PDA

View Full Version : Do we really need second inauguration?



greensideout
01-19-05, 06:08 PM
The president had an inaugural swearing-in for his first term. Shouldn't that do for his continued second term in office? The American tax payers are again paying for a gayla extravaganza that serves as little more then a party by entitlement.

Save the money and buy armor for our troops!

thedrifter
01-19-05, 06:33 PM
Good point GSO...

I would go for Your idea, but I do believe we will hear a little whinning...

Ellie

Osotogary
01-19-05, 06:36 PM
My thoughts exactly! Been thinking about this inauguration since I first heard about it. Formalities aside, who are we trying to impress? The world? The UN?
Buy armor for our troops and see that they get them. That is a good idea. I think that the President could have said "Nay, I've already been re-elected. I think I'll just pluck a beer from the fridge, order some ribs and watch TV" and be done with it.

d c taveapont
01-19-05, 07:08 PM
I did ask this very question...answer was its private contributions, so i guess that it can't be used for that very idea however great it is...

hrscowboy
01-19-05, 07:18 PM
they claim that all this money was from private donations except 17 million that is tax payers money for security. hes already been sworn in he dont need to be sworn in again take that 17 million and buy some body armor for the troops...

greensideout
01-19-05, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by d c taveapont
I did ask this very question...answer was its private contributions, so i guess that it can't be used for that very idea however great it is...

Yes, big corporations are buying the wine but it's the tax payers that are paying for the F-16 overhead, the police on the beat, the removing traffic lights and then reinstalling them and on it goes. Not to mention that we will be paying congress to party instead of doing the urgent work at hand.

cajunguy
01-19-05, 07:18 PM
d c

And my thought is why not?

Why couldn't those contributions be put into a fund to buy armor (or whatever) for the troops?

Hey, I'm on Dubya's side, but what a waste of money.

(And I feel reasonably sure that contributions aren't paying the entire cost of the train loads of extra security.)

Just my .02 worth.http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage22/14.gif

cajunguy
01-19-05, 07:20 PM
Green & Cowboy

Looks like we were thinking about the same way. We musta all punched the "post" button at the same time.

Have a good one. Semper Fi.

yellowwing
01-19-05, 07:22 PM
CNN was running an pre-Inaguartion in depth story "Where exactly the secure areas are", and "Where are the choke points and bottle necks." Gee-Christmas! How stupid is that?

d c taveapont
01-19-05, 07:28 PM
I wish that i had an answer for you....But i guess people would rather be party animals than support the troops...after all its once every four years....while a soldier who gets killed without Armor never will see another Inaugration...

Toby M
01-19-05, 07:28 PM
They have been dancing to this tune for so long, that they just don't know how to do things any different! New song-same dance...it's kinda like being stuck in one groove, over and over and over...

troop901
01-19-05, 07:52 PM
I agree, on a second term he should just walk up to da podium and raise his right hand and say, I do and I will. As far as the body armor for our troops, wouldnt do no good cause it's defective, how do I know this, cause I wear it each day. This new body armor has been found to be defective because after body heat and sweat it will deteriote to a point that it will not stop a bb gun. We filed lawsuits against the top 3 suppliers, armor holdings, second chance and point blank. Armor holdings agreed that the material was defective and are replacin the vests. Second Chance said screw you and filed fer bankrupcty. Point Blank is still ponderin what they want to do, they are the same companies that supply our troops with their vest's. I guess what I am sayin is, before we spend a few million on vest's fer our troops, contact your congress person and let em know that we want a vest that works for our Marines and soldiers. As I said, our Marines are not protected by this body armor.
SF

ivalis
01-19-05, 08:00 PM
The hell w/ the vests, buy the troops plane tickets home.

Sgted
01-19-05, 08:21 PM
Good point on the vests troop901.
Washington parties hearty while our fighting men & women are in harms way with sub standard equiptment.

I'd also like to point out that, because much of the funding for this Inauguaral event is from private donations try and guess who'll be running the show inside the beltway.

HardJedi
01-19-05, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by yellowwing
CNN was running an pre-Inaguartion in depth story "Where exactly the secure areas are", and "Where are the choke points and bottle necks." Gee-Christmas! How stupid is that?


are you SERIOUS???! they were TELEVISING the weak spots in security? GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY! really, Ithnik we need to do away with the freedom of the press. they should from now on be allowed to report sports scores and the weather. that's it.

If the dang media had it, they'd televise the security codes to nuke facilities, and the combination the the vault a t Ft Knox, just becasuse they can. Lord.

MillRatUSMC
01-19-05, 10:05 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/politics/16tone-top.html?8bl=&pagewanted=print&position=

Some information on a second term inauguration festivities.

"Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted - if not canceled - in wartime," Mr. Weiner wrote, noting that in 1945 Franklin D. Roosevelt limited the celebration to a cold luncheon at the White House.

"You're always criticized for spending money, because every inaugural is more expensive than the last one," Mr. Deaver said. "There are a lot of people who worked hard on the campaign and want to celebrate, and they should be allowed to. At the same time, tone is very important - the tone of what's going on in the world, what sacrifices Americans are making. I would hope the president's message is going to reflect the mood of the country."

You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't!"

Heard on a news program that this only time that "big business" gets to celebrate with the President in public.
To do so after he is in office, might appear as a conflict of interest.

All this celebrating might be sending the wrong message to the troops in the field.
IMHO

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi
Ricardo

troop901
01-19-05, 10:30 PM
Let me blunder along again. We have been asked for the second time in 3 yrs to help DC with security. We dont care, as matter of fact I wanted to go, even in freezin temps, to protect my president. If it was Kerry, yes, I would have wanted to go too, to protect my President. He was elected, love him or hate him, he was elected. Yes, I stood proud as he passed by me, all the while the secret service tellin me to turn away cause he cant pass up a cop in uniform. Like I said, our troops are not protected by their vests, just as I am not. This aint Wisconsin where ya can hold up a frozen dog turd to fend off bullets. Sorry IV, had to get that shot in lol.

MillRatUSMC
01-19-05, 11:36 PM
greensideout, maybe a poll with this post might have been a good idea.
So we could see visually how people feel on this issue.

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi
Ricardo

hrscowboy
01-19-05, 11:40 PM
Ricardo i dont give a rats behind how much these people worked to get this president in office. the problem here is we have people right here in or own country losing there jobs, and homes because someone cant see the horse before the cart. this president is in a war that is proving to be another vietnam day after day. our children and grand children are fighting a war that will never be over we will drag this war out just like they did nam and finally someone will say just like they did in nam enough is enough. Both my sons are over there in the sand box fighting and i have yet to hear from their own mouths that we have accomplished anything other than take saddam down and killin a bunch of bad guys. They tell me that the Army is screwed up over there they dont know which order to follow first. Thank god I didnt let them join the army. I have heard the very same stories about the bullet proof vests that are failing and equip that should have never been there in the first place. i say bring saddam to cuba and lets get this over with and bring our young men & women home and let them ragheads kill them selves off one by one.

thedrifter
01-20-05, 11:34 AM
Clinton's second Inaugural cost more than Bush's
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inaugural price tag in line with history
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

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.

"Every inaugural, there's a really good reason given why you should spend whatever donors are sending in on something else," Rich Galen, a veteran Republican activist, told the Associated Press, saying many of the complaints come from the losers of the election.

Mr. Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat, in a letter to President Bush said that a celebration during the war on terror is inappropriate and the money could be better spent, saying the funds could be used pay for 690 Humvees and a $290 bonus for each soldier serving in Iraq.

"Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted - if not canceled - in wartime," said the letter, which cited President Roosevelt's scaled back inauguration in 1945 that had a menu of cold chicken salad and pound cake.

Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee, and White House officials say the inauguration is an American tradition that transcends partisan politics and is a symbol to the world.

President Johnson didn't eschew pageantry in 1965, racking up a $1.6 million bill for inaugural festivities despite the Vietnam War, historian Robert Dallek told Reuters.

In 1997, there was grumbling that the inauguration cost too much. But Clinton spokesman Barry Toiv said at the time, "It's really a symbol to the world and has been for over 200 years, and it's worth celebrating."

This year, the inaugural committee has taken a similar tact, dubbing the events "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service."


Ellie