City spends 2.2 million to protect Obamas home (Chicago, Jacksonville: neighborhoods, to live in)

[ChiMack]

since he was elected in november

"The department will be reimbursed by the federal government for more than $1.5 million of those costs. But the expense of protecting the president's home since his January inauguration -- nearly $650,000 through the end of April -- is not currently scheduled to be paid back, according to the city's response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Tribune"

i have mixed feelings about this to be honest...

[long101]

oh wow.

[Steve-o]

Gee, Democrats spending money on useless things? This comes as some sort of shock?!?!

[JoeyPants]

Aren't Bush's daughter still getting secret service protection even though adult children of a President lose secret service protection once a President leaves office.

Will this spur another hate filled tea bagging party?

[softdev]

A security detail costs a lot of money. He's the President of the United States. What's the big deal, again?

[j33]

Originally Posted by Steve-o

Gee, Democrats spending money on useless things? This comes as some sort of shock?!?!

And if Obama were a Republican who happened to live in Hyde Park, and were elected president, the city would be spending the same amount of money to protect his house.

As much as those blinded by partisan hate want to make this an issue, there is really nothing to see here.

I know that there may be those who will state that it probably costs less to protect Bush's rural home than it costs to protect Obama's urban home, but what is the solution, do we never elect a president from an urban area because it might cost too much money to pay for security for his or her home? Do we force anyone elected to the office of president to sell his or her home?

Honestly folks, what do you propose as a solution if you are so appalled by this you feel it must immediately be stopped.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by softdev

A security detail costs a lot of money. He's the President of the United States. What's the big deal, again?

The big deal is that the federal government should be picking up the tab for this security detail, not the Chicago taxpayer.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Gioobag

Obama totally overpaid for that house. You can thank "inferiority-complex at Princeton" Michelle for strong-arming modest Barack into that transaction.

Also, it's in a terrible location, only 2 miles from the 2nd most dangerous neighborhood in the United States! Just think about that. It shows what a banana republic the United States has turned into.

"Chicago has the dubious distinction of holding four places on a list of the 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the nation."

Here is the list:

1. Cincinnati, Ohio (Central Pky./Liberty St.)
2. Chicago (State St./Garfield Blvd.)
3. Miami, Fla. (7th Ave./North River Dr.)
4. Jacksonville, Fla. (Beaver St./Broad St.)
5. Baltimore (North Ave./Belair Rd.)
6. Kansas City, Mo. (Bales Ave./30th St.)
7. Memphis, Tenn. (Warford St./Mount Olive Rd.)
8. Kansas City, Mo. (Forest Ave./41st St.)
9. Dallas, Texas (Route 352/Scyene Rd.)
10. Richmond, Va. (Church Hill)

Have you ever been to State and Garfield? I'd like to know how this is "the most dangerous neighborhood in Chicago" when nobody lives there. And you of all people should know that two miles in Chicago can be an entire universe away.

[j33]

Originally Posted by Drover

The big deal is that the federal government should be picking up the tab for this security detail, not the Chicago taxpayer.

I agree with this. However, those who would make it a partisan issue are idiots.

[surlycue]

Originally Posted by Gioobag

Also, it's in a terrible location, only 2 miles from the 2nd most dangerous neighborhood in the United States!

2 miles!? Are you even in Chicago? I'm all of 9 blocks from what's left of Cabrini Green and if I chose to I would never even know it's there. 2 miles is a world away.