My local fishwrapper - with the emphasis on hysterical

[RubyDuby in GA]

Our thoughts...Historical, hysterical



POSTED Jan. 17, 2009 5:44 p.m.


 Four years ago there was a major outcry from liberal newspaper and television stations in this country that the Bush administration was spending $42 million on his inauguration. This year’s inauguration is estimated to cost close to $150 million.

 Major contributions from companies like Citibank, who just received billions in a federal bailout and have their hand out for more, are included in the above figure.

 Yet, there is no similar outcry four years later.

 This inauguration is certainly a historical one. It didn’t have to become a hysterical one.

http://newmedia.covnews.com/news/article/5458/


Let's hear what you'd like to tell these numbnuts, then I'll share my thoughts with them too.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. tell them that the AP made up that story.

they had NO FACTS, no foundation, no nothing to support that number.

[Extend a Hand]

2. myth

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003?f=h_top

[Warpy]

3. Tell them they got SUCKERED

Some right winger at AP pulled that number out of his ass.

[Gore1FL]

4. The obama cost = ceremony + security The Bush cost = ceremony

They are simply not doing the math right. Obama's cost approx 3 million more if you compare apples to apples.

[hughee99]

5. Doesn't it seem excessive?

Look, I know that *'s numbers are without security while Obama's numbers include them, and it could even happen that Obama spends less than * did in '05, but regardless of who did what when, doesn't $150-$160 million dollars spent by taxpayers and/or private funds seem excessive for the festivities surrounding a swearing in ceremony?

[enuegii]

6. In normal times, maybe not...

but with the economy in the shitter, I'd like to see it toned down a bit. Moneywise, at least.

[TommyO]

17. Obama should receive less protection than Bush?

[Recursion]

8. Also, Bush stuck the residents of DC with the bill

Obama isn't going to do that.

[hughee99]

10. Regardless of who gets the bill...

doesn't it seem like a ridiculous amount of money to be spending on this at perhaps not the most appropriate time?

[Recursion]

11. Whatever. Tell the tens of thousands of caterers, entertainers, etc....

... who are finally getting some work because of this that it's a "waste of money".

[hughee99]

13. I'm glad to see that entertainers like Garth Brooks

are finally getting some work. Money well spent, some might say (not me). From the sounds of it, a great deal of this is spent on security, not caterers. $160 million would cover 1000 people making $40K a year for the next 4 years. I wonder how many "little guys" will get to keep their jobs on Wednesday, and how many were just temporary help.

BTW, I have a friend who does catering in DC, and I've already told him. I don't know the other tens of thousands of them, but if I did, I'd tell them too.

[bertman]

12. Probably not, dmesg. I would rather see President Obama sworn in with the same or greater

fanfare than many other Presidents because we need a unifying experience as Americans NOW MORE THAN EVER. With so much going against us, using this event to rev up our patriotism and our desire to see President Obama succeed is well worth the few millions more they are spending that might have been saved had they cut the budget to the bone.

If our new leader can keep the enthusiasm and the grassroots efforts alive to help him turn this country around, then let's have a HUGE party in D.C.

But then I'm one who got all inspired yesterday watching the We Are One concert, so I may be biased.

[alarimer]

14. I think so too.

A little bit any way. Four years ago, the Democrats complained about this. Now the shoe is on the other foot and they are silent.

The only difference is that Obama has placed a limit on the total amount of donations from the high-rollers, about $50,000 (instead of the $250K for Bush) which is an improvement. I think maybe the total is not $150 million but IS probably higher than what Bush's last inaugural cost because of the added security for bigger crowds. I am also bothered by where the donations come from. From what I have read, a lot of it is from financiers and banker types, the same ones who are part of the bailout. I wonder what they expect in return. I think, like elections, stuff like this needs to be public financing, just to avoid the appearances of conflicts of interest. Of which there are probably many. SO of course it would have to be smaller in scale.

[RubyDuby in GA]

7. Awesome guys! Thanks for the heads up about the numbers.

I haven't checked out anything about it yet, but knew it had to be wrong on sheer principle alone. This rightwing nutjob is always spouting off Rush's latest talking points and everyone in this town is too lazy to look up those pesky things called facts.

:)

[LynnTheDem]

9. 2005 inaugeration costs George W. bUsh; $115 million US dollars.

PLUS $42 million bundled. Total for George W. bUsh, 2005; $157 million.

And that's a fact. But shhhh! Don't spoil the rightwingnuttery's fun by tossing reality at em!

[Skittles]

15. Media Matters already called out whores like this fishwrap

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003?f=h_top

[struggle4progress]

16. Wow. We've spent more than twice that amount every day in Iraq for nearly five years.

Beyond killing many thousands of Americans and Iraqis, and convincing the world that the US has no respect for international law, we don't habve much to show for it. Is it worth spending some cash on a big party celebrating the end of the Bush years? You betcha!