HUD spends $31,561 on a dining room set for Secretary Ben Carson's office

I can see why Trump hired this guy. Carson's got some high class taste.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development spent a whopping $31,561 on a new dining set that will grace the executive dining room of Secretary Ben Carson.

HUD disclosed that eye-popping purchase to CNBC on Tuesday when asked about a former top official's complaint that she was demoted last summer. The former official said the demotion came after she pushed back on an effort to help Carson's wife redecorate his office at a cost above a $5,000 legal cap.

www.cnbc.com...

Didn't Carson run for president 2016? I could swear he did? Oh wait he did! One his top campaign issues, government waste right? But who could blame him. No seriously he's a man of class. Just as classy as the rest of the administration.

On the bright side maybe he'll finally be able to sleep easy known he made a real change in HUD.



Jokes aside, another example of how Trump and his ilk are full of it and they know it. His supporters? They'll continue looking the other way. This is a gross misuse of tax payer money and it's not going to end.

Where does this guy get off using tax payer money like this? It's down right criminal

I know, right!?

$32k table and a plastic tablecloth!

a reply to: Southern Guardian
You mean his wife has some high class taste apparently.

As if over spending has not occurred under every single administration in our life time.

But yea sure go ahead and raise your blood pressure being offended because of reasons... now I am sure that will help.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Did you stop reading after that? Because right after that your article states

HUD — whose responsibilities include providing affordable housing to more than 4.3 million low-income families — said the only items purchased for Carson's office were window blinds, which cost about $3,400.

It then says this

"Secretary Carson, to our knowledge, is the only HUD Secretary to go to the subbasement of his agency to select the furniture for his office," a HUD spokesman said.
"All the furniture in his office was purchased by the government prior to his arrival," the spokesman said.
Carson played no role in ordering the dining room set, and was unaware of it until this week, according to HUD.

Miss that part?

I see the government is making progress in cutting back on wasteful spending. A government procured toilet used to cost $20 grand.

The President also negotiated lower pricing with Boeing for two new Air Force One jets this week. Saved U.S. taxpayers whopping $1.4 billion over what the Obama Administration had originally contracted to pay.

www.foxnews.com...

The Era of Trump is WUNDERFUL.

a reply to: Vector99

HUD claims so? Other sources say otherwise.

Department officials did not request approval from the House or Senate Appropriations Committees for the expenditure of $31,561, even though federal law requires congressional approval “to furnish or redecorate the office of a department head” if the cost exceeds $5,000.

www.nytimes.com...

The expenditure sourced from HUD procurement records.

And this is what HUD's spokesman said:

A HUD spokesman told the Times that Carson “didn’t know the table had been purchased” but does not intend to return it.

thehill.com...

I call BS. Especially 1 year and 2 months into Carson's head of this department.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
As if over spending has not occurred under every single administration in our life time.

But yea sure go ahead and raise your blood pressure being offended because of reasons... now I am sure that will help.

Do you prefer to get upset about the poor abusing the meager benefits they get?

This is good reason to have a raised blood pressure, obviously you don't care but I'm not happy about my tax money being spent on this crap.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

So your response when Vector calls you out with a quote from your original source is to find a new source...


Weak sauce, just admit you got caught in a rush attempting a gotcha and move on.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Irishhaf
As if over spending has not occurred under every single administration in our life time.

But yea sure go ahead and raise your blood pressure being offended because of reasons... now I am sure that will help.

Do you prefer to get upset about the poor abusing the meager benefits they get?

This is good reason to have a raised blood pressure, obviously you don't care but I'm not happy about my tax money being spent on this crap.

Then I hope you have been pissed for a long time otherwise you might be a bit of a hypocrite.

EDIT: if you do the search I know you will find numerous agencies wildly over paying for a variety of things under the previous administratioin.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Irishhaf
As if over spending has not occurred under every single administration in our life time.

But yea sure go ahead and raise your blood pressure being offended because of reasons... now I am sure that will help.

Do you prefer to get upset about the poor abusing the meager benefits they get?

This is good reason to have a raised blood pressure, obviously you don't care but I'm not happy about my tax money being spent on this crap.

Then I hope you have been pissed for a long time otherwise you might be a bit of a hypocrite.

EDIT: if you do the search I know you will find numerous agencies wildly over paying for a variety of things under the previous agency.

These pricks that legislate our lives all do it, it's nothing new, I'm pissed off that people get upset with poor people abusing the system, which no doubt they do, but it's nothing compared to what those that rule us do.

Anyhow my bad if pegged you wrong.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


Till we break the two party stranglehold there is zero chance of fixing people splurging tax payer money.


You know in the military a sq has to spend 100% of their budget or they lose that money in the following year (thanks congress) so a lot of stupid stuff gets bought at the end of every fiscal year.


As long as the two corrupt parties are writing the rules we are stuck seeing this play out each and every year like this.

a reply to: Irishhaf

That's a universal truth in government, they have to waste money if they don't exceed the previous years budget .

Until people wake up to this, we are doomed to just have to suck it up.

An example is local council that deal with roads, if it's close to budget time and they haven't equalled last year'sbudget they simply resurface roads that don't need to be. Sad but true.

In response to a request for comment Tuesday, HUD said only blinds were purchased for Carson's office and were within the $5,000 limit. The agency said the dining set was considered "a building expense" rather than a decoration and was not ordered by Carson. The set is in a room adjoining the secretary's office.

www.chicagotribune.com...

They spent $31K on a friggin dining room set. How on Earth can anybody find this acceptable? It baffles me. It really does. The cognative disonance on here.

I just love how Carson's saying he had no say over something ordered for his own department. Absolute BS, and ATSers should be above this nonsense.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Southern Guardian

So your response when Vector calls you out with a quote from your original source is to find a new source...


Weak sauce, just admit you got caught in a rush attempting a gotcha and move on.

you should re read and admit the same thing...
...

but this is acceptable now. its happening under Trump.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You would think these agencies would have learned their lessons after the GSA under Obama was caught holding lavish conferences in Hawaii with spa days and other nonsense.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Did you stop reading after that? Because right after that your article states

HUD — whose responsibilities include providing affordable housing to more than 4.3 million low-income families — said the only items purchased for Carson's office were window blinds, which cost about $3,400.

It then says this

"Secretary Carson, to our knowledge, is the only HUD Secretary to go to the subbasement of his agency to select the furniture for his office," a HUD spokesman said.
"All the furniture in his office was purchased by the government prior to his arrival," the spokesman said.
Carson played no role in ordering the dining room set, and was unaware of it until this week, according to HUD.

Miss that part?

shhh those anti trump, anti trump administration, and anti republicans DONT believe in FACTS.
it gets in the way of their rants and main stream stores.

when presented with FACTS they make the girl in the exorcist movie whos head was spinning and spewing vitriol seem like a normal thing
Scrounger

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Vector99

HUD claims so? Other sources say otherwise.

Department officials did not request approval from the House or Senate Appropriations Committees for the expenditure of $31,561, even though federal law requires congressional approval “to furnish or redecorate the office of a department head” if the cost exceeds $5,000.

www.nytimes.com...

The expenditure sourced from HUD procurement records.

And this is what HUD's spokesman said:

A HUD spokesman told the Times that Carson “didn’t know the table had been purchased” but does not intend to return it.

thehill.com...

I call BS. Especially 1 year and 2 months into Carson's head of this department.

SG which part of (as quoted IN THE VERY SOURCE YOU PROVIDED) that he went to the basement STORAGE and picked out furniture that was ALREADY THERE?
was he supposed to find out when it was bought and how much?
in fact AGAIN FROM THE ARTICLE YOU PROVIDED AS PROOF stated it was PREVIOUSLY purchased and paid for.

again he PICKED WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE and ONLY BOUGHT NEW some blinds at 3,400.

I bet if you would care to do some research into ANY ADMINISTRATION (be R or D at end of name) that NO ONE in ANY DEPARTMENT spend that little on redecorating their offices and NO ONE WENT TO STORAGE TO PICK OUT ALL THEIR FURNISHINGS.

But hey why present FACTS in your rants.
all they would do (as YOUR VERY SOURCE YOU QUOTED) is DESTROY your arguments .

Scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

Who was the furniture purchased by again?

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Southern Guardian

So your response when Vector calls you out with a quote from your original source is to find a new source...


Weak sauce, just admit you got caught in a rush attempting a gotcha and move on.

you should re read and admit the same thing...

I think you benefit from your own advice on "re read" .

As CLEARLY stated in the article that this furniture was in BASEMENT STORAGE and was PREVIOUSLY BOUGHT BEFORE before he EVER (my added word) GOT INTO OFFICE.
the value stated WAS ALREADY PAID BY THE DEPARTMENT .
He DIDN'T GO OUT AND HAVE THE DEPARTMENT BUY IT.

In FACT he was trying to use what WAS ALREADY THERE.

someone in a PREVIOUS administration requested and BOUGHT IT.

Lets put this into REALITY example
If you went into a relatives house and took a dining room set to your house and it was say 5,000 .

does that mean you bought a 5,000 set or even told your relative to get it for you?

NO

but somehow that logic doesn't apply to him right?

has your (and others like SG and OP) hatred of trump and desire to bring him down blinded you to the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS , FACTUALLY DISHONEST, AND EASILY DISPROVED attacks your using?

its like you think everyone will just accept the BS your pushing

tell me, how that work out in the presidential election (what too soon)?

Scrounger


...

but this is acceptable now. its happening under Trump.