View Full Version : Obama Inauguration Most Expensive in History
At a time of financial crisis, you would think that the incoming president would set an example, by curtailing his inauguration party. No such luck. His swearing in party, is expected to cost US taxpayers a record 50 million dollars.
I guess he is trying to kick off his spending spree, in style. Too bad it is our money, and future generations money he is spending.
gruntbrain
01-17-2009, 12:35 PM
Indeed, going with a hyperfrugal ceremony would do fine; the pomp & "circumsicion" of any inauguration aint my cup of puke. Perhaps Obama does not like it & is just going along with what his handlers prescribe
Andy62
01-17-2009, 02:17 PM
Only in America !
Looks like I need to revise my estimate. New calculations are saying the inauguration costs may exceed 150 million!!!
Free,
I live inside the beltway and am seeing first hand what is occurring leading up to this inauguration. The belief that it is Obama himself who is "wasting" tax payer money for this event is ludicrous. DC is expecting up to 2.5 million people to roll into town for the inauguration (2005 had 300,000-350,000 and was allocated just under $43 million by the govt) and with that kind of onslaught comes logistical and security expenses. Bush has declared a state of emergency for DC due to the vast numbers of people. To blame Obama of wasting tax payer money on this event is factually incorrect, he has no control over the amount of people descending on OUR nations capital and the resulting problems that occur.
DJ
The $150 million is not all from the government. The amount above $49 million is private donations.
DJ
JoeJustice
01-18-2009, 07:52 AM
The original number of people was 4 million, then 3 and now 2.5. It's just hype. My bets are that it'll be around 500,000 people and the media will say it's 2 million.
Bush's inauguration were all private donations, but that didn't stop anyone on the left from jumping all over him. What goes around comes around. Or at least should...
-Joe
To blame Obama of wasting tax payer money on this event is factually incorrect, he has no control over the amount of people descending on OUR nations capital and the resulting problems that occur.
DJ
That is nonsense, of course he could change the whole thing if he wanted to, this guy has a hypnotic control over the masses, and all he would have to do is to tell them to stay home and watch it on TV. (especially since he has another 650 million dollars in his "stimulus" package to give those people free digital TV equipment.)
Another factoid, is that this is being touted as the greenest inauguration, however it is being estimated that the millions of people coming to the inauguration will generate a half-billion pounds of carbon dioxide -- 260 million pounds from the 600 private jets that will come to Washington, and another 260 million pounds from personal vehicles. This amounts to more than 575 million pounds of CO2, which would take the average U.S. household 57,598 years to produce.
monty
01-18-2009, 12:13 PM
This hole thing is makes me sick. The sheeple of America will follow these clowns into oblivion. It amazes me how people will NOT think for themselves but need some one else to tell them what to believe.
As a high school teacher I have seen this robotic type of behavior get worse. I see more and more kids who need to be told just about everything when carrying out a task. What frustrates me is they have to be told over and over again, no matter how many times they do it. I realize that they are teens but 15-20 years ago I did not have to repeat myself over and over again, kids seemed to get it then, this is fastly changing.
By having this Inaug. costing so much and give off so called greenhouse gas shows what a lie global warming is and that Americans hard earned money is not respected.
Wonder if these same braiwashed Obama worshippers will be singin the same tune 4 years from now.
Monty
Free,
Whatever our personal assessments of Obama are is completely irrelevant to the original post. Whether we like it or not the inauguration of Obama is of bigger historical significance then either Bush's or Clinton's for obvious reasons. As a result many people want to witness and be a part of that history. Now whatever our assessment of these people is is also irrelevant to the original post.
The orinal faulty logic is as follows:
Obama is to be inaugurated as president.
$49 million is being paid by the government for the inauguration.
That is too much money to be wasting on an inauguration.
Therefore Obama is wasting taxpayer money.
Sounds logical but it is obviously not. I think what's always surprising to me is how people can't put there beliefs aside and realize when logic is faulty. You can be from the far left or the far right but it doesn't change the faulty logic of the original post.
Joe, Bush's inauguration was not all from private funds.
DJ
MikeNY
01-18-2009, 02:39 PM
Cencored by author, I have a young gf to keep safe and alive.
Alan_OldStudent
01-18-2009, 04:45 PM
Hello all,
Could it be that some of the figures being cited for both Obama's inauguration and GW Bush's inauguration were fudged a bit? Where does the figure 160 million dollars come from?
This interesting Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003) article raises some pertinent questions.
Regards,
Alan
JoeJustice
01-18-2009, 05:34 PM
Alan... Media Matters ain't exactly an objective news source. Using Media Maters is like Michael Moore, MoveOn.Org or The Daily Koz. This branch of the Propaganda Ministry is naturally going to spin it Obama's way.
-Joe
DJ. Just stating that something is Illogical doesn't make it so. That, in itself, is Illogical.
We obviously have a difference of opinion. You feel that a big party is not a waste of my money, and I would rather keep my money, and skip the ridiculous party.
DJ, please outline for us, in your impeccable logic, how taking other peoples money, to throw a big party, falls into the category of essential government services, especially in a time of economic crisis. Further, please explain how the use of 41000 US troops to police the event, is an appropriate use of forces that could more than double the troop level in Afghanistan, something that Obama campaigned on.
Free, If you can't understand the lack of logic in your assumption that's a shame and you may want to reread my previous post.
how taking other peoples money, to throw a big party,
The assumption that your making here is that Obama is taking peoples (taxpayers ) money to throw a party. That is absolutely false. Please reread the previous two sentences. That's where your logic is anything but logical. Whether it is Obama or Bush I have issue when people distort the facts the to try and support their partisan view. The fact is both Bush and Obama used (or are using) some government and a whole lot of private money for their inaugurations. If you have an issue with one then you have an issue with both and it is factually incorrect to believe either stole taxpayer money or however you termed it.
Whether you or I want to be part of or support the event is irrelevant. Whether we like or dislike Obama is likewise irrelevant. Your citing of our troops overseas has absolutely nothing to do with your post blaming Obama for wasting taxpayer money. If you want to make the case that our government shouldn't spend a lot of money on any inaugurations that's a different topic and is not what your original post said. My posts have been in response to yours which blamed Obama for wasting taxpayer money on the inauguration which is absolutely false.
DJ
I could read, and re-read your posts, for days, but there would be no way to extract any truth from them. My posts are factual and logical, and you have presented nothing to the contrary except a statement that they are otherwise, without any thing to back that up. Where is your evidence, that no taxpayer money is being used for Obama's big bash?
I suppose you would be happy, if I just read your sentence that says my post is illogical, and say well... he must be right, because he said it, but I am not an idiot, so don't expect me to do so.
Also, who made you the thread police? I started this thread, and I can make relevant tangential references to the troops being used, for Obama's excellent adventure, which are paid for by the taxpayers as well.
Whether or not I want to support the event IS relevant, since I am a taxpayer, and do not want my funds spent on frivolous events by either party. For you to state that this is irrelevant, illogical, or untrue, is ridiculous. If it is 150 million, 50 million, or 10 million of taxpayer dollars, it is too much. Whether it is Bush, or Obama, it makes little difference, but it is Obama who is the culprit right now, and the economy is in a whole different place than it was when Bush was sworn in.
truth42day
01-19-2009, 12:21 AM
I could read, and re-read your posts, for days, but there would be no way to extract any truth from them. My posts are factual and logical, and you have presented nothing to the contrary except a statement that they are otherwise, without any thing to back that up. Where is your evidence, that no taxpayer money is being used for Obama's big bash?
I suppose you would be happy, if I just read your sentence that says my post is illogical, and say well... he must be right, because he said it, but I am not an idiot, so don't expect me to do so.
Also, who made you the thread police? I started this thread, and I can make relevant tangential references to the troops being used, for Obama's excellent adventure, which are paid for by the taxpayers as well.
Whether or not I want to support the event IS relevant, since I am a taxpayer, and do not want my funds spent on frivolous events by either party. For you to state that this is irrelevant, illogical, or untrue, is ridiculous. If it is 150 million, 50 million, or 10 million of taxpayer dollars, it is too much. Whether it is Bush, or Obama, it makes little difference, but it is Obama who is the culprit right now, and the economy is in a whole different place than it was when Bush was sworn in.
Touche...my sentiments exactly. We're in for change everyone.....ready? Or are we seeing the rhetoric of change just sounds good but the same shananigans will continue w/our money? I am serious when I say this that we all need to make sure we pray for our president and not curse him (regardless of whether we voted for him or not). That's our mandate and responsibility.
Having said that though doesn't mean we/I bury our/my head in the sand either. America voted (either ignoranlty. naively, or manipulatedly) for this man and we will soon see true colors. Our lack of demanding to know what this man stood for, believed in, and what his history was as well as our willingness to look the other way when his associations besmudged his slick television personna, will all play out for us as a nation very shortly.
I could say so much more and had about 3 paragraphs after this that would have been labeled a rabbit trail, so I opted to delete them and try to stick closer to the threads topic. We are in some turbulent times.
Alan_OldStudent
01-19-2009, 12:23 AM
Alan... Media Matters ain't exactly an objective news source. Using Media Maters is like Michael Moore, MoveOn.Org or The Daily Koz. This branch of the Propaganda Ministry is naturally going to spin it Obama's way.
-Joe
Hi Joe,
Media Matters was started by David Brock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock) (that links to a Wikipedia article on him). David Brock was a conservative journalist of some repute who wrote stories that accused Bill Clinton of various misdeeds. He broke the so-called Troopergate story. He also attacked Hillary Clinton. He also wrote attack pieces on Anita Hill, who had accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court.
Later, David Brock had a change of heart and wrote a book called Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative (http://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-Ex-Conservative-David-Brock/dp/0812930991). He wrote another book called The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-Ex-Conservative-David-Brock/dp/0812930991), where he criticized what he called the “conservative media machine.” (Those 2 links above lead to the Amazon reviews along with reviews by readers).
To further his aim of criticizing what he views as conservative media misinformation, Mr Brock started Media Matters For America (http://mediamatters.org/index), a web site and blog.
In the “About Us (http://mediamatters.org/about_us/)” section of this site, one finds the following:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide.gif
Of course, this bit of history is beside the point, which is this: Is that $160 million dollars a load of hogwash? If not, where's the evidence?
What's of real interest to me about the article I cited is that apparently, no one can really determine how much Obama's inauguration will actually cost. No one in the media or blogosphere seems to have broken down that cost in a way that adds up to $160 million. Maybe it will cost that. But the Media Matters piece seems to cast doubt on that. Media Matters says that the $160 million is pure speculation, pulled out of thin air, with little substance to back it up, other than various conservative pundits quoting each other.
You know, once before in recent history, conservative pundits quoting each other led to the WMD-in-Iraq myth and the Saddam-is-buddies-with-al Qaida myth gaining quite a bit of credibility. There are even people today who still buy these myths as God's own truth.
Indeed, if the $160 million price tag for the Obama inauguration is a myth too, it is a mere bagatelle in comparison.
Moreover, as Media Matters points out, it appears that comparing Obama's supposed inauguration expense of $160 million to Bush's $40 million is inaccurate, as the $40 million simply does not take into account the publicly-financed security costs of Bush's inauguration, according to this Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22427-2005Jan19.html), which says the following:
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.
Bear in mind that the Washington Post is not generally regarded as a Bolshie or even liberal publication.
By the way, I think referring to Michael Moore, Moveon.org, and The Daily Kos as branches of the “Propaganda Ministry” is kind of interesting,---perhaps maybe even a bit overreaching.
What about O'Reilly Factor or Sean Hannity? What about the so-called “talking points memos” that Scott McClellan, former White-House Press Secretary, discussed in his book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception (http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Washingtons-Culture-Deception/dp/1586485563).
What about this story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201454.html) in the Washington Post about the military paying journalists to run Panglossian (http://www.answers.com/panglossian) articles on the US mission in Iraq?
Now, aren't these activities more reminiscent of classical government propaganda ministies than the writings of poor old David Brock and his cohorts at Media Matters?
Regards,
Alan
Free,
Your original post was your claim that Obama is wasting taxpayer money on the inauguration. The $50 million you cite is for the Presidential inauguration event and is not controlled by Obama---That's just fact. You're trying to claim Obama is responsible for that money--incorrect.
You can flail your arms and deride me all you want but it does not change the above facts. You have not shown how Obama is controlling this $50 million you cite----and there's a simple reason for that --It's not true and therefore there is nothing that can be cited.
Therefore, If Obama is not controlling the $50 million how can he be held responsible for wasting it?
I believe that is stated quite simply.
DJ
DJ, if you think that Obama, and his handlers have nothing to do with the inauguration party, then you have been breathing that Washington Crazy Smoke too long.
This is a man, who has choreographed his public image, down to the last piece of lint on his suit, for many, many years now. Who do you think came up with the "Lincoln Train Ride" idea?
By the way, in line with my very first post in this thread, here is what I think Obama could, and should have done.
Held a press conference, and said to the nation, "since this is a unique time of financial crisis, I would like to keep my inauguration low key. Since I stand for change, this is going to be unlike any previous inauguration, in simplicity, and frugality."
"Since I want to fight a strong battle against "global warming", rather than have millions of people coming to Washington, spewing tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, I think that everyone should stay home and watch it on TV."
Do you realize what a huge impact that would have in starting off his presidency? People would go Wow!! he really is different, and serious. He is putting his country before his own ego gratification. This simple gesture, would put all of the people in this country behind him.
Instead it is same old, same old. Instead of change, we just end up with the change in our pockets.
MikeNY
01-19-2009, 10:23 AM
ddc I understand why the Wall Street & Big Banker's are contributing to the Obama Party, the newspapers did not give the President Elect credit but he authored much of the Bailout, which really should have been called the Obama Democratic Bailout Plan as presented by George Bush. They are just returning the favor to the man Wall Street sent to Washington.
JoeJustice
01-19-2009, 10:28 AM
It should be illegal for any company receiving bail-out funds to give a nickle to ANY politician until they completely pay back the money. PERIOD!
-Joe
Alan_OldStudent
01-19-2009, 12:50 PM
Hello brothers and sisters,
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/Story?id=6665946&page=1
A very interesting story, DDC. This one seems to have more specific figures and sources than most of the others.
However, it does say:
The biggest group of donors were none other than the recently bailed-out Wall Street executives and employees.
"The finance sector is well represented, despite its recent troubles," Ritsch said. "Those who worked in finance still managed to pull together nearly $7 million for the inauguration."
The donors will get some of the best seats in the house for the inauguration, as well as admittance to some of the best balls and other events.
The problem is that it does not back up that statement. What "recently bailed-out Wall Street executives and employees" were those? It mentions Steve and Connie Ballmer, Bill and Melinda Gates, George Soros, and others as big donors. But it does not mention the names of any bail-out recipients.
As the old advertisement used to say, where's the beef?
It should be illegal for any company receiving bail-out funds to give a nickle to ANY politician until they completely pay back the money. PERIOD!
Joe,
I completely agree with that sentiment.
Moreover, it would be terrible political theater. I suspect team Obama would be pretty careful about that, but who knows? So far, we have only unsubstantiated allegations about this. Of course, there are a lot of unsubstantiated allegations about Obama, such as the ones that he is a Muslim, a communist, not a native-born American, etc.
Regards,
Alan
Alan_OldStudent
01-19-2009, 02:12 PM
Hi All,
Here's lots of grist for everyone's mill. This appears to be a list of donors (http://www.pic2009.org/page/content/donors/) to Obama's inauguration. I found it on Obama's inauguration web site.
If there are any hidden donors (read bail-out recipients) here, I think there's going to be a manure-storm in Babylon. That's especially true when you consider that the side bar to the donor's list says the following:
In keeping with President-elect Obama’s commitment to changing the way business is done in Washington, the Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC) is taking unprecedented steps to insure transparency in the public reporting of donors to a Presidential Inaugural Committee. This chart will allow you to view, sort, and search virtually real-time information on all donors contributing over $200 to the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee.
Unlike previous inaugural committees, the 2009 PIC does not accept contributions from corporations, political action committees, labor unions, current federally-registered lobbyists, non-U.S. citizens and registered foreign agents and does not accept individual contributions in excess of $50,000
http://www.alanstancliff.com/images/divide4.gif
About a week before this story gained a lot of attention, while the fundraising for the inauguration was still going on, the New York Times published this piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html) titled Obama’s Inauguration Fund-Raising Tops $24 Million. Bear in mind that this story was written before fundraising was completed, accounting for the lowish figure of $24 million.
Buried near the end of this article, one finds the following:
In modern times, inaugurations have been financed by a combination of public and private money. In 2005, Mr. Bush raised $42.3 million from about 15,000 donors for festivities; the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers.
Still, only about 400,000 people attended in 2005, while officials expect at least two million this year. That means added costs for opening the whole Mall, setting up more JumboTrons and providing 5,000 portable toilets, among other items. (The District of Columbia alone spent more than $15 million in 2005 and says costs this year will triple.)
So take the figures from Bush's inauguration costs:
$42 million from 15,000 donors (limit was 200,000 per donor)
$115.5 million in taxpayer money.
$157 million totalfor Bush's inauguration.
Now let's adjust that for inflation by plugging in $157 into the Dollar Times Inflation Calculator (http://dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm).
We come up with $157 dollars in 2005 having the same buying power as $173.78 in 2008 dollars. In other words, Bush's inauguration, attended by 400,000 people, was actually more expensive than Obama's inauguration, attended by 2 million.
Another way of looking at it is that the per-attendee cost of Bush's inauguration was roughly 5 times greater than the per-attendee cost of Obama's.
This puts a bit of perspective on things, no?
Regards,
Alan
MikeNY
01-19-2009, 03:18 PM
Someone was on local news and saying the Obama Administration is considering an additional $2 per gallon gasoline tax. That sounded to me to be wishful thinking by enviromentalists rather than the Obama Team. I doubt an additional $2 a gallon tax will ever see the light of day, that would be a death blow to popularity and poll numbers and hurt the poor more than the rich. Oil will probably bottom out and start to rise this year. I saw one prediction awhile ago for 2009, $30 a barrel Oil and later this year $140 a barrel. Looks like the guy in on target for $30 a barrel Oil to come about, let's he is wrong on $140 a barrle later this year.
Alan_OldStudent
01-19-2009, 03:30 PM
Do we know how many people will attend, since it hasn't happened yet?
I'm sure there'll be a better estimate of cost also - after the actual event.
Good points, DDC.
My figures are based on projections from the planners and the various agencies involved.
We'll have a much better idea in a few days.
Regards,
Alan OldStudent
Alan, your figures don't take in to account that we are in a deflationary spiral, caused by the collapsing housing market. We all know where that came from (though some will not acknowledge it).
I still stand by my original assertion that times like these require an example to be set, especially in Washington, that money is not to be wasted. The markets seemed to agree with me yesterday.
Alan_OldStudent
01-21-2009, 02:18 PM
Hi Free,
Alan, your figures don't take in to account that we are in a deflationary spiral, caused by the collapsing housing market. We all know where that came from (though some will not acknowledge it).
It does seem we may be at the beginning of a generalized deflationary spiral, but that is not clear yet. The deflationary trend seems to be especially pronounced in real estate and petroleum.
My figures were comparing 2005 dollars with 2008 dollars. According to dollartimes.com (http://dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm), the annualized inflation rate in 2008 was 4.28%, higher than any year since 1990.
Still, I take your point.
I still stand by my original assertion that times like these require an example to be set, especially in Washington, that money is not to be wasted....
That's an interesting and thought-provoking statement, Free.
Regards,
Alan
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.