# Palin spent taxpayer money to attend religious events



## LowriseMinis (Oct 13, 2008)

A snippet:



> The camera closes in on Sarah Palin speaking to young missionaries, vowing from the pulpit to do her part to implement God's will from the governor's office.
> 
> What she didn't tell worshippers gathered at the Wasilla Assembly of God church in her hometown was that her appearance that day came courtesy of Alaskan taxpayers, who picked up the $639.50 tab for her airplane tickets and per diem fees.
> 
> ...


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/11/ap...omote-religion/


----------



## AppyLover2 (Oct 14, 2008)

Surely you're kidding. With the hundreds of thousands of dollars of mis-spent taxpayer money you're bringing up an issue of $639.50?? Or even $13,000?? I agree it isn't right but considering the problems this country is facing right now... I'm not likely to lose a lot of sleep over it.

And if I may say so I'm totally amazed that you'd post a Fox News link.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Oct 14, 2008)

It's less about the money and more about the ethics involved.


----------



## Bassett (Oct 14, 2008)

> $639.50??



Heck, they pay that much for hammer or a toilet seat.


----------



## C G Minis (Oct 14, 2008)




----------



## LowriseMinis (Oct 14, 2008)

I'm just nudging this up. Really, is everyone comfortable with the possible future U.S. Vice President blurring the line separating church and state?

And then there was the invocation before John McCain's speech in Iowa...yikes.


----------



## AppyLover2 (Oct 14, 2008)

Lowrise I find your last post confusing. In one sentence you talk about the separation of church and state and in the next you bring up an invocation made at a rally.

Since I seriously doubt that John McCain wrote the invocation I personally don't see that it's a big political deal. Would I have said it? No! But lots of people say things I wouldn't say....and vice versa.


----------



## minimama (Oct 14, 2008)

Oh let's see now, she could spend a nice chunk of tax payers money to go on a retreat with her family....something like Camp David, (not that this is a bad thing or bad place) where is would pretty much just be her and her family. Or, she could go to church where she is meeting the people she is supposed to be representing and getting out there in the community showing them who she is and what she stands for. Gosh, I don't know, for some reason I just don't see this as a problem. And I am also going to add that truly if you do see this as a problem, you mayjust have way too much time on your hands and be looking for issues that aren't really there.

i wonder maybe if because she did not use the Governors private jet and instead drove her self around, this could balance out teh money that was spent to go to church? ya think?


----------



## Southern_Heart (Oct 14, 2008)

If this was all we had to worry about... That would be great!!


----------



## littlesteppers (Oct 14, 2008)

Wonder why she didn't spend her taxmoney on acorn..apparently nobody cares..even 6 digit numers..


----------



## LowriseMinis (Oct 14, 2008)

I started and stopped a post several times, because I'm just not sure how to respond to this.

We are guaranteed a clear separation of church (any church) and state. Period, end of story, Founding Father's final words on the subject. Can we all agree on that?

Now we have evidence of a candidate-who has already been found guilty of abuse of power by a bi-partisan committee-has also been using taxpayer money to attend religious events, and has used her time in office to push for some pretty dicey faith-based initiatives and activities.

To me? That is concerning. I don't like religion in my government and I don't like government in my religion.

On the topic of religion in office, that invocation was before one of Sen. McCain's speeches this weekend, and to me it sounds a _little_ radical. Basically saying the Christian God is the biggest and best God, and with prayer will squash all the others so that John McCain can win.

And McCain went on stage, and thought nothing of it. As the video commentary points out, I wasn't aware that this was a holy war. All this time I've been thinking 'election'. I wasn't aware it was about who's God can kick the other gods' butts. And I'm disappointed that even though McCain's stood up and in a way retracted his previous attacks on Obama, that he still allows this sort of insulting, divisive talk to go on at his rallies.


----------



## littlesteppers (Oct 14, 2008)

LowriseMinis said:


> I'm just nudging this up. Really, is everyone comfortable with the possible future U.S. Vice President blurring the line separating church and state?
> And then there was the invocation before John McCain's speech in Iowa...yikes.


Why are you worried..Obama has a LEAD in polls!! Yeaaahhh for you

In case you missed it..until yesterday Obamas website stated he has NO involvement with acorn..it got whiped last night..after these facts came out..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the first national candidate ever to hire ACORN, a controversial non-profit accused of voter fraud across the country, for get out the vote activities.

Obama’s campaign paid $800,000 to a subsidiary of the liberally-leaning non-profit Association of Community Organizers for Reform called Citizens Services Incorporated campaign to increase voter turnout.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Oct 14, 2008)

Littlesteppers, thanks for the reminder. The news on the polls this morning looks very good for Obama. Guess I can stop worrying!


----------



## Southern_Heart (Oct 14, 2008)

I don't have to much faith in polls. Does anyone know How many people took the poll 5?

Fact check the polls as to how many people were in the poll. Heck, could have been 3 for all I know.


----------



## littlesteppers (Oct 14, 2008)

Southern_Heart said:


> I don't have to much faith in polls. Does anyone know How many people took the poll 5?Fact check the polls as to how many people were in the poll. Heck, could have been 3 for all I know.


I am right there with you Southern heart..too many presidents where down in the polls and won..so we shall see..


----------



## Bassett (Oct 14, 2008)

The fine print on the bottom of some of these polls say 1000 people were polled. I don't call that a poll. Not enough of a crosas section. I don't believe them.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Oct 14, 2008)

littlesteppers said:


> I am right there with you Southern heart..too many presidents where down in the polls and won..so we shall see..


This is interesting: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_/ai_11925690



> AS WE ENTER another presidential election year, political pundits will retail a variety of different ways to predict the winner. Here are nine of these predictors and their track records.
> 1. Incumbent Presidents who run again, win. This was true of 12 of the 16 races in this century when an incumbent President was re-nominated. The four exceptions: Taft in 1908, Hoover in 1932, Ford in 1976, and Carter in 1980. In addition, two other incumbents probably would have lost if they had run: Truman in 1952 and Johnson in 1968.
> 
> 2. Incumbent Presidents with positive performance ratings in the polls win. Those with negative ratings lose. True, but something of a "no-brainer." The only incumbent Presidents to run and lose since polls began were Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Both were rated, in eve-of-election polls, very negatively. However, Harry Truman had a negative rating in the poll conducted by Gallup five months before the 1948 election; we don't know how he would have rated in November. Eisenhower in 1952, Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, and Reagan in 1984 all had positive poll ratings.
> ...


----------



## Southern_Heart (Oct 14, 2008)

littlesteppers

Exactly! With so many forums and chats and add your comments to News articles, I can't see how Obama can be ahead. They all seem to not like him. I think its what the media wants you to think. Their all Dems. Even here on LB it shows more McCain supporters! But we shall see in a few weeks as to what happens.

I sure pray McCain gets in....


----------



## Cathy_H (Oct 14, 2008)

> The news on the polls this morning looks very good for Obama. *Guess I can stop worrying*!


... Until he is in office then it will be too late. If you have any money left after Obama "shares your wealth" you could move to another Country........ Our people are at their lowest if they put into office a president that paid a criminal organization to help get him there. And he will leave the back door open for his buddies................................ As for Palin wasting tax dollars on a religious event - rather that than Obama contributing & being a part of a criminal organization set in place to put him in office and then continue to take & use tax payers money to keep active.................... I understand that no one can pinpoint how much money ACORN is now receiving because there are several off shoots of this " crime ring " and it would take a long time to follow the trail to see if any or all are above board... If it isn't documented now and no one knows how much or where the tax dollars are going HOW & WHERE do you think it will end if Obama is steering the ship.................... Polls are only as good as the people conducting them and the answers can be manipulated to suit ones needs - most of us aren't that stupid! Propaganda to try to get the weak of heart to give up & join their 'farce".. And no I would not believe the polls even if McCain were ahead.


----------



## Southern_Heart (Oct 14, 2008)

Bassett said:


> The fine print on the bottom of some of these polls say 1000 people were polled. I don't call that a poll. Not enough of a crosas section. I don't believe them.


Only 1000 people were polled?



Gosh thats nothing compare to all the people in the whole U.S.A.



How the heck can they go by that!! Thats crazy!!! I don't beleive them either!


----------



## LowriseMinis (Oct 14, 2008)

I'm looking forward to an Obama presidency. End of story.


----------



## Southern_Heart (Oct 14, 2008)

This got totally off topic.... Supose to be how Palin spent the taxpayers money to attend the religious events.. Which seemed that no one really cared or got upset about it!


----------



## LowriseMinis (Oct 14, 2008)

Southern_Heart said:


> This got totally off topic.... Supose to be how Palin spent the taxpayers money to attend the religious events.. Which seemed that no one really cared or got upset about it!


Yep. Pretty sad, IMO.


----------



## Pepipony (Oct 14, 2008)

The problem is the hypocrasy. The amount doesnt so much matter as the 'do as I say, not as i do' politics. Why dont people understand that? Dont tell me how you are against pork barrel spending etc etc etc, then go DO IT or use it.

Once again, if Obama did this, you all would be flipping out. But since the shoe in on the other foot, make the poster feel like this was ignorant to post.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Oct 14, 2008)

Don't worry Pepipony, I feel far from ignorant. The response (or lack thereof) to this discovery here is saddening, but not shocking.

But I'm off to work, now. I love my job.


----------



## minimama (Oct 14, 2008)

She used the funds to attend a function. She did not use the funds to support said function. She did not give tax payers money to a church or religious organization. She used funds to attend a function and meet with the people she is suppsed to represent. Period! There is no basis for the seperation of church and state arguement in this instance. Because she did not put church and state together. They never mixed. Now, if she had handed over funds from tax payers to a church or regligous group of any sort, I would have issues as well and that would certinaly be classified as crossing the line as to seperation but, she didn't.

I'm telling you, too much time on your hands there! Find better things to attack. There has to be something. And abuse of power? Oh please, that guy is lucky it was her and not me in office after what he did.


----------



## Bassett (Oct 14, 2008)

> Dont tell me how you are against pork barrel spending etc etc etc, then go DO IT or use it. Once again, if Obama did this, you all would be flipping out. But since the shoe in on the other foot, make the poster feel like this was ignorant to post.


Obama did this. I would call a million dollars a day for every day he was in office a little excessive on the pork barrel spending. Wouldn't you? From what I have heard John McCain has never asked for a dollar in pork barrel spending. I didn't check it out but if you can prove he did I'll accept it. I don't know. One thing I do know it wasn't a million dollars a day. So please don't act like O is innocent of pork barrel. So yes I am flipping out.


----------



## tagalong (Oct 14, 2008)

*Bassett* - when you present "facts" like that please supply a link to help support them - just throwing it out there and saying I don't know means nothing - or demonstrates that you do not care what the truth may be, I am not sure.



> I would call a million dollars a day for every day he was in office a little excessive on the pork barrel spending. Wouldn't you?


Yes I would - if they had all gone through. Maybe I missed something. Link, please? Or maybe there are even more big projects somewhere in Illinois... like other big projects that may have gone on in other states? I have seen all his earmark requests on his website... but they were not all approved... if they total up to that, so be it. It's out in the open.



> From what I have heard John McCain has never asked for a dollar in pork barrel spending. I didn't check it out but if you can prove he did I'll accept it. I don't know.


You need to check it out. If McCain has been in office all these years and never had any pork barrel spending go on... well, I doubt that can be said of any politician. JMO.

*You do realize that they BOTH voted for tha huge bailout - that had all kinds of pork attached to it in order to get more support??*

And yes *Pepipony* - I tend to agree that if Obama had gone to any kind of a religious event on taxpayers' money - there would be finger-pointing here.

I am glad some can shrug off a mere $13,000. That is a small fortune to me... some Alaskans may feel that way, too...


----------



## Bassett (Oct 14, 2008)

> Bassett = when you present "facts" like that please supply a link to help support them - just throwing it out there and saying I don't means nothing - or demonstartes that you do not care what thr turh may be, I am not sure.


I told you I didn't look it up and I'm not going to. All I know is if he did it was not a million dollars a day. You don't have to be smart to know that. If you want to know look it up or don't read my posts or comments. You always say the same thing anyway.

If you pull up any facts I would not pooh pooh them. Where did you ever get that idea? I already said I would accept it. I guess you missed that part. Huh?

And as for the million a day Obama has never denied it. He just smirks when someone says it.


----------



## tagalong (Oct 14, 2008)

> I told you I didn't look it up and I'm not going to. All I know is if he did it was not a million dollars a day. *You don't have to be smart to know that.*


*Bassett* - what does the part I bolded mean. That I am stupid if I do not "know" that? _*confused*_

I only asked you to supply a link _to help me understand your opinion_ or see the truth behind it - that was all.



> If you pull up any facts I would not pooh pooh them. Where did you ever get that idea? I already said I would accept it. I guess you missed that part. Huh?


No - I did not miss that part. And I edited out that bit as I was not sure who is the biggest pooh-pooher any more... but facts have just been a source of merriment to some..



> If you want to know look it up or don't read my posts or comments. You always say the same thing anyway.


Yes - I say the same thing all right - FACTS, PLEASE.



Or as close as we can get to same.

I prefer discussion based on some degree of facts that can be examined and discussed - not just any comment tossed out there.

Who knew that was wrong...


----------



## Bassett (Oct 14, 2008)

Not arguing with you.


----------



## Buckskin gal (Oct 14, 2008)

sounds like some of you have no problem of your choice of poitician to spend taxpayers money unlawfully but just hate to see a dollar go to some poor veteran on the street! Palin is being paid for a job and for her to be among the independent ones she needs to use that money for things which do not pertain to her job....


----------



## AppyLover2 (Oct 14, 2008)

"Pork Barrell Spending http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/st...7914&page=1

McCain charged that Obama was guilty of driving up pork barrel spending -- government spending on programs that benefit his state of Illinois. McCain said, "While we were working to eliminate these pork barrel earmarks, he voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Ill."

TRUE: In July 2007, Obama requested a $3 million earmark for the Adler Planetarium to repair the 40-year-old projector to the Sky Theater, as detailed on his Web site.

AND FALSE: As to the first part of the claim, that Obama voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, any senator, including McCain, who casts a vote to pass spending bills, in effect, votes for far more than that.

But if McCain misspoke and meant to say that Obama requested nearly a billion in earmarks, he's not even close. According to the Citizens Against Government Waste's annual Pig Book for 2008 Appropriations, Obama requested 53 earmarks worth a total of $97.4 million."

According to this site he didn't request  (notice it doesn't say voted for but asked for) $100M.

I'm only posting this to try to put a stop (or at least put some breaks on) this ridiculous incessant arguing that just keeps going on and on and on and.......


----------



## tagalong (Oct 14, 2008)

Thank you very much, *Appylover* - I appreciate the facts.

I'll try to add to them later on tonight.







> *Pig Book for 2008 Appropriations*


I love that ^^^^ - good for them!


----------



## littlesteppers (Oct 14, 2008)

Obama, on his Web site, has listed every earmark he’s requested – but not necessarily received – as a U.S. senator. It totals $931.3-million.

McCain is also correct that it comes to nearly a million dollars for every day that Obama’s been in the United States Senate, provided you include just working days.

The math goes like this: Obama was elected in 2004 and took office January 3, 2005. Since then, there have been about 930 working days, as they are defined by most people, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, which would mean McCain would be completely right if he had specified working days.

Technically, Obama's been "in Congress" for more than 1,350 days, if you count weekends. So how many points do you take off for McCain not saying "every working day"? Not many. We say this claim is Mostly True.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/743/

YOU decide...


----------



## BlueMoonEmbroidery (Oct 14, 2008)

*Palin's earmark requests: more per person than any other state*

GOP vice presidential candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin touts her record as a reformer who worked to end the "abuses of earmark spending in Congress." But Palin has embraced earmarks from early on in her career as a mayor of Wasilla to the governor's mansion in Juneau. Just this year she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million — more, per person, than any other state.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...ebpalin02m.html

*For Palin, some pork is kosher*

Last year, when a Juneau Pentecostal church asked the Alaska state government for cash for a new youth center, Gov. Sarah Palin, who had recently started worshipping at the church, vetoed the legislative appropriation from the capital budget, explaining it was “not a state responsibility.”

But by the time this year’s budget negotiations rolled around, Palin had become very involved in the Juneau Christian Center, attending an increasing number of services there, touring the youth center with her family, citing the pastor as among her spiritual guides, and appearing with the pastor at a Martin Luther King Day celebration and a religious conference where he laid hands on her while praying.

During this year’s capital budget writing process, Palin penned a letter to lawmakers “in support of the Juneau Christian Center’s new state-of-the-art youth center,” and she approved $25,000 for the center in May, even as she sparked a backlash from officials around the state for slashing spending from projects they deemed crucial to their areas.

Her reversal on the church funding is one small example of what both her critics and supporters in both parties in Alaska say is a trend in Palin’s political track record: She supports spending taxpayer cash on initiatives that tickle her fancy, even as she rails against funding for other — sometimes similar — projects and does little to slow overall government spending.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14471.html


----------



## AppyLover2 (Oct 14, 2008)

Thanks littlesteppers. Just goes to show that even those sites that provide the "truth" have conflicting information.

Kinda sorta gives me the idea that maybe we taxpayers are being treated like mushrooms.


----------



## littlesteppers (Oct 14, 2008)

AppyLover2 said:


> Thanks littlesteppers. Just goes to show that even those sites that provide the "truth" have conflicting information.
> Kinda sorta gives me the idea that maybe we taxpayers are being treated like mushrooms.


YUP!!!


----------



## McBunz (Oct 14, 2008)

How much did he actually receive????? If he were working for your State and was trying to get money for your State projects

would you still be against his trying.??????. Isn't that why we elect people to represent us.. ???????


----------



## littlesteppers (Oct 14, 2008)

McBunz said:


> How much did he actually receive????? If he were working for your State and was trying to get money for your State projectswould you still be against his trying.??????. Isn't that why we elect people to represent us.. ???????


For the state? Usaully earmarks are VERY personal..like building a road for a property YOU own..or have a train go somewhere where it profits YOU..

Or GIVE money to the hospital where your wife works

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/polit...14campaign.html


----------



## BlueMoonEmbroidery (Oct 14, 2008)

Or for -

AIDSCARE, Inc., for general operating support, $750,000

or

Aledo, IL, to support its replacement of two aging water towers, $750,000

or

American Red Cross of Illinois, for emergency preparedness, $5,000,000

or

Center for Advanced Design, Research, and Exploration (CADRE) at the University of Illinois at Chicago, for development of rapid wound healing therapies, $4,800,000

or

Center for Advanced Design, Research, and Exploration (CADRE) at the University of Illinois at Chicago, to develop a hand-held device used in combat, $2,000,000

or

Chicago Children’s Advocacy Center, for Facility Improvements, Renovations, and Expansion of the Chicago Children’s Advocacy Center for child abuse support services, $500,000

or

Children’s Memorial Hospital, for the construction of Children’s Memorial Hospital Intensive Care Unit Facilities, $3,000,000

or

Easter Seals Metropolitan Chicago (ESMC), for its therapeutic School and Center for Autism Research, $1,500,000

or

Illinois State University, for the Great Lakes Teacher and Preparation Leadership Preparation Consortium, $500,000

or

Lewis and Clark Community College, for its mobile health clinic to provide healthcare services to rural areas, $350,000

http://jay1949.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/mc...earmarks-issue/


----------



## Bassett (Oct 14, 2008)

> sounds like some of you have no problem of your choice of poitician to spend taxpayers money unlawfully but just hate to see a dollar go to some poor veteran on the street!


I wasn't aware we were talking about a poor veteran on the street. I would not give a poor veteran on the street a dime BUT I would take them to the proper place where they could get a meal or the help they need.

1. They may not be a poor veteran.

2. They may just be a beggar. If they truly need help they will accept your offer. If not they will be scurrying away like the person I offered to take her to find help. All at once she took off across the parking lot. She had been going from car to car asking for money. Said her boyfriend kicked her out and she was trying to get to Pennsylvania. From Minnesota? I'm sure the social services would have helped her. But. Surprisingly she did not need help. She was just a beggar with of all things a baby on her back. Like I said I'm willing to help anyone who truly needs it. There are people who make more money than you do simply by begging in the street. All an act. Prove to me you need help and I'll do it. I've done it plenty of times. But this I'm offering. It is not forced on me by the government. A big difference.


----------



## tagalong (Oct 14, 2008)

At least Obama listed his requests on his website for all to see - with no intention of hiding anything.

Earmarks are not necessarily "personal" items... but more what most politicians promise their constituents that they will try and get done. Sometimes it happens, sometimes not. Should there be less of it? Of course.

As I said before, the big bailout package had all kinds of pork stuffed into it... in order to get some more votes on side. Items such as...

-$192 million to cover a rum excise tax with money diverted to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.(section 308, page 279)

- $33 million in economic development funds for small business in American Samoa. (section 309, page 279)

-$4 million in tax credits for mine rescue team training. (section 310, page 280)

-$119-205 million in tax credits for business that employ American Indians who live on reservations and accelerated depreciation for property used on reservations (sections 314 and 315, page 288)

-$? million railroad track maintenance. (section 316, page 289)

-$331 million seven-year-cost-recovery period for land improvement at motorsport racetracks. (section 317, page 290)

-$? million in tax incentives to invest in the District of Columbia (section, 322, page 291)

-$148 million reduction of wool fabric import tariffs to the Wool Trust Fund to promote American wool competitiveness (section 325, page 295)

-$397 million deduction for domestic projects for film and television productions (section 502, page 298)

-$6 million for exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children (section 503, page 300)

-$223 million in payouts to fishermen who received payments for the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident (Section 504, pages 301-307)

None of these are "technically" earmarks - but tax credits, deductions and exemptions. But they were used as pork to sweeten the deal all the same... and bring more votes onside. Compared to $700,000,000,000 though - they get lost in the shuffle.

McCain has a long tradition of and a good reputation for porkbusting




- but even he is prone to it at times... it just gets called something else.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...s-pork-project/



> *McCain's pork project*By Shawn Zeller
> 
> Published on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 05:27 p.m.
> 
> ...


We could probably start a whole new forum devoted to Pentagon Pork... and never run out of material...


----------



## AppyLover2 (Oct 14, 2008)

I'm confused. Is there really any point in going round and round on these issues. It's like we've got a contest going to see who can find, copy and paste the longest diatribe of any bits and pieces of information available.

I've enjoyed these threads. They've taught me a lot. They've gotten me much more interested and involved in the Presidential election than I've ever been. But sheesh................


----------



## tagalong (Oct 14, 2008)

Sorry, *Appylover*... all I said earlier was that IMO even an established porkbuster like McCain is not immune to "pork" of some kind. I said earlier in the day that I would check it out... so I did. No "contest" intended... McCain is miles ahead of Obama in the "pork" department.

_*edited for clarity... which is important*_


----------

