Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpay...z27gSfweuY

(09-27-2012 10:21 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpay...z27gSfweuY

Queue the resident libs making false equivalencies to Bush and stating that somehow makes this ok.

(09-27-2012 10:21 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpay...z27gSfweuY

Wow. THe Daily Caller and this is coming from a new book(just in time for the election). Yeah, there is no bias and/or spin there.

Guys, I'm surprised the number is so LOW. They're including all the security and expenses of protecting the President as he does the job of being President.

My guess is that they've spent millions on protecting Romney too.

Furthermore, some of the 'perks' established have existed for decades are are maintained for the partial governmental benefit, like Camp David.

My question is this, what has Obama done as far as perks that is different than previous Presidents.

If you'd like to open up a discussion as to the benefits we provide to our Presidents, you are welcome to do so.

"Redistribution of Wealth" indeed

You mean protecting them from crazies who are incited by websites like this?

(09-27-2012 11:48 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  My question is this, what has Obama done as far as perks that is different than previous Presidents.

These aren't all perks.

Quote: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.”

I'm curious how this ranks w/ other presidents too. But, the indication is that this is just another cause for concern. Lavish excess at the expense of the taxpayers.

(09-27-2012 12:30 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  You mean protecting them from crazies who are incited by websites like this?

Crazies don't need websites to incite them.

(09-27-2012 12:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 12:30 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  You mean protecting them from crazies who are incited by websites like this?

Crazies don't need websites to incite them.

It certainly doesn't help though

I'm by no means a supporter of Obama but you have to take into account the places he's went, the price of fuel for the jet, and the added staff.

It doesn't bother me he took AF1 to NY or to any meeting overseas or on A family vacation this year, however, several family vacations every year has bothered me when some families were told to suck it up due to the rising fuel prices or have staycations.

(09-27-2012 02:47 PM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm by no means a supporter of Obama but you have to take into account the places he's went, the price of fuel for the jet, and the added staff.

It doesn't bother me he took AF1 to NY or to any meeting overseas or on A family vacation this year, however, several family vacations every year has bothered me when some families were told to suck it up due to the rising fuel prices or have staycations.

Again, this number doesn't mean much without historical context.

(09-27-2012 02:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 02:47 PM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm by no means a supporter of Obama but you have to take into account the places he's went, the price of fuel for the jet, and the added staff.

It doesn't bother me he took AF1 to NY or to any meeting overseas or on A family vacation this year, however, several family vacations every year has bothered me when some families were told to suck it up due to the rising fuel prices or have staycations.

Again, this number doesn't mean much without historical context.

I'm sorry. You're correct.

How many vacations did you take this year to another country or Hawaii or Mexico?

I call b.s. on the story when the article claims $1.4 billion for Obama and only $57 million for the English royal family in comparison? Baloney - how much did it cost to parachute the Queen into the opening ceremonies of the Olympics?

I'm sure Obama has too many 'czars' as the article calls it. And maybe he takes too many vacations. But this article seems a little hyperbole - how many movies would he have to see in the White House private movie theater to equate to a $1.4 billion bill? That's a lot of popcorn and jujubes.

(09-27-2012 03:03 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I call b.s. on the story when the article claims $1.4 billion for Obama and only $57 million for the English royal family in comparison? Baloney - how much did it cost to parachute the Queen into the opening ceremonies of the Olympics?

I'm sure Obama has too many 'czars' as the article calls it. And maybe he takes too many vacations. But this article seems a little hyperbole - how many movies would he have to see in the White House private movie theater to equate to a $1.4 billion bill? That's a lot of popcorn and jujubes.

I think it's more of the cost of the use of AF1 and the staff.

Believe it or not, presidents have to buy all the food they consume at the White House. The tax payers foot the bill for the cooks and such, but they buy the food.

(09-27-2012 03:06 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 03:03 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I call b.s. on the story when the article claims $1.4 billion for Obama and only $57 million for the English royal family in comparison? Baloney - how much did it cost to parachute the Queen into the opening ceremonies of the Olympics?

I'm sure Obama has too many 'czars' as the article calls it. And maybe he takes too many vacations. But this article seems a little hyperbole - how many movies would he have to see in the White House private movie theater to equate to a $1.4 billion bill? That's a lot of popcorn and jujubes.

I think it's more of the cost of the use of AF1 and the staff.

Believe it or not, presidents have to buy all the food they consume at the White House. The tax payers foot the bill for the cooks and such, but they buy the food.

Wow, really? I find that quite odd. Not that I really care either way really but it's weird that so much is taken care of but food? Nope.

Then again I'd wager the dinners used for state functions are covered.

(09-27-2012 03:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 03:06 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 03:03 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I call b.s. on the story when the article claims $1.4 billion for Obama and only $57 million for the English royal family in comparison? Baloney - how much did it cost to parachute the Queen into the opening ceremonies of the Olympics?

I'm sure Obama has too many 'czars' as the article calls it. And maybe he takes too many vacations. But this article seems a little hyperbole - how many movies would he have to see in the White House private movie theater to equate to a $1.4 billion bill? That's a lot of popcorn and jujubes.

I think it's more of the cost of the use of AF1 and the staff.

Believe it or not, presidents have to buy all the food they consume at the White House. The tax payers foot the bill for the cooks and such, but they buy the food.

Wow, really? I find that quite odd. Not that I really care either way really but it's weird that so much is taken care of but food? Nope.

Then again I'd wager the dinners used for state functions are covered.

I can't remember.. And I could have that wrong.. I read it back when Obama came in they had an article about it.. I think maybe they pay for their toiletries and food, but state dinners was different. Or maybe they pay for snacks. But that's part of the reason the President has a salary.

Yep here's an article on it, not the one I recall but close:

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/21928

One would think the wages went up, as they've consistently done. I don't know why that's even worth commenting on DrT?

And again, like others said, without historical context this number is meaningless.

He should blame rampant INFLATION

Much to do about nothing. I doubt this figure is accurate and is including the same things that have been spent on our previous Masters.