DescentBB

\"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has more than quadrupled the rent on her San Francisco district office, making the $18,736-a-month cost of her new South of Market space the highest in the House, according to a new report.\"

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0qvCu5wv7

Someone explain to me why we as taxpayers need to provide rent for a public servant that happens to occupy a building we payed to have built?

We don’t want those tea baggers doing anything to the poor speaker, now do we.

Oh yea, that would kinda be like explaining how government workers pay taxes.

I'm sure Ms. Pelosi has the same thought about paying for her office as she does in her Bill passage in Washington

WTH would I care it's not my money

cmon people its only 20K a month. thats TONS cheaper than anything else she's spent

Oh, maybe Pelosi should have had her rent subsidized by a mysterious, powerful Christian-based group, like a few other House and Senate members did, in very expensive Washington D.C. no less! But then, that opens up the whole can of worms concerning influence peddling, favors and abuse of interns.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... used-inter

I'm starting to think that if all branches of Government, including the presidency, selected people in the same manner in which people get Jury Duty.....we would be a hell of alot better off!

Pelosi has drained the swamp and collected the runoff in her new office.

So, in reading the article, she moved from one federal building to another federal building.

Do congressmen pay rent for their offices in the Capitol?

Pelosi's New Office Costs Taxpayers $18,736 a Month. This is taxpayers money not Pelosi's money. So who is doing the subsidizing here?

The rent - part of Pelosi's budget, which is funded by taxpayers.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0qwr8nswl

Gooberman wrote:I'm starting to think that if all branches of Government, including the presidency, selected people in the same manner in which people get Jury Duty.....we would be a hell of alot better off!

ya know.. I think I like that idea...

Heretic wrote:Pelosi's New Office Costs Taxpayers $18,736 a Month. This is taxpayers money not Pelosi's money. So who is doing the subsidizing here?

The rent - part of Pelosi's budget, which is funded by taxpayers.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0qwr8nswl

As I understand the article, a person on the federal payroll is paying rent to the federal government. As far as I can tell, the new building where pelosi's office is located is owned by the federal government. So what exactly is the cause of outrage?

\"Someone explain to me why we as taxpayers need to provide rent for a public servant that happens to occupy a building we payed to have built?\"

Joe taxpayer ---> tax ---> feds ---> public servant ---> rent ---> feds


To me it looks like a classic shell game. A shell game in which the only loser is the spectator.

Welcome to the real world

Well, it would appear that the Government really does know how to manage money (the shell game).

AlphaDoG wrote:"Someone explain to me why we as taxpayers need to provide rent for a public servant that happens to occupy a building we payed to have built?"

Joe taxpayer ---> tax ---> feds ---> public servant ---> rent ---> feds


To me it looks like a classic shell game. A shell game in which the only loser is the spectator.

Can't the average Joe - go to jail for this type of shell game?

AlphaDoG wrote:"Someone explain to me why we as taxpayers need to provide rent for a public servant that happens to occupy a building we payed to have built?"

Joe taxpayer ---> tax ---> feds ---> public servant ---> rent ---> feds


To me it looks like a classic shell game. A shell game in which the only loser is the spectator.

Can't the average Joe - go to jail for this type of shell game?

Indeed Cuda68, if I were to do as illustrated I would, if found out, go to jail. If you don't believe me ask Bernie Madoff.