The cost of Bush's inauguration in 2005 is more comparable to Obama's than most may think. The cost of Bush's last inauguration did not include the cost of security, this has been the way the figures have been in the past, until this year. This year also includes the need for extra security, for obvious reasons, one being the estimated 1.6 to 2 million people expected in DC today for the inauguration. Over 25,000 in the security force, a bit more than more recent inaugurations.

 

Like it or not, and some can't stand it, history is being made today! The extra security is needed, even with the extra security ect, the cost is comparable to Bush in 2005.

 

I don't care if it's a democrat or a republican, an inauguration is something special, and this one is a bit more special, again for obvious reasons.

As far as the parties and ball's, I am not sure who pay's for that bill.

Most of it is from the private donations, as was Bush's.

I think costs that are related to the size of the turnout to witness the event are completely appropriate. By that I mean the costs of police/security and of handling such a large crowd (port-o-potties, trash cleanup, barricades, public address systems, etc.). I haven't seen a breakdown of the costs to understand where the money is being spent.

The cost of Bush's inauguration in 2005 is more comparable to Obama's than most may think. The cost of Bush's last inauguration did not include the cost of security, this has been the way the figures have been in the past, until this year. This year also includes the need for extra security, for obvious reasons, one being the estimated 1.6 to 2 million people expected in DC today for the inauguration. Over 25,000 in the security force, a bit more than more recent inaugurations.

 

Like it or not, and some can't stand it, history is being made today! The extra security is needed, even with the extra security ect, the cost is comparable to Bush in 2005.

 

I don't care if it's a democrat or a republican, an inauguration is something special, and this one is a bit more special, again for obvious reasons.

You know, I read the same thing but I couldn't find one single source that could give the total cost for the 05 inauguration. All I read said the donations were comparable at $40+ million but nothing on what the additional cost were for Bush. We know this will cost the taxpayers roughly $120-$130 million but what was the price tag in 05 to the taxpayers?

Complaining about excessive security for the POTUS when Britney Spears can shut down half of LAPD when she goes for a car ride to a custody hearing.

It was excessive for Bush's inauguration to cost $43,000,000, but when the liberals win, it is OK to spend $145,000,000. The same liberals complain about global warming, but insteasd of following their own beliefs, they burn up a whole bunch of fuel to go to DC. Another case of do as we say, not as we do.

It was excessive for Bush's inauguration to cost $43,000,000, but when the liberals win, it is OK to spend $145,000,000. The same liberals complain about global warming, but insteasd of following their own beliefs, they burn up a whole bunch of fuel to go to DC. Another case of do as we say, not as we do.

 

As stated above, you might need to check those totals.

It was excessive for Bush's inauguration to cost $43,000,000, but when the liberals win, it is OK to spend $145,000,000. The same liberals complain about global warming, but insteasd of following their own beliefs, they burn up a whole bunch of fuel to go to DC. Another case of do as we say, not as we do.

Excellent point on the global warming hypocrisy demonstrated today. I wonder when we will see the mainstream media publish and estimate of the tons of CO2 belched into the atmosphere as a result of today's festivities. That carbon footprint is sure to make even Al Gore's big foot seem puny. :lol:

Once again, instead of sticking to determining the facts or misstated "facts" of the expense of each campaign, including exactly what's being spent, on what, and by whom, and if each set of figures is correct, a diversionary tactic is introduced to be used as support of one's position.

 

 

(That is the longest run-on sentence I've ever personally typed)

Exactly, RM. The same tactics get old, huh? :lol:

Jet fuel, diesel, and gasoline costs money. These costs only seem to be worth mentioning when Republicans are wasting resources. The environmental costs only seem relevant when they are not being incurred by liberals.

Delete

Edited January 21, 200917 yr by Hoot Gibson

As much as I don't like him, I'll say yes because it is a monumental moment for our country to have a minority President and that should be celebrated even if tomorrow I'll be right back at his throat.

As stated above, you might need to check those totals.

 

Last night I saw one news story where the cost was $175,000,000.

I assume you want to take into account $ for protection. Then how much do we take off for the 2004 inauguration protection? The theme of this thread is really about the hyprocisy of liberals. They complain about their opposition, but when it is their turn it is OK to spend or do something, because, afterall they are so much more smarter than the average American. Elitism strikes again.

Last night I saw one news story where the cost was $175,000,000.

I assume you want to take into account $ for protection. Then how much do we take off for the 2004 inauguration protection? The theme of this thread is really about the hyprocisy of liberals. They complain about their opposition, but when it is their turn it is OK to spend or do something, because, afterall they are so much more smarter than the average American. Elitism strikes again.

 

Again, I recommend that you read the information provided in this thread. The origninal figures of $160 million and $40 million are not an apples to apples comparision, as the $40 million does not have figured in some of the expenses that the $160 million does. Make them represent equal things and I would be happy to make a comparision. To do otherwise would lead one to incorrect conclusions.

Edited January 21, 200917 yr by True blue (and gold)
Corrected, per Hoot's post that follows.