I always get a kick out of things when they say that they must pay the police and army..... anything. Last time I looked these men and women were on salary and get paid whether they go to/supply security for this wedding or not. The equipment they use is paid for already as well; that leaves fuel for transport and any live ammunition they may use as the only REAL costs to the public.... I bet it does not come to 80,000,000 USD.
On Apr 28, 5:53 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Will the Royals Pay for Their Own Security?Posted byRyan W. McMakenon April > 27, 2011 10:49 PM > Of course not, and it looks like their weddingwill cost the taxpayersat least > 80 million dollars. This isn t much compared to the untold billions that > democratic politicians waste on their own profligacy, but it s still a > fleecing of the taxpayer for a totally unnecessary and ultimately political > spectacle. > So the taxpayers will pay millions for untold numbers of government police > and soldiers to parade around as the royals ride by in some former despot s > carriage on their way to a party. > The royal family is quick to point out that the party itself is being paid > for by the royals themselves. The reception costs, which are themselves tiny > compared to the security funded by the taxpayers, will be paid out by the > royals to the tune of one or two million dollars. > Fair enough, but that money isn t really private either. The only reason the > royals have all that property and money at all is because their ancestors > stole it from the taxpayers of yesteryear. Long-dead Brits and subjects of > the empire of long ago, who ran factories or worked in coal mines, paid for > all that, and they were taxed all their lives to make sure the monarchs of > old could live in luxury and send the sons of Scottish farmers off to kill > and be killed in far-flung corners of the globe. > Virtually every member of any royal family today owes his title and wealth > (assuming any is left from the old days) to the mere fact that his ancestors > were better at murder and thievery than the local rivals. Generally speaking, > kings were kings because they excelled at the business of coercion, taxation, > and murder. > Why we afford the descendants of those people some kind of special attention > or dignity is beyond me. Why not have the German taxpayers foot the bill for > parties thrown by the descendants ofGoring and Eichmann? > True, the European royals of today are mostly harmless, and certainly less > harmless than democratic politicians, and I don t think that Prince Williams > or Juan Carlos (to name two) are responsible for the crimes of his ancestors. > But let them cover the costs of their personal hobbies and entertainments. > What happy day it will be when presidents are once again forced to pay for > their own travels and diversions. Obama might actually take fewer than 10 > romps around the globe every year on the taxpayer s dime. Let the plutocrats > pay for their own bodyguards. The royals, being the quasi-politicians that > they are, (and don t think for a second that the monarchy isn t used to lend > legitimacy to the British state) would be a perfectly good place to start. > Note: The royals will also apparently be declaring an extra holiday for the > event, costing private businesses billions. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
