Recession? What recession? The Bushes Buy Fine China for almost 1/2 a mil.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

So, should the thousands of people who are spending what will be millions of dollars on transportation, hotels, clothing ,meals and tickets for the inauguration cancel because we are in a recession?
citizens wish to donate funds to buy china that it is not newsworthy. Were public funds being used, yes, that would be wrong and newsworthy. I thought the same thing when it was reported that friends of the Clintons were buying expensive furnishings for them as they left office.

As far as it being "our china" - it is ours in the sense that all of the exhibits at the Smithsonian are ours, that all of our national parks are ours, that the White House, whether you can go there or not, is ours. The china does not belong to an individual. It will be used at White House functions by the Obamas and future presidents when they entertain heads of state and foreign dignitaries in their role as the representatives of the American people. I do not know if all administrations buy china - I remember the Reagan china, but cannot recall if the Clintons or Bushes part I purchased any.

The thousands of people going to the inauguration should not cancel. All of their purchases together will be millions. It would be different if each person were spending 1/2 a mil. Then Hell Yes they should cancel.

In the land of the sometimes free and brave any and almost everything is newsworthy. Beyonce took a fall and CNN covered it so, there aren't many limits on what is newsworhty.

What private citizens do is their choice, but when the choice is also made by the head family of our country (the one that sets an expample for the families of America) and the choice effects the American people I think it is more than newsworthy. I think that in a recession certain purchases are bad. It is a bad idea if your income has been drastically slashed for you to allow a family memeber to buy you a new couch when you already have several and don't need one. When you are appealing to others to give you a loan to help cover your bills what do you expect them to say about that new furniture? Also, what do you expect your kids to learn from that? I'll be damned if a president is going to tell me that we need to spend 700 Billion on a bailout when there's enough money out there to spend .5mil on china. Ask the china buyers to pay for a bail-out not the American people. And as another note, yes Mrs. Clinton did buy new china and the Clintons left office with a surplus. There was extra money to be spent as far as Im concerned.

The Smithsonian and national parks can be used by all people equally. It'd be different if some people could take the exhibits in the Smith home while most of us couldnt. We all have equal access and use of the things you mentioned. I do not consider the white house mine either. I cannot use it as such it is not mine. The things that belong to the American people can be used by the american people.

[crescent&pearls]

So how many place settings do you get for a half a million bucks? I could not find where they mentioned if it was 200 or 1000 or what.

Hmm, I wonder if we'll see any reports on the expense of the Congressional dining services facilities?

[AGDLynn]

320 sets

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

And as another note, yes Mrs. Clinton did buy new china and the Clintons left office with a surplus. There was extra money to be spent as far as Im concerned.

That's not actually true.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Well said!!!

Since, in reply to my inference about her comment DeepImapct2 said "Well said" I do not believe that I got her wrong. I may have. DeepImpact2 will have to clear this up.

So, DeepImapct2 did you mean what I thought you meant by your comment?

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Last I checked American citizens can barely get near the White House, let alone even VISIT it. How does the china belong to us?

^^The statement about being able to visit the white house had absolutely everything to do with the china. She was disputing the belief that the china belonged to all of us because not all of us can visit the white house to use the china.

Originally Posted by epchick

No, that is what YOU assumed she (is deepimpact a she?) meant.
Yes. That is what I assumed she (she is a she) meant. I also assumed that if she meant something different she would have made that known when she responded to my post (as she did with you and others who misunderstood), but she did not. She replied "well said" which suggests that I understood what she meant.
Her statement about "barely" being about to visit the White House, had absolutely nothing to do with the china (the china question was in regards to SWTXBelle's comment). She was talking about the "hoops" and "hurdles" it takes to visit the White House--which people have already told her aren't that difficult to get through.


ETA: So going by your logic, since you interpreted deepimpact's statement a different way (than what she meant)--you are wrong.

So, going by my logic I may be wrong. It will just take the clarification of DeepImpact2 to tell.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

That's not actually true.

What is not actually true?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

What is not actually true?

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.

[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.

[DaemonSeid]

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.

Can't spend what you don't have.

Can't make it to spend if you don't something to make it with.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Can't spend what you don't have.

Can't make it to spend if you don't something to make it with.

Which is why it's important for those who do have the money to spend to get out and spend it for the sake of the rest of us.

[honeychile]

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.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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.

Feel better, honeychile.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

And as another note, yes Mrs. Clinton did buy new china and the Clintons left office with a surplus. There was extra money to be spent as far as Im concerned.

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.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Personally, I am happy for the boost to the Washington, D.C. economy. I also think that in the land of the free and the home of the brave if private citizens wish to donate funds to buy china that it is not newsworthy. Were public funds being used, yes, that would be wrong and newsworthy. I thought the same thing when it was reported that friends of the Clintons were buying expensive furnishings for them as they left office. What private citizens chose to do with their money is really not a concern of the public at large as long as no laws are broken.

As far as it being "our china" - it is ours in the sense that all of the exhibits at the Smithsonian are ours, that all of our national parks are ours, that the White House, whether you can go there or not, is ours. The china does not belong to an individual. It will be used at White House functions by the Obamas and future presidents when they entertain heads of state and foreign dignitaries in their role as the representatives of the American people. I do not know if all administrations buy china - I remember the Reagan china, but cannot recall if the Clintons or Bushes part I purchased any.

I'm not a lawyer or a law student, so hope my writing is clear enough for the GC crowd.

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

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I'm amused that you actually wrote this. There are practicing attorneys who can barely write.

Oh brother don't I know it. LOL

At least these 1Ls you speak of have an excuse (IF their writing is really unclear and unpersuasive...we only have YOUR asessment of that... which is definitely not a final authority).

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

I will add that I'm not sure what being an attorney has to do with anything. I view this thread as a discussion. We are not in court. Again, it's not that serious.

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.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

The only good news is ... SUPPOSEDLY it's not being paid by our dollars, but I am sure that money could have gone a long way towards something else...

They can't make presidential styrofoam plates or sumn??????

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.

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

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'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.