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):Jimmy murdered 16 people. Tommy only murdered 14 people. Tommy's 14 murders are not a big deal because Jimmy killed more people.
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2012 3:48:00 PM (view original):Do you really not understand the fallacy of this argument ("Bush spent more, so it's not a big deal")?
Posted by tecwrg on 10/1/2012 3:27:00 PM (view original):It's a huge amount of money. Whether it's OK or not depends on context.
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:
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.
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.