2005 inauguration attendance: 300,000

2009 inauguration attendance: 1.5-2.0 million

 

2005 inaugural cost/head = $40 million / 300,000 heads = $133/head

2009 inaugural cost/head = $160 million / 1,500,000 heads* = $107/head

 

*conservative attendance figure

 

 

The Bush 2005 inauguration cost/attendee was 25% higher. Relatively speaking, you could argue that few bothered to come see W get sworn in a second time, but the ones that did make the trip must have been lavished with $26 of extra "W Still the President" stickers.

 

Is a relative lack of popularity a virtue to be heralded now?

 

Better hold off on that. Last night they were saying a million might be a better estimate. Still, it was at least 3 times larger than 2005.

WOW! This is funny. I am listening to people who decried everything that Bush said or did, rationalize any negative comments about their man.

 

Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

Funny Stuff!

 

I said back in November conservatives were about to have some fun from the other side. Offense is much more fun than defense.

How much of this is being spent on security and how much of the spent funds are privately raised?

 

 

I don't care where the money came from, it is just wrong. How can you promise change and then allow this to happen when people are losing their jobs, homes, etc. and not think you will get some backlash. In his speech he spoke of responsibilty and accountability, where is his at? I just hope that he has a better plan than to just hand money out and not help the people who are suffering in this country.

I said back in November conservatives were about to have some fun from the other side. Offense is much more fun than defense.

 

WOW! I give you your props. So far the only change that I see is that Democrats are doing things that they decried not that long ago, and are excussing why it is OK now?!?!?!

I see that we now have a precise and statistically sound calculation of the cost of both the 2005 and 2009 inaugurations. :lol:

 

Of course, we both know that precision and accuracy are quite different, eh? There are attendance estimates floating around from 800,000 to 3 million and none of them have the type of statistical validity to justify the type of calculation that you did above. Your calculation may be accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus 50 or 100 percent but it is certainly a far cry from the authoritative final word.

 

BTW, you could inflate your numbers further by correcting the cost of the Bush inauguration. That cost was at least $57 million. I corrected the number that you cited in another post that you apparently did not read. The cost of security was apparently not included in the $40 million and according to the AP, the cost of security for the event was more than $17 million.

 

The bottom line is that in this economy, Obama should have shown some more leadership and scaled back the size of his coronation. He missed a golden opportunity to show the kind of shared sacrifice that liberals are so fond of talking about where Republicans are concerned. Obama missed a chance to walk the walk.

 

 

How do you "scale back" over a million people making the personal decision to travel to the inauguration? When you know over a million people are coming, is it wise to skimp on security and other costs associated with crowd control and just hope for the best?

 

I suppose we should all get used to these foolish petty criticisms. Through eight years of 'leadership', the GOP ran the country into a ditch financially, militarily, diplomatically, and Obama is being criticized because too many people showed up to see his swearing in.

How do you "scale back" over a million people making the personal decision to travel to the inauguration? When you know over a million people are coming, is it wise to skimp on security and other costs associated with crowd control and just hope for the best?

 

I suppose we should all get used to these foolish petty criticisms. Through eight years of 'leadership', the GOP ran the country into a ditch financially, militarily, diplomatically, and Obama is being criticized because too many people showed up to see his swearing in.

Another Obama thread turned into a Bush-bashing thread? Your guy is worse than my guy, nah nah nah nah nah! :lol:

 

Bush is no longer president and he is ineligible for another term. Better get used to playing defense for a change.

I agree with H. Although I think it is absolutely RIDICULOUS the amount of money spent by President Obama for his inauguration, I also see that it would have been impossible to "scale back" with all of the people who made their personal decision and have the right to attend. Better safe than sorry I suppose.

Here is a thought for those who maintain that nothing could have been done to have scaled back the size of the inaugural festivities. What if Obama had announced a couple of months ago that the inauguration would be held in the Capitol Rotunda? What if Obama had announced his intention of attending only five inaugural balls instead of ten? Would the cost to the taxpayers have been reduced?

Here is a thought for those who maintain that nothing could have been done to have scaled back the size of the inaugural festivities. What if Obama had announced a couple of months ago that the inauguration would be held in the Capitol Rotunda? What if Obama had announced his intention of attending only five inaugural balls instead of ten? Would the cost to the taxpayers have been reduced?

 

 

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.

Another Obama thread turned into a Bush-bashing thread? Your guy is worse than my guy, nah nah nah nah nah! :lol:

 

Bush is no longer president and he is ineligible for another term. Better get used to playing defense for a change.

 

 

OK, I'll find fault with Obama and the Democrats for the millions spent on the inauguration when you find fault with Bush and the Republicans for the trillions wasted due to inadequate market oversight, the Iraq war, and the lack of a coherent national energy policy.

 

* 1 trillion = 1 million millions

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?

OK, I'll find fault with the Obama and the Democrats for the millions spent on the inauguration when you find fault with Bush and the Republicans for the trillions wasted due to inadequate market oversight, the Iraq war, and the lack of a coherent national energy policy.

...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!

Edited January 22, 200917 yr by Hoot Gibson

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?

Great points. I would also add that I am puzzled why our "campaign finance reform" laws prohibit individual contributions to political candidates but do not address unlimited contributions for elected public officials to throw huge parties that require tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money being spent for security.

 

Is President Obama going to be less appreciative and less inclined to grant favorable access to Mr. Soros because he donated $250,000 toward the party fund than had Mr. Soros made the same contribution for the campaign?

 

The parallels between this country's elite ruling class and those of ancient Rome are becoming more apparent all the time. What's next, the Obama Fiesta Bowl? Maybe he can find private funding to have a stadium display his name in lights.

Here is a thought for those who maintain that nothing could have been done to have scaled back the size of the inaugural festivities. What if Obama had announced a couple of months ago that the inauguration would be held in the Capitol Rotunda? What if Obama had announced his intention of attending only five inaugural balls instead of ten? Would the cost to the taxpayers have been reduced?

 

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.

How do you "scale back" over a million people making the personal decision to travel to the inauguration? When you know over a million people are coming, is it wise to skimp on security and other costs associated with crowd control and just hope for the best?

 

I suppose we should all get used to these foolish petty criticisms. Through eight years of 'leadership', the GOP ran the country into a ditch financially, militarily, diplomatically, and Obama is being criticized because too many people showed up to see his swearing in.

 

If we aren't used to them by now, it's not going to happen. A statement like that needs to be time-warped back to c. 2005 AD.