Seems wrong to me...

[hollohas]

Biden charges secret service to rent cottage

But I don't know what other presidents and vice presidents have done. So I'll reserve judgement but it just seems wrong that our tax dollars are paying for his personal real estate.

Here's the Original article because nynco hates Fox...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ottage-rental/

[nynco]

He may be required by law to do that. Other wise it might seem like improprietorial conflict of interest. But that does not stop the other side from making an issue of it.

[hollohas]

I have never heard of something like this before but it sure seems like a conflict of interests to me. And my opinion holds true for any other past political figures who may have benefited like this...

[nynco]

I would not think it would be out of the ordinary for the gov to have a standard rate that was to be paid for all housing of gov workers regardless of who they are or who they work for. Not paying might look like a conflict of interest. Which would reflect on both the Secret Service and the VP. Now should it be shown that there was an exorbitant amount paid by the gov to the VP then there is an issue. So far nothing like that has been presented and most likely the original article did not contain that. Why? Because the point of the article was to impune character alone. The writer accomplished that because most people don't understand all facets of the issue.

Now the easiest way to explain my line of reasoning can be found in the constitution it self. Third Amendment - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

To not pay the owner of the property fair market value would be in violation of that. This amendment has also been ruled to include other gov officials other than just the military.


Always ask why your source would bring this up, why they have no facts and what they are trying to accomplish or gain.

[nynco]

The Secret Service pays the vice president $2,200 per month to rent a cottage next to his waterfront home outside Wilmington, Del., FoxNews.com has confirmed.



That is not an exorbitant amount and most likely fair market value in that area. Funds most likely paid out in the same way that TDY is paid out for soldiers tasked to go off base for mission purposes.

[hollohas]

...and most likely the original article did not contain that. Why? Because the point of the article was to impune character alone. The writer accomplished that because most people don't understand all facets of the issue.

You indicate you didn't read the original article yet you judge the writer's intent. It was fairly unbiased actually.

Always ask why your source would bring this up, why they have no facts and what they are trying to accomplish or gain.

I don't need schooling from you on how to judge the intent of an article, thanks. Especially from someone who judges an article based solely on it's source without ever reading it.

I understand all the government intricacies you mentioned. And I didn't challenge Biden's character. However it still feels f'd up that our tax dollars pay for a government official's his real estate.

[nynco]

Well you are correct, I did not read it at first. I did how ever and then quoted the article itself. Which backed up my previous assumption. My point still stands. Its rather sad that I could predict what the article said without reading it. That tells you something doesn't it? It mainly says that I could predict the source making much to do about nothing.

I can understand not wanting to pay. It seems stupid. But it would also be against the law not to pay, heck it would look like violating the constitution it self.

Fox news has everything to gain by running a hack piece. Its what they do. They are not a news organization, they are a political outlet for conservatism and facts and honestly take a distant last place to political points.

Its a piece to rally those who need to read things to confirm their hate for the president.

Fox told the truth, but not the whole truth, but the point of the article was to attack the VPs character so they succeeded.

[nynco]

As to this point Always ask why your source would bring this up, why they have no facts and what they are trying to accomplish or gain.

That was more of a blanket statement to be used for all sources. Not just this article.

[Ranger]

Oh, that's just funny, Nynco tells YOU that you should investigate YOUR sources when he just takes the word of any lib/libertarian rag and it's gospel. Whatever.

Hollohas, this isn't new and it's actually part of the deal of getting secret service, you can charge them for accommodations at your property. If I recall, the Clintons, long after the election, had a scandal about it too and it seems to me it was over $10K a month they were charging SS. I'm sure Bush and republicans have been at fault as well (this will make Nynco happy to hear) so I don't think its as much of a scandal as it is a real punch in the face in a crummy economy. I honestly sort of understand the reason for it, you really don't have a choice to have SS around if you have been in the executive office yet you are then also supposed to pay to house them? Sucks, but understandable.

[hollohas]

Ah, but you still haven't read the ORIGINAL article.

This Fox News link is a partial re-print of the ORIGINAL Washington Times article which you didn't read. Maybe I'll edit the OP to include the Times article so you won't have to worry so much about Fox. You reading it now and confirming your initial thoughts does not change the fact that you jumped to conclusions based solely on the source and that my friend proves your bias.

It didn't say shit about the President so I don't know how you can say "Its a piece to rally those who need to read things to confirm their hate for the president". Again, that's your bias...

I'm not saying the SS(hmmm, that sounds bad, Secret Service sounds better) should use it rent free. I am saying they should go back to renting a private citizen's property, not a government official's. Not saying it's wrong (or illegal), but does seem like a conflict of interest.