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):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.
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.
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.
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.