It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama's inaugeration cost soars to over $150 million!

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   




posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



I declare today to be "Hold your own balls" day. Carry on.




Ohh man did this make me laugh, It could have al bundy on the poster. I know I would support it every day if asked to.



On a side note, I really fear a terrorist attack happening. Its just way to many people in one area and we have pissed off so many groups in the world. This event would be one that changes the face of earth for a long time as the fury of this would far surpass 9/11.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I'm not really sure how much has been budgeted for the biggest Hollywood production so far. Someone out there probably knows. Why not turn this into a movie. !50 million seems like a pretty good budget. Instead of giving it away for free on network T.V. you could be making it all back through ticket sales in a theater near you. Think of the special effects you could use. There'd be no security threats. You could use standins and stunt doubles for all the major players. A real cast of thousands. Just think of it. The first president with an Oscar. Oh, maybe I'm wrong , didn't Ronnie get one of those. Just make sure you have good producers for this one. Can't be wasting any money now can we?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I think it's ridiculous that the wall street companies and banks are contributing money they recieved for the bailout on this inauguration. That is our (the American peoples) tax money, nobody voted or approved that money to be spent that way. What were the terms of the bailout? Surely this can't be legal.

Great example Obama.


[edit on 1/18/2009 by leisuredrummer]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
I don't think that the amount is of much concern. Yes, Obama could have fed some homeless people instead of throwing a big party... but really thats not what champagne socialists are about.

My biggest gripe is that Obama has messed up. In a time when money is short, austerity could have gained him so many more brownie points than a big, expensive bash. If I were Obama, I would have gone so grassroots that it would have been revolutionary. I would get people to fill the surrounding streets, the mall etc and then just pick up a microphone and deliver a speech that would forever enter the history books. (Similar to what Martin Luther King did).

Confetti and balloons are really unnecessary- they look tacky, are bad for the envrionment and cost too much. The glitz and glamour is not only unnecessary, but it detracts from Obama's image.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
how is that different from the 115 million spent on the 2005 inauguration for bush? it was spent by the federal government and the District of Columbia combined.
the tally included security, swearing-in ceremony, cleanup, and a holiday for federal workers.
these things were responsible for the majority of the costs.
it doesn't include the 42 million contributed by bush supporters.
so i guess that final tally of 157 million is a bit high also.
perhaps, the cost is a bit more because of heightened level of security to protect a man who has brought out deep-seated hate and fear from people afraid of or even unwilling to wrap their minds around the thought of someone with a different skin tone will be the leader of their country.

and before anyone jumps the gun, i'm not referring to previous posts.
i'm talking about those citizens who choose to refer to obama in less than human terms.

like it or not, his election has caused ugliness to bubble up to the surface.
not that it wasn't there before, it has been for centuries.
i'm just saying he is obviously hated by people who wish to do him harm.
thus, the cost of security alone will probably be high.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by heather65
how is that different from the 115 million spent on the 2005 inauguration for bush? it was spent by the federal government and the District of Columbia combined.


Maybe the difference is that the $115 million was the combined cost of BOTH the 2001 and the 2005 inaugurations?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


your'e mistaken.
that 157 million was for 2005.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by heather65
 


and your source for that is? mine is above and it clearly states int eh article

Also interesting but unnoted is that between the 2001 and 2005 inaugurations, Bush and his supporters have spent roughly $115 million total on parties and parades.


[edit on 1/18/09 by redhatty]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


you can quote sources till the cows come home.
157 million was the cost according to the ny times.
i just disagree. no need to be offended that i don't acknowledge your numbers.
you probably won't acknowledge my source for 2005's cost.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by heather65
 


Ever consider that the NYT might be WRONG?

msnbc

Washington Times

Washington Times yet again

Even the BBC

Oh yeah and here's your NYT from 2005


Here's how the NY Times reported on the costs of the Bush inaugural ceremony in 2005:

It will take President Bush less than a minute to take the oath of office next Thursday, but before the inaugural events are over some $40 million may be spent on parades, parties and pyrotechnics.

And that doesn't include the costs of the most intense security operation in inaugural history.

The amount spent on this year's festivities will rival the $40 million raised to celebrate Bush's first inauguration in 2001, and will exceed the $33 million spent by President Clinton in 1993 when Democrats returned to the White House for the first time in 12 years.

While the partying is being paid for privately, there have been some mutterings about the scale of the celebrations at a time of war and natural disaster.

source



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


just because news outlets choose to jump on the bandwagon and repeat myths, doesn't make them credible.
that ny times report was buried within its pages a week before the hubbub over obama's inauguration costs became "red meat" for newscasts and newspapers. no surprise at your list of sources.
it's like the old game of telephone.
or better yet, like the rumor mill at a high school.

some people talk to hear the sound of their own voices.
i however, think the cost attached to obama's swearing-in ceremony is necessary.
i don't particularly feel like living in the middle of a race war brought on by some knucklehead, due to a lack of effective security, because he/she wants to plunge the country into chaos by killing him or wounding him.
believe it or not, obama is hated. vehemently hated.

when people complain about the all the parties, it sounds like sour grapes.
a celebration is their right. most of the parties are fundraisers for charities.
if you don't like it or disagree, fine that's you're right also.

but, to complain about security costs and such is tired.
now this is just my opinion but, i think complaints about this may reflect some sort of underlying resentment. perhaps fear.

like it or not, he's president.
people want to celebrate.
the city hosting the party will have to accomodate the influx of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people.
one or two of which may have less than good intentions.

let's just say we agree to disagree and leave it at that.
my experiences are obviously different from yours and we'll never see eye to eye.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by heather65
 


I know what your souce was. Media Matters. only took a little looking. the rest of the story


Ms. Douglass of the committee said the expenses this year would be greater than those for any previous inauguration. In modern times, inaugurations have been financed by a combination of public and private money. In 2005, Mr. Bush raised $42.3 million from about 15,000 donors for festivities; 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.

Still, only about 400,000 people attended in 2005, while officials expect at least two million this year. That means added costs for opening the whole Mall, setting up more JumboTrons and providing 5,000 portable toilets, among other items. (The District of Columbia alone spent more than $15 million in 2005 and says costs this year will triple.)

The Obama team is planning a full schedule of events, both for the public and for donors. They include a procession by train into Washington from Philadelphia on Saturday and a dinner for top financial contributors that night; brunch on Sunday for donors and a public welcoming concert at the Lincoln Memorial; a political briefing on Monday for donors and a day of community service, followed by a youth concert at the Verizon Center as well as an invitation-only bipartisan dinner; the traditional inauguration ceremonies on Tuesday, followed by a parade and 10 balls at night, one more than Mr. Bush and four fewer than Mr. Clinton. One of the official Obama balls is a “neighborhood” ball open to the public.

During the campaign, small donors supplied about a quarter of the record-shattering $745 million that Mr. Obama raised. But campaign finance experts doubt that the same enthusiasm exists for giving to the inauguration.

Fred Wertheimer, a longtime campaign finance expert in Washington, advocates that the government pay the entire bill.

“Even when you have an Obama administration that has taken steps beyond what other previous inaugurals have done to provide immediate transparency and limits on fund-raisers, you still inevitably wind up with larger donors and bundlers with the potential to gain access and influence,” Mr. Wertheimer said. “At a minimum, it raises appearance questions.”


NYT free registration required

So by the source article, this inauguration should TRIPLE the $15 mil cost of 2005. JUST to DC. Then there's the Maryland cost of 12 mil then the cost of the 40,000 member security force.

By the time it's all over, I would bet that the costs for Obama inauguartion will stagger the mind - and could have put a nice little dent into the US debt



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by heather65
just because news outlets choose to jump on the bandwagon and repeat myths, doesn't make them credible.
that ny times report was buried within its pages a week before the hubbub over obama's inauguration costs became "red meat" for newscasts and newspapers. no surprise at your list of sources.
it's like the old game of telephone.
or better yet, like the rumor mill at a high school.


Wow Sources from 2005 - the time in question are like a high school rumor mill? And I bet that you would swear that you have no bias at all in this statement.


some people talk to hear the sound of their own voices.
i however, think the cost attached to obama's swearing-in ceremony is necessary.
i don't particularly feel like living in the middle of a race war brought on by some knucklehead, due to a lack of effective security, because he/she wants to plunge the country into chaos by killing him or wounding him.
believe it or not, obama is hated. vehemently hated.

when people complain about the all the parties, it sounds like sour grapes.
a celebration is their right. most of the parties are fundraisers for charities.
if you don't like it or disagree, fine that's you're right also.

but, to complain about security costs and such is tired.
now this is just my opinion but, i think complaints about this may reflect some sort of underlying resentment. perhaps fear.


JUST TIRED????

Are you completely out of your ever loving mind?

We have just gone into debt to the tune of 7 trillion dollars over the bailout and we are looking down the barrel of another $825 Billion "stimulus" package while we have had OVER 1.5 MILLION nnew unemployment claims in the last 5 weeks and complaining about the cost of a 1 minute swearing in is TIRED???

Wake Up! It is mentalities like yours that will be the death knoll for the US

But even when that happens, you will find a way to blame others and justify it in your own twisted mentality.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
reply to post by inked up
 


The man is yet to start his first term... get a hold of yourself. You want to bicker, grow a spine and look back to the last 8years... Jeeze..



We can absolutely look back and criticize the Bush failures that helped get us where we are today. We are also fully justified in our criticism of Obama as an elitist hypocrite. We want to know what kind of "change" this really is. He may be your infallible ruler but he's not mine.

You think we're supposed to hold our tongues until Jan. 20th? Nothing could be further from the truth and in fact the criticism begins the moment one decides to run for office; that's how it should be for all politicians of all parties.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by spaznational]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
What a sick joke!
When $40M was spent on Bush's inauguration, the media was filled with criticism calling it excessive, wasteful and even irresponsible. But now, $150M is acceptable, even necessary.

What cracks me up is the blatant hypocrisy of liberals. It's bad when Republicans do it, but uncondemnable when Democrats do it. Go figure.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I think you have to consider what they are including as "cost".

It may not necessarily be gold plated glasses or caviar. It could include manpower, the cost of the surrounding states and counties getting ready for any attacks, etc. The securing and cleanup of DC. Adding trains to the Metro and Amtrak and buses.Portable toilets to accomadate 5 million people. Only 400k turned up for the 2005 inauguration.
So you have to take that and multiply it by what? 12.5 times?
There are a lot of things that could factor in cost.


I would be willing to bet most of it is security.

And people should be able to celebrate the incoming president.

Most of the funding is private. And Barack put a limit on the donations, which is less then the donation limit Bush set.

the same people that financed the campaign are financing the inauguration.

If he were to make it a private affair, then he would of been accused of being an elitist.

If he kept it low key, he would of been accused of not caring about public participation.

The fact is, this is an extraordinary event. This is not just for the US, but for the world. This shows that racial barriers can be broken down and anyone can make President. Americans want to celebrate hope, change from the Regime of the last eight years. We are tired of war and fear mongering.

yes these are hard times, so we need a celebration to look forward too. We need hope. We need some light in dark days.
No more constant chanting by the Bush Administration about terrorism. No more eroding of civil liberties. No more war. No more bowing to the oil companies.
Americans need something to celebrate. So stop raining on the parade.



And if people want to fund that with their own money, let them.

The man hasn't even taken office yet but people are trying to tear him apart thread by thread and every little thing he does. Sorry you lost, but you really need to relax.
That much hatred only hurts you and nobody else.


If he doesn't do a better job then GW, which I would find hard to believe, because anyone can do a better job then GW, it will be a relief not to hear terrorism or fear mongering at ever term.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by scobro
 


Totally agree. This is out of control. He should be ashamed of himself.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 



Ya well I'd rather shell out a $.25 then pay for the neocon war anymore.

Big #$@!.

The economy is three parts psychological so if this inauguration makes the AMERICAN people think and feel good...



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty

Originally posted by heather65
how is that different from the 115 million spent on the 2005 inauguration for bush? it was spent by the federal government and the District of Columbia combined.


Maybe the difference is that the $115 million was the combined cost of BOTH the 2001 and the 2005 inaugurations?



Ya maybe, BUSH was not as popular???? maybe the price reflects the quantity of people
that will be in attendance?

[edit on 18-1-2009 by The Bald Champion]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join