What do you think about the White House putting up about 37 Christmas trees...
By sbeauty
@sbeauty (5865)
United States
November 30, 2006 8:22am CST
... using taxpayer money? I hate that show HGTV does at Christmas time where it shows a multitude of people spending hundreds of hours decorating the White House, because I truly believe the money could be better spent on other things. For instance, instead of putting up so many trees in the White House, why don't they donate some of them to people who won't have a tree at all? Or spend the money they could save on food for the hungry at Christmas time? What do you think?
15 people like this
77 responses
@margieanneart (26423)
• United States
1 Dec 06
I agree. But, politics is power, as money seems to be. It's a waste for sure. Perhaps we need to pray about the situation more.
@helpful_ideas (1620)
• United States
30 Nov 06
Or maybe spend the money on something that wouldn't offend religions other than Christianity.
Talk about mixing religion and state at a high cost.
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
30 Nov 06
Of course, part of it is that the White House is President Bush' home, and he is Christian and has a right to celebrate Christmas as he chooses. However, all the other extravagant spending that goes into a White House Christmas is nothing short of ridiculous.
3 people like this
@helpful_ideas (1620)
• United States
30 Nov 06
If he wants to decorate with his OWN money, I don't care what the heck he does with it. He could erect 500 foot tall statues of the nativity. But tax payer money shouldn't be spent on religious icons regardless of the excuse.
1 person likes this
@mkirby624 (1598)
• United States
1 Dec 06
Yes, but we can't say Bush is horrible because he puts up Christmas trees. ALL Presidents have put up Christmas trees, and the trees, while called Christmas trees and Christmas is originally a Christian holiday...you have to remember that non-Christians celebrate Christmas, too...they also have trees. So it's not JUST Christians who put up Christmas trees. But I agree that there should not be 37..there's really no point. There should be one big on in the main entry, and if they want more, they should buy them.
@Krisss (1231)
• Australia
30 Nov 06
The cost of 37 Christmas trees is minimal the the amount of your tax money they are spending to infiltrate other countries with their brand of freedom. I would be a lot more concerned about that.
But yes you are right, it is extreme and the money could be better spent by giving 36 of those trees to people who do not have the luxury of their own tree.
@minnie_98214 (10557)
• United States
30 Nov 06
You are so right i think 1 or mabey 2 trees would have been plenty. Being a family that is struggling a little but not able to get any help cause its not available to me it really bothers me. I am not homeless but could sure use a little help thank god for small organizations that can help.
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
1 Dec 06
Isn't it sad that our government who is so busy crying tears over the plight of Iraq doesn't seem to care that you are in need? They didn't care about me, either, when I was trying to teach school and having to buy ALL of my classroom supplies myself because the government didn't provide the school with any money to buy them with.
@shenanigan (215)
• United States
30 Nov 06
I think it's a load of hooey. People complain about the separation of church and state, but the most well known government building in the country is full of christian symbols. Nothing against christians, I'm one myself, I just don't think it's right. That money could go to so many other things, like feeding hungry families for christmas, or buying christmas gifts for orphans or something. There's cities here in Michigan that aren't putting up their christmas decorations in government buildings so they don't offend anyone. What's the deal here?
2 people like this
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
1 Dec 06
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I'm a Christian, too, and from what I've read most of my life about our early presidents, they would have disagreed with you, too. They were NOT for the separation of church and state. They didn't think the government should control the church as it did in England, but they definitely thought that God had a place in the government as He did in all things.
@jediwa72 (204)
• United States
30 Nov 06
The White House is a representation of the United States and our president is a Christian...thus celebrating a Christian Holiday in a prominately Christian Country. I think if there is anywhere in the U.S. that money is going to be spent to put up Christmas trees as a representation of who we are as a country then that would be the place. Granted it stinks that it is tax payers money but on the same token...they do use the money for good as well. I think if someone has problems with the elected president then they should make their way to making a difference rather than sitting back and complaining that he's not doing a good enough job. That being said, many people are making a difference...it's Christmas Trees for goodness sakes! Look at it like they're releasing oxygen in an all too stuffy world! :)
2 people like this
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
3 Dec 06
I'm afraid I can't see the situation from your perspective. To me the whole thing is representative of the waste that goes on in the US every day of the year. Extravagance in some areas is so rampant that other sectors get ignored all together. Call me bitter, but I have spent years teaching school and buying all my own supplies because the government doesn't have the money to fund the schools adequately.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
@courtlynne77 (4839)
• United States
30 Nov 06
I think that is a good idea about donating to people who can't afford a tree. I am sure there a lot of people like that, those trees are very expensive! I understand the want to have the White House look special in the holiday season as it represents our nation, but 37 trees seems a little excessive. Do you know why it is 37?
2 people like this
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
30 Nov 06
Actually I'm just going on memory from last year, but I'm thinking the number was 37 or thereabouts. They showed people putting them up all over the White House. If the show is on again for this year, maybe you can watch it. They ought to start showing it pretty soon if they're going to, because they show it many times.
1 person likes this
@pookie92 (1714)
• United States
30 Nov 06
I totally agree with you, there is no excuse for such excess. We are at war, which is VERY expensive, the nation debt is out of control, and they want to brag about the excess they choose at the taxpayers expense? Holy cow, our taxes go up, and they spend without conscience, what a slap in the face.......
2 people like this
@beckyomg1 (6756)
• United States
30 Nov 06
i think that is way too many to do. do you really think they need that many. i dont thinks so.
2 people like this
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
30 Nov 06
I honestly don't believe that everyone who stays in the White House needs a tree in their room. I forget what the show told was the amount they spend on consumable decorations, lights, and tree trims. It was thousands of dollars. We're just trying to show off for other countries again. Can't our government see that other countries are tired of the U.S. acting so superior?
1 person likes this
@draconiams (507)
• United States
30 Nov 06
oh really. well 37 is enough for white nor black house...
2 people like this
@willywill (352)
• Turkey
30 Nov 06
look they will spend money on everything so let them to spend to the good thing,nice things
no we are saying no,it is wrong to spend money on christmas tree ,but we must see other places that they spend money and it is not even nice it is bad for mankind.
@domsmom33 (23)
• United States
30 Nov 06
Don't get me started about Bush and the Goverment!
And no wonder there are so many low income/homeless families!! The Goverment sucks all our money out of our paycheck! No matter how many hours, jobs people work they just can't made ends meet!
2 people like this
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
1 Dec 06
Unfortunately what you're saying gets truer and truer every day. There are so many families struggling in this economy, and those in the White House usually don't even notice. Let's send more and more to Iraq and every other country in the world, but let's not worry about homelessness, hunger, deteriorating schools, 20 million illegal aliens or anything else that is bothering the people.
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
1 Dec 06
Yes, Washington D.C. like all big cities is full of homeless people. I couldn't live with myself if I had all the money and comforts the White House residents have and didn't share them with those less fortunate. Since the White House is considered the People's House, maybe they should let the people come in and warm up for awhile.
@srhelmer (7029)
• Beaver Dam, Wisconsin
30 Nov 06
Actually, the Christmas trees in the White House, including the official National Tree, are usually donated from various tree growers associations. They aren't bought with taxpayer money.
And, even if they were, I can assure you our government wastes much more money on worse things than Christmas trees.
1 person likes this
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
30 Nov 06
My house has 8 rooms; does that mean I should have 3 trees? Maybe the trees are donated, but the decorations (always new and very expensive) aren't nor is the electricity to run all the lights. Besides the whole thing is just symbolic of the way the government wastes money all the time and how selfish some people can be.
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
30 Nov 06
Yes, they certainly do. However, I thought this situation is a good illustration of how extravagant our government is on things that don't really matter. How often do you have a Christmas tree in your bedroom? I can assure you that I never have, nor do I find it necessary. It isn't just the trees, it's what the whole extravgant affair symbolizes -- the President is living in excessive luxury while others go hungry. What statement does that make about our country?
1 person likes this
@shellyrios (1212)
• United States
30 Nov 06
YEAH, they need to put up tents out front of the White House with food, blankets, presents and invite homeless people/families to come and eat and receive gifts for kids who don't get a normal Xmas!!! That would be awesome.. That would be true patriotism, I think. It would be for the American people, why not? I didn't know they did that with the Xmas trees though. That is pretty disturbing, especially to televise it too!
2 people like this
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
30 Nov 06
Another thing they always show on the TV special is the White House pastry chef spending hours and hours preparing a cake version of the White House. Like anyone really needs that. They can eat sheet cake like everyone else while their chef cooks meals for the hungry.
1 person likes this
@usmcsgtwife (4997)
• United States
30 Nov 06
I can think odf so much more they can spend there money on. one tree is enough. How about helping feed the homeless, or donating them to families in need
2 people like this
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
30 Nov 06
I think one tree ought to be enough for anyone. Besides, even though the White House is large, there aren't that many rooms needing trees. Why don't they just create a Christmas Room and confine their decorations to that one area instead of trying to go overboard on the whole house? Yes, they could spend the money in so many better ways.
1 person likes this
@Penguinsangel (3498)
• United States
30 Nov 06
Wow 37 trees!!! My question is why?? Why in the world do they need 37 Christmas trees?? In my opinion its just stupid. Period. No questions. Your so right that there are so many other things that the money could be spent on then all those extra trees, cost of lights, etc...
1 person likes this
@srhelmer (7029)
• Beaver Dam, Wisconsin
30 Nov 06
The White House receives 5,000 visitors each day on tours. Plus they receive foreign diplomats who live there for several days at a time.
If you are entertaining a guest who could help your country with a new trade agreement or in the war on terror, wouldn't you want them to feel as at home as possible?
And, even if the government did buy the trees and decorations, how much are we really talking $5000? $10,000? Divide that over roughly 100 million tax payers and it's not like we're taking a big financial hit from it.
2 people like this
@sbeauty (5865)
• United States
30 Nov 06
Don't you agree that to a poor family $5000 or $10,000 could make all the difference in the world? Think about how many families we could feed for that amount of money. And since this is just one of many ways our government fritters away our hard-earned dollars while plunging our country deeper and deeper into debt, then, yes, I take exception to it. Maybe you're so rich that that isn't a lot of money to you, but it looks like quite a bit to me.
@jch1955 (28)
• United States
30 Nov 06
It is great! Someone within our government needs to recognize that Christmas does exist. It is not Holiday season, or winter celebration or whatever those who would hijack our culture want to call it. It is Christmas and I am glad to see the president of the United States acknowlege it as such.
2 people like this