On October 09 2012 03:24 Souma wrote: Considering what's been happening in Libya, I'd say that was a massive victory for U.S. foreign policy. For once, we are the good guys. For once, the populace is driving out armed militants/terrorist organizations. And for once, the Libyan people are fighting for better representation of their country, as exemplified by the group that forced the new PM to reconsider his cabinet choices. If we keep close ties with Libya and make sure they receive the aid they need to make a smooth transition, bar any externalities, it will be a huge step in the right direction.
Best part is we did not have to commit tens of thousands of troops to the endeavor.
It is way too early to be popping any champagne for our accomplishments in Libya. The country is basically in a state of anarchy, with many factions -- including many radical Muslim factions -- competing for power. There is no guarantee that Libya will turn out well for us.
I was quite pessimistic on Libya myself, but strangely enough, the aftermath of the consulate attack (viz. the popular uprising supporting the U.S. and against militias) is quite reassuring.
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
I think Stewart's use of mandatory service includes things like the coast guard, FEMA, plain old service, etc. It's not mandatory offshore service and it wouldn't require people to formally join the armed services, since there are plenty of places and agencies that can use volunteers here in the U.S. The idea is to more actively engage the citizenry in their civic duty, not more actively engage them in the military.
Exactly this.
I guess I just misunderstood, this seems much more reasonable but I don't know if I have an opinion on it yet would need to think more about it. Really doubt anything like this is possible in the current United States though.
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
I think Stewart's use of mandatory service includes things like the coast guard, FEMA, plain old service, etc. It's not mandatory offshore service and it wouldn't require people to formally join the armed services, since there are plenty of places and agencies that can use volunteers here in the U.S. The idea is to more actively engage the citizenry in their civic duty, not more actively engage them in the military.
Exactly this.
I guess I just misunderstood, this seems much more reasonable but I don't know if I have an opinion on it yet would need to think more about it. Really doubt anything like this is possible in the current United States though.
I kind of like the idea of mandatory military service. My dad went through it in Taiwan, and I know a good number of Korean friends who have/will have to go do it. I've heard that Korean military service isn't that bad either. I've heard it isn't too bad either, unless you want to go hardcore on that.
Still, I think there are other outlets through which young adults can learn this sort of discipline and do their civic duty. Why not the Peace Corps, or any of the programs that Kennedy espoused?
On October 09 2012 03:24 Souma wrote: Considering what's been happening in Libya, I'd say that was a massive victory for U.S. foreign policy. For once, we are the good guys. For once, the populace is driving out armed militants/terrorist organizations. And for once, the Libyan people are fighting for better representation of their country, as exemplified by the group that forced the new PM to reconsider his cabinet choices. If we keep close ties with Libya and make sure they receive the aid they need to make a smooth transition, bar any externalities, it will be a huge step in the right direction.
Best part is we did not have to commit tens of thousands of troops to the endeavor.
It is way too early to be popping any champagne for our accomplishments in Libya. The country is basically in a state of anarchy, with many factions -- including many radical Muslim factions -- competing for power. There is no guarantee that Libya will turn out well for us.
"Turn out well for us" is only truely possible to discuss in retrospect. Several dictators have probably been turning out well for the USA through time! I think it is better to look at how the country is trying to organze itself. If they get somewhere near a workeable democratic and human right respecting construction in 10 years they have hit a jackpot and I think that is all we should hope for from the western world. If the new governments are socialistic/liberal/"conservative"/theologian should not be the primary concern as long as they stick to a good constitution.
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
I think Stewart's use of mandatory service includes things like the coast guard, FEMA, plain old service, etc. It's not mandatory offshore service and it wouldn't require people to formally join the armed services, since there are plenty of places and agencies that can use volunteers here in the U.S. The idea is to more actively engage the citizenry in their civic duty, not more actively engage them in the military.
Exactly this.
I guess I just misunderstood, this seems much more reasonable but I don't know if I have an opinion on it yet would need to think more about it. Really doubt anything like this is possible in the current United States though.
I kind of like the idea of mandatory military service. My dad went through it in Taiwan, and I know a good number of Korean friends who have/will have to go do it. I've heard that Korean military service isn't that bad either. I've heard it isn't too bad either, unless you want to go hardcore on that.
Still, I think there are other outlets through which young adults can learn this sort of discipline and do their civic duty. Why not the Peace Corps, or any of the programs that Kennedy espoused?
Woah. Wait a second. Are you seriously advocating temporary enslavement by the government as a good idea? It's not "too bad", except for the fact that you're giving two years of your prime away to the government as a price for membership. Now, this is necessary in Taiwan and Korea because they may face a war that will eliminate their country if they lose so people can put up with it. But is it necessary in America? No.
But America has tried the draft before and a big reason we got rid of it is all the exceptions, which are sure to come back. Do you think Barack Obama is going to let his two daughters sweep streets or take brainwashing classes for a year in their mid-20s? Not unless they really want to, no.
On October 09 2012 04:00 oneofthem wrote: whether the outcome of a revolution will 'turn out well for us' is not the overriding consideration. these countries are not jailkeepers for america.
Whether the outcome of a revolution turns out well for us reflects on whether our foreign policy was successful, because part of the goal of foreign policy is tangible benefits for us.
And here is an article about Obama spending $1.4 billion of taxpayer money on his own family last year..including using money on jets to fly around campaigning for his re-election. Yes, that's right, our money is being used to subsidize his re-election campaign.
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.
“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC. (RELATED: Five shocking truths about Michelle Obama)
Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.
“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?” (SEE ALSO: Millions of taxpayer dollars used for Disney World conference)
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.
On October 09 2012 04:00 oneofthem wrote: whether the outcome of a revolution will 'turn out well for us' is not the overriding consideration. these countries are not jailkeepers for america.
Whether the outcome of a revolution turns out well for us reflects on whether our foreign policy was successful, because part of the goal of foreign policy is tangible benefits for us.
In the long term, America might be better off if we had a benevolent rather than malevolent foreign policy. We wouldn't have to worry about things like 9/11 at least.
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
I think Stewart's use of mandatory service includes things like the coast guard, FEMA, plain old service, etc. It's not mandatory offshore service and it wouldn't require people to formally join the armed services, since there are plenty of places and agencies that can use volunteers here in the U.S. The idea is to more actively engage the citizenry in their civic duty, not more actively engage them in the military.
Exactly this.
I guess I just misunderstood, this seems much more reasonable but I don't know if I have an opinion on it yet would need to think more about it. Really doubt anything like this is possible in the current United States though.
I've heard that Korean military service isn't that bad either. I've heard it isn't too bad either, unless you want to go hardcore on that.
it's actually the most hated thing of anyone in their early 20's ^_^
And here is an article about Obama spending $1.4 billion of taxpayer money on his own family last year..including using money on jets to fly around campaigning for his re-election. Yes, that's right, our money is being used to subsidize his re-election campaign.
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.
“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC. (RELATED: Five shocking truths about Michelle Obama)
Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.
“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?” (SEE ALSO: Millions of taxpayer dollars used for Disney World conference)
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
I think Stewart's use of mandatory service includes things like the coast guard, FEMA, plain old service, etc. It's not mandatory offshore service and it wouldn't require people to formally join the armed services, since there are plenty of places and agencies that can use volunteers here in the U.S. The idea is to more actively engage the citizenry in their civic duty, not more actively engage them in the military.
Exactly this.
I guess I just misunderstood, this seems much more reasonable but I don't know if I have an opinion on it yet would need to think more about it. Really doubt anything like this is possible in the current United States though.
I've heard that Korean military service isn't that bad either. I've heard it isn't too bad either, unless you want to go hardcore on that.
it's actually the most hated thing of anyone in their early 20's ^_^
Whoa, had a real brainfart when I wrote that and ended up super redundant. >_>
I mean, I don't think its enjoyable, but its not THAT bad. You even get to go home on weekends!
On October 08 2012 21:20 BlueBird. wrote: This is getting a little off topic, since the debate isn't really about Romney and Obama, but more Stewart and O'Reilly, and I really felt like Stewart destroyed him, and I was very surprised to see Stewart did not know the difference between debt vs deficit but I guess I didn't know until this election cycle, so can't blame him personally, but I understand that that was weird for someone who's supposed to be on top of this stuff.
Why does Stewart support a year of mandatory service? I don't personally follow his line of thought here, and I'm more to the left of Stewart even. I just feel like being part of the services are not for everyone and no one should be forced, I respect those that do it I have relatives that do it, but I could never do it, and i don't really support most of our military action in the last 10 years. Should only use violence when absolutely no other option is available, and I really feel like that's not how the U.S. currently handles foreign policy, I've heard people say we should nuke Iran. U.S. citizens I've spoken too have said they feel the world would be a better place if we blow up the Middle East. I just don't get it, I know it's a small portion of the population, but seriously.. even respected posters in this thread have said we need fear not respect in order too keep world order/peace, I just don't buy it. I've heard the argument that volunteer based military can be skewed towards the poor because the wealthy have less incentives to join, and this argument makes sense, but i'm for a drastic reduction in the size of our military and world presence. Anyways if someone can shed the light on this, would be great just curious don't know the reasons.
I think Stewart's use of mandatory service includes things like the coast guard, FEMA, plain old service, etc. It's not mandatory offshore service and it wouldn't require people to formally join the armed services, since there are plenty of places and agencies that can use volunteers here in the U.S. The idea is to more actively engage the citizenry in their civic duty, not more actively engage them in the military.
Exactly this.
I guess I just misunderstood, this seems much more reasonable but I don't know if I have an opinion on it yet would need to think more about it. Really doubt anything like this is possible in the current United States though.
I've heard that Korean military service isn't that bad either. I've heard it isn't too bad either, unless you want to go hardcore on that.
it's actually the most hated thing of anyone in their early 20's ^_^
On October 09 2012 04:00 oneofthem wrote: whether the outcome of a revolution will 'turn out well for us' is not the overriding consideration. these countries are not jailkeepers for america.
Whether the outcome of a revolution turns out well for us reflects on whether our foreign policy was successful, because part of the goal of foreign policy is tangible benefits for us.
In the long term, America might be better off if we had a benevolent rather than malevolent foreign policy. We wouldn't have to worry about things like 9/11 at least.
I was about to ask you how you could be so naive....then I realized you were right O_O that sucks..
And here is an article about Obama spending $1.4 billion of taxpayer money on his own family last year..including using money on jets to fly around campaigning for his re-election. Yes, that's right, our money is being used to subsidize his re-election campaign.
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.
“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC. (RELATED: Five shocking truths about Michelle Obama)
Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.
“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?” (SEE ALSO: Millions of taxpayer dollars used for Disney World conference)
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.
And here is an article about Obama spending $1.4 billion of taxpayer money on his own family last year..including using money on jets to fly around campaigning for his re-election. Yes, that's right, our money is being used to subsidize his re-election campaign.
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.
“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC. (RELATED: Five shocking truths about Michelle Obama)
Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.
“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?” (SEE ALSO: Millions of taxpayer dollars used for Disney World conference)
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”
Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.
The executive branch, like any other, gets its funding from taxes. I'd imagine that the GOVERNMENT of England has similar costs, as the royal family has enough income to take care of itself.
But, as someone above me said, that article was debunked.
EPT
