Obama spends more than 180 million dollars for his inauguration

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: dyna
180 million dollars for a party is the reason for this discussion.

Only if you weren't invited.

 

[Farang]

I wonder how much the man hours going into the day of service he organized along with it are worth.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: evident

Originally posted by: jpeyton
:laugh:

Three things:

1) Obama has raised more money for his inauguration than any other president in the history of our country.

2) More people = more money. It's that simple. If D.C. expected as many people to show up this year that showed up in 2005 for Bush, they wouldn't be spending nearly as much. Obama has set records for crowds during the entire election season, and his inauguration will set new records as well.

3) Obama, being the first black/minority president in our history, requires more security = more money. Money securing the life of our president is money well spent.

this. people are trying to find every single reason to demonize a guy who didnt even get into office yet

180 million dollars for a party is the reason for this discussion.

$180 million injected into largely the services industry of the domestic economy. Yes, this is obviously a huge problem. Clearly that money won't be recirculated into the general economy at all.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: evident

Originally posted by: jpeyton
:laugh:

Three things:

1) Obama has raised more money for his inauguration than any other president in the history of our country.

2) More people = more money. It's that simple. If D.C. expected as many people to show up this year that showed up in 2005 for Bush, they wouldn't be spending nearly as much. Obama has set records for crowds during the entire election season, and his inauguration will set new records as well.

3) Obama, being the first black/minority president in our history, requires more security = more money. Money securing the life of our president is money well spent.

this. people are trying to find every single reason to demonize a guy who didnt even get into office yet

180 million dollars for a party is the reason for this discussion.

$180 million injected into largely the services industry of the domestic economy. Yes, this is obviously a huge problem. Clearly that money won't be recirculated into the general economy at all.

Just to be sure I have it straight:

Palin spends $50K for a dress and it's a national scandal

Obama spends $180M for a party and it's economic stimulus


Democrats and their double standards make my head spin.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: evident

Originally posted by: jpeyton
:laugh:

Three things:

1) Obama has raised more money for his inauguration than any other president in the history of our country.

2) More people = more money. It's that simple. If D.C. expected as many people to show up this year that showed up in 2005 for Bush, they wouldn't be spending nearly as much. Obama has set records for crowds during the entire election season, and his inauguration will set new records as well.

3) Obama, being the first black/minority president in our history, requires more security = more money. Money securing the life of our president is money well spent.

this. people are trying to find every single reason to demonize a guy who didnt even get into office yet

180 million dollars for a party is the reason for this discussion.

$180 million injected into largely the services industry of the domestic economy. Yes, this is obviously a huge problem. Clearly that money won't be recirculated into the general economy at all.

Just to be sure I have it straight:

Palin spends $50K for a dress and it's a national scandal

Obama spends $180M for a party and it's economic stimulus


Politics and their double standards make my head spin.

Fixed for accuracy, because as we all know whats fair for my party isn't fair for the other.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Politics and their double standards make my head spin.

Fixed for accuracy, because as we all know whats fair for my party isn't fair for the other.[/quote]

True, and it's why I don't vote for either major party.

 

[Lemon law]

I have to agree with the Skoorb post, I would prefer an austerity inauguration, but the human animal simply demands a big ceremony circus be made of anything. We see it in our Funerals, we have this big formal event where we overspend, and until that, we just can't accept the death. Personally, I hate crowds and would not go if I had free tickets, free lodging, and free transportation. Yet there is a shortage of tickets, everyone will
party well into the night, a groupies delight, they get to witness history while doing nothing positive, and the next President after Obama will probably spend even more.

As for me, I shall heave a giant sigh of relief, on high noon of 1/20/2009, as GWB is no longer the President of the United States. Its a ceremony I would much rather witness in person. And just like we tie tin cans to the bumpers of the newly married, maybe we can tie similar cans to the moving vans carting the dregs of the GWB administration as they shovel themselves out of Washington D.C. Out with the old rascals, in with the new.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I think some people just want the inauguration to be at the local Kentucky Fried Chicken.

hot wings for everybody!

Yeah, 180 Million you think would go a LONG way for EVERYONE in the USA to get a free Subway sandwich and a drink, cookies, etc...etc... and Watch the stupid thing on TV... Most of us will be doing that anyway. Oh well. The rich get richer and poor get poorer.

But it beats Bushes Inauguration (canceled due to many egg throwers)...

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: evident

Originally posted by: jpeyton
:laugh:

Three things:

1) Obama has raised more money for his inauguration than any other president in the history of our country.

2) More people = more money. It's that simple. If D.C. expected as many people to show up this year that showed up in 2005 for Bush, they wouldn't be spending nearly as much. Obama has set records for crowds during the entire election season, and his inauguration will set new records as well.

3) Obama, being the first black/minority president in our history, requires more security = more money. Money securing the life of our president is money well spent.

this. people are trying to find every single reason to demonize a guy who didnt even get into office yet

180 million dollars for a party is the reason for this discussion.

$180 million injected into largely the services industry of the domestic economy. Yes, this is obviously a huge problem. Clearly that money won't be recirculated into the general economy at all.

Just to be sure I have it straight:

Palin spends $50K for a dress and it's a national scandal

Obama spends $180M for a party and it's economic stimulus


Democrats and their double standards make my head spin.

Maybe you head would have spun right off after she spent 5 times as much for their inauguration ... But thanks to people "UNLIKE" you they didn't get a chance to do it.

WHEW! Don't you feel better now? I do!

 

[Harvey]

Next time, you may want to do a little homework before spreading right wing sour grapes and FUD. mediamatters.org reports:

The AP concocts the cost of Obama's inauguration

It's hard to find journalism more shoddy than this, courtesy of the AP's Matt Apuzzo [emphasis added]:

• The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Where does that jaw-dropping number of $150 million come from? The AP never says. It doesn't quote anybody, it doesn't point to any facts. There's no nothing. The AP builds an entire story around how much Obama's inauguration might cost (why stop at $150 million?), yet never substantiates the what-if estimates.

As we said, journalism doesn't get much worse than that.

For an ind-depth look at the phony controversy over Obama's possible inauguration costs, click here.

From the last link in the above:

The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration

by Eric Boehlert

Did you hear that "some are saying" Barack Obama's inauguration will cost "$160 million," which is $100 million more than George W. Bush's last swearing-in? That's the tale the crew at Fox & Friends was telling on January 15. "Why does the thing have to cost so much?" demanded co-host Gretchen Carlson. "I don't get it. George Bush spent $42.3 million and that was just four years ago." She wondered why Obama needed "another $100 million" for his celebration.

The Fox News crew wasn't alone. The Internet and cable news were filled with chatter about the jaw-dropping (and unsubstantiated) number suddenly attached to Obama's swearing-in. But the sloppy reporting and online gossip about the price tag illustrated what happens when journalists don't do their job and online partisans take advantage of that kind of work.

It also highlighted the type of news you can generate when making blatantly false comparisons. In this case, it was the cost of the Obama and Bush inaugurations. The connection was unfair because the Obama figure of $160 million that got repeated in the press included security costs associated with the massive event. But the Bush tab of $42 million left out those enormous costs. Talk about stacking the deck.

The misinformation first arrived in the form of an underreported newspaper article in America, and then one in London. Between them, and thanks to furious transatlantic online linking, the reports gave birth to the story that Obama's inauguration was going to cost nearly four times what the country spent on Bush's bash in 2005 -- that the Obama inauguration would cost almost $120 million more.

With its declarative headline, "Obama's inauguration is most expensive ever at $160 million," the New York Daily News reported:

• It will take Barack Obama less than a minute to recite the oath of office -- and when he's done dancing at the inaugural balls Jan. 20, the price tag for his swearing-in festivities could approach $160 million.
  
  Obama's inaugural committee is in the midst of raising roughly $45 million in private funds, exceeding the $42.3 million President Bush spent in 2005. In 1993, Clinton spent $33 million when Democrats returned to the White House for the first time in 12 years.

Talk about red flags: "could approach"? See the extraordinary freedom that kind of loose language allows? Of course, technically speaking, it's true the inauguration spending "could approach" $160 million. It also "could approach" $400 million or $900 million. There's literally no limit to the number that could be inserted into the phrasing, especially when the Daily News provided so little basis for the jumbo figure.

The closest the Daily News came to explaining the $160 million was its noting that the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland had submitted a $75 million request to the federal government to cover inauguration costs, including security and transportation. Bottom line: The Daily News provided no facts -- no evidence -- to support its what-if $160 million price tag for the inauguration, a price tag the newspaper declared as fact in its attention-grabbing headline.

The next day, a January 14 article in the London tabloid, the Daily Mail, also used an inflated figure, but offered zero reporting to back it up. (The Daily Mail piece created a big stir when the Drudge Report linked to it.)

The Daily Mail lead: "Barack Obama's inauguration is set to cost more than £100m [$155 million] making it the most expensive swearing-in ceremony in US history."

The story continued:

• The President-elect will take less than a minute to recite the oath of office in front of an estimated two million people in the US capital next week.
  
  But by the time the final dance has been held at one of the many inaugural balls the costs for the day will be a staggering £110m [roughly $162 million].
  
  The cost was revealed as Mr Obama scrambled to answer questions about the nomination of Treasury Secretary pick Timothy Geithner.

"Was revealed"? Who revealed the $162 million figure? The Daily Mail never said. And much like the Daily News, the figures mentioned in the Daily Mail simply did not add up to the final cost the newspaper hyped.

Unfortunately, that didn't matter. At least not to conservative partisans who grabbed onto the Daily Mail story (via Drudge) and announced a blatant hypocrisy existed within the press because, they claimed, four years earlier, reporters and liberal pundits raised questions about the cost of Bush's inauguration, but suddenly were mum about Obama's, even though at $160 million, it was going to cost nearly four times as much as Bush's bash. (Actually, it wasn't just liberals or the press raising questions about the Bush inauguration; a strong majority of Americans wished Bush, during a time of war, had scaled back the glitz for his second swearing-in.)

Online, the inauguration condemnations were swift and fierce. The cost of "Obama's upcoming celebration" was "dwarfing" any previous swearing-in expenses and was climbing into "the $100 millions," claimed right-wing weblog The Jawa Report, which relied on the Daily Mail for its misinformation.

The unsubstantiated $160 million figure was also picked up and repeated on MSNBC, where news anchors spent all of January 14 announcing Obama's inauguration was going to cost "$160 million." The eye-popping dollar figure was accepted as fact, even though nobody in the press could actually explain where that number had come from. Plus, MSNBC suggested the $160 million tab just covered parties and activities, not the larger security costs.

Here's why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush's 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration's security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here's The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:

• The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.

For decades, that represented the norm in terms of calculating inauguration costs: Federal dollars spent on security were not part of the commonly referred-to cost. (The cost of Obama's inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million.) What's happening this year: The cost of the Obama inauguration and the cost of the security are being combined by some in order to come up with the much larger tab. Then, that number is being compared with the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2005, minus the money spent on security.

In other words, it's the unsubstantiated Obama cost of $160 million (inauguration + security) compared with the Bush cost of 42 million (inauguration, excluding security). Those are two completely different calculations being compared side-by-side, by Fox & Friends, among others, to support the phony claim that Obama's inauguration is $100 million more expensive than Bush's.

That's why the right-wing site Newsmax.com confidently reported that Obama's swearing-in would cost "nearly four times what George Bush's inauguration cost four years ago." So did Flopping Aces, a shining light of the right-wing blogosphere:

• President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m. This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993.

If portions of the press and the blogosphere want to now suggest that the cost of security should also be factored into the final tab for presidential inaugurations, they need to go back and recalculate the cost for Bush's 2005 swearing-in in order to have an honest comparison. Because with security included, the 2005 inauguration cost a lot more than $42 million -- just as with security factored in, Obama's will also cost a lot more than $45 million. (The final tab, though, likely won't be known for months.)

The question for the press then becomes: How much did the government spend on security for Bush's 2005 inauguration? How much did it cost for the wartime administration's unprecedented move to turn the nation's capital into something akin to an armed fortress, with snipers on rooftops, planes flying overhead, Humvee-mounted anti-aircraft missiles dotting the city, and manholes cemented shut?

Back in January 2005, that figure was impossible to come by. "U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said last week that he was unable to estimate security costs for the inauguration," The Washington Times reported. The cross-town Washington Post also had no luck in 2005 finding out the cost of security: "[Government] spokesmen said they could not provide an estimate of what the inauguration will cost the federal government."

However, buried in a recent New York Times article published one week before the controversy erupted over the cost of Obama's inauguration, the newspaper reported that in 2005, "the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers" [emphasis added].

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.

Unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) ends up costing $630 million, we can safely say it certainly won't cost four times what the Bush bash did in 2005. And unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) runs to $257 million, we can safely say the event won't cost $100 million more than Bush's, as Fox & Friends claimed.

So, for now, can the press and partisans please stop peddling this malignant myth?

?Eric Boehler

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
You guys do realize that most of that money is private donations right?

They always use the term private donations when somebody in government does something over the top. I'm sure there are many ways an accountant can make public money be labelled a "private donation".

LOL

Wow....just wow dude. Did you stop and actually think about what you were saying when you posted this?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: evident

Originally posted by: jpeyton
:laugh:

Three things:

1) Obama has raised more money for his inauguration than any other president in the history of our country.

2) More people = more money. It's that simple. If D.C. expected as many people to show up this year that showed up in 2005 for Bush, they wouldn't be spending nearly as much. Obama has set records for crowds during the entire election season, and his inauguration will set new records as well.

3) Obama, being the first black/minority president in our history, requires more security = more money. Money securing the life of our president is money well spent.

this. people are trying to find every single reason to demonize a guy who didnt even get into office yet

180 million dollars for a party is the reason for this discussion.

$180 million injected into largely the services industry of the domestic economy. Yes, this is obviously a huge problem. Clearly that money won't be recirculated into the general economy at all.

Just to be sure I have it straight:

Palin spends $50K for a dress and it's a national scandal

Obama spends $180M for a party and it's economic stimulus

Democrats and their double standards make my head spin.

I agree, both are stupid issues to be debating, so long as it's not taxpayer bucks being thrown at this stuff. Privately donated funds, be it from individuals or corporations, have little concern to me, especially when the money is spent here in our nation.

<--- not a D, and I hated Palin for many reasons utterly unrelated to her shopping spree, but whatever.

 

[villageidiot111]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Next time, you may want to do a little homework before spreading right wing sour grapes and FUD. mediamatters.org reports:

The AP concocts the cost of Obama's inauguration

It's hard to find journalism more shoddy than this, courtesy of the AP's Matt Apuzzo [emphasis added]:

• The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Where does that jaw-dropping number of $150 million come from? The AP never says. It doesn't quote anybody, it doesn't point to any facts. There's no nothing. The AP builds an entire story around how much Obama's inauguration might cost (why stop at $150 million?), yet never substantiates the what-if estimates.

As we said, journalism doesn't get much worse than that.

For an ind-depth look at the phony controversy over Obama's possible inauguration costs, click here.

From the last link in the above:

The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration

by Eric Boehlert

Did you hear that "some are saying" Barack Obama's inauguration will cost "$160 million," which is $100 million more than George W. Bush's last swearing-in? That's the tale the crew at Fox & Friends was telling on January 15. "Why does the thing have to cost so much?" demanded co-host Gretchen Carlson. "I don't get it. George Bush spent $42.3 million and that was just four years ago." She wondered why Obama needed "another $100 million" for his celebration.

The Fox News crew wasn't alone. The Internet and cable news were filled with chatter about the jaw-dropping (and unsubstantiated) number suddenly attached to Obama's swearing-in. But the sloppy reporting and online gossip about the price tag illustrated what happens when journalists don't do their job and online partisans take advantage of that kind of work.

It also highlighted the type of news you can generate when making blatantly false comparisons. In this case, it was the cost of the Obama and Bush inaugurations. The connection was unfair because the Obama figure of $160 million that got repeated in the press included security costs associated with the massive event. But the Bush tab of $42 million left out those enormous costs. Talk about stacking the deck.

The misinformation first arrived in the form of an underreported newspaper article in America, and then one in London. Between them, and thanks to furious transatlantic online linking, the reports gave birth to the story that Obama's inauguration was going to cost nearly four times what the country spent on Bush's bash in 2005 -- that the Obama inauguration would cost almost $120 million more.

With its declarative headline, "Obama's inauguration is most expensive ever at $160 million," the New York Daily News reported:

• It will take Barack Obama less than a minute to recite the oath of office -- and when he's done dancing at the inaugural balls Jan. 20, the price tag for his swearing-in festivities could approach $160 million.
  
  Obama's inaugural committee is in the midst of raising roughly $45 million in private funds, exceeding the $42.3 million President Bush spent in 2005. In 1993, Clinton spent $33 million when Democrats returned to the White House for the first time in 12 years.

Talk about red flags: "could approach"? See the extraordinary freedom that kind of loose language allows? Of course, technically speaking, it's true the inauguration spending "could approach" $160 million. It also "could approach" $400 million or $900 million. There's literally no limit to the number that could be inserted into the phrasing, especially when the Daily News provided so little basis for the jumbo figure.

The closest the Daily News came to explaining the $160 million was its noting that the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland had submitted a $75 million request to the federal government to cover inauguration costs, including security and transportation. Bottom line: The Daily News provided no facts -- no evidence -- to support its what-if $160 million price tag for the inauguration, a price tag the newspaper declared as fact in its attention-grabbing headline.

The next day, a January 14 article in the London tabloid, the Daily Mail, also used an inflated figure, but offered zero reporting to back it up. (The Daily Mail piece created a big stir when the Drudge Report linked to it.)

The Daily Mail lead: "Barack Obama's inauguration is set to cost more than £100m [$155 million] making it the most expensive swearing-in ceremony in US history."

The story continued:

• The President-elect will take less than a minute to recite the oath of office in front of an estimated two million people in the US capital next week.
  
  But by the time the final dance has been held at one of the many inaugural balls the costs for the day will be a staggering £110m [roughly $162 million].
  
  The cost was revealed as Mr Obama scrambled to answer questions about the nomination of Treasury Secretary pick Timothy Geithner.

"Was revealed"? Who revealed the $162 million figure? The Daily Mail never said. And much like the Daily News, the figures mentioned in the Daily Mail simply did not add up to the final cost the newspaper hyped.

Unfortunately, that didn't matter. At least not to conservative partisans who grabbed onto the Daily Mail story (via Drudge) and announced a blatant hypocrisy existed within the press because, they claimed, four years earlier, reporters and liberal pundits raised questions about the cost of Bush's inauguration, but suddenly were mum about Obama's, even though at $160 million, it was going to cost nearly four times as much as Bush's bash. (Actually, it wasn't just liberals or the press raising questions about the Bush inauguration; a strong majority of Americans wished Bush, during a time of war, had scaled back the glitz for his second swearing-in.)

Online, the inauguration condemnations were swift and fierce. The cost of "Obama's upcoming celebration" was "dwarfing" any previous swearing-in expenses and was climbing into "the $100 millions," claimed right-wing weblog The Jawa Report, which relied on the Daily Mail for its misinformation.

The unsubstantiated $160 million figure was also picked up and repeated on MSNBC, where news anchors spent all of January 14 announcing Obama's inauguration was going to cost "$160 million." The eye-popping dollar figure was accepted as fact, even though nobody in the press could actually explain where that number had come from. Plus, MSNBC suggested the $160 million tab just covered parties and activities, not the larger security costs.

Here's why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush's 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration's security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here's The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:

• The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.

For decades, that represented the norm in terms of calculating inauguration costs: Federal dollars spent on security were not part of the commonly referred-to cost. (The cost of Obama's inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million.) What's happening this year: The cost of the Obama inauguration and the cost of the security are being combined by some in order to come up with the much larger tab. Then, that number is being compared with the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2005, minus the money spent on security.

In other words, it's the unsubstantiated Obama cost of $160 million (inauguration + security) compared with the Bush cost of 42 million (inauguration, excluding security). Those are two completely different calculations being compared side-by-side, by Fox & Friends, among others, to support the phony claim that Obama's inauguration is $100 million more expensive than Bush's.

That's why the right-wing site Newsmax.com confidently reported that Obama's swearing-in would cost "nearly four times what George Bush's inauguration cost four years ago." So did Flopping Aces, a shining light of the right-wing blogosphere:

• President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m. This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993.

If portions of the press and the blogosphere want to now suggest that the cost of security should also be factored into the final tab for presidential inaugurations, they need to go back and recalculate the cost for Bush's 2005 swearing-in in order to have an honest comparison. Because with security included, the 2005 inauguration cost a lot more than $42 million -- just as with security factored in, Obama's will also cost a lot more than $45 million. (The final tab, though, likely won't be known for months.)

The question for the press then becomes: How much did the government spend on security for Bush's 2005 inauguration? How much did it cost for the wartime administration's unprecedented move to turn the nation's capital into something akin to an armed fortress, with snipers on rooftops, planes flying overhead, Humvee-mounted anti-aircraft missiles dotting the city, and manholes cemented shut?

Back in January 2005, that figure was impossible to come by. "U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said last week that he was unable to estimate security costs for the inauguration," The Washington Times reported. The cross-town Washington Post also had no luck in 2005 finding out the cost of security: "[Government] spokesmen said they could not provide an estimate of what the inauguration will cost the federal government."

However, buried in a recent New York Times article published one week before the controversy erupted over the cost of Obama's inauguration, the newspaper reported that in 2005, "the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers" [emphasis added].

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.

Unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) ends up costing $630 million, we can safely say it certainly won't cost four times what the Bush bash did in 2005. And unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) runs to $257 million, we can safely say the event won't cost $100 million more than Bush's, as Fox & Friends claimed.

So, for now, can the press and partisans please stop peddling this malignant myth?

?Eric Boehler

QFT

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
You guys do realize that most of that money is private donations right?

They always use the term private donations when somebody in government does something over the top. I'm sure there are many ways an accountant can make public money be labelled a "private donation".

LOL

Wow....just wow dude. Did you stop and actually think about what you were saying when you posted this?

Actually, i did think about what i'm saying. I'm not an accountant, so I can't completely justify my statement. But considering how much accountants have already mislead the public in nearly destroying our economy by falsifying earnings and all their other weasly schemes. I certainly can believe there is a possiblity that the vast funds(unlimited it seems) contained in the "private donation" bucket may be in question.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
You guys do realize that most of that money is private donations right?

They always use the term private donations when somebody in government does something over the top. I'm sure there are many ways an accountant can make public money be labelled a "private donation".

I'm sure you're sure, but what can you prove?

 

[ahurtt]

Yeah . . .let's take one of the most historic elections in the history of this nation and just play it "low key." That'd go over real well with the millions of people who want to be a part of it who are planning on descending on the nation's capital. This is expected be one of the biggest, if not THE biggest inaugural turnouts in the history of the USA. Of course it's gonna cost a lot! Why don't you just personally go around door to door asking people to please stay home so we can save a little tax money?
Oh I can just hear Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, NAACP and the ilk now. . ."How come when a BLACK MAN becomes President we gotta do the innauguration on the cheap!? How come Black history month is the shortest month of the year?! . . " Yadda yadda so on. . .Don't hand them any ammunition. It's a nicer world when they don't talk.

The fact is LOTS of people are VERY excited about this inauguration and it's really not so much under Obama's control how big it snowballs and how much it ends up costing.

 

[chrisho]

Remember, most of this is paid by donors.

However I will leave with the sentiment, do what they tell you, not what they do.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Socio
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/20426.asp">Obama spends more than 180 million dollars for his inauguration </a>

Interestingly, Obama spends more than 180 million dollars for his inauguration while millions of Americans starve without job and hope. The man of hope has turned hope into betrayal. It is not easy to become the leader of the people. It is easy to fool common people, take their money, vote and then come to power to continue the status quo in exchange of good life, good food, and the White House goodies.

He certainly would have earned a lot of kudos if he chose to forgo this ceremony to cut costs due to our current economical conditions and showed he was really a man of change.

He did not, instead choose to spend a lot more than previous presidents which is a big fat sign he is NOT a man of change he is just a status quo democrat.

Surprise, can't believe nobody saw this coming. I know you did.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Maybe you head would have spun right off after she spent 5 times as much for their inauguration

Proof?

Oh wait, you're just a troll. Proof not required.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: chrisho
Remember, most of this is paid by donors.

donors is like code-word for people trying to buy influence with the incoming administration.

 

[babylon5]

Corporate donors?

 

[HeXploiT]

$180 million. What a waste and a sham. The founding fathers originally chose the word "president"(uncapitalized) because it was a mild-mannered title.
If Bush was a dictator then Obama will be King.

 

[LegendKiller]

What I don't get is this. Who gives a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut if it was donated. Why not use it for something constructive rather than a fucking circus?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Its good to see the lefties in this forum admitting that trickle down economics works.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Its good to see the lefties in this forum admitting that trickle down economics works.

Please go learn what trickle down economics is.