| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 707
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 9:25 am: | 
|
It's appalling that our president, in a time of war and with the body count still increasing in the wake of the tsunami, would spend an unprecidented amount of taxpayer money on his inaugural coronation, more than twice as much as has ever been spent before. Wouldn't this money be better spent on armor for our troops' vehicles? Some of it? But Bush would rather have the pomp, displaying an arrogance of power and an ego-centrism not seen since Caligula (maybe Napolean).
No wonder the world hates us.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2867
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
Napolean was competent. |
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 344
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
Besides the fact that this isn't why the world hates us, this argument just doesn't make sense to me. It implys that if the President didn't have the inaugural "pomp" that we would be able to put so much more $ into things like the war effort and the tsunami relief. That's simply not true. Also worthy to note that private donors have contributed much of the $ that went into the festivities, not the taxpayers (I'm sure that some of it is from taxes, but not all or perhaps not even a majority -- not really sure).
There's MUCH to criticize Bush for; I just don't think that this is on the list. |
overtaxdalready
Citizen
Username: Overtaxdalready
Post Number: 329
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Livingston's just grasping at straws (no, not him), as usual. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 615
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
LilLB, my only gripe about this is that the feds refuse to pay for the security that this will require. DC has to take their money out of hteir homeland security budget. Doesn't sound like a good use of those funds to me. Also, I don't think it's appropriate, in a time of war such as this, to be so lavish in celebrating an inauguration. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 708
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
overtaxdalready: your user name implies that you would be opposed to this embarrassment of riches. Many of Bush's wealthiest one percent friends are certainly springing for the $2,500 a plate pre- and after-parties. But the inauguration event itself, a $40 million-plus affair, is being fronted by you and me.
Why couldn't some of Bush's enthroning $$ be diverted to where it is needed?
Also, why the need to be overpoweringly ostentatious in the face of a world where the body count climbs in the countries hit by the tsunami and ordinary Iraqis can't get electricity?
|
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 345
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
How much of the security costs came from Massachusetts taxpayers' pockets for the Democratic National Convention?
The argument still doesn't hold water with me. It's like saying "Why are the cops so busy writing speeding tickets when they should be going after the real bad guys." (Which I've heard so many times it makes me nauseous). It implies that when one action is taken, another cannot be done; as if everything is mutually exclusive. It's not. If they're not putting more money into the war effort, it's not because they put too much into the inaugural ball, it's because they don't want to put more money into the war effort. So, it's ok to get angry with the administration for not putting enough money into the war effort, but don't try to make a connection between how much is being spent on the inauguration and the amount being put towards the war effort. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 710
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
LilLB: It's not so much the logistics of where the money comes from and where it goes, it's what it represents, and what it says to the rest of the world. Whereas other presidents, especially other "war" presidents, kept their inaugurations moderate and tasteful, our president Bush is throwing himself a party worthy of some of the greatest emperors, kings, dictators and czars the world has ever known. It's Bush's intemperance and self-gratification more than the actual $$ that is a national shame.
|
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 346
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Actually, other presidents did the same thing -- the party still went on despite wartime. I don't like Bush any more than the next guy, but still can't seem to get up in arms about this one (too many other valid things to dislike Bush for IMHO)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/politics/16tone-top.html |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 616
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
LilLB, I can't speak to Robert's points about he war effort. My issues are with the costs being forced upon DC, and with the impression that the level of celebration gives in this, a time of war.
Regarding the RNC and the DNC, Boston and New York lobbied to have these conventions. They knew the costs of security in advance, and chose to put themselves in the running for the conventions. I hope that the economic benefit of having all those visitors outweighs the costs assocaited with it.
I don't want you to think this is a huge issue for me. In the grand scheme of things, it's piss in the ocean. But it's just one more thing... |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 711
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
That was an interesting article, LilLb. Still, we won't see Bush express even a modicum of self-restraint and reverence toward other world events.
Hopefully, the counter-inaugration activities will gain considerable attention and stain his party. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3036
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
Counter-demonstrators have tossing parties, and I read today of a cruise to Cozumel with the same theme.
On an inflation adjusted basis, Clinton spent more in 1997 on his inaugural. That's the 'unprecedented' monetary sum to beat. |
SoOrLady
Citizen
Username: Soorlady
Post Number: 1706
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
LilB - couldn't open your article, but I heard on the news this morning that during WWII, FDR opted to have a small swearing in ceremony followed by chicken salad and pound cake. He felt it was inappropriate to have a gala event.
Would the money have gone to better equip our troops? Guess we'll never know... I find this extravagant inaugural event just one more reason to dislike Bush. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 715
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
From AP:
Estimates on the cost of the Bush inauguration have wavered in the $30 million to $40 million range, maybe as high as $50 million for three or four days of events.
That’s about what it costs the administration to execute the war in Iraq for about five hours. Or how much the Harley-Davidson Motor Company has raised since 1980 to benefit the Muscular Dystrophy Association.
That money could also buy:
•Two hundred armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
•Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.
•A down payment on the nation's deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 716
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
(From AP):
D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams has estimated it will cost the district $17.3 million to help pay for security at the first post-Sept. 11 inauguration, which includes 6,000 law officers and 2,500 military personnel to guard the 250,000 people at the swearing-in and the half-million expected to line the parade route.
Williams, in a letter last month to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, said he can use $5.4 million from a fund for special events in the capital, but the other $11.9 million will have to come from the city's federal homeland security budget.
The expenses, Williams said, include $5.3 million in overtime costs for police officers and $2.9 million to cover logistics costs, such as transportation, lodging, box lunches, water and granola bars.
The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, which is responsible for the swearing-in ceremony, has $1.25 million to handle various production costs, such as staffing and printing, as well as catering and flowers for the luncheon in the Capitol following the oath of office.
The Architect of the Capitol also has a budget of $2.8 million as part of a construction project to spruce up the West Front of the Capitol, where the ceremonies will take place.
Inauguration day, with its street closings and heightened security, will also be a holiday for federal workers in the Washington area. That, according to the Office of Personnel Management, costs taxpayers an estimated $66 million.
|
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 347
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Actually SOLady, from what I've read about that - the decision by FDR to keep the pomp to a minimum had more to do with his failing health than respect for the war. Or, who knows...maybe FDR wanted to cut the ceremonies short so he could go spend more time with his mistress... |
Director
Citizen
Username: Director
Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Read on folks. Many of the cost are being paid for by private donors and event tickets. Also, the price is no more than the previous presidents inauguration.
--------
Inaugural price tag in line with history
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Associated Press moved a story that asked, "With that kind of money, what could you buy?" The answer, the wire service said: "200 armored Humvees ... vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children ... and a down payment on the nation's deficit."
But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.
According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the equivalent of $49.5 in 2004.
The significant majority of funding for this year's festivities, including nine officials balls, are from private donations and tickets for events held by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, a similar setup to fund raising Mr. Clinton used to underwrite his inauguration. Mr. Clinton had a record 12 balls in 1997.
A Jan. 20, 1997, story by USA Today estimated about $12.7 million of Mr. Clinton's inauguration was financed by U.S. taxpayers. Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm
----------------
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/inauguration.costs.ap/
Private money to pay for $40 million inauguration
While the partying is being paid for privately, there have been some mutterings about the scale of the celebrations at a time of war and natural disaster.
Money for the celebratory activities is being raised by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which as of the end of last week had received $18 million, much in six-figure donations from wealthy supporters and corporate sponsors.
Among the dozens of $250,000 donors are Home Depot, Bank of America Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ford Motor Co. Kevin Sheridan, a spokesman for the committee, said the fund-raisers were confident they would reach their goals. Sales of inaugural memorabilia, another source of revenue, have been even better than in 2001, he said.
The big donors are rewarded with a variety of inaugural packages, including meetings with political VIPs, tickets to the swearing-in ceremony and parade, and hard-to-get entry into the official inaugural balls and dinners.
The events begin Tuesday with a salute to the troops and a youth concert. On Wednesday there will be a celebration on the Ellipse, including a fireworks show, and three candlelight dinners.
On Thursday afternoon, after Bush takes the oath of office at the Capitol, some 11,000 people will take part in a parade from the Capitol down Pennsylvania Avenue, to the White House. That night there will be nine official balls.
Bleacher seats for the parade cost $15, $60 and $125 apiece, while a ticket to a ball -- with the exception of one ball for military personnel, which is free -- runs $150.
The office of the first lady said Laura Bush will personally pay for her outfits to inaugural events, which include gowns designed by Oscar de la Renta, Carolina Herrera and Peggy Jennings. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 1954
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
boring |
slipknot
Citizen
Username: Zotts
Post Number: 18
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Quoting the Washington Times is not exaclty a good way to make a point. However, I'm sure all the donors who paid for the inaugural, as well as the election win, have also gone out and spent money on the troops. I bet each and every one has a magnetic yellow ribbon on the back of their luxury yacht that says "support our troops". They may have even strung for a second american flag motiff one. I'm sure the troops are thrilled. |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7285
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
When are the Republicans going to stop using the line; "But Clinton....."
It is getting old in a hurry. Also, in 1998 the Feds reimbursed District of Columbia for their expenses, which may be included in the totals mentioned above. Also, it wasn't war time.
|
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 492
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Bob, alot of the criticisms of Bush don't pass the double standard test. Many times he has done what has been done historically by other presidents. Clinton being one of them. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 323
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Many times he has done what has been done historically by other presidents.
Not many Presidents start an illegal war .  |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3038
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Why bring Kosovo into this? Can't we move on? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1898
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Now THAT's funny! |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 442
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Extravagance in Clinton's inaugural does not justify extravagance in Bush's.
Have these donors contributed as much money to the tsunami relief efforts?
What could $17 million buy the District of Columbia? Why can't that money be donated? Why shouldn't it be? |
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 354
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Just because you don't like the cause that someone donates money to doesn't mean they don't have the right to donate. It's THEIR money.
And, just because they donate to one cause doesn't mean they didn't donate to another; and if they didn't, it's none of your business....
|
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 443
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Did I say that they didn't have the right to donate? No. I didn't even approach it. I stated that just because Clinton did, it didn't mean Bush had to. It has nothing to do with what cause I like or dislike.
I also did not say that the inaugural and tsunami relief were mutually exclusive; you put words in my mouth. I wondered what the relative amounts were. It lets me know how the moral compasses of these donors is oriented.
I also wondered why some of that money couldn't be used so that taxpayers wouldn't have to bear the burden of an extraordinary circumstance, especially where that money is readily available elsewhere. In essence, the taxpayers of Washington D.C. are footing the bill for what amounts to a giant party.
As far as it being none of my business is concerned, who are you to tell me that it isn't? Suppose these people hold public office; I'm sure that a few do, and I'm sure that the President chipped in. I want to know if my public servants consider this party or suffering in Asia more important. I want to know if the President ever said to these people, "There are better causes than this Inaugural to donate to," or if he tacitly accepted these millions.
To top it off, who's the advocate for the people who need this money? Are they able to say, "This isn't fair"? They can't ask these questions; we can, and therefore we have a responsibility to. |
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 355
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 8:51 pm: |
|
What does someone's donation to tsunami relief have to do with their donation to the inaugural festivities? Why would you even ask that?
To put it bluntly, I guess I'm saying it's none of your business because it's none of your business. If a person chooses to donate to a cause, why should they give a rat's arse what you think about their PERSONAL donation. Would you like every Tom Dick and Harry nosing their way into your choices. And, if you want to know if your public officials donated, just ask them. I'm sure they won't try to conceal it.
Hey - if this is really an important issue to you then knock yourself out. I'm not trying to stop you. I just worry that when people squabble over every single thing the President does, it dilutes the truly meaningful debates that should be had. We end up with a situation where people stop listening because they can no longer discern what's worth engaging in.
|
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 444
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:29 pm: |
|
They have nothing to do with each other, except in their balance with each other. I ask because, as I said before, it's an indicator of what a particular donor considers important, and again, as I said before, it's nice to know what where a public official's priorities lie. As far as private citizens are concerned, they probably don't give a rat's arse what I think, and to be honest I don't expect them to. But I reserve the right to be critical.
As far as your last paragraph: you're right. It is a comparatively small issue. It's not so much about the President himself as that I'm galled at the thought that there might be some people who consider the inaugural a better cause than a humanitarian one. But you are correct, and I take the blame for making it a bigger issue than it had to be. |
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 356
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 8:56 am: |
|
Not to worry. My distaste for Bush often gets me into a "state" where I'm enraged about everything he does -- I have to be talked down off a ledge sometimes he infuriates me so much. This just wasn't one of those issues for me, but it's ok if it is for others -- I don't mean to belittle anyone else for caring about it.
I'm sure it won't be long before Bush does something else that fuels the fire ... |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 738
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Bob Herbert:
"The disconnect between the over-the-top celebrations in Washington and the hideous reality of Iraq does not in any way surprise me. It's exactly what we should expect from the president and his supporters, who seem always to exist in a fantasy realm far removed from such ugly realities as war and suffering. In that realm you can start wars without having to deal with the consequences of them. You don't even have to pay for them. You can put them on a credit card.
People traveling in the real world may see Iraq as a place where bombings, kidnappings and assassinations are an integral part of daily life; where police officers are blown to pieces as they line up for their pay; where innocent men, women and children are slain by the thousands for no good reason; where cities like Falluja are leveled in order to save them; where America's overwhelming superiority in firepower has not been enough to win the war; and where the upcoming elections seem very much like a joke since many of the candidates have to keep their identities secret and the locations of many polling places remain undisclosed.
People traveling in the real world may see Iraq that way. But in the fantasy-laden Bush realm, Iraq is a place where freedom is on the march. So why not raise a toast to freedom, and dance the night away."
|
jerkyboy
Citizen
Username: Jerkyboy
Post Number: 51
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 6:51 am: |
|
BORERO! |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page