BS: cost of president!!!

Subject: BS: cost of president!!!
From: red_clay
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 03:57 PM

Yeah, Baby!!! Bush gave tax breaks to the rich. Bad guy.
Kerry will tax the rich. Good guy.
READ THIS......
Subject: Cost of President

Thought you'd find this interesting!



Subject: An expensive proposition: You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5
Kerry mansions.

                  It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands
for Forbes in case you ever wondered. (I didn't know that either)

                  He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When
someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to
protect the President and his family as well as his property.

                  The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the
several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes
are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent
was free and all you had to pay the water, gas &electric. Including
ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers.

[excess copy & paste deleted--please make the point, then post a link to the rest]

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:01 PM

I'm more concerned with cost of buying the presidency, which with this election, will be rather like the cost per barrell of oil. Over US $1 billion will be spent buying the presidency this year.

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: Nerd
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:07 PM

Surprisingly, red_clay, you were wrong. I didn't find it interesting.

It was debunked as an urban legend ages ago. Check this out:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

According to them, "The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets right."

Again, don't we have a policy against cut-and-paste without attributuion of political diatribes from the internet?

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:08 PM

Check your facts first, PLEASE!!

That's easy to do at www.snopes.com. Here's what they have to say about the above:


Origins:   The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets right.

John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate, a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple. The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President. That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents.

It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life. Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997. President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office.

In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly. The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion — the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket. The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States.

For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:08 PM

Sorry, Nerd, we cross-posted.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: Nerd
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:19 PM

No prob, Kat. We have to jump on bullshit like this ASAP to prevent it from spreading!

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:21 PM

Too right! Or left...er..or..well...correct!:-)

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: Nerd
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 04:23 PM

By the way, Kat, I ahve seen no evidence that red_clay cares whether his posts are truthful or not. He simply trawls right-wing webspace, copies an outrageous article, and pastes it here without attributuion. I'm surprised Joe and the Clones haven't cracked down yet, because all red_clay seems to do is cut and paste crap from the 'Net with no attribution.

It's simply an attempt to hurt Kerry, and has nothing to do with the truth. I'm sure the Bush campaign has many such volunteer surrogates all over the net on blogs and forums everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 06:08 PM

red_clay isn't here for the music, that much is clear.

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 06:57 PM

Well, if it's true or not, be grateful you don't have a royal family to pay for any more.... mind you, would it not be a cheaper option these days?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:22 PM

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings and Queens are less expensive than Dictators.

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:27 PM

But not by much.

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 06:39 PM

Maybe we should just outsource the Presidency. There's probably a retarded Malaysian who could do at least as well, and be a helluva lot cheaper. Could make up any budgetary shorfalls by making basketball shoes, too.

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 07:16 PM

Send him back to the village that is so sorely missing him.

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:50 PM

I like that idea, Dick. We can outsource the Presidency, and keep the real jobs here for real people. I hear Saddam Hussein is out of work. Maybe he could do better than that Bush guy.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 05:31 AM

any American can be President as long as you are a multi-millionaire.

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 07:38 PM

Seems to me like the present incumbent only got the job because Daddy gave him it.....

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!!
From: mack/misophist
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 07:54 PM

When you think about it a few minutes, the original post has no impact. Some presidents are rich, some are richer. It evens out in time. No big deal at the national level.