(no subject)
I read an article this morning that says the inauguration's cost is up to $110 million dollars.
To me, that seems effing ridiculous (not to mention totally irresponsible) in an economy that's in the toliet. It's the modern equivalent of Nero fiddling away while Rome burns.....but hardly any surprise at all. I understand that a good bit of it will surely be going to security and practical purposes--seeing as how everyone and their brother are coming to DC for this historic event. (Being a history person, I'm totally psyched for the importance of it--don't get me wrong.) But when business and individuals are cutting back and doing all they can to get by, you'd think that the gov't would scale back a little on all the balls and parties and superfluous details. Wouldn't that resonate more with the American people--a gov't that backs up the promises of 'change' by scaling back to show their solidarity with us little people? After all, it IS *our* money they're spending like mad to do all this. And yeah, I know inaugurations are always expensive (Bush got rooked for his too--and I think they ALL go overboard, so I'm not being partisan here) BUT--as I said before--these days the economy is shite, and we need prudence more than ever.
Granted, I also don't think that any money we would save should go to businesses who've already pissed enough money away on their own to get themselves in trouble (AIG, looking at you!!!). After all, if you or I was that bad at our job, WE'D be fired. And although I know this will sound cold, I don't think money should be going to bail out people whose homes are being foreclosed unless they can prove a real hardship (i.e., the main economic providers of a family lose their job, get sick, etc.--those who don't have a choice in whether they work); because for those who just bought more house than you could honestly afford, well...you should've had more sense from the beginning. Why do *I* the taxpayer always have to be the one bailing everyone out from stupid mistakes that they should never have made in the first place???? I'd much rather pay for a family in which, say, the husband got laid off from work, the wife is sick and cannot work, and the kids need to stay in school.
But what do I know? I'm just a little slave monkey with three jobs to pay for the big boys to go and do what they please when they want to do it.
To me, that seems effing ridiculous (not to mention totally irresponsible) in an economy that's in the toliet. It's the modern equivalent of Nero fiddling away while Rome burns.....but hardly any surprise at all. I understand that a good bit of it will surely be going to security and practical purposes--seeing as how everyone and their brother are coming to DC for this historic event. (Being a history person, I'm totally psyched for the importance of it--don't get me wrong.) But when business and individuals are cutting back and doing all they can to get by, you'd think that the gov't would scale back a little on all the balls and parties and superfluous details. Wouldn't that resonate more with the American people--a gov't that backs up the promises of 'change' by scaling back to show their solidarity with us little people? After all, it IS *our* money they're spending like mad to do all this. And yeah, I know inaugurations are always expensive (Bush got rooked for his too--and I think they ALL go overboard, so I'm not being partisan here) BUT--as I said before--these days the economy is shite, and we need prudence more than ever.
Granted, I also don't think that any money we would save should go to businesses who've already pissed enough money away on their own to get themselves in trouble (AIG, looking at you!!!). After all, if you or I was that bad at our job, WE'D be fired. And although I know this will sound cold, I don't think money should be going to bail out people whose homes are being foreclosed unless they can prove a real hardship (i.e., the main economic providers of a family lose their job, get sick, etc.--those who don't have a choice in whether they work); because for those who just bought more house than you could honestly afford, well...you should've had more sense from the beginning. Why do *I* the taxpayer always have to be the one bailing everyone out from stupid mistakes that they should never have made in the first place???? I'd much rather pay for a family in which, say, the husband got laid off from work, the wife is sick and cannot work, and the kids need to stay in school.
But what do I know? I'm just a little slave monkey with three jobs to pay for the big boys to go and do what they please when they want to do it.