|
24 Oct 04 - 03:57 PM (#1305833) Subject: BS: cost of president!!! From: red_clay 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] |
|
24 Oct 04 - 04:01 PM (#1305839) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: GUEST 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. |
|
24 Oct 04 - 04:07 PM (#1305847) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: Nerd 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? |
|
24 Oct 04 - 04:08 PM (#1305848) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: katlaughing 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. |
|
24 Oct 04 - 04:08 PM (#1305851) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: katlaughing Sorry, Nerd, we cross-posted.:-) |
|
24 Oct 04 - 04:19 PM (#1305859) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: Nerd No prob, Kat. We have to jump on bullshit like this ASAP to prevent it from spreading! |
|
24 Oct 04 - 04:21 PM (#1305862) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: katlaughing Too right! Or left...er..or..well...correct!:-) |
|
24 Oct 04 - 04:23 PM (#1305864) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: Nerd 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. |
|
24 Oct 04 - 06:08 PM (#1305971) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: Stilly River Sage red_clay isn't here for the music, that much is clear. |
|
24 Oct 04 - 06:57 PM (#1306029) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: Liz the Squeak 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 |
|
24 Oct 04 - 09:22 PM (#1306151) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: Peace Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings and Queens are less expensive than Dictators. |
|
24 Oct 04 - 10:27 PM (#1306219) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: Peace But not by much. |
|
25 Oct 04 - 06:39 PM (#1306989) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: dick greenhaus 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. |
|
25 Oct 04 - 07:16 PM (#1307016) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: Ebbie Send him back to the village that is so sorely missing him. |
|
25 Oct 04 - 10:50 PM (#1307209) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: Joe Offer 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- |
|
26 Oct 04 - 05:31 AM (#1307411) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: GUEST,noddy any American can be President as long as you are a multi-millionaire. |
|
26 Oct 04 - 07:38 PM (#1308117) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: Liz the Squeak Seems to me like the present incumbent only got the job because Daddy gave him it..... LTS |
|
26 Oct 04 - 07:54 PM (#1308129) Subject: RE: BS: cost of president!!! From: mack/misophist 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. |