More Taxpayer Waste

[Secretariat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060830/ap_on_el_ge/bush_campaign_travel

Taxpayers pay for Bush's campaign travel
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer Wed Aug 30, 2:44 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Bankrolled almost entirely by taxpayers, President Bush is roaming far and wide on Air Force One to help Republicans retain control of Congress and capture statehouse contests in high-stakes midterm elections.

[DJofSD]

An example of real waste not another 'bash Bush' fest. (http://http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Katrina_Waste)

[Show Me the Wire]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060830/ap_on_el_ge/bush_campaign_travel

Taxpayers pay for Bush's campaign travel
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer Wed Aug 30, 2:44 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Bankrolled almost entirely by taxpayers, President Bush is roaming far and wide on Air Force One to help Republicans retain control of Congress and capture statehouse contests in high-stakes midterm elections.


So what.

[BenDiesel26]

I think a more appropriate title for this thread should have been:

Taxes Pay for President's Salary and Work Expenses for 217th Straight Year

Taxes also pay each of the former president's who are no longer in office almost 200,000 a year, as well as providing them with Secret Service Protection, reimbursements for staff, travel, mail, and office expenses. Also it should be noted that yes, past presidents have used Air Force One. Good Informative post!

[DJofSD]

Taxes also pay each of the former president's who are no longer in office almost 200,000 a year,...

You mean like Clinton who was just retained by WalMart for $3 million? I'd think by now that with Hillary's ability to strike gold in the commodities market, he wouldn't need to work.

[Show Me the Wire]

You mean like Clinton who was just retained by WalMart for $3 million? I'd think by now that with Hillary's ability to strike gold in the commodities market, he wouldn't need to work.


Well it is an Arkansas company. What supposedly are his duties to Wal-mart, counter balance the demlibs angst against the chain.

[Secretariat]

The only one who dealt with the issue was SMTW. So what? Well, wasting taxpayer money on campaigning for party candidates is not only repugnant it smacks of a lack of respect for those taxpayers concerned with deficits and waste. Using public funds for partisan politics debases the moeny contributed by taxpayers. I'd feel the same way about Clinton doing it as Bush doing it, and I'd hope every taxpayer here would feel the same. But instead some support it. More hypocrisy.


btw... I do not pay taxes to Walmart.

[BenDiesel26]

Wow...I've got to be honest. This is your dumbest post yet. This is 2006, so we'll compare to 1998. Bill Clinton did campaign for his party in 1998, and yes, he did travel to do so. He stopped travelling around August when he was facing impeachment. And yes, taxpayer dollars paid for it back then. Also, Bill Clinton has campaigned for his party since his presidency has ended. This required travelling, and yes, taxpayer dollars did pay for him to do so once again. By your train of thought, I suppose that this is a waste of taxpayer money as well. I mean you have to be fair. This is how the government works. Obviously, your source is biased. I suppose they will complain about utility bills in the White House next?

[Tom]

The only one who dealt with the issue was SMTW. So what? Well, wasting taxpayer money on campaigning for party candidates is not only repugnant it smacks of a lack of respect for those taxpayers concerned with deficits and waste. Using public funds for partisan politics debases the moeny contributed by taxpayers. I'd feel the same way about Clinton doing it as Bush doing it, and I'd hope every taxpayer here would feel the same. But instead some support it. More hypocrisy.


btw... I do not pay taxes to Walmart.


As long as they are paying for SS protection for Billy-boy, I have no problems. Like it or not, it is always done - I don't remeber you whining about it when it was Billy boy doing it.
To be fair - I bitched about it before. But I didn't bitch as a political ploy - he was my guy after all. I bitched on principles. I don't belive you are doing that.

[Lefty]

The only one who dealt with the issue was SMTW. So what? Well, wasting taxpayer money on campaigning for party candidates is not only repugnant it smacks of a lack of respect for those taxpayers concerned with deficits and waste. Using public funds for partisan politics debases the moeny contributed by taxpayers. I'd feel the same way about Clinton doing it as Bush doing it, and I'd hope every taxpayer here would feel the same. But instead some support it. More hypocrisy.


btw... I do not pay taxes to Walmart.
sec, guess you forget that when Clinton was Pres, HILLARY traveled the world on our dough.

[JustRalph]

who do you think paid for this trip

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n9_v52/ai_19566001

Hillary and Chelsea spent spring break traveling all over Africa............without the president.

[kenwoodallpromos]

What's up with Fema paying Clinton's hometown Hope Ar to host all those trailers?

[Secretariat]

Wow...I've got to be honest. This is your dumbest post yet. This is 2006, so we'll compare to 1998. Bill Clinton did campaign for his party in 1998, and yes, he did travel to do so. He stopped travelling around August when he was facing impeachment. And yes, taxpayer dollars paid for it back then. Also, Bill Clinton has campaigned for his party since his presidency has ended. This required travelling, and yes, taxpayer dollars did pay for him to do so once again. By your train of thought, I suppose that this is a waste of taxpayer money as well. I mean you have to be fair. This is how the government works. Obviously, your source is biased. I suppose they will complain about utility bills in the White House next?

You're damn right it's a waste of taxpayer money, no matter who the President is. This argument that since Clinton did it, it's OK, is the most absurd defense I have ever heard. If it's ripping off the American taxpayer for partisan political gains for other candidates, it's absolutely an abuse of power.

You defenders of Bush no matter what fail to see that, and contunal t make excuses. He is not a king.

[BenDiesel26]

Never defended him, frankly I don't care. I just wanted to point out your whining about something once again when Bush does it, despite the fact that he is not the only one. That's how the federal gov't has worked for 217 years, and as long as your fine with calling other former president's a waste of taxpayer money as well when they travel, then fine, unless you can prove that they are themselves also paying out of pocket (which ironically, would also be using the taxpayers' money). What's also ironic is that most likely you are paying a lower income tax rate then you were 10 years ago.

[DJofSD]

Now, let me see if I get all of this correctly.

The demlibs want all elections to be paid for by the government. But then when it comes to an incumbant running for re elections, they don't want anything paid for by the governemnt? I thought that all governemnt was good and it knew better how to spend our money, including better how to run a campaign.

It all sounds like a Royal Fizzbin to me.

[betchatoo]

I have to agree with Sec on this. I don't care which political party it is, if a trip is for the purpose of political campaigning, the party involved should foot the bill, not the taxpayers. There are better ways to use the money. And we, as taxpayers, should insist on it. I'd never really thought about it before, but I just sent off EMails to my Senators and to Henry Hyde.

[DJofSD]

I have to agree with Sec on this. I don't care which political party it is, if a trip is for the purpose of political campaigning, the party involved should foot the bill, not the taxpayers. There are better ways to use the money. And we, as taxpayers, should insist on it. I'd never really thought about it before, but I just sent off EMails to my Senators and to Henry Hyde.

What are the rental rates for the Rose Garden, Camp David and, lest we forget, the Lincoln bedroom?

[betchatoo]

What are the rental rates for the Rose Garden, Camp David and, lest we forget, the Lincoln bedroom?

Not sure what that has to do with anything. Please explain.

[DJofSD]

If you're going to begin to separate legitimate office holding activities from campaigning then you're going to have to start charging for the use of government facilities when they're used for election related activities.

[Show Me the Wire]

Not sure what that has to do with anything. Please explain.


Large contributors are given access to these areas.

[BenDiesel26]

I have to agree with Sec on this. I don't care which political party it is, if a trip is for the purpose of political campaigning, the party involved should foot the bill, not the taxpayers. There are better ways to use the money. And we, as taxpayers, should insist on it. I'd never really thought about it before, but I just sent off EMails to my Senators and to Henry Hyde.

Your definitely entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But Sec's original intent on this thread was hypocrisy. His intent was to make Bush look bad for doing something that every other president who has ever travelled on Air Force One, or received SS protection, or travelled in a motorcade has done. Only after it was explained to him how the government runs on money from taxpayers did he concede to that fact. If I recall, his original post only mentioned the current president.

[Lefty]

sec, but you singled out Bush, and that outrages me. You mean he doesn't have the right to do what every pres in history has done? And he's saving us money, cause he hasn't let his wife travel nearly as exrensively as Hillary did when she was the so-called first lady. Saved us a bundle right there.

[Secretariat]

Large contributors are given access to these areas.

Yes, and I am against that as well. Regardless of party.

Frankly, I'd like to see a new amendment to the constitution in regards to binding national referendums for some of these issues.

If money goes back into the treasury for access I suppose a part of me understands it, but for private political campaigning, it is just obscene.

A constitutional amendment based on referendums that 60% to 2/3rds of state legislatures deem a vital national interest worth voting on would at least get some of these big issues addressed.

[Tom]

You want to ammend the constitution to prohibit sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom????:confused::confused::confused:

[BenDiesel26]

Yes, and I am against that as well. Regardless of party.

Frankly, I'd like to see a new amendment to the constitution in regards to binding national referendums for some of these issues.

If money goes back into the treasury for access I suppose a part of me understands it, but for private political campaigning, it is just obscene.

A constitutional amendment based on referendums that 60% to 2/3rds of state legislatures deem a vital national interest worth voting on would at least get some of these big issues addressed.

A fair opinion. Not bad.

[Lefty]

If you're going to begin to separate legitimate office holding activities from campaigning then you're going to have to start charging for the use of government facilities when they're used for election related activities.
Clinton did charge people to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. He also took money from illegal foreign sources and had AlGORE seek contributions from some religious sect. Later Gore feigned ignorance.

[Tom]

Lefty, he didn't "feign" it! :lol: