Obama's inauguration is most expensive ever at $160 million

[H]

...and the Bush bashing tangent continues only the bashing has been escalated to include the evil Republicans. Rather than responding in this thread, I will respectfully decline But thanks for the offer just the same!

 

 

That's about what I thought. Stone silent during the eight years when trillions of dollars (as well as our childrens' birthright) were squandered through GOP incompetence, and now yapping like an ankle dog at the relative pittance spent on an inauguration.

 

My grandmother (a Republican) had a saying that I think is the perfect slogan for the modern Republican Party:

 

Penny Wise and Pound Foolish

[H]

Here's one reason...

 

Had Obama chosen to move the inauguration, the right would have pounced with a different argument. Something along the lines of how he's making his own rules and how he thinks he's above the old standard or something.

 

Just a guess.

 

 

Exactly. I can imagine Rush Limbaugh melodramatically huffing about how Obama "was trashing the time-honored traditions of the Republic" or some such nonsense.

[5wide]

That's about what I thought. Stone sillent during the eight years when trillions of dollars (as well as our childrens' birthright) were squandered through GOP incompetence, and now yapping like an ankle dog at the relative pittance spent on an inauguration.

 

My grandmother (a Republican) had a saying that I think is the perfect slogan for the modern Republican Party:

 

Penny Wise and Pound Foolish

 

I do find it amusing that the same people who were talking up the Bush Bailout and how it had to be done are now criticizing Obama's proposal to do something similar.

 

Why was it paramount that we pump more money into the economy ~6 months ago and it's completely ridiculous and unacceptable to do so now?

 

Many right wing pundits are going to have a wobbly leg to stand on if they try to criticize Obama for expanding government and big spending.

 

JMO

[5wide]

Exactly. I can imagine Rush Limbaugh melodramatically huffing about how Obama "was trashing the time-honored traditions of the Republic" or some such nonsense.

 

Same image I had in my mind...except I was envisioning Hannity...:lol:

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, I'm not here to disput whether or not he should have. I still don't know the things I need to know in order to make that decision.

 

And, to me, they make a difference.

 

Here's why.

 

If the bulk of the expenditures were for security, I'm not at all sure the expenses could responsibly be reduced. Even if the inauguration were held in the Rotunda, if the anticipated influx of people to be in town for the inauguration were at the 1.5M level, there is still the responsibility to provide security to not only control the crowds, but to protect the DC citizens.

 

If the balls were paid for by private donations, I don't think that there's anything wrong with having 1 or 100. That money was privately spent.

 

One could argue that whomever footed the bill, it stimulated the economy by providing work for banquet set up people, caterers, servers, bands, photographers, limo drivers, taxi drivers, hotels, airlines....

 

I know you argue it makes no difference what the total spent by Bush was, and whether the comparisons are apples to apples. But, to me it does.

And the hypocrisy of the criticism of Bush for the cost of the 2005 inauguration vs. the same media's fawning over Obama and his 2009 extravaganza matters to me. The Obama inauguration received 35 times as much coverage as the 2005 inauguration. Most of the Obama coverage was positive and much of the Bush coverage was negative.

 

The security costs for Obama attending 1 or 100 balls would be quite different. The bigger the private celebrations, the bigger the bill to taxpayers to provide security to those events.

 

Why do private donations made to host inaugural events not bother you? Do you not favor campaign finance laws that limit individual contributions? I think that all donations by American citizens to public servants and political candidates, whether for a campaign or a birthday party, should be legal regardless of size as long as the source of the donations is promptly made public.

 

However, I do not understand how one can be bothered by one type of donation and not by the other. People make large political donations to buy influence, regardless of whether the donation is made before or after an election.

[Hoot Gibson]

Exactly. I can imagine Rush Limbaugh melodramatically huffing about how Obama "was trashing the time-honored traditions of the Republic" or some such nonsense.

Obama would not have been the first to hold the inauguration indoors and he would not have been the last.

[rockmom]

And the hypocrisy of the criticism of Bush for the 2005 inauguration vs. the media fawning over Obama and his 2009 extravaganza matters to me.

 

The security costs for Obama attending 1 or 100 balls would be quite different. The bigger the private celebrations, the bigger the bill to taxpayers to provide security to those events.

Acknowledged.

 

Why do private donations made to host inaugural events not bother you? Do you not favor campaign finance laws that limit individual contributions? I think that all donations by American citizens to public servants and political candidates, whether for a campaign or a birthday party, should be legal regardless of size as long as the source of the donations is promptly made public.

Private donations do not bother me, because it's a person's choice to spend their money as they see fit. Obama limited the donations to a maximum of $50K, if I remeber correctly. All though a great deal of money, it's less than the $250K cap of Bush, which is neither here nor there. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to give their money, have at it. If you care to look, Obama's contributors of donations more than $200 is online.

 

 

However, I do not understand how one can be bothered by one type of donation and not by the other. People make large political donations to buy influence, regardless of whether the donation is made before or after an election.

Personally, I'm not bothered by donations. I'm bothered by favors bestowed based on donations.

[Hoot Gibson]

Acknowledged.

 

Private donations do not bother me, because it's a person's choice to spend their money as they see fit. Obama limited the donations to a maximum of $50K, if I remeber correctly. All though a great deal of money, it's less than the $250K cap of Bush, which is neither here nor there. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to give their money, have at it. If you care to look, Obama's contributors of donations more than $200 is online.

Soros contributed $250,000 to the inaugural fund. Obama has not posted the names of the so-called individuals who donated less than $200, the aggregate of which totaled more than $200 million. The Obama campaign also disabled credit card security to avoid detecting fraudulent donor name and address information. The truth is, nobody really knows who donated that $200 million and nobody ever will.

 

 

Personally, I'm not bothered by donations. I'm bothered by favors bestowed based on donations.

Sunlight is the best remedy for political corruption. I agree that the donations are not the problem, which is why I favor scrapping all campaign finance regulations but requiring full disclosure of every donation, including those under $200. Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent one individual or even a foreign government from funnelling large donations to candidates using multiple bogus names and addresses.

[cch5432]

I think it is worth noting that many that would generally support taxes on businesses and higher-income people in this thread have expressed the idea that "it is OK if the money was privately raised." I find it all too ironic that private money is OK for a huge inauguration ceremony, but not OK for businesses to run themselves or people to spend their own earned money.

 

 

If President Obama believes that it is right for the United States to levy huge taxes on high-income individuals, would it not also be consistent of him to, rather than spend all of this, to commit to it the government's better use towards education, welfare, and other "poverty-fighting" mechanisms?

 

Does anyone know why it is OK for President Obama to levy taxes against the rich of our country, yet have elaborate parties (I believe around 10 of them) for himself? Should he not criticize those who threw those parties for him, considering that it is their duty as Americans to give it to the government to level the playing field?