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.

 

$170 Million for Obama Inauguration - Why?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
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.




posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Where's my ticket to the golden grand ball? ...let's not forget, over $1,000,000,000 (billion) dollars spent on the 2008 campaign trail, over $700million by Obama's campaign alone.

Is anyone really suprised by his authorizing another $175mil for ridiculous parties and the like when he spent more than DOUBLE what McCain's camp did during the run. Elton John, eat your heart out... at least Obama's party like a rock star! (grrr)

Oh, wait. The Fed can create 'currency' at will with a couple of keyboard clips and a signature... problem solved.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.



Because its the first step to use 40 million for the inauguration and parties, and the rest go to their pockets. The first "rip off" act of the incomming savior.

Yep..hes gonna be the savior alright. Savior of our exausted funds right into his own savior accounts.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 19-1-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

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!!!!



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I think it's just fiiting that they spend $170 million on his inauguration. It's not even 10% of what they spent on getting him elected as president. Recession? "Let them eat cake"



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


Did you read the article?

delius



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Because Bush's wasn't enough ... and 10x worse


Such a double standard these days. the MSM is the human shield for Obama. Nothing is going to be his fault .. 4 maybe even 8 years from now, Expect the Bush bashing to continue.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Wow. You think Media Matters, a George Soros Democrat Party mouthpiece, is journalism? Even after I pointed out how they just blatantly lied and didn't do a true inauguration comparison?

I stand in amazement. There really is just nothing else to say.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by LowLevelMason]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Wait until we're past the inauguration and he gets to this stimulus package which some are calling nothing but a huge "payback" bill - money that won't actually go into the pockets of taxpayers like the Bush stimulus package, but money that will go into the coffers of unionized businesses.

Here's a blog which discusses what I'm talking about:

lighthouseblog.blogs.com...

which probably originated from stories like this one below where Unions are seeking to be paid back for helping Obama to be elected

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
They are dealing with millions of people, paying for unprecedented security due to unprecedented threats to the New Presidents' life. Never before has there been so much interest in the inauguration ceremony. And the security personnel, number in the tens of thousands, will be working overtime for the next 24 to 48 hours trying to make sure everything goes on without a problem.

I'm no Obama supporter or anything, but it seems justified to me.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
As I understand it the cost get higher the greater interest the public show for the event. I'm not sure I could come up with a ball-park figure as to how much such a thing would cost, but as the OP article states most money goes to things like porta-potties, and other such things that deal with the millions of people that are going to be attending this event.

Some of the things which cost a lot are:

  • Crowd control - including all the thousands of people that will need to be employed to stand around in uniforms.

  • Security around DC - there will be thousands upon thousands of people entering the capital, with vehicles that may need to be searched, meaning police officers etc.

  • Parking, and general space to put the influx of people.

  • Things like television screens, sound systems, catering?, ushers, stages, banners etc.



$170 mil does seem high though...

[edit on 19-1-2009 by The_Modulus]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
As high as this figure does sound, if you take the size of the US population into account, which is roughly 305 million, 170 mil is only costing each American a mere 50 cents to see their president innaugurated.

Which imo is a bargain to pay for the entertainment.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
Why would a president that was coming into the worst economic situation allow a $170 million dollar inauguration to happen?



Because it's a celebration!

Ring the church bells, shoot off fireworks, bring out the noise makers, give your neighbors a hug!

Bush is LEAVING the White House!

(Was beginning to believe this was all just a bad dream that I was never going to wake up from, it just kept going on, and on, and on, ...)

[edit on 1/19/2009 by Keyhole]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Wow. Obama can do no right around ATS. I am sure if he said - "Sorry, millions of citizens who want to come share in this, but we are broke so there is no party" then there would be a thread about how Obama is not for the people yada yada.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join