Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
It's not that Bush (or Reagan, or Carter, or Ford, etc.) charges, it's that the government pays, be it a local hotel, or a rented house, etc.
I don't expect a retired president, even if they have a big compound type of place with guest rooms or guest houses, to put up government agents for free, just because they have the space, simply because they are getting SS protection. And the government doesn't ask them to. We pay to put up our agents there, if it's available, as we should.
Regarding donations: eliminate all church tithes, and I wonder what "charitable donations" really look like?
|
I understand that the government will pay rent for SS agents. But if the SS agents stay on the property I don't know if the host always accepts rent from the government. I don't know the answer to that and I don't think you do either. We don't know if Bush is getting paid rent right now from the SS.
If that is always done, then it's really not an issue. The author of the article should have made it clear whether rent is normally paid to the person being protected if the SS agents stay on their property. That is the problem with half these news stories. The author (whether conservative or liberal) almost always has an agenda and will usually only tell you half the story. They give you the half that furthers their agenda, which I think is very unethical and dishonest.