All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > The Royal Family
10/2/2012 9:25 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 9:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/1/2012 7:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 10/1/2012 6:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/1/2012 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps re-examining how expensive it is to take care of a president would be the way to go. 

You want to be Prez?  Keep your *** in the WH unless you're on official business. 
Yup, unfortunately it's never been done this way though.  It's interesting that people want to start now though, it makes me think...what's different now, that people want to look at that kind of spending...
I'll say, as an adult, I've not had to live this long in a recession.   If I have to watch out for my money that's actually in my hand, I'd like someone to watch out for the money I give the govt.

How's that?
Taint?

It's nice that you are finally ready to watch out for the money you are giving the government. 

So as long as we're not in a recession(which we aren't) you don't care what they do with it?  That seems odd to me, and I have a hard time believing that.

 

10/2/2012 9:26 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2012 12:56:00 PM (view original):

It wasn't brought to my attention in 2008.  I probably would have questioned it, yes.

You mean the mainstream media didn't point it out, for everyone's attention?  Shocking.  I thought they had it out for all righties.
10/2/2012 9:34 PM
Posted by The Taint on 10/1/2012 7:07:00 PM (view original):
Another thing..you should really look into that 4k per month stuff before you post it as fact.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
10/2/2012 10:48 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2012 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2012 7:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2012 7:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2012 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2012 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Unless one can argue against the validity of the $1.4b number, it's sitting out there to be debated on it's own merits.

But here's another source of some information:

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2012/08/the-obamas-and-unfettered-spending-of-taxpayer-money-2455372.html
It's a huge amount of money. Whether it's OK or not depends on context.

Is it just really expensive to have a president? Or is this level of spending out of line with what we've seen before?

We know it isn't out of the norm, since Bush cost more in 2008. So the reasonable person would move on with their life, understanding that it costs a lot of money to take care of a president and his family 24 hours a day as he runs the country.
Do you really not understand the fallacy of this argument ("Bush spent more, so it's not a big deal")?
Jimmy murdered 16 people.  Tommy only murdered 14 people.  Tommy's 14 murders are not a big deal because Jimmy killed more people.
But it isn't murder. That's the problem with your analogy. Everyone agrees that some amount of taxpayer money should be used to pay the salaries of the president, vice president, and staffs of both offices. Everyone agrees that some amount of money needs to be spent on secret service, armored cars, police escorts, and planes and helicopters for travel. And so on, and so on.

The reality is that none of us have ever worked in the White House. I have no idea how much this stuff should cost. The only guide I have is how much we've spent before. If Bush cost $1.6 billion, then $1.4 billion on Obama isn't some crazy thing we should all be freaking out about. It's in line with historical precedent.
Why not try to get data BEFORE W?

Wouldn't that be BETTER context?

Seems like a lot to me, regardless of which president started it.

Clinton's first term was around 32.2 Million per year. During his second term it jumped to 38 Million per.

W took office and spent over 1.3 BILLION per year during his first term, and then the staggering 1.6 Billion per.

So for whatever reason we went from 30-40 million to over a billion in one year.

Bottom line is it is a bullsh*t story that should have been told while W was spending like a drunken sailor.
The fact that the author fails to mention the increase under W discredits him in my mind and I really can't take him seriously.

BLAME goes to W, but it STILL doesn't make it OK to continue.

EDIT:
Of some import MAY be the terrorist attacks of Sept 11th.
I don't KNOW this to be true, but it would SEEM plausible that after 9/11 they beefed up security a great deal which would have ramped up the cost and would still continue today out of necessity.

Jumping from 38 million to 1.3 billion DOES seem a bit much to me, but as bad_luck points out we are talking about things we really do not have a good grasp of.

How much SHOULD it cost? We can't really answer that question.

We can b*tch about it, but it seems disingenuous when Obama spent LESS than W, but Obama is the one depicted as "gone royal".

It is simply dishonest, and is the reason I hate both parties, as well as the media in general.

10/3/2012 5:08 AM
10/3/2012 9:22 AM
Posted by The Taint on 10/2/2012 9:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2012 9:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/1/2012 7:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 10/1/2012 6:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/1/2012 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps re-examining how expensive it is to take care of a president would be the way to go. 

You want to be Prez?  Keep your *** in the WH unless you're on official business. 
Yup, unfortunately it's never been done this way though.  It's interesting that people want to start now though, it makes me think...what's different now, that people want to look at that kind of spending...
I'll say, as an adult, I've not had to live this long in a recession.   If I have to watch out for my money that's actually in my hand, I'd like someone to watch out for the money I give the govt.

How's that?
Taint?

It's nice that you are finally ready to watch out for the money you are giving the government. 

So as long as we're not in a recession(which we aren't) you don't care what they do with it?  That seems odd to me, and I have a hard time believing that.

 

You may find it hard to believe but I'm not sure why.

When you have a big pile of money(or anything), you worry a lot less when a coin rolls off the stack and under the couch.    When you need that coin to buy some food, you look for it.


You work as a bartender.  Big spender on a slow night tips you $400 on a $200 tab.   Do you really care when the next guy takes his quarter in change for his $3.75 beer?

10/3/2012 9:48 AM
Ya know, I actually do. First I wonder if I someway didn't give the guy the service he was expecting and secondly, I look at it as a dollar lost. I would never sneeze at the quarter but what kind of tool doesn't toss down at least a buck a drink?
10/3/2012 10:10 AM
Well, I've never bartended but I think, once I'd made "my money" for the night, I think I'd be less concerned over some bastard standing there waiting for his $.25 in change.   I might even be more inclined to toss him an extra quarter because he obviously needs it.

Anyway, how much I have makes a big difference in how I look at how much I give away.  I think that holds true to most. 
10/3/2012 10:14 AM
I never make my money for a night. There's always more cheddar to be shredded. It's the difference between being a hunter, and a gatherer.
10/3/2012 10:18 AM
Well, then you should be outraged that our President cost taxpayers 1.6b in non-official business.    Part of the cheddar you hunt is being spent on his family to enjoy their date nights and vacays.

Me?  I only care when I'm making less cheddar than I'd like.

 

10/3/2012 11:07 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/3/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Well, then you should be outraged that our President cost taxpayers 1.6b in non-official business.    Part of the cheddar you hunt is being spent on his family to enjoy their date nights and vacays.

Me?  I only care when I'm making less cheddar than I'd like.

 

It wasn't non-official business. The $1.6b included Bush's salary, the VP's salary, the cost of secret service for both families, transportation, food, housing, staff salaries, etc. It's the total cost of the president. 
10/3/2012 1:00 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/1/2012 3:53:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps re-examining how expensive it is to take care of a president would be the way to go. 

You want to be Prez?  Keep your *** in the WH unless you're on official business. 
This.
10/3/2012 5:26 PM
Do we know how much of the $1.6 billion spent on Bush wasn't official business?
10/6/2012 7:46 PM
Posted by antoncresten on 10/3/2012 5:08:00 AM (view original):
Most of this is a lie.

Some Democratic elected officials tried to charge him with something and nothing ever stuck.

He even sued some of the poeple trying to defame him.

This guy is a hard worker and has never tried to do anything wrong.

This is just a way to get voters to forget about the ACORN disaster!
of 4
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > The Royal Family

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.