Someone sent me this in an email...I thought it was funny........until I realized..."Funny, like a crutch" ... Just the other day she was on the senate floor speaking against the high salaries of company CEO's..... Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under this fancy "Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan," which means that even if she never gets re- elected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that? WE DO! It's common knowledge that in order for her to establish NY residency, they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua, New York. Makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense. Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover at around $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residence HAD to be built within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents. The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of that extra residence, which is just about equal to their mortgage payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton's salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the salaries for their 12 man staff - and this is all perfectly legal! When she runs for President, will you vote for her? How many people can YOU send this to?
:shock: :shock: :shock: :jd: :jd: :jd: uzzled: uzzled: uzzled: Man, that was scary Mike!Glad I haven't eaten lunch yet:laugh:
Wow! I thought the government is supposed to worked for the people? Instead of us working for them? This makes me sick! Rob
oh yeah the politicans are experts at taking our money thats for sure. she's one to talk, many of todays financial scandals occured during the clinton administration. dont forget they get the finest of taxpayer financed healthcare too. mike those numbers were scary enough but that picture, ugh. i just ate. hilary is a good person, not .... in the words of liar bill, it depends what your definition of is is. what a bad joke. b & h go back to arkansas and quit robbing the taxpayers. henry white 70 GS 350 70 GS 455 70 STAGE 1
Bills' office is in harlem so I'll bet he gets some kind of break or kickback or ???? for improving a blighted community. I need therapy after seeing that picture.:laugh:
The Old Cow Hillary Clinton and her driver were cruising along a country road one evening when an old cow loomed in front of the car. The driver tried to avoid it but could not - the old cow was killed. Hillary told her driver to go up to the farmhouse and explain what happened. About an hour later the driver staggered back to the car with his clothes in disarray. He was holding a bottle of expensive wine in one hand, and a cuban cigar in the other and was smiling happily, smeared with lipstick. "What happened?" asked Hillary. "Well," the driver replied, the farmer gave me the wine, his wife gave me the cigar, and their two beautiful twin daughters made mad passionate love to me. "My God, what did you tell them?" asked Hillary. The driver replied: "I'm Hillary Clinton's driver and I just killed the old cow."
All I have to say for myself, I found on this bumper sticker. Proud to be a Republican and not have scumbags like this representing me!
Dudes: From one of the leading hoax-buster sites on the web, www.snopes2.com: (http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/outrage/landlord.htm) Claim: The Clintons are charging rent to the Secret Service agents assigned to protect them. Status: False. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001] "Just in case your blood pressure wasn't up enough . . . As you know, the Clintons had to establish residence in New York for Hillary to run for the Senate. So they bought that big house-BUT there was no place for Secret Service which has statuary responsibility to protect the First Family. So, a special 'safe area' was built. NOW, the Clintons are charging them rent! It just happens that their rent is about same amount as their mortgage payment! In short, we taxpayers pay for the Secret Service addition, AND the Clinton's mortgage! Such a deal, eh? What will it take for the American public to wake up? Don't you just feel like you've been suckered again, fellow taxpayers? I say let's pass this info throughout the length and breadth of this Nation to shake the American people into a heightened state of anger upon knowing they have been literally raped during their long sleep by no other than those trustees they have appointed to look after their interests . . . " Variations: A shorter, less vehement version terminates after ". . . we taxpayers pay for the Secret Service addition, AND the Clinton's mortgage!" with "Perfectly legal. Bet that makes your day." Some versions arrive prefaced with "From a Fox News source" heading. Origins: The piece quoted above began circulating on the Internet in November 2000. One hardly knows what to make of backfence gossip so inelegantly crafted that its unintentional humor is as striking as what we're supposed to be hopping mad about. The piece is worth a read if only for its ". . . the Secret Service which has statuary responsibility to protect the First Family" line. (What, the Secret Service has to stand really, really still? Or are lantern-jawed agents charged with running about gardens to shoo away diarrheal pigeons?) All humor aside, this is a blood-boiler; full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. It's gossip, plain and simple; a dirty little story dumped onto the Internet to further discredit a President and First Lady some don't like. The Secret Service is notorious for its reluctance to discuss even mundane aspects of how it carries out its duties, so authoritative information about the setup of the Clinton home in New York state is hard to come by. However, around the time of the Chappaqua purchase, the press estimated that a permanent, taxpayer-funded security system worth more than $1 million would have to be installed to adequately protect the President. Security measures of this level are not specific to the Clintons; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of former Presidents. In each case the costs of installation and maintenance for the security systems comes from public funds, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. The Clintons' home in Chappaqua is served by the White Plains office of the Secret Service, which was already well-staffed before the Clintons' home purchase (largely because many consulates maintain houses in the area). The arrival of the First Family shifted the office's workload from 90% investigative and 10% protective to 80% protective and 20% investigative. The office was there before the Clintons bought into the neighborhood, and it will continue to be there even if the Clintons leave. In December 2000, the Clintons took possession of another house, this one a $2.85 millon home in Washington, D.C., a stone's throw from famed Embassy Row. Though White House press releases refer to the Clintons as "residents of Chappaqua, New York" and emphasize the house is "for Mrs. Clinton's use while the Senate is in session," security renovations will have to be made to this house as well even if only the former First Lady uses the place. (Former Presidents can get $200,000 in security improvements at a second home, and more with Congressional approval, which usually is just a formality.) Bill Clinton and his wife are the last to be afforded lifetime Secret Service protection. In 1997, Congress changed the rules governing protection of former Presidents, limiting future ex-Chief Executives to only ten years' worth of protection after they leave office. The Clintons have always been subject to rumors of the "Slick Willy" variety -- that is, ones which play upon a recurrent theme of their taking advantage of loopholes and benefits they've a legal, but not moral, right to. In the world of popular lore, they are often perceived as candy grabbers, greedy little children set loose in an enormous sweets shop funded by the taxpayer. This latest rumor is another of this kind, an expression of widely-held public opinion. It's gossip, but it's what the public is thinking, set down in the form of a story. There was a kernel of truth underlying the gossip here, but that kernel has been so distorted that it hardly qualifies as the truth any more. As Lloyd Grove reported in The Washington Post: It is a standard arrangement that the Secret Service provide payment to homeowners for space used by the agency in such situations. The Clintons did not take it upon themselves to "charge the Secret Service rent." The amount provided is based on a government formula, not set by the homeowner. In the Clintons' case, this amount is $1,100. (Note that this figure was not chosen by the Clintons, and it is well short of their monthly mortgage payment.) Most importantly, although regulations call for the payment of this amount, the Clintons have not accepted any money from the Secret Service. From me: Hey guys, there are a bunch of reasons to dislike Bill or Hillary. This just aint one of em. Check your facts first, Okay? -- Steve
You Republicans ought to keep in mind that our tax dollars have been paying Gerry Ford's bills for the past 27 years. Ford was NEVER elected President! Clinton was TWICE. And, Ford presided over recession and foreign policy debacles. Clinton gave us economic prosperity and a complete military victory (Serbia). Now, Ford is regarded as a nice guy, but that doesn't make his taxpayer support case any better than Bill Clinton's. Can't we get these right-wing political diatribes off this board????
The original post was way off on the Secret Service charges, but fairly close to the mark on the retirement issue. Whether Right Wing Reactionary, Communist or middle of the road, you have to admit that Congress has feathered the retirement nest very well. A concise discussion can be found on the National Taxpayers Union (a bipartisan, taxpayer watchdog group) at: http://www.ntu.org/news_room/press_releases/pr_011101.php3 Cheers, John
Another case of spending money on a FORD and not getting anything worthwhile out of it. :Brow: :laugh: :eek2: Mark
Harry, it's easy to fall into the media trap of giving credit to the sitting President for the success or failure of a given economic policy. The simple reason for this is that the media and whomever is best served at the time by taking or placing credit/blame takes full advantage of the long lead/lag time that it requires our huge economy to react to legislative changes. IMHO, the prosperity that prevailed during the Clinton Years was due, in the majority, to Bill keeping his mitts off of the important changes implemented under Bush 41 and to a lesser degree, the Regan administration. In reverse, the blame for the current economic downturn will be borne by Bush 43 despite the very reliable base economic indicators that had begun a significant downward trend 18 months before the Arkansas Gang defected to NY. Regards, John
So if Bush 43 is unfailry being blamed for economic problems caused by Clinton, and if Clinton unfailry got credit for economictriumphs engennered by Bush 41, I guess Bush 41 got unfairly blamed for a complete economic disaster, which then must be blamed solely on the patron saint of the right wing, Ronald Reagan. But you don't go that, do you? Personally, I subscribe to a simpler theory -- that economics is a crapshoot (note all the competing and conflicting and unverifiable theories of economics out there) and sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't. I think Clinton got lucky, Bush 41 got unlucky, Reagan got lucky, and Carter really got screwed, all by the uncontrollable whims of the world / national economy. Bush 43 -- probably gonna get screwed, but we'll see. What really bothers me is that Dubya campaigned on a platform of "the economy is booming -- we need a tax cut!" which quickly changed to "the economy aint so great -- we need a tax cut!" and now reads "the economy is in the dumps -- we need a really big tax cut!". Seems like tax cuts that benefit the rich are the only solution he can envision, no matter what the problem. Yeah, the Republicans preached fiscal responsibilty while they were out of power, but now that they are in power, its deficit time, baby! Might as well post a sign outside the treasury saying "Handouts for rich people only -- homeless and needy please step aside." -- Steve
Just anxious to get my whole ordeal over with Jeff...I go in the hospital on Wed. My foot is killing me when I walk....I will thank god when the whole thing is over :TU: Larry
YellowLark said: You Republicans ought to keep in mind that our tax dollars have been paying Gerry Ford's bills for the past 27 years. Small price to pay to keep him off of the public golf courses. Ford was NEVER elected President! Clinton was TWICE. He didn't have to be elected. Our Constitution provides for succession. And this also proves that Democrats can make 2 huge mistakes in a row. And, Ford presided over recession and foreign policy debacles. Clinton gave us economic prosperity and a complete military victory (Serbia). Inherited. Inherited. And my high school ROTC class could whip Serbia for cryin' out loud. Now, Ford is regarded as a nice guy, but that doesn't make his taxpayer support case any better than Bill Clinton's. Yes it does.. Can't we get these right-wing political diatribes off this board???? No. This forum is meant just for this kind of diarrhea pontification.
