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

[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.

[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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I agree with DeepImpact. Eventhough the China is not paid for by the taxpayers it was still a senseless purchase. It makes no sense to purchase China for 1/2 a mil. when in two weeks the new first lady will be making another china purchase (because unless I'm misinformed each first lady gets to purchase china for the white house). I know it wont be in the first days that Mrs. Obama will make her china purchase, but it could be relatively soon and it will appear that our US leaders are just blowing money for no reason. In an economic crisis the Bush family is buying china? Really? Thats a great way to spark our economy. Is this china American made? (just wondering)

To hell with the historical legacy crap. Buying china is not the best way to enhance the historical legacy of the white house. I would have been more understanding if the Bushes purchased art of some kind. That is something that I would consider a legacy, but dinnerware? Nope. Its not like they dont already have china for dignitaries to eat from so what is the need for more? What dignitaries are they hosting over the next 14 days that they'll need china for?


DeepImpact2,
Maybe I misunderstood your post, but I thought that you meant that regular Americans couldn't visit the White House with the term visit meaning:
Go to the white house and have a meal using the expensive china.

In that sense Americans can barely visit the white house.
I do not consider something mine that I cannot use. If I jump through the necessary hoops I can go to the white house and view the china. That, in my opinion, does not make the china mine. That makes it someone elses china that I am going to see. Something cannot be considered "all of ours" if it can be used and only some of us can use it.

Well said!!!

I would also like to answer a question you asked. The question was what dignitaires are they hosting in the next 14 days that they will need china for. My answer is probably the very people who are occupying the Blair House and preventing the Obama's from moving in a little bit early. (Before anyone argues that no other president has done it, several media sources have reported that other presidents HAVE moved into the Blair House early.)

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

To hell with the historical legacy crap. Buying china is not the best way to enhance the historical legacy of the white house. I would have been more understanding if the Bushes purchased art of some kind. That is something that I would consider a legacy, but dinnerware? Nope. Its not like they dont already have china for dignitaries to eat from so what is the need for more? What dignitaries are they hosting over the next 14 days that they'll need china for?

From The Washington Post:

White House china is displayed in many rooms of the house, and the designs and shapes reflect the style and food in vogue through 200 years of presidential families. There are the French porcelain oyster plates and bonbon stands of the Rutherford B. Hayes administration and the cocktail cups and oatmeal bowls of Woodrow Wilson.

"The china shows the taste of the day. It records history," White House social secretary Amy Zantzinger said.

The frequent entertaining at the White House takes its toll on the china, and breakage depletes the numbers over the years.

"Right now, we only have two complete sets of china we can use for a state dinner for 134: the Reagan and the Clinton services," Zantzinger said.

Mrs. Bush explained that up to now, presidential families have used the formal state services for their meals and entertaining in the upstairs private quarters. She said that she most frequently used the red Reagan china but that her husband is partial to the Johnson service, which Lady Bird Johnson designed to depict wildflowers from throughout the country. Now, Bush said, future first families will have the option of using the "more informal" set for lunches and small dinners.

. . .

The debut of the Bush china occurred at a small luncheon this week for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

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. 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 Bushes didn't just go to Ikea last week and buy new china. The process for designing and buying this china started years ago, and the reports all note that the new china had been expected to arrive long before now, but was delayed for a variety of reasons.

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, or don't spend the money at all. 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.

[RaggedyAnn]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

From The Washington Post:

"Right now, we only have two complete sets of china we can use for a state dinner for 134: the Reagan and the Clinton services," Zantzinger said.

Since this thread keeps on going...
I was shocked that we only had sets of up to 134 place settings. That's less than I used for my wedding. It would seem to me that it was a good purchase if there are any large events that are going to be planned, unless the White House is going to rent china from a catering company.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I agree with DeepImpact. Eventhough the China is not paid for by the taxpayers it was still a senseless purchase. It makes no sense to purchase China for 1/2 a mil. when in two weeks the new first lady will be making another china purchase (because unless I'm misinformed each first lady gets to purchase china for the white house). I know it wont be in the first days that Mrs. Obama will make her china purchase, but it could be relatively soon and it will appear that our US leaders are just blowing money for no reason. In an economic crisis the Bush family is buying china? Really? Thats a great way to spark our economy. Is this china American made? (just wondering)

To hell with the historical legacy crap. Buying china is not the best way to enhance the historical legacy of the white house. I would have been more understanding if the Bushes purchased art of some kind. That is something that I would consider a legacy, but dinnerware? Nope. Its not like they dont already have china for dignitaries to eat from so what is the need for more? What dignitaries are they hosting over the next 14 days that they'll need china for?

1. Once again, what does using private, donated funds to purchase China have to do with our national economy? Please, enlighten me. How do you figure they are "blowing funds"? THE MONEY WAS DONATED AND SAVED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF BUYING IT!!!! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills for Christ's sake.

2. Fine China is most certainly considered an art form you dolt.