Big Spender

[Dan484]

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.

[Skiz]

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?

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

[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.

[IdolEyes787]

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?

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

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.

[devilsadvocate]

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)

[100%]

Ridiculous.

Sorry no justification available other than logic.

[Skiz]

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.

[devilsadvocate]

Where did you find this data? Link?

It is contrary to what the news is reporting.

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



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

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.

[devilsadvocate]

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

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

[The Flying Cow]

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.