Inauguration Gala

Well gee, if only 400k turned out to see GW and they are expecting on the low end 2 million for PE Obama-I guess that would make sense-no?:confused3

No? why would you think it costs 4x as much for more people to stand outside and listen to a swearing in ceremony? Last time I checked it was free to breathe air...but then again perhaps I'm mistaken.
 
This inauguration is no more historic than any other one that has taken place in this country.


I'll bet its a little historic for the people who were drinking out of seperate drinking fountains 50 years ago......:confused3
 
Uh..sorry but you're WAY off on that statement. He's topped any previous inauguration by at least 300%.

The ceremony was never intended to be an "ostentatious display". A celebration, sure, but not an overblown, over-the-top waste of taxpayer's money. The city will be effectively cut off from vehicle traffic into the city that day, and you can only attend if you have a ticket, so there wont be millions of people just showing up out of the blue.

We are a country at war. We are a country in the midst of an economic crisis. To pretend like this isnt the case for the sake of throwing a monumental party is just idiotic in my opinion, no matter WHO it is. To me it is inconsiderate of the many Americans who are struggling right now to put food on the table.

This inauguration is no more historic than any other one that has taken place in this country. HORSE MANURE No matter how hard they might try to invoke his spirit and portray Obama as the second coming of...someone...he is no Abraham Lincoln, and he's no messiah.

Oh please,
If both conventions were not displays of ostentatious chest bumping I don't know what is. AND lets not forget Ms. Palins new clothing blow up. they didn't spend money gussing her up just to be nice.
We are an over the top, ostentatious country. Why do you think we get labeled with the "Ugly American" label. It sure ain't because we shy and retiring.

As for historic, please tell me because I sure missed the other African American President that was elected, so last time I look it is historic. As far as Abraham Lincoln goes, basically you don't know whether he will be one or not because unlike our current president, he has yet to be sworn in.

So the fact is he has as much potential to be a great president as he has the potential to be a lousy one. ONLY time will tell.

What we intended and what actually happens very often turn into 2 entirely different things. I mean basically we wrote a declaration on Independance when we had no intention what so ever of honoring the whole "All men are created equal" thing.
 
No? why would you think it costs 4x as much for more people to stand outside and listen to a swearing in ceremony? Last time I checked it was free to breathe air...but then again perhaps I'm mistaken.

Really? That's your argument?:confused3
 

Well gee, if only 400k turned out to see GW and they are expecting on the low end 2 million for PE Obama-I guess that would make sense-no?:confused3

Actually, no, it doesn't, because many of the costs are fixed costs that are not based on number of participants. Obviously, numbers do impact to some degree, but the fixed costs should not be that different in only four years.
 
Actually, no, it doesn't, because many of the costs are fixed costs that are not based on number of participants. Obviously, numbers do impact to some degree, but the fixed costs should not be that different in only four years.

Ok 'esplian Lucy-I no so good in math.
 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...obamas_inauguration_is_most_expensive_ev.html

It will take Barack Obama less than a minute to recite the oath of office -- and when he’s done dancing at the inaugural balls Jan. 20, the price tag for his swearing-in festivities could approach $160 million.

Obama’s inaugural committee is in the midst of raising roughly $45 million in private funds, exceeding the $42.3 million President Bush spent in 2005. In 1993, Clinton spent $33 million when Democrats returned to the White House for the first time in 12 years.

As in previous years, the costs borne by the taxpayers, for security and emergency medical services, far surpasses the privately funded events.

The federal government has budgeted $49 million for this year’s inauguration, more than triple what taxpayers spent at Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Earlier this year, the District of Columbia, Virginia, Maryland and the Washington transit authority sent a request to federal lawmakers for more than $75 million to cover a variety of inaugural costs ranging from security to transportation.

Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, which oversees the events at the Capitol, said this year’s budget of $1.24 million -- $10,000 less than 2005 -- is "not a lot of money in the scheme of planning an event for 240,000 people."

"We're always very budget conscious," she said. "But we're sending a message to the entire world about our peaceful transition of power, and you don't want it to look like a schlock affair. It needs to be appropriate to the magnitude of events that it is."

Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for the Obama’s inaugural committee, said the committee’s expenses will be greater than previous years because of Obama’s commitment to make the event as open and accessible as possible to the public.

Douglass ticked off a slew of expenses, most notably the decision to open up the entire length of the National Mall and provide video and audio access to the swearing-in ceremony on JumboTrons. The committee is also sponsoring a children’s concert and is allocating $700,000 to the Smithsonian Institution for extended museum hours.

At least 2 million people are expected at the swearing-in and parade next Tuesday. Officials estimate 10,000 charters buses will arrive in Washington with roughly 500,000 riders alone.

While the inauguration comes with a host of costs, officials predict the economic impact on the local economy will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

"This is our Super Bowl multiplied significantly," Bill Hanbury, president of Destination DC, the organization that promotes and markets the capital city. "It is a chance for us to really take advantage of a downtime in the economy for us."



Looks like $160 million gets the taxpayers a jumbotron. Thank goodness. As the lady in the article says, we "don't want it to look like a schlock affair."
 
Again, I don't think anyone would find it surprising to see people who did not support Obama criticizing anything related to him or his administration, nor surprising to see people who did support Obama defending anything related to him or his administration. Perhaps we should recognize that such comments add nothing to this thread, except vitriol.

So I have an idea: Let's hear, instead, from people who did not support Obama (prominently, in threads here on the DISboards, before the election) who are defending the inauguration, or from people who did support Obama (prominently, in threads here on the DISboards, before the election) who are critical of the inauguration.​
 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...obamas_inauguration_is_most_expensive_ev.html

It will take Barack Obama less than a minute to recite the oath of office -- and when he’s done dancing at the inaugural balls Jan. 20, the price tag for his swearing-in festivities could approach $160 million.

Obama’s inaugural committee is in the midst of raising roughly $45 million in private funds, exceeding the $42.3 million President Bush spent in 2005. In 1993, Clinton spent $33 million when Democrats returned to the White House for the first time in 12 years.

As in previous years, the costs borne by the taxpayers, for security and emergency medical services, far surpasses the privately funded events.

The federal government has budgeted $49 million for this year’s inauguration, more than triple what taxpayers spent at Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Earlier this year, the District of Columbia, Virginia, Maryland and the Washington transit authority sent a request to federal lawmakers for more than $75 million to cover a variety of inaugural costs ranging from security to transportation.

Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, which oversees the events at the Capitol, said this year’s budget of $1.24 million -- $10,000 less than 2005 -- is "not a lot of money in the scheme of planning an event for 240,000 people."

"We're always very budget conscious," she said. "But we're sending a message to the entire world about our peaceful transition of power, and you don't want it to look like a schlock affair. It needs to be appropriate to the magnitude of events that it is."

Linda Douglass, a spokeswoman for the Obama’s inaugural committee, said the committee’s expenses will be greater than previous years because of Obama’s commitment to make the event as open and accessible as possible to the public.

Douglass ticked off a slew of expenses, most notably the decision to open up the entire length of the National Mall and provide video and audio access to the swearing-in ceremony on JumboTrons. The committee is also sponsoring a children’s concert and is allocating $700,000 to the Smithsonian Institution for extended museum hours.

At least 2 million people are expected at the swearing-in and parade next Tuesday. Officials estimate 10,000 charters buses will arrive in Washington with roughly 500,000 riders alone.

While the inauguration comes with a host of costs, officials predict the economic impact on the local economy will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

"This is our Super Bowl multiplied significantly," Bill Hanbury, president of Destination DC, the organization that promotes and markets the capital city. "It is a chance for us to really take advantage of a downtime in the economy for us."



Looks like $160 million gets the taxpayers a jumbotron. Thank goodness. As the lady in the article says, we "don't want it to look like a schlock affair."

Yep-just jumbotrons:thumbsup2

Oh and let's not forget the cruise ships arriving with people.
 
As for historic, please tell me because I sure missed the other African American President that was elected, so last time I look it is historic. As far as Abraham Lincoln goes, basically you don't know whether he will be one or not because unlike our current president, he has yet to be sworn in.

So the fact is he has as much potential to be a great president as he has the potential to be a lousy one. ONLY time will tell.

What we intended and what actually happens very often turn into 2 entirely different things. I mean basically we wrote a declaration on Independance when we had no intention what so ever of honoring the whole "All men are created equal" thing.

Obama is an AMERICAN. He isn't BLACK. He isnt WHITE. He is no more special than any other American that has been elected to this office. If you think that this is the first person to be elected that has any african heritage in his bloodlines, you are mistaken. He is the SEVENTH.

Until the people who cry foul at every turn get over themselves and see people as PEOPLE not BLACK people, WHITE people, etc....but just PEOPLE, we'll never get past all this extra garbage. Just because I didn't vote for the man doesn't mean I'm racist. It doesn't mean I hate people of color. It doesn't mean anything other than my right to excercise CHOICE and VOTE was utilized for the person I felt is most competent to guide this country. Seriously...why on earth does everyone feel it necessary to qualify their American citizenship with preface of another nationality? If that were truly how we should classify ourselves, most of us would have to list half a dozen countries and probably a few indian tribes hyphenated before we ever got around to the "American" part. The only people who should be "hyphenating" their status are people who truly are dual citizens.

But back on topic...Again, this is just plain nauseating to see the waste and disregard for the state of our country by spending our tax dollars on such extreme garishness. I won't be watching, my kids won't be watching. It will be business as usual for us that day. I have to work like always.
 
I think the extent to which there is such an outpouring of $upport for this inauguration, itself, is indicative and a product of just how negatively the last four or eight years have been perceived by the folks contributing to the inauguration, especially in the context of the economic situation.

It is indiciative of how the rich hollywood / uberrich george soros crowd hates conservatism.
 
Really? That's your argument?:confused3

You seem to take the position that it is fine to spend $160 million (at least $120 million is taxpayer funded) in the midst of a financial crisis. This cost is four times the amount of the 2005 inauguration for which President Bush was (rightly) villified by the media.

This is irresponsible and arrogant. Mr. Obama could easily reduce the size and scope of this but he chooses not to.
 
You seem to take the position that it is fine to spend $160 million (at least $120 million is taxpayer funded) in the midst of a financial crisis. This cost is four times the amount of the 2005 inauguration for which President Bush was (rightly) villified by the media.

This is irresponsible and arrogant. Mr. Obama could easily reduce the size and scope of this but he chooses not to.

Should he tell Americans to stay home? What would you have him do to?:confused3
 
Until the people who cry foul at every turn get over themselves and see people as PEOPLE not BLACK people, WHITE people, etc.....

There are still people alive today who were forced to drink from seperate fountains, sit in the back of the bus, and eat in the back of the diner just because they were Black! And yet they were Americans. It's not as easy to overcome as one would think.

And if you think racial discrimination is over in this country, you are sadly mistaken.....We still have a long way to go in that department.....
 
Actually, it is a perfect example of the "donate/contribute and spend" mentality. :teacher:

And contributing to causes they feel strongly about is a very Democratic precept.

.

Oh, now that is funny! It that was the case hollywood would be living in 15 sq foot houses instead of 15,000 sq foot gated mansions.


What is really the case is that limosine liberals want OTHER people to "contribute to the cause" while they live high on the hog.
 
There are still people alive today who were forced to drink from seperate fountains, sit in the back of the bus, and eat in the back of the diner just because they were Black! And yet they were Americans. It's not as easy to overcome as one would think.

And if you think racial discrimination is over in this country, you are sadly mistaken.....We still have a long way to go in that department.....

of course we do...and we will continue to as long as people are hell-bent on making our generation pay for the sins of our ancestors. As the liberals keep saying...it's over already. move on.
 
The non-sequiturs are impressive.
 
I think all the inaugural celebrations are over the top-Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II...it's just wasted $$. I also think conventions for an incumbent President are a waste of $$.

However, they're not going away because too many people with too much money enjoy them too much. ;)
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom