Inaugural price tag in line with history

jlmadyson

Platinum Member
Aug 13, 2004
2,201
0
0
WT

But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.

According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the equivalent of $49.5 in 2004.

How about a nice slice of economic justice. Anyone? :D
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
This was posted in another thread already. And, btw, where did the Moonie....er...Washington Times get that number for Clinton's 2nd inauguration?
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: conjur
This was posted in another thread already. And, btw, where did the Moonie....er...Washington Times get that number for Clinton's 2nd inauguration?

As is the standard with the Washington Times, they made it up.

In 1997, the inaugural committee for Clinton limited donations to $100 but waited until mid-April to disclose the names of those who bought tickets or made donations. Clinton's inauguration cost $29.6 million and took in $23.7 million. Money left over from his first inauguration was used to make up the difference.

edit Link
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: conjur
This was posted in another thread already. And, btw, where did the Moonie....er...Washington Times get that number for Clinton's 2nd inauguration?

As is the standard with the Washington Times, they made it up.

In 1997, the inaugural committee for Clinton limited donations to $100 but waited until mid-April to disclose the names of those who bought tickets or made donations. Clinton's inauguration cost $29.6 million and took in $23.7 million. Money left over from his first inauguration was used to make up the difference.
So then you throw out numbers without a source at all? Great.

PBS did something on the inauguration yesterday and interviewed an inaugural historian. He said the whole thing this year is business as usual. It pisses me off that $40 million tax dollars are wasted on letting a bunch of rich kids have fun, but it's hardly anything new.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
The more important thing is how much do taxpayers have to pay for Bush's security as opposed to other inauguration events.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: conjur
This was posted in another thread already. And, btw, where did the Moonie....er...Washington Times get that number for Clinton's 2nd inauguration?

As is the standard with the Washington Times, they made it up.

In 1997, the inaugural committee for Clinton limited donations to $100 but waited until mid-April to disclose the names of those who bought tickets or made donations. Clinton's inauguration cost $29.6 million and took in $23.7 million. Money left over from his first inauguration was used to make up the difference.
So then you throw out numbers without a source at all? Great.

PBS did something on the inauguration yesterday and interviewed an inaugural historian. He said the whole thing this year is business as usual. It pisses me off that $40 million tax dollars are wasted on letting a bunch of rich kids have fun, but it's hardly anything new.

Private donations total as of Jan 14, 2005



$24,655,000





 

NJDevil

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
952
0
0
12 million dollars (i think that's the right number) of the money to fund this is coming from DC"s homeland security problem.

During WW2, FDR had chicken salad served at his small "party." Clinton also was not facing a war. Don't you think a more subdued "party" would be appropriate giving the desperate times we are facing?
 

Jassi

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
3,296
0
0
The whole thing about celebrating democracy is bull unless every person supposed to be celebrating is invited to the party. Its all a cover for the politicians to set up deals to sell parts of this country.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: NJDevil
12 million dollars (i think that's the right number) of the money to fund this is coming from DC"s homeland security problem.

During WW2, FDR had chicken salad served at his small "party." Clinton also was not facing a war. Don't you think a more subdued "party" would be appropriate giving the desperate times we are facing?



I would not exactly use desperate to describe our current conditions.
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Did Clinton use Homeland Security or FBI money to pay for inaguration party security?

#1 There was no Homeland Security when he was President
#2 Who else would pay for the security!??! It's their job to protect the events...they paid for the security for the RNC and DNC as well...
#3 Terrorism is a much bigger threat than it was in 1997...therefore security costs are much higher.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: NJDevil
12 million dollars (i think that's the right number) of the money to fund this is coming from DC"s homeland security problem.

During WW2, FDR had chicken salad served at his small "party." Clinton also was not facing a war. Don't you think a more subdued "party" would be appropriate giving the desperate times we are facing?
Well, to be fair, it was also FDR's fourth inauguration. :p
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: NJDevil
12 million dollars (i think that's the right number) of the money to fund this is coming from DC"s homeland security problem.

During WW2, FDR had chicken salad served at his small "party." Clinton also was not facing a war. Don't you think a more subdued "party" would be appropriate giving the desperate times we are facing?
Well, to be fair, it was also FDR's fourth inauguration. :p

yeah, he was sort of bored of the whole thing.

but the point was more, as far as i could tell was that
1. DC taxpayers had to pay for part of it.
2. we are at war and it would appear that they are under-protected.
3. there have been no really good answers to the first two points.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Let's see...Laura Bush got a $700 haircut.

Now NPR is reporting the government will spend $85 million to reimburse those workers that were unable to work yesterday due to the road closures.

$125 million inauguration.


wow.