Hoot Gibson

Acknowledged.

 

Private donations do not bother me, because it's a person's choice to spend their money as they see fit. Obama limited the donations to a maximum of $50K, if I remeber correctly. All though a great deal of money, it's less than the $250K cap of Bush, which is neither here nor there. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to give their money, have at it. If you care to look, Obama's contributors of donations more than $200 is online.

Soros contributed $250,000 to the inaugural fund. Obama has not posted the names of the so-called individuals who donated less than $200, the aggregate of which totaled more than $200 million. The Obama campaign also disabled credit card security to avoid detecting fraudulent donor name and address information. The truth is, nobody really knows who donated that $200 million and nobody ever will.

 

 

Personally, I'm not bothered by donations. I'm bothered by favors bestowed based on donations.

Sunlight is the best remedy for political corruption. I agree that the donations are not the problem, which is why I favor scrapping all campaign finance regulations but requiring full disclosure of every donation, including those under $200. Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent one individual or even a foreign government from funnelling large donations to candidates using multiple bogus names and addresses.

Exactly. I can imagine Rush Limbaugh melodramatically huffing about how Obama "was trashing the time-honored traditions of the Republic" or some such nonsense.

Obama would not have been the first to hold the inauguration indoors and he would not have been the last.

Hoot, I'm not here to disput whether or not he should have. I still don't know the things I need to know in order to make that decision.

 

And, to me, they make a difference.

 

Here's why.

 

If the bulk of the expenditures were for security, I'm not at all sure the expenses could responsibly be reduced. Even if the inauguration were held in the Rotunda, if the anticipated influx of people to be in town for the inauguration were at the 1.5M level, there is still the responsibility to provide security to not only control the crowds, but to protect the DC citizens.

 

If the balls were paid for by private donations, I don't think that there's anything wrong with having 1 or 100. That money was privately spent.

 

One could argue that whomever footed the bill, it stimulated the economy by providing work for banquet set up people, caterers, servers, bands, photographers, limo drivers, taxi drivers, hotels, airlines....

 

I know you argue it makes no difference what the total spent by Bush was, and whether the comparisons are apples to apples. But, to me it does.

And the hypocrisy of the criticism of Bush for the cost of the 2005 inauguration vs. the same media's fawning over Obama and his 2009 extravaganza matters to me. The Obama inauguration received 35 times as much coverage as the 2005 inauguration. Most of the Obama coverage was positive and much of the Bush coverage was negative.

 

The security costs for Obama attending 1 or 100 balls would be quite different. The bigger the private celebrations, the bigger the bill to taxpayers to provide security to those events.

 

Why do private donations made to host inaugural events not bother you? Do you not favor campaign finance laws that limit individual contributions? I think that all donations by American citizens to public servants and political candidates, whether for a campaign or a birthday party, should be legal regardless of size as long as the source of the donations is promptly made public.

 

However, I do not understand how one can be bothered by one type of donation and not by the other. People make large political donations to buy influence, regardless of whether the donation is made before or after an election.

The Tariff of Abominations was revised actually revised in 1832, not 1833 as I stated in my previous post.

Schools don't exist to provide athletic teams for students - they exist to provide an education. The atletic and extra curricular activities are for those who attend the school. I don't think a parent who home schools would teach students from the school just because it would be good for some students -so by the same token why should home schooled children expect to participate in the school activities.

 

We have to remember this issue isn't about a few students replacing a few students on a team - it is about the big picture. You abide by the choices you make. I have been around several families that home school. Most of the time the children are very prepared. The only thing they seem to struggle in is tolerance of those who have different views from theirs.

Students attending public schools have no right to be educated by a homeshooling parent because they do nothing to support that parent's household. The same cannot be said of parents who homeschool their children. Their children have the right to an education in a public school, if they so choose, and that education includes the extracurricular activities sponsored by the school with tax dollars.

 

IMO, it is petty for the people who run public schools to deny the opportunity for homeschoolers to participate on school sponsored teams. As I said in a previous thread, schools should welcome the opportunity to provide a positive public school experience to home schooled children. Doing so benefits the community as a whole, whether or not the parents decide that the public school is not so bad after all as a result of that experience.

I think it is worth noting that many that would generally support taxes on businesses and higher-income people in this thread have expressed the idea that "it is OK if the money was privately raised." I find it all too ironic that private money is OK for a huge inauguration ceremony, but not OK for businesses to run themselves or people to spend their own earned money.

 

 

If President Obama believes that it is right for the United States to levy huge taxes on high-income individuals, would it not also be consistent of him to, rather than spend all of this, to commit to it the government's better use towards education, welfare, and other "poverty-fighting" mechanisms?

Great points. I would also add that I am puzzled why our "campaign finance reform" laws prohibit individual contributions to political candidates but do not address unlimited contributions for elected public officials to throw huge parties that require tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money being spent for security.

 

Is President Obama going to be less appreciative and less inclined to grant favorable access to Mr. Soros because he donated $250,000 toward the party fund than had Mr. Soros made the same contribution for the campaign?

 

The parallels between this country's elite ruling class and those of ancient Rome are becoming more apparent all the time. What's next, the Obama Fiesta Bowl? Maybe he can find private funding to have a stadium display his name in lights.

OK, I'll find fault with the Obama and the Democrats for the millions spent on the inauguration when you find fault with Bush and the Republicans for the trillions wasted due to inadequate market oversight, the Iraq war, and the lack of a coherent national energy policy.

...and the Bush bashing tangent continues only the bashing has been escalated to include the evil Republicans. Rather than responding in this thread, I will respectfully decline But thanks for the offer just the same!

Here is a thought for those who maintain that nothing could have been done to have scaled back the size of the inaugural festivities. What if Obama had announced a couple of months ago that the inauguration would be held in the Capitol Rotunda? What if Obama had announced his intention of attending only five inaugural balls instead of ten? Would the cost to the taxpayers have been reduced?

What more could have been offered? The South wanted slavery expanded into the new territories irregardless of how the people there felt. Buchanan did nothing and left the South with the illusion that Secession might work.

 

He too office in March 4, 1861. South Carolina was already demanding the forts that were federal be surrendered to them. Within just over a month the words became cannon fire. Sorry Hoot, the war was the failure of compromise over one issue that the founding father's refused to address. By 1861, that refusal could be ignored no longer.

 

Now that we've thread jacked, I'll leave mine at that. As always, good to discuss things with you Hoot. :thumb:

This will also be my final Lincoln post. The Tariff of Abominations was revised in 1833 to diffuse an earlier stand-off with South Carolina. The northern states insistence on high import tariffs were a legitimate concern for the South and an area where further compromise should have been placed on the table. Fostering prosperity in the South through lower tariffs might have been a big enough carrot to have forestalled or prevented armed conflict, IMO.

 

As the southern states moved away from the economy of an agricultural colony, slavery would have become an increasingly expensive proposition. The North's attempts to protect its own markets from European exports through tariffs did nothing to weaken the South's reliance on slavery. Nor did it help diversify the southern economy, which might have created more internal resistance to slavery in the South.

The end of slavery did not come soon enough and I question your assumption that slavery would have died peaceably if the war hadn't occured . Every book I have read on the subject pointly shows that southern intransigence would have prevented this from occuring . It was and is a moral wrong and is a stain on the soul of the United States .

Slavery has ended in all but a few Muslim countries. Where else did ending slavery require the sacrifice of more than 600,000 lives? The application of emerging technology to agriculture would have eventually made the reliance of slavery in agriculture economically unfeasible. That would have made ending the institution through political means much easier.

 

Again, I am not saying that Lincoln could have done anything better but if he only did what any other reasonable person would have done and 600,000 Americans died, then what qualifies him to be placed at the top of a "greatest president" list?

This bill is dead and going nowhere fast. Westwood doesn't even have the support of the Northern Kentucky delegation and he did not let anyone know about it. Simple self serving stunt.

That is too bad. Not surprising but disappointing just the same.

So be it then-- Raise taxes. I have never argued against taxation for the betterment of education. However, as a taxpayer I see better ways to raise the necessary money.

 

Redundant social programs, government waste, and LOW property assessments are all culprits of poor funding of education in Kentucky.

 

All students are guaranteed a free and appropriate education--If a student's presence betters a school system (by providing additional money for that system) then "Mission Accomplished!"

 

Good debate though...I like studying both points of view. It makes for an enlightning discussion.

 

Thanks!

Schools exist to make the student better - not vice-versa and the responsible parents should be free to decide what education is appropriate for their children, not the state. Funding formulas can be changed, if necessary, to accommodate homeschoolers but replacing a couple of team members with homeschooled kids who are good enough to make the cut will cost little or nothing more.

Hoot, you know I agree with you a lot, but I have to find it very, very, very ironic that you fault Lincoln for not compromising and finding a middle ground. Obviously, you are not an elected representative, but you aren't exactly a champion of compromise.

What you say is true, but there were other issues that pushed the southern states to the brink of war and I believe that they had some very valid grievances. I just question whether abolishing slavery a few years early was worth the death of more than 600,000 Americans, when slavery would have died a peaceful death a few years later anyway - and without the residual hatred from a bloody civil war.

 

I am not saying that Lincoln did not do as well as any president would have under the same circumstances but I am not convinced that more than a few presidents would have done equally as well.

How do you "scale back" over a million people making the personal decision to travel to the inauguration? When you know over a million people are coming, is it wise to skimp on security and other costs associated with crowd control and just hope for the best?

 

I suppose we should all get used to these foolish petty criticisms. Through eight years of 'leadership', the GOP ran the country into a ditch financially, militarily, diplomatically, and Obama is being criticized because too many people showed up to see his swearing in.

Another Obama thread turned into a Bush-bashing thread? Your guy is worse than my guy, nah nah nah nah nah! :lol:

 

Bush is no longer president and he is ineligible for another term. Better get used to playing defense for a change.

Unless I'm confused here, South Carolina Seceeded before Lincoln was even sworn in. Unless I'm lost here, South Carolina fired on a Federal Fort and captured it before Lincoln called for volunteers. Just exactly what more could he have done to prevent that war? He openly stated if he could save the union without freeing slaves he would, if he could save it by freeing them all, he would.

 

The reality is that the Southern Confederation absolutely believed that Lincoln would attempt to impose abolition and "jumped the gun" to declare their independence. They not only wished to keep slavery but demanded that the practice be allowed to move into the new territories. (Bloody Kansas is the perfect example)

 

The South walked away from the negotiation table. I've always believed that Shelby Foote was right when he said that the Civil War occurred because we as a nation failed to do the one thing we were always best at: Compromise and finding the middle ground.

 

I also believe what makes him one of the strongest is he had the opportunity to trounce and denouce the beaten south at his Second Inaugural and instead laid out an idea of compassionate reconstruction of the union. Unfortunately Booth's bullet ended what might have been his finest hour.

What economic concessions did Lincoln offer, either during his campaign or after taking office, to the South to keep the country united? The southern states had good reason to suspect that Lincoln would act aggressive toward them after his election.

 

The bolded text is exactly why I do not place Lincoln higher on my list. Not only did Lincoln do nothing to prevent the escalation of the war, the war itself was badly mismanaged and cost far more lives than it might have.

 

Lincoln was courageous and made more difficult decisions than any other president has ever made - but civil war in any country is the result of failure, not success.

What is more disturbing to me is that, from my experiences, plenty of white people embrace the notion of being a "redneck", and plenty of African-Americans embrace the notion of being a "thug".

 

I hope this isn't offensive- just something that I have seen. Of course it isn't applicable to everyone, but I find it disturbing how many people seem to fit so easily into the cookie-cutter mold of racial stereotypes.

White people in some areas are equally guilty of embracing the hillbilly stereotype.

Why is George Washington left off of everyone's list? Too obvious?

 

Imagine being offered kingship and refusing it. It would be easier now (albeit still difficult) since we have enjoyed the fruits of Democracy for 200+ years, but imagine coming from a world with virtually nothing but monarchies, and turning it down. I think the foresight, vision, and selflessness was amazing.....

I would put Washington second to Jefferson on my all time list. I would rank Lincoln lower than most people because I question whether he did all he could to keep the nation united without engaging in the most bloody war of our history. Slavery ended in nearly every country in the world without a bloody civil war. Why was civil war unavoidable for the US?

 

Like PepRock, I would rank Polk high on my list. His ranking has been negatively impacted by today's extreme political correctness atmosphere. Manifest destiny reflected the will of the people in Polk's day and nobody can deny that he was extremely successful in delivering the results that Americans wanted.

Yes, and the Inauguration Day return has been such a reliable predictor of Dow Jones performance over the term of the inaugurated President.

 

I took Hoot's chart one step further and added the average annual return of the DJIA during each Presidential term:

 

Nixon 1973-1974, Inauguration Day Change: -0.72%, Avg Annual DJIA Return: -15.6%

Ford 1974-1977, Inauguration Day Change: -0.97%, Avg Annual DJIA Return: 9.5%

Carter 1977-1981, Inauguration Day Change: -1%, Avg Annual DJIA Return: -0.2%

Reagan 1981-1985, Inauguration Day Change: -2.09%, Avg Annual DJIA Return: 7.3%

Reagan 1985-1989, Inauguration Day Change: +2.77%, Avg Annual DJIA Return: 20.5%

G Bush 1989-1993, Inauguration Day Change: -0.17%, Avg Annual DJIA Return: 11.3%

Clinton 1993-1997, Inauguration Day Change: -0.43%, Avg Annual DJIA Return: 27.8%

Clinton 1997-2001, Inauguration Day Change: +0.16%, Avg Annual DJIA Return: 13.7%

Bush 2001-2005, Inauguration Day Change: -0.09%, Avg Annual DJIA Return: -0.3%

Bush 2005-2009, Inauguration Day Change: -0.65%, Avg Annual DJIA Return: -5.2%

 

Looks like that first day return does a pretty poor job of predicting the performance of the market over the next four years. Gee, what a surprise. :idunno:

No surprise at all. I never made any claim that the numbers had any bearing on the next four years of economic performance. What the numbers may reflect however, is the pessimism on Wall Street that a change in presidents will have any positive impact on the economy. It may simply be a coincidence that the market plunged more on the day that Obama took the oath of office than it had in any previous inauguration day - or it may not be a coincidence.

 

Great illustration of creating a straw man and then knocking him down, BTW. :lol:

2005 inauguration attendance: 300,000

2009 inauguration attendance: 1.5-2.0 million

 

2005 inaugural cost/head = $40 million / 300,000 heads = $133/head

2009 inaugural cost/head = $160 million / 1,500,000 heads* = $107/head

 

*conservative attendance figure

 

 

The Bush 2005 inauguration cost/attendee was 25% higher. Relatively speaking, you could argue that few bothered to come see W get sworn in a second time, but the ones that did make the trip must have been lavished with $26 of extra "W Still the President" stickers.

 

Is a relative lack of popularity a virtue to be heralded now?

I see that we now have a precise and statistically sound calculation of the cost of both the 2005 and 2009 inaugurations. :lol:

 

Of course, we both know that precision and accuracy are quite different, eh? There are attendance estimates floating around from 800,000 to 3 million and none of them have the type of statistical validity to justify the type of calculation that you did above. Your calculation may be accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus 50 or 100 percent but it is certainly a far cry from the authoritative final word.

 

BTW, you could inflate your numbers further by correcting the cost of the Bush inauguration. That cost was at least $57 million. I corrected the number that you cited in another post that you apparently did not read. The cost of security was apparently not included in the $40 million and according to the AP, the cost of security for the event was more than $17 million.

 

The bottom line is that in this economy, Obama should have shown some more leadership and scaled back the size of his coronation. He missed a golden opportunity to show the kind of shared sacrifice that liberals are so fond of talking about where Republicans are concerned. Obama missed a chance to walk the walk.

I hate this forum! Everytime I start to comment, Hoot beats me to it! ( Not at all trying to imply I can state it as well, thats why I dont post!)

Welcome to my fan club. If you can recruit a friend, membership will double! :lol:

 

Seriously, I appreciate the kind words. It is great to see some other conservative BGP members taking a more active interest in this forum.

I hope he does well which is synomomous with saying I hope he fails to accomplish many of his stated objectives.

 

I hope he fails to bring home all the troops from Iraq in 16 months because I think it will take longer to do a proper withdraw.

 

I hope he fails to implement the kind of health care program he desires because the government controlled program he advocates would curb individual freedom, would be grossly inefficient, and would be so much more expensive than we could possbily afford

 

I hope he fails to remove the government surveilence programs he said he would end because I believe they are both legal and effective. (I also believe he secretly wants to fail to achieve this goal now that the responsbility falls on him.)

 

I hope he fails to nominate the kind of judges he desires because I believe they would have a flawed judicial philosophy and would also be pro-abortion.

 

I hope he fails to implement many of his proposed tax changes since I believe they would hurt the economy and actually increase the deficit.

 

I could go on but my wife wants me to do shopping so that will have to suffice.

:thumb: Great start!

Just switch to Linux and you'll never argue about an OS again.

No, then we can just debate the scores of publicly available Linux distros. :lol:

 

I like Mint, a variant of Ubuntu, myself. It is free, has a beautiful interface, and I have never been infected with a virus running Linux. I currently run Mint on one desktop and Windows XP Pro on another. At this moment, I am configuring a used IBM Thinkpad that just arrived and also uses XP Pro. On Friday, I should be getting a Toshiba Satellite that runs XP Home.

 

I will be running on Firefox 3 on all of the Windows machines, as well as the Linux box.

 

But what I would really like to be running at home is Leopard...

How is that even tangentially related to my post?

After re-reading the posts, I see that isn't related at all, so just consider my comment as additional trivia concerning the Dow, FWIW. :idunno::isurrender:

 

(My misguided response did give me a reason to use two of the new smilies.)

What it tells me is that there appears to be no relationship between the fluctuation in the Dow upon swearing in and economic success of the President.

Since the creation of the Dow Jones Index in 1884, the index has never dropped as sharply on the day of a president's inauguration as it did yesterday.

Fine but that's not what I meant. Does Hoot think that economic expectations are where they should be? I heard a guy yesterday say it would be 2011 before we see a fairly strong economy again. That would seem to warrant low expectations by the public.

If the private sector believes that Obama will follow through on all of his spending plans, and many people do, then Wall Street's economic expectations are exactly where they should be. In fact, I believe they may be a bit too optimistic.