Thread: Is it wrong?

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12

    Default Is it wrong?

    Let me preface this by saying that I am neither Republican nor Democrat.

    I have a question.

    Is anyone else a little angry about the inauguration party plans? I keep seeing over and over about how this is going to be huge - possibly one of the biggest parties ever for a Presidential inauguration. ABC news has been calling it "the biggest party in U.S. history" for days now. We've all read about the extra staffing needed for security and what the city of D.C. is expecting.

    I don't get it.

    We are having a rough time right now in the U.S. I'm not going to sit here and call it a "crisis" or any other over inflated term I hear many people using. But while thousands of people are losing their jobs daily, and with millions losing their life savings in the stock market, is it really time to party?
    My grandparents lost over $100k in just a couple of days. Might not seem like much to some, but it's a lot for this boy from small town Indiana.

    Am I the only one who is upset about this? I'm getting more and more mad every day, every time I hear about it. I would think that any incoming U.S. President - one who is serious about making decisions - would put the kabosh on this immediately. After all, there is work to be done. A LOT of it.
    And what does it say to other countries when we as Americans cry out over and over about how terrible the times are, but we can throw the "biggest party in U.S. history" right now?

    I am embarassed about this to say the least. It is time for work right now. Not play. Maybe they can party in four years after re-election, if all goes well. But if it gets worse then it's someone elses turn. Anyone else feel this way?

  2. #2
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Call it a stimulus. Look at all the people who need to prepare for this bafoonery. Will put a whole bunch of people to work.

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    I don't think it's wrong to not be all wound up about the inauguration festivities.
    I certainly won't even be near a TV set Tuesday.I didn't vote for the man,I don't like the policies that he's laid out and he sure doesn't speak to me.
    That is NOT a racist comment.If people can run down George Bush before he took office,I can run down Barack Hussein Obama(he'll use that name taking the Oath of office).
    He even said that he was forgoing the usual inauguration festivities in favor of going right to work to undo all that the Bush Administration had done in the past 8 years.
    So,if he goes to one party,is he a liar?Well,he doesn't have a dog yet.
    As I watched him board the train,more important than all the carbon emissions he was adding by not having stayed in DC before his trip,I wondered if he'd gotten the dog he'd promised his kids.
    If a man cannot keep promises to his children,how are we to trust him not to break promises to We the People?

  4. #4
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Wait a minute. He is talking about tax breaks, just like Bush did
    He is proposing stimulus packages, just like Bush did
    He is talking about troop build ups in the Middle East. just like Bush
    However, he is talking about bigger deficit spending
    He is talking fewer freedoms through more government control.
    And he is delusional in thinking he alone can fix the economy


    There isn't much difference between the guy leaving and the guy coming in.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    I'm going to enjoy reading the rantings on these boards the next four years.

    Especially how those of us who were critical of Bush were referred to as traitors on more than one occasion. Now that a Dem is in office dissent is going to be okay.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    From what I have read about the inauguration, the official events paid for by the Inauguration committee are no different in number than those done for Bush, Clinton, et al. It is something like 5 balls, the ceremony itself and the pre-inauguration tailgate party (OK, I made that last part up).

    Note that none of the parties are official or paid with tax dollars. They're funded and sponsored by corporations, PACs and private citizens--again, no different from any ceremony for Clinton, Reagan or both Bushes. It is much like the Super Bowl, where the NFL pays for the event and a few official events before and after the game, but most of the off-site events are paid for by corporations seeking to gain access to those in attendance for the game.

    What we are seeing is a desire by citizens to attend this ceremony with a fervor probably not seen since JFK in 1961, and perhaps eclipsing that. If the "problem" is that 3M Americans want to find some spot along the parade route and see this moment in history, are we supposed to set up sentries to the entrance to DC and allow only a set number of people in, like bouncers at a nightclub? Or do we do what we must to ensure that all who wish to attend can do so--and in that case, we need to secure the area, provide the infrastructure and make sure the area is restored afterwards. That costs a lot.

    The difference in the cost of this ceremony (and all which goes with it) over past events is (A) 9/11, (B) it is not a re-election ceremony, and (C) unprecedented interest in attending the ceremony by all types of people.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    From what I have read about the inauguration, the official events paid for by the Inauguration committee are no different in number than those done for Bush, Clinton, et al. It is something like 5 balls, the ceremony itself and the pre-inauguration tailgate party (OK, I made that last part up).

    Note that none of the parties are official or paid with tax dollars. They're funded and sponsored by corporations, PACs and private citizens--again, no different from any ceremony for Clinton, Reagan or both Bushes. It is much like the Super Bowl, where the NFL pays for the event and a few official events before and after the game, but most of the off-site events are paid for by corporations seeking to gain access to those in attendance for the game.

    What we are seeing is a desire by citizens to attend this ceremony with a fervor probably not seen since JFK in 1961, and perhaps eclipsing that. If the "problem" is that 3M Americans want to find some spot along the parade route and see this moment in history, are we supposed to set up sentries to the entrance to DC and allow only a set number of people in, like bouncers at a nightclub? Or do we do what we must to ensure that all who wish to attend can do so--and in that case, we need to secure the area, provide the infrastructure and make sure the area is restored afterwards. That costs a lot.

    The difference in the cost of this ceremony (and all which goes with it) over past events is (A) 9/11, (B) it is not a re-election ceremony, and (C) unprecedented interest in attending the ceremony by all types of people.

    I understand and agree with all your points. And I hope I didn't suggest that tax dollars were paying for it.

    My point is - I think it is incredibly disrespectful to have this big event when there is so much going on right now. I'm only 29, so I do not have first hand knowledge of what was happening in the country during the many other inaugural festivities.

    Maybe I'm just naive, maybe I just don't have a good understanding of politics. But I find this "party" to be very very inapropriate and quite frankly, kind of a slap in the face. I really feel like a good U.S. President would suspend all celebration until this mess gets at least partially worked out. This is just a huge gala in which the politicians get to pat eachother on the back. A good leader, a REAL leader would tell his people to "wipe the smiles off your faces, we've got work to do."

    BTW - I would say this about any PEOTUS. Either Dem or Repub.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Plattsfire90 View Post
    My point is - I think it is incredibly disrespectful to have this big event when there is so much going on right now. I'm only 29, so I do not have first hand knowledge of what was happening in the country during the many other inaugural festivities.
    Reagan came into office in the midst of an economic downturn.

    Quote Originally Posted by Plattsfire90 View Post
    Maybe I'm just naive, maybe I just don't have a good understanding of politics. But I find this "party" to be very very inapropriate and quite frankly, kind of a slap in the face. I really feel like a good U.S. President would suspend all celebration until this mess gets at least partially worked out. This is just a huge gala in which the politicians get to pat eachother on the back. A good leader, a REAL leader would tell his people to "wipe the smiles off your faces, we've got work to do."
    That is naive. I can guarantee there will be many getting to work on Wednesday morning.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #9
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I'm going to enjoy reading the rantings on these boards the next four years.

    Especially how those of us who were critical of Bush were referred to as traitors on more than one occasion. Now that a Dem is in office dissent is going to be okay.
    Well of course you will. We will just pull up your old post and substitute Obama where is says Bush.

  10. #10
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Question: Who pays for the added security?

  11. #11
    55 Years & Still Rolling
    hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Post Well..........

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Question: Who pays for the added security?

    My take, being here in the 'hood, is that the Fed are paying DC and the 'burbs for any additional costs over normal.
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Well of course you will. We will just pull up your old post and substitute Obama where is says Bush.
    Big difference numbnuts. I won't be calling you or anyone else a traitor. I'll be laughing. Especially at you.

    Figure out a credit card agreement yet? Let me sum it up for you. Pay balance on time. No interest. Pay balance over time. Owe a lot of interest.

    Very simple.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #13
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Big difference numbnuts. I won't be calling you or anyone else a traitor. I'll be laughing. Especially at you.

    Figure out a credit card agreement yet? Let me sum it up for you. Pay balance on time. No interest. Pay balance over time. Owe a lot of interest.

    Very simple.
    Oh yea, and when the bank wants more money, they arbitrarily raise the rates. Hence the reason Obama and his democratic friends are trying to do something to real in these loan sharks.

    Iím already laughing as Obama policies look a lot like Bush policies.

    Both pushed for tax cuts.
    Both pushed for stimulus packages.
    Both want to raise the price of gasoline.
    Both want a bigger military presence in the Middle East.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Oh yea, and when the bank wants more money, they arbitrarily raise the rates. Hence the reason Obama and his democratic friends are trying to do something to real in these loan sharks.
    If you pay off your balances each month the rates don't matter. If you live beyond your means and irresponsibly, the rates are a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Iím already laughing as Obama policies look a lot like Bush policies.

    Both pushed for tax cuts.
    Both pushed for stimulus packages.
    Both want to raise the price of gasoline.
    Both want a bigger military presence in the Middle East.
    Broad strokes. The tax cuts are for the middle class. A stimulus package will be necessary a la FDR to stimulate the economy via public investment. A tax on gasoline won't affect me and will be a good idea to raise revenue. And the military presence will be shifted to Afghanistan where it should have been all along.

    You are a dense one. No doubt about it.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #15
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    If you pay off your balances each month the rates don't matter. If you live beyond your means and irresponsibly, the rates are a problem.


    Broad strokes. The tax cuts are for the middle class. A stimulus package will be necessary a la FDR to stimulate the economy via public investment. A tax on gasoline won't affect me and will be a good idea to raise revenue. And the military presence will be shifted to Afghanistan where it should have been all along.

    You are a dense one. No doubt about it.
    "The tax cuts are for the middle class." And Businesses.
    "A stimulus package will be necessary a la FDR to stimulate the economy via public investment." Total GDP is 14.3 Trillion, the Existing stimulus package is nearly 1 trillion with a proposal for another 1 trillion. This is the exact deficit spending you beat up Bush for. Now it is OK? History is taking a second look and seeing that FDRs New Deal was not so great for the country.
    "A tax on gasoline won't affect me and will be a good idea to raise revenue." Nor will it affect all of the other stay at home people. It will only hurt the working class.
    "And the military presence will be shifted to Afghanistan where it should have been all along." Oh great!!! Another Viet Nam. We took over for the French in Viet Nam. Now we take over for the Russians in Afghanistan. In both cases a democratic president responsible for the escalation in a war that won't be won.

  16. #16
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    But back on topic. I really wish they would get away from this circus atmosphere and back to a simple, dignified, statesman like ceremony. 4 days of partying in the streets is just ridiculous.

    The Media Research Center president appeared on the January 16 "Fox & Friends" to discuss an astounding contrast that illustrates the media's liberal biases: the Associated Press scorned the roughly $40 million spent on the 2005 Bush inauguration but is assuring readers that it's okay to glam it up for the 2009 Obama inauguration.:

    BRENT BOZELL: Look at these headlines. We found this, this is from AP. Four years ago on the eve of George Bush's second inauguration. This is the lede: "President Bush's second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars. Forty million alone in private donations for parties, balls, etc. Then it goes on to say, what else could that money buy..... Now, four years later, same AP news outlet. A story on Barack Obama. According to the Guardian newspaper, he could spend as much as $150 million. That would be three times more than George Bush spent. This is their [AP's] lede: "So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate not to mention comfortable and finacially viable? To quote the man of the hour, 'Yes, you can.' Veteran ballgoers say you should, and fashionistas say you must."
    MRC's Bozell Slams AP for Bush vs. Obama Inaugural Double Standard

    WASHINGTON ó President George W. Bush on Tuesday declared an emergency in the District of Columbia that will let the nation's capital tap deeper into federal coffers for Barack Obama's inauguration.

    Bush said that an emergency exists and ordered federal aid to supplement the $15 million in federal funds already appropriated for the event.

    White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said District of Columbia Mayor Adrian M. Fenty requested the emergency declaration on Jan. 7 because he decided that the crowds expected for the nation's 56th presidential inauguration would exceed the city's ability to protect the public.

    If the extra money is needed, it will come from the Federal Emergency and Management Agency budget, Stanzel said.

    In a statement, the White House said the assistance is available to the district for emergency measures to protect public health and safety.

    Fenty and others have said millions could descend on Washington for the inauguration.
    Obama Inauguration: Bush Declares Emergency
    Last edited by ScareCrow57; 01-18-2009 at 12:51 PM.

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    "The tax cuts are for the middle class." And Businesses.
    "A stimulus package will be necessary a la FDR to stimulate the economy via public investment." Total GDP is 14.3 Trillion, the Existing stimulus package is nearly 1 trillion with a proposal for another 1 trillion. This is the exact deficit spending you beat up Bush for. Now it is OK?
    Bush didn't preside over a recession until the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    History is taking a second look and seeing that FDRs New Deal was not so great for the country.
    More like revisionist history who weren't there.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    "A tax on gasoline won't affect me and will be a good idea to raise revenue." Nor will it affect all of the other stay at home people. It will only hurt the working class.
    Okay. Sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    "And the military presence will be shifted to Afghanistan where it should have been all along." Oh great!!! Another Viet Nam. We took over for the French in Viet Nam. Now we take over for the Russians in Afghanistan. In both cases a democratic president responsible for the escalation in a war that won't be won.
    One big difference. We helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets. Doubtful the Russians will be helping the Afghans like they did the Vietnamese.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I'm going to enjoy reading the rantings on these boards the next four years.

    Especially how those of us who were critical of Bush were referred to as traitors on more than one occasion. Now that a Dem is in office dissent is going to be okay.

    People who dissented with George Bush were saying all along that it was okay not to like the President and to speak disrespectfully of him.
    Now that a Democrat is getting into the Oval Office and even though he has changed his mind on a few of his policies,it's not okay to disagree with him.
    Is that what you're saying?

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Bush didn't preside over a recession until the end.

    More like revisionist history who weren't there.
    Okay. Sure.

    One big difference. We helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets. Doubtful the Russians will be helping the Afghans like they did the Vietnamese.

    George Bush came into office while the dotcom boom was ending and we really were going into a recession.Instead of letting Congress go pouring billions into businesses with no accountability for them,Bush appealed to the American people to do what most folks do best:go shopping.People spent money and helped the economy recover.
    That was in addition of giving people back the tax dollars that they had overpaid for the previous 8 years.
    The result was that while a few people got hurt,overall,the country did pretty good economically until people started saying that not giving home loans to those that could not afford to repay them was racist.
    Obama is trying to do what Roosevelt in 1932 did by creating government works project which did NOT help the economy until the 1941 when the country started to see that the war in Europe would expand to include the US.
    Obama will have a hard row to hoe but it's going to be his as of 1200 20 January 2009.He's worked two years to get the job,and is having to rewrite major portions of his speech that he'd already written,so let's see how badly he wants it after George Bush hands over the Air Force call sign to him and boards an Air Force transport to head back to Texas.

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doughesson View Post
    George Bush came into office while the dotcom boom was ending and we really were going into a recession.Instead of letting Congress go pouring billions into businesses with no accountability for them,Bush appealed to the American people to do what most folks do best:go shopping.People spent money and helped the economy recover.
    That was in addition of giving people back the tax dollars that they had overpaid for the previous 8 years.
    The result was that while a few people got hurt,overall,the country did pretty good economically until people started saying that not giving home loans to those that could not afford to repay them was racist.
    Obama is trying to do what Roosevelt in 1932 did by creating government works project which did NOT help the economy until the 1941 when the country started to see that the war in Europe would expand to include the US.
    Obama will have a hard row to hoe but it's going to be his as of 1200 20 January 2009.He's worked two years to get the job,and is having to rewrite major portions of his speech that he'd already written,so let's see how badly he wants it after George Bush hands over the Air Force call sign to him and boards an Air Force transport to head back to Texas.
    Blah blah blah blah blahb.

    One of the great hobbyhorses of the right is the notion that it wasnít the collapse of overinflated, overleveraged and outright fraudulent business practices that caused the Great Depression, but nasty governmental intervention - things like the Securities Acts, the TVA, the Rural Electrification Administration, The Wagner Act, and of course the ultimate sin, Social Security. Iíll just pause for a single question.

    What, then, ended the Great Depression?

    If the New Deal worsened or prolonged the Depression, what finally cured it? Did government wise up to its evil excesses? Did the blessed free market unyoke itself from government tyranny to reassert its place in society? Were the New Deal programs repealed, revoked, smashed by a political reassertion of untrammelled (and predatory) capitalism?

    Well, no. What ended the Depression was World War II - an infusion of governmental spending - on goods, services, infrastructure, research and development, employment - on a scale that made the entire New Deal look like a casual weekend outing. The Depression ended because government hadnít previously done enough; it was not extended because government had done too much.

    This sort of wing-nut revisionism has been around for a long time. I recall reading a piece in (of all places, but this was a long time ago, so pardon me) Readerís Digest, when I was in junior high, arguing that Hoover had the whole thing solved in the summer of 1931, only to have the looming evil shadow of FDR destroy all his hard won gains and plunge us back into ther depths. I asked my grandparents about this idea (my grandfather had run a textile mill through the 20s until after the war), and in response got the first truly derisive laughter I ever heard from those kind old souls (my developing tastes in music and hairstyles would soon give me occasion to hear it again).

    The reason for such remarkable blind vituperation is the rghtís visceral hatred for Franklin Roosevelt, a hatred that spans the generations like a running sore. And the reason for their hatred is, of course, that FDR broke the rules. He was a member of the gentry who betrayed his class, who actually did things that helped ordinary people, who halted the insane (and very exclusive) gravy train that early twentieth century capitalism had become and demanded that it work not just for its own selfish benefit, but to confer those benefits on a wider sphere. Who noted that corporate profit without social equity and stability is not merely short sighted, but ultimately destructive of that profit, and of liberty itself.

    And the worst thing about his betrayal is, it worked. Government intervention - massive public ďinterferenceĒ in the private markets and expenditures of public monies - finally broke the back of en economic collapse so terrible that it swallowed most of a decade. And he did it without sacrificing the essential private nature of the American economy, without destroying liberty or stifling individual initiative, and by in fact expanding true liberty, which must include economic security, to masses of people previously left out in the cold.

    That success, of ďsocialistĒ policies (as conservatives would label them in their intellectually sloppy way), is the ultimate refutation to the conservatives unwavering and blind devotion to an abstract philosophical libertarianism - a philosophy that has never worked in the real world, just as the equally beautiful ideal of Communism has uniformly failed. No wonder they continue to despise FDR - his very existence in the history books gives the lie to all their airy idealized beliefs about all- inclusive philosophical systems.

    Adherents of both Communism and libertarianism will sniff that, well, itís never really been tried - that the social experiments that have been conducted in their respective names (the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in America, and the past generation, on the one hand; and the Soviets and old-guard Red China, on the other) have been incomplete and bastardized forms of the ideal society their philosophies espouse. This is, of course, an easy way to protect your academic purity: deny everything, especially when it doesnít work. But itís also morally dishonest, and blind to the real world where we all live.

    I donít expect conservatives to recognize their blind adherence of an ivory tower ideal that simply doesnít work in the real world. They, like all fanatics, are too enamored of the bright, shiny, and intellectually/logically pure thing they have positied, to allow the messy grit of day to day reality to intrude into their fantasies. But letís us, who live in the real world, recognize their blind beliefs for what they are. In Orange County we have a neighborhood where folks like this fit right in. It's called FANTASYLAND!!
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-19-2009 at 02:06 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #21
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Bush didn't preside over a recession until the end.


    One big difference. We helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets. Doubtful the Russians will be helping the Afghans like they did the Vietnamese.
    Actually Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. It officially began in March of 2001, days after Bush took office. Then he had the devastating effects of 9-11-2001, which we are still recovering from.

    An true, the Russians aren't helping the Taliban, but Pakistan is with Russian backing.

  22. #22
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Facts

    The United States accounts for 20% of the total global economy.
    The US accounts for 4.5% of the global population.
    China accounts for 20% of the world population.
    We live in a Global Economy.

    Now if the US lived in a closed system, then burdening future generations with 1 trillion dollars of debt might help. However, that 1 trillion dollars will end up in China and we will have nothing in the end. Or people will earn money and buy Hondas, Toyotas, and BMWs propping up these other economies.

    The economy will go through ups and downs. The government is helpless and cannot control the economy.

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Actually Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. It officially began in March of 2001, days after Bush took office. Then he had the devastating effects of 9-11-2001, which we are still recovering from.
    The bolded part says it all. Obama on the other hand is inheriting a recession that started over a year ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    An true, the Russians aren't helping the Taliban, but Pakistan is with Russian backing.
    Yawn. More babbling that has absolutely no comparison.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Facts

    The United States accounts for 20% of the total global economy.
    The US accounts for 4.5% of the global population.
    China accounts for 20% of the world population.
    We live in a Global Economy.
    Once again you prove to be a master of the obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Now if the US lived in a closed system, then burdening future generations with 1 trillion dollars of debt might help. However, that 1 trillion dollars will end up in China and we will have nothing in the end. Or people will earn money and buy Hondas, Toyotas, and BMWs propping up these other economies.

    The economy will go through ups and downs. The government is helpless and cannot control the economy.
    So when the USAF lets a contract for a multi-billion dollar weapon system that has no effect on the local economy.

    I don't know what you do, but I'm sure it involves saying, "would you like fries with that?" Your nonsensical rambling about fiscal policy only reinforces why you went BK over a credit card balance.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  24. #24
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    The total costs are estimated at 150 million, but it's unclear what amount is from contributions and what is from public money.

    Either way. Remember how the press tore AIG Baker a new one for having that lavish retreat?

    My company that is doing very well in spite of the economy, has cancelled a large meeting in vegas this year (2000 managers and their spouse's were going to go). They didn't feel it was the right message to our stockholders.

    I think it's a shame, but I also think it is important that we recognize the peaceful transition of the executive branch. So, I'm torn on this issue.

    There is no way to stop people from attending.

    I will complain about this. The press is treating this like a coronation. I find the whole thing a little disturbing. However, I know they are simply playing to what their audience wants.

    I only pray that at some point, they can tilt slightly back towards center. I know not to hope that they could reach center, but at least let the needle quiver a bit that way.
    Last edited by ChiefKN; 01-19-2009 at 10:47 AM. Reason: didn't like the wording.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    From what I have read about the inauguration, the official events paid for by the Inauguration committee are no different in number than those done for Bush, Clinton, et al. It is something like 5 balls, the ceremony itself and the pre-inauguration tailgate party (OK, I made that last part up).

    Note that none of the parties are official or paid with tax dollars. They're funded and sponsored by corporations, PACs and private citizens--again, no different from any ceremony for Clinton, Reagan or both Bushes. It is much like the Super Bowl, where the NFL pays for the event and a few official events before and after the game, but most of the off-site events are paid for by corporations seeking to gain access to those in attendance for the game.

    What we are seeing is a desire by citizens to attend this ceremony with a fervor probably not seen since JFK in 1961, and perhaps eclipsing that. If the "problem" is that 3M Americans want to find some spot along the parade route and see this moment in history, are we supposed to set up sentries to the entrance to DC and allow only a set number of people in, like bouncers at a nightclub? Or do we do what we must to ensure that all who wish to attend can do so--and in that case, we need to secure the area, provide the infrastructure and make sure the area is restored afterwards. That costs a lot.

    The difference in the cost of this ceremony (and all which goes with it) over past events is (A) 9/11, (B) it is not a re-election ceremony, and (C) unprecedented interest in attending the ceremony by all types of people.
    I agree with SC.

    And honestly, I believe there should be a big deal made about a new leader of the best nation in the world.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What am I doing wrong?
    By KEEPBACK200FEET in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 03-16-2005, 05:17 AM
  2. Wrong place, wrong time...Worcester Lieutenant shot (IOD)
    By Dalmatian90 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-28-2004, 09:18 AM
  3. HE WAS IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME, NATURALLY
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-16-2003, 11:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register