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

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

The timing is terribly wrong. I don't care whose funds were used for the purchase. I also don't care about the fact that the china will be used to serve dignitaries and that it is a part of the historical legacy of the mansion.

I also don't buy the notion that the china belongs to all of us. Last I checked American citizens can barely get near the White House, let alone even VISIT it. How does the china belong to us?

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.

[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?

That would be the logical conclusion if we accept that unnecessary expenditures during a recession are bad.

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.

[KSig RC]

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?

That would be the logical conclusion if we accept that unnecessary expenditures during a recession are bad.

You don't get it - Bush = bad. Very easy calculus on this one.

[AGDLynn]

A different article in the Atlanta paper mentioned that the china had actually been ordered a few years ago but because of problems, was only just now being shipped.

I don't know/care if the other Presidents ordered china given how many times they are expected to feed people.

Keep in mind that even Barbara Walters has admitted in the past taking WH objects so maybe they don't have enough full sets.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by AGDLynn

Keep in mind that even Barbara Walters has admitted in the past taking WH objects so maybe they don't have enough full sets.

I wouldn't be completely surprised to learn that people swipe china or flatware from a White House dinner.

Foreign dignitaries, American icons, guests, etc. can be trashy and classless, too.

[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.

[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.