[turtle777]

Politico reported Friday that the White House last month billed four business leaders for the food they ate during a meeting with President Barack Obama in his Oval Office-adjacent private dining room. The White House says the practice helps avoid conflicts of interest.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25669.html

OMGWTFBBQ ? Is our country so broke already ?

No matter how you look at this, it's just retarded and makes the US look cheap.

a) the "conflicts of interest" argument: how the heck does it make any difference if they [the Companies] paid for their meals or not ? Fact is: they are privileged by the fact that they are chosen to have direct access to Obama. No meal payment makes them less special.

b) the "budget" argument: seriously ?

-t

[smacintush]

It's just more of Obama's window dressing.

[Chuckit]

What budget argument? I don't see anything in the article about that — only from you.

[besson3c]

If Obama did pay for this, wouldn't you guys just assume that he was in bed with these businesses, and criticize him for spending tax payer dollars accordingly? What is the "proper" way to have these meetings, exactly? What was done under past administrations?

We need more to discuss here if this is to go beyond our gut feelings.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What budget argument? I don't see anything in the article about that — only from you.

I didn't say it was in the article. It was a preemptive strike on my part, because someone's gonna bring that silliness into play.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If Obama did pay for this, wouldn't you guys just assume that he was in bed with these businesses, and criticize him for spending tax payer dollars accordingly? What is the "proper" way to have these meetings, exactly? What was done under past administrations?

The proper way is like it's always been done (Democrats and Republicans alike):

* you invite someone for dinner (Obama invited those CEOs)
* when you invite, you also pay.

How often have you been invited to dinner by your boss, and then on your way out, asked for a credit card ?

-t

[besson3c]

What is your source for claiming that it has always been done this way? Also, could you honestly say that you wouldn't bitch about the tax payers paying for this right now in this economic climate?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The proper way is like it's always been done (Democrats and Republicans alike):

* you invite someone for dinner (Obama invited those CEOs)
* when you invite, you also pay.

How often have you been invited to dinner by your boss, and then on your way out, asked for a credit card ?

-t

When entertaining you pay for the meals of those you invite. When you hold a business lunch, that's a very different thing. Get execs from a bunch of different companies together and the person who called the meeting will NOT pay for everyone's lunch. (This is not the same as "business entertainment" where you're trying to influence customers or potential customers by buying them a meal-which is exactly the point.)

And considering how badly our current crop of CEOs has managed their companies while STILL getting buckets of money poured on them every hour, I think they can afford their lunch tabs themselves anyway.

[ort888]

This a new low in nitpickery.

[hyteckit]

How dare Obama ask CEOs to pay for their meals.

Let the taxpayers fork the bill. Not just for the meal, but the travel expenses as well.

[besson3c]

The question is, can those CEOs get in to visit the president with their flag pins and birth certificates?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Let the taxpayers fork the bill. Not just for the meal, but the travel expenses as well.

And if they just travel by Amtrak, we'll have them double-covered!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Sooo... The White House decided not to let the taxpayer cover the expense of CEOs who get to meet with the President... and turtle is complaining?

Dude... how hypocritical can you be? Out of one side of your face you whine and bitch about government waste, and then when the government makes a move to stop an example of waste, you whine and bitch about how it makes them "look cheap?"



greg

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by ort888 

This a new low in nitpickery.

This.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Sooo... The White House decided not to let the taxpayer cover the expense of CEOs who get to meet with the President... and turtle is complaining?

Dude... how hypocritical can you be? Out of one side of your face you whine and bitch about government waste, and then when the government makes a move to stop an example of waste, you whine and bitch about how it makes them "look cheap?"



greg

WTF, dude ?

Obama requested their presence in a business lunch, so he can get their opinions on the economy.
Basically, he wants the CEOs do some consulting services for HIM.

WTF would they have to pay for that lunch ?

What I'm upset about is that Obama just changes sh!t for the sake of change.
Whay not leave things like they have been, if change doesn't do anything but being change for change's sake.

And now, like I said in point b), the $ amounts are so small, they are immaterial for both sides.
I just think the White House looks really like a cheap ass ho.

What's next: foreign dignitaries have to bring bagged lunch ?

-t

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Look, I don't care either way - it's not my money or country or vote - but it's still an example of a government not being wasteful. Is it a minor matter? Yes. Seems to me that it could/should/may be a case of "leading by example" though, right?

You're acting like this was a "business meeting." Well, it wasn't. It was a business meeting with the President/government. If Starbucks' CEO invites over Wal-Mart's CEO to talk business, then I expect he pays.

But this is the government, man. What's wrong with avoiding any hint of "conflict" and saving a few dollars of taxpayer money?

(As for your "it's only a meal" comment... so what if it was a "wine and dine" meal with $1000 bottle of wines and caviar and hot, hot waitresses? I suppose that's okay by you, right? Perfectly fine for Starbucks to do it, so perfectly fine for your governmen to do it? Right? Right?)

greg

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Look, I don't care either way - it's not my money or country or vote - but it's still an example of a government not being wasteful. Is it a minor matter? Yes. Seems to me that it could/should/may be a case of "leading by example" though, right?

You're acting like this was a "business meeting." Well, it wasn't. It was a business meeting with the President/government. If Starbucks' CEO invites over Wal-Mart's CEO to talk business, then I expect he pays.

But this is the government, man. What's wrong with avoiding any hint of "conflict" and saving a few dollars of taxpayer money?

(As for your "it's only a meal" comment... so what if it was a "wine and dine" meal with $1000 bottle of wines and caviar and hot, hot waitresses? I suppose that's okay by you, right? Perfectly fine for Starbucks to do it, so perfectly fine for your governmen to do it? Right? Right?)

greg

The president invited them. All social and cultural etiquette says that the person who invites also pays.

Re: $1000 bottles of wine - I sure hope that they kept the cost reasonable.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Basically, he wants the CEOs do some consulting services for HIM.

I assure you the CEOs felt they got something for their money. From their perspective, this was an opportunity to get information on government policy.

What I'm upset about is that Obama just changes sh!t for the sake of change.
Whay not leave things like they have been, if change doesn't do anything but being change for change's sake.

Where is your source saying that this is a departure from standard practice? The White House, and especially the protocol office, is traditionally paranoid about conflict of interest, so I would be surprised if this was a change.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The president invited them. All social and cultural etiquette says that the person who invites also pays.

Re: $1000 bottles of wine - I sure hope that they kept the cost reasonable.

-t

Arguing "social and cultural etiquette" is a vicious circle. Social "business eqituette" that I've seen seems to be extravagently "wineing and dining" the right people, too, but that seems to be slightly inappropriate for my tax dollars, don't you think?

Re: hoping they "kept the cost reasonable" - and I suppose you determine that... how? Another accountant paid by for your tax dollars to keep better track of the White House's finances and where all the money goes? Another level of bureaucracy?

Or I suppose you'd rather just sit back and hope that the politicians will just agree to "keep the cost reasonable" on their own, right? Just... pay for the dinners, and you're pretty sure they won't order those $5000 bottles of wine for the businesmen whose services they realllllllllly need, right?

Right. Such a better solution, than, you know, making everyone pay for their own meal.

Right.

greg

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Arguing "social and cultural etiquette" is a vicious circle. Social "business eqituette" that I've seen seems to be extravagently "wineing and dining" the right people, too, but that seems to be slightly inappropriate for my tax dollars, don't you think?

Re: hoping they "kept the cost reasonable" - and I suppose you determine that... how? Another accountant paid by for your tax dollars to keep better track of the White House's finances and where all the money goes? Another level of bureaucracy?

Or I suppose you'd rather just sit back and hope that the politicians will just agree to "keep the cost reasonable" on their own, right? Just... pay for the dinners, and you're pretty sure they won't order those $5000 bottles of wine for the businesmen whose services they realllllllllly need, right?

Right. Such a better solution, than, you know, making everyone pay for their own meal.

Right.

greg

Dude, chill, I'm not arguing over dollars.
I don't care if they were charged $5 or $50 or $500.

I also don't f***ing care if the government pays for that, since it's homeopathic in comparison to all the Trillions they already wasted.

I think it's just freaking cheap, and the government should find better ways to pad their budget, if that's what this is about.

And like I said, I don't frigging understand the "conflict of interest" argument in that context.
It doesn't matter who paid for it, those CEOs are "special" because they were invited by Obama; no paying of the tab will change that. Note: I don't have a problem with them being special. I just don't think conflict of interest plays any role here.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And like I said, I don't frigging understand the "conflict of interest" argument in that context.
It doesn't matter who paid for it, those CEOs are "special" because they were invited by Obama; no paying of the tab will change that. Note: I don't have a problem with them being special. I just don't think conflict of interest plays any role here.
-t

The appearance of impropriety matters as much as anything else here. Sure, maybe Obama had Reggie Love go out to a McDonalds drive-through to pick up some Big Macs, so it wouldn't be any big deal no matter who paid. But unless the White House follows very specific guidelines like this, there is always the chance that someone will interpret an "expensive" meal as a bribe.

It's the same reason why White House/most executive branch employees can't accept "expensive" gifts in the context of their job from anyone else, either.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Dude, chill, I'm not arguing over dollars.
I don't care if they were charged $5 or $50 or $500.

I also don't f***ing care if the government pays for that, since it's homeopathic in comparison to all the Trillions they already wasted.

I think it's just freaking cheap, and the government should find better ways to pad their budget, if that's what this is about.

1. I'm chill. I'm cool. I didn't start a thread using "OMGWTFBBQ" and "retarded" to describe the situation. You're the one making the fuss over...nothing, dude. Everyone else is just pointing that out.

2. Soooo... what you're saying is, you want to eliminate wasteful government spending and practices... but not the "small stuff" because it doesn't really matter in comparison to the "big stuff"?

You see how hypocritical that is, right? Because it is. Reducing wasteful practices includes the big and the small - you make it a culture, if you will.

greg

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The appearance of impropriety matters as much as anything else here. Sure, maybe Obama had Reggie Love go out to a McDonalds drive-through to pick up some Big Macs, so it wouldn't be any big deal no matter who paid. But unless the White House follows very specific guidelines like this, there is always the chance that someone will interpret an "expensive" meal as a bribe.

It's the same reason why White House/most executive branch employees can't accept "expensive" gifts in the context of their job from anyone else, either.

What impropriety ?

For the past 200 years, the White House paid for catering of its guests.

Why change that now ?

Like I said, I hope it's not budgetary reasons, because that would be laughable.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

2. Soooo... what you're saying is, you want to eliminate wasteful government spending and practices... but not the "small stuff" because it doesn't really matter in comparison to the "big stuff"?

Paying meals for guests is not wasteful, at least not if their a good business reason for having guests.

My f***ing point is: there was no need to change anything. It seems like Obama is just displaying activism, and make some appearance of frugality.

It's a smoke screen, and unnecessary change.

And it makes the US government look cheap. I hate that. I can already see how other countries are going to make fun of this.

-t

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I can already see how other countries are going to make fun of this.

-t

This is mind-blowing. Since when do the conservatives in here care what the rest of the world thinks of us?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Paying meals for guests is not wasteful, at least not if their a good business reason for having guests.

No? Sooooo... you're saying the government did in no way save money by having the CEOs pay for their own meals?

That America's deficit would not have climbed by a paltry $500 or whatever it cost?



I mean, I really hate to argue this, because you're right: it's trifling. But I just can't see how you can spend much of your time on here railing against the excesses of government, and then get upset when your White House prefers to let multimillionaire CEOs pay for their own meals when they personally chat with the most powerful man in the world.

And it makes the US government look cheap.

You mean...like... fiscally responsible? Oh jebus, no!

[ghporter]

Turtle, did you read my post? BUSINESS lunches in the context of working groups are NEVER an event where the host buys. They are most frequently held in a big convention center or hotel meeting room, but they are all "pay as you go." The "lunch" aspect is extremely secondary to the "business" aspect.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

No? Sooooo... you're saying the government did in no way save money by having the CEOs pay for their own meals?

That America's deficit would not have climbed by a paltry $500 or whatever it cost?



I mean, I really hate to argue this, because you're right: it's trifling. But I just can't see how you can spend much of your time on here railing against the excesses of government, and then get upset when your White House prefers to let multimillionaire CEOs pay for their own meals when they personally chat with the most powerful man in the world.

Oh come on Greg, this is stupid.

Nowhere have I complained about the cost.

In my very first post I indicated that I don't think the money / budget is a reason for this change. ( ==> "b) the "budget" argument: seriously ?"

WTF are you trying to push me in that corner ?

Do you still not understand why I think this change in policy is stupid ?

Here it is again:

THSI IS A F***ING STUPID (CHEAP) PR STUNT. DOESN'T THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE BETTER ARGUMENTS TO CONVINCE PEOPLE OF THE NEWLY FOUND FASCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, OTHER THAN SAVINGS A FEW BUCKS ON CATERING!!!1!1!1oneoneeleventybillion

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What impropriety ?

For the past 200 years, the White House paid for catering of its guests.

Why change that now ?

Like I said, I hope it's not budgetary reasons, because that would be laughable.

-t

Again, where is your source saying that this is a change from previous practice?

[turtle777]

The practice of charging corporate executives apparently began in June, when Xerox boss Ursula Burns, Coca-Cola's Muhtar Kent, AT&T chief Randall Stephenson and Honeywell International's Dave Cote forked over their credit cards to pay for lunch, according to Politico, which first reported the new policy.

http://www.examiner.com/x-15092-Star...resident-Obama

But the Bush administration didn’t charge presidential guests for meals, one former official said, and at least one etiquette expert found the whole thing unseemly – suggesting it was a serious breach of protocol.

[...]

The former senior Bush administration official said meals with the president were covered by official entertainment expenses that fall under the Executive Residence budget or the White House’s annual account.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25627.html

Also in the German news:
FTD.de - Out of Office: There is no free lunch - Out of Office

[SpaceMonkey]

Well, to me the salient point there is that: "But the Bush administration was so sensitive about appearing cozy with corporate America that another former high-ranking official cannot recall a single instance of President Bush lunching with CEOs in the White House." So in fact, this isn't all that new. Lunching with CEOs would be difficult to justify as "entertainment." I don't know, I guess I'm just not as shocked as you are. I figured this would be the norm. Government officials have to abide by a lot of petty, ethics-related rules that business leaders do not.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Well, to me the salient point there is that: "But the Bush administration was so sensitive about appearing cozy with corporate America that another former high-ranking official cannot recall a single instance of President Bush lunching with CEOs in the White House." So in fact, this isn't all that new. Lunching with CEOs would be difficult to justify as "entertainment."

So what, I disagree with the policy of the Bush Administration.

There are millions of dollars that flow between industry lobby groups and politicians, so I'm not worried about (free) lunch. If the lunch helps the government to get a grip about the economy, so be it.

Just don't be so cheap to charge the CEOs for educating the administration.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So what, I disagree with the policy of the Bush Administration.

I'm just saying that it's not as much of a "change" as you're making it out to be. That's part of what you were griping about, no? It seems to me that it's probably more about the institutional culture of the White House.

Just don't be so cheap to charge the CEOs for educating the administration.

Yes, but part of the point is that the conversation is a two-way street.

[andi*pandi]

This is silly.