You're taking what I said farther than what I meant. Am I? I read your post two, maybe three times and went through a couple of drafts before posting my reply. I was trying to avoid hyperbole but apparently didn't avoid it enough.
Yeah, it's DHS money, but if it hasn't been spent yet, why all the sudden outrage that it's being spent on one particular aspect of security (Presidential) as opposed to being spent on, say, bioterror defense gear? I'd think if it was that damn important to Washingtonians, they would have leaned on the City Council and the Mayor to spend it by now.
Sure, it's more expensive than previous inaugurations. But you're confusing the money spent on the inauguration party itself (which is all privately contributed and not paid for with taxes) with the money being spent on security. And that money is coming from the Feds to begin with - it's just making a pit stop in the city treasury before going into the pockets of the police and other security agencies. As I said in a reply to birdfigment's comment, this is a tempest in a teapot.
Yeah, they could do the inauguration a lot cheaper. We could all do things a lot cheaper. Your allusions to body armor and tsunami aid are complete (and inaccurate) non-sequiturs that don't really have anything to do with the inauguration at all. As for being "shamed" into increasing aid, ISTR that we were first off the blocks to offer aid, and those carrier groups were there faster than anyone else's help...come to think of it, I think we're still waiting for the UN to stop holding meetings and tooling around in their SUVs. As for being stingy, we look pretty good compared to some of our European "allies". Including, I am ashamed to say, Spain.
I hope you're wrong about Kid getting dropped. His recent hit summarizes the way a lot of us feel about foreign policy these days. "Ain't nothin' but a cowboy, baby..." :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-01-16 04:14 pm (UTC)Am I? I read your post two, maybe three times and went through a couple of drafts before posting my reply. I was trying to avoid hyperbole but apparently didn't avoid it enough.
Yeah, it's DHS money, but if it hasn't been spent yet, why all the sudden outrage that it's being spent on one particular aspect of security (Presidential) as opposed to being spent on, say, bioterror defense gear? I'd think if it was that damn important to Washingtonians, they would have leaned on the City Council and the Mayor to spend it by now.
Sure, it's more expensive than previous inaugurations. But you're confusing the money spent on the inauguration party itself (which is all privately contributed and not paid for with taxes) with the money being spent on security. And that money is coming from the Feds to begin with - it's just making a pit stop in the city treasury before going into the pockets of the police and other security agencies. As I said in a reply to
Yeah, they could do the inauguration a lot cheaper. We could all do things a lot cheaper. Your allusions to body armor and tsunami aid are complete (and inaccurate) non-sequiturs that don't really have anything to do with the inauguration at all. As for being "shamed" into increasing aid, ISTR that we were first off the blocks to offer aid, and those carrier groups were there faster than anyone else's help...come to think of it, I think we're still waiting for the UN to stop holding meetings and tooling around in their SUVs. As for being stingy, we look pretty good compared to some of our European "allies". Including, I am ashamed to say, Spain.
I hope you're wrong about Kid getting dropped. His recent hit summarizes the way a lot of us feel about foreign policy these days. "Ain't nothin' but a cowboy, baby..." :)