Toups

The Politics Thread

13,969 posts in this topic

And now the truth:

From MMFA:

The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration

by Eric Boehlert

Did you hear that "some are saying" Barack Obama's inauguration will cost "$160 million," which is $100 million more than George W. Bush's last swearing-in? That's the tale the crew at Fox & Friends was telling on January 15. "Why does the thing have to cost so much?" demanded co-host Gretchen Carlson. "I don't get it. George Bush spent $42.3 million and that was just four years ago." She wondered why Obama needed "another $100 million" for his celebration.

The Fox News crew wasn't alone. The Internet and cable news were filled with chatter about the jaw-dropping (and unsubstantiated) number suddenly attached to Obama's swearing-in. But the sloppy reporting and online gossip about the price tag illustrated what happens when journalists don't do their job and online partisans take advantage of that kind of work.

It also highlighted the type of news you can generate when making blatantly false comparisons. In this case, it was the cost of the Obama and Bush inaugurations. The connection was unfair because the Obama figure of $160 million that got repeated in the press included security costs associated with the massive event. But the Bush tab of $42 million left out those enormous costs. Talk about stacking the deck.

The misinformation first arrived in the form of an underreported newspaper article in America, and then one in London. Between them, and thanks to furious transatlantic online linking, the reports gave birth to the story that Obama's inauguration was going to cost nearly four times what the country spent on Bush's bash in 2005 -- that the Obama inauguration would cost almost $120 million more.

With its declarative headline, "Obama's inauguration is most expensive ever at $160 million," the New York Daily News reported:

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.

Talk about red flags: "could approach"? See the extraordinary freedom that kind of loose language allows? Of course, technically speaking, it's true the inauguration spending "could approach" $160 million. It also "could approach" $400 million or $900 million. There's literally no limit to the number that could be inserted into the phrasing, especially when the Daily News provided so little basis for the jumbo figure.

The closest the Daily News came to explaining the $160 million was its noting that the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland had submitted a $75 million request to the federal government to cover inauguration costs, including security and transportation. Bottom line: The Daily News provided no facts -- no evidence -- to support its what-if $160 million price tag for the inauguration, a price tag the newspaper declared as fact in its attention-grabbing headline.

The next day, a January 14 article in the London tabloid, the Daily Mail, also used an inflated figure, but offered zero reporting to back it up. (The Daily Mail piece created a big stir when the Drudge Report linked to it.)

The Daily Mail lead: "Barack Obama's inauguration is set to cost more than £100m [$155 million] making it the most expensive swearing-in ceremony in US history."

The story continued:

The President-elect will take less than a minute to recite the oath of office in front of an estimated two million people in the US capital next week.

But by the time the final dance has been held at one of the many inaugural balls the costs for the day will be a staggering £110m [roughly $162 million].

The cost was revealed as Mr Obama scrambled to answer questions about the nomination of Treasury Secretary pick Timothy Geithner.

"Was revealed"? Who revealed the $162 million figure? The Daily Mail never said. And much like the Daily News, the figures mentioned in the Daily Mail simply did not add up to the final cost the newspaper hyped.

Unfortunately, that didn't matter. At least not to conservative partisans who grabbed onto the Daily Mail story (via Drudge) and announced a blatant hypocrisy existed within the press because, they claimed, four years earlier, reporters and liberal pundits raised questions about the cost of Bush's inauguration, but suddenly were mum about Obama's, even though at $160 million, it was going to cost nearly four times as much as Bush's bash. (Actually, it wasn't just liberals or the press raising questions about the Bush inauguration; a strong majority of Americans wished Bush, during a time of war, had scaled back the glitz for his second swearing-in.)

Online, the inauguration condemnations were swift and fierce. The cost of "Obama's upcoming celebration" was "dwarfing" any previous swearing-in expenses and was climbing into "the $100 millions," claimed right-wing weblog The Jawa Report, which relied on the Daily Mail for its misinformation.

The unsubstantiated $160 million figure was also picked up and repeated on MSNBC, where news anchors spent all of January 14 announcing Obama's inauguration was going to cost "$160 million." The eye-popping dollar figure was accepted as fact, even though nobody in the press could actually explain where that number had come from. Plus, MSNBC suggested the $160 million tab just covered parties and activities, not the larger security costs.

Embed this video:

Here's why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush's 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration's security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here's The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:

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.

For decades, that represented the norm in terms of calculating inauguration costs: Federal dollars spent on security were not part of the commonly referred-to cost. (The cost of Obama's inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million.) What's happening this year: The cost of the Obama inauguration and the cost of the security are being combined by some in order to come up with the much larger tab. Then, that number is being compared with the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2005, minus the money spent on security.

In other words, it's the unsubstantiated Obama cost of $160 million (inauguration + security) compared with the Bush cost of 42 million (inauguration, excluding security). Those are two completely different calculations being compared side-by-side, by Fox & Friends, among others, to support the phony claim that Obama's inauguration is $100 million more expensive than Bush's.

That's why the right-wing site Newsmax.com confidently reported that Obama's swearing-in would cost "nearly four times what George Bush's inauguration cost four years ago." So did Flopping Aces, a shining light of the right-wing blogosphere:

President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m. This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993.

If portions of the press and the blogosphere want to now suggest that the cost of security should also be factored into the final tab for presidential inaugurations, they need to go back and recalculate the cost for Bush's 2005 swearing-in in order to have an honest comparison. Because with security included, the 2005 inauguration cost a lot more than $42 million -- just as with security factored in, Obama's will also cost a lot more than $45 million. (The final tab, though, likely won't be known for months.)

The question for the press then becomes: How much did the government spend on security for Bush's 2005 inauguration? How much did it cost for the wartime administration's unprecedented move to turn the nation's capital into something akin to an armed fortress, with snipers on rooftops, planes flying overhead, Humvee-mounted anti-aircraft missiles dotting the city, and manholes cemented shut?

Back in January 2005, that figure was impossible to come by. "U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said last week that he was unable to estimate security costs for the inauguration," The Washington Times reported. The cross-town Washington Post also had no luck in 2005 finding out the cost of security: "[Government] spokesmen said they could not provide an estimate of what the inauguration will cost the federal government."

However, buried in a recent New York Times article published one week before the controversy erupted over the cost of Obama's inauguration, the newspaper reported that in 2005, "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" [emphasis added].

You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million.

Unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) ends up costing $630 million, we can safely say it certainly won't cost four times what the Bush bash did in 2005. And unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) runs to $257 million, we can safely say the event won't cost $100 million more than Bush's, as Fox & Friends claimed.

So, for now, can the press and partisans please stop peddling this malignant myth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are committees in charge of that stuff. It has nothing to do with him. why you wouldnt trust him based off of his inaguration cost , I dont get. He's popular so the committees set up a lot of things for it. judge him not for who he is (basically a celebrity), judge him for what he does in terms of recovering this country.

See I don't see it that way and I don't understand why we are supposed to ignore such things with Obama when things like that were not ignored with Bush, Clinton, or any of them.

I judge all the presidents and the politicians by the same thing - the total picture.

And Obama doesnt' get a by on any of that.

And you see just by the post above by Roman it is not. You mention something that is proven by articles and they will always throw it back up with what so and so did. Just another reason I have been staying out of the any thing politics. You can't even mention anything without someone saying well look at what George W. Bush did or look at what Clinton did or look at what Reagan did - as if it makes it any better because so and so did this too. Well it doesn't.

So what if GWB's alledgedly cost $140 million it doesn't take away from the anger and disappointment I feel in all politicians taht they are spending all this money right now. To me the cost of GWB's or Reagean's or whoever's is very irreleavnt right now and doesn't matter one iota right now.

George W. Bush was judged by every little thing he did whether he had anything to do with it or not. And Obama will too.

I know that Obama doesn't have anything to do with everything here but it is still about him and his administration. But the fact is that the cost is there and a large part of it falls on the taxpayers who are having a difficult time right now.

I could have more HOPE and thoughts of a positive nature if they had scaled things back. Instead they are making it more lavish. It just doesn't seem right when the country is talking about bail outs, rising unemployment and all. It is just not a good sign and does not offer a sign of hope at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See I don't see it that way and I don't understand why we are supposed to ignore such things with Obama when things like that were not ignored with Bush, Clinton, or any of them.

I judge all the presidents and the politicians by the same thing - the total picture.

And Obama doesnt' get a by on any of that.

And you see just by the post above by Roman it is not. You mention something that is proven by articles and they will always throw it back up with what so and so did. Just another reason I have been staying out of the any thing politics. You can't even mention anything without someone saying well look at what George W. Bush did or look at what Clinton did or look at what Reagan did - as if it makes it any better because so and so did this too. Well it doesn't.

So what if GWB's alledgedly cost $140 million it doesn't take away from the anger and disappointment I feel in all politicians taht they are spending all this money right now. To me the cost of GWB's or Reagean's or whoever's is very irreleavnt right now and doesn't matter one iota right now.

George W. Bush was judged by every little thing he did whether he had anything to do with it or not. And Obama will too.

I know that Obama doesn't have anything to do with everything here but it is still about him and his administration. But the fact is that the cost is there and a large part of it falls on the taxpayers who are having a difficult time right now.

I could have more HOPE and thoughts of a positive nature if they had scaled things back. Instead they are making it more lavish. It just doesn't seem right when the country is talking about bail outs, rising unemployment and all. It is just not a good sign and does not offer a sign of hope at all.

Then stick with that.

I will chose to hold him accountable for what he does WHEN he gets into office. I can't remember the last time a PE got so much scrutiny who hadn't taken office yet.

And as for that story about the cost, read the post before your latest one. That may shed some light on this whole BS fiasco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now the truth:

From MMFA:

The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration

by Eric Boehlert

Did you hear that "some are saying" Barack Obama's inauguration will cost "$160 million," which is $100 million more than George W. Bush's last swearing-in? That's the tale the crew at Fox & Friends was telling on January 15. "Why does the thing have to cost so much?" demanded co-host Gretchen Carlson. "I don't get it. George Bush spent $42.3 million and that was just four years ago." She wondered why Obama needed "another $100 million" for his celebration.

The Fox News crew wasn't alone. The Internet and cable news were filled with chatter about the jaw-dropping (and unsubstantiated) number suddenly attached to Obama's swearing-in. But the sloppy reporting and online gossip about the price tag illustrated what happens when journalists don't do their job and online partisans take advantage of that kind of work.

It also highlighted the type of news you can generate when making blatantly false comparisons. In this case, it was the cost of the Obama and Bush inaugurations. The connection was unfair because the Obama figure of $160 million that got repeated in the press included security costs associated with the massive event. But the Bush tab of $42 million left out those enormous costs. Talk about stacking the deck.

The misinformation first arrived in the form of an underreported newspaper article in America, and then one in London. Between them, and thanks to furious transatlantic online linking, the reports gave birth to the story that Obama's inauguration was going to cost nearly four times what the country spent on Bush's bash in 2005 -- that the Obama inauguration would cost almost $120 million more.

With its declarative headline, "Obama's inauguration is most expensive ever at $160 million," the New York Daily News reported:

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.

Talk about red flags: "could approach"? See the extraordinary freedom that kind of loose language allows? Of course, technically speaking, it's true the inauguration spending "could approach" $160 million. It also "could approach" $400 million or $900 million. There's literally no limit to the number that could be inserted into the phrasing, especially when the Daily News provided so little basis for the jumbo figure.

The closest the Daily News came to explaining the $160 million was its noting that the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland had submitted a $75 million request to the federal government to cover inauguration costs, including security and transportation. Bottom line: The Daily News provided no facts -- no evidence -- to support its what-if $160 million price tag for the inauguration, a price tag the newspaper declared as fact in its attention-grabbing headline.

The next day, a January 14 article in the London tabloid, the Daily Mail, also used an inflated figure, but offered zero reporting to back it up. (The Daily Mail piece created a big stir when the Drudge Report linked to it.)

The Daily Mail lead: "Barack Obama's inauguration is set to cost more than £100m [$155 million] making it the most expensive swearing-in ceremony in US history."

The story continued:

The President-elect will take less than a minute to recite the oath of office in front of an estimated two million people in the US capital next week.

But by the time the final dance has been held at one of the many inaugural balls the costs for the day will be a staggering £110m [roughly $162 million].

The cost was revealed as Mr Obama scrambled to answer questions about the nomination of Treasury Secretary pick Timothy Geithner.

"Was revealed"? Who revealed the $162 million figure? The Daily Mail never said. And much like the Daily News, the figures mentioned in the Daily Mail simply did not add up to the final cost the newspaper hyped.

Unfortunately, that didn't matter. At least not to conservative partisans who grabbed onto the Daily Mail story (via Drudge) and announced a blatant hypocrisy existed within the press because, they claimed, four years earlier, reporters and liberal pundits raised questions about the cost of Bush's inauguration, but suddenly were mum about Obama's, even though at $160 million, it was going to cost nearly four times as much as Bush's bash. (Actually, it wasn't just liberals or the press raising questions about the Bush inauguration; a strong majority of Americans wished Bush, during a time of war, had scaled back the glitz for his second swearing-in.)

Online, the inauguration condemnations were swift and fierce. The cost of "Obama's upcoming celebration" was "dwarfing" any previous swearing-in expenses and was climbing into "the $100 millions," claimed right-wing weblog The Jawa Report, which relied on the Daily Mail for its misinformation.

The unsubstantiated $160 million figure was also picked up and repeated on MSNBC, where news anchors spent all of January 14 announcing Obama's inauguration was going to cost "$160 million." The eye-popping dollar figure was accepted as fact, even though nobody in the press could actually explain where that number had come from. Plus, MSNBC suggested the $160 million tab just covered parties and activities, not the larger security costs.

Embed this video:

Here's why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush's 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration's security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here's The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:

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.

For decades, that represented the norm in terms of calculating inauguration costs: Federal dollars spent on security were not part of the commonly referred-to cost. (The cost of Obama's inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million.) What's happening this year: The cost of the Obama inauguration and the cost of the security are being combined by some in order to come up with the much larger tab. Then, that number is being compared with the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2005, minus the money spent on security.

In other words, it's the unsubstantiated Obama cost of $160 million (inauguration + security) compared with the Bush cost of 42 million (inauguration, excluding security). Those are two completely different calculations being compared side-by-side, by Fox & Friends, among others, to support the phony claim that Obama's inauguration is $100 million more expensive than Bush's.

That's why the right-wing site Newsmax.com confidently reported that Obama's swearing-in would cost "nearly four times what George Bush's inauguration cost four years ago." So did Flopping Aces, a shining light of the right-wing blogosphere:

President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m. This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993.

If portions of the press and the blogosphere want to now suggest that the cost of security should also be factored into the final tab for presidential inaugurations, they need to go back and recalculate the cost for Bush's 2005 swearing-in in order to have an honest comparison. Because with security included, the 2005 inauguration cost a lot more than $42 million -- just as with security factored in, Obama's will also cost a lot more than $45 million. (The final tab, though, likely won't be known for months.)

The question for the press then becomes: How much did the government spend on security for Bush's 2005 inauguration? How much did it cost for the wartime administration's unprecedented move to turn the nation's capital into something akin to an armed fortress, with snipers on rooftops, planes flying overhead, Humvee-mounted anti-aircraft missiles dotting the city, and manholes cemented shut?

Back in January 2005, that figure was impossible to come by. "U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said last week that he was unable to estimate security costs for the inauguration," The Washington Times reported. The cross-town Washington Post also had no luck in 2005 finding out the cost of security: "[Government] spokesmen said they could not provide an estimate of what the inauguration will cost the federal government."

However, buried in a recent New York Times article published one week before the controversy erupted over the cost of Obama's inauguration, the newspaper reported that in 2005, "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" [emphasis added].

You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million.

Unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) ends up costing $630 million, we can safely say it certainly won't cost four times what the Bush bash did in 2005. And unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) runs to $257 million, we can safely say the event won't cost $100 million more than Bush's, as Fox & Friends claimed.

So, for now, can the press and partisans please stop peddling this malignant myth?

I appreciate you posting that and clearning that matter up.

But with me it still doesn't matter. My disappointment is with ALL POLITICIANS.

And what GWB spent or didn't spent doesn't change that fact for me.

Just because so and so spent this much or didn't spend this much doesn't take away from the fact of what is going on right now.

It just causes me to lose more hope in POLITICIANS. And more hope in both parties because I am so damn tired of trying to post something and discuss something that is seriously bothering you and all it can ever be turned into is a political fight between the parties.

The economic crunch has hit me hard and for the first time in my 44 years of living I couldn't even buy my children Christmas gifts because everything I had went into keeping my children in college and keeping my business going. Budget cuts cost both of my children all the financial aid they were getting for college.

And I am not the only one who is hurting. So many others are too.

And sorry but right now it does not instill any hope in me for our country when I see the politicians dressed to the nines and partying and driving around in fancy cadillacs and the like. And I don't care which president it is or what color his skin is.

And sorry but right now I couldn't give a [!@#$%^&*] about which politician spent the most on their inaugural. I am worried about now and what I see.

And I don't mean that ugly - it is just the way I feel right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then stick with that.

I will chose to hold him accountable for what he does WHEN he gets into office. I can't remember the last time a PE got so much scrutiny who hadn't taken office yet.

And as for that story about the cost, read the post before your latest one. That may shed some light on this whole BS fiasco.

You just proved my point about the parties. You turned this whole thing into a damn Obama thing when my whole post and point was about Politicians and not even about Obama.

Don't worry I won't bother this thread again. i quit before and stayed away and I will back out again.

Believe me you wont' hear me saying anything that can even slightly degrade or criticize him ever again.

As to the one comment, I seem to remember the same thing being done to Bush even before he took office and I was one of them that did it.

But again that is beside the point. My posts was even about Obama but about politicians. I just used the article to stem what I had hoped was a discussion. I forgot that everything comes back to the parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You just proved my point about the parties. You turned this whole thing into a damn Obama thing when my whole post and point was about Politicians and not even about Obama.

Don't worry I won't bother this thread again. i quit before and stayed away and I will back out again.

Believe me you wont' hear me saying anything that can even slightly degrade or criticize him ever again.

As to the one comment, I seem to remember the same thing being done to Bush even before he took office and I was one of them that did it.

But again that is beside the point. My posts was even about Obama but about politicians. I just used the article to stem what I had hoped was a discussion. I forgot that everything comes back to the parties.

Aight. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That article I posted is one of the things that bugs me to death about politicians, and the reason that when people are talking about hope and change and all that crap I am forever cynical and jsut say they are all being whitewashed.

These politicians -- every one of them -- say they care and say they are different. They ahve the audacity to complain about big executives coming to Washington to ask for money in their private jets, when the majority of them took private jets there that were paid by the tax payers. Pelosi even requested a bigger plane than the one usually afforded to the person in her position which costs more in fuel.

Then they all come in and have these big fancy shindigs and hire decorators at the tax payers expense to redecorate the White House.

And Obama who was supposed to be different than the others is falling right into the same old patters and now his Inagural is costing more than any other in the history of inaugurals.

As Yahoo puts it:

"Obama's inauguration will cost nearly four times more than the next most expensive celebration"

And they wonder why people like me don't trust them and don't feel any hope when any of them get into office. Politicians have jaded me way too much. I don't trust any of them and never will again.

First, the very same article said that inaugural celebrations are NOT paid for with taxpayer money. I think it's great that Obama has supporters -- and they are not corporate supporters -- who want to celebrate. I think it is absolutely wonderful that so many people are so excited about a president. If that is what you are criticizing politicians for, then you and I do not agree. I think it is absolutely wonderful that so many Americans are excited about this president and want to go to Washington to see this inauguration.

Second, Who said the majority of politicians take private jets that are paid for with taxpayer money? Air Force One is paid for with taxpayer money, as it should be. Otherwise, I don't know where you come by your assumption that "the majority of them took private jets that were paid for by the taxpayers."

The only thing in your post that was paid for with taxpayer money is security for the inaugural. I agree, it is a shame that we live in a society where there needs to be that level of security. In my opinion, it is money well-spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, pimpin', do what ya gotta do.

I don't care one way or the other.

But, for someone who comes off so negatively about everything.....how do you expect anyone to actually expect anyone to listen to you? You posted an article that talked about the cost of OBAMA'S inaguration, and now you get into a snit because I responded to an article you posted THAT HAD THE MAN'S NAME IN THE DAMN THING?!

Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI I did not get into a snit about anything. You can think I did all you want but I didn't.

I got mad because I wanted to discuss somethign that was on my mind. You turned it into a political debate about who did what. That is the reason i hardly ever come in here.

I have been working ever since I came back here to avoid any thread you are in and now that I know you are in the political therads I won't come in here anymore. For that matter from here on out I have you on ignore. I hate to do that to anyone but everything you ever respond to me with is something negative and because of that I will stay away from you and ignore you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, the very same article said that inaugural celebrations are NOT paid for with taxpayer money. I think it's great that Obama has supporters -- and they are not corporate supporters -- who want to celebrate. I think it is absolutely wonderful that so many people are so excited about a president. If that is what you are criticizing politicians for, then you and I do not agree. I think it is absolutely wonderful that so many Americans are excited about this president and want to go to Washington to see this inauguration.

Second, Who said the majority of politicians take private jets that are paid for with taxpayer money? Air Force One is paid for with taxpayer money, as it should be. Otherwise, I don't know where you come by your assumption that "the majority of them took private jets that were paid for by the taxpayers."

The only thing in your post that was paid for with taxpayer money is security for the inaugural. I agree, it is a shame that we live in a society where there needs to be that level of security. In my opinion, it is money well-spent.

Jess my use of private jet was probably wrong. But I know in Tennessee and I think most of the states are the same but the Senators either here have private jets which they fuel up at the taxpayers expense or they fly "FIRST CLASS" and bill the taxpayers for it.

As to the last thing as I have said in some of these other posts I realized that Obama did not have something to do with all of this and I realized that not all of it was paid for by the taxpayers. As I have tried to explain over and over again it is the principle of the thing that when Americans are hurting it does not present a good example to see them partying and have to pay for larger expenses for security when we as a Nation can not afford and I don't care who was or is the President. The Security could be cut down by the staff not going out as much in public. If during this time they kept a lower profile the security would not be as high.

But that is all beside the point.

As to the other call me cynical on any of you.

But after 8 years of the Republicans criticizing Clinton for everything he did.

And 8 years of the Democrats criticizing the Bushs for everything they did.

I can't help but know that if McCain had won and this article was about him and what he and Cindy McCain were spending and all the partying that the shoe would be different. It wouldn't be about American's being excited for change and all that mess - it would be about how much they were spending in the face of a recessive economy.

And that is coming from someone who spent part of the last 8 years pointing fingers at the Bush family and their regime.

All I know is that I felt down about all this before I made my post. And now that it has been turned into yet another fight between the parties and all that [!@#$%^&*], my attitude is not any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fundraising

Preparations at the capitolUnlike in political campaigns, there are no legal restrictions on the amount that one can contribute to an inaugural celebration. The 2005 inauguration saw numerous corporations contribute $250,000 to George W. Bush's second inauguration, which cost an estimated $42.3 million,[12] while Obama's inauguration is expected to cost $40 million from Obama's Presidential Inaugural Committee[13] and "near $50 million" from the city.[14] As the costs have soared to over $150 million for the District and neighboring states[12] (another estimate[15] suggests $170 million or more in total), such as Maryland where the costs are over $11 million,[16] Barack Obama's inauguration committee (Penny Pritzker, John W. Rogers, Jr., Pat Ryan, William Daley and Julianna Smoot) set a $50,000 contribution limit to underscore their "commitment to change business as usual in Washington."[17] As of January 6, 2009, the committee had raised over $27 million and at least 378 people gave the maximum $50,000, including George Soros, Halle Berry, Jamie Foxx, Sharon Stone, Samuel L. Jackson, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Ron Howard, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis and Jim Henson's daughter Lisa Henson.[18] Although the committee is not accepting donations from PACs, federally registered lobbyists, or corporations,[19] they are accepting donations from individuals with active lobbying interest such as Google and Microsoft executives Eric Schmidt and Steve Ballmer, respectively.[18]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jess my use of private jet was probably wrong. But I know in Tennessee and I think most of the states are the same but the Senators either here have private jets which they fuel up at the taxpayers expense or they fly "FIRST CLASS" and bill the taxpayers for it.

As to the last thing as I have said in some of these other posts I realized that Obama did not have something to do with all of this and I realized that not all of it was paid for by the taxpayers. As I have tried to explain over and over again it is the principle of the thing that when Americans are hurting it does not present a good example to see them partying and have to pay for larger expenses for security when we as a Nation can not afford and I don't care who was or is the President. The Security could be cut down by the staff not going out as much in public. If during this time they kept a lower profile the security would not be as high.

But that is all beside the point.

As to the other call me cynical on any of you.

But after 8 years of the Republicans criticizing Clinton for everything he did.

And 8 years of the Democrats criticizing the Bushs for everything they did.

I can't help but know that if McCain had won and this article was about him and what he and Cindy McCain were spending and all the partying that the shoe would be different. It wouldn't be about American's being excited for change and all that mess - it would be about how much they were spending in the face of a recessive economy.

And that is coming from someone who spent part of the last 8 years pointing fingers at the Bush family and their regime.

All I know is that I felt down about all this before I made my post. And now that it has been turned into yet another fight between the parties and all that [!@#$%^&*], my attitude is not any better.

I think it's OK for America to celebrate right now. It will be the last time for a long time that we have much to celebrate. Hell, I think we ought to have the biggest celebration in the world for that pilot who landed the plane in the Hudson. We have spent so much time as a country being unhappy and negative that I'm glad that right now we can be positive. I don't think that the reaction would be any different if it were McCain. We all know things are bad and the celebration now is temporary, but that is OK. We need to smile. Let's celebrate.

Steve, I want to amend this post to add that I have other friends who also are concerned about the cost of the inauguration and whether it sends a bad message. We are all big Obama fans too. I don't think you are some bad guy for having these concerns. LOL. I just think the country needs a celebration and I'm glad we are happy -- for what will likely be a limited amount of time -- with our president.

Peace.

Edited by Jess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally wonder how many of these newly "political" people will actually last.

For example, mid-term elections have pretty low turnout, yet the course of the country can be changed just as easily during the years when the president is not elected. Do people really think they're going to vote in 2010? If they didn't like Bush, why didn't they vote in 2006?

And take the Georgia senate seat. During the re-vote, Chambliss won by what, 15%? Yet senators control a lot of what our country does and especially if democrats would've had 60. There is somethingcalled checks and balances and some don't realize that the president isn't the end all/be all.

Edited by bandbfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.