Big Spender

Obama Hosting Pricey Party in Hard Times
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.

AP

Sunday, January 18, 2009
WASHINGTON - Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party.

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.

Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation -- costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers -- and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...ities-reach-m/

I understand the need to celebrate and whatnot, but "Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen"? $150 million? :dry:

i guess would be better if this money was in the hands of the poor or any other charitable institutions

Or back in my pocket.

It does seem extravagant. I prefer to think of it not as a celebration of Obama taking over, but instead one for the departure of Bush.

That is money that doesn't come from your taxes or mine anyway.
Who cares about it? This is history skizo, I know you may not care, but american's have hope for the future.
The one that ruined America is leaving, it is time for Obama and the new hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

It does seem extravagant. I prefer to think of it not as a celebration of Obama taking over, but instead one for the departure of Bush.

---

I thought this day would never be a reality.
Now texas has to deal with him lol

They spend too much money on this type of thing. I am not just talking about the U.S.A. If you were to walk a few yards away from the inauguration you will find people sleeping rough. A few of these people fought in Vietnam. If your country needs you, that's O.K. If you need your country, forget it.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Obama Hosting Pricey Party in Hard Times
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.

---

I was immediately struck by the same thing.It's amazing how people line up on the other side of the fence when it suits them.
It wasn't too long ago that both the politicos and average citizens were denouncing the auto industry for throwing money around in hard times .
Especially hypocritical on the new President's part with his supposed immediate focus on fiscal responsibility.

Of course I don't agree with the whole approach taken to Obama's inauguration .Much too orchestrated .Then seem trying to imply greatness by association(the train ride,the bible being used even the location).
That seems to be Obama's course of preference though.He did the same sort of thing with the setting of his Democratic nomination acceptance speech too.
Who knows Obama may turn out to be the greatest President ever but just emulating Lincoln and Kennedy ,while no doubt influencing the psyche of the dim-witted doesn't make it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentomato

That is money that doesn't come from your taxes or mine anyway.

---

Nothing exists in a vacuum and while the money may not directly come from tax dollars the money of the rich still comes from the sacrifices of the less fortunate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentomato

That is money that doesn't come from your taxes or mine anyway.

---

Nothing exists in a vacuum and while the money may not directly come from tax dollars the money of the rich still comes from the sacrifices of the less fortunate.

---

You could look at it in exactly the opposite way.

This is money that the rich already have, and when they spend it some of it will be absorbed in taxes, if they just hoard it they will pay much less tax. Some of that tax money will be spent to help the less well off. So the more they spend the more help goes to the poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentomato

I thought this day would never be a reality.
Now texas has to deal with him lol

---

By all accounts he's going to be less than 30 miles away from us. I think he'll hardly be there mind you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentomato

That is money that doesn't come from your taxes or mine anyway.
Who cares about it? This is history skizo, I know you may not care, but american's have hope for the future.
The one that ruined America is leaving, it is time for Obama and the new hope.

---

This is true that it is not coming from the American taxpayer. That is why they have so many balls to raise $$$ to cover costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan484

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentomato

That is money that doesn't come from your taxes or mine anyway.
Who cares about it? This is history skizo, I know you may not care, but american's have hope for the future.
The one that ruined America is leaving, it is time for Obama and the new hope.

---

This is true that it is not coming from the American taxpayer. That is why they have so many balls to raise $$$ to cover costs.

---

OF course it comes from the taxpayers. Where do you think the government gets its money? :huh:

It doesn't get $150 million from fund raisers. :lol:

Saying the money rich folk have always means there are poor people struggling as a consequence is a highly indoctrinated point of view. Marx, Engels, call it what you will.

How about, the money of the rich comes from hard slob on their part. People don't make fortunes in a day, (as a general rule), and from the point when they do have large amounts of assets then it is their moral duty to help the less fortunate.

The process by which they got to their status doesn't, however, necessarily mean they made poorer people endure sacrifices and harsher times.

Maybe Obama went a bit overboard, what with those past president allusions and all, and the bill being high, but he's certainly more interesting to listen to than George W.

I also can't help but emphasize how glad I am Sarah Pallin is far away from the White House.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan484

This is true that it is not coming from the American taxpayer. That is why they have so many balls to raise $$$ to cover costs.

---

OF course it comes from the taxpayers. Where do you think the government gets its money? :huh:

It doesn't get $150 million from fund raisers. :lol:

---

Just to get all the facts straight $41 million dollars from fundraisers(a incredible amount).The rest from tax dollars.
Vast majority of that was of course went to security which unfortunately they couldn't do without.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Just to get all the facts straight $41 million dollars from fundraisers(a incredible amount).The rest from tax dollars.
Vast majority of that was of course went to security which unfortunately they couldn't do without.

---

What has also gone under the press radar when reporting this is that they make comparisons between the money spent on past inaugurations. They put the 2005 Bush inauguration at $42 million, but this figure does not include the security cost etc. included in the Obama figures. when the costs incurred by the federal government and the District of Columbia are factored in, as they have been for Obama, the total cost of Bush's 2005 inauguration was reportedly around $157 million.

I know that Skizo's point was about the double standard of those that called for Bush to tone it down (it wasn't just democrats), just pointing out the figure isn't all that unusual (inflation and all)

Ridiculous.

Sorry no justification available other than logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Just to get all the facts straight $41 million dollars from fundraisers(a incredible amount).The rest from tax dollars.
Vast majority of that was of course went to security which unfortunately they couldn't do without.

---

What has also gone under the press radar when reporting this is that they make comparisons between the money spent on past inaugurations. They put the 2005 Bush inauguration at $42 million, but this figure does not include the security cost etc. included in the Obama figures. when the costs incurred by the federal government and the District of Columbia are factored in, as they have been for Obama, the total cost of Bush's 2005 inauguration was reportedly around $157 million.

I know that Skizo's point was about the double standard of those that called for Bush to tone it down (it wasn't just democrats), just pointing out the figure isn't all that unusual (inflation and all)

---

Where did you find this data? Link?

It is contrary to what the news is reporting. :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Where did you find this data? Link?

It is contrary to what the news is reporting. :unsure:

---

It comes down to lazy reporting not checking up on their facts.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan19.html

Quote:

---

The president and first lady Laura Bush, and Cheney and his wife, Lynne, planned appearances at three candlelight dinners to thank those who contributed $100,000 or more to underwrite much of the $40 million cost of the inaugural celebration, which is expected to become the most expensive in history. 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.

---

Nor does it include the clean up costs

Someone reported the total possible cost of Obama's celebration including all the security and cleanup etc. The rest of the media used those figures instead of doing their own investigation. Nobody looked at what was included, just the projected price tag. Then they just looked at what Bush paid, not bothering to find out what the other stuff cost.

For Skizo.
I Read this today, much better than my effort. If you go to the link it gives their list of research sources

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...ly_cost_4.html

Quote:

---

January 21, 2009
Updated: January 23, 2009
Q:
Did Barack Obama's inauguration really cost 4 times as much as George Bush's 2005 inauguration?
There seems to be a lot of sloppy reporting about the total cost of the Obama inauguration vs. the Bush inauguration that is being used for partisan attacks. I've heard $160 million for Obama vs. 40 million + for Bush. I've also heard Bush's 2005 inauguration was really $157 million. What are the facts?
A:
Claims of a huge disparity are untrue. Actually, an apples-to-apples comparison shows that the two inaugurations likely cost about the same.
For much of the past week, several right-leaning news sites have compared an estimated $160 million price tag for Barack Obama's 2009 inauguration to a $42 million tally for George W. Bush's 2005 inauguration. For example, Newsmax reported that Obama's inauguration "will be the most expensive ever" with a cost "nearly four times what George Bush's inauguration cost four years ago." And Fox News' Sean Hannity told viewers that "the cost of Obama's inaugural will dwarf past celebrations and make those of President Bush's look like budget bashes."

They're wrong. They've misinterpreted mainstream news accounts from the Associated Press, ABC News and the New York Times, among others. The AP and ABC News both report that Obama's inauguration could cost between $160 and $170 million, while Bush raised a net total of $42.3 million to cover the costs of his inauguration, according the New York Times and others, based on the report Bush's committee filed with the Federal Election Commission a few months after the event. But those aren't direct comparisons; the Obama estimates include the cost of security, while the figure for Bush's inauguration does not.

Inauguration costs are divided up into two categories. In one category is all the fun stuff: the inaugural balls, luncheons and Springsteen appearances. That's also the category for things like the 20 JumboTrons placed around the National Mall and the special payment to keep the Smithsonian Institution open for the day. The fun events don't cost taxpayers a dime. Presidential inauguration committees raise money from private donors for all the fun stuff. A spokesperson for Obama's inaugural committee told ABC News that the committee raised about $45 million to cover the costs of events in the fun category. (A full accounting will eventually be filed with the FEC, probably in April.) Adjusting for inflation, Obama's estimated total is about $41.4 million in 2005 dollars — or slightly less than the $42.3 million Bush raised for his second inauguration.

But the cost of all the fun stuff is actually less than the cost of providing security for the various events. Taxpayers are on the hook for that bill, and while we won't know for several weeks just how big that tally will be, there's every reason to expect that it'll be hefty. The Times reports that in 2005 the District of Columbia and the federal government spent a combined $115.5 million, mainly on security. ABC News reports higher numbers for this time, with the federal government estimating a $49 million cost and Virginia, Maryland and D.C. requesting a combined $75 million more to cover their inauguration-related expenses. If those estimates hold up, that would work out to around $114 million in inflation-adjusted figures.

It's possible that the security costs could end up being higher. Roughly 400,000 people attended George Bush's 2005 inaugural festivities, according to estimates at the time. CNN estimates that 1.5 million attended the 2009 version, and other estimates range from over 1 million to 1.8 million.

All the bills for Obama's event won't be in for several more weeks, but it appears likely that his inauguration will not cost significantly more than Bush's second inauguration, and could conceivably cost less after adjusting for inflation.

-Joe Miller

Update Jan. 23: We updated this article with quotes from Newsmax and Fox New's Hannity, to give specific examples of the kind of inaccurate reporting we are criticizing.

---

I do still think that in a time of financial woes moderation would have been better

A semi-black man got elected for president in a country that was late in putting an end to its blatant racial prejudice (attached to law).

I think the celebrations were in order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Or back in my pocket.

---

Really? You said nothing of this during Bush's inauguration.

Amazing.

Now cuz Obama's cost more, you have something to say.

I could say same thing about any inaugural ball.

I could microscope just about any little thing and nitpick it.

Bush was huge yet Repubs are supposed to be about small government.

You said nothing.


I knew this shit would happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Or back in my pocket.

---

Really? You said nothing of this during Bush's inauguration.

Amazing.

Now cuz Obama's cost more, you have something to say.

I could say same thing about any inaugural ball.

I could microscope just about any little thing and nitpick it.

Bush was huge yet Repubs are supposed to be about small government.

You said nothing.


I knew this shit would happen.

---

I was earning fuckall 4 and 8 years ago. The amount I pay in taxes has increased drastically since then. :):(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Flying Cow

Saying the money rich folk have always means there are poor people struggling as a consequence is a highly indoctrinated point of view. Marx, Engels, call it what you will.

How about, the money of the rich comes from hard slob on their part. People don't make fortunes in a day, (as a general rule), and from the point when they do have large amounts of assets then it is their moral duty to help the less fortunate.

The process by which they got to their status doesn't, however, necessarily mean they made poorer people endure sacrifices and harsher times.

Maybe Obama went a bit overboard, what with those past president allusions and all, and the bill being high, but he's certainly more interesting to listen to than George W.

I also can't help but emphasize how glad I am Sarah Pallin is far away from the White House.

---

Palin was the biggest joke of a VP pick I have bared witness (well there was Quayle).

She should have been a slap in the face of Republicans yet they manufactured this bullshit fervor for her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Really? You said nothing of this during Bush's inauguration.

Amazing.

Now cuz Obama's cost more, you have something to say.

I could say same thing about any inaugural ball.

I could microscope just about any little thing and nitpick it.

Bush was huge yet Repubs are supposed to be about small government.

You said nothing.


I knew this shit would happen.

---

I was earning fuckall 4 and 8 years ago. The amount I pay in taxes has increased drastically since then. :):(

---

Sooooooo?

Soooooo... 4 and 8 years ago I was getting money back. Now I'm giving away the farm every April.

4 and 8 years ago I wasn't nearly as concerned where my pennies went.

Just like when I bought my first share of UPS stock, I had little interest in how that small portion performed or how it was used. Now that I have a good amount invested in stock, I'm far more attentive and critical to how it's spent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Soooooo... 4 and 8 years ago I was getting money back. Now I'm giving away the farm every April.

4 and 8 years ago I wasn't nearly as concerned where my pennies went.

Just like when I bought my first share of UPS stock, I had little interest in how that small portion performed or how it was used. Now that I have a good amount invested in stock, I'm far more attentive and critical to how it's spent.

---

Sorry this inaugural ball fucked up your paycheck.

There are going to be more stuff going on the Obama administration during his tenure jus' ta letcha know.

Oh and this same stuff was going on during the Bush years....3 years ago.

How were you "giving away the farm" with those nifty Bush tax cuts anyway?

Were you critical of how those tax dollars were spent 3 years ago or are you going to peg the hit on your wallet solely on the time the Dems were in control?

Oh and the amount in taxes increased cuz your pay increased.

Obama's inauguration also had about triple the amount of people attending so shouldn't that cost more and even?

Why do I even bother? :rolleyes:

You completely distorted the fuck outta my post. :lol:

So to keep it short as I'm not replying to rods and comments I answered in the post right before yours:

Yes, I know why my taxes increased.

And I'm not even upset that I pay more in taxes now. I love paying taxes; it means I made a lot of money. I have no qualms whatsoever with the amount I pay in taxes either. I'd just like to see it spent more sensibly, no matter who is in office.

@Skee - you're still saying "i'd like to see it spent more sensibly" even after it was proven in this thread Obama's inaugural ball was actually cheaper than Dubbya's? Isn't that a bit hypocritical, all softness aside?

@Busy - totally agree with that bullshit fervor clause. Absolutely ridiculous watching a Republican defend her on Hard Talk the other day. The ep's probably on YouTube, so it's just a question of looking for it (was last Saturday's ep I believe).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Flying Cow

@Skee - you're still saying "i'd like to see it spent more sensibly" even after it was proven in this thread Obama's inaugural ball was actually cheaper than Dubbya's? Isn't that a bit hypocritical, all softness aside?

---

How is it hypocritical when I said (and even underlined) "no matter who is in office". :huh:

I never blamed this on Obama; I never even insinuated it was his fault. I'm not sure why some are getting defensive or taking this as a partisan issue.

Unemployement is up.

The stock market is down.

Let's spend $150,000,000 on Beyonce, U2, and other extravagant costs. It's all about wasteful spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Or back in my pocket.

---

Really? You said nothing of this during Bush's inauguration.

---

As if you'd know. The board wasn't around in 2001. :lol:

Don't you think, however, that the racial factor does, in a sense, justify a grandiose opening to his presidency?

No, I don't.

So you don't see a black president in a country like the USA, as something novel or as a display that change is taking place (I mean tolerance, a more positive interaction between caucasians and blacks)?

He is no more black than he is white.

If you're going to call him black, I'm going to call him white.

So no, I don't see the significance in electing another white President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

I never blamed this on Obama; I never even insinuated it was his fault. I'm not sure why some are getting defensive or taking this as a partisan issue.

---

I think the thread title and the opening line you used may suggest otherwise. Perhaps you didn't mean it to seem that way, but it does to me.

Quote:

---

He is no more black than he is white.

---

I think you have a point. (genuinely)

Then again, which half of him do you think the kkk would invite to join?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Really? You said nothing of this during Bush's inauguration.

---

As if you'd know. The board wasn't around in 2001. :lol:

---

Yes it was.

Not in its current form. Either way, I wasn't a member then so the point still stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

Not in its current form. Either way, I wasn't a member then so the point still stands.

---

It doesn't matter. Your complaints when you were a member were nonexistent.

Obama just became President. Your complaints about the Big Spender just became evident as if you just woke up and just realized your are just so pissed about where your money's goin'.

I see you. Hi hater.