George W's fancy inaugural party is going to cost the government $17.3 million dollars above and beyond the $40 million (not counting security) he hopes to raise from private donations.
Why does our money need to be spent (and external funds collected) for extravagantly swearing in a man who is already president in these times of war and poor social funding? As I sit here, my tuition is preparing to raise and I am carefully planning a career in public education, which I will never have adequate funding to optimally perform (based on the Oregon Quality Education Model) and for which I will never earn what I am worth. We are fighting a $5 BILLION a month war that brings constant news of uprepared forces. We have a $4.2 BILLION national deficit. Our economy is ever on the decline. Americans are jobless, homeless, poverty-stricken, without healthcare, and dying of unresearched diseases and natural disasters.
But whatever... I guess I'm silly to think that we should prioritize our spending based on what this country desperately NEEDS to improve and meet the needs of its citizens. I guess it's silly to think that having such a big shin-dig in the midst of war is inappropriate. Sure, one other inauguration has cost more than this one, woo-fucking-hoo. And President Johnson had a pricey party (only $1.6 million, which is less, even with inflation) during Vietnam. And I know that $17.3 million would hardly make a dent in any of our national problems. Great freakin' arguments, people...I guess it's silly to expect that (not my) President Bush would hold a more modest event as a gesture given our nation's current climate.
A big fucking party is exactly what we need. Party on, George.
Feds to pay some D.C. inauguration Costs (Oregonlive.com)
Some Now Question Cost of inauguration (FindLaw)
inaugural price tag in line with history (Washington Post)
P.S. If anyone comments in a way that severely pisses me off I reserve every right to remove it. So be respectful even if you don't agree with me. Support your claims with fact and your opinions with reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
when i first heard all the bitching about the amount of money that was being spent on the inauguration my reaction was "so what? big deal- they were all private donatations." upon hearing that 17 million will come out of the taxpayer's pockets, i'm singing a different tune. i do think that it is in poor taste to have an extravagant party during these dismal times. i think it would be better if he was sworn in, gave a speech acknowleging the disaster in asia and the loss of life (as well as progress) in the middle east, our domestic problems, and then simply outlined his plans for the future. i think it's disrespectful to throw a 57 million dollar party when there are so many huge problems that need to be dealt with.
I know- it's not like this was the worst thing he's ever done or anything, but come on, get priorities straight. I read an editorial asking what if, instead of taking donations for the inagural, he asked for corporate donations for tsunami vicitms. Interesting.
Geez Sara, if you are going to bash "W", lets do it correctly:
In responding to the amount of money we are spending on the war, and the national deficit, I think you meant to say that the national deficit is in the TRILLIONS not BILLIONS (Ms. H, you may need to work on your place values)
By the way, did anyone see the front page of the Register Guard on Tuesday? Two headlines: 1) Cuts to School Funding in Oregon to be Severe and 2) (Which appeared directly to the right of the article about education) Bush wants to approve another 40 Billion for the "War on Terrorism". Can you find what is wrong with this picture?
I think we should all have a moment of silence for the brilliant Michael Moore who was rudely overlooked by the academy. To Mr. Moore: Your movie deserves more than any Oscar could ever symbolize!
From Crystal Johnson
Trillions, billions...whatever. 4th grade math doesn't go that high unless you're reading "How Much is a Million?" Anyhoo, thanks for the correction Crystal.
Also, we learned in class last night that the dollar amount that the Governer is citing as the difference between adequate and inadequate funding is based on the Quality Ed. Model, not No Child Left Behind. Under the QEM, 90% of kids need to meet standards. Under NCLB, 99% of kids need to meet standards. Therefore, the dollar amount required for schools to be effective is even higher than the Governer is citing, and the disparity between what we need and what we're getting is even higher than the newspapers let on. Yikes!
as promised, comments that severely piss me off will (and have been) deleted. Fuck off, anonymous posters.
For some reason I cannot delete the posting that I want to get rid of. Not sure why. Also to clarify: Fuck off anonymous posters that don't put their name in the message.
I've protested till I was hoarse and blue in the face so I will not even get into any deep seeded conversations. I only have a few statements, One: the majority does not think that anti-war on terrorism people are unfounded or wrong, they're just too lazy to actually get up and vote, not to mention the fact that the canidates in the 2004 elections were too similar. Hell they're even distantly related.
Two: The National deficit as of January 28th 2005 while I am sitting here writing this stands at 7,624,113,290,851.24 for your further perusal enjoyment
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/25deficit.html
Finally, I got that other comment removed. It's only reasonable to expect that people arguing agains me will post their names. And if they're not okay with that, welcome to the trash can.
Post a Comment