Biden Earned $21,000 From Secret Service

[Rupert Pupkin]

Although this is almost certainly legal, it sure doesn't look good. In addition, it's not surprising that the Bidens gave less than 1.5% of their income to charity. My experience is that the more liberal a person is, the less money they give to charity. If you know a person who is one of those angry, vocal liberals, there is about a 90% chance that that person gives little or no money to charity. Their loud vocals is nothing more than a hollow attempt to make up for their lack of deeds.



http://www.whitehousedossier.com/201...ecret-service/

[geeker2]

Soon he will be off the ticket and Hillary will be added.

[Riot]

I don't understand why it doesn't look good. The Secret Service has done the same for past presidents who are in and out of office but still get taxpayer protections, and where agents are living on the property (Bush in Texas, Reagan in California, etc.) It's pretty standard procedure. The SS has to pay to put agents up somewhere. That it is on the property of the protected isn't any big deal.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

I don't understand why it doesn't look good. The Secret Service has done the same for past presidents who are in and out of office but still get taxpayer protections, and where agents are living on the property (Bush in Texas, Reagan in California, etc.) It's pretty standard procedure. The SS has to pay to put agents up somewhere. That it is on the property of the protected isn't any big deal.

Do you know for a fact that Bush charges the agents rent?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you know for a fact that Bush charges the agents rent?

It's not that Bush (or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, etc.) charges, it's that the government pays, be it a local hotel, or a rented house, etc.

I don't expect a retired president, even if they have a big compound type of place with guest rooms or guest houses, to put up government agents for free, just because they have the space, simply because they are getting SS protection. And the government doesn't ask them to. We pay to put up our agents there, if it's available, as we should.

Regarding donations: eliminate all church tithes, and I wonder what "charitable donations" really look like?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's not that Bush (or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, etc.) charges, it's that the government pays, be it a local hotel, or a rented house, etc.

I don't expect a retired president, even if they have a big compound type of place with guest rooms or guest houses, to put up government agents for free, just because they have the space, simply because they are getting SS protection. And the government doesn't ask them to. We pay to put up our agents there, if it's available, as we should.

Regarding donations: eliminate all church tithes, and I wonder what "charitable donations" really look like?

I understand that the government will pay rent for SS agents. But if the SS agents stay on the property I don't know if the host always accepts rent from the government. I don't know the answer to that and I don't think you do either. We don't know if Bush is getting paid rent right now from the SS.

If that is always done, then it's really not an issue. The author of the article should have made it clear whether rent is normally paid to the person being protected if the SS agents stay on their property. That is the problem with half these news stories. The author (whether conservative or liberal) almost always has an agenda and will usually only tell you half the story. They give you the half that furthers their agenda, which I think is very unethical and dishonest.

[Riot]

"My experience is that the more conservative a person is, the less money they give to charity. If you know a person who is one of those angry, vocal Tea Partiers, there is about a 90% chance that that person gives little or no money to charity. Their loud vocals is nothing more than a hollow attempt to make up for their lack of deeds. "

"My experience is that the more purple a person is, the less money they give to charity. If you know a person who is one of those angry, vocal purple people, there is about a 90% chance that that person gives little or no money to charity. Their loud vocals is nothing more than a hollow attempt to make up for their lack of deeds. "

Yeah. The above statement sounds ridiculously, hyperbolicaly prejudiced no matter how it's phrased.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

"My experience is that the more conservative a person is, the less money they give to charity. If you know a person who is one of those angry, vocal Tea Partiers, there is about a 90% chance that that person gives little or no money to charity. Their loud vocals is nothing more than a hollow attempt to make up for their lack of deeds. "

"My experience is that the more purple a person is, the less money they give to charity. If you know a person who is one of those angry, vocal purple people, there is about a 90% chance that that person gives little or no money to charity. Their loud vocals is nothing more than a hollow attempt to make up for their lack of deeds. "

Yeah. The above statement sounds ridiculously, hyperbolicaly prejudiced no matter how it's phrased.

I don't care if it sounds ridiculous. That has been my experience. I'm not claiming that non-religious conservatives are very charitable. The most charitable people tend to be religious conservatives, regardless of income. That is a fact.

I don't think you understood the irony of my post. Nobody would expect angry, vocal tea-party members to be charitable. I don't know if they are charitable but there would be no expectation for them to be. They're not out there yelling about wanting to help poor people. Angry liberals, on the other hand, are making all this noise about how much they care about poor people, yet when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they don't do it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't care if it sounds ridiculous. That has been my experience. I'm not claiming that non-religious conservatives are very charitable. The most charitable people tend to be religious conservatives, regardless of income. That is a fact.

I don't think you understood the irony of my post. Nobody would expect angry, vocal tea-party members to be charitable. I don't know if they are charitable but there would be no expectation for them to be. They're not out there yelling about wanting to help poor people. Angry liberals, on the other hand, are making all this noise about how much they care about poor people, yet when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they don't do it.

The only "angry liberals" I tend to see were those sticking flowers in the barrels of National Guard rifles in the 1960's

And you always have those anarchists trying to incite revolution

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Although this is almost certainly legal, it sure doesn't look good. In addition, it's not surprising that the Bidens gave less than 1.5% of their income to charity. My experience is that the more liberal a person is, the less money they give to charity. If you know a person who is one of those angry, vocal liberals, there is about a 90% chance that that person gives little or no money to charity. Their loud vocals is nothing more than a hollow attempt to make up for their lack of deeds.



http://www.whitehousedossier.com/201...ecret-service/

This is quite scientific. Thanks for sharing.