Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

$150,000,000 spent on Obama Inaguration


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
53 replies to this topic

#37 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,599
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2009 - 08:00 PM

I personally can't stand anything about Washington or the politics oozing from it, but I'm not bent out of shape over this one.

#38 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,117
  • Reputation: 184
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2009 - 08:06 PM

i know this is old news, but i did not see it posted up anywhere...

you would think that with the economy being the way it is, that Obama would be a little more concious about spending. 150 million dollars was spent on the Obama inaguration...what a complete waste. i think that is disgusting. how about you do something useful with that money barry, like put it toward the private sector. lets create some jobs bud.

funny how back in '04 the media had a field day with the $43,000,000 that was spent on the Bush inaguration. but no, Obama spends over 300% of what Bush spent, and you dont hear a lick about it from the media. typical.


You must be one of the 15% of Americans who hate Obama. ... that's what I hear, anyway.

#39 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,117
  • Reputation: 184
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2009 - 08:07 PM

that 150,000,000 figure for Obama includes security and transportation.

that 43,000,000 figure for Bush does not.

Bush's 2004 inauguration cost $157,000,000.


link?

#40 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,331
  • Reputation: 1,509
SUPPORTER

Posted 24 January 2009 - 09:21 PM

If it was a party for himself, millions would not have showed up. Same for Bush, it was not a party for himself. The nation watches...for both Republican presidents and Democratic presidents...at least they should.


Unimportant party to stroke ones ego. Sorry but its the truth.

Such foolish spending of taxpayers money will lead to revolt, and I don't know that I won't be part of it.

#41 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • Joined: 27-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,021
  • Reputation: 200
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2009 - 09:57 PM

When Jimmy Carter tried to do things on the cheap he was looked down upon and he lost cred. Nothing you do will please everybody, somebody is going to bitch and moan (venom).

That inauguration pumped millions into the pockets of regular working Americans who may have been laid off otherwise.

WE NEED TO SPEND MONEY!!! The stupid fools who are holding it and not spending or reinvesting are the ones really hurting the economy. Especially those who've been blessed with 10mill bonuses and such.

This is the largest consumer economy in the world. It only works when cash flows from the bottom up.

#42 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,331
  • Reputation: 1,509
SUPPORTER

Posted 24 January 2009 - 10:34 PM

When Jimmy Carter tried to do things on the cheap he was looked down upon and he lost cred. Nothing you do will please everybody, somebody is going to bitch and moan (venom).

That inauguration pumped millions into the pockets of regular working Americans who may have been laid off otherwise.

WE NEED TO SPEND MONEY!!! The stupid fools who are holding it and not spending or reinvesting are the ones really hurting the economy. Especially those who've been blessed with 10mill bonuses and such.

This is the largest consumer economy in the world. It only works when cash flows from the bottom up.


WRONG

yes we all need to spend money, but not the government. Do you understand that every nickle that they spend has to come out of the taxpayers pocket?

Spending 150,000,000 on a party is outrageous. That did not save any jobs outside of the federal sector.

Quit with your silly excuses.

#43 rippadonn

rippadonn

    Since 2006

  • Joined: 27-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,021
  • Reputation: 200
HUDDLER

Posted 24 January 2009 - 10:53 PM

WRONG

yes we all need to spend money, but not the government. Do you understand that every nickle that they spend has to come out of the taxpayers pocket?

Spending 150,000,000 on a party is outrageous. That did not save any jobs outside of the federal sector.

Quit with your silly excuses.



What else does the gov do but spend money?

How many private contractors were involved with that party? My guess, very many.

Since when did the federal sector start catering or doing flower arrangements? That money went to regular Americans. People put in long hours and got paid.

To you that would be inexcusable? Stop hating.

#44 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,931
  • Reputation: 536
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2009 - 03:38 AM

i'm not outraged at either. it's just how much it costs. the bulk of it is spent on cleaning up afterwards and security and crap like that. all the stuff like staging and performances were paid for with private donations.

they are important historical reference points. america loves stupid crap like that to feel good. how much tax money is spent on the friggin blue angels?


i hope you realize with each progressive post you make, you make yourself out to be more and more moronic.

but i do agree with you about america's "feel good" syndrome...its the only thing Obama had going for him in his campaign, and is the only reason why he won. lets "feel good" for "change!" he led a campaign built solely on emotion.

so cleaning up afterwards was the bulk of the expenses for the inaugaration? didnt know the city would have to spend an extra (let's say) $50,000,000 on a cleanup crew. sounds like they got the shaft on that deal.

dude. youre a joke.

Edited by venom, 25 January 2009 - 03:49 AM.


#45 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,931
  • Reputation: 536
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2009 - 03:45 AM

That inauguration pumped millions into the pockets of regular working Americans who may have been laid off otherwise.

WE NEED TO SPEND MONEY!!! The stupid fools who are holding it and not spending or reinvesting are the ones really hurting the economy. Especially those who've been blessed with 10mill bonuses and such.

This is the largest consumer economy in the world. It only works when cash flows from the bottom up.


Yea duh. However your point is only half correct. We all know that $150,000,000 inaugaration is absolutely absurd. my point was a bunch of that money couldve gone into the private sector, where jobs are less expensive to create, and money can easily recycle itself back into the economy.

the spending youre talking about, as well as obama, is spending within the government and creating government jobs. this type of spending is worthless and does nothing for the economy.

#46 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,931
  • Reputation: 536
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2009 - 03:47 AM

What else does the gov do but spend money?

How many private contractors were involved with that party? My guess, very many.

Since when did the federal sector start catering or doing flower arrangements? That money went to regular Americans. People put in long hours and got paid.

To you that would be inexcusable? Stop hating.


yea, regular americans with government jobs. this is all part of obama's plan. barack wants to create more government jobs (which by the way are 4 times more expensive to create than a job in the prive sector), thus expanding government, and giving them (government) more control over your life.

Edited by venom, 25 January 2009 - 03:49 AM.


#47 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,171
  • Reputation: 5,267
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2009 - 03:56 AM

so cleaning up afterwards was the bulk of the expenses for the inaugaration? didnt know the city would have to spend an extra (let's say) $50,000,000 on a cleanup crew. sounds like they got the shaft on that deal.


clean-up, security, and transportation accounts for almost all of the government money for both bush and obama's inaugurations. bush's was 115,000,000 for those expenses from the government (he took his out of FEMA) and the rest (that 42,000,000 figure) was donations. i haven't seen a break down of how much of obama's 150,000,000 was donation or gov money.

#48 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,171
  • Reputation: 5,267
HUDDLER

Posted 25 January 2009 - 03:58 AM

yea, regular americans with government jobs. this is all part of obama's plan. barack wants to create more government jobs (which by the way are 4 times more expensive to create than a job in the prive sector), thus expanding government, and giving them (government) more control over your life.


are you really oblivious to the fact that Bush expanded the government more than any president since WWII and almost every single job he created was government? he created an entire new department.

if anything obama will end up shrinking the overall size of the federal government from the bloated parade float that bush turned it into.