Quite A Lavish & Expensive Party Day Today

No One Is Allowed To Cry At This Party

from JoeUser Forums

My, what a difference four years makes.  How many remember the last inauguration? 

How many remember that Bush was asked to tone down his pomp and circumstance in 2005?  By the Democrats of course.  Today I'm not hearing any such outcry from the Dems for the most lavish inauguration celebration on record.  Some are estimating the bill for this "party" will be upwards to $150 million. 

Excuse me but I thought we were in some sort of recession?  How can they cry recession on one hand and then break records by throwing such a lavish excessive bash like this?  What is this saying to the American people?  This morning I saw on the news the top 260 donors to Obama's campaign were getting wined and dined as they showed up in their minks and limos.  All this going on as Obama tells the American people he's for the little guy?  There among the rich and elite getting preferential treatment were  the rich bankers who received bailout money.  Huh?   

Am I missing something?  Where's the outcry?  Why isn't there anything being written about  all this excessiveness during such a bad economy?  What about the "little guy" you've been wooing Obama?  Just more political rhetoric?  Where's the accountability? 

In 1945 President Roosevelt held a very short inauguration, making a short speech and serving his guest chicken salad and plain poundcake. 

How many know who brought this very fact up recently?  Recently as in the last four years? 

Let me tell you.  It was a couple of Representatives from the Democratic party, who in 2005, wrote a letter to President Bush.  Their names were Anthony Weiner D-NY and Jim McDermott D-Wash.  In their letter to admonish the President from spending too much at his upcoming bash they also said this: 

“During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified.”

The thinking back then was that during a war excessive spending on a ball was inappropriate.  Forget about how many balls will there be today?  These two hard working Reps, of our day, only thinking of the American public  thought it would be nice to remind President Bush via a letter that it wouldn't look to good to spend too much money on his inauguration.   You know given the soldiers in Iraq and everything.  It wouldn't be dignified.   

I actually agree with them.  Being quite frugal myself I really don't have a problem with their letter.  What I do have a problem with is hypocrisy. 

Now here we are four years later with our soldiers still in Iraq, unemployment higher than ever and the new President Elect pressing Congress for the remainder of the $700 billion in reserves for the bailout because our economy is falling quicker than a brick dropped from a ten story window.  I think these Reps have conveniently forgotten what they wrote to President Bush four years ago. It would make me feel a whole lot better if they wrote the same letter this time addressing Mr. Obama. 

Alas, forgetfulness sprinkled with lots of hypocrisy seems to be a prerequisite for running for office. 

I'm not sure all that we, as taxpayers, have to incur to put on this very fancy celebration. I'd be interested in the dollar amount at the end of the day, wouldn't you?   I do know that all the costs concerning security and transportation will be ours to bear not to mention those hired to clean up probably the biggest mess ever on record to follow the biggest  party ever on record. 

Good Grief.  Gimmie a break! 

 

 

 

 

 

3,032 views 18 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

Remember KFC, things are only bad when someone else is doing. It's ok if the one complaining is he one doing it.

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

He's stimulating the party economy.  :P

~Zoo

Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

He's stimulating the party economy.
End of quote

hey Zoo, haven't seen you around in a while.  Where have you been? 

Party economy?  Ya, that's about it.  Not to mention the portable potty business.  Did you see those crowds?  I read one supplier called it "the largest temporary restroom event in the history of the United States." 

Something to be proud of? 

It's ok if the one complaining is he one doing it.
End of quote

ya, it's called Hypocrisy. 

 

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

He's stimulating the party economy.
End of quote

That he is!  And just think of all the furriers and jewelers he is stimiluting! ;)

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

From what I have read the numbers are misleading.  The numbers given for Bush's party don't include security while the 150 for Obamas do.

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

I had similar thoughts this morning - remembering the outcry over the last inauguration, yet seeing it absent today.

That said, I'm ready to get on with the business of life. Beth Moore had an awesome post on her blog today. As I read over all the prayers left there for the Obama family, it was wonderful to get perspective and focus today, and to move my heart to pray for our country's leadership - whether they would have been my personal choice or not. It was refreshing. :)

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

The numbers given for Bush's party don't include security while the 150 for Obamas do.
End of quote

SO Bush spent 110 million on security?  And you have links to back that up, right? o_O

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

I heard there were 8,000 security officers.

 

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top

KFC -come on be fair! Obama and the first lady had cookies in the WH with about 200 regular folks the next day. The event last one half hour.

Meet the new boss... same as the old boss (well a bit more liberal).

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 8
I heard there were 8,000 security officers.

 
End of lulapilgrim's quote

Assuming NO security for Bush in 04, that means each security guard earned $13,750 for a few hours work.  Yep!  Obama is stimulating the economy!

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

"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/politics/06donors.html 
End of quote

From http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003: "You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million."
End of quote

That sort of puts them in the exact same total range, doesn't it?

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

And when you add in how many people attended, it becomes an even better story:

from http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200901220003?show=1

But let's move on. The official crowd estimate for Tuesday's swearing now stands as a eye-popping 1.8 million. How many attended Bush's 2005 inauguration? The official estimate was 400,000. So let's do some math. 157 million divided by 400,000 equals 392. It cost nearly $392 per-person to cover the expenses for Bush's modest sized bash.

For Obama? Based on the current projection of $160 million (the final official tab, once security costs are factored in won't be known for months), and divided by 1.8 million people in attendance, the per-person cost for the Obama bash came out to $88.

End of quote

Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top

Wow,$88.00 - not bad!  I think they also did  alot of fund raising.

Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

Obama and the first lady had cookies in the WH with about 200 regular folks the next day
End of quote

what kind of cookies?

That sort of puts them in the exact same total range, doesn't it?
End of quote

well it depends on who you ask.  Every single article I've read online or in local newspapers say that Obama's pricetag was much heftier than Bush's.  And the economy today is much worse than it was 4 years ago. 

I think with people just barely scraping by, it was inappropriate especially given the fact that Obama promises to be for the "little guy." 

 

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

For Obama? Based on the current projection of $160 million (the final official tab, once security costs are factored in won't be known for months), and divided by 1.8 million people in attendance, the per-person cost for the Obama bash came out to $88.
End of quote

So let's see if I have liberal thinking right.  If you are out of work, with no money coming in, dont throw a party for a few people for a few hundred dollars.  Throw one for 100 people for a few thousand!  Then the per person cost to you is less, so you are saving money!

Yep, sounds liberal to me.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

well it depends on who you ask. Every single article I've read online or in local newspapers say that Obama's pricetag was much heftier than Bush's. And the economy today is much worse than it was 4 years ago.
End of quote

I don't disagree that the economy is worse that is been --, but the Inaug brought more than $1B to the DC area -- that's a huge economic stimulus for this region.  Also, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on the numbers -- everywhere I've seen the comparison, they are comparing part of the Bush cost with the full Obama cost -- not really apples to apples.

So let's see if I have liberal thinking right. If you are out of work, with no money coming in, dont throw a party for a few people for a few hundred dollars. Throw one for 100 people for a few thousand! Then the per person cost to you is less, so you are saving money!

Yep, sounds liberal to me.
End of quote

Dr. Guy --You asked for a link to back up the Bush numbers and I provided a NY Times article.   The Obama inaug. is expected to cost $3m more than the Bush one -- which is a huge difference that what this article stated in the being.   You can disagree with the article -- but insulting me is simply childish.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Dr. Guy --You asked for a link to back up the Bush numbers and I provided a NY Times article.
End of quote

Uh, no I did not ask for a link about a per head count.  The $115 that "DC" spent is not included in the figure of $150 million that Obama was spending.  SInce the 40 and 115 comes from PRIVATE money and is not part of the GOVERNMENT money.  As someone else said today, lies, damn lies and then just bad attempts at manipulating statistics.

I insulted you?  So calling you a liberal is now insulting?  Imagine that!

And only if you took it personally, since I quoted Media Matters and commented on them.  Sorry, I did not know you were media matters.  Shock, surprise wow.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Dr. Guy -- the NY Times number was not a per head count.  It was the $157M.  No where does it say that the $150-$160M for Obama is just fundraised money -- it says total -- including all the money that DC, VA and MD spent on the event.   Instead of telling me my sources are wrong, why don't you provide some of your own showing that the $115 (?) was PRIVATE money as you stated.  Until then, I wouldn't accuse others of lies or statistics manipulation.