Bush inaguration costs $40 Million!

[HagiaSophia]

JamesD:

This is a question designed and intended to throw cold water and to try to smear.:tsktsk:

I thought it particularly telling that not one American poster here made one reference to the recent to-do about Prince Harry - everyone knew it had nothing to do with the posters who come here, with the nation of England as a whole and that the Royal Family would have none of it. It was allowd to pass quietly into the pile of tabloids now discarded and being used for birdcages.

I suggest that if this had been one of the Bush girls - we would have heard plenty from the three most prolific posters who are always quoting compassion, the Scriptures and trying to use them for their political agendas.

 

[Island_Oak]

$40 million and for what?!? Wonder how all those dolts who paid $100,000 for the sake of a ticket to one of the balls feel now that George and Laura spent all of 9 minutes collectively dancing at them and arrived back at the White House 90 minutes ahead of schedule? Not to be outdone as a stick-in-the-mud, Dick Cheney (and wife) spent a whole 10 minutes schmoozing with the hometown bubbas at the Texas/Wyoming party. Forget the naysayers and critics–sounds to me like the biggest party-poopers were our new Commander-in-Chief and his VP.

 

[HagiaSophia]

$40 million and for what?!? Wonder how all those dolts who paid $100,000 for the sake of a ticket to one of the balls feel now

They knew what to expect - each ball is attended for 10-15 minutes by the President and spouse and they have usually dozen or so to cover… Mrs. Kenendy remarked she had gone through 4 pairs of shoes that evening due to having to step in snow and water.

 

[SavedByHim]

I’m actually quite surprised at this thread. When I read the original poster’s question, I didn’t get the impression that they were attacking Americans, as I am American and have been asking the same question. Does not one of you think it is sad in our society that we must spend 40 million dollars to throw such a lavish party?

I don’t care if it was private money or not, it just seems gluttonous (sp?) to spend all that money for one evening. (Just as I think it is gluttonous for Hollywood to spend the money they do on Oscar night for example, or for football players to get paid the salaries they do, etc.

Our society just needs to scale back. When so many people in the world are suffering (including those in the United States), it makes me sad to see American society overindulge the way we do.

 

[Jay74]

FightingFat:

…it’s still enough to give medical care for 22 million children worldwide (like in Asia after the tsunami…

I love it when these numbers are thrown out. Enough for medical care for 22 million children worldwide. $1.82 is all it takes per child for medical care? Doesn’t seem to add up.

Honestly, though, I do think it would have been best for Bush to not have the inauguration party. I wish he wouldn’t have. But it’s not as big of a deal as some are making it out to be–every president does. We have better things to argue about than this.

As for donating, I’m willing to wager a good sum of money that Bush supporters donate alot more per dollar than Kerry supporters. That’s not a blow to kerry–it’s just a fact that conservatives donate more per capita than liberals–but since it was said that those who voted for this president should donate $1, i thought it was worth mentioning.

 

[Lisa_N]

SavedByHim:

I’m actually quite surprised at this thread. When I read the original poster’s question, I didn’t get the impression that they were attacking Americans, as I am American and have been asking the same question. Does not one of you think it is sad in our society that we must spend 40 million dollars to throw such a lavish party?

I don’t care if it was private money or not, it just seems gluttonous (sp?) to spend all that money for one evening. (Just as I think it is gluttonous for Hollywood to spend the money they do on Oscar night for example, or for football players to get paid the salaries they do, etc.

Our society just needs to scale back. When so many people in the world are suffering (including those in the United States), it makes me sad to see American society overindulge the way we do.

Look I know you mean well. But IMO it’ is the height of arrogance to presume to know a better use for SOMEONE ELSE’S MONEY. I don’t want someone second guessing what I do with my salary. Sure there are things I do that are probably frivolous but I will admit before God and everyone I am neither Mother Teresa or St. Francis.

I work for a bunch of wealthy men. They spend money on things that are rather meaningless to me—golf club memberships, jet travel, opulent homes. But it’s THEIR MONEY. Sure it would be really lovely if I could convince them that the money spent on one trip to Europe could feed migrant children living in hovels thirty miles from their mansions. But they earned the money. They went to school a long time. They work very hard. They can do what they darned well please with their wealth as long as it’s legal.

Lisa N

 

[SavedByHim]

Lisa N:

Look I know you mean well. But IMO it’ is the height of arrogance to presume to know a better use for SOMEONE ELSE’S MONEY.

I would like to think you mean well too, but saying I’m at the “height of ignorance” for my comment sort of contradicts that. :ehh:

I never said I presumed to know how people should spend their money and your point is well taken. I wouldn’t want people telling me how to spend my money either.

I was just trying to say that in my little old humble opinion, it makes me sad to be so indulgent as a society. Period.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Lisa N:

They can do what they darned well please with their wealth as long as it’s legal.

Which is precisely why the left goes wild - freedom to spend one’s money as one pleases when THEY have such better uses for it - envy isn’t one of the capital sins for no reason.

 

[rlg94086]

:yawn:

In the most expensive presidential contest in the nation’s history, John F. Kerry and his Democratic supporters nearly matched President Bush and the Republicans, who outspent them by just $60 million, $1.14 billion to $1.08 billion.

So, I guess you could say the inauguration almost evens things out…

Quite frankly, $40 Million is peanuts in comparison to $2.2 Billion spent mostly on ads we all hate, but we live in a free country. This means we are free to spend our money.

Ask George Soros if he prefers to spend millions on a losing candidate, devaluating foreign currencies (his other hobby) to increase his wealth, or philanthropy (which he is also known for). I guess it’s okay for him to spend his money any way he pleases because he’s your (the left’s) billionaire…

 

[jlw]

Lisa N:

Yep and still at the top of the unemployment lists. They can’t quite figure that one out! Yes let’s see, scare off all commerce with ridiculous regulations to protect slugs, over tax businesses and individuals, infest the downtown core with homeless people panhandling on every corner. We just don’t know why businesses don’t want to come here! It’s such a nice place.

Lisa N

You know, it is a nice place to live. The great northwest is GREAT place to bring up a family *(shhh, don’t tell anymore rich liberal Californians!!–*ed.).

It’s just too bad that the powers that be would rather have people just visit and/or leave the state rather than attracting people to stay because of the beautiful coast, picturesque vistas, and rugged topography (*knock it off!!-*ed.) AND affordable housing and dependable job market.

 

[bapcathluth]

I also think it is ridiculous to spend so much on a party, and I can’t believe all the people on this thread defending it. I read in Newsweek that adjusted for 2004 dollars Jimmy Carter spent 17 million on his and Bill Clinton 32 mill. Father Bush spent almost as much as the son. The Republicans like their fancy parties.

 

[rlg94086]

SavedByHim:

I’m actually quite surprised at this thread. When I read the original poster’s question, I didn’t get the impression that they were attacking Americans, as I am American and have been asking the same question. Does not one of you think it is sad in our society that we must spend 40 million dollars to throw such a lavish party?

I don’t care if it was private money or not, it just seems gluttonous (sp?) to spend all that money for one evening. (Just as I think it is gluttonous for Hollywood to spend the money they do on Oscar night for example, or for football players to get paid the salaries they do, etc.

Our society just needs to scale back. When so many people in the world are suffering (including those in the United States), it makes me sad to see American society overindulge the way we do.

Of course, you are correct. Add the inauguration to the litany of gluttony in the world. I personally would have liked the money to be spent a little more frugally…but not much. Some pageantry is good.

The reason the original post appears as an attack is that he is singling out an event which isn’t even the most expensive of it’s kind. It does happen to be an event focused on a President the poster doesn’t like. Coincidence? Criticizing America is a British pastime. I think they enjoy it even more than Cricket or Football.

 

[rlg94086]

bapcathluth:

I also think it is ridiculous to spend so much on a party, and I can’t believe all the people on this thread defending it. I read in Newsweek that adjusted for 2004 dollars Jimmy Carter spent 17 million on his and Bill Clinton 32 mill. Father Bush spent almost as much as the son. The Republicans like their fancy parties.

I don’t have the figures, but you are forgetting inflation. BTW…as a percentage of GDP, our deficits aren’t the highest in history either. Gilliam, step in here would ya?

 

[Lisa_N]

SavedByHim:

I would like to think you mean well too, but saying I’m at the “height of ignorance” for my comment sort of contradicts that. :ehh:

I never said I presumed to know how people should spend their money and your point is well taken. I wouldn’t want people telling me how to spend my money either.

I was just trying to say that in my little old humble opinion, it makes me sad to be so indulgent as a society. Period.

Saved, check the post. I said height of ARROGANCE not IGNORANCE. Now neither is a particularly flattering term, but I do think it’s rather presumptuous (is that a better way to put it?) to call the inaugural parties “gluttonous.” One of those seven deadly sins right? Gluttony that is.

Again, there is value beyond the cost and all of the focus is on the spenders rather than the receivers of this largesse. How many hotel workers, wait staff, floral designers, airlines (and they need the money!!!), hotels, security workers, printers…etc etc etc EARN money from these activities, that then goes back into circulation either through taxation or spending or re-investing in the business. We could all live in caves and trap rabbits but I doubt if such frugality would have the desired effect.

Lisa N

 

[jlw]

bapcathluth:

I also think it is ridiculous to spend so much on a party, and I can’t believe all the people on this thread defending it. I read in Newsweek that adjusted for 2004 dollars Jimmy Carter spent 17 million on his and Bill Clinton 32 mill. Father Bush spent almost as much as the son. The Republicans like their fancy parties.

Numbers are wrong, my friend.

AND, I decry excess, too. But I don’t have sour grapes.

 

[TNT]

bapcathluth:

I also think it is ridiculous to spend so much on a party, and I can’t believe all the people on this thread defending it. I read in Newsweek that adjusted for 2004 dollars Jimmy Carter spent 17 million on his and Bill Clinton 32 mill. Father Bush spent almost as much as the son. The Republicans like their fancy parties.

May I shed some perspective and proportion on this matter of $ going for no good at all?

1. In the nature of size, the AmChurch alone has paid out roughly $800,000,000 in homosexual related atrocities.
2. That is 2000% of the $40m talked about here.
3. This 800m did no good to any of the poor or for salvation of souls, retirement homes, hospitals, churches, schools, RCIA, etc, etc. FOR WHICH it was originally earmarked minus the 200m from AmChurch insurance companies., which raised AmChurch Ins Premiums drastically, as well as the ongoing costs of greater surveilence from now on.
4. The $40m is for a secular occasion, made voluntarily not for the downtrodden. (“the poor you have with you always”…)
5. Even if the event were modest, yet still be a public event, it would still cost close to 16m for these preparations and security. So, we are talking about 40-16= 24m
6. The 40m will certainly circulate into the hands of those who want to and do contribute to the benefit of the truly unfortunate and to their religious communities. If that $ were left in the coffers of the mentioned corporations, it is near certainty that NONE of it would go to religious benefit.
7. This public event, is unlike the previous ones BECAUSE the current terrorism threat was never a major cost in the previous inaugurations.
   Finally, for AmChurch members to rage about $40m of mostly volunteer money and remain silent towards the $600+m sucked out out the treasury of the Faithful is the epitomy of hypocracy.
   Especially, when much of it was to hide evil in the form of bribes and black mail that many of the “bishops” were facilitating.

Finally, when you see the cost of the forseeable Papal funeral, and the inauguration of the next pontiff, let us visit again.

 

[HagiaSophia]

TNT:

Finally, when you see the cost of the forseeable Papal funeral, and the inauguration of the next pontiff, let us visit again.

Not one Catholic here has mentioned that every new bishop or cardinal going to Rome brings a planeload or boatload of supporters from his area who travels with him to see him get his hat or his pallium. Not one Catholic objects to any of the papal ceremonies for canonizations, conclaves or other ceremonies yet some tear up at the thought of a post inaugaural party which is traditional and a lot of fun for the country.

Heaven only knows the election beat us all to death with its negativity, its hate and it’s unscrubbed sign holders in the streets and trashing election headquarters. It was wonderful, to see people dressed up, happy, celebrating and looking up for a change.

 

[SavedByHim]

Lisa N:

Saved, check the post. I said height of ARROGANCE not IGNORANCE. Now neither is a particularly flattering term, but I do think it’s rather presumptuous (is that a better way to put it?) to call the inaugural parties “gluttonous.” One of those seven deadly sins right? Gluttony that is.

<> I’m quickly reminded why I don’t come to the “political” areas of these forums.

I’m sorry that you seem to be taking my opinion with such offense. My original intent in posting was just to say that as a society, MYSELF included, we tend to spend money without sometimes thinking of how lucky we really are. I did not come here to ruffle any feathers.

As I see that my view is being misunderstood and becoming more convulated each time I post, I am going to bow out.

Happy debating!

 

[SavedByHim]

Lisa N:

Saved, check the post. I said height of ARROGANCE not IGNORANCE. Now neither is a particularly flattering term, but I do think it’s rather presumptuous (is that a better way to put it?) to call the inaugural parties “gluttonous.” One of those seven deadly sins right? Gluttony that is.

<> I’m quickly reminded why I don’t come to the “political” areas of these forums.

I’m sorry that you seem to be taking my opinion with such offense. My original intent in posting was just to say that as a society, myself included, we tend to spend money without sometimes thinking of how lucky we really are and that sometimes, yes, we are gluttonous in our spending. I did not come here to ruffle any feathers.

As I see that my view is being misunderstood and becoming more convulated each time I post, I am going to bow out.

Happy debating!

 

[larryo]

“Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?” (Judas Iscariot quoted in John 12:5)