$150 Million Inauguration?
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
January 19, 2009 8:33am CST
Don't get me wrong here, I don't begrudge Prs. Obama his inauguration celebration. He takes his place as the next President of the United States and deserves all the fanfare, celebration, pomp & circumstance that goes with it.
But...
$150 Million?
And to think the Democrats trashed Prs. Bush for an inauguration celebration that wasn't even a third of that! (although it was the most ever spent on an inauguration in history).
How can anyone who says they care about the economy, the deficit or the poor ever justify this kind of waste?
4 people like this
20 responses
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
19 Jan 09
Yep.I have been talking about this. It is completely wrong. This country is in serious trouble yet our newly elected leader is spending 150 million on parties. He is having 10 balls and three dinners just to name a few. It is a gross show of extravagence that this country can not afford right now. He should have shown more restraint and responsibility with his inauguration. Heck they said the production cost of his Concert shown on HBO last was 15 million. Did he really need to do that? Was it really necassery? No.
It completely sends the wrong message and sets the wrong tone for the start of his presidency. Especially in the current ecomonic climate.
1 person likes this
@tigertang (1749)
• Singapore
19 Jan 09
OK, it's a little sad that we're going to start off an economic crisis by spending $150 million that the nation does not have on an inauguration ball. I mean it would be better if Mr Obama decided to have a very low key inauguration- it would send a message that this President is serious about getting the world out of the current mess that it is in.
Having said that, may I be cynical here. I mean, we're talking about loads of government funds flooding into the economy to get things going again right? Well, this $150 million is definitely a boost to spending and yes, the money is going to be spent in America rather than elsewhere. The shopkeepers of Washington DC should be salivating at the prospect of people crowding the city - people who will need loads of services while they hang out in the city.
I mean one of the things about the economy is that we need to find things to do in order to get things moving. Sports events for example are usually good for the event because it brings people to one location and loads of people need to buy things and services. Likewise an inauguration should serve the same purpose for Washington DC and the USA. Let's hope that better things will follow from this $150 million
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
19 Jan 09
Tigertang, your heart's in the right place and there is some truth to your point, but the sad reality is, the vast majority of the $150 Million isn't going to the local shop and business owners.
Besides, an inaugural celebration the size of Prs. Bush's would be more than appropriate, which means even with inflation shouldn't be more than $60 million.
This is just plain over the top from a party and President who claims to care about deficit and wasteful spending.
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
19 Jan 09
Throughout the election, his campaign was devout that this was not about race - but once he was elected, it was all about him being the "first African-American President" and how this is a historic event that calls for a monumental celebration. This is supposed to be the excuse for spending so much money and having such an extravagant celebration.
That said, I DO NOT approve of spending so much money - for any reason. It is a slap in the face to a lot of Americans that are without jobs and are losing their homes.
@bdugas (3578)
• United States
19 Jan 09
Thing about it is he don't care about the economy or the people that need help from losing their home, or their jobs. To Obama this was nothing more than a popularity contest, and now that we have him as president along with the other democratic congress we are in for more of the same we have been getting over the last 2 years, the democratic congress that put us where we are today. I believe as the winner of the election he is entitled to a party or even a big dinner and party afterwards but don't you think spending $150. million on a 4 day party is a slap in the face to the american people that are fighting to save their homes from their loss of jobs. I think you will find now that he is in office, all those big promises he made while campaigning will be swept under the rug, all I heard when he was running if they don't get a stimilus package out to help the american people before he is sworn in, be his first thing on his list, now I see where he wants to add $10 or $20. dollars onto your pay check each week to be eaten up in taxes. Sure would like to know how this is going to help the people. I don't believe he cares what happens to the poor or disabled, he rants middle class, we they are the ones that put their trust in him. Thinking maybe he cared, I am tired of all the fuss made because he is black, he is a man no more no less. His color which is not only black but part white that you never see him say anything about should have nothing to do with it. What good is his color if he doesn't do anything to help, oh I believe we are in for a change under him, jut don't think it will be a change we will like. I will not watch him being sworn in or the parties afterward. This show he is putting on is to me no more than a slap in the face to the american people.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
19 Jan 09
True, it's sad that so many Americans are so shallow that they think elections are nothing more than a popularity contest.
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
20 Jan 09
[b]Yeah, bdugas, you could say that. Or as I might put it, we been B*TCH slapped.
There's another old saying that covers this hypocritical, arrogant man: "Let them eat cake."
Maggiepie[/b]
@jonesy123 (3948)
• United States
19 Jan 09
Yes, it is a slap in the face for hardworking Americans. But too many people are kind of star struck to see it. But idolization wanes quickly if the person doesn't deliver on what they are idolized for. You are right, color doesn't mean anything in that case.
As to the $10 to $20. That will not be eaten up by taxes as it is essentially supposed to be a tax credit. Lets say you pay $100 in federal taxes on each pay check. Now you would only pay $80 yo $90. So you'll have $10 to $20 you get paid out more of your hard-earned money each week instead of giving it to the federal government. Still, that will be eaten up by price increases in the grocery stores. I doubt it'll stimulate much;)
@hey_baby (425)
• Philippines
20 Jan 09
ahh.. so that's why i read somewhere that Obama warns people of the tough times ahead.. hehe..
that's not setting a good example to his citizens. i wonder what the people who voted for him feels about this now.. if that were me, i'd say to my self i made a bad decision.
1 person likes this
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
20 Jan 09
[b]Nah...most will never admit it. The rest will blame it on Conservatives (even Bush--though he's not a Conservative....)
Maggiepie[/b]
@Yestheypayme2dothis (7874)
• United States
19 Jan 09
And yet when you turn on the TV, you don't see anyone trashing him like they have President Bush for everything that goes wrong. You see children chanting Obama's name as if he is their savior. I believe you will see that no matter what Obama does, he will be praised. He is being treated like a demigod.
1 person likes this
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
19 Jan 09
Give it a little time - as soon as many of his worshipers figure out that they're not going to be getting everything he promised to them - they'll be down on him like stink on s**t!
@Rosekitty (19368)
• San Marcos, Texas
20 Jan 09
I really hope everyone see's that if the money was put to a better use to feeding and sheltering the poor and homeless then wasted on Balls for an Inauguration, then we could really see that he cares about the economy..Right now its like a bad start of wasted funds..
1 person likes this
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
20 Jan 09
[b]Well I'll say this for Obama: He's got balls. Expensive ones.
'Scuse me; I need to go pretend to enjoy some canned tuna.
Maggiepie[/b]
@BeSeductive (15)
• Greece
19 Jan 09
i understand your thinking....
But let me show you my way of thinking!!
America is financially dieing atthe present moment....The banks are closing ....and the factories need more money that they produce...
So the american people need something to give them hope......obamais that something....a big ceremony is that something.......the only reason they spend all this money is for making people feel better and is something!
1 person likes this
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
19 Jan 09
This is an historical presidency that is attracting way more attention that others. More people coming to Washington means more security and that in itself probably is a big part of the expense. Certainly, inaugural balls are not at taxpayer expense and I would doubt that the Hollywood performers need payment to perform this weekend. What would you like to do here? Not protect the president and the crowds? Tell Americans not to come to the inauguration of their own president?
Also, do not forget that the hordes about to descend on DC must be feed and sheltered and will bring millions into a hard pressed inner city. That of course may be a drop in the bucket washed against $150 mil BUT this is also an event that can help reinforce the power and symbolism of the American presidency and in my opinion that is good for our nation and for the world.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
19 Jan 09
Don't fool yourself Nowdak... it was always all about race.
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
20 Jan 09
It's not so much about race as it is about reconciliation and the reinstatement of the american Dream.
As for the expense. The conservative Philly papers are putting the cost of security at $105 million and the mainstream TV media are putting it at $125 million. No matter how you look at it, most of the cost of this inauguration IS security. The attendence for this inauguration is many times higher than average and security is proportionately high.
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
19 Jan 09
I find it interesting that there is so much hype behind this "historical presidency". Is he not an American just like anyone else who would have been elected? (at least to the best of our knowledge, there are still some lawsuits in progress regarding that issue). All though the election it was not supposed to be about race but now that he's elected, it's all about race.
@gbolly54 (661)
• Nigeria
19 Jan 09
$150 million only? How frugal! It's like a peanut to me compared to the experience in my own country, where about 70% lives in excruciating poverty. Please, note that I have considered the expenses relative to the GDP of the 2 countries, not in dollar equivalent terms.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
20 Jan 09
Apparently only 'frugal' if a democrat spends that much. When a republican spent less than 1/3 of it, he was accused of being far too extravagant.
@jonesy123 (3948)
• United States
19 Jan 09
I fully agree in terms of that it is waste and a slap in the face of most of us who worry about the economy and who are struggling to pay their bills. Yes, it's a historic moment and probably a bit more important than the last few inaugurations but this pomp is not necessary, especially not in these times.
That said, most of the money is coming from donations, which in essence is a way for people to guarantee that they are there and get a good spot as long as they pony up enough money. Curiously enough, I have seen the name of at least one bank CEO on the high level donor list, of a bank that needed bailout funds...
Maybe we can solicit donations from all those people to help along our economy, lol. Obama sweet talked people into donating to his campaign and now his inauguration... let him sweet talk them into donating to the greater good called the rescue of our economy...;)
Anyhow, it's not surprising that so much money is being spend after Obama spent billions on his campaign. He is a millionaire himself, accustomed to high level stuff. In the grand scheme of things $150 million is spare change;)
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
19 Jan 09
No, not most, around $40 million of it is donated. It seems a pretty awesome inaugural could have been held only using those donations.
I also wonder how many of the bands and performers who feel so "honored" to be part of this historic event are collecting their normal appearance fee?
I guess being "honored" isn't as important to them as collecting a paycheck for the "honor".
1 person likes this
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
19 Jan 09
Why should it be deemed to be any more of a historic moment than any other inauguration? He is an American, the same as any other American that might have been elected - skin color should make no difference.
1 person likes this
@hotsummer (13837)
• Philippines
20 Jan 09
when i saw the news on his inauguration all i could think of is how much money was spent to organize that event. specially with the large crowd. and to put all those cameras and security cameras and etc. i know that they have really spent so much for this special day in history of USA.
@2oldn2ys (64)
• United States
19 Jan 09
I agree with you. I think it is insanity. All I can think of is how many homeless people and animals could be helped with that much money? A million would have been enough and that is even extreme. He should have pointed out the was an extreme amount of money and asked that it be less, but then he plans to tear out a perfectly good bowling alley in the white house to add a basketball court. How much will that cost? Also, I cringe when I see all the Xmas trees and decorations in the White House. Why so many? Why such waste when our country is in such termoil? He should throw that money into the national deficit.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
19 Jan 09
Well, this is the guy who didn't blink when spending $5 million for a concert set for one speach... so....
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
19 Jan 09
This is the kind of spending that John McCain was adamant that he would stop - and in the process would let the American people know just who was responsible for it. The American people chose to elect Obama instead - how smart was that?
@stardustcdsd (1856)
• India
20 Jan 09
yeah and i got certain news that mrs.obama is spending more on her fashion clothes .not sure its the correct news but half way down the election time,i got the impression that Obama is full of talks but no action.it seems now the prospect of this new president is not so bright for the americans.
@murderistic (2278)
• United States
19 Jan 09
150 million is way too much. Is that just for the ceremony, or is that including the parade and inaugural balls? I hope it's not just for the ceremony, because, geez. I don't know how much security costs, I'm sure that will be one of the main costs, along with the basic energy costs and the cost to set everything up... however beyond that, no one else should be getting paid for performances. It should be completely voluntary. The main problem with Washington is that they like to eat like royalty, so I'm sure the food for lunch and dinner is going to be a huge cost. But if I can have an awesome wedding for 50 bucks a person including cake and an open bar I don't see why they need to spend so much on inauguration day.
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
19 Jan 09
I read that Bush had to declare a state of emergency in D.C. so that the municipal forces (police, fire, ambulance, etc.) would get federal funding for their services - otherwise, they would have had to foot that bill on their own.
@2oldn2ys (64)
• United States
20 Jan 09
Obama being a millionaire himself should foot the bill for the extra costs. He doesn't seemed concerned the taxpayers are having to. That should be a message loud and clear of what to expect. I feel for the people who live around that area. There will be lawsuits coming from this that again, the taxpayers will cover. Many of the people were worried about their yards being trashed and the trouble caused due to this extravaganza.
@uicbear (1900)
• United States
19 Jan 09
I just want to make the comment that the 42+ millon reportedly spent on the bush inauguration does not include the price of security forces and transportation costs. All that details is the price of the social events. The Obama figures do include security and transportation. No, I do not know the specific costs. But this is something that must be considered.
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
19 Jan 09
As usual, Obama is supposed to get special consideration - I think not. Not only did he go back on his word to accept public funding for his campaign so that he could solicit and spent more than allotted by public funding - he also formed a not-for-profit organization to solicit contributions for his transition team instead of accepting the allotted amount for this purpose. Now, he is unable to keep his inaugural celebration to something that reflects responsible spending in hard economic times.
Not only do his actions infer that he is not able to stay within a budget - it also makes one wonder how many of the people/businesses/organizations that have donated for these purposes are going to be expecting special favors in return!
@jonesy123 (3948)
• United States
19 Jan 09
Yet Bush was greatly bashed for spending that even if counted minus transportation and security. Care to elaborate on that particular cost? Didn't think your source would provide you with that;)
Even if you take just security and transportation into account, Obama far outpaced them all just with that train ride he took. Think that was for free? Think there was no security along the way? Think the tracks thoroughly checked and surveilled 24/7 after that? Think they didn't check the streets crossing the tracks and the waterways etc? What do you think that all cost? And that was just the start.
I also don't think that the inauguration expenditures minus transportation and security is below the amount quoted for Bush. There is just way too much entertainment going on and not all of it is for free or sponsored by others. Your source didn't care to elaborate on that one either, did they?
I'm sorry, but I have to say, especially after they criticized Bush for his expenditures and considering the shape of our economy, this is an extravaganza and display of luxury and splendor that is completely out of place. No amount of downsizing the number will do, because they'll still be way above of what the previous presidents spent. They'll probably be above of what the last two inaugurations cost together.
@uicbear (1900)
• United States
19 Jan 09
Actually, the articles I read did have a couple of numbers listed. But as I could not verify them I didn't want to throw them out there.
I would imagine there is an official source somewhere detailing where the money is going and where it is coming from. Just as I would be curious as to how much of each of the expenditures are coming from private funds, for each inaugural event. (For example if a private citizen is going to spend $10000 to go to one of the balls, and this is included in the totals...I really don't care.)
It's obvious I'm in the minority here on this post. I just don't feel the entire picture is being shown. I didn't really care about the money spent on Bush's parties either. I would like to see a breakdown of the numbers. Until someone can furnish that, I couldn't lean one way or the other.
@creativedreamweaver (7297)
• United States
19 Jan 09
I couldnt' agree more. It seems way to extravagant, given the current economical situtation of our country. I agree that he deserves a celebration, but to spend $150 million dollars is just over the top. I don't feel that it shoud be the priority right now. The priority should be on getting America back on it's feet financially, not in wasting millions of dollars for a days "show".
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
19 Jan 09
I think it is totally inappropriate in the current economic situation - and totally irresponsible on his part. Evidently, he is an exception to the rule because of the "first African-American President" status. It is supposed to be considered more of a historic event because of the color of his skin - interesting!
@Ganesh44 (5547)
• India
20 Jan 09
US is going through economic crisis ,such inaugration can be less extravagant
@j47lee (740)
• Canada
20 Jan 09
wow .. just for an inauguration.. so much money was spent... that money can be used to help the ppl in America...and alot of people are losing their jobs in US... instead of having so much fuss .. they should be focussing more on helping people.... and people spending $ 10,000 for a room.. just to attend... and people renting people's backyards for 100 bucks a nite.. that too sleeping in tents..... brr..... i say these people have nothing to do.. lol..
@cmalvarez20 (62)
• Puerto Rico
19 Jan 09
I completely agree, $150 million is too much, especially with current economic situation. I think it a waste of money and resourse. I mean, these thing really piss me off because all I can think about is how many there are out there are in need for some cash and are struggling to pay the bills, and here you see these people just wasting money. I could use a few bucks myself you know. I mean, is this inauguration thing really necesary. Why can't he just go on the news and give a big thank you speach and that's it. I too much money and I don't sponsor this at all.