MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 21, 2016 16:49:15 GMT
After watching krazyscrapper's thread for a couple of days, I thought it was important to illuminate an important fact...that is to say, the actual math behind the media statement "Bernie is costing us tax payers $38,000 a day for Secret Service." The number was frequently used by then Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan in 2008. From CBS News (4/4/08): By continuing his campaign, which he has every right to do, he is actually costing each tax payer $0.04 per year. Here's the math:
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Jun 21, 2016 17:10:52 GMT
I am a Bernie supporter, but your math is disingenuous. It doesn't matter if it costs me, personally, 2c/year or $2,000,000/yr. It is an unnecessary cost. Beginning, middle, end.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 21, 2016 17:15:37 GMT
I am a Bernie supporter, but your math is disingenuous. It doesn't matter if it costs me, personally, 2c/year or $2,000,000/yr. It is an unnecessary cost. Beginning, middle, end. So then, Hillary Clinton shouldn't have it either? What about every retired President (and their spouses) of the US? Unnecessary cost? The truth is, during an election year, our country is in unusual flux - choosing a new president is a big freaking deal and if one of them is taken out during the election process ( as was attempted yesterday), then it would likely rain down the kind of chaos we've never seen before not seen since Robert Kennedy's assassination in 1968.I believe it is a justifiable expense for every candidate still running and the fact is, it's already part of the operational budget for the Secret Service. Regarding the Mark Sullivan referenced above: No, Sanders’ Secret Service Detail Isn’t Costing ‘Taxpayers’ $38,000 a Day
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 21, 2016 17:22:54 GMT
It's a goofy exercise - but as 45.3% of American households pay no federal income tax - the math is pretty wrong. There are 171 million households in the US and so only 93.5 million are actually paying income tax. So really i'ts about 15 cents a year. But actually the income tax structure is so progressive - the vast majority of even those tax paying households aren't paying anything close to that - probably more like the original 2 cent math as about 5 million households are paying over 50% of that burden so they're paying $2.77 a year.
ETA - and for the record I have no issue with Bernie Sanders having a security detail - I do however have big issues with the cost of his PROPOSALS.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 21, 2016 17:33:16 GMT
True Darcy, but the math is correct. If you change the parameters as you did, then of course the answer will be different. So, even if we are actually paying $2.77 a year per candidate, that doesn't really change the fact that secret service men are on salary anyways, they get paid regardless of whether they're protecting a candidate or not. If one suddenly drops out, that $2.77 isn't magically available for say donating to the victims in Orlando ( as Debra Messing so ignorantly tried to suggest), it is simply reabsorbed into the already existing Secret Service budget.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 22:07:36 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 17:35:02 GMT
For heaven sakes. I noticed you didn't answer my question on why you think Sanders needs Secret Service protection.
Cute to try and reduce this to $.04 a day.
The fact is between now and the Democratic Convention the tax payers will pay over $1M in Secret Service protection to a man, IMO, who no longer needs it.
The money could be better spent elsewhere in the Secret Service budget.
In case you missed in the article what I posted in my thread. Secret Service protection includes.
* A team of agents with him 24 hours a day. That includes a watch station built on his property that is manned.
* They travel with him on all commercial flights (at Secret Service expense I'm sure). If he does any public appearance his detail would grow. Another Secret Service expense. By Secret Service expense I'm pretty sure the Secret Service pays their own way on commercial flights.
*They move him through the streets of the cities he is in by motorcade. I'm pretty sure the vehicles are those owned by the Secret Service. Again another Secret Service expense.
You questioned if the $38,000 a day was acurate. I don't know but I'm going to take a wild guess here what I listed above is not cheap.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 21, 2016 17:36:15 GMT
They have changed the law and starring with GWB, the protection detail is for 10 years, not life. I think protecting our leader for 10 years post-office is worth while.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 21, 2016 17:50:30 GMT
For heaven sakes. I noticed you didn't answer my question on why you think Sanders needs Secret Service protection. Cute to try and reduce this to $.04 a day. The fact is between now and the Democratic Convention the tax payers will pay over $1M in Secret Service protection to a man, IMO, who no longer needs it. The money could be better spent elsewhere in the Secret Service budget. In case you missed in the article what I posted in my thread. Secret Service protection includes. * A team of agents with him 24 hours a day. That includes a watch station built on his property that is manned. * They travel with him on all commercial flights (at Secret Service expense I'm sure). If he does any public appearance his detail would grow. Another Secret Service expense. By Secret Service expense I'm pretty sure the Secret Service pays their own way on commercial flights. *They move him through the streets of the cities he is in by motorcade. I'm pretty sure the vehicles are those owned by the Secret Service. Again another Secret Service expense. You questioned if the $38,000 a day was acurate. I don't know but I'm going to take a wild guess here what I listed above is not cheap. That would be $.04 per year. I could use Darcy's calculations and "reduce this to" $2.77 per year, would that be better? From my post above:
|
|