Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is that no official should be allowed to financially profit from services funded by the taxpayer, period. They should be renting from someone else with no conflict of interest.
Then your issue is with the Secret Service, not Joe Biden. After all, the Secret Service asked to rent the house. It's not like Joe couldn't have rented to someone else. There's a lot of competition for upscale rentals in that market.
Then your issue is with the Secret Service, not Joe Biden. After all, the Secret Service asked to rent the house.
My problem is with an elected politician personally profiting from taxpayer funded security that is mandated to them. How has that been unclear to you? Biden could have said no, that it was a financial conflict of interest for him. Would you have us believe the Secret Service put a gun to his head and demand he rent to them?
My problem is with an elected politician personally profiting from taxpayer funded security that is mandated to them. How has that been unclear to you? Biden could have said no, that it was a financial conflict of interest for him. Would you have us believe the Secret Service put a gun to his head and demand he rent to them?
I think that the Secret Service had several reasons for wanting to rent that cottage. Not just because it enabled them to have a more convenient and more proximate base to work from, but because by renting it they also eliminated a potential threat from living there. It means that the government doesn't have to run background checks on all the potential renters, doesn't have to use resources to monitor that renter and his/her guests. I think that's why the Secret Service asked.
And Mr Biden isn't profiting from taxpayer funded security, he's profiting from a cottage in a very attractive location that he clearly intended to rent out, as was evidenced by the fact that he did rent it out in 2010. Yeah, he could have said no, and then the government would still be paying rental fees for some house nearby, plus they would have been incurring extra expense in operating from a more distant location, and extra expense to ensure the occupants of the cottage didn't pose a threat.
And guess who gets to pay for it? The American taxpayers!
I know the Secret Service exists to protect our highest level elected officials. But, I'm quite certain they do not exist for the official receiving taxpayer funded protection to financially profit from it.
This is a crazy situation. But if the SS has to live next to him anyway, he was smart to invest in the home they are living in. Someone is to be the recipient of those funds, so I don't really see the big deal, as crazy as it may sound at first glance.
I think that the Secret Service had several reasons for wanting to rent that cottage. Not just because it enabled them to have a more convenient and more proximate base to work from, but because by renting it they also eliminated a potential threat from living there. It means that the government doesn't have to run background checks on all the potential renters, doesn't have to use resources to monitor that renter and his/her guests. I think that's why the Secret Service asked.
And Mr Biden isn't profiting from taxpayer funded security, he's profiting from a cottage in a very attractive location that he clearly intended to rent out, as was evidenced by the fact that he did rent it out in 2010. Yeah, he could have said no, and then the government would still be paying rental fees for some house nearby, plus they would have been incurring extra expense in operating from a more distant location, and extra expense to ensure the occupants of the cottage didn't pose a threat.
The point is that no official should be allowed to financially profit from services funded by the taxpayer, period. They should be renting from someone else with no conflict of interest.
The Secret Service built a house with tax dollars on George W. Bush's Crawford ranch to use as their command post. Bush now has a lovely guest house which has enhanced his property and added to its value. Could you link to the thread you started to complain about it?
So, whenever the Secret Service has to guard an official, they rent a property nearby that person for their "command center" so to speak. Prior to 2010, they rented a home a few miles away from Biden and paid rent to whoever owned THAT property.
Biden's mother passed away and the property adjacent to him became vacant. He informed the Secret Service that it was vacant and available. They declined. He moved another tenant in for a year and charged that tenant $2,200 per month rent. That tenant vacated and the Secret Service approached Biden about renting his place. It was agreed, the Secret Service was charged market value for the rent, as anyone else would do if they were renting it out.
So, I'm wondering what the hullabaloo is about. Is it the fact that the Secret Service should just be renting someone else's place so they can have a command center not owned by the VP, even though it's probably a heck of a lot more convenient?
It does seem not a big deal... next time someone comes over to service my equipment, deliver the mail, repair anything, or anything else, I can charge them a "door fee".. They should feel okay with that... isn't that right? They shouldn't give a "hullabaloo" about it...
The Secret Service built a house with tax dollars on George W. Bush's Crawford ranch to use as their command post. Bush now has a lovely guest house which has enhanced his property and added to its value. Could you link to the thread you started to complain about it?
That is pretty bad... Something should be done about that... like tearing it down or something...
It does seem not a big deal... next time someone comes over to service my equipment, deliver the mail, repair anything, or anything else, I can charge them a "door fee".. They should feel okay with that... isn't that right? They shouldn't give a "hullabaloo" about it...
And that's just a stupid retort right there.
Biden's not charging them a door fee. They wanted to use his home as a command post. Read DC Ridge's post above--explains it perfectly. If you don't understand or get it, then you never will and it will be clear that you think with your party hat on and not your brain.
The Secret Service built a house with tax dollars on George W. Bush's Crawford ranch to use as their command post. Bush now has a lovely guest house which has enhanced his property and added to its value. Could you link to the thread you started to complain about it?
I'm sure everyone here was equally outraged by this also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
