|
|
|
nathanm
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2009, 03:39:48 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
In these terrible economic times, do we taxpayers really need to spend upwards of $100 million dollars for Obama's inaugeration?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush-declares-state-emergency-Washington-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html
Seriously.
Blogs around the net are pointing out how the media chastized Bush on his $40M inaugeration in 2004. Where's the media outrage today?
The story reads like much of the extra cost is due to the vastly larger number of people and the necessary extra security and other costs. GWB had about 500,000 at his 2004 inauguration. Clinton had 800,000 at his first. LBJ holds the current record at 1.2 million. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
guido911
|
|
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2009, 04:00:14 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
In these terrible economic times, do we taxpayers really need to spend upwards of $100 million dollars for Obama's inaugeration?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush-declares-state-emergency-Washington-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html
Seriously.
Blogs around the net are pointing out how the media chastized Bush on his $40M inaugeration in 2004. Where's the media outrage today?
The story reads like much of the extra cost is due to the vastly larger number of people and the necessary extra security and other costs.
GWB had about 500,000 at his 2004 inauguration. Clinton had 800,000 at his first. LBJ holds the current record at 1.2 million.
I read it that way as well. Still, though, that's a butt load of money for what is a one minute swearing in ceremony. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.
|
|
|
|
cannon_fodder
|
|
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2009, 04:05:22 pm » |
|
It's part of the "stimulus package." [  ] Really, even in this crappy times we need to cut loose. I don't fault the scale, I just hope there isn't anything overly grand (aka, gold plated ice sculptures at the balls, etc.). Remember, this is also our official presentation of our new leader to the world. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 14, 2009, 04:05:49 pm by cannon_fodder »
|
Logged
|
- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
|
|
|
|
nathanm
|
|
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2009, 04:11:14 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
I read it that way as well. Still, though, that's a butt load of money for what is a one minute swearing in ceremony.
It does certainly look like a lot of money. That said, apparently a lot of folks want to go see the inauguration in person. I don't think we should tell them no. It's their money, too. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
pmcalk
|
|
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2009, 04:22:35 pm » |
|
So what do you propose? Tell people they cannot come? By the way, that amount is way out of line with most predictions. So far, Congress has appropriated $30 million to DC, and it is expected to cost nearly $50 million, not "100 million pounds" (which would be substantially more than $100 million). http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/20/inauguration.price.tag/index.htmlNone of that takes into account the amount of money generated by the inauguration. Given the amount of money restaurants, hotels, bars etc.... will make, I imagine that DC, VA, & MD will end up ahead. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
guido911
|
|
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2009, 05:44:30 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
So what do you propose? Tell people they cannot come?
By the way, that amount is way out of line with most predictions. So far, Congress has appropriated $30 million to DC, and it is expected to cost nearly $50 million, not "100 million pounds" (which would be substantially more than $100 million).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/20/inauguration.price.tag/index.html
None of that takes into account the amount of money generated by the inauguration. Given the amount of money restaurants, hotels, bars etc.... will make, I imagine that DC, VA, & MD will end up ahead.
I am not proposing anything, just pointing out that are tax dollars might be better spent on other things than a party. I get it, you do not agree. As far as the money it will generate in those areas around DC, good for them. How will that benefit us Okies that pay taxes? Also, why not address the other point I made, that being the media's double standard re: spending on the inaugeral? I am sure the DC area benefited from those that went to W's inaugural, but they still complained about W's extravagance. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pmcalk
|
|
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2009, 07:22:39 pm » |
|
I see a difference between what is a necessary expenditure and what is a private function. I haven't seen any figures on what is being spent on private functions for the Obama inauguration. Given the current economic situation, I would agree that it is a bit inappropriate for people to be throwing ultra-gluttonous parties. But, those are private affairs, and I have no control over what they do.
But for the expense that will be spent based simply on the number of people who choose to show up to participate in this public function, I simply don't see how you can control that. People have a right to attend. DC has a need to have police to provide protection. I never expected W to call off his inauguration, and I certainly don't expect Obama to do so either.
As for media bias....whatever. I hear some scream that the media is biased to the right, some that scream the media is biased to the left. Is the media consistent? Of course not. Get your news from a variety of sources, and quit complaining.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
guido911
|
|
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2009, 09:25:45 pm » |
|
The most expensive inaugeration in history? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/barack-obama-inauguration-costPM: Who do you hear claim that the media is biased to the right? Anyway, what does that have to do with my point. I know, knowing. Changing the subject I guess is an effective way to bail out on a point. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.
|
|
|
|
nathanm
|
|
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2009, 10:23:56 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
The most expensive inaugeration in history?
The largest (expected) turnout for any inauguration in history, by the size of a 'normal' inauguration's turnout. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conan71
|
|
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2009, 05:37:19 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
The most expensive inaugeration in history?
The largest (expected) turnout for any inauguration in history, by the size of a 'normal' inauguration's turnout.
They actually found out that the trasportation infrastructure wasn't anywhere close to capable of bringing in the "millions" inititally claimed to be heading to DC. They only have approx. 200,000 seats for the event. I'm willing to bet cold weather is going to change people's plans. I can see the interest factor, etc. but it's not going to be as big as the media first led everyone to believe. My guess? 1.5mm. I believe first numbers a few weeks ago were 5mm. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
rwarn17588
Guest
|
|
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2009, 06:40:45 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
The most expensive inaugeration in history?
The largest (expected) turnout for any inauguration in history, by the size of a 'normal' inauguration's turnout.
They actually found out that the trasportation infrastructure wasn't anywhere close to capable of bringing in the "millions" inititally claimed to be heading to DC. They only have approx. 200,000 seats for the event. I'm willing to bet cold weather is going to change people's plans.
I can see the interest factor, etc. but it's not going to be as big as the media first led everyone to believe. My guess? 1.5mm. I believe first numbers a few weeks ago were 5mm.
That sounds like a pretty good guess. I just checked the NWS forecast for Tuesday, and it's going to be 35 and sunny ... not too bad for January, really. However, there's a 60 percent chance of snow the day before. Nasty weather might prevent a lot of people from even getting into town. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nathanm
|
|
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2009, 01:30:21 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
However, there's a 60 percent chance of snow the day before. Nasty weather might prevent a lot of people from even getting into town.
It depends on how much snow. Most of the country does not nearly shut down any time there's more than a light dusting of snow like we do here. As far as turnout goes, yes, the estimates were revised downwards to around 2 million. That's still 800,000 more than the previous record, which is also about the number that turned out for Clinton's 1992 inauguration, IIRC. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" --Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
