|
Post by lazarus on Jan 20, 2009 19:57:47 GMT -5
As a "Man of the People" and (allegedly) a guy that wanted to "help" the "common man," I'm curious about the cost of this Coronation. How many homeless people would this money have done?
Truman had HIS inaguaration with a few supporters and pound cake.
This is FAR & AWAY the most expensive affaie of ANY president.
Oh, that's OK......it's all for "CHANGE" isn't it?. ROTFLMAO
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Jan 20, 2009 20:57:32 GMT -5
If you're that curious, look it up. The information is freely available. Still there is no point comparing Obama's inauguration with Wilson's. Times and expectations are different, as well as the crowds and the securtity. I assume that, considering the threat of terrorism and being a war President, you would not begrudge Obama the highest level of security and protection from a record crowd of 2 million, all of which is vastly expensive and non-optional.
On the other hand, I do agree that these inaugurations are an indulgence, at any time. What is wrong with just fronting up to Congress or wherever, swearing an oath and giving a televised speech? Has the same effect, and is enough for most other countries. The US inaugurations have always been grossly excessive and over-the-top, not just this one.
|
|
|
Post by cooter50 on Jan 20, 2009 21:23:40 GMT -5
The reports from local news stations and the STL Post paper was set at 160 mil for this suaree'. Does put quite a 'spin' on "Change".
The DOW dropped and stayed below 8k tonight, gas went up a dime a gallon here, looks like change is in the wind.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Jan 21, 2009 0:24:11 GMT -5
The reports from local news stations and the STL Post paper was set at 160 mil for this suaree'. Does put quite a 'spin' on "Change". The DOW dropped and stayed below 8k tonight, gas went up a dime a gallon here, looks like change is in the wind. It's pretty simple: if you get 2 million coming to a party, expect to pay more than if you get 400k. Is it so hard to understand that? If you are objecting to the cost of the party, then don't have them. Don't whine about how they were cheaper in the past. So was everything else. As for your "spin on change", is your event horizon really so short that you are judging the Obama administration by one day's happenings?
|
|
|
Post by shiftless2 on Jan 21, 2009 8:23:19 GMT -5
Last number I saw was $170 million. But Obama is showing his links to the common man. After all, the outfit his wife wore in the morning (the one with the coat) only cost $1,500. It would have been easy to add another zero to that one.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jan 21, 2009 8:44:53 GMT -5
I thought spending was supposed to be good for the economy?
Seriously, I have to agree. No matter how much people want to celebrate (and I among them), there are too many people living in their cars right now, too many people jobless, too many people hungry. I understand the need for some pomp and circumstance to mark the transition. There are good reasons to have public events commemorating change, commitment, renewal, etc. But more than half my patients don't have electricity or indoor plumbing. They weren't invited to the party.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Jan 21, 2009 12:11:19 GMT -5
If you had been bothered by the spending in 2001 and 2005, Laz, I would be impressed at your consistency.
I am not a fan of all this expensive partying - but I never have been. I did not like it in the past, and I don't like it now. It has always been a waste to me.
But please, Laz, how is this any different that the past? A past that you never expressed a concern about the cost
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Jan 21, 2009 12:16:28 GMT -5
But more than half my patients don't have electricity or indoor plumbing. They weren't invited to the party.
Well as an outsider looking in it seems to me to take a great leap of logic to move from the state of the poor in a society that values extreme competitiveness and wealth acquisition to jibbing at the cost of a ceremony.Rob your patients are without the basics BECAUSE of the American way of doing things not because of a street party.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jan 21, 2009 13:07:14 GMT -5
Joe, I am well aware of the reasons my patients are without basic services. However, almost the entire value of an inauguration event lies in its symbolism, and the symbolism of this one suggests that Obama and his supporters are not as uncomfortable as they have suggested with "the American way of doing things" that has led to such inequity.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jan 21, 2009 13:08:24 GMT -5
And for the record, although I'm sure all of you know, I was no fan of the cult of wealth when the Bush administration was in charge either. I just had lower expectations for change.
|
|
Calluna
Super Duper Member
I think there's someone on the other side...
Posts: 1,005
|
Post by Calluna on Jan 21, 2009 20:01:29 GMT -5
And for the record, although I'm sure all of you know, I was no fan of the cult of wealth when the Bush administration was in charge either. I just had lower expectations for change. To me, that is the primary issue here. Previous administrations haven't promised things like health care for everyone, so when they indulged themselves in lavish parties, it wasn't unexpected, even if we didn't really approve then either. However, when someone promises change, and that he's not going to be like previous administrations, and then indulges himself in the lavish parties anyway, it seems pretty hypocritical. Then again, I'm still waiting for evidence of change before I believe things really will change.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Jan 22, 2009 0:13:15 GMT -5
Promising change doesn't mean you have to be different i every single detail.
Does anyone seriously think that there was never going to be an inauguration? No? Then you have to be prepared for the costs. You are at war. You have the first-ever black President. You have millions of people in the streets. Ergo, you have a massive security exposure that costs a lot of money to control. In all likelihood, Obama's situation warranted the tightest security for any inauguration, ever. Unless you'd prefer the sight of your new President shot down in the motorcade, stop whining about the cost of securing him.
Also, it should not be forgotten that about half of these costs were met by private donors. As I understand it, the load on the taxpayer is pretty much the same as Bush's 2005 inaugural.
|
|
|
Post by crazielollie on Jan 22, 2009 2:41:41 GMT -5
Calluna, you have a point. I listened some to C-Span the other morning and people were calling in from their homes, schools, etc. with good wishes for the new president. Most were celebrating with others including the youngest family members. This is what he says he wants to see - people involved in this country and joining with others.
The inauguration didn't have to be done lavishly. He could have took the oath of office (as I understand he actually ended up doing) with a few people close to him in the white house and used the net (as he claims he used it for the majority of support during his campaign) as a way of receiving adulation from the multitude. It still could have also been televised. Then, he could have served his first day as President WORKING. Could have got right into his "togetherness theme" by asking ahead that people celebrate the event by having community pot luck dinners rather than going to DC. Big opportunity to turn all the excitement into community events that might even give a nudge to his ideal of more community involvement.
Think he missed "opportunity one".
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Jan 22, 2009 4:03:16 GMT -5
I find this whole thing hilarious. Here we have the most ceremony conscious if not the most pomp ridden nation on earth. A nation that cannot run the flag up a pole enough times to ever be sated by it, bilking about the cost of celebrating a truly historic moment. What sort of message do you really think would have been sent to the world if there had not been a celebration? Try "The USA is so bankrupt it can't afford even a bit a street party." Or The USA is not serious about celebrating the election of its first black president and all this entails."
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Jan 22, 2009 6:20:44 GMT -5
You are right, Joe. I had not thought of that but I completely agree. And all this about missed opportunities ignores many things including
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 22, 2009 8:21:09 GMT -5
The more things change, the more they stay the same... Here's an article that is very much in the same spirit, but it's about Bush 2005. Oh, and the numbers? Bush spent $40M hosting 350,000 people. Obama spent $150M planning for a turnout of 2.4M people. Per guest, then, Bush spent $114. Obama spent $63. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jan/19/20050119-103531-1062r/Inaugural price tag in line with history Reuters news agency this week headlined a story, "Critics Say Bush Inaugural Too Lavish for Wartime," then quoted one "critic," Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, who complained that the estimated $40 million for the Bush-Cheney inauguration is extravagant. The Associated Press moved a story that asked, "With that kind of money, what could you buy?" The answer, the wire service said: "200 armored Humvees ... vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children ... and a down payment on the nation's deficit." But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent. According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the equivalent of $49.5 in 2004. The significant majority of funding for this year's festivities, including nine officials balls, are from private donations and tickets for events held by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, a similar setup to fund raising Mr. Clinton used to underwrite his inauguration. Mr. Clinton had a record 12 balls in 1997. A Jan. 20, 1997, story by USA Today estimated about $12.7 million of Mr. Clinton's inauguration was financed by U.S. taxpayers. Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year. "Every inaugural, there's a really good reason given why you should spend whatever donors are sending in on something else," Rich Galen, a veteran Republican activist, told the Associated Press, saying many of the complaints come from the losers of the election. Mr. Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat, in a letter to President Bush said that a celebration during the war on terror is inappropriate and the money could be better spent, saying the funds could be used pay for 690 Humvees and a $290 bonus for each soldier serving in Iraq. "Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted -- if not canceled -- in wartime," said the letter, which cited President Roosevelt's scaled back inauguration in 1945 that had a menu of cold chicken salad and pound cake. Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee, and White House officials say the inauguration is an American tradition that transcends partisan politics and is a symbol to the world. President Johnson didn't eschew pageantry in 1965, racking up a $1.6 million bill for inaugural festivities despite the Vietnam War, historian Robert Dallek told Reuters. In 1997, there was grumbling that the inauguration cost too much. But Clinton spokesman Barry Toiv said at the time, "It's really a symbol to the world and has been for over 200 years, and it's worth celebrating." This year, the inaugural committee has taken a similar tact, dubbing the events "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service."
|
|
|
Post by crazielollie on Jan 23, 2009 0:07:42 GMT -5
administration pay freezes
A real drop in the bucket
* major action on the military tribunals and Gitmo
Will get excited when he announces where those presently held are going to go.
* lobbying rules that keep current administration from working on matters they have previously lobbied on
This makes sense.
* does not allow staff to work for anyone industry privately for are least 2 years after leaving the administration So...do they join the ranks of the unemployed?
* banning gifts from lobbyist to administration staff
Lots of ways to get around that one. It's never been ethical and the idea that this "clean administration" needs to be told that says more than the idea of the ban.
* directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public * Called and talked with leaders in Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Egypt ...and said what? * meeting with economic advisers Since the one he's chosen as Secretary of Treasury was involved heavily in the first bailout and accomplished nothing, this doesn't lead me to feel cheerful about this. More of the same.
Yep, countries all over the world have lavish parties for their leaders even in countries where millions are starving. Maybe we could have just done something different by celebrating the things this man claims he honors by getting communities all over the country to celebrate together rather than a select few enjoying lavish celebrations. It would have been significant to Americans to see a change in behavior and attitude by the new leader who ran on change and togetherness. It's not a question of being "affordable" but rather the opportunity to express the idea of "we're all in this together" openly- not only the money problems but all of the changes he claims he wants us to be part of. The inauguration would have been no less "historic" and maybe more so it the "leader of change" had chosen to celebrate it with all of America via the net and media rather than with the few select.
As to the "rest of the world" - what a way to tell them "this is who I am" if that's who he truly is. We're in a new world, or so everyone says. Why do things the same way they were done 200 years ago when everyone couldn't be involved. Technology has opened up the world of "togetherness". Communications from well wishers all over the country could have come to him all day by video involving the president in their community celebrations of his inauguration in a very personal way. Still believe it was a missed opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by joethree56 on Jan 23, 2009 4:07:20 GMT -5
. Why do things the same way they were done 200 years ago
They were not. At that time Mr. Obama's destiny would have been far different and THAT is why this celebration was seen by many as being rather special.
|
|
oskar
Are We There Yet? Member
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by oskar on Jan 23, 2009 5:07:59 GMT -5
Yep, countries all over the world have lavish parties for their leaders even in countries where millions are starving.
We certainly don't.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Jan 23, 2009 5:17:17 GMT -5
Trying to imagine millions of Australians lining the streets of Canberra to celebrate the election of a John Howard or a Kevin Rudd.
Sorry, I just can't see it.
Frankly, the only comparable ceremony I can think of is an English coronation. Maybe that says something about the true nature of the Presidency.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 23, 2009 16:52:22 GMT -5
We'll never know for sure, but I would imagine that the idea of cancelling the inaugural celebrations was floated and dismissed. I can think of a number of good reasons -- some would call them rationalizations -- to choose to go through with them this year. At the top of the list would be the desire to foment the idea that "this is OUR time" and "this is OUR president." There's also a "morning in America" feeling in there.
Had Obama cancelled the inaugural celebrations -- and, incidentally, told everyone to stay home that day, because he's going to take the oath of office in a hallway of the Capitol, out of sight of everyone -- I probably would have said, "Wow, I never would have thought of that, but boy, it sure indicates he means business. I really respect that." But given that he didn't, I just see him as having stuck with tradition, period. In sort, I don't have a problem with it either way.
|
|
|
Post by crazielollie on Jan 24, 2009 0:32:46 GMT -5
pax,
I don't have a problem with it either, just think it was a missed opportunity. Going with tradition can be a very good thing. Tradition in families, marriages, etc. have served us well over the years. I applaud the man for his understanding of family and bringing his mother-in-law to the white house. More dependency on families and communities lessens the need for running to the federal government for things it wasn't designed to do. Just waiting to see the rhetoric come again to request help from all to make this country a better place. In that light, it was a missed opportunity but there will be plenty more if he choses to use them.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 24, 2009 13:35:38 GMT -5
I can see where you'd call it a missed opportunity, Lollie.
As far as requesting help from all to make the country a better place -- I consider it a big gesture in that direction that the day before his inauguration, Obama took up a paint brush and helped to paint a shelter for homeless children. Because of this and other things, I think Obama does match his actions with his rhetoric. We'll see if he keeps it up, but I'd say he's off to a great start of not asking anyone to do anything he wouldn't do himself.
|
|
|
Post by crazielollie on Jan 25, 2009 2:55:05 GMT -5
I'm still hoping your right but his pick for sec of treas. leaves me with strong doubts. Picking up a paint brush for a photo op is easy. Chosing someone to take on a job he's flubbed once at the cost of billions (would've given a lot of homeless kids and their families homes) that will end up being paid by my grandchildren doesn't exactly give me a lot of hope. Looks like more of the same - same people, same thinking and no originality, no new ideas. His "circle" seems to not include anyone that isn't already well connected politically.
|
|
|
Post by patchoulli on Jan 25, 2009 10:08:31 GMT -5
Re post #23 - crazielollie - "Looks like more of the same - same people, same thinking and no originality, no new ideas." It does look like that. But what if Obama tapped the same people for exactly that reason - the fact that they know just how the economy got to this point and can show how not to get there again? Maybe it's like having "the devil in the details", in this instance the devil would be the person who was part of the problem before and is now part of the solution precisely because s/he knows the "devilish" details and how to avoid them. I might be grasping here - I do very much want better things for our country and I want them to start happening soon - so I'm hoping Obama knows what he's doing and has some great plans even if they look a little weird right now.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 25, 2009 15:49:22 GMT -5
Even Fox News calls Geithner qualified... but, I really don't like his tax "mistakes." I think he's full of it on that.
Obama has no new ideas? Ok.
|
|
|
Post by crazielollie on Jan 26, 2009 5:41:46 GMT -5
patchoulli,
Geithner was involved in the first bailout which went poorly. At the same time I heard previous CEO's of some of the involved companies saying a bailout may not be necessary and there were other ways to deal with the "financial pickle" in companies they knew well. They weren't even allowed to be in on the talks much less invited. Sounds like a few "gurus" were all that were heard and they turned out to not be capable of controlling the "devils" so we threw billions down the drain. Right now we have banks refusing bailout money. Kind of makes me think they didn't need it to begin with.
Pax,
What Fox news says means nothing. They were nicely denying that we were even in a recession most of this year while I was busy "hunkering down" for the mess I knew was coming. Actually, I could ignore his "tax mistakes" as no laws were broken and it's personal matter. May not have been ethical but, in fact, there are many Americans who don't consider ethics when it comes to a way of avoiding taxes. I can't ignore the fact that he was involved in giving away billions with no result. So...in what manner is he qualified to fix anything? Do we need to "fix" anything or will the attempts just result in making the rich richer and leave the rest hanging as the last bailout he had a major part in did?
I'm waiting to hear a new idea from Obama. Thought he had lots but not seeing them yet but it's early. So far, what I see are political paybacks and politically connected people who were there walking the path that brought us to disaster and, hopefully, didn't realize it but it's the path they chose. Maybe it would be better to utilize the ideas of those who knew that path was wrong to get us on the right one.
|
|
wheelspinner
Are We There Yet? Member
Nobody's perfect, I'm a nobody, so ...
Posts: 4,103
|
Post by wheelspinner on Jan 26, 2009 6:51:51 GMT -5
Forgive me if I find it hard to tell at this remove, but did Obama actually offer "new ideas" or a change in direction. Sometimes change is merely a reversion to things that worked before. There are not a lot of genuine new ideas in politics for him to pick from; I would think that whatever he tries will be re-processed from somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by MacBeth on Jan 26, 2009 6:53:07 GMT -5
That is exactly on target, ws.
|
|
Pax
Are We There Yet? Member
quod erat demonstrandum.
Posts: 5,103
|
Post by Pax on Jan 26, 2009 9:38:14 GMT -5
Lollie, you're right, Fox News can be very unreliable when it comes to actually reporting facts because they can generally be counted upon to shill for a Republican administration regardless of what really is going on. The reason they were denying we were in a recession is because it was a Republican at the helm, and that would have embarrassed the Republican president, and worse, it would have been an acknowledgement that Republicans aren't infallible captains for the economy after all. It's that simple. Had it been Clinton, they'd have been beating the drums of how a Democratic president can't be trusted to steward the economy.
So, I do stand up and listen when they do something contrary to form -- like actually endorse (to a point) one of Obama's appointees.
Anyway, I don't think that a likely tax cheat should head the treasury. I can't believe that there literally is NO ONE ELSE that's qualified for the job.
|
|