Inauguration funds: A better use?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

There's become some murmured discussion throughout the country recently that President Bush is being a bit greedy for spending almost $40 million on his second term inauguration. I thought I'd poll the room and see what some people think.

 

The inauguration ceremonies include somewhere around nine formal balls, a parade, a music concert including some current big names, and a nighttime fireworks display. Money for this is being diverted from, among other places, Homeland Security funds.

 

In previous eras, inaugurations were pretty short and simple when the country was at war, because there was no reason to waste government funds on celebrating political victories when soldiers were fighting overseas. With more and more stories of soldiers in Iraq unable to get what they need, some people think it's time to follow this old tradition. $40 million could buy quite a bit of body armor.

 

Then there's some people who think it would be more humanitarian to use this money to send aid to the countries hit by that big tsunami. Personally, I can't really say that I think this is the best use of our money considering the flood of aid pouring into the region already, but it's still a better use of public funds than Washington power players shmoozing at a party while Hillary Duff performs onstage.

 

And then there's some people who don't have any problem with the current budget for this event.

 

So, what's your opinion?

[MrRant 0]

Scale it down as $40 million is ridiculous IMO and use the money for something else.

 

Though I don't think I'd give it to the tsnunami victims as we are giving quite a bit. I'd use it for either the troops or on something within the US.

[Vern Gagne 0]

How much of the 40 is being spent on security.

[Jingus 0]

How anyone could possibly justify spending $40 mil in ONE DAY on a bunch of useless parties, I have no idea.

[MrRant 0]

How anyone could possibly justify spending $40 mil in ONE DAY on a bunch of useless parties, I have no idea.

Cheap women?

[The Robfather 0]

Let them party, I say.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I voted other, but I dont know what to do with the $40 million. I thought about the Mudslide victims out in CA, but they'll eventually get Government money anyway. The Tsunami victims charity stuff annoys me because Indonesia doesn't even want the aid workers there and are going to force them to leave in March even though originally they said it could take years for them to help everyone to get back to normal. So they can't possibly spend the money they've gotten in 3 months, so I question where all that money is going to be headed. $40 million to the military probably wouldnt even buy 1 new tank, probably half a tank if it had armor on it.

 

Bush could have taken out a 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl and said.."Im still your President..na na na na" and I bet FOX would have run it.

[Tawren 0]

Scale it the fuck down and put the money towards the massive fucking debt the country has.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Scale it the fuck down and put the money towards the massive fucking debt the country has.

Well..

 

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

 

So, the debt as of the 13th was:

 

$7,601,173,485,023.73

 

So, we put the $40 million towards the debt and..

 

*drumroll*

 

SHOW ME THOSE NUMBERS!

 

$7,601,133,485,023.73

 

Not really a good use of $40 million...

[Tawren 0]

It'll never go down until money is put towards it. Any amount of money would help. Would you rather it go up to $7,601,213,485,023.73? Of course not.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

Throw it into education, and hopefully make kids a little smarter.

[tommytomlin 0]

Why not make the winning party pay for their leader's inauguration celebration, and let the government just pay for security and the official stuff?

[Justice 0]

Eh, Clinton spent 30 Million himself on his own second inauguration. Frankly, I'd rather see them be a bit more dignified, but I'd hardly attribute this to just Bush. :\

 

Edit: I picked other. I don't see a reason why any inauguration should be near that much. Can't we have something less expensive and more dignified?

[cbacon 0]

All should be contributed towards reperations in rebuilding Iraq in regards to invading their contirues based on lies or 'faulty information' if you will.

 

All this talk of inaguration would be a bizzare concept to any other nation that had a war criminal as it's cheif in commander , but since iit's the US, representaitive of all that is good, then it can slide right?

[Austin3164life 0]

Donate it to the education of the kids down there in Jesusland, near the Holy Areas of Texas, Alabama, etc.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Why not make the winning party pay for their leader's inauguration celebration, and let the government just pay for security and the official stuff?

Too the victor go the Spoils. Make the losing party pay for it.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Are the Inauguration funds public or private money? If it's public money, I think there should be a budget for this event that gets increased annually by adjusting for inflation and each POTUS should adhere to this amount, with any overrun costs having to be paid for by private donations. If it's private money, then I don't care.

 

Oh, crap. I made, imo, a decent post. I can't have this.

 

Um, ok, here we go. In order to lighten the public costs, perhaps a certain cable news network whose LOL I haven't yet done in 2005 could sponsor the whole gala...

[Guest sek69]

My only complaint is even if its paid for by private donors, why couldn't any of these OMG SUPPORT THE TROOPZ~! republicans find any change lying around to send to Iraq so our soliders aren't out there with their balls hanging out in vehicles with little or no armor?

 

Pointing out that Clinton's was expensive too doesn't really compare since we didn't have the level of military involvement we do now.

 

(p.s.: Don't read this to imply I'm a troop-hating liberal that you always hear about on Fox News. I'm just getting tired of hearing conservatives wave their dicks in people's faces about how much they love the troops but they don't even want to acknowledge the mess the troops are in)

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And of course if someone gives money to the Inauguration they aren't giving money to support other causes...

[Guest SideFXs]

Only the media could whip up a frenzy about the deficit (WHICH IS SHRINKING, DUE TO THE TAX CUTS- Federal revenue is up 10%, since the cuts) and the opulent cost of the Inaugural among Liberal whackos.

 

Now they complain about a better use for that private money such as better armor for the military, when it was their candidate for President who voted against that Federal funding.

 

BTW , FDR had very magnificent Inaugural balls, but in 1945 he was sick from heart disease therefore he had a smaller more private celebration. It was not because of WWII!! Truman and LBJ had some pretty nice parties during war.

 

Liberals sure love the class envy card. But, you can bet Kerry and Kennedy would have all of Washington and Boston lit up with twice the costs of an inaugural celebration. And there would be no outrage in the media about the cost or about security costs. You can bet ASS !

 

They’ll try anything to sway public opinion against the President, even if it makes them hypocrites.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Where do you get this "The budget is shrinking!!!!!!!" info, btw?

 

Because your numbers seem to be coming out of thin air. The deficit has risen to record levels.

[Jingus 0]

Are the Inauguration funds public or private money? If it's public money, I think there should be a budget for this event that gets increased annually by adjusting for inflation and each POTUS should adhere to this amount, with any overrun costs having to be paid for by private donations. If it's private money, then I don't care.

Read the link in the first post, it's all in there. The $40,000,000 figure will be paid by private donors, but it doesn't include any security expenses, which must be paid by the Washington DC local government to the tune of $17,300,000. Furthermore, the Bush administration has refused to reimburse DC for any of that money, so $11,900,000 is going to have to be diverted from DC's own Homeland Security funds.

 

Only the media could whip up a frenzy about the deficit (WHICH IS SHRINKING, DUE TO THE TAX CUTS- Federal revenue is up 10%, since the cuts)

 

Firstly, "the media" never mentioned the deficit in this case; Tawren did.

 

Secondly: even if the deficit is shrinking (which I've seen no evidence of whatsoever), it doesn't change the fact that, four years ago, THERE WAS NO DEFICIT. During Bush's administration, America has gone into debt at the rate of almost two trillion (that's with a T as in Tax cuts) dollars per year. Now, one might argue over whose fault this is, but please don't try to claim that our economy is doing just peachy these days.

 

and the opulent cost of the Inaugural among Liberal whackos.

 

With just one word, "whackos", you've instantly alienated half the people who might be reading this thread, and now they won't listen to any of your further arguments, regardless of how right you may be.

 

Now they complain about a better use for that private money such as better armor for the military, when it was their candidate for President who voted against that Federal funding.

 

1. Who knew that armor was such an issue until that one soldier bitchslapped Rumsfeld with that now-infamous pop question during the press conference?

 

2. So Kerry voted against the funding. So? Obviously, he didn't have the support of ALL the liberals in this country or else he would've won the election.

 

BTW , FDR had very magnificent Inaugural balls,

 

Sources?

 

but in 1945 he was sick from heart disease therefore he had a smaller more private celebration. It was not because of WWII!!

 

That would be filed under "What If", since none of us know for sure what would've happened if FDR had been healthy.

 

Truman and LBJ had some pretty nice parties during war.

 

Again, some sources with actual dollar amounts would be nice. And even if all three of 'em did have lavish wartime inauguration parties, that still doesn't make it right.

 

Liberals sure love the class envy card. But, you can bet Kerry and Kennedy would have all of Washington and Boston lit up with twice the costs of an inaugural celebration.

 

Once again, "What If", since it's all idle speculation because Kerry did not win and nobody can say for sure what would've happened.

 

And there would be no outrage in the media about the cost or about security costs. You can bet ASS !

 

There sure as hell would've been outrage in the media; that's the media's damn job, bitching about the people in charge of this country. At least Fox would've harped about it if nobody else. And exactly how does one "bet ASS"?

 

They’ll try anything to sway public opinion against the President, even if it makes them hypocrites.

 

The only way someone could be a hypocrit in this situation is if they themselves had spent fifty-seven million, three hundred thousand dollars on their own wartime inauguration party.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

BTW ,  FDR had very magnificent...balls

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

BTW ,  FDR had very magnificent...balls

Source?!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

[Justice 0]

BTW ,  FDR had very magnificent...balls

Source?!

It's a well known fact that AC/DC's "Big Balls" song is supposed to be FDR speaking. Apparently he sounded like a gay british fop. o.0

[Guest Deadbolt]

I don't really think it should be spent on one set thing. They need to split it up into social welfare programs, school systems, and the environment. Why do you need a 40 million dollar party?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Wow, that URL does a really nice job of showing how gridlock keeps the debt down.

[NoCalMike 0]

As Jingus pointed out, I think the bigger dick-move then the 40 million, is the fact that Washington DC is having to take money out of there homeland security funds to spend 11+ million on this, and where as every other inaguration, the city has been reimbursed for their bill, for some unknown reason, the whitehouse refuses to reimburse DC. I see they are taking homeland security....very seriously.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Well, DC voted for Kerry, so I guess this is Bush's "fuck you" to them.

 

I don't think that it is a good idea for any President to accept such large sums of money from corporations. This type of action creates the wrong impression, even if no special favors are being given to the Corps in return for the funds.