Clinton's $700,000/yr office

"Taxpayers to pay $700,000 a year for former president’s New York digs."

"— More than all of the other former presidents’ offices combined." "Former President Bush’s Houston office rents for $147,000 a year, Ronald Reagan’s Los Angeles office for $285,000, Jimmy Carter’s Atlanta office for $93,000 and Gerald Ford’s office near Palm Springs for $99,000."

"Key members of Congress say Clinton’s cost is way out of line. “He may well push the envelope into an area where the Congress decides we need to put some limitation on that,” said Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee."

-----

Is there anyone here who doesn't view Clinton's choice as something of an arrogant "slap in the face" to the taxpayers?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), January 31, 2001

Answers

This is utterly shameful. Gives one pause to wonder how he can possibly justify such extravagance. This action displays contempt, not for Republicans, but for U.S. taxpayers en masse.

I supported this man throughout his presidency out of respect for the office. No mas.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), January 31, 2001.

Is there anyone here who doesn't view Clinton's choice as something of an arrogant "slap in the face" to the taxpayers?

Yep, CD, right back atcha.

But one must ask....any worse than the BJ in the oral office.?

or the way 'they' left the White house?

Or, the way he fell on tv and CLAIMED the dog tripped him (which BTW I'm still LMAO over that one)

or....hey the list is endless.

Guess he feels he gots to have a nice place to bring da hoes?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 31, 2001.

Is there anyone here who doesn't view Clinton's choice as something of an arrogant "slap in the face" to the taxpayers?

It's more like a "bend over folks".

-- Peg (pegmcleod@mediaone.net), January 31, 2001.

I’ve heard that Clinton plans on going into private practice with Gary Hart and Ted Kennedy. The new firm will reportedly be named: Trickim, Dickim, and Dunkim.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), January 31, 2001.

Why in the hell does an ex-president get any funding for an office?

I am writing Senator Clinton (D-NY) to encourage her to seize upon this as a good issue for a freshman Senator to make her bones.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), January 31, 2001.

Lars, from what I've heard Hillary don't like no bones, IYKWIM.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), January 31, 2001.

Barry, you have a sense of humour that is above and beyond! I enjoy your posts!

-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), January 31, 2001.

LOL!

I see most of the losers are having a field day with this one! Where's Uncle Boob?

Where is the outrage over the $60+ million Repugs spent on their presidential dick hunt?

You're so fucking blind you don't even have a clue as to the endless ways in which Dumbya will rake you over the coals!

-- LOL (rightwingers@tee.hee!), February 01, 2001.

It gives one great pleasure to see warm and fuzzy lefties like LOL squeal about THEIR PRESIDENT. One step at a time is the way to do it. First we are going to arm teachers that qualify in firearms training to protect their students from the MTV crowd and then we are goin to bring back the hickory stick for punishment and last but never least, teach em how to get on their knees and pray for forgiveness in front of their savior. Given time, maybe we can get some respect, responsibility, manners, and Godliness back into these youngsters.

-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), February 01, 2001.

LOL, Where is the outrage over the $60+ million Repugs spent on their presidential dick hunt?

It's amazing how this number always seems to grow. Dick Morris said that Clinton pardoned a lot of folks because of what they know about his (Clinton's) scandals. Clinton did wrong and he did a massive cover up. If Clinton didn't push back for six months, maybe that number would be much smaller. If Clinton (Hillary) didn't shred a lot of evidence, maybe we would know what others know and wouldn't have spent so much. By the way the number was actually about 10M+ less than your quote LOL.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 01, 2001.

I'm curious about a couple of things here. Another report via MSNBC online (which has been replaced by a new article at the same link you posted above) stated that Clinton asked for $228,000 for the first year for his office. It also stated a "figure" of $650,000, yet never explained what that was. Just as the "$700,000" figure is never really explained in the snip posted at the beginning of the thread. Of course, we now know that perhaps one of those figures is the total yearly rental cost. But an interesting part was left out; a part that explains a bit more than the snip above does.

If you click on the link now and scroll down the page, you'll see yet another explanation (bold emphasis mine). Of course, none of you would address it because it would do nothing more than detract from your moral indignation, right? Can't have that. Read on:

""I don’t want the taxpayers to be taken for a ride,” Clinton said, adding that the public part of the lease would be $285,000 — the same amount the government pays for former President Reagan’s office in California. The overall rental cost of more than $650,000 a year is more than the combined costs for offices for the nation’s other living former presidents. Former President Bush’s Houston office rents for $147,000 a year, Reagan’s Los Angeles office for $285,000, Jimmy Carter’s Atlanta office for $93,000 and Gerald Ford’s office near Palm Springs, Calif., for $99,000."

According to the story NOW, the taxpayers will be paying the exact same amount for Clinton as they do for Reagan (and do tell, does Reagan actually USE his office?).

So if you all think Clinton's request is "an arrogant slap in the face to the taxpayers", surely you all think that Reagan's is as well.....don't you?

Perhaps you want to tell the whole story before you, like the oh-so-honest Repugs quoted in the article above, all go off half-cocked (pun intended).

Then again, I don't know why this surprises me.....

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 03, 2001.

Clinton STILL thinks he is the Pres....I read in our local newspaper this am where he is endorsing Barak for Pres....He was all over Israel radio yesterday.

Why does this not surprise me?

WHEN will he go away?

When will he take Billary w/him?

And the dog?

I luv the dog.......The damn dog dont even like him!!!LMAO remembering the scene where the dog tripped him......yeah right.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), February 03, 2001.

PatriciaS@lasvegas.com,

You seem to be infected with the hideous ‘Clinton’ virus. It attacks the area of the mind assigned to simple reasoning and common sense. Mr. Bill is putting out his best spin and his mindless followers are sucking it up (no pun intended). You should start now on your long- term health care needs.

-- Dumb (de@dum.dum), February 03, 2001.

Nice handle DUMB it fits, as you of all people know, lol.

You want common sense? How bout this Ashcroft BS for starters? Here is THE guy who started all the Taxdollars for Charity crapola back in I think 1996. Junior is merely working "the plan" as the blind moron puppet he is and was predictable long before his coronation.

How is it even possible this yo-yo Ashcroft was even considered? How is he able to swear to protect the Constitution, all the while supporting this most aggressive attack at the foundation of this country >>>Separation of Church and State? How is it 58 likewise supposed defenders of the Constitution, are able to confirm this guy? We are talking the very founding reason for this damn country here, not some debatable side issue.

How is it possible the Bush Administration, and Dick Cheney specifically, can tell California and other Western States to go to hell about their energy problems? When a big part of these growing problems can be traced to the FERC, a federal agency? Is this some hairbrain attempt at showing how States' rights they are? The same yo- yos elected by IGNORING states' rights?

Question is why we the taxpayers have to pay ANYTHING beyond security for ANY of these former Presidents. Why do we have to pay for offices? What are these folks doing in these anyhow? Are these basic questions even asked? This alone should be a common sense clue what all this $700k noise is about.

Clinton is GONE, get over it. How long are the Repub-Memes going to beat a deadhorse?

Truth is MOST of these motherf*ckers in office are pandering scumballs. You got the government you morons deserve. Common Sense? please.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), February 03, 2001.

Oh, "Dumb", my information was taken from the same exact source as the original post in this thread. So, do you think CD is "infected" with the same "virus"?

I notice that you didn't refute anything I said.

I'm stunned. Really.

Well, at least you've got your name right ;-)

'Sumer, FWIW, it seems as if he's TRYING to go away. The "liberal media" (gag) and the repugs (double gag) won't let it go.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 03, 2001.

Perhaps you want to tell the whole story before you, like the oh- so-honest Repugs quoted in the article above, all go off half-cocked (pun intended).

Patricia- On the day I initiated this thread (Jan 31), the MSNBC story stated: "Taxpayers to pay $700,000 a year for former president’s New York digs." It then reported "Key members of Congress say Clinton’s cost is way out of line". The chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee was then quoted as saying "He [Clinton] may well push the envelope into an area where the Congress decides we need to put some limitation on that".

NOW, (three days later) the story has changed. My questions to you are...

At what point did I *not* "tell the whole story" -and- How many days/weeks after reading a story such as this do you feel I need to wait to express my opinion without risking accusations of going off "half-cocked".

And another thing, Patricia! When you finally get around to quitting your job, dumping your SO and moving into the beach house with me, we're gonna have a rule... NO TALKING POLITICS! [Note: It was you, not me, who turned this office cost issue into a political issue. At $700,000/yr to the taxpayers, I'd have felt the same regardless of what party an ex-president was affiliated with.]

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 03, 2001.

I see the date you posted it now. My apologies. No offense, and I'm NOT saying you're lying, but I have to wonder how the story changed so dramatically in three days, from the very same source. I further have to wonder why, when it was clarified, it was buried at the bottom of another article. But it really does go to a point I am constantly trying to make.

I have been drilled a new one royally by a number of repub "supporters" for my "sources". I never (and I do mean NEVER) see these same people decrying any repub-spin sources (I don't care what the by-line was, I can almost guarantee it was an Andrea Mitchell piece).

Additionally, when you (and any one else who chose to believe this story as is) discovered that it was reported erroneously, where was the correction?

Everyone's so quick to believe anything "bad" about the Clintons. But OH MY GAWD ..... DO NOT mention any repub "transgressions". Oh no, you're walking on freaking hallowed ground there.

Well, ENOUGH.

I'm really tired of the damn double-standard from repub "supporters" and the Clinton c*ck hunt that is STILL being perpetuated. Yeah, the guy is/was sleazy. But no sleazier than the cretins who "lead" the repub party.

(You know who I mean -- the same hypocrites calling for impeachment because of a BJ while AT THE VERY SAME TIME bonking their OWN mistresses. The same hypocrites who now want to investigate the Rich pardon, but never once questioned Daddy Bush's pardons of all those people who could have -- and probably WOULD have -- testified that Daddy WAS "in the loop".)

Now, if you're still up in arms over the taxpayers shelling out $285,000/year for Clinton's office, you better make damn sure you include Reagan's $285,000/year for an office that I GUARANTEE you he hasn't seen in five years. (Note: By "you" I mean the collective "you"; not YOU "you".)

"Beach house"? Did you say "beach house"?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 03, 2001.

I see the date you posted it now. My apologies. No offense,

Understood.

and I'm NOT saying you're lying, but I have to wonder how the story changed so dramatically in three days, from the very same source.

I wondered the same thing.

Additionally, when you (and any one else who chose to believe this story as is) discovered that it was reported erroneously, where was the correction?

I did not discover that it was reported erroneously until I read your post today. I would have no problem with posting a correction to ANY story I discuss on this forum.

Now, if you're still up in arms over the taxpayers shelling out $285,000/year for Clinton's office...

Assuming this latest report is NOW the actual cost to the taxpayers, then no, I'm no longer "up in arms".

"Beach house"? Did you say "beach house"?

Ok, so I may have used a little poetic license. It actually takes 3 minutes to get to the beach from here. So when ya coming? ;-)

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), February 03, 2001.

‘FannyBubbles’?

Is that your favorite bathtub game or the end result of some hard core sex with your local scoutmaster? Wait, I really don’t care to know. No, Clinton is not actually gone and like a bad case of herpes, he will continue to rear his ugly head now and then. He has managed to set new standards for sleaziness and we should all find it disturbing that supporters such as you are still under his spell. Are you possibly some sort of lapdog for PatriciaS@lasvegas.com? You both appear to be speaking from the same vacuum.

-- Dumb (de@dum.dum), February 04, 2001.

"Dumb", with an approval rating of over 60% as he left office, I'm guessing there are ALOT of people "speaking from the same vacuum".

But if you want to talk about "sleaze", let's not forget all those upstanding moral Republican Senators who were screaming for impeachment while at the same time bonking their very own mistresses.

And lest we forget the "arms-for-hostages" episode. Trading on American lives ..... does it really get any sleazier than that?

Oh, and "trickle down economics" -- yep, that was a boon to ..... well, the wealthy of course. (Why does, "Let them eat cake" come to mind here?)

What I find "disturbing" is people like YOU who selectively put on the blinders when it comes to "sleaze" and "corruption" and "wrong- doing". You will be the first to judge others as to YOUR standards of "morality", but I wonder how clean your own closet is?

It's called hypocrisy and you are a shining example of it.

Did you ever think that maybe YOU were the one with "the problem"?

Oh, wait a minute.....you're aptly named.

Nevermind.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 05, 2001.