Obama Will Top Bush As The Most Costly Ex-President In History

Submitted by: trimble 1 month ago in News & Politics


It's not the '50s anymore. I don't get why we pay for anything but temporary Secret Service detail for these guys.  Today's politicians usually leave office incredibly rich.

An excerpt from The Washington Times: Former President Barack Obama is about to become the most expensive ex-president, costing taxpayers $1,153,000 next year, according to a new Congressional Research Service memo looking at the official allowances for the five living former chief executives.

His $1,153,000 budget request for 2018 is more than $100,000 higher than George W. Bush’s request for next year and nearly $200,000 more than Bill Clinton’s expected budget. George H.W. Bush is slated to get $942,000, while Jimmy Carter will get less than half that, at just $456,000.

Every former president gets an office, expenses and, in some cases, an annual pension payment, thanks to a 1950s-era law enacted after former President Harry S. Truman struggled for income when he left the White House in 1953.
There are 57 comments:
Male 361
One important facet of this topic: Family size. 
0
Reply
Male 527
Well, since Bush 2 drove the price of everything up, it's not surprising.Bush fucked us long and hard.

0
Reply
Male 4,242
Still would be interesting to see if Great Leader Trump 10 top Saint Obama 
0
Reply
Male 2,150
What would you expect from the Washington Times, a rightist rag of the worst order.
0
Reply
Male 1,743
Seems like everyone is missing the point of this article, and the post.

The headline of the post is partisan, but it seems like a cut/paste from the article itself. The words of the article itself don't seem extraordinarily partisan.

In the very first sentence, trimble writes:

I don't get why we pay for anything but temporary Secret Service detail for these guys.

Yet there seem to be an awful lot of comments saying that Obama deserves secret service protection, which is quite expensive. Yet I don't think anyone here is arguing that he doesn't deserve secret service protection.

It seems like trimble's main point is that ex-presidents probably should only get temporary secret service detail for as long as people want them dead--which may be forever, but may not be...it's worth looking into. Do a lot of people want to assassinate President Carter? How much does his secret service detail cost? Is that cost reasonable?

I think this quote from the article is quite important:

By far the biggest cost for ex-presidents is renting office space. Mr. Obama’s office — 8,198 square feet in D.C. — will cost taxpayers $536,000 next year, the most of any ex-president. Mr. Clinton’s New York office is bigger, at 8,300 square feet, but slightly cheaper at $518,000. The younger Mr. Bush’s office in Dallas is $497,000, while his father’s space in Houston is $286,000. Mr. Carter’s Atlanta office is just $115,000.

Which, I agree, is pretty ridiculous. Half a million a year for office space is ridiculous for Obama, Clinton, Bush, or whatever super ridiculous office space Trump is probably going to request. Given how much Trump has already spent on America's dime, I think it's a worthwhile question to ask for when he inevitably leaves office--why do we pay for these expenses, and who the heck approves a $500K a year office as a reasonable expense for an ex-president?

Rant over.
1
Reply
Male 4,152
Every comment section turns into Republican VS Democrat at IAB, problem is everyone is always trying to argue which party suck less. Great.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
trimble Who wrote the fucking headline for this post?

I love how you pretend to be this great independent who isn't attached to either party, yet every position you take on here is in lock step with the republicans. Calling yourself "independent" is just lip service if you rush to defend trump on every post the way you used to rush to attack obama on every post. You're just as "independent" as 5cats.
3
Reply
Male 4,152
holygod Wrong again.
0
Reply
Male 2,632
It might not be your intent, but it's how you come across.

Think about the issues that seem to interest you enough to comment, and your positions on them.

If I recall, you've suggested you are Libertarian - If so, where was your support for Johnson during the election?

For the first month or so after the election, any criticism of Trump was derided by you as "butt-hurt".

Haven't you often criticized liberals for not being as tolerant as you think they should be?

It seems you have no trouble criticizing liberals/dems in general, or individually, yet when an opportunity to criticize conservatives/republicans presents itself, that's when we may be lucky enough to see remarks that "there's only one party, and you're not invited" - When liberals are bad, they're bad, but when conservatives are bad, so are liberals?
0
Reply
Male 8,550
trimble I will make this simple, neither Republican not Democrat.

Any United States President, be it Republican or Democrat or other, remains a national treasure and a possible target.

One of the perks of the job is Secret Service protection in perpetuity.

I don't care if it's an ex-President I love, or an ex-President I abhor, they all deserve Secret Service Protection. 
1
Reply
Male 4,152
megrendel SS protection is not in question here, the cost of that is not included here.
0
Reply
Male 941
trimble Yeah, it's an endless battle.  Everyone should just acknowledge that they all suck equally.
-2
Reply
Male 9,766
cjeffblanchr There's your false equivalence argument again.
0
Reply
Male 941
holygod No, this is a different argument.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
cjeffblanchr Ya, and you are just as wrong here as you were there. They do not all "suck equally".
0
Reply
Male 941
holygod Dude, seriously, you are gettin' way too worked up.  I am allowed to have my opinion--you get that right?  All your downvotes are not going to change that.  Especially since I don't give a crap about such nonsense.

I honestly don't get why you're getting so pissy about this.  It's not like I proclaimed that Trump was God--in fact I'm pretty sure I classified him as A LIAR.  

Here's something that might help you...

https://youtu.be/UKiEnvxUyTk?t=15s
0
Reply
Male 9,766
cjeffblanchr 

1. I'm not at all worked up, but you seem to be and I apologize.

2. You are welcome to any opinion you wish.

3. I am equally welcome to my opinion about your opinion.

4. I didn't downvote you.

5. However, you do seem to sorta give a crap about such nonsense since you're talking about it.
0
Reply
Male 941
holygod No need to apologize, I'm in a good mood today and not worked up.  Don't worry, I'm still your thunder buddy.
0
Reply
Male 3,480
100k more?  REALLY? 

STOP THE PRESSES, OMG.. A FULL 100K MORE!

We get it, you hate Obama, but at least come up with some better anti-Obama stuff then this, check with 5cats, im sure he has harddrives full of stuff.
1
Reply
Male 4,152
daegog What are you stupid? Obama cost more than Bush, Bush more than Clinton, Clinton more than Bush 41...It is you and my friend markust who are freaking out over the 100k difference. Is that all you can take out of the article? How long are you going to be butthurt? Although I do realize that is a hurt some people enjoy.
-2
Reply
Male 5,024
trimble Wait, we're freaking out? Look at your title. You're the one that made this partisan, not daegog or I. And then you try to pretend your article had another meaning. Please.
0
Reply
Male 4,152
markust123 My title? It is the title of the article, my point is that no ex-president should be getting the extra frills of free office space and expense accounts. The SS I understand.
0
Reply
Male 5,024
trimble, "My title? It is the title of the article..."

The title of the article:
Obama Will Top Bush As Most Costly Ex-president.

Your title (bold highlights are your changes):
Obama Will Top Bush As The Most Costly Ex-president In History

If your point was "that no ex-president should be getting the extra frills of free office space and expense accounts" you wouldn't have needed to change the title to something even more partisan than it was before.
0
Reply
Male 3,480
trimble Given the excesses of our current president, pointing out that Obama is spending an extra 100K over Bush is kinda like Joel Osteen telling people they should help their fellow man. 
0
Reply
Male 5,024
Trimble, does it bother you that this newspaper does not provide links to the source of their data? They are not a blog, they are a newspaper.
-1
Reply
Male 4,152
markust123 Not really, it seems reasonable. What bothers you about it, your messiah’s name being mentioned? Or that he blows a little more of our money on himself than the rest of them? I don't like the excessive perks going to any of them.
0
Reply
Male 5,024
trimble You guys and your straw man arguments. It bothers me when legitimate newspapers don't provide easy access to their data. This was not an opinion piece, it was a news article written by the Times themselves. You need to be able to easily fact check articles.
0
Reply
Male 771
Trimble So do we care how much current or former presidents cost or vacation or not? I'm of the stance that I don't care as long as they get their job done. With the exception that that I'm somewhat critical of Trump, not because of the costs or amount of time, but because unlike any of the other presidents he personally commented on it, and then did the same thing.
0
Reply
Male 4,152
mischeif954 Right, I know they are all going to cost us plenty while in office, I just don't think we need to provide them with things like office space and expense accounts when they are out of office. None of them are "struggling for income". They already get great benefits and they and their families will never want for anything without continuing to fleece the taxpayers so they can live even more lavishly. 
0
Reply
Male 5,024
trimble, "I just don't think we need to provide them with things like office space and expense accounts when they are out of office."

That right there is a reasonable position. We should not pay for office space for former presidents. But that is not the purpose of your article. It's to attack Obama. And for what, having a $100K bigger budget than W. Big freaking deal. There are parts of Obama's budget that are smaller than W's. It's the city that makes Obama's office budget more expensive overall.
-1
Reply
Male 4,152
markust123 No sir, you are wrong, the purpose of "my" article is to show the excess we give to our rock star politicians and I don't quibble about who spends a little more or less, you do. 
-2
Reply
Male 9,766
trimble Well then 1 of two things happened. Either:

A. Fancy rewrote your headline to make it appear as though that is what you are doing.

or 

B. You are totally full of shit because:

"Obama Will Top Bush As The Most Costly Ex-President In History"


does not at ALL jive with: " I don't quibble about who spends a little more or less, you do"
2
Reply
Male 5,024
What holygod said.
0
Reply
Male 4,152
markust123 Did you knucleheads go to the artice? I didn't write it nor did fancy, it is the title of the article not my point. Partisan dolts.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
trimble You copied and pasted it directly. You could have changed it to anything you wanted. You took a partisan headline and kept it turning into a partisan submission. Then tired to act like that wasn't your intention. We called you on it.
0
Reply
Male 5,024
holygod He did change it - to be even more partisan:

The title of the article:
Obama Will Top Bush As Most Costly Ex-president

His title (bold highlights are Trimble's):
Obama Will Top Bush As The Most Costly Ex-president In History
0
Reply
Male 9,766
mischeif954 Well, that and he personally PROFITS from it. Taxpayers fund the secret service who accompany him and his family to TRUMP properties and pay TRUMP to stay there and protect him.
0
Reply
Male 5,024
Office space in DC is more expensive than office space in Dallas. Holy cow, what a shocker. Stop the presses.
0
Reply
Male 7,937
Let's be fair, there's a lot of people on the internet that want him dead or at least threaten Obama.  If you don't believe me go  to Breitbart or redstate and read any article that mentions  Obama.
-1
Reply
Male 4,152
normalfreak2 Not about the Secrete Service protection they get. - "Presidents’ cost figures don’t include protection, which the U.S. Secret Service provides for former presidents and their spouses for life. Those costs aren’t public, but reportedly run into the tens of millions of dollars."
1
Reply
Male 7,937
trimble Yea I'm not sure we need to give them an income UNLESS they are having problems.  It should be contingent on having financial problems.
0
Reply
Female 4,429
normalfreak2 Obama came out of the whitehouse 440% richer than when he went in and is still making bank doing speeches and such.  He can afford his own security. amazing it was HIS exec order that put that in place.

*edit.. Both Bushes can pay for their own, Carter too.

*edit*edit  I suppose we should still help the Clintons since they were dead broke.
-1
Reply
Male 9,766
melcervini I don't know where you are getting "440% richer" but the bulk of Obama's wealth came from the books he wrote BEFORE he took office. So.....
1
Reply
Female 4,429
holygod what does it matter where the wealth comes from?  he can afford his own security.  (but took measures to ensure he never has to pay for it)
-2
Reply
Male 9,766
melcervini Wait. Stop a moment. When you spread disinformation you make the world a little less ignorant. Don't just change the subject. I matters because you stated something as fact that isn't fact.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
In fairness I don't think a lot of people have ever called for Bush to be "lynched".
0
Reply
Male 5,024
holygod What is going on? I look up to you for your consistent fact checking. You didn't even look at the article before commenting.
0
Reply
Male 941
holygod Do you not remember that when Bush was in office how the liberals were nearly as vehemently against him as they are Trump now?  Not quite as much, but pretty close.
0
Reply
Male 9,766
cjeffblanchr Yes. Against him. Not calling for him to be killed.
1
Reply
Male 941
holygod I'm not going to try to look anything up, but I'm pretty sure I recall exactly that... though not on the level of Trump.  

As far back as I can remember there have been extremists calling for the assassination of the president from the opposite side.
0
Reply
Male 3,480
cjeffblanchr WELL Bush did lie about iraq having nukes and killed over 100K civilians in a war of lies.

That might create a bit of strife don't you think?
-1
Reply
Male 941
daegog That's old news.  No reason to argue it any more.
0
Reply
Male 7,937
cjeffblanchr Yea but there was a reason to be upset at Bush was the point he was trying to make.  I don't believe it was JUST Liberals either.....

Same deal with Trump, sure he's pissing off liberals but he's also alienating independents, he's  cow towing to one wing of the GOP the stupid wing.
0
Reply
Male 941
normalfreak2 My point was directed at holygod who said "In fairness I don't think a lot of people have ever called for Bush to be "lynched"."  It was only intended to point out that there was a lot of hate for Bush, just like there is for Trump.  I wasn't trying make him sound like a saint.  No need to rehash old arguments, especially when it comes up out nowhere like this. 
0
Reply
Male 7,937
cjeffblanchr Fair point and agreed and +1 you because someone get's their jollies off -1 good conversation.
0
Reply
Male 941
normalfreak2 Favor returned.  I really hate this voting system.
1
Reply