18
   

The $50? Million Dollar Inaugeration

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:06 am
@Foxfyre,


Maybe, but his predecessors were not facing the worst economy since the great depression.

President-elect BH Obama has described America's economy as "very sick" and worsening.

PEBO is sending the wrong message and that message is that he does not care about the American people.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:09 am
I don't believe he doesn't care about the people, but he is sending the wrong message and that's 'keep on spending what you don't have'.
And I do find that a little sickening.
Why can't Oprah pay for it? Seriously...she'd be pumping money into the economy, putting people to work for a few days...what's 10 million to her?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:16 am
Did everyone miss my first post? http://able2know.org/topic/127915-2#post-3533256

It isn't a waste. The money isn't being thrown away. It is being spent. In fact, finally some people are getting the benefits of government spending without killing anyone.

And, only $10 m is government money, the rest is donation. Correct?
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:18 am
@squinney,
I thumb-upped your post, squinney. I had the same question re: government money/ private donation. Isn't exactly Oprah and her peers -- the people who really can afford this -- who are anteing up?
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:19 am
@squinney,
Yeah, but ten million on top of a trillion dollar debt is unconscionable...and it does send the wrong message.
I think Oprah should up her donation to cover the gap. The American people have been pretty damn loyal to her.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:24 am


Sorry squinney, it's a huge waste of taxpayer money and it does send the wrong message.

Thumbs down.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 10:53 am
@Foxfyre,
foxfire :
thanks for supporting "the canadian way" ! Wink

sometimes candians can be a little too cautious . i suppose it has something to do with the scottish bankers that started the canadian banking ( AND BREWING Drunk ) companies some 150 years ago . they were a rather frugal lot when it came to parting with money !

some slogans come to mind :
"he's got deep pockets - but very short arms ! " .

from the canadian maritimes - where many of the scots started out in banking and brewing : "he doesn't like to part with the brass ! " .

sometimes even canadians can have an "official" festive occasion - but without any partying ! :

governor general and her family being driven to parliament

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/24/85024-004-C73073F0.jpg

take care !
hbg





0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 11:08 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote :

Quote:
I think Oprah should up her donation to cover the gap. The American people have been pretty damn loyal to her.


sounds good on the face of it ... but i'm sure her money is invested in many corporations that can stay afloat because of the money that she and many other americans have invested .
so if money (shares - bonds) is withdrawn from those companies , they may have to lay off people - that wouldn't be good either imo .
the stockmarket (and many corporations) is very weak already - she might start another sell-off panic by ditching stock .
in this economic climate it's pretty difficult to know what to do :
- spend to keep the retail business afloat ,
- buy stock and hope for a quick recovery ,
- hang on to cash - if you have any - "for a rainy day " .
nobody seems to have a satisfactory answer that to those questions .

anyway : i don't want to rain on the parade !
so have a good one !
hbg

H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 11:15 am



I'm sure the likes of HAMAS and Iran would pay the bill for O boy...
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 11:30 am
@hamburger,
I was being flippant Hamburger. Oprah shouldn't have to cover this.
I think the better solution would be to cut the celebration to fit whatever amount the budget can handle. I think that would send the right message at this point - if you don't have money for a big extravagant party - have a smaller more manageable affair.

Ten million dollars would fund a lot of soup kitchens and homeless shelters and head starts for a year...it's kind of sickening and really disappointing to think of him coming into town and continuing business as usual - even if that's what everyone else has historically done - he's supposed to represent change, right?

And on top of that - we have the eyes of the world on us right now - people dying and homeless because of our government policies in Iraq and children bombed out, homeless and starving in Palestine with what the rest of the world is viewing as tacit approval from our government.
And here we are throwing a big, huge party - and only asking the American people who are facing unemployment, foreclosures and homelessness to add it onto their taxes.

I hope he makes another decision about this. I would really like him to show he's different right from the get-go.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 11:50 am
@squinney,
squinney wrote:

Did everyone miss my first post? http://able2know.org/topic/127915-2#post-3533256

It isn't a waste. The money isn't being thrown away. It is being spent. In fact, finally some people are getting the benefits of government spending without killing anyone.

And, only $10 m is government money, the rest is donation. Correct?


Yes. The only problem with the donated money is that according to CNN, Fox, ABC et al, most of it is coming from the big corporations that Obama previously said he wouldn't take. On the face of it this is probably innocuous. But sooner or later some of those same corporations are going to especially benefit from some government contract or policy and it is inevitable that it will be pointed out that the corporation gave X dollars for Obama's grand inaugeration. No matter how innocent he might be, that is a problem he could have avoided. But as we've seen for decades now, it won't likely be a serious problem for him either.

I have a problem thinking in terms of only $10 million though. That's uses up all the taxes that my family plus a whole lot of other people will pay in our entire lifetime. It isn't comforting to think of all of our money going for temporary ballons and caterers and sound systems and crowd control in Washington DC with no long term benefit to anybody and no benefit to anybody anywhere else including here in New Mexico where many areas are experiencing really hard times right now. I wish all the money expended was donated.

Still its a momentious event.

So there's all sorts of ways to look at it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 11:55 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

squinney wrote:

Did everyone miss my first post? http://able2know.org/topic/127915-2#post-3533256

It isn't a waste. The money isn't being thrown away. It is being spent. In fact, finally some people are getting the benefits of government spending without killing anyone.

And, only $10 m is government money, the rest is donation. Correct?


Yes. The only problem with the donated money is that most of it is coming from the big corporations that Obama previously said he wouldn't take. On the face of it this is probably innocuous. But sooner or later some of those same corporations are going to especially benefit from some government contract or policy and it is inevitable that it will be pointed out that the corporation gave X dollars for Obama's grand inaugeration. No matter how innocent he might be, that is a problem he could have avoided. But as we've seen for decades now, it won't likely be a serious problem for him either.

I have a problem thinking in terms of only $10 million though. That's uses up all the that taxes that my family plus a whole lot of other people will pay in our entire lifetime. It isn't comforting to think of all of our money going for temporary ballons and caterers and sound systems and crowd control in Washington DC and benefitting nobody anywhere else including here in New Mexico where many areas are experiencing really hard times right now.

So there's all sorts of ways to look at it.


I guess. Keep in mind, however, that Iraq + Afghanistan cost 50 million - every two hours or so. If you're really worried about the 'hard times' we're seeing these days, perhaps cutting back on major expenses is the prescription - not bitching about minor ones.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:09 pm
Sorry but I don't see $10 million as a minor expense. And I certainly don't see $50 million as a minor expense.

So I think I'll continue to be concerned about all of them.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:11 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Sorry but I don't see $10 million as a minor expense. And I certainly don't see $50 million as a minor expense.

So I think I'll continue to be concerned about all of them.


Um, you aren't concerned about the war expenses, which dwarf this little one. You never say a peep about saving money that way. Not here, anyway. So pardon us if we are unswayed by your sudden fiscal restraint and wonder if maybe your partisanship is more responsible for your complaints, more than any real concern over the monies spent.

Cycloptichorn
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:23 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
well said cyclo, bush spent the same basic amount on his 2004 party, while the country flushed trillions down the drain on a useless war
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:30 pm
Bush has been criticized because his inaugural celebration cost of roughly $50 million as well.
When asked about it, the president said, 'Sorry, but my daughters insisted on an open bar.'"
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:30 pm
The war expense is a different subject, Cyclop, and should be discussed in a different context than this one. One has nothing to do with the other.

However, after reading everybody's comments, I think I have pretty much formed an opinion about all this:

While I, like Hamburger, don't want to rain on the parade and won't be condemning anybody for holding it or attending it, I think Aiden nailed the point my subconscious was searching for. That point is that Obama got elected with a promise of change that we can believe in.

I think all but the most bitterly partisan very much want him to succeed in doing great and wonderful things for the country. He could have gotten us off to a great start by demonstrating in a very compelling way that he indeed is an agent of change by setting an example of not spending borrowed money on non-essentials and foregoing the grand inaugeration marathon. Instead, he chose to be just another self-serving politician basking in the glory and ignoring the cost like all his most recent predecessors have done.

I wish he had chosen to be different.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

The war expense is a different subject, Cyclop, and should be discussed in a different context than this one. One has nothing to do with the other.

However, after reading everybody's comments, I think I have pretty much formed an opinion about all this:

While I, like Hamburger, don't want to rain on the parade and won't be condemning anybody for holding it or attending it, I think Aiden nailed the point my subconscious was searching for. That point is that Obama got elected with a promise of change that we can believe in.

I think all but the most bitterly partisan very much want him to succeed in doing great and wonderful things for the country. He could have gotten us off to a great start by demonstrating in a very compelling way that he indeed is an agent of change by setting an example of not spending borrowed money on non-essentials and foregoing the grand inaugeration marathon. Instead, he chose to be just another self-serving politician basking in the glory and ignoring the cost like all his most recent predecessors have done.

I wish he had chosen to be different.


Okay, fair enough; though I will say, money is money, tax revenues are all the same, and those who pretend to be concerned about saving them ought to show consistency.

Funny that you wrote this -

Quote:

I think all but the most bitterly partisan very much want him to succeed in doing great and wonderful things for the country.


Right before I read this, I finished reading Okie's post on another thread -
Quote:

My best hope is that Obama's policies will fail, and Republicans can once again provide a much needed balance to the Democratic majority that threatens to run roughshod over us in Washington with all manner of really bad new policies.


Does that make him one of the most bitterly partisan?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 01:00 pm
It would depend on whether he thought Obama's policies to be good or bad. If he had no problem with the policies themselves but wanted Obama to fail anyway then yes, he would be bitterly partisan. The fact that he and you or he and I or he and anybody might disagree on what is a good policy does not in itself make one either bitter or partisan.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 01:58 pm


O boy has his first shot at real change and all of our hopes are dashed.

The BH Obama presidency is going to be a real disappointment.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 08:54:45