Very well said Moon..and yes the Clinton staff disabled the W's on numerous computers...I'm sure Gyp can google it up if she is that concerned.
If the fancy shoes were a gift then a shoe maker is looking for advertising, probably she bought them, since I don't believe a Pres. and 1st lady can endource a product. JUst another waste of money to me, or flaunting infront of the struggling american public.

SSC wrote:Very well said Moon..and yes the Clinton staff disabled the W's on numerous computers...I'm sure Gyp can google it up if she is that concerned.
If the fancy shoes were a gift then a shoe maker is looking for advertising, probably she bought them, since I don't believe a Pres. and 1st lady can endource a product. JUst another waste of money to me, or flaunting infront of the struggling american public.

yep ssc the article was wrote on the context that she bought them , im sure if it were anyother way the article would have been wrote that way, i never said anything was wrong with it, i said she can buy what she wants, i just found it silly to spend 540 bucks on some ugly shoes, but again i said its her money so its ok, i never thought it would even have reply to it, but gypsy is back lol,,

the staff, not the Clintons themselves, also this happened when Clinton took over the white house after senior bush~~ I found it on truth and digg~ it was staff playing pranks~which was wrong and the Clintons paid for it~ also nothing yet on gifts/and taxes~~ oh well :)

rosco 357 wrote:

SSC wrote:Very well said Moon..and yes the Clinton staff disabled the W's on numerous computers...I'm sure Gyp can google it up if she is that concerned.
If the fancy shoes were a gift then a shoe maker is looking for advertising, probably she bought them, since I don't believe a Pres. and 1st lady can endource a product. JUst another waste of money to me, or flaunting infront of the struggling american public.

yep ssc the article was wrote on the context that she bought them , im sure if it were anyother way the article would have been wrote that way, i never said anything was wrong with it, i said she can buy what she wants, i just found it silly to spend 540 bucks on some ugly shoes, but again i said its her money so its ok, i never thought it would even have reply to it, but gypsy is back lol,,

yes she is,(gypsy) and if you didn't want a reply? that is funny in you posting it~ I waited till all others replied first any way LOL

"sure i can look it up, but you would disagree with the outcome or say it is a blog, not news worthy~~" /// This is a fucking lie. I need say no more. "no! a gift is not always income~perks go along with the scenerio" /// No,No,NO!!! Do you actually choose to say factually wrong things? The laws governing "gifts" to government employees (and their family) are strict and enforced. READ, godammit! You don't have to post anything, just try NOT to be so ignorant.

gypsy wrote:the staff, not the Clintons themselves, also this happened when Clinton took over the white house after senior bush~~ I found it on truth and digg~ it was staff playing pranks~which was wrong and the Clintons paid for it~ also nothing yet on gifts/and taxes~~ oh well :)

According to the IRS website " What can be excluded from gifts?
The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts.

1. Gifts that are not more than the annual exclusion for the calendar year. ($100?)
2. Tuition or medical expenses you pay for someone (the educational and medical exclusions).
3. Gifts to your spouse.
4. Gifts to a political organization for its use.

as far as factually wrong? I haven't read anything that says i am wrong, and ignorant? no! I have not seen anything on perks/gifts that substantiate what you say` but if i can, or you can, If i am wrong,I will admit it~ is that fair?

gypsy wrote:the staff, not the Clintons themselves, also this happened when Clinton took over the white house after senior bush~~ I found it on truth and digg~ it was staff playing pranks~which was wrong and the Clintons paid for it~ also nothing yet on gifts/and taxes~~ oh well :)

very long so read the url for the rest, and if it applys to exec. personnel im sure it would to the president and family, there is lots more,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrder-EthicsCommitments/

Executive Order -- Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Ethics Pledge. Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2009, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:

"As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in a position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:

"1. Lobbyist Gift Ban. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.

gypsy wrote:as far as factually wrong? I haven't read anything that says i am wrong, and ignorant? no! I have not seen anything on perks/gifts that substantiate what you say` but if i can, or you can, If i am wrong,I will admit it~ is that fair?

Aside from tax issues,here's what the Federal Code says about gifts to Executive officers" (and spouses) (Federal Code of Regulations) 2635.202 - General standards.

(a) General prohibitions. Except as provided in this subpart, an employee shall not, directly or indirectly, solicit or accept a gift: (1) From a prohibited source; or (2) Given because of the employee's official position.
subpart b - GIFTS FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES

2635.204 - Exceptions.

The prohibitions set forth in 2635.202(a) do not apply to a gift accepted under the circumstances described in paragraphs (a) through (l) of this section, and an employee's acceptance of a gift in accordance with one of those paragraphs will be deemed not to violate the principles set forth in 2635.101(b), including appearances. Even though acceptance of a gift may be permitted by one of the exceptions contained in paragraphs (a) through (l) of this section, it is never inappropriate and frequently prudent for an employee to decline a gift offered by a prohibited source or because of his official position.

(a) Gifts of $20 or less. An employee may accept unsolicited gifts having an aggregate market value of $20 or less per source per occasion, provided that the aggregate market value of individual gifts received from any one person under the authority of this paragraph shall not exceed $50 in a calendar year. This exception does not apply to gifts of cash or of investment interests such as stock, bonds, or certificates of deposit. Where the market value of a gift or the aggregate market value of gifts offered on any single occasion exceeds $20, the employee may not pay the excess value over $20 in order to accept that portion of the gift or those gifts worth $20. Where the aggregate value of tangible items offered on a single occasion exceeds $20, the employee may decline any distinct and separate item in order to accept those items aggregating $20 or less.



(b) Gifts based on a personal relationship. An employee may accept a gift given under circumstances which make it clear that the gift is motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship rather than the position of the employee. Relevant factors in making such a determination include the history of the relationship and whether the family member or friend personally pays for the gift.