where do u think the money should have gone???

Bob Hubbard said:
"K BOB", Could you say the same things you just posted to the famlies who have lost loved ones because the equipment was sub-standard.
I doubt they feel it is "sour grapes" as you so aptly put it.
It was bad enough getting into that rotten war in the first place but, not equiping the forces with life sustaining equipment is unconsionable.
Tell thoes broken families you think it is all to get back at Bush.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking such a thing.
It boils down to the administration not giving a damm about protecting our service people, rather, putting on a big "show" held center stage.
You should come down off your high horse and take off the rose colored glasses.
See this for exactly what it is, republican extravigance at the cost of service personal lives.
Some of the money was donated but, the cost of the thousands of security people came right out of the treasury.
It was uncalled for.
Thoes millions could very well have equipped many military vehicles with much needed armour, which could have saved lives.
The problem with you Bush lovers is, you can't see the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...


Reading right along here all fine and then I see this... C'mon Bob "You should come down off your "heavily left slanted" horse.

From what I've read, almost half of the cost for this was security!!! Last thing we need to show the world is how a US Inauguration of our President can be disturbed with violence because its own people cannot unify... REMEMBER:

We live in "The United States" United by our Freedom, Liberty and the Democracy that is OUR Government!

Lets really be honest here people... Do you really think if the Democrats won that they would have toned down the Inauguration Ceremonies???? Please, they would have staged a huge event to celebrate the defeat of Bush!!!

Your linking this to the deaths of soldiers is completely out of line! As with any military engagement, as unfortunate as it may very well be, you often learn what is required from your equipment upon lost battles. The US has used that equipment sucessfully many times in the past... Suddenly we're dealing with situations that require the full armorment of the vehicles...
You blame the cost of inauguration ceremonies as the reason for their lack of this? That is just nuts!
 
" Reuters news agency this week headlined a story, "Critics Say Bush Inaugural Too Lavish for Wartime," then quoted one "critic," Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, who complained that the estimated $40 million for the Bush-Cheney inauguration is extravagant.
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. "

(Monster) Factor out the costs of doing business (9/11), and the real facts are that Bush's spending was in line with history and actually lower than Clinton's in real dollars.

Also, the festivities are funded by private parties. That's right, fat cats that send in a max of $100,000 get a bunch of tickets and a really grand time. Sour grapes? I don't know. Sounds like class warfare to me. Do you think each of those people ate $100,000 grand worth of champagne and caviar?

Here it is, adjusted for 1977 dollars, going back to Carter.


Me thinks some of you guys really need to heal.

inaug_infl.gif
 
Why? Has he been playing hide the cigar with an intern?

And here I thought you were going to refute what I posted.

We should have been really lax on the security and then maybe somebody could have taken a pot shot at Bush right? That would have made you very happy, I'm sure. Show the world we really are vulnerable. Good strategy.
 
I don't want him to be injured or killed. Just impeached.
 
The $42M came from the DC area's HOMELAND SECURITY budget, NOT some "fat cats". 'Yall think WE are mad, ask those who LIVE in DC, those who VOTED 90+% AGAINST BuSh how THEY feel! Meanwhile GW donates a WHOPPING $10K towards tsumnami relief? What a total LOSER!

GW must be REALLY SCARED of the folks living in DC. Stealing that amount from their coffers is only making things worse. But then again, I'm not suprised. :mad:
 
Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year.

Nice try. Johnny. I'll give you a Do-Over.

I don't care what it costs to protect the President of the United States. There is no budget as far as I am concerned.

As far as your comment about Bush giving $10,000. How much did you give? The fact that he 'only' gave $10K makes him a loser? Get real.

And now he is stealing from the D.C. people? LMAO!

I think the United States should move the office of President out of D.C. to a more secure location anyway. Stealing from their coffers. How much money do you think the US government pumps into DC annually?
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
The $42M came from the DC area's HOMELAND SECURITY budget, NOT some "fat cats". 'Yall think WE are mad, ask those who LIVE in DC, those who VOTED 90+% AGAINST BuSh how THEY feel! Meanwhile GW donates a WHOPPING $10K towards tsumnami relief? What a total LOSER!

GW must be REALLY SCARED of the folks living in DC. Stealing that amount from their coffers is only making things worse. But then again, I'm not suprised. :mad:
Click to expand...

Who gives a damn how they feel...they got their 3 electoral votes. What else do you want. You didn't hear Idaho pitching a fit for eight years of Clinton...

And even if you were right and all $42 million came from DC's DHS budget...GOOD, I would hope that a significant amount of that money goes to protect our Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches (past and present) when they make a tempting target all sitting on one podium at one time.
 
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.


ya but hey did clinton not help the national debt yes he wasnt in office in time of war but i believe the country was prosperous with him as pres. yes that was expensive too but clinton didnt face the budgett issues as does bush where we as a country are spread a little thiner with our money
 
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.
Click to expand...


ya but hey did clinton not help the national debt yes he wasnt in office in time of war but i believe the country was prosperous with him as pres. yes that was expensive too but clinton didnt face the budgett issues as does bush where we as a country are spread a little thiner with our money
 
Clinton presided over the internet boom and left just before the bust. During that time, we had an artificial runup in stocks in which many Americans participating in the boom paid large amounts of taxes into the treasury. That is where the money came form. Then the government attempted to convince us that the goods time would last and forecasted robust (internet fueled) growth and the accompanying tax revenues that would follow.

Tax rates go up, revenue to the treasury goes down. Only time that didn't happen was when Clinton jacked the rates but the economy and all it's foolishness was able to overcome the negative impact of taxation.

I think they call it smoke and mirrors. Now they want to say Bush squandered a $5 trillion dollar surplus. I laugh everytime I hear that. It is not a profit or a surplus until it is earned.
 
MonsterMark said:
Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year.

Nice try. Johnny. I'll give you a Do-Over.

As far as your comment about Bush giving $10,000. How much did you give? The fact that he 'only' gave $10K makes him a loser? Get real.
Click to expand...

220, 221, whatever it takes.

If ALL I've donated was $10 (it's been much more), it is a much HIGHER % of my net worth than BuSh's $10K. When it comes to being a LEADER and setting an EXAMPLE for us US citizens, BuSh is a BIG FAT ZERO.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
220, 221, whatever it takes.

If ALL I've donated was $10 (it's been much more), it is a much HIGHER % of my net worth than BuSh's $10K. When it comes to being a LEADER and setting an EXAMPLE for us US citizens, BuSh is a BIG FAT ZERO.
Click to expand...


Johnny he could have donated $0. So what his donation was at a lower % of his net worth, $10k is $10k.

I have been reading this thread and I cannot believe people are complaining about the amount spent on his party. The security was there to protect not only the Pres. but to protect all the people that were there. Don't tell me that if Kerry was elected his party would have been any smaller or cost less. You cannot put a price on security IMO. As for spending the money on updating the equipment, yeah it would be nice, but tell me are we suppose to pay to have every single Vehicle that is over there. Also what about the servicemen located in other areas? Are you saying they don't protection as well? They may not be on the frontlines, but does that mean their lives are worth less? Where is the line drawn on this? It is a war lets face it people are going to die while over there. We could spend Billions on updating equipment, but would it stop people from dying? maybe it would save a few lives, but not all. If Bush was to spend the money needed to update everything, the same people complaining about this issue would turn around and complain we are spending to much money on the war.
 
apbpetey said:
Johnny he could have donated $0. So what his donation was at a lower % of his net worth, $10k is $10k.

I have been reading this thread and I cannot believe people are complaining about the amount spent on his party. The security was there to protect not only the Pres. but to protect all the people that were there. Don't tell me that if Kerry was elected his party would have been any smaller or cost less. You cannot put a price on security IMO. As for spending the money on updating the equipment, yeah it would be nice, but tell me are we suppose to pay to have every single Vehicle that is over there. Also what about the servicemen located in other areas? Are you saying they don't protection as well? They may not be on the frontlines, but does that mean their lives are worth less? Where is the line drawn on this? It is a war lets face it people are going to die while over there. We could spend Billions on updating equipment, but would it stop people from dying? maybe it would save a few lives, but not all. If Bush was to spend the money needed to update everything, the same people complaining about this issue would turn around and complain we are spending to much money on the war.
Click to expand...

Here is an example of the misunderstanding between "Valid" and "True."

You're points are Valid, We can't save all lives, We can't update every vehicle (Esp with $45M). This money did aid in security of our President and the Witnesses, Officials, Civillians, otherwise. We do need to protect servicemen and servicewomen in other locations, absolutely Valid.

You're points are Not Tue. The people you claim that are arguing over the expenditures of this Inauguration are the SAME people that say, "We shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place" "We shouldn't have had such a party during a wartime presidency as we seem to have had" We already DO say we are spending too much on this war, because we believe we shouldn't have had the war this whole time... more recent news only Validates and proves our point True.
 
hottweelz said:
You're points are Not Tue. The people you claim that are arguing over the expenditures of this Inauguration are the SAME people that say, "We shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place" "We shouldn't have had such a party during a wartime presidency as we seem to have had" We already DO say we are spending too much on this war, because we believe we shouldn't have had the war this whole time... more recent news only Validates and proves our point True.
Click to expand...
I'm a little confused. Are you saying to spend whatever it takes cause you're going to complain anyway?
 
We are complaining of the long term errors in judgement. If this war didn't drag on so long, or was it needed at this current time anyway, would we be THIS concerned with security? Would we have anyone's opinion about Armored Vehicles, or complaints about protection for troops? The troops shouldn't be in Iraq to begin with now. No WMDs existed. If Kerry would spend $45M if he was elected as President, then yes, personally I'd still complain.. the thread is "Where do you think the money should have gone?"
 
hottweelz said:
If Kerry would spend $45M if he was elected as President, then yes, personally I'd still complain.. the thread is "Where do you think the money should have gone?"
Click to expand...
Well in that case, it should have gone into my bank account. How much was funded by the govt again, $17M or so? That amount could have given each citizen about a nickel. Now I'm really mad!!! :joke
 
We are complaining of the long term errors in judgement. If this war didn't drag on so long, or was it needed at this current time anyway, would we be THIS concerned with security? Would we have anyone's opinion about Armored Vehicles, or complaints about protection for troops? The troops shouldn't be in Iraq to begin with now. No WMDs existed. If Kerry would spend $45M if he was elected as President, then yes, personally I'd still complain.. the thread is "Where do you think the money should have gone?"
So you are saying that we should have left Iraq alone and let the mad man have free control over there? Don't tell me he wasn't supporting terriorist. IMO we should have taken him out during Dessert Storm. No matter who the President was given the circumstances they would have all entered this war.

Now on to the money issue. Yeah the money would have done good in alot of different places, but it served well where it was spent. I am sure the people that were there felt safe with the security there. In these times anytime the president goes anywhere or has a party of any type it is going to cost mega dollars. People there is always a threat of something happening when a major figure of any type is involved. Security isn't cheap. The only cheap way would have been not to have a party at all. If they had cut corners it would have made the party an easy target IMO.

Here is an example of the misunderstanding between "Valid" and "True."

You're points are Valid, We can't save all lives, We can't update every vehicle (Esp with $45M). This money did aid in security of our President and the Witnesses, Officials, Civillians, otherwise. We do need to protect servicemen and servicewomen in other locations, absolutely Valid.

You're points are Not Tue. The people you claim that are arguing over the expenditures of this Inauguration are the SAME people that say, "We shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place" "We shouldn't have had such a party during a wartime presidency as we seem to have had" We already DO say we are spending too much on this war, because we believe we shouldn't have had the war this whole time... more recent news only Validates and proves our point True.
How are my points not TRUE???? It is a fact we cannot save all their lives. I think the gov. is doing a good job of supplying what equipment they can. In WWII not all servicemen were able to have ful-auto weapons, many still had a bolt action rifle, not even semi-auto. in Vietnam not all had full-auto, many still had semi-auto. it isn't practical to try to update all the Hummers to have armor.

There will always people on each side of these issues and that is what makes America great and sets us apart. By going to war we are giving people a chance to take control of their own country and stopped a major funding of the terriorist that attacked us.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
apbpetey said:
Johnny he could have donated $0. So what his donation was at a lower % of his net worth, $10k is $10k.
Click to expand...

Exactly. All the Bushies are patting GW on the back for his "GENEROUS" donation of $10K. My point is, $10K is pocket lint to the Bush family, THEREFORE his "GENEROSITY" = ZERO. This is a prime example of the GOP fabricating an illusion to make themselves feel vindicated / justified when the REALITY of the situation is smoke and mirrors.
:Bang
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Exactly. All the Bushies are patting GW on the back for his "GENEROUS" donation of $10K. My point is, $10K is pocket lint to the Bush family, THEREFORE his "GENEROSITY" = ZERO. This is a prime example of the GOP fabricating an illusion to make themselves feel vindicated / justified when the REALITY of the situation is smoke and mirrors.
:Bang
Click to expand...

I don't know where you live, but again $10k is $10k more than he had to give. How does $10k = Zero? I make alot of money, I gave a few hundered to the relief fund. Trust me his % of income given is higher than mine, does that make me not generous? What are you saying he should give? There are people that make alot of money, but didn't give a penny. I wouldn't take his giving what he did as a slap in the face. If somebody was to give you $10k, are you saying they wouldn't be generous? A person that gives anything is generous.
 
OK, my bad. GW's generosity is NOT ZERO. On a scale of 1-10, it's 0.0001.

$10K to Bush is POCKET LINT, CHUMP CHANGE!! BIG friggin' deal!
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
OK, my bad. GW's generosity is NOT ZERO. On a scale of 1-10, it's 0.0001.

$10K to Bush is POCKET LINT, CHUMP CHANGE!! BIG friggin' deal!
Click to expand...
I can hear you yelling in a French accent, "off with his head!" Remember what you just said the next time you give $10 to the March of Dimes or whatever charity you give "pocket lint" to. Just keep your money, dude, no one wants it.
 
apbpetey said:
So you are saying that we should have left Iraq alone and let the mad man have free control over there? Don't tell me he wasn't supporting terriorist. IMO we should have taken him out during Dessert Storm. No matter who the President was given the circumstances they would have all entered this war.
Click to expand...

I will pose this to you, some people will point out that other countries like Iran, North Korea and Libya have more fully developed weapons programs. And I believe this to be true as well. AND I know that was part of the rationale for going to war with Iraq in the first place.

BUT anyone, someone, help me understand and explain why Iraq was first when a credible argument can be made that Iran was more dangerous (closer to getting nukes) and that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are more dangerous (the former doing far more to sponsor terrorism than Iraq and the latter lending material support to those who harbored Osama Bin Laden). Was Iraq first because it was supposed to be the "easiest" target?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 109 (members: 1, guests: 108)
Back
Top