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

 

Neither do I. :sssh:

Neither do I. :sssh:

 

Oh, I understand now. I've heard this one before from someone I know. Point out illogical/incorrect thinking and you're "mean" and "nasty."

 

I've stated on here before that there aren't many people on here smarter than Hoot (and apparently his sons). However, he sometimes lets his heart/politics get in the way. I don't. I just find the facts .

 

Care to dispute that, Oh yeah?

Clyde is certainly not being mean or nasty. He is reporting facts. He does a better job of reporting facts without putting a spin on it than anyone.

 

As for any "insults"...are you serious? :lol:

Irregardless of who spent what when. If this was a republican inaugral, it would be an increduble scream by the media how horrible and rediculous the spending is. The same people defending Obama now would be singing an entirely different tune.

 

I thought Bush spent too much in 05 and I definitely think Obama is spending too much in 09. The funny thing is anybody irregardless of party or belief actually thinks this is ok.

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.

 

Maybe I missed something, what's funny math about $40 million as opposed to $160 million, other than the obvious $120 million difference which makes me question why the hell tax payers dollars are being spent this way?

Question I've not seen answered yet:

 

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

 

Here's one estimate.

 

http://www.newser.com/story/47836/inaugural-to-cost-record-160m.html

 

(Newser) – By the time Barack and Michelle Obama dance the last waltz at the inaugural balls in the wee hours next Wednesday morning, the total tab for the inauguration will be close to a record $160 million, reports the New York Daily News. The president-elect is raising $45 million in private funds to help pay for the extravaganza, but most costs will be borne by taxpayers.

Maybe I missed something, what's funny math about $40 million as opposed to $160 million, other than the obvious $120 million difference which makes me question why the hell tax payers dollars are being spent this way?

 

If you've read along you will see that by some accounts there is no noticeable difference between the 09 and 05 actual expenditures. The only difference is the lack of knowledge of the facts or the actual bias of the reporting. I'm going with lack of knowledge.

 

Secondly, unless you are going to tell people they can't show up for the inauguration I'm not sure how exactly you lower the monstrous security bill.

 

If the reports are true that the ball itself and the other parties are around $40 to $50 M (like in 05) then that's covered by private donations ie no taxpayer dollars.

Oh, I understand now. I've heard this one before from someone I know. Point out illogical/incorrect thinking and you're "mean" and "nasty."

 

I've stated on here before that there aren't many people on here smarter than Hoot (and apparently his sons). However, he sometimes lets his heart/politics get in the way. I don't. I just find the facts .

 

Care to dispute that, Oh yeah?

Here is the problem. You posted one set of figures and called them fact. Hoot posted a different set and called it fact. What makes your figures more of a "fact" then what he posted?

 

And I honestly don't know which is correct. I do however have a hard time believing that Bush had 1 1/2 million less people then is expected for Obama yet the security costs are almost the same.

Oh, I understand now. I've heard this one before from someone I know. Point out illogical/incorrect thinking and you're "mean" and "nasty."

 

I've stated on here before that there aren't many people on here smarter than Hoot (and apparently his sons). However, he sometimes lets his heart/politics get in the way. I don't. I just find the facts .

 

Care to dispute that, Oh yeah?

 

 

I don't, because I have to go to work . But I'm sure I'll get an opportunity to at a later date.

Maybe I missed something, what's funny math about $40 million as opposed to $160 million, other than the obvious $120 million difference which makes me question why the hell tax payers dollars are being spent this way?

 

If you were comparing two itemized lists, $40 million vs. $160 million would be the bottom line. However, that's not the case. The $40 million did not include expenses that are included under the $160 million.

 

See some of the above posts for links.

Here is the problem. You posted one set of figures and called them fact. Hoot posted a different set and called it fact. What makes your figures more of a "fact" then what he posted?

 

.

 

I stated it as "fact?" I must have missed that.

 

Or did I state that it was "reported?"

 

I don't think Hoot stated it was "fact" either. He reported an AP figure.

 

The only time I remember using "fact" was as a testment to Hoot's intelligence.

Here is the problem. You posted one set of figures and called them fact. Hoot posted a different set and called it fact. What makes your figures more of a "fact" then what he posted?

 

And I honestly don't know which is correct. I do however have a hard time believing that Bush had 1 1/2 million less people then is expected for Obama yet the security costs are almost the same.

 

On the bolded, I agree - it is understandable that more people would result in a larger security cost.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6023.shtml

 

 

The High Cost of Bush's Second Term

By Staff and Wire Reports

Jan 13, 2005, 4:14:00 AM

 

It will take President Bush less than a minute to take the oath of office next Thursday, but before the inaugural events are over some $40 million may be spent on parades, parties and pyrotechnics.

And that doesn't include the costs of the most intense security operation in inaugural history.

 

The amount spent on this year's festivities will rival the $40 million raised to celebrate Bush's first inauguration in 2001, and will exceed the $33 million spent by President Clinton in 1993 when Democrats returned to the White House for the first time in 12 years.

 

While the partying is being paid for privately, there have been some mutterings about the scale of the celebrations at a time of war and natural disaster.

 

 

D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams has estimated it will cost the district $17.3 million to help pay for security at the first post-Sept. 11 inauguration, which includes 6,000 law officers and 2,500 military personnel to guard the 250,000 people at the swearing-in and the half-million expected to line the parade route.

And I honestly don't know which is correct. I do however have a hard time believing that Bush had 1 1/2 million less people then is expected for Obama yet the security costs are almost the same.

 

Which gets to what may have been my original question in this thread: who came up with this figure that is being bantered about?

I still have to go back with what Rockmom said about 50 posts ago. This thread has two branches - the media bias and the need vs. extravagence of the expense of the event.