Send 40 million Bush inauguration money to tsunami victims

that's because this is happening RIGHT NOW...and because bush is president RIGHT NOW.....see how that works?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

that's because this is happening RIGHT NOW...and because bush is president RIGHT NOW.....see how that works?

No, not at all. Bush is using the conventional sources of government revenue to deal with the Asian disaster. The bottom line is that you are still criticizing him, as though it made him a fiend, for not doing something that no president has ever done.

I am gratified to see that rather than using your energies effectively to promote agendas and candidates you believe in, you are expending them uselessly in whining about the candidate who won the election. You give me hope of winning again in 2008. Maybe you should start another thread about how Bush actually lost the election, and only appears to have won because of a massive conspiracy.

0 Replies

Inaugural Security Draws on Latest Technologies

Intelligence to Stream Into Command Center From 50 Police Agencies Aloft and on the Ground

By Sari Horwitz and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, January 10, 2005; Page A01

The nerve center for the most heavily guarded presidential inauguration in history will not be in Washington, where President Bush will take the oath of office, but 25 miles away in a futuristic command post in Northern Virginia.

Inside a gleaming steel-and-marble complex, the Secret Service and 50 federal, state and local agencies will monitor action in the sky, on the ground and in the subway system. Giant plasma screens will beam in live video from helicopters and cameras at the U.S. Capitol, along the parade route and at other potential trouble spots. Officials will be able to track fighter jets patrolling the skies, call up three-dimensional maps of downtown, even project the plume of any chemical release.
One top police official likened the new facility to a set from the "Star Wars" movies. It is one of many signs that Bush's second inauguration Jan. 20 will take security in Washington to a new level, using expertise and equipment developed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"This is the Super Bowl for us," said FBI Supervisory Special Agent James W. Rice II. "Everyone on every team is dressed up and playing in the game. And the bench is very, very deep."

The agents and officers at the swearing-in and along the parade route will have access to the latest tools. "Every piece of technology that exists will be a part of this," said Rice, who oversees the National Capital Response Squad.

Link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61769-2005Jan9.html?referrer=email

I wonder who will pay for this part of the coronation of King George

0 Replies

The other night Larry King's guests were Bush41 and Bill Clinton (talking about their humanitarian efforts). King asked Clinton if Dubya should cancel the inauguration festivities in light of the recent disaster, to which Bill answered immediately and without so much as batting an eye:

"Heck, no".

0 Replies

Do you honestly think they would or could say anything else?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Do you honestly think they would or could say anything else?

Of course not. They'd be lying if they did and it would serve no purpose for them to lie.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
that's because this is happening RIGHT NOW...and because bush is president RIGHT NOW.....see how that works?

No, not at all. Bush is using the conventional sources of government revenue to deal with the Asian disaster. The bottom line is that you are still criticizing him, as though it made him a fiend, for not doing something that no president has ever done.

I am gratified to see that rather than using your energies effectively to promote agendas and candidates you believe in, you are expending them uselessly in whining about the candidate who won the election. You give me hope of winning again in 2008. Maybe you should start another thread about how Bush actually lost the election, and only appears to have won because of a massive conspiracy.

I don't really expect you to grasp a lot Brandon but really this is rough even for you.....I am merely responding to you by saying the reason bush is the one being made the object of this criticism is because he is currently president....were this tsunami to have happened on clintons watch, or reagans, or carters, or bush 41's and the same subject came up there would be criticism leveled at them whether deserved or not. I already made it crystal clear that I felt like, with a couple of possible exceptions no president would give up his inauguration party, so your first paragraph is ridiculous in the extreme, but nice try.

I am puzzled as to why a good right thinking American such as yourself would be gratified to see me behaving in a counter productive and negative way. That's not good for the country. I personally think you right wing nuts are going to end up suffering as much as the rest of us, in fact even worse because on top of everything else you will be so surprised when the bottom falls out on your smug attitudes and well laid expectations, but I take no gratification from it. In fact it saddens and maddens me. But...nanny nanny boo boo big guy, you enjoy. See ya on the playground. :wink:

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
that's because this is happening RIGHT NOW...and because bush is president RIGHT NOW.....see how that works?

No, not at all. Bush is using the conventional sources of government revenue to deal with the Asian disaster. The bottom line is that you are still criticizing him, as though it made him a fiend, for not doing something that no president has ever done.

I am gratified to see that rather than using your energies effectively to promote agendas and candidates you believe in, you are expending them uselessly in whining about the candidate who won the election. You give me hope of winning again in 2008. Maybe you should start another thread about how Bush actually lost the election, and only appears to have won because of a massive conspiracy.

I don't really expect you to grasp a lot Brandon but really this is rough even for you.....I am merely responding to you by saying the reason bush is the one being made the object of this criticism is because he is currently president....were this tsunami to have happened on clintons watch, or reagans, or carters, or bush 41's and the same subject came up there would be criticism leveled at them whether deserved or not. I already made it crystal clear that I felt like, with a couple of possible exceptions no president would give up his inauguration party, so your first paragraph is ridiculous in the extreme, but nice try.

I am responding to your previous posts in this thread. You and other posters in this thread are clearly implying that his failure to hold a cheap innauguration and donate the proceeds to tsunami relief is tied in with what you perceive as a character flaw:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

... no one is naive enough to think bush would miss a chance to show everyone how big his dick is.....

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I am puzzled as to why a good right thinking American such as yourself would be gratified to see me behaving in a counter productive and negative way. That's not good for the country.

I am hardly alone in hoping that my political opponents advance their ideas in a way that will not lead to victory for them. This is a ridiculous red herring.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

[I personally think you right wing nuts are going to end up suffering as much as the rest of us, in fact even worse because on top of everything else you will be so surprised when the bottom falls out on your smug attitudes and well laid expectations, but I take no gratification from it. In fact it saddens and maddens me.

Too non-specific to deserve a response.

0 Replies

like the smug attitude yu're displaying right now for instance.

not a red herring. bad for the country. people in charge and their supporters who are only interested in winning and say so right out loud in a condescending and smug manner.

Of course I think it's a character flaw that all politicians share as I've also stated and you choose to ignore.

You can't win this debate...except in your own mind and those of your cronies here.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

like the smug attitude yu're displaying right now for instance.

Not relevant to the actual argument.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

not a red herring. bad for the country. people in charge and their supporters who are only interested in winning and say so right out loud in a condescending and smug manner.

Hoping the opposition viewpoint campaigns ineffectively is pretty ubiquitous on both sides. The people who are spending a lot of time, trumpeting every Bush move as a sign of The Beast give me great hope that the liberals will continue to self-destruct.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Of course I think it's a character flaw that all politicians share as I've also stated and you choose to ignore.

I'm not sure it was clear at the outset that you are not criticizing the president for unusually bad behavior, but it is clear now.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

You can't win this debate...except in your own mind and those of your cronies here.

You poor, deluded fool. I've already won.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I am sure Kerry would have skipped his inaugeration completely.

Just curious when Kerry factored into this equation...
...or should we just substitute "Kerry" with "any Democrat". Or perhaps, any President of the United States for that matter.

Now, as much as I love to point out some of the malfeasance of the Bush administration, I would also like to take the opportunity to agree with McG on this rare occasion.
Can't see anyone giving up this moment...tragedy or not, republican or democrat.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
like the smug attitude yu're displaying right now for instance.

Not relevant to the actual argument.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
not a red herring. bad for the country. people in charge and their supporters who are only interested in winning and say so right out loud in a condescending and smug manner.

Hoping the opposition viewpoint campaigns ineffectively is pretty ubiquitous on both sides. The people who are spending a lot of time, trumpeting every Bush move as a sign of The Beast give me great hope that the liberals will continue to self-destruct.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Of course I think it's a character flaw that all politicians share as I've also stated and you choose to ignore.

I'm not sure it was clear at the outset that you are not criticizing the president for unusually bad behavior, but it is clear now.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
You can't win this debate...except in your own mind and those of your cronies here.

You poor, deluded fool. I've already won.

like I said....

0 Replies

Candidone wrote

Quote:

Can't see anyone giving up this moment...tragedy or not, republican or democrat.

That is something we will never know. However, what we do know is the present clod won't. Even before the tragedy in Asia I was disgusted when I heard the plans. Why, because while he and his affluent supporters are partying. Americans are fighting and dying in a war of Bush's making. Simply out of respect and compassion for them the opulence planned seems out of place.
It reminds me of Nero who fiddled while Rome burned.

0 Replies

Well, it's his party and the $40 mil is coming from his friends, so what difference does it make whether it could go to some better purpose. I do wonder though whether part of the $40 mil will be used to reimburse local police for providing security for this party. Or are we paying for that.
The cynical little bastard in me hopes that it snows on Jan 20 in DC. A lot of snow. And tow-trucks will drag the helpless limos through Washington. Too much to hope for, but a great image.

0 Replies

U.S. Tells D.C. to Pay Inaugural Expenses
washingtonpost.com
U.S. Tells D.C. to Pay Inaugural Expenses
Other Security Projects Would Lose $11.9 Million
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 11, 2005; Page A04

D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.

Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years -- money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.

But that grant money is earmarked for other security needs, Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said in a Dec. 27 letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua B. Bolten and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Williams's office released the letter yesterday.

Williams estimated that the city's costs for the inauguration will total $17.3 million, most of it related to security. City officials said they can use an unspent $5.4 million from an annual federal fund that reimburses the District for costs incurred because of its status as the capital. But that leaves $11.9 million not covered, they said.

"We want to make this the best possible event, but not at the expense of D.C. taxpayers and other homeland security priorities," said Gregory M. McCarthy, the mayor's deputy chief of staff. "This is the first time there hasn't been a direct appropriation for the inauguration."

A spokesman for Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, which oversees the District, agreed with the mayor's stance. He called the Bush administration's position "simply not acceptable."

"It's an unfunded mandate of the most odious kind. How can the District be asked to take funds from important homeland security projects to pay for this instead?" said Davis spokesman David Marin.

The region has earmarked federal homeland security funds for such priorities as increasing hospital capacity, equipping firefighters with protective gear and building transit system command centers.

OMB spokesman Chad Kolton said no additional appropriation is needed for the inauguration.

"We think that an appropriate balance of money from [the annual reimbursement] fund and from homeland security grants is the most effective way to cover the additional cost the city incurs," Kolton said. "We recognize the city has a special burden to bear for many of these events. . . . That's expressly why in the post-9/11 era we are providing additional resources."

The $17.3 million the city expects to spend on this inauguration marks a sharp increase from the $8 million it incurred for Bush's first.

According to Williams's letter, the District anticipates spending $8.8 million in overtime pay for about 2,000 D.C. police officers; $2.7 million to pay 1,000-plus officers being sent by other jurisdictions across the country; $3 million to construct reviewing stands; and $2.5 million to place public works, health, transportation, fire, emergency management and business services on emergency footing.

Congressional aides said the District sought unsuccessfully last year to boost the annual security reimbursement fund from $15 million to $25 million to pay for inauguration expenses. In contrast, New York City and Boston-area lawmakers were able to obtain $50 million from Congress for each of those two jurisdictions to cover local security costs for the national political conventions.

Inauguration officials said they plan to spend $40 million on the four-day celebration, which will include fireworks, the swearing-in, a parade and nine balls. Those expenses -- which do not include security and other public services -- are being funded by private donors.

OMB and DHS spokesmen said they could not provide an estimate of what the inauguration will cost the federal government.

Federal employees who work in the District, Montgomery, Prince George's, Fairfax and Arlington counties, Alexandria and Falls Church are entitled to a holiday on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, the Office of Personnel Management has announced. As of June, the cost of giving federal workers in the capital area a day off was about $66 million.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) asked OPM chief Kay Coles James yesterday to dismiss federal employees at noon or 1 p.m. Jan. 19 to avoid gridlock. The Secret Service plans to close an area bordered by Constitution Avenue and E, 15th and 17th streets NW at 3:45 p.m. that day to accommodate a ceremony at the White House Ellipse, Norton's office said.

0 Replies

I think the city should refuse to get involved in the security and treat it just as if it were a normal day. Let the chips fall where they may.

0 Replies

Victor's Spoils

Published: January 11, 2005
At the rate President Bush's supporters are giving money, his second inauguration threatens to stand out in the history books like the common folks' muddy boot prints on the White House furniture at Andrew Jackson's gala. The $40 million record for inaugural partying set four years ago for Mr. Bush is expected to be shattered this month. The only limits for this binge of giving are the private inaugural committee's maximum of $250,000 for corporate donors (more than 40 have pledged so far) and $100,000 for individuals (60 and counting).

Ordinary citizens might have hoped that the overriding issue in Washington - the perilous Iraq war, with its drain on the nation's blood and treasure - would dictate restraint. But plans for the four-day extravaganza roll forward with nine celebratory balls being underwritten by the usual corporate and fat-cat supplicants in the political power mill.

There's nothing new in Washington's triumphalist celebrations, festooned with price tags for access, but war usually mutes the singing and dancing. Not this year.

The inaugural's stated theme - "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service" - is spin-doctoring in the extreme and hardly justifies the unrestrained lucre-fest. Planners did take care to create a "Commander in Chief Ball," free to the military and their families. But that only underscores the bad taste. Officials say "freedom everywhere" is the point of the celebrations. The freedom most obviously honored is that of American businesses, eagerly writing checks to get ever closer to the election winners.

0 Replies

I don't care who's in the White House...innauguration's are a narcissistic display of affection funded by the back scratchers of the newly elected President.
I would like to think that a democrat...or any other republican, whould forego the festivities, but let's be realistic.
Even if the President opted to downsize, or eliminate the innauguration altogether for his term...their friends would surely be disappointed that they won't have the opportunity to hob-nob and measure penises with all the other elite donors.

0 Replies

candidone1
If for no other reason but respect for the Americans giving their life and limbs fighting in Bush's war. The opulence is uncalled for and obscene.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

candidone1
If for no other reason but respect for the Americans giving their life and limbs fighting in Bush's war. The opulence is uncalled for and obscene.

That's the old "no innauguration ceremony during wars rule." The utter fiend!

0 Replies

Send 40 million Bush inauguration money to tsunami victims

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know