Quote:
Originally Posted by transjen
but regauardless why should the tax payers keep them with secert service no one is going to waste there time trying to knock off a former president come on Carter left office in 81 Bush in 92 Clinton in 01 and W in 09 no terrorist will think or even try to knock one off them off only the sitting president is in any real danger the money wasted on the former presidents would be better spent elsewhere.
|
Why would anyone want to "waste their time" trying to topple two twin towers filled with civilians? For the exact same reason -- it's a symbolic strike against America and, if successful, would instantly make WORLD news and give immediate credibility and notoriety to any terrorist organization that successfully pulled off such a thing.
And, Jen, just as an FYI -- the Secret Service deals with constant threats to ex-Presidents on a DAILY basis...in fact, often to their immediate family members TOO, who potentially could be even easier targets...which is why they are also kept under watch and given protection for life. I mean, come on, let's be honest here. Regardless of whether it was a Republican or Democrat in office, the sheer act of BEING President of the United States... and of holding the most powerful office in the world... is literally THE most exclusive club that any person could ever be in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transjen
And how does Obama spending more money elsewhere make spend the 1.5 billion guarding former presidents ok? The GOP keep yelling for the president to trim the bufget well here a 1.5 billion dollar trim
|
Unfortunately, once you've sat in the Oval Office, you will also be a potential target for the rest of your life -- hence the reason that BOTH sides of the political aisle in Congress has ALWAYS approved the budget and provided constant security to not only the current sitting President, but former ones as well...with absolutely no questions asked. In short: this is simply one of those things that is NOT open for debate regarding the budgetary costs, and this is simply one of those very rare things where Congress (both sides of the aisle) will NEVER look to trim costs, out of sheer respect for whoever held that office.