copperhead Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush-declares-state-emergency-Washington-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88lx5oh Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 ridiculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bahd-ler Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 not surprising, not at all surprising Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex1647545498 Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Aren't people paying major $'s for tickets to see this thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragknee66 Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Terrible. So many things about him are just shady as hell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Terrible. So many things about him are just shady as hell I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. It seems like almost every single person this guy surrounds himself with, or nominates to a position, has got some kind of corrupt background. Of course, he's a politician from Chicago, which IIRC, is one of, if not the most corrupt cities in the U.S. I'm not really that surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 What was so shady about him in this article? Or are you guys just saying in general? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 What was so shady about him in this article? Or are you guys just saying in general? I think almost all politicians, in general, are shady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted January 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 What was so shady about him in this article? Or are you guys just saying in general? 2005 - Dems are throwing a fit that W's inaguration cost $50 mil 2009 - Dems more than double that amount for Nobama's inaguration, right smack dab in the middle of the worst economy of my lifetime hip o crits Lets throw away even more taxpayer money oh, and Alex....its illegal to charge for tickets to this thing. People were getting in trouble for trying to sell tickets they got for free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bahd-ler Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. It seems like almost every single person this guy surrounds himself with, or nominates to a position, has got some kind of corrupt background. Of course, he's a politician from Chicago, which IIRC, is one of, if not the most corrupt cities in the U.S. I'm not really that surprised. x3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I think almost all politicians, in general, are shady. I believe it's a prerequisite for the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceGhost Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 I'm off work that day so I will watch in HD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 2005 - Dems are throwing a fit that W's inaguration cost $50 mil 2009 - Dems more than double that amount for Nobama's inaguration, right smack dab in the middle of the worst economy of my lifetime hip o crits Lets throw away even more taxpayer money oh, and Alex....its illegal to charge for tickets to this thing. People were getting in trouble for trying to sell tickets they got for free Did you read AND comprehend the entire article or just the parts useful to you? It stated that a very large portion (and pretty much why it's so high) is due to the amount of security needed over what Bush needed. Not to mention, and this is my educated opinion: Costs are higher, now. It's 8 years later. I'll touch on that one a bit more. Bush's admin helped with that. They racked up a 10trillion dollar debt. THe economy is in ruins supposedly and things are going to cost more. More people are expected to attend, more crazies are expected to attend, it's a hisotrical event. Should anything cost that much? Are the Dems saints? Are the Republicans? Are you an idiot for putting your faith in either one so fully that you forgot your honor is to your country and not a particular "side" of the same corroded coin? The answers to most of these questions is, "No." All but one. Can you guess which one? Guess what people? THe Bush admin fucked things up, whether they meant to or not is irrelevant. Obama admin is here now. Do you love and support your country? Well, until Obama proves otherwise, quite being whiny, get positive, show some support for your country and quit making assumptions. It's frightening to see people who are so caught up in this red/blue shit, they're willing to bash a government that's yet to have the time to prove itself and support one that failed so miserably. I say, let's just see how this thing turns out. I'm not about who's side is who's, but who can accomplish what. Republican or Democrat or 3rd party, someone do something right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draco-REX Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Yeah, just a little slant there. I'm pretty sure they make a new limo for each new president. I don't see the issue there. And if you don't think this is going to be a record turnout for an inauguration, you're fooling yourself. And this is DC we're talking about. Not exactly the friendliest city. Might I also point out that it was Bush that declared the state of emergency. From the article:In doing so he paved the way for unlimited funding to be released to those local authorities responsible for staging the event. So let's be real, people. It's not just the dems that are spending. I know a lot of you find "CHANGE!" so annoying, but please realize that the petty sniping is just as annoying and child-like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustlestiltskin Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 fucking idiots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted January 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090117/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_spending ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS Think I could get an extra grand back on my tax return? No? Didn't think so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurkvinny Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Did you read AND comprehend the entire article or just the parts useful to you? It's 8 years later. 2009 - 2005 != 8 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 2009 - 2005 != 8 years. lol You misunderstood. And since when do we go back in time? (See how I used sarcasm to prove my point?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Did you read AND comprehend the entire article or just the parts useful to you? It stated that a very large portion (and pretty much why it's so high) is due to the amount of security needed over what Bush needed. Only $15 million from what I read is being used for security. So that's 10% of the $150mil where is the rest going? I see this cost going up though because the $15mil is what was spent before Bush instated the emergency basically giving the Dem controlled Congress unlimited funding for this thing. Sorry but preaching change and how he is gonna turn the economy right around and be our savior and yada yada yada, then he is gonna dump $150mil of tax dollars on his inauguration just kinda seems to set the tempo for what he is gonna do for this country. So Bush spent $50mil and Dems got all pissy about it, and he racked up $10 trillion is debt, so would it be safe to assume Obama will rack up $30 Trillion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Only $15 million from what I read is being used for security. So that's 10% of the $150mil where is the rest going? I see this cost going up though because the $15mil is what was spent before Bush instated the emergency basically giving the Dem controlled Congress unlimited funding for this thing. Sorry but preaching change and how he is gonna turn the economy right around and be our savior and yada yada yada, then he is gonna dump $150mil of tax dollars on his inauguration just kinda seems to set the tempo for what he is gonna do for this country. So Bush spent $50mil and Dems got all pissy about it, and he racked up $10 trillion is debt, so would it be safe to assume Obama will rack up $30 Trillion? Possibly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 (edited) I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. It seems like almost every single person this guy surrounds himself with, or nominates to a position, has got some kind of corrupt background. Of course, he's a politician from Chicago, which IIRC, is one of, if not the most corrupt cities in the U.S. I'm not really that surprised. So you're saying he's got allot in common with W? 2005 - Dems are throwing a fit that W's inaguration cost $50 mil 2009 - Dems more than double that amount for Nobama's inaguration, right smack dab in the middle of the worst economy of my lifetime Lets throw away even more taxpayer money Umm.... how much of this is being funded by donations? Evryone goes on about taxpayers and the party... can any of you actually show us how much the Fed actually had to cover? It's funded by rich idiots... and poor ones as well. I generally like conservatives, the country would suck if not for some ideological diversity.... but for fuck sake, stop bitching. Sore Losers reaching desperately for anything they can find to throw dirt at the guy. You're lamenting the loss of a guy who the head of the Justice Department called "The most impeachable president in history", your glass house has long since shattered. W raised a bit over $40million for his last inauguration. Capped at $250,000 donations, 90% still came from CEO's of corporations. Obama has capped it at $50,000 donations, but I can't find a up-to-date source on what he's collected thus far. He raised $600+million dollars for his campaign, most of which was $200 or less at a time. Also, comparing Bush's to Obamas hasn't been accurately protrayed in the media: Leading up to President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony, several media outlets have advanced the claim that Obama's inauguration will cost significantly more than President Bush's 2005 inauguration. Citing "estimates" ranging from $150 million to $170 million in total costs for Obama's inaugural events, the outlets have compared the purported total costs in 2009 to the approximately $42 million in private funds spent on Bush's 2005 inauguration. However, these outlets omit the additional costs of security, transportation, and other expenses incurred by federal, state, and local governments in conjunction with the events in 2005 while including them in the projections for the 2009 events. Yeah, STFU Edited January 20, 2009 by Science Abuse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 $150 million dollar spinners. CHANGE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted January 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Eric, second link, third paragraph Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill. $41 million out of at least $150 million. Minimum of $109 million out of taxpayers pockets. And Eric, this thread has nothing to do with Bush other than a small comparison made to show how the attitudes of certain Dems have changed now that it's their turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Eric, second link, third paragraph $41 million out of at least $150 million. Minimum of $109 million out of taxpayers pockets. And Eric, this thread has nothing to do with Bush... Youmentioned him before I did. The whole problem with the dollar amount is based on how it compared with other inaugurations, the mot recent and expensive being 2005. Point; It was not accurately compared to 2005. No doubt it's been the most expensive, because it's had the highest turnout... by far. But it was most certainly not tripple the cost of 2005: 2005: The federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers." Add that to his private funds (42m) and you've got the total... not looking so extravigant now, is it? In the comming month or two, the grand cost for 2009 should be determined and made public. The attitude of allot of people on both side has changed since the election. It's childish horseshit, either "Yay we're in charge, party!" or "Mutherfuckers, i'm devoting all my time tofinding reasons to bash them". It's not news, it's history repeating itself. The only difference this time, is that things are actually a little different. We've not only guy a black president, but there are a number of politicians on the right that seem williing and even eager to work with left now (of course, the pundits are biching). This is setting up to be a productive 4 (8?) years. Oh hey, don't forget, all of that money is being spent in the US, going back into out economy. Maybe we shouldn't give these guys a hard time for partying up at their inaugurations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupraGlue Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Oh hey, don't forget, all of that money is being spent in the US, going back into out economy. Maybe we shouldn't give these guys a hard time for partying up at their inaugurations. Congratulations. You understand Mike's point. The anti-Bush crowd DID give Bush a hard time for a less-lavish inauguration than this one primarily because they were butt-hurt when Kerry lost. I have no problems with the Obamoids partying it up, I'd just like to hear someone say "Oops, I guess it is a little different when the kegs are for your guy. Sorry, dudes." Try to keep your opinion in mind when we're throwing the inauguration party for President Palin, by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.