@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
It should not be the taxpayers responsibility to provide a financial windfall for Washington DC or any other place. It might be different if it was all financed by private donations with the taxpayer reimbursed for all expenses incurred through necessary services, but there we open another can of worms in what possible obligatory favors will be expected in return for those donations.
Be even setting that aside, that does not change the fact that our elected leader could have sent a different message to the people with a demonstration of not spending money that the government doesn't have especially in a time when so many people are hurting. That would have been a huge change that everybody could believe in.
Perhaps, but it also might have been a depressing comment on our current situation at a time when there is enough depressing news out there. Not that the government should feed Christians to the lions to distract us while the country burns, but the government is looking at spending 11 figures to stimulate the economy. The inauguration spending is likewise stimulating the economy. It's putting money into the pockets of policemen, small business owners, hotel operators, restaurant owners, etc. It's direct economic stimulus. It won't leave behind any roads or bridges the way I prefer my stimulus dollars to work, but it might leave behind a generation of Americans more closely tied to the political process. Maybe thousands of school children will remember this day the way I remember watching the moon landings on TV when I was in school. Maybe it will be money well spent.
