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.

 

Ok, so do you mean to tax payers, the bottom line is it's still a boat load, and more money. I suppose if one does x amount of dollars then the other can do similar? We'll just blame it on inflation.:lol:

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.

 

Alright chief whatever you say. Shame you're stuck here posting and unable to attend the events. Should've asked for a handout, this administration has alot of folks convinced that's what they're going to do, just hand stuff out.

See bolded parts

 

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 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.

Ok, so do you mean to tax payers, the bottom line is it's still a boat load, and more money. I suppose if one does x amount of dollars then the other can do similar? We'll just blame it on inflation.:lol:

 

No, that is not what I am talking about at all. The $40 million dollar bill is not the final cost. Some of the expenses were left off that total.

 

The "if one does X" argument doesn't hold up unless you want to look at it proportionally. Four times as many spectators are predicted to be at this event than at the 2005 one. If we do go proportionally, using the $40 million (not total) estimate, multiply that by four and you get.....$160 million.

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.

 

Democrats are just that efficient I suppose. :lol:

See bolded parts

 

Ouch. (and fair)

 

Let me restate. I just find "what others are reporting to be true."

 

What I don't do is run with something just because it fits my politics.

No, that is not what I am talking about at all. The $40 million dollar bill is not the final cost. Some of the expenses were left off that total.

 

The "if one does X" argument doesn't hold up unless you want to look at it proportionally. Four times as many spectators are predicted to be at this event than at the 2005 one. If we do go proportionally, using the $40 million (not total) estimate, multiply that by four and you get.....$160 million.

 

That still doesn't add up. Just because 4x more are expected to be there, doesn't mean the cost has to be 4x more. There is a bottom line cost, regarless of who shows, sorry but your math is too simple now.

Ouch. (and fair)

 

Let me restate. I just find "what others are reporting to be true."

 

What I don't do is run with something just because it fits my politics.

 

 

 

Not that it matters, but I respect you a whole lot more for just conceding and saying ouch. lol

Ouch. (and fair)

 

Let me restate. I just find "what others are reporting to be true."

 

What I don't do is run with something just because it fits my politics.

 

:thumb:

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?

 

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?

 

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.

How should the first two bolded statements have been taken?

Ouch. (and fair)

 

Let me restate. I just find "what others are reporting to be true."

 

What I don't do is run with something just because it fits my politics.

:thumb:

 

I guess cold is faster then me and better. I missed the post he quoted.

That still doesn't add up. Just because 4x more are expected to be there, doesn't mean the cost has to be 4x more. There is a bottom line cost, regarless of who shows, sorry but your math is too simple now.

 

Thus the in my post. FWIW though, it is only reasonable that it would cost more for more people attending. Again, the $40 million is not the complete expense list.

Thus the in my post. FWIW though, it is only reasonable that it would cost more for more people attending. Again, the $40 million is not the complete expense list.

 

I quit, I've only slept about 8 hours in the past 60. I'm tapping out for now.

I quit, I've only slept about 8 hours in the past 60. I'm tapping out for now.

 

Does this mean that you :isurrender:? J/K...just wanted to use the new smilie!!!!!

Does this mean that you :isurrender:? J/K...just wanted to use the new smilie!!!!!

 

:ohbrother: