Jump to content

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


NEXT

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Isn't that where there is difference in the 2 issues that Rockmom has mentioned?

 

Clyde was pointing out the costs may not be apples to apples and your reply is about the media coverage (which is probably a very fair assessment).

Yes, but the two issues are related and really do not need to be addressed separately. Obama's actions are not constrained as much by public opinion as Bush's were because the media are among Obama's most rabid supporters. That is not likely to change anytime soon.

 

Losing its independent media is a serious development in any democracy. Not only is our media acting as Obama cheerleaders, Obama does not need to worry about how his actions will be viewed through the media lens. If there was a more adversarial relationship between Obama and his media, then there might have been some incentive to work within a tighter inaugural budget. Instead, the media has joined the "Party! Party! Party!" hysteria along with the Obama staff and supporters.

 

What is really scary is that there is now talk of a federal bailout some major media organizations. How much less independence among our media can this nation stand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the two issues are related and really do not need to be addressed separately. Obama's actions are not constrained as much by public opinion as Bush's were because the media are among Obama's most rabid supporters. That is not likely to change anytime soon.

 

Losing its independent media is a serious development in any democracy. Not only is our media acting as Obama cheerleaders, Obama does not need to worry about how his actions will be viewed through the media lens. If there was a more adversarial relationship between Obama and his media, then there might have been some incentive to work within a tighter inaugural budget. Instead, the media has joined the "Party! Party! Party!" hysteria along with the Obama staff and supporters.

 

What is really scary is that there is now talk of a federal bailout some major media organizations. How much less independence among our media can this nation stand?

I agree with your assessment of the media here, but sometimes the honeymoon can be over fast.They can turn on him in the blink of an eye.I suspect that various department heads have the job of putting this bash together and they simply tell their underlings to get it done. They are not given a choice and you could probably find some of the bills for this bash hidden under many different department budgets, even emergency purchases. I doubt there will ever be more than an estimate for the total cost . Probably done the same way for Bush.:thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The media does have a Liberal bias. Take the New York times for example that is always finding ways to find little things to criticize about the Right, and Fox News is the most superior of all news channels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the two issues are related and really do not need to be addressed separately. Obama's actions are not constrained as much by public opinion as Bush's were because the media are among Obama's most rabid supporters. That is not likely to change anytime soon.

 

Losing its independent media is a serious development in any democracy. Not only is our media acting as Obama cheerleaders, Obama does not need to worry about how his actions will be viewed through the media lens. If there was a more adversarial relationship between Obama and his media, then there might have been some incentive to work within a tighter inaugural budget. Instead, the media has joined the "Party! Party! Party!" hysteria along with the Obama staff and supporters.

 

What is really scary is that there is now talk of a federal bailout some major media organizations. How much less independence among our media can this nation stand?

 

 

:laugh: I liked that one Hoot. The 2 issues don't need to be seperated and then you spend the whole post talking about the media with little attention to cost comparisons.

 

I have yet to see if Clyde's issues are true or not. Did the 2005 number include security costs that week or not? If not, then one could see the numbers as closer together. Also, the crowd projected this week I believe is much larger than the one expected in 2005. Factor in inflation and a weakened dollar and you probably have some more difference.

 

I know some on here seem to dislike the "celebratory mood" of this inaugauration but I think we are missing the "difference" between this ceremony and any other one. I tried to point that out in my local paper's article in order to shed some light on Why. Agree or disagree if race should be a factor, it is to many of our American population and to those who did "fight" so long and hard for an equal footing, they see this as a validation of what can happen in this country when one pays the price to "change things" for the betterment of humanity.

 

Call it glurge or not but like my colleague Thurman Echols told me, "It makes all the things we did then seem to produce the fruit of equality in my lifetime." :thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you telling me Obama couldn't have put a limit on how many people we're to be allowed at this? After all, HBO is letting you watch it free, or you can go to one of the movies theaters to watch on the silver screen. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, YOU the American citizen aren't allowed to attend the inauguration for the first time in history. Not a positive way to start out his term.

 

I can't fault people for rather being part of history rather than simply watch it.

 

Also, you can't watch HBO for free. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was estimated that the security for 2005 cost about $115M which obviously is not in the $42M being reported.

 

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.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22427-2005Jan19.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html

 

400k to 500k people attended in 05. They're expecting 2M tomorrow.

 

You guys are usually aces at your research. What happened this time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was estimated that the security for 2005 cost about $115M which obviously is not in the $42M being reported.

 

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.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22427-2005Jan19.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html

 

400k to 500k people attended in 05. They're expecting 2M tomorrow.

 

You guys are usually aces at your research. What happened this time?

 

Thanks for the research Clyde. :thumb: I was curious to see if these figures were an "apples to apples" comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:laugh: I liked that one Hoot. The 2 issues don't need to be seperated and then you spend the whole post talking about the media with little attention to cost comparisons.

 

I have yet to see if Clyde's issues are true or not. Did the 2005 number include security costs that week or not? If not, then one could see the numbers as closer together. Also, the crowd projected this week I believe is much larger than the one expected in 2005. Factor in inflation and a weakened dollar and you probably have some more difference.

 

I know some on here seem to dislike the "celebratory mood" of this inaugauration but I think we are missing the "difference" between this ceremony and any other one. I tried to point that out in my local paper's article in order to shed some light on Why. Agree or disagree if race should be a factor, it is to many of our American population and to those who did "fight" so long and hard for an equal footing, they see this as a validation of what can happen in this country when one pays the price to "change things" for the betterment of humanity.

 

Call it glurge or not but like my colleague Thurman Echols told me, "It makes all the things we did then seem to produce the fruit of equality in my lifetime." :thumb:

 

Excellent post...I wish people could put aside their labels and disdain for ONE day and celebrate the history, regardless of what side of the aisle you are on.

 

I, too, would think that things cost more for more people. Didn't someone say that they are estimating four times the number that turned out in 2005? And we are seeing four times the cost? (Assuming the figures are actually true apples to apples comparisons.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was estimated that the security for 2005 cost about $115M which obviously is not in the $42M being reported.

 

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.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22427-2005Jan19.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html

 

400k to 500k people attended in 05. They're expecting 2M tomorrow.

 

You guys are usually aces at your research. What happened this time?

I tell you, I am shocked that security costs soar when a president plans a larger slate of events to celebrate his inauguration. Who would have suspected that this would be true? :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media does have a Liberal bias. Take the New York times for example that is always finding ways to find little things to criticize about the Right, and Fox News is the most superior of all news channels.
Note that Fox News ran the same AP story critical of the cost of Bush's 2005 inauguration as its liberal counterparts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tell you, I am shocked that security costs soar when a president plans a larger slate of events to celebrate his inauguration. Who would have suspected that this would be true? :rolleyes:

 

You're smarter than the above. I know that for a fact.

 

There is essentially no difference in cost between this inauguration and the one in 2005. Isn't that what people are screaming about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.