Cost of Inauguration
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
judge dred

Punxsutawney, PA

#2 Jan 15, 2009
Yeah right. This is just the start of 4 years of reckless irresponsible spending of our tax money.
justice

United States

#3 Jan 15, 2009
judge dred wrote:
Yeah right. This is just the start of 4 years of reckless irresponsible spending of our tax money.
AND GEORGE W.... didn't????? Get real... WE are in the worst debt ever and he put us there!!! Are you living under a rock? Talk about irresponsible.... He has been the worst ever in being irrespinsible and the spending HE did did not help the American People and in fact have made this country worse off!!! At least what I have heard Obama is "for the people" and NOT for Big Corporations and lawyers who seem to run this country for their gain.
native

Loudonville, OH

#4 Jan 15, 2009
This is an historic event that many, many citizens are wanting to attend which has increased the cost of security, if I understand correctly. From what I've read, USA is comparing Bush's taxpayer price tag to Obama's overall price tag, that is largely funded by donations. Apples and oranges plus a bunch of sour grapes?
Obama

AOL

#5 Jan 15, 2009
all I can say is that I and my family thank you Mr. Bush for keeping us safe every since 9/11. you have chased the terrorist around the globe keeping them on edge and unable to carry out an attack on our soil.
USA

Terre Haute, IN

#6 Jan 15, 2009
native wrote:
This is an historic event that many, many citizens are wanting to attend which has increased the cost of security, if I understand correctly. From what I've read, USA is comparing Bush's taxpayer price tag to Obama's overall price tag, that is largely funded by donations. Apples and oranges plus a bunch of sour grapes?
Okay, there are a lot of numbers out there. But, if you throw out donations the number is higher than 4 times.

Washington spent on Bush (2005) 17.3m

Washington to spend on Obama 47m
Virginia " " 16m
Maryland " " 12m
total 75m = 4.335 x
USA

Terre Haute, IN

#7 Jan 15, 2009
Not True

United States

#8 Jan 15, 2009
Obama wrote:
all I can say is that I and my family thank you Mr. Bush for keeping us safe every since 9/11. you have chased the terrorist around the globe keeping them on edge and unable to carry out an attack on our soil.
What are you talking about? We are no more safe now than we were then? And it has cost this county in innocent lives and money. Yes 911 was terrible and I feel for the people and their families but look at the Oklahoma bombing.. THe same can happen again with our own people causing harm and destruction. The war we are fighting now is about nothing but money and greed. As for Mr. Bush... he is ignorant and cannot see the big picture of the can of worms he has opened.
USA

Terre Haute, IN

#9 Jan 15, 2009
"The war we are fighting now is about nothing but money and greed."

Do you actually believe that? Tell it to the men and women (including my son) over there fighting for us.
Obama

AOL

#10 Jan 15, 2009
the oklahoma bombing was before Bush. Anything can happen at anytime. We haven't been hit again since nine-eleven, and that's because they are being hunted down and dealt with in other countries, and for that I am thankful.
Not true

United States

#11 Jan 15, 2009
USA wrote:
"The war we are fighting now is about nothing but money and greed."
Do you actually believe that? Tell it to the men and women (including my son) over there fighting for us.
I applaud your son for doing what he is told to do or for what he feels he must do. I have nothing but respect for our men and women in the service but yes the war is over money and greed. THat was and is the root of it.

I was against the war from the get go. I do honor and respect your son and I hope your son comes home. It is a needless war. I can see better areas where we should have intervened to save the people other than Iraq. A hornets nest has been opened and it did not have to be opened and Bush and Cheney did that! I cannot stand either of them and they should be in prison along with the other criminals. Becaus that is what they are.
USA

Terre Haute, IN

#12 Jan 15, 2009
Not true, I see you have an opinion on Bush,Cheney, and the war. But, what is your opinion on the original topic?
Not true

United States

#13 Jan 15, 2009
USA wrote:
Not true, I see you have an opinion on Bush,Cheney, and the war. But, what is your opinion on the original topic?
My thought on the the cost...well let's see... there are a lot more people going to this than ever before... hence cost of security....I do not fault anyone for having a party. It is just that a party.... I am sure some expenses could be shaved off as with any party or in any household for that matter, but I would have to see the full scope of those expenses to base my judgement.
native

Loudonville, OH

#14 Jan 15, 2009
If increased costs are due primarily to the much larger attendance than previous inaugurations how is it Obama's fault for spending more money? It's being spent primarily on security because of the larger crowd, not on party favors, etc. Should we tell citizens not to attend? If something about Bush's reelection in 2005 had been historic or very exciting for some reason, the attendance and the expense would have been higher than it was, correct? The only difference would be that a difference group of people would have been complaining than are now.

To the war in Iraq: stupidity and greed. That doesn't mean that the soldiers are not serving honorably by doing their sworn duty. Afghanistan makes some sense, but anyone possessing even a small knowledge of that country's history ought to know it's a meat grinder.
Not true

United States

#15 Jan 15, 2009
native wrote:
If increased costs are due primarily to the much larger attendance than previous inaugurations how is it Obama's fault for spending more money? It's being spent primarily on security because of the larger crowd, not on party favors, etc. Should we tell citizens not to attend? If something about Bush's reelection in 2005 had been historic or very exciting for some reason, the attendance and the expense would have been higher than it was, correct? The only difference would be that a difference group of people would have been complaining than are now.
To the war in Iraq: stupidity and greed. That doesn't mean that the soldiers are not serving honorably by doing their sworn duty. Afghanistan makes some sense, but anyone possessing even a small knowledge of that country's history ought to know it's a meat grinder.
Thank you for your words of wisdom.. Well written.

“No accomplishments nOBaMa”

Since: Mar 08

Terre Haute, Indiana

#17 Jan 16, 2009
HMMMMM All this talk about money and greed. And YOU ALL voted in a chicago politician??????

ZERO accomplishments but money and greed. The next 4 years is going to be interesting at best.
USA

Terre Haute, IN

#18 Jan 16, 2009
Oh they were complaining native! No bias in the media!

Let's go back to the Associated Press in 2005, the reporter Will Lester. This is a January 13th AP dispatch: "President Bush's second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars --$40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy? Two hundred armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq; vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami; a down payment on the nation's deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year." "All these questions, what could we better spend the Bush inauguration money on, have come from Bush supporters and opponents. Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?" That was the lead, Will Lester, AP, January 13th.

Now compare that with the coverage of the cost for the Coronation!!

Yesterday, January 13th, 2009, Laurie Kellman: "So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable? To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must.'This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform,' said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.'Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn't mean that style is going to be in a downturn,' agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus."

Not one story so far about how many people in Darfur could we feed with this $150 million? How many Africans could be vaccinated against AIDS for some of this $150 million? What size home could you buy the brother George Obama, still living in the hut with just a meager portion of this $150 million? Aunt Zeituni might even be able to buy her a green card with a portion of the $150 million. What about all the children without health care? What about all of the middle-class people without jobs? How many people could be aided with a portion of Obama's inauguration budget? Bush, it was $40 million and they were asking how it could be better spent, that it's unnecessary. We weren't in a recession either, by the way, we weren't in an economic downturn. Now in the midst of an economic downturn, oh, yeah, go out there and gussie it up all you can, dress it up, spend it up, bad economic times, this is when we need to indulge ourselves more. Change we can believe in.

This was borrowed from a poster on another forum.
Not true

United States

#19 Jan 16, 2009
USA wrote:
Oh they were complaining native! No bias in the media!
Let's go back to the Associated Press in 2005, the reporter Will Lester. This is a January 13th AP dispatch: "President Bush's second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars --$40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy? Two hundred armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq; vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami; a down payment on the nation's deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year." "All these questions, what could we better spend the Bush inauguration money on, have come from Bush supporters and opponents. Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?" That was the lead, Will Lester, AP, January 13th.
Now compare that with the coverage of the cost for the Coronation!!
Yesterday, January 13th, 2009, Laurie Kellman: "So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable? To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must.'This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform,' said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.'Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn't mean that style is going to be in a downturn,' agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus."
Not one story so far about how many people in Darfur could we feed with this $150 million? How many Africans could be vaccinated against AIDS for some of this $150 million? What size home could you buy the brother George Obama, still living in the hut with just a meager portion of this $150 million? Aunt Zeituni might even be able to buy her a green card with a portion of the $150 million. What about all the children without health care? What about all of the middle-class people without jobs? How many people could be aided with a portion of Obama's inauguration budget? Bush, it was $40 million and they were asking how it could be better spent, that it's unnecessary. We weren't in a recession either, by the way, we weren't in an economic downturn. Now in the midst of an economic downturn, oh, yeah, go out there and gussie it up all you can, dress it up, spend it up, bad economic times, this is when we need to indulge ourselves more. Change we can believe in.
This was borrowed from a poster on another forum.
I agree and very well spoken.. Thanks for your comments.
Not true

United States

#20 Jan 16, 2009
native wrote:
If increased costs are due primarily to the much larger attendance than previous inaugurations how is it Obama's fault for spending more money? It's being spent primarily on security because of the larger crowd, not on party favors, etc. Should we tell citizens not to attend? If something about Bush's reelection in 2005 had been historic or very exciting for some reason, the attendance and the expense would have been higher than it was, correct? The only difference would be that a difference group of people would have been complaining than are now.
To the war in Iraq: stupidity and greed. That doesn't mean that the soldiers are not serving honorably by doing their sworn duty. Afghanistan makes some sense, but anyone possessing even a small knowledge of that country's history ought to know it's a meat grinder.
Great comments and I agree with you.
sally

Greenville, GA

#23 Jan 17, 2009
native wrote:
This is an historic event that many, many citizens are wanting to attend which has increased the cost of security, if I understand correctly. From what I've read, USA is comparing Bush's taxpayer price tag to Obama's overall price tag, that is largely funded by donations. Apples and oranges plus a bunch of sour grapes?
dont know if youve been watching the news but most of the money is being donated by the banks that was just bailed out...nuts we have a war that needs to be paid for and more and more people becoming homeless that we could feed. yes its historical but lets get real Bush spent 40 million for the last one and was told to tone it down im all for obama and voted for him but im not for the 150 million plus he is spending on it..
John Spencer

Dayton, OH

#24 Jan 18, 2009
The answer is simple, charge admission to Washington.

It is hard for me to wade through the bull most people post. But what is never brought up is the benefits the city and States involved will derive from this event. I would venture to be that the sales tax money the States get from all hotels, all the restaurants, gift shops and on and on will actually exceed the money spent by them for security. Secondly, thousands upon thousands of people are working to prepare for this event, and all these people are getting paid. No one mentions the fact that this results in income taxes collected, social security taxes.

I guess people would rather just give the money to people as some have said. I for one do not support giving money away. I support people workin and driving an income from this.

But no one on this website will understand this. They are too wrapped up in hate, a hate that will result in the demise of our Country.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brazil Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Man Beatings 14 min Gonetohell 1
The Supreme Court has ruled same sex marriage i... 22 min Gonetohell 26
Trendy Libtards Ignorant Repubs 26 min Selective 1
cervical cancer 33 min curious 1
Separation of Church And State 40 min Sensible 52
Add A Word / Drop A Word (Nov '10) 55 min keegan 4,847
News Five Guys officially opens in Terre Haute 56 min Hoby 3
More from around the web

Brazil People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Brazil Mortgages