CDZ Carson has $31K dining set in his office, paid for by taxpayers

[IsaacNewton]

Ben Carson really is a fool.

Carson has $31K dining set in his office, paid for by taxpayers

The Department of Housing and Urban Development used $31,000 to purchase a custom hardwood table, chairs and a hutch for Secretary Ben Carson’s office late last year, the New York Times reports.

The agency didn't seek congressional approval for the purchase, even though federal law mandates authorization from lawmakers to "furnish or redecorate the office of a department head” if the total cost is over $5,000, per the Times.

• What they're saying: A HUD spokesman told the Times that Carson “didn’t know the table had been purchased” but doesn't think it's overly expensive and has no plans to return it, the Times said.
• Why it matters: Carson is also facing scrutiny and a probe by his agency’s inspector general into his son’s involvement in an agency-sponsored listening tour in Baltimore last year. Attorneys at the agency had reportedly warned both that it could be conflict of interest.

Everyone that Lying Donald has 'hired' sees taxpayer's money as a limitless credit card to buy anything they can dream of and never have to pay a cent back to taxpayers.

And Republicans in Congress? Quiet like mice with a boot on their neck.

Congress is the one that gives them da money to blow..

Yes and what would be the high pitched screaming by Repubicans if Democrats in the White House or the administration were doing this. They would be losing their shit. But all that is heard from Congress is silence.

But they feel secure in their position because they feel that they deserve it or people won't notice. Just what the democrats thought prior to the last election...

Where are the equivalents though from past admins. Right now it looks like a gaggle of wealthy people who see a golden goose in the taxpayers.

 

[Picaro]

More Deviant Desperation on display, 24/7, here. lol

 

[usmbguest5318]

Ben Carson really is a fool.

Carson has $31K dining set in his office, paid for by taxpayers

The Department of Housing and Urban Development used $31,000 to purchase a custom hardwood table, chairs and a hutch for Secretary Ben Carson’s office late last year, the New York Times reports.

The agency didn't seek congressional approval for the purchase, even though federal law mandates authorization from lawmakers to "furnish or redecorate the office of a department head” if the total cost is over $5,000, per the Times.

• What they're saying: A HUD spokesman told the Times that Carson “didn’t know the table had been purchased” but doesn't think it's overly expensive and has no plans to return it, the Times said.
• Why it matters: Carson is also facing scrutiny and a probe by his agency’s inspector general into his son’s involvement in an agency-sponsored listening tour in Baltimore last year. Attorneys at the agency had reportedly warned both that it could be conflict of interest.

You know, for all the griping about Carson's damn table, chairs and hutch, one'd think the NYT would include a photo of them or the room so folks would have some perspective on what was bought and replaced and what the room really is.

The "net net" of the story is that part of it strikes me as "so what, but maybe there's some 'there' there," and part of it strikes me as "there's clear law breaking there."

The Department of Housing and Urban Development used $31,000 to purchase a custom hardwood table, chairs and a hutch for Secretary Ben Carson’s office late last year, the New York Times reports.

I really don't care that HUD spent that much for a dining table, chairs, and server/hutch. It's for the HUD secretary's executive dining room. $31K isn't at all unreasonable. What I think is that most folks haven't the first idea of what an executive dining room is, and the NYT and others are availing themselves of the average person's ignorance about what an executive dining room actually is.

What an executive dining room is not is merely a place to eat. Indeed, eating often enough is the least of what goes on in an executive dining room. Such places, regardless of the "dining room" part of the description, are just conference rooms that have water hookups, munchies, china, soft drinks, etc. stored in a hutch that's long/large enough for food and drinks to be placed in a buffet fashion.

This is James Mattis' executive dining room. It looks like it might be a 14-person table.

Here are some others.

I don't know if any of you have ever purchased a table that seats 20 people. Let me tell you. They ain't cheap, and if they happen to be equipped with electronic hookups and gizmos, they're even less cheap. I suspect the table in Carson's exec dining room is one of those "21st century" type tables similar to the one's pictured above, and I think that because the NYT describes it as a custom hardwood table. That's exactly what they are: buyers can specify the materials, features and dimensions, and the tables often enough are made from hardwood. If Carson's table is even roughly like the "tech enabled" tables above, it's easily a $10K table, and that's if it's hardwood veneers over pressboard.

Then there're the chairs. I don't know how many people the table seats, but having furnished the offices of my old firm, I know damn well what office chairs cost. Basic ergonomic office chairs are pricey -- Modern Office Chairs - Herman Miller Official Store -- or at least pricier than I suspect the "average person" thinks they are. Put 14 to 20 of those suckers around a table and it's very possible, depending on the table, that the chairs together cost more than the table.

As for the hutch, well, the second and last two generic photos above have hutches in them. If you've remodeled a kitchen, you know that cabinets are the single priciest part of doing so. It's no different anywhere else.

So just ballparking some numbers in my head...

• Table: $10,000
• Charis $15,000
• Hutch: $3,000

...$31,000 doesn't strike me as outlandish for a table, chairs and hutch in an executive dining room that is really just the senior-most executive's dedicated conference room....though in the case of departmental secretaries, it's quite likely a room shared -- for work and personal uses -- with the Secretary's direct reports.

The reality of life for principals and the people who work directly for and with them is that rarely does eating lunch (and often enough breakfast and dinner) consist of just eating and making idle, non-work-related chit chat. Quite often too, the execs' administrative assistants and other senior level staff will take their lunches in that room, host office gatherings (birthday, wedding, promotion, interviews, etc.), conduct working sessions, etc. when the Secretary is out of the office or has no meeting scheduled.

The agency didn't seek congressional approval for the purchase, even though federal law mandates authorization from lawmakers to "furnish or redecorate the office of a department head” if the total cost is over $5,000, per the Times.

Unauthorized encumbering/spending, unlike the furniture cost itself and that the HUD Secy's exec dining room furniture was replaced, is something I find problematic. While I think the sum of $5K being the threshold for requiring a Congressional appropriation to replace furniture and fixtures, the fact of the matter is that $5K is the threshold; thus Carson (his staff) should have complied with it and requested the appropriation for the purchases.

Because Carson didn't obtain the appropriation for the furniture, what happened -- because it's the only way it could have happened if taxpayer money paid for the furniture -- is that money expressly appropriated for something other than furniture and fixtures in Carson's office was used to buy the table, chairs and cabinet. Now I have no idea from what appropriation the funding was taken, but I know that's what had to happen.

Failing to comply with a very simple and straightforward law such as the one re: furniture and fixture replacement appropriations is emblematic of what happens when people who don't know what they're doing are put in decision making positions.

I don't know who made the decision to order the furniture and fixtures; I don't even care who did. Whoever it is does not know what they're doing and, assuming they didn't willfully disregard the law, they didn't check before taking action and binding the government. People who handle their jobs/duties so perfunctorily don't deserve to hold them. Ditto for people who had no better judgment than to hire such employees.

No appointed officials absolutely have to have prior government experience. Every appointed official must, however, exhibit the due diligence that comes with whatever level of experience they have. And that means the less experience one has, the more circumspection one is obliged to exhibit. And let's be honest. It doesn't take much circumspection at all to simply check the HUD procurement guidelines and follow them so as not to break the law. "You can't spend more than $5K" isn't a difficult or complex guideline/law to understand and follow. Of course, if my experiences here and what I've seen in the news about Trump, reading is not fundamental among Republicans.

Update:

From a news report of which I today saw only the tail end, it may well be that Carson did indeed buy what amounts to a dining table, chairs and hutch roughly comparable to those one might have in one's home. To the extent that is indeed what Carson (his staff) did do, I do have a problem with his spending $31K to do so.

I don't think $31K is an inordinate sum for one to spend to furnish their own "posh" living room. I do, however, think it's somewhat on the high side for a government official, particularly given that I know from my own experience that for $31K, one can obtain far more utility than just a friggin' table, chairs and hutch can provide.

If all one's going to get is a new dining table (rather than an important antique) more or less like one of these....

​

...and matching/coordinating chairs and hutch, there is simply no reason Carson could not have found any number of suitable and reasonably "posh" dining sets.

The tables above are antiques and cost upwards of $10K each; however, if that's what Carson wanted, all he (his staff) needed to do is reach out to the GSA and select something from its extensive inventory of fine furniture.

As I said, the whole matter is yet another manifestation of Carson and his staff's novelty with government procurement. Reaching out to the GSA, rather than taking the matter into their own hands, is what they should have done in the first place. One of the GSA's key functions is to exploit the federal government's buying power/quantities, along with subject matter expertise, to minimize the sums paid to procure furniture, fixtures, supplies, etc. that government offices need.

• Furniture
  
• Executive Wood Furniture
  
• Fine Arts Collection

For all I know, HUD may have a program similar to State's "heritage assets" program whereby the Secretary can have installed into his/her office items from the department's collection of "nice stuff."​

 

[sartre play]

Those in charge have been picking our pockets for ever, what really upsets me is that Carson is unqualified for the post he holds, what he knows is medicine not management.

 

[OldLady]

Ben Carson really is a fool.

Carson has $31K dining set in his office, paid for by taxpayers

The Department of Housing and Urban Development used $31,000 to purchase a custom hardwood table, chairs and a hutch for Secretary Ben Carson’s office late last year, the New York Times reports.

The agency didn't seek congressional approval for the purchase, even though federal law mandates authorization from lawmakers to "furnish or redecorate the office of a department head” if the total cost is over $5,000, per the Times.

• What they're saying: A HUD spokesman told the Times that Carson “didn’t know the table had been purchased” but doesn't think it's overly expensive and has no plans to return it, the Times said.
• Why it matters: Carson is also facing scrutiny and a probe by his agency’s inspector general into his son’s involvement in an agency-sponsored listening tour in Baltimore last year. Attorneys at the agency had reportedly warned both that it could be conflict of interest.

You know, for all the griping about Carson's damn table, chairs and hutch, one'd think the NYT would include a photo of them or the room so folks would have some perspective on what was bought and replaced and what the room really is.

The "net net" of the story is that part of it strikes me as "so what, but maybe there's some 'there' there," and part of it strikes me as "there's clear law breaking there."

The Department of Housing and Urban Development used $31,000 to purchase a custom hardwood table, chairs and a hutch for Secretary Ben Carson’s office late last year, the New York Times reports.

I really don't care that HUD spent that much for a dining table, chairs, and server/hutch. It's for the HUD secretary's executive dining room. $31K isn't at all unreasonable. What I think is that most folks haven't the first idea of what an executive dining room is, and the NYT and others are availing themselves of the average person's ignorance about what an executive dining room actually is.

What an executive dining room is not is merely a place to eat. Indeed, eating often enough is the least of what goes on in an executive dining room. Such places, regardless of the "dining room" part of the description, are just conference rooms that have water hookups, munchies, china, soft drinks, etc. stored in a hutch that's long/large enough for food and drinks to be placed in a buffet fashion.

This is James Mattis' executive dining room. It looks like it might be a 14-person table.

Here are some others.

I don't know if any of you have ever purchased a table that seats 20 people. Let me tell you. They ain't cheap, and if they happen to be equipped with electronic hookups and gizmos, they're even less cheap. I suspect the table in Carson's exec dining room is one of those "21st century" type tables similar to the one's pictured above, and I think that because the NYT describes it as a custom hardwood table. That's exactly what they are: buyers can specify the materials, features and dimensions, and the tables often enough are made from hardwood. If Carson's table is even roughly like the "tech enabled" tables above, it's easily a $10K table, and that's if it's hardwood veneers over pressboard.

Then there're the chairs. I don't know how many people the table seats, but having furnished the offices of my old firm, I know damn well what office chairs cost. Basic ergonomic office chairs are pricey -- Modern Office Chairs - Herman Miller Official Store -- or at least pricier than I suspect the "average person" thinks they are. Put 14 to 20 of those suckers around a table and it's very possible, depending on the table, that the chairs together cost more than the table.

As for the hutch, well, the second and last two generic photos above have hutches in them. If you've remodeled a kitchen, you know that cabinets are the single priciest part of doing so. It's no different anywhere else.

So just ballparking some numbers in my head...

• Table: $10,000
• Charis $15,000
• Hutch: $3,000

...$31,000 doesn't strike me as outlandish for a table, chairs and hutch in an executive dining room that is really just the senior-most executive's dedicated conference room....though in the case of departmental secretaries, it's quite likely a room shared -- for work and personal uses -- with the Secretary's direct reports.

The reality of life for principals and the people who work directly for and with them is that rarely does eating lunch (and often enough breakfast and dinner) consist of just eating and making idle, non-work-related chit chat. Quite often too, the execs' administrative assistants and other senior level staff will take their lunches in that room, host office gatherings (birthday, wedding, promotion, interviews, etc.), conduct working sessions, etc. when the Secretary is out of the office or has no meeting scheduled.

The agency didn't seek congressional approval for the purchase, even though federal law mandates authorization from lawmakers to "furnish or redecorate the office of a department head” if the total cost is over $5,000, per the Times.

Unauthorized encumbering/spending, unlike the furniture cost itself and that the HUD Secy's exec dining room furniture was replaced, is something I find problematic. While I think the sum of $5K being the threshold for requiring a Congressional appropriation to replace furniture and fixtures, the fact of the matter is that $5K is the threshold; thus Carson (his staff) should have complied with it and requested the appropriation for the purchases.

Because Carson didn't obtain the appropriation for the furniture, what happened -- because it's the only way it could have happened if taxpayer money paid for the furniture -- is that money expressly appropriated for something other than furniture and fixtures in Carson's office was used to buy the table, chairs and cabinet. Now I have no idea from what appropriation the funding was taken, but I know that's what had to happen.

Failing to comply with a very simple and straightforward law such as the one re: furniture and fixture replacement appropriations is emblematic of what happens when people who don't know what they're doing are put in decision making positions.

I don't know who made the decision to order the furniture and fixtures; I don't even care who did. Whoever it is does not know what they're doing and, assuming they didn't willfully disregard the law, they didn't check before taking action and binding the government. People who handle their jobs/duties so perfunctorily don't deserve to hold them. Ditto for people who had no better judgment than to hire such employees.

No appointed officials absolutely have to have prior government experience. Every appointed official must, however, exhibit the due diligence that comes with whatever level of experience they have. And that means the less experience one has, the more circumspection one is obliged to exhibit. And let's be honest. It doesn't take much circumspection at all to simply check the HUD procurement guidelines and follow them so as not to break the law. "You can't spend more than $5K" isn't a difficult or complex guideline/law to understand and follow. Of course, if my experiences here and what I've seen in the news about Trump, reading is not fundamental among Republicans.

Update:

From a news report of which I today saw only the tail end, it may well be that Carson did indeed buy what amounts to a dining table, chairs and hutch roughly comparable to those one might have in one's home. To the extent that is indeed what Carson (his staff) did do, I do have a problem with his spending $31K to do so.

I don't think $31K is an inordinate sum for one to spend to furnish their own "posh" living room. I do, however, think it's somewhat on the high side for a government official, particularly given that I know from my own experience that for $31K, one can obtain far more utility than just a friggin' table, chairs and hutch can provide.

If all one's going to get is a new dining table (rather than an important antique) more or less like one of these....

​

...and matching/coordinating chairs and hutch, there is simply no reason Carson could not have found any number of suitable and reasonably "posh" dining sets.

The tables above are antiques and cost upwards of $10K each; however, if that's what Carson wanted, all he (his staff) needed to do is reach out to the GSA and select something from its extensive inventory of fine furniture.

As I said, the whole matter is yet another manifestation of Carson and his staff's novelty with government procurement. Reaching out to the GSA, rather than taking the matter into their own hands, is what they should have done in the first place. One of the GSA's key functions is to exploit the federal government's buying power/quantities, along with subject matter expertise, to minimize the sums paid to procure furniture, fixtures, supplies, etc. that government offices need.

• Furniture
  
• Executive Wood Furniture
  
• Fine Arts Collection

For all I know, HUD may have a program similar to State's "heritage assets" program whereby the Secretary can have installed into his/her office items from the department's collection of "nice stuff."​

Carson cancelled the order yesterday, saying he was as surprised as everyone else at the cost of the items he had chosen. Two staffers of his said that they were demoted for refusing to break the $5,000 budget cap on such furniture.
Carson is lying, but at least he cancelled the dining set. The media's job as watchdog again wins.

BTW, You couldn't pay me $10,000 for table #3. The "legs" do nothing but get in the way of the chairs and it's butt ugly.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Ben Carson really is a fool.

Carson has $31K dining set in his office, paid for by taxpayers

The Department of Housing and Urban Development used $31,000 to purchase a custom hardwood table, chairs and a hutch for Secretary Ben Carson’s office late last year, the New York Times reports.

The agency didn't seek congressional approval for the purchase, even though federal law mandates authorization from lawmakers to "furnish or redecorate the office of a department head” if the total cost is over $5,000, per the Times.

• What they're saying: A HUD spokesman told the Times that Carson “didn’t know the table had been purchased” but doesn't think it's overly expensive and has no plans to return it, the Times said.
• Why it matters: Carson is also facing scrutiny and a probe by his agency’s inspector general into his son’s involvement in an agency-sponsored listening tour in Baltimore last year. Attorneys at the agency had reportedly warned both that it could be conflict of interest.

You know, for all the griping about Carson's damn table, chairs and hutch, one'd think the NYT would include a photo of them or the room so folks would have some perspective on what was bought and replaced and what the room really is.

The "net net" of the story is that part of it strikes me as "so what, but maybe there's some 'there' there," and part of it strikes me as "there's clear law breaking there."

The Department of Housing and Urban Development used $31,000 to purchase a custom hardwood table, chairs and a hutch for Secretary Ben Carson’s office late last year, the New York Times reports.

I really don't care that HUD spent that much for a dining table, chairs, and server/hutch. It's for the HUD secretary's executive dining room. $31K isn't at all unreasonable. What I think is that most folks haven't the first idea of what an executive dining room is, and the NYT and others are availing themselves of the average person's ignorance about what an executive dining room actually is.

What an executive dining room is not is merely a place to eat. Indeed, eating often enough is the least of what goes on in an executive dining room. Such places, regardless of the "dining room" part of the description, are just conference rooms that have water hookups, munchies, china, soft drinks, etc. stored in a hutch that's long/large enough for food and drinks to be placed in a buffet fashion.

This is James Mattis' executive dining room. It looks like it might be a 14-person table.

Here are some others.

I don't know if any of you have ever purchased a table that seats 20 people. Let me tell you. They ain't cheap, and if they happen to be equipped with electronic hookups and gizmos, they're even less cheap. I suspect the table in Carson's exec dining room is one of those "21st century" type tables similar to the one's pictured above, and I think that because the NYT describes it as a custom hardwood table. That's exactly what they are: buyers can specify the materials, features and dimensions, and the tables often enough are made from hardwood. If Carson's table is even roughly like the "tech enabled" tables above, it's easily a $10K table, and that's if it's hardwood veneers over pressboard.

Then there're the chairs. I don't know how many people the table seats, but having furnished the offices of my old firm, I know damn well what office chairs cost. Basic ergonomic office chairs are pricey -- Modern Office Chairs - Herman Miller Official Store -- or at least pricier than I suspect the "average person" thinks they are. Put 14 to 20 of those suckers around a table and it's very possible, depending on the table, that the chairs together cost more than the table.

As for the hutch, well, the second and last two generic photos above have hutches in them. If you've remodeled a kitchen, you know that cabinets are the single priciest part of doing so. It's no different anywhere else.

So just ballparking some numbers in my head...

• Table: $10,000
• Charis $15,000
• Hutch: $3,000

...$31,000 doesn't strike me as outlandish for a table, chairs and hutch in an executive dining room that is really just the senior-most executive's dedicated conference room....though in the case of departmental secretaries, it's quite likely a room shared -- for work and personal uses -- with the Secretary's direct reports.

The reality of life for principals and the people who work directly for and with them is that rarely does eating lunch (and often enough breakfast and dinner) consist of just eating and making idle, non-work-related chit chat. Quite often too, the execs' administrative assistants and other senior level staff will take their lunches in that room, host office gatherings (birthday, wedding, promotion, interviews, etc.), conduct working sessions, etc. when the Secretary is out of the office or has no meeting scheduled.

The agency didn't seek congressional approval for the purchase, even though federal law mandates authorization from lawmakers to "furnish or redecorate the office of a department head” if the total cost is over $5,000, per the Times.

Unauthorized encumbering/spending, unlike the furniture cost itself and that the HUD Secy's exec dining room furniture was replaced, is something I find problematic. While I think the sum of $5K being the threshold for requiring a Congressional appropriation to replace furniture and fixtures, the fact of the matter is that $5K is the threshold; thus Carson (his staff) should have complied with it and requested the appropriation for the purchases.

Because Carson didn't obtain the appropriation for the furniture, what happened -- because it's the only way it could have happened if taxpayer money paid for the furniture -- is that money expressly appropriated for something other than furniture and fixtures in Carson's office was used to buy the table, chairs and cabinet. Now I have no idea from what appropriation the funding was taken, but I know that's what had to happen.

Failing to comply with a very simple and straightforward law such as the one re: furniture and fixture replacement appropriations is emblematic of what happens when people who don't know what they're doing are put in decision making positions.

I don't know who made the decision to order the furniture and fixtures; I don't even care who did. Whoever it is does not know what they're doing and, assuming they didn't willfully disregard the law, they didn't check before taking action and binding the government. People who handle their jobs/duties so perfunctorily don't deserve to hold them. Ditto for people who had no better judgment than to hire such employees.

No appointed officials absolutely have to have prior government experience. Every appointed official must, however, exhibit the due diligence that comes with whatever level of experience they have. And that means the less experience one has, the more circumspection one is obliged to exhibit. And let's be honest. It doesn't take much circumspection at all to simply check the HUD procurement guidelines and follow them so as not to break the law. "You can't spend more than $5K" isn't a difficult or complex guideline/law to understand and follow. Of course, if my experiences here and what I've seen in the news about Trump, reading is not fundamental among Republicans.

Update:

From a news report of which I today saw only the tail end, it may well be that Carson did indeed buy what amounts to a dining table, chairs and hutch roughly comparable to those one might have in one's home. To the extent that is indeed what Carson (his staff) did do, I do have a problem with his spending $31K to do so.

I don't think $31K is an inordinate sum for one to spend to furnish their own "posh" living room. I do, however, think it's somewhat on the high side for a government official, particularly given that I know from my own experience that for $31K, one can obtain far more utility than just a friggin' table, chairs and hutch can provide.

If all one's going to get is a new dining table (rather than an important antique) more or less like one of these....

​

...and matching/coordinating chairs and hutch, there is simply no reason Carson could not have found any number of suitable and reasonably "posh" dining sets.

The tables above are antiques and cost upwards of $10K each; however, if that's what Carson wanted, all he (his staff) needed to do is reach out to the GSA and select something from its extensive inventory of fine furniture.

As I said, the whole matter is yet another manifestation of Carson and his staff's novelty with government procurement. Reaching out to the GSA, rather than taking the matter into their own hands, is what they should have done in the first place. One of the GSA's key functions is to exploit the federal government's buying power/quantities, along with subject matter expertise, to minimize the sums paid to procure furniture, fixtures, supplies, etc. that government offices need.

• Furniture
  
• Executive Wood Furniture
  
• Fine Arts Collection

For all I know, HUD may have a program similar to State's "heritage assets" program whereby the Secretary can have installed into his/her office items from the department's collection of "nice stuff."​

Carson cancelled the order yesterday, saying he was as surprised as everyone else at the cost of the items he had chosen. Two staffers of his said that they were demoted for refusing to break the $5,000 budget cap on such furniture.
Carson is lying, but at least he cancelled the dining set. The media's job as watchdog again wins.

BTW, You couldn't pay me $10,000 for table #3. The "legs" do nothing but get in the way of the chairs and it's butt ugly.

Off-topic:

You couldn't pay me $10,000 for table #3. The "legs" do nothing but get in the way of the chairs and it's butt ugly.

Some folks like Federal/Duncan Phyfe style casegoods and some don't.

I guess I don't have much of a strong feeling one way or the other about most Renaissance to 19th century furniture and interior design themes. I was raised in a house loaded with that sort of styling, so the "dead kings and queens" (aka "period") styles and motifs just strike me as "meh" in the way styles that are immensely familiar often enough can. My siblings and I will inherit that stuff from Momma and if any of them are especially desirous of any given piece(s), they can have it, but by the same token, I won't reject any of them because the styling can be made to work with things I have or given to my kids as starter pieces for their homes.

And let's be honest. Anyone who spends $10K+ on a dining table does so for two reasons: they can and they like the look. After all, having that sum to spend on a table, one isn't faced with a paucity of styles one might choose. LOL

So while, unlike you, one most certainly could either pay me $10K for table #3 or pay me that $10K to own it. Though it's not my preferred style, I don't detest it so much that I couldn't be paid to happily own and use it.

De gustibus non disputandum est.​

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why are democrats acting like Ben Carson bought furniture for himself on the taxpayer's dime? You do know that it's not his furniture? I mean you aren't that stupidly dense. This furniture might last successive Secretaries 20 years or more.

In any case, the order was cancelled.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Those in charge have been picking our pockets for ever, what really upsets me is that Carson is unqualified for the post he holds, what he knows is medicine not management.

No, he never lived in the projects in the inner city with his single Mom when he was growing up and never managed a large organization such as a hospital department.

What are your qualifications?