Posted on Feb 17, 2017
7
7
0
So this is a spin off from a conversation with PO2 Robert M.. Should US tax dollars be used to provide protection to children of President Trump if they are traveling on official business for the Trump Company?
Secret Service is charged with their safety but they are doing deal all around the world.
Secret Service is charged with their safety but they are doing deal all around the world.
Posted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 28
12
12
0
I don't have a problem paying for protection for the children of the President, regardless of what kind of trip they are on. Should they be kidnapped or killed, it would have serious ramifications around the US and the world.
Funny, how the collective 'we' didn't have a problem with protecting the children of other presidents. But now we do because they are actually business men and women? That's just stupid.
Funny, how the collective 'we' didn't have a problem with protecting the children of other presidents. But now we do because they are actually business men and women? That's just stupid.
(12)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
LTC Trent Klug, I personally have no issue with it. I just thought it was an interesting question because of the fact we have never really seen a First Family this active in international business. I agree, protecting them is critical to our security. I think we will see a lot one off questions asked based on the family's activities. People make a big stink because the First Lady is having her son stay in school in New York, again, I don't see a problem with that. Just thought it would be a fun discussion to have.
(2)
(0)
LTC Trent Klug
SGT Ben Keen - Its definitely a discussion worth having. If only just to watch some heads spin!
(2)
(0)
8
8
0
Yes. The fact that they are doing business is probably a net gain over the alternative, where they just take vacations everywhere...which is certainly within their financial means and would be covered by the US taxpayer without question.
(8)
(0)
8
8
0
They are targets in a world filled with bad actors. Consider the cost if one is taken and ransomed. Even if we don't negotiate with bad actors, there will be a cost and it will be high.
(8)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
I agree that they are targets where ever they go. I just think it's an interesting idea to discuss because like I said in a earlier conversation, I don't think we ever had a first family where the "children" were adults involved in international business deals. Normally, the Secret Service takes the kids to and from school and stuff, not to conduct large international business deals.
(1)
(0)
Previous families of presidents were covered, so it does not matter whether it is for vacation or business, or some other reason.
(5)
(0)
(2)
(0)
MSgt John McGowan
The Obamas had to be the most expensive Presidenr and First Lady we ever had.I understand she had the biggest staff in history. Over 600 days vacation. Non were cheap either.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
actually No ... noting other than security... But BHO set the Precedence when the Taxpayers funded all the vacations Taken By Michelle BHO and her family and Friends... and they were paid as the First Ladies assistances and advisors...
even the Bush twins Funded their own vacations But the taxpayers paid for the Security...
even the Bush twins Funded their own vacations But the taxpayers paid for the Security...
(5)
(0)
(2)
(0)
Sgt Bob Leonard
Five myths about presidential vacations
By Scott Farris August 15, 2014
"You would think that one thing Americans could agree on is that the leader of the free world could occasionally use a day off. But even presidents’ vacations can be controversial, as partisans argue over whether the time away is detrimental to the nation."
Myth # 1. Presidents get vacations.
“Presidents don’t get vacations — they just get a change of scenery,” Nancy Reagan once said in defense of her husband’s frequent trips to his ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif.
In the nuclear age, presidents may have only minutes to make a decision that could affect the entire world. They don’t so much leave the White House as they take a miniature version of it with them wherever they go."
Myth # 2. Presidential vacations harm the national agenda.
This past week, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank accused Obama of “tone deafness” for going forward with his vacation while the world was in crisis. But when is the world not in crisis?
A vacation can provide a president with that most precious and rare of commodities in the Oval Office: time to relax and think — including time to think about how to deal with a crisis.
Myth # 3. George W. Bush took more vacation days than any other president.
During his eight-year presidency, Bush did take 879 days of vacation, including 77 trips to his Texas ranch. So far, Obama has taken about 150 days off. But our founders were away even more.
During his first two years in office, President John Adams was criticized for making two lengthy trips to his home in Quincy, Mass., taking him away from the capital, which was then Philadelphia, for a total of eight months. Adams left Philadelphia to avoid a yellow-fever outbreak...
Myth # 4. Taxpayers foot the bill for presidential vacations.
Presidents pay for their own and their families’ lodging, food and incidentals while on vacation, which may be why they generally prefer to stay at properties they own, as guests of wealthy friends or at the official presidential retreat at Camp David.
But since presidential vacations are always working vacations, taxpayers cover what it takes to keep the commander in chief working. Lodging and meals are an extra cost, but taxpayers pay the salaries of White House staffers and Secret Service agents whether the president stays in Washington or not...
Myth # 5. Presidents can vacation anywhere.
The controversy over vacations allegedly began with President Gerald R. Ford, who was criticized for vacationing at the upscale Vail Ski Resort in Colorado, while the nation was in a recession.
But exclusive, high-end resorts suit the Secret Service’s needs. The agents like that Martha’s Vineyard is an island, where everyone entering and leaving can be easily tracked.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-presidential-vacations/2014/08/15/2aa969c6-2311-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html?utm_term=.5c3589fa7679
By Scott Farris August 15, 2014
"You would think that one thing Americans could agree on is that the leader of the free world could occasionally use a day off. But even presidents’ vacations can be controversial, as partisans argue over whether the time away is detrimental to the nation."
Myth # 1. Presidents get vacations.
“Presidents don’t get vacations — they just get a change of scenery,” Nancy Reagan once said in defense of her husband’s frequent trips to his ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif.
In the nuclear age, presidents may have only minutes to make a decision that could affect the entire world. They don’t so much leave the White House as they take a miniature version of it with them wherever they go."
Myth # 2. Presidential vacations harm the national agenda.
This past week, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank accused Obama of “tone deafness” for going forward with his vacation while the world was in crisis. But when is the world not in crisis?
A vacation can provide a president with that most precious and rare of commodities in the Oval Office: time to relax and think — including time to think about how to deal with a crisis.
Myth # 3. George W. Bush took more vacation days than any other president.
During his eight-year presidency, Bush did take 879 days of vacation, including 77 trips to his Texas ranch. So far, Obama has taken about 150 days off. But our founders were away even more.
During his first two years in office, President John Adams was criticized for making two lengthy trips to his home in Quincy, Mass., taking him away from the capital, which was then Philadelphia, for a total of eight months. Adams left Philadelphia to avoid a yellow-fever outbreak...
Myth # 4. Taxpayers foot the bill for presidential vacations.
Presidents pay for their own and their families’ lodging, food and incidentals while on vacation, which may be why they generally prefer to stay at properties they own, as guests of wealthy friends or at the official presidential retreat at Camp David.
But since presidential vacations are always working vacations, taxpayers cover what it takes to keep the commander in chief working. Lodging and meals are an extra cost, but taxpayers pay the salaries of White House staffers and Secret Service agents whether the president stays in Washington or not...
Myth # 5. Presidents can vacation anywhere.
The controversy over vacations allegedly began with President Gerald R. Ford, who was criticized for vacationing at the upscale Vail Ski Resort in Colorado, while the nation was in a recession.
But exclusive, high-end resorts suit the Secret Service’s needs. The agents like that Martha’s Vineyard is an island, where everyone entering and leaving can be easily tracked.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-presidential-vacations/2014/08/15/2aa969c6-2311-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html?utm_term=.5c3589fa7679
Five myths about presidential vacations
1Presidents get vacations. “Presidents don’t get vacations — they just get a change of scenery,” Nancy Reagan once said in defense of her husband’s frequent trips to his ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif...
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Instead we should be asking questions like the following. 1.) why were tax payers paying for the Obama children to be cared for by their grand mother?
2.) Why are the American tax payers on the hook for a retirement of six figures for that same Obama grand mother?
2.) Why are the American tax payers on the hook for a retirement of six figures for that same Obama grand mother?
(3)
(0)
MSgt Michael Bischoff
Why are taxpayers paying for Melania to live in the Ivory tower everyday and not in the WH at an excess of a $300,000 per day. That's OK!
(0)
(0)
Sgt Bob Leonard
Good questions. They deserve good answers.
You asked, " 1.) why were tax payers paying for the Obama children to be cared for by their grand mother?"
The answer: Tax payers didn't pay a single cent for Michelle Obama's Mother to care for the children. That was a fake story put out by a fake news website, the boston tribune.
"No, Michelle Obama's Mom Will Not Receive a Pension for Living in the White House"
By RYAN STRUYK Jan 13, 2017, 11:32 AM ET
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michelle-obamas-mom-receive-pension-living-white-house/story?id=44740049
"Michelle Obama’s Mother Receiving A Lifetime Pension From U.S. Government Is A Hoax"
Shawn Rice — October 18, 2016
http://www.business2community.com/us-news/michelle-obamas-mother-receiving-lifetime-pension-u-s-government-hoax-01683583#TwIfSckT41VxBkAr.99
Since question No.1 is a bogus question, it should go without saying that question No.2 is likewise baseless, but we'll say it anyway: Michelle Obama's Mother is not receiving a "six figure" retirement from the US Gov't.
Sorry to disappoint.
You asked, " 1.) why were tax payers paying for the Obama children to be cared for by their grand mother?"
The answer: Tax payers didn't pay a single cent for Michelle Obama's Mother to care for the children. That was a fake story put out by a fake news website, the boston tribune.
"No, Michelle Obama's Mom Will Not Receive a Pension for Living in the White House"
By RYAN STRUYK Jan 13, 2017, 11:32 AM ET
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michelle-obamas-mom-receive-pension-living-white-house/story?id=44740049
"Michelle Obama’s Mother Receiving A Lifetime Pension From U.S. Government Is A Hoax"
Shawn Rice — October 18, 2016
http://www.business2community.com/us-news/michelle-obamas-mother-receiving-lifetime-pension-u-s-government-hoax-01683583#TwIfSckT41VxBkAr.99
Since question No.1 is a bogus question, it should go without saying that question No.2 is likewise baseless, but we'll say it anyway: Michelle Obama's Mother is not receiving a "six figure" retirement from the US Gov't.
Sorry to disappoint.
No, Michelle Obama's Mom Won't Receive a Pension for Living in the White House
The fake news story has been all over Facebook recently.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
This is fun, but here is how it's supposedly done. And as I noted before, if you have a problem with providing SS protection for a president's immediate family, change the law.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21835.pdf
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21835.pdf
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
This is a tough one for me. While I certainly think that having one of them killed or captured by someone would be a terrible blow to us I also think there is some obligation from their companies to protect them. If they are on company business can the company provide protection. They likely have in the past. They have a larger bulls eye on them now than previously though.
They are adults, not minors. They are employed by their companies (or run them) and are not on government business (there could be exceptions to this). These companies should have some security apparatus to protect them.
I would prefer to see some corporate security with liaison to the secret service. When out of the country their private security could be augmented with some SS agents etc.
They are adults, not minors. They are employed by their companies (or run them) and are not on government business (there could be exceptions to this). These companies should have some security apparatus to protect them.
I would prefer to see some corporate security with liaison to the secret service. When out of the country their private security could be augmented with some SS agents etc.
(3)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
Interesting thoughts there Cpl Jeff N.. The whole liaison thing is a good way of ensuring protection while making the business they work for/with responsible for their safety just as they done in the past.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
this i could see, just like in iraq when certain people showed up non millitary they had some bad ass security
(1)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
Yes, this makes sense. When traveling on pure company business the company should provide the bulk of the security with some SS present acting as a liaison.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
did US tax dollars pay for Obama's kids on vacation, Clintons daughter, or any other presidents family why is this even questioned, whether it be business or official they are the family of the President of the United States, and are afforded protection
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google