18
   

The $50? Million Dollar Inaugeration

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 02:59 pm
@ossobuco,
Thanks, osso.

A quote from that in case anyone neglected to click on your link:

Quote:
You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 03:01 pm
@parados,



Is O boy promising port-a-potty in every average Americans yard?

Was this a campaign promise?

Laughing No ****!, really?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 03:01 pm
@old europe,
Ah, old europe pointed that out too...
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 03:05 pm
@sozobe,
Oops.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 03:05 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I just wish President-elect Obama had chosen to be a true example of real and rational change instead of another prima dona who seems to think he deserves $150+ million to be spent glorifying him while the little people can 'eat cake'.


Of course, you realize that, if you calculate the cost for Bush's 2005 inauguration the same way the $150+ price tag for Obama's inauguration is calculated (i.e. including cost of inauguration, events and security), you arrive at a cost of roughly $157 million for Bush's 2005 inauguration....


Did you miss the part where I criticized Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Carter, and Reagan for the extravances surrounding their inaugerations? I have not criticized Obama more. Or less.

Yes there are those frantically trying to rewrite the reported numbers for the 2005 inaugeration to justify this one, but none of that changes the fact that I wanted Obama to be different. I wanted him to be the agent of change he promised, to lead by example, and demonstrate that the government can spend our tax dollars responsibly. And in the midst of one of the worst recessions we've seen since the Great Depression, he has disappointed me.

I reserve the right to be disappointed.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 03:18 pm


After listening to O boy and other liberal democrats go on and on about how bad the economy is and how they feel the pain and
suffering of average Americans they turn around and show their true colors and feelings by throwing a hugely expensive party.

I am disappointed in O boy and his minions.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 03:22 pm
@H2O MAN,
I could be wrong of course, but just based on your posts, I doubt that you're really disappointed since you haven't seen you say anything positive about President-elect Obama since the beginning. It isn't difficult to believe that you're getting what you expected. I wasn't expecting anything in particular yet--I agreed to wait and see and give all benefit of the doubt. But I have hoped. And I am disappointed about this. Will there be other disappointments? Probably. But I haven't given up all hope either.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 03:33 pm
@Foxfyre,

I will support our new president when I can and I secretly expected better from O boy right out of the gate.

Time will tell if he can find solid footing and make a change for the better, but I am disappointed with his start.

Plan for the very worst president and hope for the very best.



farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 03:36 pm
@H2O MAN,
The right wing was whining about how the liberals were treating Bush when he was elected and inaugurated.

I smile quietly.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 03:42 pm
@farmerman,


What's not to smile about?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 03:47 pm
@farmerman,
Some did defend the cost of President Bush's inaugeration yes. I didn't though I didn't think it necessary to use the vile and indefensible criticisms heaped on him from the beginning.

I would like to think true conservatives will not do that to President Obama. He deserves benefit of the doubt that President Bush never received from many on the Left. Even H2O, one of BHO's most strident critics, is sort of acknowledging that.

But that does not prevent me from being disappointed that Obama is starting out by appearing to attempt to top every inaugeration that preceded his rather than choosing to lead by an example of fiscal responsibility.

But oh well, this too shall pass.
old europe
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 04:02 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I just wish President-elect Obama had chosen to be a true example of real and rational change instead of another prima dona who seems to think he deserves $150+ million to be spent glorifying him while the little people can 'eat cake'.


Of course, you realize that, if you calculate the cost for Bush's 2005 inauguration the same way the $150+ price tag for Obama's inauguration is calculated (i.e. including cost of inauguration, events and security), you arrive at a cost of roughly $157 million for Bush's 2005 inauguration....


Foxfyre wrote:
Did you miss the part where I criticized Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Carter, and Reagan for the extravances surrounding their inaugerations? I have not criticized Obama more. Or less.


If you have called Carter, one of the Bushes or Reagan a "prima dona who seems to think he deserves $150+ million to be spent glorifying him while the little people can 'eat cake'", then, yes, I must have missed that part. Sorry if that was the case.


Foxfyre wrote:
Yes there are those frantically trying to rewrite the reported numbers for the 2005 inaugeration to justify this one, but none of that changes the fact that I wanted Obama to be different.


I'm sure that's true. I'm also sure it's true that there are enough people out there who are trying to inflate the numbers for this inauguration or use numbers that are calculated differently for both calculations in order to have yet another reason to whine about all things Obama.

I'm also sure that you wouldn't be intentionally so dishonest to compare entirely different sets of numbers when comparing this inauguration to the previous ones just to make Obama look bad.


Foxfyre wrote:
I wanted him to be the agent of change he promised, to lead by example, and demonstrate that the government can spend our tax dollars responsibly.


Blimey. I thought you wanted him to lose the elections.... Very gracious of you, and very sad if it didn't last until the inauguration.


Foxfyre wrote:
And in the midst of one of the worst recessions we've seen since the Great Depression, he has disappointed me.

I reserve the right to be disappointed.


Duly noted. Also noted that you're disappointed by Obama even though, in your words, "the inaugeral extravaganza is a sort of tradition in this country and Obama isn't doing it any differently than his predecessors have done". That's really the only thing that seems to be a bit odd.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 04:07 pm
Noting that you totally missed my point, as you usually do OE, I'll just advise that I noted your response and let it go at that. Okay?
old europe
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 04:09 pm
@Foxfyre,
You had a point?
old europe
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 04:11 pm
@old europe,
Oh. Wait. Right. You had a point: you were complaining about Obama. Based on made up facts, no less.

I'm sorry.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 04:12 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

You had a point?


You really missed that: Foxfyre is disapPOINTed.
old europe
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 04:14 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Laughing
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 07:40 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

But that does not prevent me from being disappointed that Obama is starting out by appearing to attempt to top every inaugeration that preceded his rather than choosing to lead by an example of fiscal responsibility.

I see where you are coming from, but I don't really agree. Obama is raising money from his contributors for this stuff. Washington is probably putting out for police and other services, but the financial wind-fall for the city is huge. They're doing what all other big cities do when big events come to town. Obama could have set an example of financial conservatism, but instead he is setting an example showing the dynamic power of the Presidency. I'm really more focused on his cabinet appointments and policy statements more than his inauguration spending.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 09:01 pm
While looking for some other info, I found this and thought I'd post it here.


http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2008/December/20090106114747wrybakcuh0.4403345.html?CP.rss=true


Quote:
Q. How much do Americans spend on an inauguration?

A. Inaugural balls are funded privately, and spending varies from administration to administration. George W. Bush’s 2005 celebration included nine inaugural balls and was the most expensive in history at over $42 million. Bill Clinton's first inauguration cost about $30 million, which was comparable to the inaugural costs of George H.W. Bush in 1989.

The mayor of Washington, D.C., has predicted that security and services for the 2009 inauguration will cost the city some $50 million, the same amount Congress provided to both Denver, Colorado, and St. Paul, Minnesota, to host the Republican and Democratic conventions earlier this year.


0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2009 09:26 pm
@engineer,
It should not be the taxpayers responsibility to provide a financial windfall for Washington DC or any other place. It might be different if it was all financed by private donations with the taxpayer reimbursed for all expenses incurred through necessary services, but there we open another can of worms in what possible obligatory favors will be expected in return for those donations.

Be even setting that aside, that does not change the fact that our elected leader could have sent a different message to the people with a demonstration of not spending money that the government doesn't have especially in a time when so many people are hurting. That would have been a huge change that everybody could believe in.
 

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 09:38:27