Obama's inauguration
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
et one

Elk Falls, KS

#1 Jan 19, 2013
Does it bother anyone else that there is going to be $100 MILLION dollars spent on this event [grateful taxpayer's money, of course], not to mention 11,500 soliders, sailors, marines air force and coast guard members, 4,000 police officers and God Only Knows how many USSS personnel?

I realize that a $100 million is but a drop in the bucket of the budget; but think of how many homeless and hungry people we could care for with that money?

Time to start thinking gang...even Kings and Potentates don't get this kind of wonderfullness...
django

Jefferson City, MO

#2 Jan 19, 2013
et one wrote:
Does it bother anyone else that there is going to be $100 MILLION dollars spent on this event [grateful taxpayer's money, of course], not to mention 11,500 soliders, sailors, marines air force and coast guard members, 4,000 police officers and God Only Knows how many USSS personnel?
I realize that a $100 million is but a drop in the bucket of the budget; but think of how many homeless and hungry people we could care for with that money?
Time to start thinking gang...even Kings and Potentates don't get this kind of wonderfullness...
.........."crickets chirping"
Resident

Erie, KS

#3 Jan 20, 2013
You all know nothing is to good for King "O" To hell with the rest of you.
Taxpayer

Ingleside, TX

#4 Jan 20, 2013
According to more than one study, in 20 years China, a communistic nation, will take the place of the United States as the most powerful economic country on earth, in part because the people and politicians of the United States don't have the guts to do what it would take to get our financial house in order. Spending $100,000,000.00 for an inauguration for a second term president is not only a disgrace, but also shows Obama's total lack of understanding of and earnest desire to address the horrible financial problems of many people and our country. I think he should have told the nation that he understands our dire financial situation and will forgo an outrageously expensive inauguration and have a simple, low cost, televised swearing in at the White House. Maybe the time has come to pass some sort of law that if second term presidents want to throw a big inauguration party for themselves, they can pay for it themselves. (Same thing for the National Christmas Tree presidents light each year that cost taxpayers millions in its selection, transport, decoration, etc. I'd like to see a president tell the country that instead of spending those millions on a Christmas tree the majority of America will not be able to enjoy, he has asked a government employee to go to a local store, buy a large, affordable, artificial tree that could be used by every subsequent president to acknowledge the hard work people do to make the taxes that are sent to Washington. Unlike this ridiculous and totally needless inauguration extravaganza, it would save taxpayers millions and show respect for the plight of many taxpayers.)
shhhh

Chanute, KS

#5 Jan 20, 2013
Thats just it,the less weathly have never mattered to any president as long as I can remember.If so they would have more money by now.
bull moose party

Coffeyville, KS

#6 Jan 20, 2013
Taxpayer wrote:
According to more than one study, in 20 years China, a communistic nation, will take the place of the United States as the most powerful economic country on earth,
easy to fix. the u.s. can have a garage sale and sell off texas and alaska. that should generate enough money to pay the bills. and people like dubya and palin would be gone. win/win as i see it.
Taxpayer too

United States

#7 Jan 20, 2013
Taxpayer wrote:
According to more than one study, in 20 years China, a communistic nation, will take the place of the United States as the most powerful economic country on earth, in part because the people and politicians of the United States don't have the guts to do what it would take to get our financial house in order. Spending $100,000,000.00 for an inauguration for a second term president is not only a disgrace, but also shows Obama's total lack of understanding of and earnest desire to address the horrible financial problems of many people and our country. I think he should have told the nation that he understands our dire financial situation and will forgo an outrageously expensive inauguration and have a simple, low cost, televised swearing in at the White House. Maybe the time has come to pass some sort of law that if second term presidents want to throw a big inauguration party for themselves, they can pay for it themselves.(Same thing for the National Christmas Tree presidents light each year that cost taxpayers millions in its selection, transport, decoration, etc. I'd like to see a president tell the country that instead of spending those millions on a Christmas tree the majority of America will not be able to enjoy, he has asked a government employee to go to a local store, buy a large, affordable, artificial tree that could be used by every subsequent president to acknowledge the hard work people do to make the taxes that are sent to Washington. Unlike this ridiculous and totally needless inauguration extravaganza, it would save taxpayers millions and show respect for the plight of many taxpayers.)
Hey Disiple of Rush, crawl back in your hole. It's interesting how none of this bitching came up on the second gala bashes of Ronnie R or George W
Resident

Erie, KS

#8 Jan 20, 2013
It's sad to say but our politicians and ceo's of the country sold us out along time ago. People like that could care less about you or me. It's sad this country is the home of the brave.
Town full of morons

United States

#9 Jan 20, 2013
Taxpayer too wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Disiple of Rush, crawl back in your hole. It's interesting how none of this bitching came up on the second gala bashes of Ronnie R or George W
Ahh maybe because at those times in history we were not TRILLIONS of DOLLARS in debt. Try that thought sparky
concerned

Gardner, KS

#10 Jan 20, 2013
I wish someone would tell me....How do they spend money we don't have....if I wrote lots and lots of checks with no money in the bank I would be in the slammer...funny how this works. They keep saying Social Security is breaking the country...well if they would stop stealing money from the Social Security for everything else there would be plenty in there...How about paying it back goverment.
et one

Elk Falls, KS

#11 Jan 20, 2013
concerned wrote:
I wish someone would tell me....How do they spend money we don't have....if I wrote lots and lots of checks with no money in the bank I would be in the slammer...funny how this works. They keep saying Social Security is breaking the country...well if they would stop stealing money from the Social Security for everything else there would be plenty in there...How about paying it back goverment.
Silly rabbit! Don't you know that the his obamaness and the consort group are our rulers, not our servants? They just take more and more and give less and less.

Time to fire them all....every damned one of them.
what

Wichita, KS

#12 Jan 20, 2013
Taxpayer too wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Disiple of Rush, crawl back in your hole. It's interesting how none of this bitching came up on the second gala bashes of Ronnie R or George W
I agree. get a life. your embarrassing yourselves with your whinning because you lost.
liberty

Rockmart, GA

#13 Jan 20, 2013
does any of it matter who the president is or how much they spend they are going to do what they want anyway it is all for themselves they do not care about the rest of us or how we have to live just so they are getting all the glory and their family is all up in the white house all warm,cozy,and protected while the rest of us are on our own having to do the best we can it is not them that has to send their children out to catch a bus for school or walk to school in the cold they ride to school in limos or have teachers come in to teach or their children that has to be ashamed to pay for food with foodstamps but some of ours does it is not them or their children that sits and wants things because they get everything they want or their heart desires it is the people having to sit back and watch all this so we are not in their shoes but they have not had to walk in ours and never will so next time someone makes a big deal about the president about anything just remember it is not any of us so what difference does it make if it happens to be you one day then it might be a big deal until then we are just common people with a wish
Did NOT vote for him

Chanute, KS

#14 Jan 20, 2013
David Limbaugh Column: Obama's Ongoing Distraction Gambit
By David Limbaugh | January 15, 2013 | 18:01
President Obama's latest news conference was further confirmation that his voracious appetite for spending was not satisfied but whetted by the fiscal cliff deal, which he views as an appetizer.
We were told that the GOP achieved a coup in the fiscal cliff negotiations because they lured Obama into an agreement to lock in the Bush tax rates except for the highest-income earners. Never mind that Obama agreed to no spending cuts or entitlement reform after demanding a "balanced approach" to deficit reduction; they told us he'd be forced to address those matters in a couple of months in the debt ceiling negotiations. They argued that by agreeing to make the Bush rates "permanent," Obama had tacitly admitted that he couldn't sustain the welfare state through tax increases on the middle class and that he'd now have to — grudgingly or not — turn his attention to spending cuts and entitlement reform.
As I've written before, I never understood this optimistic outlook, because from the get-go, Obama and his Democratic colleagues swore that they had only begun on the "revenue" side and that they were bound and determined to focus on more revenue extraction in the next round of negotiations.
It is painfully naive to assume that Obama is operating in good faith. Throughout his term, he has rarely focused on the merits of policies he's promoted. He has used various scapegoats to distract the public's attention from the substantive arguments in order to facilitate the results he seeks.
With Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, his many environmental initiatives, his assault on religious liberty and his ruthless opposition to Arizona's immigration law, to name a few, he glossed over the substantive issues involved and demonized his political opponents and certain individuals and interest groups in order to make the outcome turn on personal, rather than policy, considerations. This is the stuff of sheer demagoguery.
Similarly, in the fiscal cliff negotiations, Obama wouldn't permit the discussion to focus on the real issue: our crushing national debt. If that had been his intention, he would have used his presidential bully pulpit to steer the conversation toward the major debt drivers, which are spending and entitlements, not a lack of taxes.
But he barely discussed the debt problem. His gambit was to distract the public's attention from our catastrophic deficits and debt and agitate them against the wealthy, whom he maliciously misrepresented as being responsible for these problems in the first place. He made the discussion not about the debt or deficits but about "fairness." As a result, he succeeded in raising rates (and phasing out personal exemptions and deductions) on the "wealthy" but saw to it that we ignored spending and entitlements.
Now, as we're poised to enter the debt ceiling negotiations, Obama has held a news conference in which he telegraphed that he's going to employ the same type of strategy again: to distract the public's attention from the pressing debt and deficit issues and continue to resist spending cuts and entitlement reform. Indeed, he said he would consider only "modest adjustments" to Medicare and other entitlements. That's it? Modest adjustments? Are you kidding me?
Instead, he aims to spotlight the alleged irresponsibility and partisanship of Republicans who would hold "a gun against the heads of the American people" over the debt limit and not allow him — the paragon of fiscal responsibility — to pay our bills and honor "the full faith and credit of the United States." Plus, he will aggressively pursue more "revenues" to close unfair "loopholes."
Did NOT vote for him

Chanute, KS

#15 Jan 20, 2013
His purpose is to keep the evil Republicans on the hot seat over their threat not to raise the debt ceiling and over revenue "fairness," all the while claiming he's pushing for a balanced approach, by which he means a completely unbalanced, one-sided approach that focuses on tax increases only, ignores spending cuts and entitlements, and even includes new spending. If his ploy were to succeed, it would guarantee that America would go bankrupt, yet Obama is masquerading as the responsible one. It's surreal, and I swear I wouldn't believe it is occurring if I weren't witnessing it with my own eyes.
It's time for the naive among us to wake up and help in the fight instead of rolling over to this tyranny. Obama is going to continue his fast march toward fundamentally transforming America into a full-blown socialist state while pretending to be a champion of capitalism and representative government. Can those on our side at least quit providing him aid and comfort by refusing to open their eyes to what is happening?
It should now be abundantly clear what Benjamin Franklin meant when he responded to the question of what type of government the Framers had crafted: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."
Well, can we keep it? Do we even want to keep it?
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney.

This is worth reading and thinking about. Pay attention to your next Social Security income, whether you get a check or an electronic deposit....note what it is now called...see below.. Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a "Federal Benefit Payment"? I'll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you. Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it. The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a “Federal Benefit Payment.”This isn’t a benefit – its earned income!Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security.If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employer’s contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved! This is your personal investment.Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month. That’s almost three times more than today’s average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration (Google it - it’s a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)!I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts.Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did.They took our money and used it elsewhere. They “forgot” that it was OUR
money they were taking. They didn’t have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them. And they didn’t pay interest on the debt they assumed. And recently, they’ve told us that the money won’t support us for very much longer. But is it our fault they misused our investments? And now, to add insult to injury, they’re calling it a “benefit,” as if we never worked to earn every penny of it. Just because they “borrowed” the money, doesn't mean that our investments were a charity!

Let’s take a stand. We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare. Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government –Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going, for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it!
Did NOT vote for him

Chanute, KS

#17 Jan 20, 2013
What really gets me is the way he went on about Congress holding SSI and veterans benefits hostage and yet it was his smirking face telling America that if Congress doesn't get it together then SSI checks and vet benefits would be late! Why don't they have thier own checks late and quit giving each other raises!
Impeach Obuma

Jefferson City, MO

#18 Jan 20, 2013
Did NOT vote for him wrote:
What really gets me is the way he went on about Congress holding SSI and veterans benefits hostage and yet it was his smirking face telling America that if Congress doesn't get it together then SSI checks and vet benefits would be late! Why don't they have thier own checks late and quit giving each other raises!
they do that to scare us into things we don't need to have. I say impeachment procedings should be started now
Former Local

Eureka Springs, AR

#19 Jan 20, 2013
bull moose party wrote:
<quoted text>
easy to fix. the u.s. can have a garage sale and sell off texas and alaska. that should generate enough money to pay the bills. and people like dubya and palin would be gone. win/win as i see it.
On a "positive" note.....Michelle has a new hairdo (with bangs!!) and as we speak, they are "partyin' down" on our dime.
That should distract us(for now)from the fact that the country is drowning in debt and we are about to lose more freedoms.

Just wait till "amnesty" for all the illegals gets pushed thru under the guise of "immigration reform". Can anybody spell VOTE BUYING??
Cindy

Ingleside, TX

#20 Jan 21, 2013
et one wrote:
Does it bother anyone else that there is going to be $100 MILLION dollars spent on this event [grateful taxpayer's money, of course], not to mention 11,500 soliders, sailors, marines air force and coast guard members, 4,000 police officers and God Only Knows how many USSS personnel?
I realize that a $100 million is but a drop in the bucket of the budget; but think of how many homeless and hungry people we could care for with that money?
Time to start thinking gang...even Kings and Potentates don't get this kind of wonderfullness...
If Obama were a white Mormon Republican, you couldn't praise the expense enough as a patriotic display.
et one

Elk Falls, KS

#21 Jan 21, 2013
Cindy wrote:
<quoted text>
If Obama were a white Mormon Republican, you couldn't praise the expense enough as a patriotic display.
I believe it is a total waste of money no matter whom is the elected person! As far as I am concerned if they want to have an inaugural ball, they should have to pay for it from their personal funds...not from donations, not from citizen's taxes.

This would include the cost of security as well!

Enough of treating any of these people as if they are royalty. When I used to hire new employees they got a free cup of coffee and a briefing on what was expected from them. Andy btw, they never started at $475K per year plus servants and guards, a private airplane or two at their disposal, and all the other perks.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Independence Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Denounce Trump to Save the Republic 15 min xxx 12
Why are there so many cops out tonight 1 hr antimeth 9
City Commission Meeting 08 25 06 6 hr Royals 2
Carolyn Torrance anyone reaaly care what she th... (Feb '12) 14 hr Lovers Leap 23
Leadership Independence/ Chamber Program/$350 t... 16 hr Drudge 56
Mr. City Manager, Sir. Fri just thinking 3
Dr Mears Fri Answer 5

Independence Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Independence Mortgages