$170 Million for Obama Inauguration - Why?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 19-1-2009 @ 09:48 AM by Realtruth
Why would a president that was coming into the worst economic situation allow a $170 million dollar inauguration to happen?

It's really a simple thing, not Democratic or Republican agenda just a show of faith that things will be different, but no $170 million for first day.

I am really not surprised but disappointed.

ABC News



By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
ABC NEWS Business Unit

Jan. 19, 2009—

The country is in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, which isn't stopping rich donors and the government from spending $170 million, or more, on the inauguration of Barack Obama .

The actual swearing-in ceremony will cost $1.24 million, according to Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

It's the security, parties and countless Porta-a-Potty rentals that really run up the bill.

The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.

And then there is the party bill.

"We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more," said Linda Douglas, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.

That's more than the $42.3 million in private funds spent by President Bush's committee in 2005 or the $33 million spent for Bill Clinton's first inaugural in 19

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 10:39 AM by ldunquist
reply to post by Realtruth



I saw this too and wondered how many people just half of that $170,000,000 could help keep from going through foreclosure.

Its fiscally irresponsible.


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 10:57 AM by RFBurns
Originally posted by delius
The majority of the cost is associated with security. GWB's last inauguration cost of 42 million did not include that cost--but when you factor it in, it was 157 million. So it's about the same. (
source)

delius

[edit on 19-1-2009 by delius]


Ya ok and how much of that percentage do you think ACTUALLY went to security?

Umm...doesnt the government already have its own security teams, its own military, its own hardware, its own secret service...already PAID FOR?!!!!


Ya...keep trusting the hand that isnt feeding you but taking the money that does right out of your back pocket while patting it at the same time!!!







Cheers!!!!


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:06 AM by LowLevelMason
Originally posted by delius
The majority of the cost is associated with security. GWB's last inauguration cost of 42 million did not include that cost--but when you factor it in, it was 157 million. So it's about the same. (
source)

delius

[edit on 19-1-2009 by delius]


Did you just seriously try to use Media Matters, a well known hysterically left-wing group that is a microphone for the most left wing extremes of the Democrat party, to pull a "Bush did it too!"

Sorry, but media matters will make up whatever it takes to defend Obama. I don't buy it. Also, unlike Bush, Obama is telling us the economy is horrible and will be getting worse. Bush's inauguration was during a economic boom.


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:15 AM by LowLevelMason
Originally posted by delius
reply to
post by LowLevelMason



Did you read the article?

delius


Yes, did you? As with all Media Matters propaganda, they conveniently forget to mention that the $170 million with the $75 million state government estimate is extremely conservative, and does not include District of Columbia's non-security expenses - which will sky rocket it even more.

Of course, silly things like facts have never meant much to Media Matters. Even if you took their propaganda at face value, even when they blatantly lied, you are still comparing 115 million to 170 million.


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:27 AM by delius
reply to post by LowLevelMason



This article is what journalism is about--it has investigated, broke down the numbers, and analyzed why there is such a significant difference in previous president's costs. Is it 100% accurate? No, I don't believe that the author is claiming that.

If I was going to report on this--I would first ask, why is it different? Nobody did that and now it has spread throughout the internet without anyone questioning it. Those that oppose Obama have succeeded in this strategy.

The point of the article I referenced and the point of my post is that the totals being compared are not including the same things--that stands.

delius


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:56 AM by kozmo
You are KIDDING ME, right!?!? Did you just link to Media Matters in a weak attempt to placate those who recognize the monstrous hypocrisy of the left's justification of this abomination!?!? Media Matters is a leftist flaming liberal rag bent on destroying all that is good about America. It is a Soros funded propaganda machine!

Here's the real truth... Bush's Inauguration cost taxpayers $42M and the MSM was having a tantrum like a 3 year old who's candy was just taken away. This number DID include security detail for the event. The talking heads made claims that it was "Just wasteful", "A pathetic indulgence", "Misuse of tax dollars", "Money that should go toward buying more armoured Humvees", or "Money that should go toward the deficit." Anyone remeber the indignation of it all? I certainly do!

Fast forward 4 years and the libs got "Their guy" in office. The deficit is more than 3 times higher than it was 4 years ago. Debt is over 10 times higher than it was 4 years ago. The economy is in complete shambles and they condom=ne spending over 4 times as much on Obama's Inauguration! Why? Because he's a Democrat!!!

You see, it is really quite simple, whenever the Republicans do something it is reprehensible, deplorable, illegal, questionable, immoral etc... But when Democrats do it it is a "Common mistake", "meant to benefit the greater good", "An historic event" etc... Dig through all of that political double-speak which amounts to nothing more than crap and what you have is HYPOCRISY!!! Yes, the Democrats are Hypocrites and the Mainstream Media are their henchmen.

Obama will enjoy 4 years of protective cover, excuse making and complete obfuscation by the media - this article is a perfect example of the excuse making at its finest.

Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^