Home Decorating With the Obamas: they are paying for it themselves, page 5

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 30-3-2009 @ 03:50 PM by sadisticwoman

reply to post by marg6043

Every museum has to add new pieces at some point, or no one will need to visit it more than once.

reply posted on 30-3-2009 @ 03:52 PM by MagicaRose

reply to post by gottago

Speaking of their income , what happened to all those millions that was donated for his campaign?

By the way, didn't Michelle Obama say that her husband was going to change our "Traditions"?

Did she mean the traditional White House that we have had for centuries?
Lord have mercy! I can just imagine what that means.

reply posted on 30-3-2009 @ 04:02 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by jd140

jd....'.....can't go on blaming Bush for everything, forever?...'

OH, contraire.

I can blame the Clintons for many things, as well. And Bush 41, and Carter....heck, even Hoover's name is getting raked over the coals lately.

THIS JUST IN: Unlike Nancy Reagan, the Michelle Obama has decided NOT to replace the WH china. (Wolf Blizer, per CNN)

Finally! A 'china policy' we can all agree with!!!

reply posted on 30-3-2009 @ 04:58 PM by jd140

reply to post by weedwhacker

I see you want to avoid the meat of my post.

Replacing the China is part of a budget they have. Just because it doesn't get replaced doesn't mean we as taxpayers do not pay for that part of the budget. It is already allotted. It is spent as far as we as taxpayers are concerened. The same as the 100,000 dollars for renovations.

It does not matter if he spent it or not. We still payed for it. It maynot go towards what it was meant for, but it will be spent. He isn't saving us any money by doing this. It is all for show.

Again, we still pay for it whether he uses it or not. That is why I don't see why some see what he did as a good thing. It isn't a bad thing, but it certainly isn't good either. The same taxes will pay for it either way.

reply posted on 30-3-2009 @ 05:10 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by jd140

No.....I'm not certain, but it would seem logical that IF it is already budgeted, but not spent, it will carry-over to another Administration.

Think of 'roll-over' cellphone minutes.....

Much 'hay' has been made in past decades about grossly over-charging items in, say....the Military budget, for instance.

Stories about the $800 hammer, or pick a number, any number....it seems to be self-fullfilling prophecy that if you don't spend ALL in your 'budget', that you stand to lose, through cuts, in future.

Hence....the ball rolls on.

Now.....that is an example of the MIC....and, it helped to 'stimulate' the economy, through graft and corruption. As example, the 'downline' suppliers for that $800 hammer all got a piece of the action....

Perhaps a small gesture...again, $100,000 in terms of Federal Spending, is miniscule....really, it is penny-ante.

I daresay, more focus should be directed to (since ATS is a 'conspiracy' site) ...should be directed to the 'Black' funding.....TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of Dollars, alloted to programs that are 'black' for 'National Security' reasons....

And the wannabe 'reporters' on Fox are worried about a new budget that is only a tip of the iceberg????

So....this tiny tempest in a teapot, i.e., the re-decorationg debacle, has led to a greater truth....once you begin to ferret it out.

[edit on 3/30/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply posted on 30-3-2009 @ 10:20 PM by awake_awoke

reply to post by Holly N.R.A.

Of course you don't need to be top of the class at Harvard Law to help people!!!!!

I was simply pointing out that his choices and his worldview-which has later shaped his political policy-has stemmed from his experiences; one of which is doing community organization work in underprivledged areas.

For example (one that you conservatives might enjoy) John Edwards-complete scumbag. Graduated near the top of his class at Chapel Hill. Never liked him. Obviously now we have more reason to hate his guts but he made his living going after good hardworking doctors. Skeezy lawyer.....

reply posted on 30-3-2009 @ 10:36 PM by spinkyboo

Originally posted by Fremd

Since when is making money a sin?
Obama had book deals among many other avenues of income

The world really is coming to an end when a republican is bashing a democrat for making money.
THAT is the text book definition of hypocrisy

Do you know me??!!
Am I a republican?
um... no
Am I bashing him for making money?
um... no.
Did I say making money was a sin?
um... no.
(I don't believe in sin - so I wouldn't say that).

4.2 million -is A LOT of money... ... not just a little...
and it is enough money that they can pay for some things themselves.

Now... that is what I said - and that is what I meant.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by spinkyboo]

reply posted on 30-3-2009 @ 11:27 PM by jd140

reply to post by weedwhacker

You are still missing what I am saying.

The original poster stated that this was a good thing.

I don't see it as a good thing or a bad thing. We are still paying for it if he uses it or not. I don't see how it is good for us as tax payers that he is not using it seeing as how we are still going to pay for it.

I agree with others when they say it is just a PR stunt President Obama is doing. If he wanted to really show that he is against us redecorating his place, then he would have legislation put together where this allotment will no longer be available.

Until then it is just money we are giving them saying here it is, use if you want or keep it for a rainy day.

He just happens to be keeping it for a rainy day.

reply posted on 31-3-2009 @ 10:47 AM by Hari Seldon

Nothing that I've read suggests that the Obamas meant to save the taxpayers' money by not using the funds meant to pay for White house renovations. Many keep saying that was the purpose: "If Obama really wanted to save taxpayers' money...".

When $100,000.00 can float a family for a few years given the current economic crisis, it was simply the Obamas treating the White House as if it were their own home (which it is for the next four years), and deciding not to spend their neighbors' money on renovating it; even though they could have. They decided to use their own money. It was a gesture of modesty. That's all it was.

[Edited for apostrophe-itis. Didn't expect a flare-up that bad.]

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Hari Seldon]

reply posted on 31-3-2009 @ 11:52 AM by grover

excellent points...

... a star for you.

reply posted on 31-3-2009 @ 02:37 PM by nixie_nox

reply to post by marg6043

Very classy! And you have the ankles to go with them.

reply posted on 1-4-2009 @ 05:03 AM by TailoredVagabond

Starred and Flagged. All the anti-Obamabots seem to be missing in this thread.

Jacqi Smith take note or die (trial by tabloid)...

reply posted on 1-4-2009 @ 05:07 AM by TailoredVagabond

Originally posted by Hari Seldon
Nothing that I've read suggests that the Obamas meant to save the taxpayers' money by not using the funds meant to pay for White house renovations.

...and what WAS the possible alternative?? Leave it with Dubyas markings OR be crucified by people like YOU for using public funds.

Costing the taxpayer is NOT in their interest and this WAS a gesture of modesty, but an honest one borne out of doing the right thing - just like he said he would - something you've conveniently overlooked.

I wish Britain had more policticians like this!!!

reply posted on 1-4-2009 @ 11:32 AM by jibeho

Originally posted by TailoredVagabond

Originally posted by Hari Seldon
Nothing that I've read suggests that the Obamas meant to save the taxpayers' money by not using the funds meant to pay for White house renovations.

...and what WAS the possible alternative?? Leave it with Dubyas markings OR be crucified by people like YOU for using public funds.

Costing the taxpayer is NOT in their interest and this WAS a gesture of modesty, but an honest one borne out of doing the right thing - just like he said he would - something you've conveniently overlooked.

I wish Britain had more policticians like this!!!

You are more than welcome to keep Obama in the UK once his crying session at the G20 is over.

Why this story is even news is beyond me. I wonder brand of toilet paper he uses? It better not be the premium stuff.

reply posted on 1-4-2009 @ 12:09 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by TailoredVagabond

Oh, contraire....the 'anti-Obamabots' (great phrase, that!) are alive and well in this thread.

The right-wingnut smear campaign is in full gear....

FAR, far more so than happened after the Shrub was 'elected'......

before I get into deep water here...I know people at the GSA who are directly involved with the 're-decoration' efforts....and it is all above-board.

It's been noted, already, that the new President kept the Oval Office carpet, in deference to Shrub....it's fairly new, why replace it???

Nancy Reagan decided to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on new china....the Obamas didn't. There are still plenty of place settings to go around.

Yes, formal State Dinners should have 'pomp and circumstance'....but a lot of that 'pomp' and a bitof the 'circumstance' can come directly from the host and hostess....it's called having a bit of class.....

reply posted on 1-4-2009 @ 01:23 PM by neo67

obama redecorating the white house oh god the man has no taste no class whatsoever.

giving gordon brown dvds and not even the correct region
giving the queen of england a freaking ipod.

the man HAS NO CLASS OR TASTE. and is an embarrassment to the us populace.

reply posted on 1-4-2009 @ 01:30 PM by Hari Seldon

Originally posted by TailoredVagabond

Originally posted by Hari Seldon
Nothing that I've read suggests that the Obamas meant to save the taxpayers' money by not using the funds meant to pay for White house renovations.

...and what WAS the possible alternative?? Leave it with Dubyas markings OR be crucified by people like YOU for using public funds.

Costing the taxpayer is NOT in their interest and this WAS a gesture of modesty, but an honest one borne out of doing the right thing - just like he said he would - something you've conveniently overlooked.

I wish Britain had more policticians like this!!!

What are you barking about? Standard English has you confused? Talk about lost in translation. Are you a speed reader who brags about it, but who also doesn't brag about cognitive ability?

I think you need to slow down, read, and understand every word in context. Try reading the whole thread. If that's too much, try reading my previous posts. Tip: Think about what I might mean contrary to your knee-jerk reaction.

reply posted on 1-4-2009 @ 01:46 PM by nixie_nox

I am with Hari, I think this is more about privacy then anything else. All the money makers woudl be all over it if the Obamas announced their decorating plans.

Just look at the article, it even said it has been rumored that pottery barn is involved.

If the Obamas publicly announced their tastes, companies woudl be all over it trying to cash in.

reply posted on 1-4-2009 @ 02:46 PM by grover

reply to post by nixie_nox

Its already happened in regards to some of the clothes Michelle Obama has worn or that she has picked out for her daughters.

reply posted on 1-4-2009 @ 10:25 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by neo67

Why, neo???

What gift would you and your vast Staff have chosen?

Dontcha think it's laughable, in a way....what I mean is, in an interesting twist, it shows a clever 'naivite'....it's disarming. It is Diplomacy.

It's a bit of, to borrow from 'Monty Python', a bit of the 'wink wink, nudge nudge'....

Certainly, the PM of Great Britain brought a great gift....well-thought out.

But....in the vein of opening up a new discussion, how better to do it than to give a 'white elephant' gift????

I mean....if you have no sense of humor, then you are missing out on about 80% of what life has to offer.....

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >> ^^TOP^^