FOX News meltdown when criticism by guest leveled against the extravagant inauguration

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.

Private campaign contributions, you mean.

Well...all except the ~$19 million that D.C. has to spend on security. That comes from their Homeland Security budget. How nice.

The $19 million would have been spent regardless of who was elected.

While I agree that the festivities were a bit over the top, they were financed with private funds.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.

Private campaign contributions, you mean.

Well...all except the ~$19 million that D.C. has to spend on security. That comes from their Homeland Security budget. How nice.

The $19 million would have been spent regardless of who was elected.

While I agree that the festivities were a bit over the top, they were financed with private funds.

You're assuming Kerry would have had such a huge-ass extravaganza requiring $19 million worth of security. I doubt he would have.

But, if he had, I'd have been complaining and burying my head in my hands.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: bozack
using this logic then why were the dems allowed such a lavish convention here in beantown, that money could have been better served armoring vehicles and all....

same can be said of the Republican convention. Your point is useless. :roll:

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I wonder if this lady was so up in arms when Clinton spent 30 million on his innaguration?

I find it a bit hypocritical and baseless for liberals to be complaining about a 40 million dollar pricetag if they cant apply it to their own. She actually said they spent 40 million too much. Does she think inagurations are free?

The only gripe they can lay here is on the cost of security. Sticking DC with the 12 million in estimated security costs is a bit cheap and wrong.

Inagurations have typically been paid for by donors to the party. So it is privately raised money which the GOP can spend whichever way they like.

Brooother...

For starters, Clinton wasn't at war and the economy was hot.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
The inauguration has a lot of costs indirectly too. They shut down the business areas of DC. It's all so absurd and expensive.

Especially since he's already been in office!

They really need to cut out inaugurations for second terms.

I am in total agreement with this idea. When you streamline the goverment it's best to start at the top and work your way down from there.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.

Private campaign contributions, you mean.

Well...all except the ~$19 million that D.C. has to spend on security. That comes from their Homeland Security budget. How nice.

The $19 million would have been spent regardless of who was elected.

While I agree that the festivities were a bit over the top, they were financed with private funds.

You're assuming Kerry would have had such a huge-ass extravaganza requiring $19 million worth of security. I doubt he would have.

But, if he had, I'd have been complaining and burying my head in my hands.

You are forgetting one of the prime functions of an inauguration. An inauguration is also a "thank you" to your boosters for their campaign contributions.

Given all of the Hollywood hoopla and big donors for Kerry, you are seriously fooling yourself if you think Kerry would have shown Rooseveltian restraint. It would have been an all-out affair, like Clinton's first gala. That was the most star-studded political event ever, celebrating the return of the Dems to the White House after a 12 year absence.

Streisand, Winfrey, Spielberg... they were all there. They would have been there again. With Soros, and Michael Moore (who would have needed his own gala.)

This was a very contentious election, with record fundraising on both sides.

To think that Kerry would have shown restraint, is highly speculative and likely untrue.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I wonder if this lady was so up in arms when Clinton spent 30 million on his innaguration?

I find it a bit hypocritical and baseless for liberals to be complaining about a 40 million dollar pricetag if they cant apply it to their own. She actually said they spent 40 million too much. Does she think inagurations are free?

The only gripe they can lay here is on the cost of security. Sticking DC with the 12 million in estimated security costs is a bit cheap and wrong.

Inagurations have typically been paid for by donors to the party. So it is privately raised money which the GOP can spend whichever way they like.

How about a Traditional Conservative saying it was a waste. Our husbands, sons, wives and daughters are DYING out there, and Bush can only think of wining and dining his fat cats? That to me is inappropriate. Add that DC had a 19 million dollar bill for security (an unfunded mandate for a PARTY), really is icing on the Neo-Con wasteful spending cake.

What really was sick of them all? All air space was closed. What did it take for a Life flight to get through, a call to NORAD? Oh, that's right people hurt and dying have to wait for those high spenders to finish drinking their champagne. 🙄

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.

Private campaign contributions, you mean.

Well...all except the ~$19 million that D.C. has to spend on security. That comes from their Homeland Security budget. How nice.

The $19 million would have been spent regardless of who was elected.

While I agree that the festivities were a bit over the top, they were financed with private funds.

You're assuming Kerry would have had such a huge-ass extravaganza requiring $19 million worth of security. I doubt he would have.

But, if he had, I'd have been complaining and burying my head in my hands.

You are forgetting one of the prime functions of an inauguration. An inauguration is also a "thank you" to your boosters for their campaign contributions.

Given all of the Hollywood hoopla and big donors for Kerry, you are seriously fooling yourself if you think Kerry would have shown Rooseveltian restraint. It would have been an all-out affair, like Clinton's first gala. That was the most star-studded political event ever, celebrating the return of the Dems to the White House after a 12 year absence.

Streisand, Winfrey, Spielberg... they were all there. They would have been there again. With Soros, and Michael Moore (who would have needed his own gala.)

This was a very contentious election, with record fundraising on both sides.

To think that Kerry would have shown restraint, is highly speculative and likely untrue.

Sounds like you just described your own post.