I can't imagine why...he's only peeved off one-third of the US population...of course, it's the third that are rabidly clinging to their 2A rights...Quote:
Originally Posted by OldVet
Printable View
I can't imagine why...he's only peeved off one-third of the US population...of course, it's the third that are rabidly clinging to their 2A rights...Quote:
Originally Posted by OldVet
I think that if he wants lifetime protection, he should get his own carry permit and his own gun, just like I did. If he doesn't want to do that, then he should hire his own security, paid with his own money. My two cents.
I'm kinda stumped as to exactly how to feel about this. On one hand, "Of the people, by the people, for the people" should mean from an idealogical standpoint just that. Go back to being one of the people...perhaps the reality of living in a post-leader role without the government protection would give cause to think through decisions and words more carefully.
On the other hand, in a position like that you WILL peeve off about half of the people ALL of the time no matter what you do. Especially as extremely divided as the country has become. The polarity of the two parties is at its most extreme in recent years. Add in the world politics and terror angle and I can certainly understand. We don't need foreign or domestic extremists waxing any former pres for any reason. Nothing good could come from it.
Also, knowing the history behind it and the fact that he didn't dream this up on his own (it has historical precedence) and I can understand it. The ideological side of me still doesn't like it, but I like the thought of playing up the political theater aspect of it and yanking the chains of ultra-libs on other blogs given the timing (I know, I shouldn't poke them with sticks...but sometimes I can't help it).
I think Bill wanted protection from Hillary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lish
And I can certainly understand why...Quote:
Originally Posted by gasmitty
IMHO, it would depend on which one we lost to a terrorist. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by ElMonoDelMar
Wait...if Congress already has this Public Law on the books, how can the President unilaterally change it. While he can use EOs, won't it be up the House to fund the USSS to maintain that level of protection? Interesting....especially if Congress has language specifically endorsing the previously passed PL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lish
I'm not against protecting former POTUS, but question the legality of the process whereby an EO superseded a PL.
It's a part of Obama's job creation plan that he has been selling. :wink:
Seriously though. I have many problems with the current administration, but no problems with this. Even if he or Bill Clinton want to disrespect the office, I choose to still hold it in the highest regard. Despite political beliefs, the POTUS is a symbol that goes beyond any current holder of the title and should be protected. JMO
I think they had it right when they limited it to 10 yrs. No need to pay for protection for up to the next 40-50 yrs. I could even buy 15 yrs, but that's about it.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...esidents.html/
Obama signs lifetime Secret Service protection for George W. Bush, himself and future presidents
By Todd J. Gillman/Reporter
tgillman@dallasnews.com
4:05 pm on January 10, 2013
WASHINGTON — Dallas’ best-protected resident, George W. Bush, can now sleep more soundly. President Barack Obama today signed into law a measure granting the 43rd president — and himself and future presidents– a lifetime of protection by the Secret Service.
Congress stripped that benefit in 1994, enacting a 10-year limit for presidents who take office after Jan. 1, 1997 — a list that so far includes only Bush and Obama.
Under the new law, children of presidents will be protected until they turn 16. Presidents and their spouses get lifetime protection.
I say 10 years on the taxpayer dime, the rest on their own dime. All the Presidents alive today are multimillionaires. We're also paying them a nice retirement. I think they can afford to hire their own security if they think they need it after 10 years.
Enough with the ego massaging.
So with this new law, the only ones unprotected are Carter, Bush I (who may have one foot on the banana peel anyway) and Clinton?
That somehow seems to me poetic justice.
This!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanlouise
That would help to provide strong incentive to act like one of the People during one's entire term, too, instead of daring to act like a petulant tyrant knowing full well you'd get lifetime protection against anyone afterwards seeking their 15mins of infamy.Quote:
Originally Posted by boricua
Incentives can work. Erasure of incentives provide no motivation to realize that life's a contact sport and there are consequences for our actions. Prior hireling or not, prior POTUS ranking or not, the person no longer in that role now has nothing to do with that role in a formal sense. In very real ways, I think we'd be far better off stopping our treatment of such folks as national treasures and instead get back to treating them what they are: temporarily-hired staff to execute administration of our governance.
Personally I thought it was a mistake to change it to 10 years. Regardless of your politics I think it would be a black eye for the US if any former president was murdered after their SS protection expired. Compared to the cost of a million other things the actual monetary cost of protecting them can't be all that high.
Private citizens shouldn't have tax payer funded security details.