However, go back and research how much previous inaugurations cost. Include the costs for security, transportation, and other tangents such as hospitality, labor, etc.

 

In my searches, I've found that the cost for Obama's inauguration are comparable to Bush and Clinton.

 

Are the economic times comparable?

We are told that these times might be as worse as the 30's. Is appropriate to be spending that much money when others are losing their homes? Many of his supporters in November might not be able to watch it because they have lost their home.

However, go back and research how much previous inaugurations cost. Include the costs for security, transportation, and other tangents such as hospitality, labor, etc.

 

In my searches, I've found that the cost for Obama's inauguration are comparable to Bush and Clinton.

 

I understand that but for how much he stressed saving money and getting us out of this mess you would think he would tune it down some

I understand that but for how much he stressed saving money and getting us out of this mess you would think he would tune it down some

 

 

Well, I guess you can look at it two ways.

 

The first, a toned down inauguration is in order because the economy is bad.

 

But, one estimate I read had ~$42M as a figure in private donations. I also read the committee got ~$5M toward production costs. I haven't been able to find a full listing of money in, vs. money out.

 

The second way to look at it is that this is an histroic inauguration. It's also a celebration of not only our democratic process, but in the achievments of America.

It should be toned down. People are losing their jobs. I haven't seen the economy like this for a long time. Yes, there is a reason for celebration, however at the same time American workers can't pay for basic necessities. The food banks in Cincinnati and NKY were running out of food in December.

It should be toned down. People are losing their jobs. I haven't seen the economy like this for a long time. Yes, there is a reason for celebration, however at the same time American workers can't pay for basic necessities.

 

What part should be toned down?

 

I'm not even sure what all goes on, so this is a serious question.

 

Also, they're anticipating millions to be there. Do you feel people should not go?

Regardless of whether or not you agree with Obama's politics, the inauguration of our first African American President is historic. The huge numbers of people expected to turn out for the swearing in ceremony, are not under his control. President Bush has declared a state of emergency for the District of Columbia, so that they can recoup some of their security related costs. This is in addition to the 15 million dollars approved by Congress for security.

What part should be toned down?

 

I'm not even sure what all goes on, so this is a serious question.

 

Also, they're anticipating millions to be there. Do you feel people should not go?

 

Oh no, people should go. A high school in our area are sending junior's and senior's. The student's don't have tickets and will be watching from monitor's in the mall area. It's a great historical event, and they will also be touring museums. I guess the bottom line for me is the cost of the event when we have people in shelters with no warm sox, gloves and coats.

Oh no, people should go. A high school in our area are sending junior's and senior's. The student's don't have tickets and will be watching from monitor's in the mall area. It's a great historical event, and they will also be touring museums. I guess the bottom line for me is the cost of the event when we have people in shelters with no warm sox, gloves and coats.

 

 

I understand your last sentiment. And, it's hard for me to dispute or affirm any thoughts people may have about what's appropriate, because I don't know the breakdown of costs or where the money's coming from.

 

One article I read said over 42M had been raised in private donations. So, if ~$120 is on security, I'm not sure it's out of proportion to previous inauguriations.

Oh no, people should go. A high school in our area are sending junior's and senior's. The student's don't have tickets and will be watching from monitor's in the mall area. It's a great historical event, and they will also be touring museums. I guess the bottom line for me is the cost of the event when we have people in shelters with no warm sox, gloves and coats.

 

I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to help those that are in a bad situation.

 

However, if as you say, people should go - and 4 times the number that went in 2005 are going - don't they need security?

 

Two additional things that are not directed specifically to GaViking:

 

1) Where does the excess come in? What are the excessive items? For me, I do not count security as excess.

 

2) For those of us that are concerned about the plight of those that are losing their homes and jobs, what is to keep us from helping supply those items that they need? We had a lengthy thread on how we don't want out tax dollars giving handouts, that we want churches and private organizations to do that. So, I assume that we wouldn't want this money to go there anyway.

I'm not sure what the cost will be for security - that's got to be a given for both families. As far as the parties and ball's, I am not sure who pay's for that bill.

It should be toned down. People are losing their jobs. I haven't seen the economy like this for a long time. Yes, there is a reason for celebration, however at the same time American workers can't pay for basic necessities. The food banks in Cincinnati and NKY were running out of food in December.

 

I understand your sentiment. But to be honest we had double digit unemployment in my area for the last 2 inaugurations and I didn't see the same sympathy from any then. :idunno:

I understand your sentiment. But to be honest we had double digit unemployment in my area for the last 2 inaugurations and I didn't see the same sympathy from any then. :idunno:

 

Sorry to hear this Hatz.

I think the cost is excessive. I'm fine with a huge turnout and increase in cost to deal with it, but it seems there is a degree of extravagance that is superfluous, especially considering the economic climate. But, at the end of the day I'm probably not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

Yep, that's me too.

I think the cost is excessive. I'm fine with a huge turnout and increase in cost to deal with it, but it seems there is a degree of extravagance that is superfluous, especially considering the economic climate. But, at the end of the day I'm probably not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

Sounds like a good answer.:thumb:

He ran on CHANGE, not more of the SAME. Didn't he! !:rolleyes: