[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by epchick

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.

I know that they are not paying for the China! My point is that it was the Bush family's choice to buy the china. Like I said before I think that this is horrible timing and sends a bad impression. I also don't agree with the purchase because I think that art would have been more sensible than China especially because the incomming fam may buy new China.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Your analogy is off in so many ways. To make it a bit more on target, my next door neighbor would have ordered that couch a few years ago, before any economic turndown. He didn't pay for it with his own money or with my money -- he paid for it with a gift of money that came with the stipulation that it can only be used for buying new furniture for the house, or something else valuable for the house, or not spending the money at all. And while he has other couches already, they are not sufficient to meet the entertaining needs that everyone in the neighborhood expects him to fulfill on our behalf, which is one reason we've been letting him and his family live in the house to begin with.
The thing about the china is that since it was paid for years ago (the price of it was still extreme to me) and is just being delivered now the only thing I'm really talking about is impression and appearance. Even if your neighbor ordered the couch two years ago I believe that the couch would factor into your decision to give him money. I did not say it should but it will.

The money that was used to buy the china couldn't have been used for some other purpose, such as helping people who are having trouble paying mortgages. The money came from a foundation, which can only spend its funds on items related to the care, conservation, history and furnishing of the White House. So, there were three choices here: spend the money on china for the White House, spend the money on something else for the White House<-- what I said would have been a better choice in my opinion, or don't spend the money at all <---Also an option they could have used. They spent the money on china, putting a half-million dollars back into the economy that might not have been there otherwise.

Just not that big of a deal.

^^ I agree that its not that big of a deal. As I said the money is spent and I wouldn't reverse it if I could. That does not mean that I agree with the purchase. I happen to believe that there could have been a better purchase and much better timing.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Also, there seems to be a belief that spending money during a recession is bad. This is false. The BEST thing for those with money to do right now is SPEND it - businesses are going under because there simply are no buyers. If money doesn't start moving we are going to have even more problems- a terrible trickle down effect which some are feeling even as we speak.

I know that when in a recession the government spends money to keep our economy at equalibrium. This is the reason that the New Deal was a success. What I'm saying is that in a recession money should be spent in a more concientious manner. FDR spent money on the arts (which many people considered frivolous) but it was money well spent. I happen to put new China in the unnecessary and frivolous category.

While I agree in part about the need for people to spend money I also understand that if the people with money spend their money they will not be the people with money for long. In a recession most people cannot afford to be buyers. The only thing I would consider buying is CDs, Bonds, and other things that garuntee a return. The thing about the trickle down effect is that when there are cut backs they trickle all the way down, but when there are profits, they dont necessarily trickle.