jasonxctf Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 why not take away secret service protection for... - Betty Ford - Nancy Reagan - Jimmy and Roselyn Carter - George HW and Barbara Bush I'd say leave it for Bill/Hillary due to her being Secretary of State and George W Bush since he was/still is relevant to a certain extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 ex Presidents and their spouses prior to Clinton, get secret service protection for life. A new law was passed back in the mid 90's reducing the # of years post presidency that the protection is given. So, that being said, the Federal Government continues to pay for lifetime secret sevice protection for Presidents and their Spouses prior to Clinton. Why not go back, change the laws, and remove protection for those prior to Clinton? Save some $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I fully understood what you were suggesting and I stand by my "huh". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I have zero problem with lifetime protection for any past Presidents and VP's and their families. I think, considering the service they ALL gave to their country in the toughest job in government, that's a reasonable benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 25, 2011 -> 12:55 PM) I have zero problem with lifetime protection for any past Presidents and VP's and their families. I think, considering the service they ALL gave to their country in the toughest job in government, that's a reasonable benefit. I thought I read that VPs only recently got that protection for life, maybe starting with Gore? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 25, 2011 -> 02:39 PM) I thought I read that VPs only recently got that protection for life, maybe starting with Gore? Anyone? They may have changed it recently, but when Al Gore was touring around and being filmed prior to an Inconvenient Truth, he didn't have the Service guarding him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 I don't think this is a serious post. IMO, the OP is making this suggestion in jest as his opinion of the Republicans suggested cuts are insignificant. If you think the cuts are "nickel/dime", I'd like to have a few of those nickels and dimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted March 5, 2011 Author Share Posted March 5, 2011 no it was 100% serious. I'm saying that across the board, they are looking at the smaller issues/items first, and leaving the heavy hitters for later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Lemon Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Mar 5, 2011 -> 10:46 AM) no it was 100% serious. I'm saying that across the board, they are looking at the smaller issues/items first, and leaving the heavy hitters for later. You mean Planned Parenthood and PBS aren't heavy hitters? Along with ObamaCare, they are the troika of our country's debt monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted March 6, 2011 Author Share Posted March 6, 2011 well you know, those 32 federally funded abortions in 2010 makes a far greater impact on the budget over that alternative f-35 engine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts