Question I've not seen answered yet:

 

Who's footing the bill for the $160M?

There is a difference in $58 million ($40 million plus

 

I've already shown a report that says the estimated security cost in 05 was $115M which added onto the $40M brings the total to about $155M. Where does your $58M come from?

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.

 

...

 

 

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?

 

LINK

I've already shown a report that says the estimated security cost in 05 was $115M which added onto the $40M brings the total to about $155M. Where does your $58M come from?

From the 2005 AP story.

Lawmakers representing the Washington area have complained to the White House about the District of Columbia not getting enough federal help to cover the estimated $17.3 million security costs of the inaugural.

My number should have been $57 million instead of $58 million.

From the 2005 AP story.

My number should have been $57 million instead of $58 million.

 

Got a link?

 

Because I've found one that says they spent $117 million on security that year.

From the 2005 AP story.

My number should have been $57 million instead of $58 million.

 

You don't think there are other costs to other govt bodies than just the DC local govt?

 

Secondly, you don't think there is more security needed for 2.5M estimated people than 400k people?

You don't think there are other costs to other govt bodies than just the DC local govt?

 

Secondly, you don't think there is more security needed for 2.5M estimated people than 400k people?

Of course more security is required for a larger crowd, although the additional cost is not necessarily directly proportional to the number of attendees.

 

If the AP thought $40 million was too much for a Bush inaugural, then one would expect a media doing their job to be consistent and criticize the spending an estimated $160 million for an Obama inauguration.

 

The events should have been scaled back and nothing that you say will convince me otherwise.

Of course more security is required for a larger crowd, although the additional cost is not necessarily directly proportional to the number of attendees.

 

If the AP thought $40 million was too much for a Bush inaugural, then one would expect a media doing their job to be consistent and criticize the spending an estimated $160 million for an Obama inauguration.

 

The events should have been scaled back and nothing that you say will convince me otherwise.

 

I'm not arguing about the size of the events.

 

I am arguing that anyone who uses funny math to try to say one way outspent the other is either ignorant of the facts or hoping no one points them out.

Regardless of the cost comparisons, an effort should of been made to scale back the cost of the inauguration.

I love this, really.

I'm not arguing about the size of the events.

 

I am arguing that anyone who uses funny math to try to say one way outspent the other is either ignorant of the facts or hoping no one points them out.

Find somebody else to insult, Clyde. I am finished debating this issue with you. My numbers came from the AP, a source normally trusted by liberals. Apparently liberals no longer trust the AP and I just did not get the memo. My mistake.

Find somebody else to insult, Clyde. I am finished debating this issue with you. My numbers came from the AP, a source normally trusted by liberals. Apparently liberals no longer trust the AP and I just did not get the memo. My mistake.

 

Ahh, the old tried and true.

Why do some people constantly have to be negative and nasty? Just don't get it .

 

I STILL think this is hilarious.

Question I've not seen answered yet:

 

Who's footing the bill for the $160M?

 

Part of it is through donations. Part of it is by taxpayers.

Why do some people constantly have to be negative and nasty? Just don't get it .

 

I STILL think this is hilarious.

 

I don't think Hoot is being nasty at all.