The controversy over inaugural spending
 

There's been much talk of late on other boards based on a recent Washington Times story by Joseph Curl suggesting (misleading, actually) that more money was spent for Mr. Clinton's second inaugural than was spent for Mr. Bush's second inaugural.

Here's a link to the Times story, if you're interested.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...3531-1062r.htm

Too bad the Washington Times has chosen to misrepresent the truth yet again, and people are swallowing it right on down.

Read this rebuttal on www.salon.com in the War Room section and see what you think then.

Interesting, no?

Bush mantras:
"Clinton was worse."
"Blame it on Clinton."
"Clinton lies, I do not."
"I inherited Clinton's messed up country."

Ohmmmmm.

Why doesn't this surprise me. The Washington Times shows its true colors yet again.

Man the silly hippies are out in force today.

It's an insane amount of money for anyone to spend on a "Welcome to the job" party. Especially if you've already got the job.

If it's private funding, what’s the big deal? If it were tax payer money I'd say it's a problem. But if it's money from contributors then who cares if they spend $40, $50, or even $100 million? It may be excessive, but people have the right to spend their own money how they see fit; even to inaugurate Presidents.

This seems more like a left wing grudge for losing the election.

Because our President asked for the money, and by the way, did you notice, they're now doing beheadings on sidewalks in broad daylight?
And did you notice, the estimated death toll from the tsunamis is now over 226,000 people?
And did you notice, "There have been 1,532 coalition troop deaths, 1,372 Americans, 76 Britons, seven Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Kazakh, one Latvian, 16 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and 17 Ukrainians in the war in Iraq as of January 21, 2005."
And did you know that a minimum of 15,365 civilians have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion?
That sure beats the hell out of the 2,752 civilians and 10 hijackers who were killed on September 11.
So, I don't think a little moral outrage over 40 million dollars being wasted is at all out of line.

I agree- it's time to get over it. I'm sorry, but I really do not think you would be doing this if Kerry had won. You can say otherwise-but I suspect some of you would have spent money to have your own party had it gone Kerry's way.


I fail to see how it is any of your business how people spend their money. You can't possibly know how much these people have given in charitable donations. So you are tilting at a windmill blindfolded. This kind of moral arrogance and judgement is really pretty annoying.

Yes. So many things are annoying.

I don't care how much private money is spent. It's yours. Spend it as you please. It's the lying I can't stomach.

ah, finally we agree on something :D

My, he certainly has some very generous friends. I'm quite sure they do not expect anything in return ......

And what do these things have to do with private American citizens choosing to use their own, personal money to celebrate their newly elected President? Yes, they're all terribly tragic examples, but they have no relevance regarding citizens contributing their own money to whatever, or whomever, they choose. Granted, I personally would send whatever charitable contributions I could afford to aid survivors in Asia right now, as I don't believe it would be the honorable choice to send it to foot the bill for a party, but whichever choice I made would be my choice, and anyone becoming infuriated by it would simply be misplacing their anger and emotions.




If you (generic you) don't favor President Bush, then don't send him a contribution. If you don't agree with those who do, then that is your right. But what right does anyone have to tell others how they can spend their own, hard earned money?

If you truly care about your cause, put your energies into furthering it. Trying to tear apart the cause of others only undermines your own.

This is what I see as the real issue in this situation. I don't automatically assume that President Bush is being bought, and I haven't seen any facts or anything other than mere speculation to question his honor. (No, Michael Moore is not a trustworthy, solid source.) But it does concern me just how many favors $40 or $50 million in contributions may buy.

The 40 million dollars is largely made up of corporate donations that the Bush Administration solicited. I'm (generic "I") not "telling" anyone how to spend their hard-earned money. Throw a party. Nephythys is absolutely right in that I'd have thrown a party if Bush lost the election. But it's certainly within my rights to criticize wasteful expenditures by the government. I don't care if it's tax money or private donations, it's still incredibly wasteful spending by our government when a war that the Bush administrastion created has caused so much damage and financial need. It's obscene that a catastrophe of the magnitude of the tsunami disaster can't have every last penny and ounce of manpower from the world because of that war. I posted real links to real information current as of 1/21/05. None of them were Michael Moore.

You can throw a really amazing party for a couple hundred thousand dollars. I mean an AMAZING party. 40 million dollars is in another universe, it's the kind of money that can change worlds for people. And it was squandered.

How was it squandered? It paid people here for services- for entertainment, catering, decorations. It was money spent on the equipment, the industries that run these events for their living. It was used to pay salaries- and in turn will be used to pay for benefits, and costs of livng for the people who worked to make these events happen. From the balloons down the the napkins-

(I'm babbling a bit- but I am sure you know what I mean) and in turn- some of that money may leave those pockets and go to some of the very causes you espouse- you don't know.

It is very well and good to give to those causes- it is noble to donate to help those far away, but it is not a bad thing to spread that money domestically.

(good to hear you say I was right) :D

And how is the planet going to pay for all this, anyway ?

Did any of you gripe when Clinton spent similar amounts on his fiestas? Or was there no suffering in the world back in the 90's? What about the hundreds of millions wasted on the campaigns themselves? That could probably go to better uses as well. Of course, the money isn't simply cast into an evil cauldran and set aflame, all the while, the evil overlord Bush dances about it laughing at his plans for the demise of the world...as many of you silly hippies seem to believe. It goes straight into the American economy. Not an entirely bad thing in my mind. Ridiculously extravagent, perhaps. But it still fuels the beautiful machine of free economy and democracy...that many silly hippies think is an evil thing these days that they and only they should be allowed to experience. F the rest of the world.

Y'know, I'd really dig it if you could lay off the "silly hippies" jive.

I'm not talking about curing all the world's ills. I'm talking about a self-congratulatory "wartime president" (his words, not mine) soliciting funds to throw parties while the residents of a country he started a war in are being killed by their "liberators."
Do you think that life has returned to normal in any of the countries hit by the tsunamis? It hasn't. It won't for a very long time. Homes have been destroyed. Entire villages have been washed away. There is no topsoil left for farming. There is no livestock left to raise. Thousands and thousands of bodies lie where the waves left them because there aren't enough people left to bury them. 10s of thousands of children have been orphaned. On and on and on.
This is the largest disaster to occur in most of our lifetimes. The neighbor's house is on fire, but we called 911. Isn't that enough? We're a little busy right now, because Timmy's having a party tonight. In fact, because we're so proud of him for being elected ASB president, we're having several parties. The PTA has given us money, the School Board has given us money, And, get this, we got the entire Drama Club and Band budgets! One little problem, though. Since we're having the parties AT the school, we need the school to pick up the tab for the security guards (you know how kids like to drink at these thigs :wink, wink:) Oh, look. The neighbors are out in the yard with a garden hose. Good for them!

Darling, you wern't even alive when there WERE "silly hippies".

He didn't. That's the point of the thread.

Actually, it's the "silly hippies" that are running the world now......:rolleyes:

But that's the flaw in this argument. It is not spending by our government. If the spending is derived from contributions made by private citizens, or corporations, it is not government spending, whether the President solicited it or not. Unless the expenditures come from budgets funded by taxes, they are not government spending.

If this gala had been paid for with tax money, I’d be right there criticizing it too. But the simple fact is, it wasn’t.

Then why do I have the feeling this gala is going to end up costing us taxpayers, in one way or another?:rolleyes:

No, you're right. If it was tax money I'd be out screaming for someone's head on a pike instead of just bitching to my friends. I absolutely see the difference between "spending by our government," which is what I said, and "government spending." I'm still appalled that our government solicited and spent 40 million dollars on self-congratulatory parties. "Lead by example" is, apparently, one of the courses Georgie Porgie missed when he was attending President school.

Now this is something that I can wholeheartedly agree with. While I personally don't see any cause for outrage over the event, I definitely do see a reason for much eye rolling and disbelief over his seeming arrogance and callous disregard in the face of so many tragedies around the world. This would have been a perfect chance for self redemption by scaling back the events and exhibiting a fair amount of the compassion which he has always sold the nation (and world) on. In this, he failed miserably and only made himself look like a big, rich doofus.

:shakes hands with Jazzman:

Yeah, but I get to be angry 'cause I don't like him.

Dont forget he asked police officers from cities like portland to come be task force at his little event. First off with a person, never mind a president with power, do you really think any city asked is going to say no? With that in mind, he unthinkingly and callously asked for this little "favor" from cities struggling already to staff their police force. Portland already is spread awfully thin, and frankly I question the motives of a man that called the portland area "little beirut" because the majority could not be swayed into his way of thinking. As far as I am concerned that IS draining the tax payers coffers.

The party itself, while a selfish and frankly stupid thing to do, let alone showing us what he thinks of the war (obviously its not a real war right? cause we dont have to tighten the belts at all, like oh gee any other war that has happened) I guess was his perogitive. I am pretty mind boggled how the heck you pay that much for a party anyways... I really dont understand how thats possible unless you are giving golden goblets to guests or something? Catering can only be so high (unless you go for the absolute most expensive products, and dont put any capper on how much food is to made) and thats the bulk of a party really... I dont get it at all.. how do you spend that much on a party? Plastic surgery free to every guest or something? That has to be some super duper party favors.... "oh ha ha honey would you look at that, we just won a new summer home in connecticut, what a super party!"

To belittle this is what lost you guys the election..... :coffee:

Do you have any citation for this assertion? I’m not saying that I don’t believe you, I simply haven’t heard anything about it.

Not that that is an altogether off-the-mark nickname for Portland. At least in D.C. the police were simply standing guard over happy people celebrating and ballroom dancing. Here in Portland every officer on the force had to be called in for OT, wearing riot gear, because once again Portland protesters couldn't be mature enough to merely protest. They had to vandalize public and private property, disrupt traffic, break out in fighting, and even chain themselves to gas pumps. Yes, much much better than somebody ballroom dancing to honor their President. :rolleyes:

:D

Very good, I think I can live with that! :)

No, he called it little Beirut because it has a reputation for violent protest. He didn't even coin the phrase and both his Father and Bill Clinton, durring their administrations, have used the reference to our fair City(I know, this isn't about Clinton :rolleyes: )

What really chaps my hide is that most of these protesters are not even from Portland, but are from all around the country and attend local colleges from as far away as Eugene and Seatle.....and for some reason anytime there is someone of note in Portland they come down here and tie up traffic at best and destroy property and assault innocents at worse :mad:

It's not even a party thing as they have done this to many others outside the Republican party most recently at a Hillary Clinton book signing(I know, this isn't about Clinton :rolleyes: ).

I would never belittle the victims of the attacks on 9/11. I'm sorry if it came off that way. I was citing the figure in contrast to what this President has wrought in a foreign country that had nothing to do with those attacks. It's my opinion that it was the Bush administration who belittled those events by using them as an opportunity to launch the war in Iraq.

Fair enough......... :)

Are you two channeling SacTown and Scaeagles?

:D ...lol. Just wait until the mid-term elections.

Ha-ha! My arguments are with The Man, man.

I never said I condoned the stupid protestors either. I dont mind protesting if it doesnt interfere with how things normally work, but I will agree that they did get out of hand and do so fairly frequently in portland, something in the water I guess. As for the little beirut comment he restated it during his republican get together here in Oregon and the context was more than just the "violence" of the protestors.

The police "borrowing" was in the Williamatte week, and portland mercury, and a small blurb of it was in the Oregonian. I know the library keeps older copies of the Oregonian, but I am not sure if they keep copies past a week or two of the Mercury, and Williamette week. If you had some way of acessing the portland city records its in there too, as the council had to vote on it.

And though I may sound like a democrat, I am not. I am a Libertarian and thats only because its the closest party to how I feel, but I disagree with things they beleive too. I personally think its wrong to let your party define your thinking, for me every issue is different; I may side with republicans on one issue and dems on another. I feel insulted that some people think you have to have this undying allegiance to one side or the other, I think it only serves to narrow your options, and frankly life is not black and white like that. The Libertarian party even wants to me to subscribe to only their theories I get stupid junk mail from them every once in a while that only serves to annoy the hell out of me. I think there should be a game show where staunch republicans and staunch democrats try to kill each other, (and any other party thats nuts) that would at least be entertaining. Republican and Democrat survivor would take care of a few problems. :)

Never doubted that the President asked for help police wise from forces across the country....many were there, proud to be a part of it(and I am sure the DC Police were thankfull)....................however, my take on anything is never similar to what the likes of the Mercury would report.

:)

That can't be - I would never say "fair enough" about anything Sac said.

I haven't gotten involved in this because I really don't care about it. I will simply say that I do not think that should Kerry have been elected there would not be such an uproar over any such spending of private money on these events.

There are always better things to spend money on than huge parties.

See, that's what I thought... until I saw you reference the Times article, sans link, elsewhere.

You are at least partly right. True, the dems probably wouldn't have too much to say but I suspect the repubs would be all over it.

Really? Then, all the past references (by Repubs) as to Theresa Heinz-Kerry's money were for..? He was roundly slammed by them for having a wealthy wife. I really don't think he would have been as gauche as to thrown such an expensive soiree during such times, but I could be wrong. If he had, I would be doubly critical of him, as I would hold him to much higher standards.;)

As others have said, I have no problem at all imagining that had Kerry been elected, the republicans would have been all over him every inch of the way. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that they are above any such thing.

Perhaps I simply do not remember correctly, but I don't recall such outrage over spending when Clinton was reelected, whether it was 42 million or 30 million or 20 million or 700 million or whatever.

I did cite the Times article because I thought the uproar was simply stupid. Still do.

Maybe his wife could have afforded to pay the costs all by herself :cool:

I just don't really see the arguement here....Clinton did it (with inflation it cost more) and Bush did it (still A LOT of money). Previous Presidents did it, and newly elected Presidents in the future will do all of this. You can't control private donations and how they are spent. If you were given money and told this is for an inaugural ball....would you really turn around and spend it elsewhere?

NO He didn't.

Refer to the first post in this thread.

Oh, is that what we're doing these days...spreading freedom and democracy? I thought we were in Iraq to protect America from WMD. At least, that's what I was told.

Listen, just because Karl Rove is brilliant doesn't mean that we have to swallow what he's tryin' to feed us. Anyone with a working memory knows why we, ostensibly, went into Iraq. When the WMD failed to materialize, the Bushies had to change the reason for the illegal invasion. Their choices were to either admit they F'd up big time or kick the spin machine into overdrive. And you just know Bush isn't going to admit to any mistakes. Personal accountability, after all, is for the poor and unconnected. Amazingly, it's working! Bush is now being lauded as a beacon of freedom for the entire world.

The same man who once said "There ought to be limits to freedom" after being parodied on a website is now, supposedly, the leading voice for world-wide freedom. It must be incredibly easy to rewrite recent history when you have 60 million or so willing co-conspirators.

Can't let that go. NOT illegal. The terms of the cease fire (not a treaty, but a cease fire) from Gulf War I were violated every time they shot at our aircraft or delayed a weapons inspector for 10 minutes.

And Clinton once said that when "people abuse their rights, sometimes the government must curtail them." Yeah, i know, not about Clinton, but politicians say stupid things all the time. And I fully admit what Bush said in that quote was stupid.

You are correct. The pubs were all a bit busy trying to bring him down through frivolous investigations of real estate deals that cost the taxpayers far more than any inaugural ball ever could have. But I digress...

Ah yes, the first illegal invasion. What is it with the Bush men? Small penises or something?

I hear they may be investing in that new parcel of real estate in the UEA that GD posted a link to elsewhere.

But seriously, the first illegal invasion? That's funny. Unless the illegal invasion in Gulf War I you speak of is Iraq going into Kuwait.....

Bush backed up his words by having his lawyers try to get the website shut down. I agree that words are just words, but words backed by action are convictions.

I have a question which is not meant to be rhetorical. What was the name of the website? I ask because I don't know, and the practice of "cyber squatting" has not received judicial support. For those who don't know, cyber squatting is the practice of registering a website with the name of someone famous (like GWBush.com) and then using it for purposes that the famous person does not support, or it is simply used to try to get the famous person to buy the rights to the website for lots and lots of money. One famous case I can think of involved Julia Roberts.

This may not be the case, but if the website was his name or some variation thereof, it was completely consistent with current judicial rulings to get the website shut down.

I'd have to look it up. I know that it was, indeed, some sort of variation on Dubya's name.

Going after some parody website is hardly the pinacle of Bush's hypocricy regarding liberty. How about his support of China over Taiwan? Or calling Putin a "kindred soul" while he's busy trying to run a corrupt shadow government in the Ukraine? Or when he ignored Saudi Arabia's arrests of dissidents who simpy proposed a constitutional monarchy, only to invite Crown Prince Abdullah into his home in Texas (Saudi Arabia is considered one of the 8 most repressive countries in the world)? Bush has approved aid to Uzbekistan, ruled by dictator Islam Karimov and a regine far more brutal than, say Iran.

Nope, sorry, but his claims of being the champion of freedom don't level. He's far from it, it's just a tired attempt to justify an ill conceived war, and yet another case of him being completely unable to admit a mistake.

Thanks Tigertail. I'll check out WW. I really hadn't heard about that. And incidentally, I feel very much the same as you regarding political issues. I quite disagree with "Party Monkeys" who simply punch the ballot spot that has their (R) or (D) on it. The elimination of political parties would do our nation good.

I do find it slightly amusing (in an ironic way) that there are protests over Bush having an inauguration after the tsunami, yet nobody says a word about the government of Indonesia kicking out U.S. troops who were only there to help. They'd rather let their own suffering citizens die than accept aid from the U.S. and its troops who are there to save them.

Yeah, we have it really bad here.

I've come to the conclusion that Americans like nothing more than to bitch about America.

*swims up to big fat juicy earthworm* Hmm. *sniffs* Smells like earthworm - with a faint aftersmell of HOOK. *swims away*

ROFL, G2

Lol! (Me, too- I almost bit it, but then thought "Nah...." ).

Add me to the list.



Ohhhhmmmm...

We're getting good at this, huh? HaHaHa

You know, talking about the bait is only one step away from taking it...

For me, it's more about letting people know that although I'm frustrated, I am deciding not to take part in this discussion. It's about restraint and the positivity the board makes me feel outside of the Daily Grind forum.
:)
It's about protest.
:cool:

But is IS a step ;)

You know, GD's right- I just don't feel like arguing here. The vibes are just tooo good, ya dig?

Ummm... Sorry if this makes me terribly clueless, but if you were referring to my post, then sorry; no bait. I was just throwing out something that had popped into my head as I posted and watched the news on TV.



Besides, earthworm? Powerbait only baby! :D

Going by the posts made as I was typing I'd say that I owe everyone a hearty "I'm sorry." So, I'm sorry. Baiting really wasn't my intention, guys.

Sorrrrry!

No, no, Jazz! It's just that there are many ways I could have responded, but I chose not to. Mainly because, really, to what effect? You have your beliefs in what is really happening, and I have mine. I do, however, like you, so it's not worth arguing about!

Talking about the bait is the first step in admitting I have a problem.