shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) (01/16/85)
We've seen a lot of controversial postings about handgun control...but at this point we've reached a predictable impasse, with supporters lined up on one side, and opposition on the other. How about a one-week moratorium, beginning January 20...which is inauguration...which brings up the following question: How many people think that showy inaugurations, costing taxpayers literally millions of dollars, are in poor taste? Jeff Shallit
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (01/17/85)
---------- > We've seen a lot of controversial postings about handgun control...but > at this point we've reached a predictable impasse, with supporters > lined up on one side, and opposition on the other. > > How about a one-week moratorium, beginning January 20...which is > inauguration...which brings up the following question: ---------- Agreed. It does get tiresome, and I doubt any of us on either side are convincing anyone of anything more at this point. (What? Jeff and I agree on something? {:-)}) I think we can start the moratorium right away. We might even make it semi-permanent...? ---------- > How many people think that showy inaugurations, costing taxpayers > literally millions of dollars, are in poor taste? ---------- Count me in. I think inaugurations are one of the more ridiculous aspects of the election of Presidents in the US. What a waste. What a show. I feel like calling in Barnum&Bailey...has any President entered office in a non-ostentatious fashion in the past 40 years or so? Maybe the past 200? (Hmm...dangerous precedent set: Jeff and I now agree on *2* things! {:-)}) -- Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 +==-> cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 osu-eddie!karl
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/18/85)
> We've seen a lot of controversial postings about handgun control...but > at this point we've reached a predictable impasse, with supporters > lined up on one side, and opposition on the other. For the first time, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Shallit... However, I have no strong feelings about inaugurations, they're boring. Why don't we join the libertarianism flamage, it seems to be going fairly well. You pick either side, I'll take the other. --JoSH
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (01/18/85)
>---------- >> How many people think that showy inaugurations, costing taxpayers >> literally millions of dollars, are in poor taste? >---------- I think Reagan is in poor taste, so this just falls out as a corollary. Mike Kelly
jhull@spp2.UUCP (01/19/85)
In article <307@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) writes: >We've seen a lot of controversial postings about handgun control...but >at this point we've reached a predictable impasse, with supporters >lined up on one side, and opposition on the other. > >How about a one-week moratorium, beginning January 20...which is >inauguration...which brings up the following question: > >How many people think that showy inaugurations, costing taxpayers >literally millions of dollars, are in poor taste? > >Jeff Shallit Thank you Jeff! You've finally said something I can agree with. 2 things, if my assumption that you are against showy inaugurations is correct. -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {ihnp4}trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (01/19/85)
> What a waste. What a show. I feel like > calling in Barnum&Bailey...has any President entered office in a > non-ostentatious fashion in the past 40 years or so? Maybe the past 200? > Remember Jimmy Carter? Oh, never mind. Baba
jaap@mcvax.UUCP (Jaap Akkerhuis) (01/20/85)
In article <307@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> shallit@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Shallit) writes: >How many people think that showy inaugurations, costing taxpayers >literally millions of dollars, are in poor taste? I don't know how many people will think it is poor taste, but you can count me in.
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (01/20/85)
> We've seen a lot of controversial postings about handgun control...but > at this point we've reached a predictable impasse, with supporters > lined up on one side, and opposition on the other. > > How about a one-week moratorium, beginning January 20...which is > inauguration...which brings up the following question: > > How many people think that showy inaugurations, costing taxpayers > literally millions of dollars, are in poor taste? > > Jeff Shallit Jeff. It depends how they prepare the food, and whether the onions are spoiled or not. -- DoomLord
lydgate@reed.UUCP (Chris Lydgate) (01/21/85)
>How many people think that showy inaugurations, costing taxpayers >literally millions of dollars, are in poor taste? > >Jeff Shallit 12.5 million bucks for a party? And I'm not invited???? Chris Lydgate
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (01/22/85)
Dummy, the inauguration is paid for out of private funds and donations. It does not come out of the taxpayers pocket. Cool down. T. C. Wheeler
jca@abnji.UUCP (james armstrong) (01/24/85)
>Dummy, the inauguration is paid for out of private funds and donations. >It does not come out of the taxpayers pocket. Cool down. >T. C. Wheeler So that those people who can afford it get yet another "charitable" deduction on their taxes. If you remember, in 1981, RR said that he would "save" the gov't the money offered to redecorate the WH by doing it through "charitable" contributions. In the end, those contributions cost the gov't about 4X the offered money in lost tax revenue.
lydgate@reed.UUCP (Chris Lydgate) (01/25/85)
In article <1118@pyuxa.UUCP> wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) writes: >Dummy, the inauguration is paid for out of private funds and donations. >It does not come out of the taxpayers pocket. Cool down. I believe that the objection was to this kind of extravaganza taking place at all, especially when the beneficiaries are our politicians-- who are supposedly running gov't for the good of *all*. Chris Lydgate
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/25/85)
> >Dummy, the inauguration is paid for out of private funds and donations. > >It does not come out of the taxpayers pocket. Cool down. > >T. C. Wheeler > So that those people who can afford it get yet another "charitable" deduction > on their taxes. > If you remember, in 1981, RR said that he would "save" the gov't the money > offered to redecorate the WH by doing it through "charitable" contributions. > In the end, those contributions cost the gov't about 4X the offered money > in lost tax revenue. Are you serious? 4X? Even if they were in a 50% tax bracket, donating X dollars would result in a .5*X decrease in their taxes. Are there some really creative methods of filling out a 1040 that I haven't heard of, or is is James Armstrong (the guy who claimed 4X) talking through his hat? In the worst case, (50% tax) donating X dollars costs you only 1/2 X $. I really don't see how it could cost you -4 X $. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I couldn't do THAT. They'd kick me right out of Cowards Anonymous." -- Dangermouse's faithful assistant, Penfold.
emks@uokvax.UUCP (01/26/85)
/***** uokvax:net.politics / pur-phy!act / 11:40 pm Jan 19, 1985 */ > >---------- > >> How many people think that showy inaugurations, costing taxpayers > >> literally millions of dollars, are in poor taste? > >---------- I tend to agree. For all the hassles that we'll be put through in the next few years in cleaning up the deficit, the least they could do is make some gesture to sharing the pain, and having a somewhat lower key celebration. President Reagan will still be as much of a president whether the inauguration is big or small. /* ---------- */ I got the impression from ABC news that the entire shin-dig was put on at the expense of the Republican National Party, including a "significant" (whatever that means) proportion of the overtime salries for police, sanitary workers, etc. Anyone have the *real* scoop? kurt