RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash

RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

DomKen -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 6:49:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold Well, I don't. So we will agree to disagree... So you think you can find, vet and hire 1100 top executives in a range of specialties in 10 weeks for less than $10k each? You might want to check with an executive recruitment service before you look more foolish.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 7:02:47 AM)
quote: The transition has to find and vet 20 cabinet level officials plus white house staffers plus assistant secretaries plus ambassadors plus postions like Director of National Intelligence as well as heads of the major federal agencies. All told estimates are that 1,125 people have to be appointed by the POTUS and approved by senate vote. In the private sector, companies pay to do background checks, drug screens, and similar "vetting" of presumptive new hires. If the government hasn't the money to do a proper hiring process, where does it get the money to bail out Wall Street and Detroit?

HunterS -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 7:22:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Besides, the inauguration balls are the only balls Dear Leader will ever have, so why begrudge them to him? Your knowledge of his balls or lack thereof is based on first hand knowledge? Perhaps a little TMI but your candor is to be commended. H.

HunterS -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 7:40:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold Well, I don't. So we will agree to disagree... How much do you think it should cost? When I received my Top Secret clearance back in the 60's I was told that it cost the govt. more than $10.000. I would imagine that it would be more expensive for an older person than a youngster just because they have more to check on H.

DomKen -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 8:49:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: The transition has to find and vet 20 cabinet level officials plus white house staffers plus assistant secretaries plus ambassadors plus postions like Director of National Intelligence as well as heads of the major federal agencies. All told estimates are that 1,125 people have to be appointed by the POTUS and approved by senate vote. In the private sector, companies pay to do background checks, drug screens, and similar "vetting" of presumptive new hires. If the government hasn't the money to do a proper hiring process, where does it get the money to bail out Wall Street and Detroit? Does the concept of the budget not containing enough money to do something surprise you? BTW this is a pretty clear shift of the goal post. First you complained that the outside fund raising was extravagant when I showed that it was ludicrously low cost for the job now you're whining about the budget process. Why not simply admit you tried to make hay on a subject without doing enough research to know that there was nothing to complain about?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 9:38:27 AM)
quote: Does the concept of the budget not containing enough money to do something surprise you? Nothing about political ineptness or greed surprises me. There are two ways to view the "need" for "off budget" financing. 1. The budget is too damn small to begin with (a distinct possibility) 2. The folks doing the vetting process are ineffective and wasteful (also a distinct possibility). Neither interpretation justifies using private money to "vet" people for government jobs. Dear Leader should not be soliciting ANY private funds for his "transition".

philosophy -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 10:03:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Dear Leader should not be soliciting ANY private funds for his "transition". ....well assuming he's not forcing people to give him the money, why not? Would you support a modest rise in taxation to pay for it instead?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 10:06:51 AM)
quote: Would you support a modest rise in taxation to pay for it instead? No. Budgets are meant to be constraints. Either pull the money from somewhere else or don't hire so many in the first place.

philosophy -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 10:09:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Either pull the money from somewhere else ...well that's what he's doing. Getting money from somewhere else. You appear to be against private citizens donating money where they please. This confuses me, as it seems to run counter to your usual views on the subject.

DomKen -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 10:09:42 AM)
$10k per to hire 1100 top executives in 10 weeks is ineffective and /or wasteful? Find me an executive recruiting outfit that can do that job cheaper.

DomKen -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 10:11:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Either pull the money from somewhere else ...well that's what he's doing. Getting money from somewhere else. You appear to be against private citizens donating money where they please. This confuses me, as it seems to run counter to your usual views on the subject. This seems pretty simple to me: Private action is good except when its left of center private action.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 10:15:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Either pull the money from somewhere else ...well that's what he's doing. Getting money from somewhere else. You appear to be against private citizens donating money where they please. This confuses me, as it seems to run counter to your usual views on the subject. Hardly. First, hiring government employees is a GOVERNMENT responsibility. If government's not cutting the check there's something very broken about the process. Second, who is accountable for this privately funded "vetting" effort?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 10:20:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen $10k per to hire 1100 top executives in 10 weeks is ineffective and /or wasteful? Find me an executive recruiting outfit that can do that job cheaper. Yes, actually. You can order up a nationwide background check on a person for between $150 and $200 per person. Drug screens are I believe another $50-$100. Everything after that is just how much do you want to pay people to stand around and shoot the shit with each other.

philosophy -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 10:21:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 First, hiring government employees is a GOVERNMENT responsibility. If government's not cutting the check there's something very broken about the process. ...entirely possible. however, posters have alluded to the idea that Obama isn't the first PE to do this. quote: Second, who is accountable for this privately funded "vetting" effort? .....i don't know.....and that point is worth clarifying. i know there's a federal organisation that vets funds raised in elections, so do they have any oversight on this point? If not, then someone ought to. There does seem to me to be a few issues that need clarifying here........however, to place the blame for this at PE Obama's feet seems to be a little unfair.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 10:27:21 AM)
quote: There does seem to me to be a few issues that need clarifying here........however, to place the blame for this at PE Obama's feet seems to be a little unfair. He's the one doing it this cycle. Which means that, this cycle, he's the one who can STOP doing it. The practice is wrong and it needs to stop. However, in the spirit of being fair, I will clarify that it is wrong in any cycle, and regardless of who's doing it.

DomKen -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 11:14:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen $10k per to hire 1100 top executives in 10 weeks is ineffective and /or wasteful? Find me an executive recruiting outfit that can do that job cheaper. Yes, actually. You can order up a nationwide background check on a person for between $150 and $200 per person. Drug screens are I believe another $50-$100. Everything after that is just how much do you want to pay people to stand around and shoot the shit with each other. Bullshit. It cost my company more than that simply to hire a single project manager responsible for a 7 man team and projects with values into the low 7 figures. And I can assur eyou it wasn't spent on shooting the shit. Excluding our payroll expenses, 3 full days of my time plus 6 to 8 man/days by various support staff, we had advertising expenses plus a background check significantly more expensive than a $200 criminal check. A full verification of a resume runs well over $2500 and could be a lot more if we still had government contracts and still had to reimburse the FBI for clearance investigations.

HunterS -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 11:17:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen $10k per to hire 1100 top executives in 10 weeks is ineffective and /or wasteful? Find me an executive recruiting outfit that can do that job cheaper. Yes, actually. You can order up a nationwide background check on a person for between $150 and $200 per person. Drug screens are I believe another $50-$100. Everything after that is just how much do you want to pay people to stand around and shoot the shit with each other. Do you feel that this $300 vetting process is sufficient? If so then why does the U.S. military spend upwards of $10,000 to secure a Top Secret clearance for its men. Do you not feel that a T.S. level clearance is necessary for jubs like Secretary of State or Director of Homeland Security? It strikes me that you are trying to pick flyshit out of pepper. If you disagree with my assessment then perhaps you should write the president elect and tell him that if he will simply do the $300 check you will be willing to take full and complete responsibility for any problems due to lack of sufficient vetting. Since the vetting is being done with private funds you are,of course, free not to contribute. By the same token it is none of your business how other Americans choose to spend their money. The purilety of your foot stamping post speaks volums about your agenda. H

celticlord2112 -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 11:22:45 AM)
quote: Do you feel that this $300 vetting process is sufficient? Don't know, honestly. However, I don't see where the $10K process has yielded better results--in any administration.

HunterS -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 4:30:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Do you feel that this $300 vetting process is sufficient? Don't know, honestly. However, I don't see where the $10K process has yielded better results--in any administration. You were the one who said it could be done for about $300. You complain that it is too much...you complain that it is too little and then you admit that you do not know. Do you have a point? If so please make it. H.

Truthiness -> RE: Obama uses security team to raise cash (12/4/2008 5:16:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterS quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Do you feel that this $300 vetting process is sufficient? Don't know, honestly. However, I don't see where the $10K process has yielded better results--in any administration. You were the one who said it could be done for about $300. You complain that it is too much...you complain that it is too little and then you admit that you do not know. Do you have a point? If so please make it. H. Doesn't have to be spelled out to realize there's probably a fair middleground between 300 and something absuard like 10 grand.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125