(01-29-2018 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 03:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Who paid for it?

doesn't matter.....he/she wasn't POTUS that req'd the cost of security.....

@costofdoingbusiness

It does matter. His father paid for it, not the taxpayer. Security wouldn't be required if they moved the kid to a new school.

like ZERO or Clinton's didn't have the same impact????

really.....their kiddies didn't require such.....ummmmmmmkay......

this is about visiting expenses for POTUS.....but yeah, keep trying to eat that libby soup with a fork....

Not about "libby" anything. It's about hypocrisy. If Obama had done the exact same thing you guys would have been all over him.

I never cared about that aspect of ZERO.....

only the sheeple do that.....

keep deflecting.....I'll stomp that arse with something to back it up.....

go find a post where I complained about such......you won't.....

(01-29-2018 04:30 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  doesn't matter.....he/she wasn't POTUS that req'd the cost of security.....

@costofdoingbusiness

It does matter. His father paid for it, not the taxpayer. Security wouldn't be required if they moved the kid to a new school.

like ZERO or Clinton's didn't have the same impact????

really.....their kiddies didn't require such.....ummmmmmmkay......

this is about visiting expenses for POTUS.....but yeah, keep trying to eat that libby soup with a fork....

Not about "libby" anything. It's about hypocrisy. If Obama had done the exact same thing you guys would have been all over him.

I never cared about that aspect of ZERO.....

only the sheeple do that.....

keep deflecting.....I'll stomp that arse with something to back it up.....

go find a post where I complained about such......you won't.....

You might not have, plenty of others on here would.

(01-29-2018 04:18 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 03:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 01:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 01:05 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If Barron wanted to see his dad, then he should have been enrolled in a school in DC over Christmas break.

IDGAF if the monies are trivial or not. Waste is waste. This mentality is a significant contributor to our debt and annual deficits.

I'm a taxpayer, so what my president does has a bearing on me whether great or small.

jfc for those of you who have zero problems with Trump overspending on travel with Barron's schooling and frequent trips to Mara Lago but get their titties twisted when prior presidents abused travel. Or even when congressmen abuse travel. Sure, it's all peanuts. As long as we keep thinking like that, real cost cutting never happens.

the point is "protection" comes with the job.....

and your perspective doesn't matter as you're not his FATHER, nor his SON....

if it's peanuts, why are trying to interject your opinion on something that means peanuts???

that's just silly....

I never stated that he shouldn't have protection. What I questioned is whether all of these extra trips are necessary when it's their choice to leave the kid in school in NYC and live apart. As taxpayers, we shouldn't have to pay extra for their lifestyle choice. I know you think this is peanuts. However, this line of thinking is what got us those $300 dollar hammers that the gov't bought when it should have been $30. In the grand scheme of things, who cares if it's small relative to the budget? You can make the same arguments for funding PBS, NPR, the NEA or even planned parenthood. Each entity is small relative to the size of the budget. It's peanuts...

And pretty much every big company will pay for dual living expenses for a certain period of time if they transfer a professional or executive.

There's a difference between a corporation and government...

please tell me how their travel isn't covered under fed dollars???

please help me out with that.....

I can't wait to hear this one.....

(01-29-2018 04:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:30 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It does matter. His father paid for it, not the taxpayer. Security wouldn't be required if they moved the kid to a new school.

like ZERO or Clinton's didn't have the same impact????

really.....their kiddies didn't require such.....ummmmmmmkay......

this is about visiting expenses for POTUS.....but yeah, keep trying to eat that libby soup with a fork....

Not about "libby" anything. It's about hypocrisy. If Obama had done the exact same thing you guys would have been all over him.

I never cared about that aspect of ZERO.....

only the sheeple do that.....

keep deflecting.....I'll stomp that arse with something to back it up.....

go find a post where I complained about such......you won't.....

You might not have, plenty of others on here would.

however, you responded to me directly.....

I made my points....

I'm only "me"....

don't toss me into the fray in isolated bs......that's 'milking udder bs' as you so like to do....

(01-29-2018 04:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:18 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 03:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 01:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  the point is "protection" comes with the job.....

and your perspective doesn't matter as you're not his FATHER, nor his SON....

if it's peanuts, why are trying to interject your opinion on something that means peanuts???

that's just silly....

I never stated that he shouldn't have protection. What I questioned is whether all of these extra trips are necessary when it's their choice to leave the kid in school in NYC and live apart. As taxpayers, we shouldn't have to pay extra for their lifestyle choice. I know you think this is peanuts. However, this line of thinking is what got us those $300 dollar hammers that the gov't bought when it should have been $30. In the grand scheme of things, who cares if it's small relative to the budget? You can make the same arguments for funding PBS, NPR, the NEA or even planned parenthood. Each entity is small relative to the size of the budget. It's peanuts...

And pretty much every big company will pay for dual living expenses for a certain period of time if they transfer a professional or executive.

There's a difference between a corporation and government...

please tell me how their travel isn't covered under fed dollars???

please help me out with that.....

I can't wait to hear this one.....

Who are you referring to in reference to "their travel"?

(01-29-2018 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 03:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Who paid for it?

doesn't matter.....he/she wasn't POTUS that req'd the cost of security.....

@costofdoingbusiness

It does matter. His father paid for it, not the taxpayer. Security wouldn't be required if they moved the kid to a new school.

like ZERO or Clinton's didn't have the same impact????

really.....their kiddies didn't require such.....ummmmmmmkay......

this is about visiting expenses for POTUS.....but yeah, keep trying to eat that libby soup with a fork....

Not about "libby" anything. It's about hypocrisy. If Obama had done the exact same thing you guys would have been all over him.

Show me your butthurt where the Obama daughter was getting secret service protection while she smoked pot at lollapallooza.

Best secret service detail ever....

(01-29-2018 04:37 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:18 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 03:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I never stated that he shouldn't have protection. What I questioned is whether all of these extra trips are necessary when it's their choice to leave the kid in school in NYC and live apart. As taxpayers, we shouldn't have to pay extra for their lifestyle choice. I know you think this is peanuts. However, this line of thinking is what got us those $300 dollar hammers that the gov't bought when it should have been $30. In the grand scheme of things, who cares if it's small relative to the budget? You can make the same arguments for funding PBS, NPR, the NEA or even planned parenthood. Each entity is small relative to the size of the budget. It's peanuts...

And pretty much every big company will pay for dual living expenses for a certain period of time if they transfer a professional or executive.

There's a difference between a corporation and government...

please tell me how their travel isn't covered under fed dollars???

please help me out with that.....

I can't wait to hear this one.....

Who are you referring to in reference to "their travel"?

I'm out of this stupid argument.....fk that....

if you can only be vague when I'm simply clear in scope, I can't help ya...

fwiw, "protection and travel" is covered while "choice" is a matter determined by POTUS and First Lady in this case....

you don't have to like it.....it doesn't fk'n matter what you think.....

vote against him next time.....have fun with that.....

(01-29-2018 04:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  doesn't matter.....he/she wasn't POTUS that req'd the cost of security.....

@costofdoingbusiness

It does matter. His father paid for it, not the taxpayer. Security wouldn't be required if they moved the kid to a new school.

like ZERO or Clinton's didn't have the same impact????

really.....their kiddies didn't require such.....ummmmmmmkay......

this is about visiting expenses for POTUS.....but yeah, keep trying to eat that libby soup with a fork....

Not about "libby" anything. It's about hypocrisy. If Obama had done the exact same thing you guys would have been all over him.

Show me your butthurt where the Obama daughter was getting secret service protection while she smoked pot at lollapallooza.

That's not good either.

Happy?

(01-29-2018 04:45 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:37 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:18 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  And pretty much every big company will pay for dual living expenses for a certain period of time if they transfer a professional or executive.

There's a difference between a corporation and government...

please tell me how their travel isn't covered under fed dollars???

please help me out with that.....

I can't wait to hear this one.....

Who are you referring to in reference to "their travel"?

I'm out of this stupid argument.....fk that....

if you can only be vague when I'm simply clear in scope, I can't help ya...

fwiw, "protection and travel" is covered while "choice" is a matter determined by POTUS and First Lady in this case....

you don't have to like it.....it doesn't fk'n matter what you think.....

vote against him next time.....have fun with that.....

Actually, I wasn't being vague. Prior to your question, the last reference to people concerned executives and their families in relation to relocation and living expenses paid by corporations. If anyone should go WTF, it would be me. Anyways, you were referencing whether the gov't is obligated to protect Trump and his family during travel. Of course they are and I never argued otherwise.

You failed to see the point I was making. It had nothing to do with whether a security detail should or shouldn't be included but whether the actual trips themselves should have been made in the first place. I argued that they could have been easily been avoided if the first family would have moved to DC over Christmas break before Trump moved into the WH.

All of this is just my opinion. Just like I also think that congressmen should NOT be allowed to get rich while in office because of their access to knowledge and in particular their ability to do legal insider trading. Unlike like the morally repugnant - but legal - ways elected officials can get rich by gaming the markets, I have zero problem with security details for the president and the first family when they travel. I do have a problem with them when discretion is not used.

(01-29-2018 04:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It does matter. His father paid for it, not the taxpayer. Security wouldn't be required if they moved the kid to a new school.

like ZERO or Clinton's didn't have the same impact????

really.....their kiddies didn't require such.....ummmmmmmkay......

this is about visiting expenses for POTUS.....but yeah, keep trying to eat that libby soup with a fork....

Not about "libby" anything. It's about hypocrisy. If Obama had done the exact same thing you guys would have been all over him.

Show me your butthurt where the Obama daughter was getting secret service protection while she smoked pot at lollapallooza.

That's not good either.

Happy?

Not good, either? You answered that as if they are equally not good. I believe there is a big difference between paying for security detail to go smoke pot at a concert and allowing a child to finish out their school year at the school they began the year in.

Both were required. Only one had bad optics.

(01-29-2018 04:18 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 03:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 01:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 01:05 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If Barron wanted to see his dad, then he should have been enrolled in a school in DC over Christmas break.

IDGAF if the monies are trivial or not. Waste is waste. This mentality is a significant contributor to our debt and annual deficits.

I'm a taxpayer, so what my president does has a bearing on me whether great or small.

jfc for those of you who have zero problems with Trump overspending on travel with Barron's schooling and frequent trips to Mara Lago but get their titties twisted when prior presidents abused travel. Or even when congressmen abuse travel. Sure, it's all peanuts. As long as we keep thinking like that, real cost cutting never happens.

the point is "protection" comes with the job.....

and your perspective doesn't matter as you're not his FATHER, nor his SON....

if it's peanuts, why are trying to interject your opinion on something that means peanuts???

that's just silly....

I never stated that he shouldn't have protection. What I questioned is whether all of these extra trips are necessary when it's their choice to leave the kid in school in NYC and live apart. As taxpayers, we shouldn't have to pay extra for their lifestyle choice. I know you think this is peanuts. However, this line of thinking is what got us those $300 dollar hammers that the gov't bought when it should have been $30. In the grand scheme of things, who cares if it's small relative to the budget? You can make the same arguments for funding PBS, NPR, the NEA or even planned parenthood. Each entity is small relative to the size of the budget. It's peanuts...

And pretty much every big company will pay for dual living expenses for a certain period of time if they transfer a professional or executive.

There's a difference between a corporation and government...

Both involve employment of executives.

(01-29-2018 05:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:18 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 03:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 01:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  the point is "protection" comes with the job.....

and your perspective doesn't matter as you're not his FATHER, nor his SON....

if it's peanuts, why are trying to interject your opinion on something that means peanuts???

that's just silly....

I never stated that he shouldn't have protection. What I questioned is whether all of these extra trips are necessary when it's their choice to leave the kid in school in NYC and live apart. As taxpayers, we shouldn't have to pay extra for their lifestyle choice. I know you think this is peanuts. However, this line of thinking is what got us those $300 dollar hammers that the gov't bought when it should have been $30. In the grand scheme of things, who cares if it's small relative to the budget? You can make the same arguments for funding PBS, NPR, the NEA or even planned parenthood. Each entity is small relative to the size of the budget. It's peanuts...

And pretty much every big company will pay for dual living expenses for a certain period of time if they transfer a professional or executive.

There's a difference between a corporation and government...

Both involve employment of executives.

Yes, but I can choose buy a corporations product or not. I have no choice when it comes to financing the government.

(01-29-2018 05:02 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:45 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:37 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:18 PM)miko33 Wrote:  There's a difference between a corporation and government...

please tell me how their travel isn't covered under fed dollars???

please help me out with that.....

I can't wait to hear this one.....

Who are you referring to in reference to "their travel"?

I'm out of this stupid argument.....fk that....

if you can only be vague when I'm simply clear in scope, I can't help ya...

fwiw, "protection and travel" is covered while "choice" is a matter determined by POTUS and First Lady in this case....

you don't have to like it.....it doesn't fk'n matter what you think.....

vote against him next time.....have fun with that.....

Actually, I wasn't being vague. Prior to your question, the last reference to people concerned executives and their families in relation to relocation and living expenses paid by corporations. If anyone should go WTF, it would be me. Anyways, you were referencing whether the gov't is obligated to protect Trump and his family during travel. Of course they are and I never argued otherwise.

You failed to see the point I was making. It had nothing to do with whether a security detail should or shouldn't be included but whether the actual trips themselves should have been made in the first place. I argued that they could have been easily been avoided if the first family would have moved to DC over Christmas break before Trump moved into the WH.

All of this is just my opinion. Just like I also think that congressmen should NOT be allowed to get rich while in office because of their access to knowledge and in particular their ability to do legal insider trading. Unlike like the morally repugnant - but legal - ways elected officials can get rich by gaming the markets, I have zero problem with security details for the president and the first family when they travel. I do have a problem with them when discretion is not used.

And insisting that they move to DC and not paying for it during the middle of a school year would be unreasonable. Anybody at Trump's level would get their living expenses and travel in that situation paid for.

I think we had 90 days and travel to and from covered on a recent transfer and that wasn't executive level. So I think your argument is ignorant of how the employment world works.

If you want to argue about excessive trips to Florida, go ahead. I won't challenge you on that. But Trump meeting his family, there's no reasonable grounds to criticize that.

(01-29-2018 05:42 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 05:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:18 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 03:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I never stated that he shouldn't have protection. What I questioned is whether all of these extra trips are necessary when it's their choice to leave the kid in school in NYC and live apart. As taxpayers, we shouldn't have to pay extra for their lifestyle choice. I know you think this is peanuts. However, this line of thinking is what got us those $300 dollar hammers that the gov't bought when it should have been $30. In the grand scheme of things, who cares if it's small relative to the budget? You can make the same arguments for funding PBS, NPR, the NEA or even planned parenthood. Each entity is small relative to the size of the budget. It's peanuts...

And pretty much every big company will pay for dual living expenses for a certain period of time if they transfer a professional or executive.

There's a difference between a corporation and government...

Both involve employment of executives.

Yes, but I can choose buy a corporations product or not. I have no choice when it comes to financing the government.

Well if you are a stockholder in a corporation, you don't have much say on HR relocation policies. Government has relocation policies as well and you don't have much say on that. I don't know what the federal government does, but I'm sure they have some level of reimbursement.

(01-29-2018 05:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 05:02 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:45 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:37 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  please tell me how their travel isn't covered under fed dollars???

please help me out with that.....

I can't wait to hear this one.....

Who are you referring to in reference to "their travel"?

I'm out of this stupid argument.....fk that....

if you can only be vague when I'm simply clear in scope, I can't help ya...

fwiw, "protection and travel" is covered while "choice" is a matter determined by POTUS and First Lady in this case....

you don't have to like it.....it doesn't fk'n matter what you think.....

vote against him next time.....have fun with that.....

Actually, I wasn't being vague. Prior to your question, the last reference to people concerned executives and their families in relation to relocation and living expenses paid by corporations. If anyone should go WTF, it would be me. Anyways, you were referencing whether the gov't is obligated to protect Trump and his family during travel. Of course they are and I never argued otherwise.

You failed to see the point I was making. It had nothing to do with whether a security detail should or shouldn't be included but whether the actual trips themselves should have been made in the first place. I argued that they could have been easily been avoided if the first family would have moved to DC over Christmas break before Trump moved into the WH.

All of this is just my opinion. Just like I also think that congressmen should NOT be allowed to get rich while in office because of their access to knowledge and in particular their ability to do legal insider trading. Unlike like the morally repugnant - but legal - ways elected officials can get rich by gaming the markets, I have zero problem with security details for the president and the first family when they travel. I do have a problem with them when discretion is not used.

And insisting that they move to DC and not paying for it during the middle of a school year would be unreasonable. Anybody at Trump's level would get their living expenses and travel in that situation paid for.

I think we had 90 days and travel to and from covered on a recent transfer and that wasn't executive level. So I think your argument is ignorant of how the employment world works.

If you want to argue about excessive trips to Florida, go ahead. I won't challenge you on that. But Trump meeting his family, there's no reasonable grounds to criticize that.

I understand how the employment world works. I had my own travel expense reimbursement and allowances to fly family in or to visit the previous location for a limited number of trips. I get all of that. But we're not talking about your typical wage earner. Nor are we talking about an executive who is working for a private corporation. We're talking about an executive who is working for the Federal Gov't. One involves privately generated money. The other involves money taken via taxes.

Regarding meeting his family - we're talking 21 trips in a 3 month period. That's 7 trips a month or over 1 flight per week. That's excessive. Even something like this is not SOP in the business world for executives for relocation.

(01-29-2018 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 05:42 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 05:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:18 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 04:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  And pretty much every big company will pay for dual living expenses for a certain period of time if they transfer a professional or executive.

There's a difference between a corporation and government...

Both involve employment of executives.

Yes, but I can choose buy a corporations product or not. I have no choice when it comes to financing the government.

Well if you are a stockholder in a corporation, you don't have much say on HR relocation policies. Government has relocation policies as well and you don't have much say on that. I don't know what the federal government does, but I'm sure they have some level of reimbursement.

As a stockholder, my vote doesn't mean much due to my purchasing power; however, HR relocation policies are still meant to stay within a budget considering a corporation is not meant to run deficits for decades. The federal gov't can easily run regular deficits for decades - which we have seen first hand. In general, corporations have earned some discretion along these lines. The federal gov't - IMHO - has not due to GROSS mismanagement of their expenditures given their income streams.

All of these arguments have merit but not when in regards to the specific work, travel and security needs of the President of the United States of America and his family.

(01-29-2018 12:42 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Criticizing Presidential travel from any party is ludicrous. The President and their families have special legitimate security and travel needs that cannot be handled via regular ways.

This is OK.

It is just an expense that we have to deal with...regardless of how costly.

I really couldn't give less of a crap about this, except for how much pissing and moaning there was about Obama's golfing and personal expenditures when he was Pres. It is one of the biggest wastes of time ever to cry about, but when the shoe is on the other foot it's funny to watch the hypocrisy.