, why go back and edit the expense report?
And really, if anyone here decided to bring the family on a business trip and bill the company for a fancy hotel, transport and meals, I'm pretty sure you'd find yourself definitely out of a job, and likely facing financial/legal penalty. Shouldn't Simple Sarah be held to the same standard of not abusing taxpayer dollars?
Oh my. If it had been found out that Obama had been billing the state of Illinois for luxury family trips, I can't even imagine the uproar. Instead, Sarah gets a free pass and plenty of excuses from her supporters. Like usual.
<>
I really don't care what Sarah Palin does or did b/c 1- I'm not an Alaska taxpayer and 2- I was not planning on voting for her anyway so it doesn't affect me. However, I found your statement to be hilarious. So by your logic it would be ok for the President to sell the White House to save taxpayers money and then use part of that money to buy a vacation home for personal use b/c hey, it's all the same area - real estate. You're completely off base on this one.
And btw, she did give in one area and then take in another. She gave to benefit the state but she took to benefit herself. One was hers to give, but the other was not hers to take.
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
Pages