Should the former US President receive millions in
taxpayer funded benefits every year for the rest of
his life? I believe that the yearly amount is
$221,000 plus perks, which are more than that and include
travel allowances, office space and staff. This can top
$1 million annually.

He could lose that if he's convicted in the upcoming
Senate impeachment trial.

It's an interesting conundrum. One worth discussing,
considering how past US Presidents have not lost
their benefits.

It also raises the question of our own
former Prime Ministers and their benefits and perks once
they leave office.

Foxy,
Let's take Kevin Rudd for example. He'll be collecting the same benefits as all the others.
That's on top of the $200,000 pay rise he gave himself over his predecessors.
What do you think he should be cut back to ?

Hi Individual,

Not sure quite frankly.
The voters need to decide whether to cap salaries
for our former PM's or not. As it is I'm sure that
they get enough benefits as well as speaking
tours, book sales, and as consultants when they retire.

The voters need to decide whether to cap salaries
Foxy,
When did we ever get to decide their salaries ?

Hi Individual,

We've always had the right to influence decisions
through the way we vote and for whom. We've made
our feelings known. So we can do the same in
this case.

Foxy,
WRONG !

Hi Individual,

In what way?

John John the grey goose is gone and the fox has reached the town’o...

Seriously?!

Dan

And the little ones chewed on the bones-o, bones-o...
They never had such a supper in their life...

Hey Foxy,
No, I don't think he should lose any benefits.
He's got nothing to answer for in regards to the Capital Hill incident.
Capital Hill belongs to the people NOT the leaders anyway.

If US citizens decide they have no faith in the nations institutions, they're allowed to express this.
The incident is by no means anything significant when taken in context to the greater problems in the US.

Well Foxy, perhaps seeing that he declined taking a salary in his time as president, if he is taking it, he deserved it more than most.

I think the red witch is costing us more than that.

"He could lose that if he's convicted in the upcoming
Senate impeachment trial."

There's ANOTHER impeachment trial? I don't think so. Especially since its now been shown that the last trial was based on lies and fake news.

Just more wishful thinking from the TDS crowd.

In what way?
Foxy,
Ok, let me answer with a question. When did the voters ever get to have a say over the prices & wages tribunal & the Public Service remuneration Board ?
Do you really believe Bureaucrats would get as much as they do if voters had any say ?

Good Morning Individual,

I'm a firm believer in people expressing their
views via their vote. And just because something did not
happen in the past does not mean it can't happen in
the future. Things can and do change.

Now back to the topic regarding Donald Trump's life
long pension. From what I can gather former US
Presidents are not entitled to their pension if
they're convicted in an impeachment trial or removed
from office if serving. Because Mr Trump's upcoming
trial won't actually remove him from office and he's
no longer serving - he will most probably get his
pension. Whether he accepts it - is another matter.

Foxy, pleased to see you back all OK.
People have complained about polly salaries but it never takes off
as a controversy. The reason, the other side does not take it up.
Why, because they are not going to cut their own throat.
Actually bureaucrat salaries are almost certainly a bigger problem.
Even when they leave they get engaged as "consultants" at higher amounts.
One of the major charges against Trump was his phone call to Georgia
official to find him some thousands of votes.
Turned out to be a lie as found on a dumped computer. The Washington
Post admitted it.
Doesn't matter of course as the lie did the job anyway.
Anyway, we have bigger problems ahead of us in a number of areas.

Hi Bazz,

And Thank You for the welcome back.
I guess there is a bit of wishful thinking
on my part and both you and Individual have
raised valid points. Of course we do have
other priorities also that we should be pursuing.
Not sure how I'm going to vote at the next election.
The way things are at the moment.

According to CNN - "Trump presided over dozens of
ethical scandals, egregious procedural lapses and
startling indiscretions most of which would have ended
the political career of any other national political
figure of the past century. But the trampling of norms
barely registered with most of the American public."

So what does the future hold for this man? Several
suggestions have been given. From forming a Third Party,
to continuing calls for violence, to creating his own
communications company, to getting convicted by the
Senate by a Republican Party ready to move on, to
disappearing in a swamp of criminal charges and civil
suits, to going to jail, to looking abroad either for
refuge or to enrich himself.

We're told that ex presidents are usually predictable. That
they write their memoirs, appear on chat shows, join a
lecture circuit, or preside over commemorative libraries.
However the prediction given is - not Donald Trump.

He still has enormous support in the US. Especially from -
extreme evangelicals to QAnon, the Proud Boys to neo-Nazis,
from the Oath Keepers militia to white supremacists.

Insurrection? Resurrection? Obscurity?
Only time will tell.
His taxpayer funded benefits seem like the least of concerns
for America. But perhaps that's being too harsh.

Just by way of interest - will Donald Trump
be allowed to have another crack at the
Presidency? The Democrats have recently
taken back control of the Senate. It's
fairly likely they'll block him from going for
a second term.

BTW: - Trump, whose businesses have billed US
taxpayers more than $1 million for rent and
other services since he took office, would
be able to be compensated for rent for offices in
his own property.

One perk he will not get however, is health insurance.
A President needs to be in federal office for at
least 5 years to get that perk.

This whole thread is completely bonkers.

There is no, No, NO upcoming impeachment trial. Finished nada, over. As much as some might want to continue to impeach him until something sticks, it ain't gunna happen.

They've had two goes and both failed. The second is now shown to have been, at least in part, based on lies and withheld information concerning the infamous Georgia phone calls.

Oh....and did I mention, there is no upcoming impeachment trial.

Foxy, you said;
Not sure how I'm going to vote at the next election.

Well neither do I. Under the usual circumstances I would vote Liberal
but as the Libs are now advocating the same policies on energy as
Labour and the Greens it makes for a dilemma.
If they allow Lidell to close before the next election, they will move
heaven & earth to stop it closing before an election, it will start
rolling blackouts and then they could lose the election.
So how do I vote ? Either way we are damned to blackouts.
Then a year after that the Yallourn station is to close.
So Lidell takes out 900 Megawatt and Yallourn takes out 1500 Megawatt
and that raises the question where do we get the power on a cold still night ?
There is no way we can afford 32000 Megawatt/hr battery.
I am not even sure they could get enough lithium to build it.
There is a world shortage at present, although it could be a Nickle Iron battery.
As it stands we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
The farmers are yet to realise what the CO2 policy means to their herds.
I think we perhaps should vote One Nation as they at least realise
what the policies mean if applied.
Trouble is not enough of them to form government.
The upshot for the likes of us I think is this;
If the Libs are government when the blackouts get bad enough they
will dump the policy.
If Labour are government they will press on with the total grid
collapse because they need the support of the greens.
Is this what is known as Hobson's Choice ?

Oh....and did I mention, there is no upcoming impeachment trial.

It seems the usual suspects have decided to ignore that bit of lunacy.

Dear Bazz,

Sorry it's taken so long to reply - but I'd used
up all my posts and had to wait until now.
Many of Australia's remaining coal-fired power
stations are likely to close over the next
decade or two as renewable energy becomes more
cost competitive and the pressure increases to
meet emissions targets. I think that Liddell is
due to close in 2022.

You're right in raising the point about rapid structural
changes happening due to closing large plants in
regional areas. It is important to have measures in
place to ease the transition. I'm not sure of what
the plans are of either major party but the government will
have its work cut out that's for sure.

Foxy, the problem is that the arithmetic is so simple that no politician
can believe it.
To provide a 100% supply at 99.9% reliability by means of wind and solar
requires duplication of the generation system.
This happens first because wind turbines only provide annually 35% of
their rated output. So first up three times as many have to be installed
in a number of different locations to improve the chance of getting
the required output.
Australia is probably big enough to get the spread of wind systems
but at what cost ?
Think along these lines Foxy and you will see it for yourself.
Then batteries, well no one asks from where will you get the power
to recharge them ?

It really is simple arithmetic.

Foxy, I forgot to respond to your comment;
as renewable energy becomes more cost competitive

That belief is at the heart of the problem.
It is true that a wind turbine produces the cheapest electricity.
That economy however is destroyed by the necessary duplication.
The attempt to improve reliability with batteries further destroys
the economy of wind and solar.
Then to top it off, the whole grid has to be redesigned to enable
the total amount of demand to be supplied from anywhere to anywhere.

Another point Foxy & Bazz. Unlike steam driven, [coal or gas generators with over 50 years life], wind turbines are good for no more than 20 years, so over the next couple of decades we will have to replace all the existing fleet of them, as well as quadruple, [at least] the existing fleet to have power even in the times that are good for wind. Totally unaffordable.

From what I have read it is not practical to rebuild the existing wind fleet as it is already out of date, so the entire lot have to be pulled down & scrapped, to be replaced by the much larger latest technology. The scrapping cost is huge, & little if any can be recycled. Just the blades force a huge scrapping cost, & the foundations are not suitable for reuse.

The life of solar is even shorter, so all of it will need replacing too.

Wind can do nothing but cripple our power grids. Just a little math, try some of your research skills foxy, proves there is no way we can afford sufficient wind/solar power to run our country.

One other small fact, a number of recent papers have shown that even the latest best windmills do mot produce the energy needed to build themselves, & make the steel & cement required to build their foundations & tower. Talk about a loss loss investment, just like ethanol fuel from corn & sugar cane.

It is a pity that stupid people, with no math are going to ruin our grand kids lives.

Hasbeen,
If these "recent papers" really exist, can you provide a link to them? It sounds incredibly dubious to me, as a few years ago people were fudging the figures (including non energy costs "converted" to energy costs) to achieve EROEI ratings below 7 (which they wrongly claimed was the minimum threshold for powering an advanced economy).

Mistakes in engineering are rarely in the mathematics; they're usually in the assumptions. For instance, you assume a short lifespan for wind turbines (20 years is quite a conservative estimate). And although you consider the costs of a large overbuild, you fail to consider the benefits. The surplus electricity can be used to make hydrogen, and there's no shortage of things to do with hydrogen: for instance it can be used to make sponge iron (reducing the amount of coal needed for steelmaking), or ammonia (for fertiliser, explosives and to a lesser extent fuel), or you can even burn it in gas turbines to make electricity when the wind's not blowing!

The climate change resulting from the continuing changes to atmospheric composition threatens to ruin our grandkids' lives. And yes the problem is caused by stupid people, but it's their assumptions that are to blame.

For gods sake Aidan, I just get through showing you we can't possibly afford to build enough windmills to generate the power we require to supply our current usage, & you start waffling on about surplus energy to use for hydrogen generation. I guess that would be the "surplus" left after using it to charge electric cars, that are supposed to replace ICE cars.

Do try to get real, just occasionally.

Get real yourself, Hasbeen!

>I just get through showing you we can't possibly afford to build enough windmills to generate the power we require
>to supply our current usage, & you start waffling on about surplus energy to use for hydrogen generation

Your explanation was based on the need for a large overbuild, yet you seem oblivious to the fact that a large overbuild would, by definition, result in surplus electricity being produced!

As this surplus can be put to an economically productive use, this makes such an overbuild more affordable.

In practice, of course, much of the electricity would be generated from solar rather than wind, and batteries and demand management would reduce the amount of overbuild needed. You correctly point out there'll be a lot of EVs to charge; some (but by no means all) of them would participate in the demand management and supply time shifting.

So will such a large overbuild be affordable? Probably not yet, but that's irrelevant as Australia still hasn't reached the stage of phasing out coal yet! Wind and solar costs are still falling (despite the recent rise in solar panel costs due to supply chain issues) and a large overbuild will probably be affordable by 2030, and almost certainly by 2040. Meanwhile we can continue to use natural gas at peak times.