21 million dollars !?

Last weekend alone, the Americans people spent 22.5 MILLION DOLLARS to see the movie "Meet the Fockers". Just that one single movie, just that one single weekend; not even counting all the other movies over the weekend, which actually puts the total into the hundreds of millions of dollars. How can people spend money on movies when tsunami victims need that money to live? Everyone who watches movies should be ashamed. I am both disgusted and shocked.

Actually I'm not. That was sarcasm. People are allowed to spend their own money on whatever they want.

It's easy to bash on Bush because most of the internet population is anti-Bush.

That's like saying if someone bought a $40000 car, you call them seflish and ignorant because they could've spent that money on charity. Just because someone doesn't spend _ALL_ of their money on charity doesn't make them selfish.

We're all "guilty" of that at one time or another. I don't need the new shirt that I bought the other day, but I wanted it. Sure, it could have gone to charity, but I've donated enough money and I don't think donating more money would make me less selfish.

Had every person in the U.S. donated a dollar, think of the money that could've been raised. Sure, 40 million isn't an awful lot. But what was more necessary, four days of partying for wealthy Americans, or improved armour for soldiers fighting for our supposed 'freedom' in Iraq? Shows how much they care for our troops.

And no, people shouldn't be offended by being called a 'hippy liberal.' I'm damn proud of my dissent. Hearing the announcer tell people to, "Stand up and clap for President and Mrs. Bush. Show them how much you love America!" is just infuriating. This country's about improvement via protest.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Teddy Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, 149
May 7, 1918

I think the main reason people are so outraged is that Bush keeps saying there isn't money for schools, healthcare, eqipment for soldiers, Social Security ect... and yet can still find $40 mil for a party. It says alot about his priorities, don't it?

No, it says stuff about all the private individuals and comapnies that donated money. They gave money for the ceremony, not for the schools/healthcare/whatever. Bush didn't say "I want to make a $40m ceremony", they gave the money they chose to give for the ceremonies they would be attending, not for Bush to spend on healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Endless

No, it says stuff about all the private individuals and comapnies that donated money. They gave money for the ceremony, not for the schools/healthcare/whatever. Bush didn't say "I want to make a $40m ceremony", they gave the money they chose to give for the ceremonies they would be attending, not for Bush to spend on healthcare.

---

Not all of the money came from private interests though. A significant portion came from the taxpayers. 'Fiscal Conservatism' my ass.

EDIT: What I mean by this is that the conservatives/republicans make it such a point to be anti-all spending. One of the conerstones of the anti-kerry ideology was something to the effect of "Kerry's got all these new programs, but who will bear the brunt of this? The taxpayers." To spend this much money on a fanciful presidential parade (With much of it coming from the taxpayers) seems to me hipoctritical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moose Knight

Not all of the money came from private interests though. A significant portion came from the taxpayers. 'Fiscal Conservatism' my ass.

---

I was wondering just how much you claim has come from tax revenue? I know that there was a donation "cap" placed at $250,000 from any one individual or corporation, yet many conglomerate corporations donated 250k from the parent company and another 250k from each subsidiary company, and even another 250k from the President/CEO. So I really don't think they needed to use any taxpayer money for this megaparty. The corporations throw a hell of a lot of money into this thing because they are trying to buy future favors and considerations from the administration. :evilking:

Damn straight I'm a hippie liberal, but unlike the ones who protest, I shall actually attempt to enter the government myself and make some changes.

Anyway. I agree that this is horrible, disgusting, etc. but the fact of the matter remains that every president since ever has spent huge amounts of money on themselves. Its not "liberal" or "conservatives," its the rich that do so.

Actually I shouldn't even go that far. It was a human. Humans are greedy. They like to spend money on themselves. They love to be treated like royalty. I'm pretty sure some of you would do the same thing. I cannot answer for myself, as it hasn't happened yet, but due to human nature, and my current lack of willpower, I might end up doing it as well.

This is expected from a human, but that does not mean that it should be tolerated. We must somehow weed out this tendency for greed if we are to achieve our full potential as a species.

I think the main point is Jebus, is that its not HIS money, part of what he spent is money from us taxpayers =/

It should be illegal for politicians to spend this kind of money on something this trivial.

You spend your money on things just as trivial, like posting here, playing video games, or going to the theater. Should it be forbidden to you too?
Second, and that's like the third or fourth time I'm saying it, it's not politicians who spent money, it companies/private individuals. Now, since you don't seem to see why it's not trivial to their eyes, let me explain it shortly: the inauguration ceremonies are a very good place for big companies, influential people or celebrities to be seen with the new administration, to talk to them and show support so that they have influence later when decisions will affect their business area. It's lobbying, and (sadly) if you want to stand out, you have to do it. Companies did it with Clinton, they did it with Bush, and I have no doubt they will do it with the next President.
Third, that inauguration is a display to the rest of the world to show them your power/wealth.

Last, about the taxpayer money: the inauguration is in fact in two parts: there's the inauguration itself, where the President is sworn in, and one ball after. That's what is paid by taxpayers money (DC area I think), to which you add the security (which might have been a bigger part of the bill this year, since a few things happened since Jan 2001) (and some also count the "lost revenue due to the day off"). All the other side ceremonies, all the other balls are paid for by private contributors, not taxpayers money.

This really isn't that big of a deal, for the most part. I'm by no means a Bush supporter (quite the opposite, in fact), but this is one thing I'm really not all that upset about. Some of this has already been mentioned, but consider the following:

- This inauguration is actually less expensive than Bush's last one (which according to Newsweek was $43 million). Considering that security was probably a lot tighter this year (and thus more expensive), I think that's pretty good.
- As mentioned, security has been increased compared to past years. Whether or not this is justified is pretty debatable, but the fact is that even if some of us don't like Bush, he is the president and should be adequately protected. After a controversial first term and a somewhat disputed election, one could argue in favor of the increased security.
- 95% of the tab is covered by corporations and executives who donated money (Newsweek once again). Very little of it is tax dollars, so it would not have gone to anything like education. And as Endless said, the part that is tax dollars goes to the more "governmental" part of the inauguration.
- Every president since Reagan (including Reagan himself) has had an expensive inauguration of at least $30 million. This doesn't justify the cost, necessarily, but this year's situation is non-unique.

So yeah, you can complain about the inauguration costs, but there are many more important issues out there. Pick one.

you do know the liberals are really Progressives right?and the conservatives always want to be hte conservatives lol.Except I think people who are conservative have a really really really off beat view of the world.