Inauguration funds: A better use?

[Vern Gagne 0]

To celbrate the festivities surrounding the swearing-in Fox News Brigitte Quinn interviewed a Vanity Fair Editor to comment on how exciting the galas are and such. Linked below is the roughly 3 minute video of a Fox News Meltdown.

 

Fox News interview w/ Vanity Fair editor

Although the Fox News anchor was clearly ambushed here, it is still quite amusing that she had really no defense for anything said.

She had plenty of defense. FDR's last inagural in 1944 was so low key because of his ill health. He died like 6 weeks later. She should of come out asked if she would of cared about price if it was John Kerry. She should pointed out most of the money is private donations, and only like 3-4 million goes to security.

[Jingus 0]

She should pointed out most of the money is private donations, and only like 3-4 million goes to security.

 

Nope, check out the first page of the thread.

 

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

[The Czech Republic 0]

Seriously, she just spouted a bunch of "Fashionable Liberal" cliffnotes at the taken off-guard anchor.

I don't understand why it's so fashionable to be a liberal. What's so hip about high taxes and a big plodding bureaucracy?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

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

 

They should pass the hat at one of their screw-the-poor meetings. I'm sure Cheney could spot a $10, or $10,000,000...

[Vern Gagne 0]

She should pointed out most of the money is private donations, and only like 3-4 million goes to security.

 

Nope, check out the first page of the thread.

 

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

My bad.Well, at least it's for security and not for Bush's cowboy boots.

[Gert T 0]

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

 

They should pass the hat at one of their screw-the-poor meetings. I'm sure Cheney could spot a $10, or $10,000,000...

"You know I'd love to pay, but I think I left my wallet at home."

[Vyce 0]

She should pointed out most of the money is private donations, and only like 3-4 million goes to security.

 

Nope, check out the first page of the thread.

 

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

My bad.Well, at least it's for security and not for Bush's cowboy boots.

I blame this on the liberals.

 

If they didn't hate Bush so much, often irrationally, then a few mill could have been shaved off that bill for security.

[cbacon 0]

American Progress would like you peruse the cost of this week’s coronation…

“A look at this week's festivities by the numbers:

 

$40 million: Cost of Bush inaugural ball festivities, not counting security costs.

 

$2,000: Amount FDR spent on the inaugural in 1945…about $20,000 in today's dollars.

 

$20,000: Cost of yellow roses purchased for inaugural festivities by D.C.'s Ritz Carlton.

 

200: Number of Humvees outfitted with top-of-the-line armor for troops in Iraq that could have been purchased with the amount of money blown on the inauguration.

 

$10,000: Price of an inaugural package at the Fairmont Hotel, which includes a Beluga caviar and Dom Perignon reception, a chauffeured Rolls Royce and two actors posing as "faux" Secret Service agents, complete with black sunglasses and cufflink walkie-talkies.

 

400: Pounds of lobster provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the exclusive Mandarin Oriental hotel.

 

3,000: Number of "Laura Bush Cowboy cookies" provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the Mandarin hotel.

 

$1: Amount per guest President Carter spent on snacks for guests at his inaugural parties. To stick to a tight budget, he served pretzels, peanuts, crackers and cheese and had cash bars.

 

22 million: Number of children in regions devastated by the tsunami who could have received vaccinations and preventive health care with the amount of money spent on the inauguration.

 

1,160,000: Number of girls who could be sent to school for a year in Afghanistan with the amount of money lavished on the inauguration.

 

$15,000: The down payment to rent a fur coat paid by one gala attendee who didn't want the hassle of schlepping her own through the airport.

 

$200,500: Price of a room package at D.C.'s Mandarin Oriental, including presidential suite, chauffeured Mercedes limo and outfits from Neiman Marcus.

 

2,500: Number of U.S. troops used to stand guard as President Bush takes his oath of office

 

26,000: Number of Kevlar vests for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that could be purchased for $40 million.

 

$290: Bonus that could go to each American solider serving in Iraq, if inauguration funds were used for that purpose.

 

$6.3 million: Amount contributed by the finance and investment industry, which works out to be 25 percent of all the money collected.

 

$17 million: Amount of money the White House is forcing the cash-strapped city of Washington, D.C., to pony up for inauguration security.

 

9: Percentage of D.C. residents who voted for Bush in 2004.

 

66: Percentage of Americans who think this over-the-top inauguration should have been scaled back.”

[Vern Gagne 0]

Do you even care about the money being spent? Or is it who the money's being spent on?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Seriously, she just spouted a bunch of "Fashionable Liberal" cliffnotes at the taken off-guard anchor.

I don't understand why it's so fashionable to be a liberal. What's so hip about high taxes and a big plodding bureaucracy?

Because when the rapture comes and all you conservatives go up to Jesus, we got dibs on all your stuff.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Seriously, she just spouted a bunch of "Fashionable Liberal" cliffnotes at the taken off-guard anchor.

I don't understand why it's so fashionable to be a liberal. What's so hip about high taxes and a big plodding bureaucracy?

Probably has something to do with the fact that the conservatives are regressive and traditional rather than progressive and open-minded. Also, last I checked, the Republicans haven't exactly done much in the way of lowering taxes or minimizing this so-called plodding bureaucracy.

[Vyce 0]

Do you even care about the money being spent? Or is it who the money's being spent on?

That's a rhetorical question, right?

 

I mean, this IS C-Bacon we're talking about.

[sfaJack 0]

Also, last I checked, the Republicans haven't exactly done much in the way of lowering taxes

Huh? Are you joking?

[Guest Vitamin X]

For the majority of people in this country.

 

Oh wait, what was I thinking sticking my liberal opinion in this conservative circle jerk of a folder? Go back to your Mikey Moore fat jokes kids, never mind.

[Justice 0]

American Progress would like you peruse the cost of this week’s coronation…

“A look at this week's festivities by the numbers:

 

$40 million: Cost of Bush inaugural ball festivities, not counting security costs.

Wow, and Clinton's was 30 Million. I doubt that the Democratic one would have been any less extravagant.

 

$2,000: Amount FDR spent on the inaugural in 1945…about $20,000 in today's dollars.

 

I doubt they would hold too big a party since he was pretty much on his DEATH BED. It's not good for a guy who is living on borrowed time to really party it up. That's what really kept the cost down, not the war.

 

200: Number of Humvees outfitted with top-of-the-line armor for troops in Iraq that could have been purchased with the amount of money blown on the inauguration.

 

If you actually knew anything about the story, the cost and buying the Humvees wasn't the problem. The real problem was the time it took to buy and update the current Humvees. Nice Straw man, though.

 

22 million: Number of children in regions devastated by the tsunami who could have received vaccinations and preventive health care with the amount of money spent on the inauguration.

 

So, with the 350 Million we are giving right now, we are saving 180 million people. Cool, thanks for proving how generous we really are.

 

26,000: Number of Kevlar vests for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that could be purchased for $40 million.

 

Uh, Kevlar is sort of, well, standard issue with our troops. The whole "We're buying body armor for our son" thing was pretty much out-of-context crap. I'm sure you knew this, though.

 

$290: Bonus that could go to each American solider serving in Iraq, if inauguration funds were used for that purpose.

 

So you want to give 290 to people who wantonly kill Iraq citizens, oppress their rights, and torture them without reason or mercy? Wow, now there's a 180. It's so cool that you can support the troops right now, yet shit all over them in just abuot every other post you make. *Thumbs up*

 

$17 million: Amount of money the White House is forcing the cash-strapped city of Washington, D.C., to pony up for inauguration security.

 

9: Percentage of D.C. residents who voted for Bush in 2004.

 

Wow, he still won 51%. Hell, Washington rarely pays for anything, anyways. Most of the stuff they get is funded by private donors. Look at the new baseball stadium they want: Inkeeping with tradition, the city is refusing to pay for half of it. I really don't weep for those in D.C.

[Justice 0]

For the majority of people in this country.

Uh, are you serious? The tax cut was across the board. There is pretty much no denying this. It's not "Only the rich", it was everyone.

[Guest Vitamin X]

For the record, I think there are far worse wastes of money than the inauguration as well. Let them celebrate an actual victory this time.

 

Uh, are you serious? The tax cut was across the board. There is pretty much no denying this. It's not "Only the rich", it was everyone.

 

It still favored the minority rather than the majority.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Do you even care about the money being spent? Or is it who the money's being spent on?

That money could buy a FUCKLOAD of armor to people being shot at. Sorry if the seats at the champagne ball are made of cloth instead of leather this year.

 

And "OMG KERRY WOULD PARTY HARDY TOO" doesn't apply and I don't know if it's just the people here saying that or if it's the latest whiny "Yeah, I know it's retarded but they're Republicans so I have to defend them" rebuttal being offered by the right wing bloggers and message board soapboxers. First of all, you don't justify anything if your response is a "what if" question. Second, $40 million in celebratory crap is inappropriate for any President, IMO, but I think a majority of people would say it's even more ludicrous if it's being spent on a man who's already President.

 

Come on, this pomp for a no-change? It's like a slap in the face ten seconds after the knee to your crotch.

 

Uh, Kevlar is sort of, well, standard issue with our troops. The whole "We're buying body armor for our son" thing was pretty much out-of-context crap. I'm sure you knew this, though.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Boy, are you out of touch. You've clearly never spoken with someone going over there telling you that their armor is "good if I'm going to get hit with a 2x4 or something, but shit out of luck for anything more deadly than that." You've clearly never chipped in to help buy armor.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Seriously, she just spouted a bunch of "Fashionable Liberal" cliffnotes at the taken off-guard anchor.

I don't understand why it's so fashionable to be a liberal. What's so hip about high taxes and a big plodding bureaucracy?

Probably has something to do with the fact that the conservatives are regressive and traditional rather than progressive and open-minded. Also, last I checked, the Republicans haven't exactly done much in the way of lowering taxes or minimizing this so-called plodding bureaucracy.

Whatever. I think one can dress well, see plays, and be educated, while still believing in small government and personal responsibility. They make it seem as if you can't have it both ways.

 

Also, blame the neocons of the party for wasteful spending. You should read Parliament of Whores if y'all haven't yet. P.J. O'Rourke rips apart all the late 80s politicians that cross his path.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Seriously, she just spouted a bunch of "Fashionable Liberal" cliffnotes at the taken off-guard anchor.

I don't understand why it's so fashionable to be a liberal. What's so hip about high taxes and a big plodding bureaucracy?

Probably has something to do with the fact that the conservatives are regressive and traditional rather than progressive and open-minded. Also, last I checked, the Republicans haven't exactly done much in the way of lowering taxes or minimizing this so-called plodding bureaucracy.

Whatever. I think one can dress well, see plays, and be educated, while still believing in small government and personal responsibility. They make it seem as if you can't have it both ways.

Believing in small government and personal responsibility? Libertarians do the same thing, it's pretty much their party platform last I checked. Unless that's what you were talking about, I wasn't exactly sure.

 

Also, blame the neocons of the party for wasteful spending. You should read Parliament of Whores if y'all haven't yet. P.J. O'Rourke rips apart all the late 80s politicians that cross his path.

 

I'll check it out once I get down the list of books being recommended to me. I've been a on a historical writing kick myself, lately. This is what I'm in the process of reading:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

 

Only $3.50 too.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Believing in small government and personal responsibility? Libertarians do the same thing, it's pretty much their party platform last I checked. Unless that's what you were talking about, I wasn't exactly sure.

Yeah I like libertarianism or classical liberalism, but the Libertarian Party is into stuff like full drug legalization, which I can't endorse with a good conscience. In a perfect world, the Republicans would move back closer to classical liberalism and abandon this neoconservative thing.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

See, I think if the Republicans were magically marginalized overnight and the Libertarians magically took their place at the same time, Democratic Candidate VS Libertarian Candidate would be a real nailbiter. Even some of the hard partisans on this forum on the left would probably move closer to the right.

 

This whole religious values shit weighs conservatives down in this country, I think. If they could cast that off, they'd be fucking SCARY, as there's plenty of people on the left who agree with them that we need to do what we must to remain a competitive superpower, but choose to side with the liberals because the Christian fanaticism and the party planks that take root in it scares them away.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Yeah. I think morality is a good thing and all, but even I think the Christian right is killing the GOP. Because for these guys, morality is like how sex is for some people: the more they talk about it, the less they have it. It seems like the raving pastors and ministers who say we need to emphasize family values, clean up our airwaves, and keep evil-lution out of public schools are more likely to get caught in the back alley behind a Washington strip club doing lines of cocaine off a Hispanic leather-clad transvestite prostitute named 'Topaz.'

[Justice 0]

Uh, Kevlar is sort of, well, standard issue with our troops. The whole "We're buying body armor for our son" thing was pretty much out-of-context crap. I'm sure you knew this, though.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Boy, are you out of touch. You've clearly never spoken with someone going over there telling you that their armor is "good if I'm going to get hit with a 2x4 or something, but shit out of luck for anything more deadly than that." You've clearly never chipped in to help buy armor.

Uh, okay. Considering I've met a ton of soldiers and military men, I think I know what the fuck they are wearing. Their body armor is meant to take small arms fire, block shrapnel, and provide some shielding from burns and such. Body armor vests have ALWAYS had problems with rifles since their power is much stronger than pistols and submachine guns (Which use pistol rounds). Most vests out there won't deflect or stop an AK round all that heartly, so it's not like this is anything new. So, to relate: They'll block most shrapnel (Which is what generally hurts soldiers most in battles), protect somewhat against momentary blasts, and will stop most pistol and submachine gun rounds. That's a BIT more than just a 2x4.

 

At any rate, there is a new type of body armor that just got into production that will stop such a round. As with all the other military objections in this thread, this isn't a spending problem. It's a production problem. The other problem is they've been trying to fix a cracking problem with the vests (They are made from a type of ceramics, interestingly enough. Same stuff that our Hummers are beign outfitted with), which presents a pretty bad defect which is why the Army hasn't outfitted as many people as they probably could. You can only produce so many of these things so quickly and the better vests are relatively new tech. But... we'll ignore that so you can have some semblence of an argument.

 

So, in conclusion: Shut up.

[Jingus 0]

You're both half right and half wrong.

 

All modern body armor is made from weaves of kevlar threads. There are several different "levels" of protection, and those are decided on by differences in the thickness of the kevlar weave and the number of metal or ceramic plates within the armor. Standard "bulletproof vests" like cops wear under their shirts are relatively thin, have no plates, and will only stop most pistol rounds. Full-on military tactical armor is very thick, very heavy, completely inflexible due to massive plating, and will stop damn near anything up to a 50 cal rifle bullet.

 

Different types of body armor are distributed to different types of soldiers, depending on such things as which branch they're in, the inherent danger of their missions, budgetary decisions, and plain ol' luck, like any other military supplies.

 

The problem is that the weaker kinds of armor are easily shredded by the rounds fired from an AK-47, which is the most common gun in the world and is the one most likely to be in a terrorist's hands. Roadside bomb shrapnel and grenades also tend to go through the lower-level stuff like it isn't even there. (A sharp-edged piece of flying shrapnel cuts thru the kevlar threads much easier than a blunt-nosed bullet.)

 

So, ALL the soldiers stationed in Iraq naturally want the heaviest, most protective armor they can get (aside from the few weirdos who prefer being cool & not sweating to being protected from enemy fire). There are two problems that keep this from happening:

 

1. Supply quantity. There just aren't that many of these top-quality vests around, and it takes a little time and a lot of money to make them.

 

2. Once armor has taken a hit, it must be replaced. The plates can crack, the kevlar can snap, all kinds of things happen. A "used" piece of armor is suspect at best in terms of being able to stop anything in the future. Hot desert conditions can sometimes prematurely warp and crack the plates as well.

 

That's why troops do not have the armor they'd prefer.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

About the humvee armor...

 

I thought I saw something by the company that armors them that production capacity was not a problem but it was just that the military simply wasn't asking for it. I'll see if I can find it.

[Justice 0]

About the humvee armor...

 

I thought I saw something by the company that armors them that production capacity was not a problem but it was just that the military simply wasn't asking for it. I'll see if I can find it.

As with you, I could have seen I saw an article saying they couldn't bolt it on fast enough. I know that conversion right now is a problem.

[Guest Vitamin X]

So, in conclusion: Shut up.

Well then, how can you argue with that overwhelming logic?

 

Also, an AK-47 is not a gun, it's a rifle.

[Justice 0]

So, in conclusion: Shut up.

Well then, how can you argue with that overwhelming logic?

 

Also, an AK-47 is not a gun, it's a rifle.

Uh, I never said it was. Recheck up there: I said "Submachine Guns". I referred both times to the AK as a rifle.

[Jingus 0]

No, I referred to it as a "gun". Which is technically correct, but let me restate it to be more exact: the AK-47 is the most common assault firearm in the world.