For just a minute, I was almost stupid enough to come out of my (legally) medicated coma to comment about totally uninformed people posting about things they know nothing about. But since certain posters haven't gotten the point already, I'm going back to bed.

The china was made by American companies Lenox and Pickard, for both formal and less formal occasions, all paid by private funds. Don't like it? Don't donate.

I'm going to ignore how "hard" it is to get in to see the White House. That's a thread of its own. nihgt.

What does a federal budget surplus have to do with the price of china in Washington, given that the china Mrs. Clinton bought was paid for with private foundation dollars, not federal funds? She didn't spend any "extra money" from any surplus.

Clear and well-said. (And I don't think Barbara Bush bought any china. Could be wrong though.)

Oh brother don't I know it. LOL

Yeah, why should you trust anything I say? Maybe I only pretend to be a lawyer. ;)

Exactly. Of course it's not that serious! Do you really not understand that the reason some of us have been having fun at your expense (I'll admit it) is because of the way you have responded to something that's "not that serious"?

The "it's-not-that-serious" response to the White House Tour link would have been something along the lines of "Sure I know it's possible to visit the White House. Sorry if anyone thought I was suggesting otherwise. What I meant was . . . ." And that would have been the end of it.

But instead, you chose to (pardon the expression) make a federal case out of it, dismissing even the possibility that you might have been less than clear, insisting that biased people were misinterpreting you and then scrambling to justify themselves. That kind of over-defensive reaction is like yelling "Play Ball!"

It's simple. We wouldn't have taken it seriously if you hadn't.

I am well aware of that! Just like the new China was not paid for by the American people.
The point is about the way the spending appears and the impression it gives. The point is that even though it is not TP dollars, in a recession this type of spending is senseless and it makes it seem like the impression the president is giving the American people about this being hard economic times that call for drastic (700 billion dollar) measures is a lie since his wife is buying 1/2 a million dollar china.
The point in saying that there was a surplus when the Clintons left is that the economy and American people were not suffering. There was "extra money" so a purchase like this would not be considered offensive. This situation to me is about setting an example.

If your next door neighbor just got a new expensive couch (to add to the many he already has and you know that the person who is moving in after he leaves in 2 weeks is going to buy another) after he turned to you and asked you to sacrifice to help his friend pay for a huge mistake she made would you not question why he let someone buy him a Couch when he knew his friend needed help? Personally, he'd have to sell the Couch or make some type of personal sacrifice before he could step to me and ask for my dollars. I would question his discretion.

So, I disagree with the purchase and think it was a very bad idea and I also think it came at a bad time. It wasn't my money and there isn't anything that I can do about it (not that I would if I could). I also don't buy the "Its all American's china" idea. Its just my opinion on the matter.

Why was it a "poor choice"? It wasn't paid for with your taxpayer money so what's the big deal?

I think you can point to several more instances of spending that could be far more detrimental to our economy than the act of buying some dinnerware. Think: "Bailout"

What the hell does private money used from a private foundation have to do with what Bush has said about the economy? Our economy is in the dumps. We are in fairly desperate times that have called for desperate measures. None of that means that someone can't spend their OWN PRIVATE money on a gift. Paris Hilton bought a 320,000$ pink Bentley with her own private money.....is she a threat to our national well being? No.

Personally, I'm a lot more pissed off that shitty companies with shitty business models have gotten billions of dollars of OUR own money through bailouts. Those were bad ideas.......certainly in a bad time....

....but that's just me.

I think I would be kind of embarrassed if other world leaders were invited to the White House and were served food on China that any one of us could afford to buy. I know it's not the equivalent, but I couldn't imagine having dinner on a holiday like Easter, Christmas, or Thanksgiving on paper plates. But I lol'ed when I read the "Presidential styrofoam plates" comment.

I'm not a Bush supporter, but this is the best post so far on this thread. I agree, especially since it's not being paid for by tax payers.

Paris Hilton is not a member of the first family. If Bush's daughter did this would I be concerned? Probably.

I thought I covered that in my post when I said that the use of private $$ to buy China seems to be senseless and unnecessary. Since it was a purchase made by the first fam. for the white house (one that they are leaving in two weeks) it has to do with Bush. This use of $$ makes me (and others) question Bush's credibility (on the issue of the bailout). It also makes people feel that this 7 billion dollar bailout was total crap because if there's 1/2 a mil for china there should be $$ (non TP $$) to bail-out these corporate losers.

And FTR I think this bail-out was total crap. Mofo's just getting billions for no reason.

And I'm having this mental image of Daemon as the President of the United States. I have this image of world leaders visiting the White House getting their food served to them on presidential styrofoam plates. I'm just seeing everyone with a confused look on their faces, while Daemon and the 1st lady eat like there's nothing wrong.

ETA: And let's not forget about what happens to styrofoam plates when you cut into them with plastic knives. I think it would get pretty messy. lol

DS, I totally don't think this is a good idea at all.

The Bush family is NOT paying for the china. If you even read the article, you'd know that the White House Historical Association is paying for the china (as they did for the Reagans and the Clintons).

The only thing the Bush family has to do with this china is that they picked the design.

And what is the environmental impact of Styrofoam? Hmmmm?? ;)

eta - And I'm getting a headache from the more illogical arguments. Teaching logic warps you, it must be said. Sigh. Putting people on ignore also doesn't work if they get quoted by others - :rolleyes:

Feel better, honeychile.

I wonder what they do with the bulk of the old china since they seem to change it for every 2 term president. If they were smart, they'd put it up piece by piece on Ebay... I'd def throw down $100 just so every time I ate cereal, it was with my official Clinton White House spoon.

Also, the price tag seems hefty on the china, but keep in mind it is a LOT of china, enough to serve whole dinner parties.

"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

To the best of my knowledge, hey don't "get rid of it". Different services are used for different occasions - I know sometimes reports will mention that, for example, the Truman service is being used.

I know that they keep some of the historic ones, but I can't imagine them using all that stuff until it's unusable if they are buying new stuff around every 10 years...

While some debt was paid back to the American public (treasury bonds and such), neither the national debt nor the deficit were ever in the black nor was the budget ever balanced during his terms.