On YOUR Dime: Congressmen Lease Luxury Cars

[Ps104_33]

Little-Known But Exploited Loophole Allows Politicians To Drive, Maintain Expensive Cars, SUVs On Taxpayer Money!


Congressman Charles Rangel was recently seen getting out of his Cadillac DeVille, which he leases for $774 per month. Then there was Congressman Jose Serrano, getting out of his Buick LaCrosse, which he leases for $317 per month. And how about this one: Congressman Gregory Meeks was recently seen waiting for Congressman John Conyers to step out of Meeks' Lexus LS460, which Meeks leases for $998 per month.

http://wcbstv.com/seenon/car.lease.us.2.713776.html

 

[Rubato 1]

Where should the line be? What should our representatives drive?



IMO: let them. It shows their view of thier constituents.

 

[Ps104_33]

Practically all of those mentioned are Democrats. I would think that they should all be driving Prius'.
One would not bat an eybrow if Dick Cheney or Karl Rove climbed out on a Cadillac DTS. But these liberals are supposed to be reducing their carbon footprint and are the first one to want to redistibute the wealth those who earned their money honestly and not living off of the taxpayer. I wont even talk about their retirement plan and their medical benefits.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I bet plenty of Cogressional members from both sides of the aisle do this. I don't know that I oppose them having a "company car" as a job perk. I am more concerned about hundreds of billions spent in Iraq than I am about this drop in the ocean.

 

[Ps104_33]

I am more concerned about the "do as I say" attitude of liberals. Did you ever compare Bush's house in Crawford Texas with Al Gore's? Bush's is more "green".
Its a sin for conservatives to have money but OK for liberals. Its also a documented fact, and you can look at the stats in Arthur Brooks book "Who Really Cares"?, that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. You see, liberals are only good at giving away someone elses money, not their own. That is how liberals assuage their guilt concerning their stinginess when it comes to giving away their own money. They make themselves feel better by raising taxes on everyone else.

 

[Ps104_33]

Here is something else to chew on Mr./Mrs phony liberal:


In one of the largest sums ever donated to charity by a U.S. public official, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne gave away nearly $7 million last year to help the poor and to medical research. According to income tax information released by the White House on Friday, the Cheneys' adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Ps, you have obviously been listening to the wingnuts who love to 'swiftboat' Mr. Gore. He made extensive renovations to his home to make it more 'green'. He practices what he preaches. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22248699/

 

[Revmitchell]

Having that size home is in no way green. The libs want us to walk and ride unreliable public transportation while they lease luxury cars on our dime and jet around the world to talk about the global myth.

They want us to use less energy in our homes while they build mansions. They want us to pay more taxes out of our pockets to give to those who dont work or make any attempt to save for themselves making things much harder on us who do all the while remodeling their mansions.

They hold a hidden agenda of socialism/communism which is evidenced by their lack of personal sacrifice in the same areas they call all other Americans to do so. It is all about power and has nothing to do with environmentalism, energy, or the poor or racism. They are a flaming joke.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Al Gore bowed to the pressure, and started his renovations. He still won't allow the press in on his speeches, and the reason he won't run for president is he'll be forced to debate his stupid movie.

Back to the O/P, I don't see any problem. People who's job it is to be mobile, wine & dine dignitaries, and generally be a public figure should be given nice cars to drive. Ps does have a point with the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude, but a lot of republicans are hopping on this global warming bandwagon, and I'll bet they have the same kind of cars.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Considering that there aren't existing rules in place for this sort of stuff he can't really be faulted for it. But believe you me, there SHOULD be caps on this sorta wasteful spending, and strictly enforced caps at that.

 

[Andre]

This may be a bit of a diversion, but this whole demonization of "liberals" strikes me as being highly counter-productive. And, to be fair, "liberals" do the same thing to the "conservatives".

The point is that the way these terms are used establishes a divisive "us-them" mentality which I think works against getting the proper resolution to these issues. Why not stick to the issue and not use terminology and over-generalizations that only appeal to what is a distinctly unhealthy tribe mentality.

Once these things become a shouting match between tribes (e.g. liberals and conservatives), the real issue gets muddled.

BTW, I think all these public officials should drive environmentally-friendly cars.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Andre, many people find it helpful to label others (and themselves). For instance, you could tell me every single political position you hold on every single issue, or you could just tell me your party registration in a single word. It's more efficient just to say I'm libertarian than to start itemizing everything I believe/support. Btw, labels are understood to be generalizations so it goes without saying that virtually all adherents to any school of thought occasionally part company with the official line of thinking.

 

[Andre]

Andre, many people find it helpful to label others (and themselves). For instance, you could tell me every single political position you hold on every single issue, or you could just tell me your party registration in a single word. It's more efficient just to say I'm libertarian than to start itemizing everything I believe/support. Btw, labels are understood to be generalizations so it goes without saying that virtually all adherents to any school of thought occasionally part company with the official line of thinking.

Of course I understand all this.

But it is clear that people use terms like "liberal" like a hammer - they are going beyond the use of the term as a convenient generalization and are, I think, contributing to an unhealthy "siege" mentality. It cuts both ways, of course.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Andre, you are correct about the divisive language. Some forget that the other side is made up of human beings too. Labels are a way of poisonng the dialogue and de-humanizing our fellow people who hold differing views than our own. It is easier to attack a monolithic stereotype than to have a rational and productive discussion.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Of course I understand all this.

But it is clear that people use terms like "liberal" like a hammer - they are going beyond the use of the term as a convenient generalization and are, I think, contributing to an unhealthy "siege" mentality. It cuts both ways, of course.

I agree that the term liberal can be used to define someone in a negative way: it's just that I don't have a problem with it. Politics is competitive and a "siege" mentality is inevitable.

 

[Revmitchell]

And liberalism is to be defeated not lived with.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Some forget that the other side is made up of human beings too.

No, they don't.

 

[Andre]

Politics is competitive and a "siege" mentality is inevitable.

But, and please do not take this as sermonizing towards you in particular, such a concession strikes me as decidedly against the Kingdom way. The obedient Christian will simply not use these terms as weapons - He will find a better way.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

But, and please do not take this as sermonizing towards you in particular, such a concession strikes me as decidedly against the Kingdom way. The obedient Christian will simply not use these terms as weapons - He will find a better way.

First, don't worry about offending me. Ever. It isn't possible. I like talking to people and nothing you can say is going to bother me beyond the immediate disagreement at hand.

Second, I don't see how being dog-eat-dog competitive is wrong in any sorta Biblical sense. If I'm a conservative who believes that liberalism = death of morality, then would I not have a moral responsibility to do anything just shy of violating verbatim Scripture to defeat it? I would have to think so.

Thirdly, while I don't see anything immoral about the blunt tone I (and others) use, I certainly prefer yours. :wavey:

 

[Revmitchell]

But, and please do not take this as sermonizing towards you in particular, such a concession strikes me as decidedly against the Kingdom way. The obedient Christian will simply not use these terms as weapons - He will find a better way.

The terms define their world view point. Nothing more.