When the President campaigns around the country for various candidates, who foots the bill? Did the Republican Party pay for Bush's campaign efforts and does the Democratic Party pay for President Obama's campaign trips?

All Presidential travel and security protection is paid for by the taxpayers of the United States.

I think it is in the regular WH budget.
I'm not a fan of it at all, but every President in the modern era has done it.

The money they spend on this kind of stuff is a rounding error in the overall spending picture. I don't sweat it much.

ptown_trojans_1;523978 wrote:I think it is in the regular WH budget.
I'm not a fan of it at all, but every President in the modern era has done it.

+1

Not a big deal. I don't like it, but everyone does it. Consider it a perk of the job.

Ever look closely at your mailers from current congress people..."paid for with tax payers funds" ...its a fucking joke. But those with the gold, make the rules.

fan_from_texas;524200 wrote:+1

Not a big deal. I don't like it, but everyone does it. Consider it a perk of the job.

I agree. But just for fun, I'll take the other side of the fence...

If the speech given is a campaign speech, then why not have the WH pay for it, and then charge either the DNC or RNC (whichever party is stumping) for the cost of travel, the cost of rooms, the cost of their entourage, the cost of the stage/equipment/set-up, and the cost of the jet fuel that it took to fly him there? Clearly, the POTUS must fly on AF1 or AF2, the Secret Service is always around, and other hard costs for just being the POTUS should be beholden to the taxpayers, so those are fixed on the position of POTUS. I think if the POTUS is going to fly around on taxpayer's dimes, then his party should be held accountable for the costs of same. I ask the question, "is this travel being used as part of the job of president, or is this travel being used as a fundraiser for a candidate?"

Just to reitterate....there is no money left for Uncle Sam to spend. It's all borrowed from the Chi-comms, the Middle East, our children, our grandchildren and whomever else is buying our debt. The fact that its been done this way forever is part of the reason we are in this debt-ridden hole that we continue to keep digging deeper and deeper. STOP DIGGING!!

The problem there is a lot of these "no big deals" in the government. When all of them are added together they become a very big deal. If the government were actually made to work with less money they would slim down and keep the most essential/useful goverment funtions. Problem is when someone comes along and saying spending needs to be cut, a bunch of others in the government claim the one proposing the cutting wants to start with the most essential/useful government funtions.

BGFalcons82;524208 wrote:I agree. But just for fun, I'll take the other side of the fence...

If the speech given is a campaign speech, then why not have the WH pay for it, and then charge either the DNC or RNC (whichever party is stumping) for the cost of travel, the cost of rooms, the cost of their entourage, the cost of the stage/equipment/set-up, and the cost of the jet fuel that it took to fly him there? Clearly, the POTUS must fly on AF1 or AF2, the Secret Service is always around, and other hard costs for just being the POTUS should be beholden to the taxpayers, so those are fixed on the position of POTUS. I think if the POTUS is going to fly around on taxpayer's dimes, then his party should be held accountable for the costs of same. I ask the question, "is this travel being used as part of the job of president, or is this travel being used as a fundraiser for a candidate?"

Just to reitterate....there is no money left for Uncle Sam to spend. It's all borrowed from the Chi-comms, the Middle East, our children, our grandchildren and whomever else is buying our debt. The fact that its been done this way forever is part of the reason we are in this debt-ridden hole that we continue to keep digging deeper and deeper. STOP DIGGING!!

So what do you think of the Secret Service protecting the Presidents forever, even they're out of the White House?

I Wear Pants;524308 wrote:So what do you think of the Secret Service protecting the Presidents forever, even they're out of the White House?

The question was not directed at me, but I'll take a stab at it. The difference is that the security of the former president is in the best interest of the United States. That individual has a lot of information that is not to be shared by other parties. I don't want to see any terrorist group (foreign or domestic) or foreign nation kidnapping him to elicit said info.

Fair enough, but the money spend on the presidents going around campaigning is not why we're in a tight spot right now. At all.

I Wear Pants;524308 wrote:So what do you think of the Secret Service protecting the Presidents forever, even they're out of the White House?

I thought I wrote it out...maybe I wasn't clear. There are certain things that come with the job of president, no matter where he/she (I'll use "he" from now on to save typin) is or what he is doing. These include the need for his motorcade, his Air Force 1, his security detail, his security planning, and arrangements made with national security whence he travels. These costs are borne with the job and should always be part of the taxpayer dime.

When the president is taking-on the role of campaigner, fund-raiser for politicians, or traveling in support of candidates running for office, then that candidate requesting his support or his party (DNC for 'crats and RNC for 'pubs) should be responsible for the cost of the fuel oil to fly him, any entourage costs (Reggie Love for the current example), any hotel accommodations, the cost of any teleprompters/equipment/stages/sound system/etc. required to make the speech, food/beverages, and any other incidental required as part of his political speech. Like I said, once you determine the accountability for the event (presidential-in-nature or campaigning-in-nature) it's real easy to figure out whom should pay the tab. In other words, if he's flying out to Columbus to campaign for Lee Fisher and Ted Strickland, then those 2 fellas need to pony up for the event. Why should I, a taxpaying American, want to pay for his event, especially when I disapprove of his choices?

To answer your question, yes, the SS should protect ex-presidents forever, no matter where they are or what they are doing. This is consistent with what I described and a part of the job of taxpayers, IMO.

I Wear Pants;524335 wrote:Fair enough, but the money spend on the presidents going around campaigning is not why we're in a tight spot right now. At all.

How much do you think it costs for the POTUS to show up and preach the virtues of the candidates? Every little bit helps as there are no funds whatsoever in the bank. It's all on credit. I'll say it again....STOP DIGGING.

I Wear Pants;524335 wrote:Fair enough, but the money spend on the presidents going around campaigning is not why we're in a tight spot right now. At all.

It's small, and a lot of smalls make a BIG.

^^^^^^My wife refutes this......