Presidential inauguration to cost 170 million

[got tonkaed]

While you can argue that the New Deal was or was not successful, it certainly wasnt a smash hit after all, what exactly do you think the way out of that depression was going to be if there wasnt something as nationally mobilizing of resources as a world war was?

Obviously the best course of action would have been to elect a senator with little experience to President to redistribute the wealth of the country.

First and foremost, every president redistributes wealth to some degree, unless they just hang off the coat tails of the previous administrations tax code. Dont use over politicize your terminology. And yes it would be a disaster if Obama massively redistrubted wealth in a way that entirely deincentivized business. I dont think that will happen of course but you have every right to claim the sky is falling because of whatever it is you dont actually like about his policies.

As was the case during the campaign, ill be happy to go through economic policy with you if there are talking points your interested in. But if your just going to throw around "redistribution!" any time we shift away from Bush adminstration presets it will be a bit of a slow road.

Gabon, its a fairly interesting train of thought for what its worth.

[GabonX]

I'm not even sure that I agree with it, but it's notable given our current set of circumstances. I mentioned it because people brought up the New Deal as though there wasn't any contraversy associated with it.

[jbrettlip]

I think the 4 of us who are talking New Deal, are all on the same page of NOT believing it worked.

And Obama's tax policies are looking better: not raising taxes on the top tier, not raising taxes on businesses, no windfall profit tax on oil companies.....oh wait, those ARE Bush policies.

[got tonkaed]

Edit: Im a jerk, but i find your last two posts to be contradictory.

[muy_thaiguy]

Edit: Im a jerk, but i find your last two posts to be contradictory.

How so? If one looks at it like Obama played the ever old game of Politics with "Change We Need,' etc, and then pull the usual political stunt of not really changing, then no, they do not contradict.

[got tonkaed]

Edit: Im a jerk, but i find your last two posts to be contradictory.

How so? If one looks at it like Obama played the ever old game of Politics with "Change We Need,' etc, and then pull the usual political stunt of not really changing, then no, they do not contradict.

I believe available information was surfacing during the campaign that showed Obama had a far better understanding of markets, and market economics than the typical "redistributionist" (read closet socialist) argument often allows for. While I believe Obama would love to do all of the things he prescribed toward the bottom of the tax bracket in order to put money back in the pockets of millions, I also believe strongly that his background would not allow him to risk exacerbating the problems we face by drastically reshaping the code. Even a return to the pre-bush tax levels doesnt do such a thing, though as he suggests there will be many similar elements. I believe a lot of people who bought into the idea that Obama was going to crush the rich, were drinking a little bit too much of the kool-aid, just as anyone who thinks hes going to fish all of the bottom of the tax bracket out above the poverty line as well.

[pimpdave]

President RULES.

[Snorri1234]

Pimpdave posts.

[pimpdave]

Pimpdave sucks.

[Snorri1234]

Anyway, I still can't believe you guys elected the Antichrist.

[GabonX]

I'm pretty sure that the Bible all but says the Anti Christ will be elected when he comes (assuming you believe he is coming).

Genesis and Revelation, the two books of the Bible I've read.

[CrazyAnglican]

Anyway, I still can't believe you guys elected the Antichrist.

You fell for him not that I think he's the Anti-Christ.

[Napoleon Ier]

Vain weathercock of public opinion... how thou hast turned.

[lgoasklucyl]

Eric Boehlert set the record straight, explaining, "[T]he Obama figure of $160 million that got repeated in the press included security costs associated with the massive event. But the Bush tab of $42 million left out those enormous costs. Talk about stacking the deck."

...For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration's security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. [...]

For decades, that represented the norm in terms of calculating inauguration costs: Federal dollars spent on security were not part of the commonly referred-to cost. (The cost of Obama's inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million.) What's happening this year: The cost of the Obama inauguration and the cost of the security are being combined by some in order to come up with the much larger tab. Then, that number is being compared with the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2005, minus the money spent on security.

In other words, it's the unsubstantiated Obama cost of $160 million (inauguration + security) compared with the Bush cost of 42 million (inauguration, excluding security). Those are two completely different calculations being compared side-by-side, by Fox & Friends, among others, to support the phony claim that Obama's inauguration is $100 million more expensive than Bush's.

So, how much did Bush's 2005 inauguration actually cost, using the standard the media is applying to Obama? Boehlert crunched the numbers and came up with a total of $157 million.



Enjoy the facts. Quit trying to stack the deck against him just because you're PMSy that he won the election by a landslide. Also, try factoring in the deficit your boy GW placed us in on TOP of his expenses, and Obama hasn't even pulled the purse strings yet.

[GabonX]

Without a source those are far from credible "facts." Regardless, it's a ridiculous amount of money for Bush or Obama and the fact that we're in a recession which many are predicting will be the worst one since the Great Depression makes it more outrageous.

Who is this Boehlert guy and why should I trust him over every other media source? Also worth noting, he is giving a different figure (160,000,000 as opposed to 170,000,000) than the other sources. It sounds to me like he has an agenda.

[GabonX]

I've looked up the guy and he's far from credible or objective. The first story on his page is about how the inauguration costs are an invalid point, the second is about how the media is blameless regarding the conspiracy about how Palin's son was not really hers but rather her daughters, and the third story claims that Joe Biden was treated unfairly by the media.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/archives/boehlert

His claim is based off of a single reference in passing from an article (which was ironically about how Obama's inauguration would cost more than any other in history) in the New York Times which states:

Ms. Douglass of the committee said the expenses this year would be greater than those for any previous inauguration. In modern times, inaugurations have been financed by a combination of public and private money. In 2005, Mr. Bush raised $42.3 million from about 15,000 donors for festivities; 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/po ... onors.html

A single source citing a single person who does not explain where she got her figures (and who was making the point that Obama's inauguration would cost more than any other) doesn't really refute the ocean of evidence to the contrary. This is particularly true when this single claim is unsubstantiated.

Regardless of how much Bush's inauguration cost it was probably to much. That said, it's nothing compared to what this one is costing. Do everyone a favor and post your information next time as without it there's really no reason to believe your claims. Make a point of checking it for accuracy too.

[lgoasklucyl]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200901180003

http://leftistmoon.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... bush-2005/

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature ... auguration

That's just 30 seconds of googling. Not one estimates Bush's under 140 million, based on the fact that the media is leaving aside 100's of millions of dollars in costs simply to make Obama's look more extravagant. When he lessens the trillions of dollars worth of deficit we can thank Bush for then we can discuss precise figures, because 170 million doesn't even dent the trillions Bush left him with. 170-160 million dollar different in calculation is the same type of calculation difference where people can make up "40" for Bush.

[jbrettlip]

Yeah, because the media hates Obama...Please step further to the left and off my computer screen.

[GabonX]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200901180003

http://leftistmoon.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... bush-2005/

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature ... auguration

That's just 30 seconds of googling. Not one estimates Bush's under 140 million, based on the fact that the media is leaving aside 100's of millions of dollars in costs simply to make Obama's look more extravagant. When he lessens the trillions of dollars worth of deficit we can thank Bush for then we can discuss precise figures, because 170 million doesn't even dent the trillions Bush left him with. 170-160 million dollar different in calculation is the same type of calculation difference where people can make up "40" for Bush.

The first one, media matters, is the same website that you failed to post and that I addressed before.

The second one is called "leftist moon." Hmm... I wonder if they have an agenda..

All three of the articles you've posted were either written by or about this Eric Boehlert character's initial article. That's right, they were all written by the same guy

Once again, you need to make sure your sources are credible before posting them...

I've already identified the discrpencies in Boehlert's argument. These are not independent sources but rather the same one being repeated over and over again. Once again, one man does not refute every other source in existance.

Yeah, because the media hates Obama...Please step further to the left and off my computer screen.

You kinda beat me to the punch here.


Even if Bush had spent more than Obama it would have been less outrageous (still outrageous but less than the caust of this inauguration) because of our current economic circumstances.

[HapSmo19]

Hey, racist spectacles are expensive.

Ick. Can you imagine what the port-a-potty's were like?

He could've just(as all of them could've) been sworn in in the oval office and saved 170mil but they had to ham it up to the nth degree as usual. It was just another disgusting display of shameless propaganda IMO.

[luns101]

Where are the people crying out to have that money spent on helping the citizens?

[Juan_Bottom]

^funny


Does anyone else think it's BS of Obama to say "some campaign promises need to be put on hold so that we can focus on the economy. We are all going to have to sacrifice. We are all going to have to do without some things."

And then the bastard has a 170 millon dollar inaugeration? All raised for the super riched and bailed out wall street?
Still no one finds Obama elitist in some way?

And as for the New Deal, I think Obama may be the next Hoover.

[Juan_Bottom]

And another thing, does anyone else wonder if Cheny was in a wheelchair because of his heart, and not because he strained his back picking up books?

[Kotaro]

Funny. You know, if American's weren't so fucking stupid, and didn't have a history of violence towards Presidents they don't approve of, and since they had their fair chance at electing a President they wanted, about 1/3 of that cost would be gone, since the security wouldn't have had to be so damn much.

[jbrettlip]

Funny. You know, if American's weren't so fucking stupid, and didn't have a history of violence towards Presidents they don't approve of, and since they had their fair chance at electing a President they wanted, about 1/3 of that cost would be gone, since the security wouldn't have had to be so damn much.

I am sure none of that security has to do with terrorists. Wow your 53 word sentence is truly impressive. I am glad "American's" are so fucking stupid that one that writes like you is going to possibly teach America's (note proper use of apostrophe) high school students English someday.