|
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
Click here for more Breaking Political News topics
Hot Topics
|
Top Topics
|
This Week
|
Subscribe
|
Home
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 10:44 AM 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]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 10:55 AM by RFBurns
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
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!!!!
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:09 AM by Mynaeris
|
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"
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:10 AM by delius
|
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:15 AM by LowLevelMason
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
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
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:29 AM by Cio88
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:29 AM by LowLevelMason
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:54 AM by sos37
|
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...
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 06:52 PM by projectvxn
|

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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 07:23 PM by The_Modulus
|

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]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 07:34 PM by The_Modulus
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 08:27 PM by Keyhole
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 08:34 PM by TruthWithin
|

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.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |