150 mil? kidding right?

[Fire-Fly]

I just read where Obamas innaguration is going to cost 150 million, is this a joke or am i just not getting it. I remember 4 years ago Bush's inaguration cost 40 mil and the press slammed him cause that much was spent during war time, now we are in a reession and its ok for Obamas to cost 100 million more. Where's the press slamming Obama? This guy is not even President yet and all his talk during the campaign was a joke. Bipartisanship? He picked more liberals than any president. Then he says he is going to cut govt spending then starts out his term with the most expensive innaguration ever, topping the old number by 100 million. Whats next? It scares me to think.

[Al]

Don't look for me to be doing any posting on Wednesday. I am going to be watching out the front window for the mailman to come by with my $5000 check. (A joke for sure, but there will be lots of folks doing exactly that - I wonder how long it will be before they realize they have been had)

[cmiller51h]

I just read where Obamas innaguration is going to cost 150 million, is this a joke or am i just not getting it. I remember 4 years ago Bush's inaguration cost 40 mil and the press slammed him cause that much was spent during war time, now we are in a reession and its ok for Obamas to cost 100 million more. Where's the press slamming Obama? This guy is not even President yet and all his talk during the campaign was a joke. Bipartisanship? He picked more liberals than any president. Then he says he is going to cut govt spending then starts out his term with the most expensive innaguration ever, topping the old number by 100 million. Whats next? It scares me to think.

Preach on it Brother, preach on it! I'm with ya! I'm tierd of hearing how bad W was. I guess it's our turn to bash Obamy! Where are the liberals now, when he's spending the shit out of taxpayer money for parties!? I guess that's OK cuase he's going to give them some of it! Yeah right. He' going to lead this country alright...right down the drain!

[Peddler]

But DAMN... doncha know that Rush said the party costs are the 'issue of the week' for everyone who claims to be a conservative?
Maybe that's just to take their minds off of the almost TRILLION tax-payer dollars pissed away by Paulson to his cronies on Wall Street INCLUDING Goldman-Sachs, the company he left to become Sec of Treas.
Naw... many would much rather sweat the partisan stuff than what has REALLY fucked us!

[trout_boyII]

"Obama's inaugural committee is in the midst of raising roughly $45 million in private funds,

Here's why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush's 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration's security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here's The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:

The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.

For decades, that represented the norm in terms of calculating inauguration costs: Federal dollars spent on security were not part of the commonly referred-to cost. (The cost of Obama's inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million.) What's happening this year: The cost of the Obama inauguration and the cost of the security are being combined by some in order to come up with the much larger tab. Then, that number is being compared with the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2005, minus the money spent on security."

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003

That sounds reasonable - it would be amazing if there was that much difference in an apple to apple comparison.  Common sense would suggest that there was little way to spend that much more, except on security.    If there was, I would be up in arms about it too, and I was one of the few on the Board who voted for the guy.  And the " inaugural balls" are not at taxpayer expense - I think.

I wonder about the leanings of the site you referenced?  It looks like a helpful site, but if it just spins a pro Democratic slant, then I won't bother to check it again. 

By now everyone who follows this Board, pretty much knows where each board member stands on soon to be President Obama.  Given that the election is over, it seems to me that we all should let it (the election) go and concentrate on the performance of the new President and his team, criticizing where facts back your criticism and praising where facts justify the praise.  Just because I voted for the guy doesn't mean I cut him any slack on delivering on what I thought I heard him say in the campaign.  If he screws up, I will be as loud as any of you in pointing it out.  Frankly, partisan politics on both sides are a great part of the reason we are where we are today, and I think (think) that Obama intends to do what it right for the US as a whole and not just the Democrats.  Only time will prove me right or wrong. 

There is a branch of psychology that addresses the mind's need to be right, sometimes even to the point of death.  While many of you may be hoping for your opportunity for "I told you so!", for the good of the country, I hope your opportunities to say that are not often.  I'm sure there will be things I don't agree with that Obama wants to do (the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041) comes to mind for one.  What in the hell is he thinking??!!), but I still think he better be the guy to lead us out of this morass we find ourselves in, no matter who got us there.  Even if you don't like the guy, which is your right and privilege, I don't think biased attacks either for or against our new President will help the country one bit.

Anyway, thanks for the info. (I think...)

T (still an Independent) B

PS  I'm hoping this post will put me over 1000 smites.  I doubt I can catch Peddler, but I'd like to give it a try! 

[Al]

[There is a branch of psychology that addresses the mind's need to be right, sometimes even to the point of death.  While many of you may be hoping for your opportunity for "I told you so!", for the good of the country, I hope your opportunities to say that are not often.  I'm sure there will be things I don't agree with that Obama wants to do (the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041) comes to mind for one.  What in the hell is he thinking??!!), but I still think he better be the guy to lead us out of this morass we find ourselves in, no matter who got us there.  Even if you don't like the guy, which is your right and privilege, I don't think biased attacks either for or against our new President will help the country one bit.

Anyway, thanks for the info. (I think...)

T (still an Independent) B

PS  I'm hoping this post will put me over 1000 smites.  I doubt I can catch Peddler, but I'd like to give it a try! 

I agree with TB2 for a change. We are in this together and the new pres is our elected leader - we better hope he succeeds. But all this back and forth makes for good theater when it is too cold to go fishing ::) Another thought - In some countries we would be visited by the "Secret Police" for threads like this. Thank God we live in the USA

I will give TB2 a smite just to run his numbers up //?

While I have the floor let me post something I received from an old retired school teacher who remembers all those "Caroline's and Jackie's"  that came through the schools in the '60's:

:

[flatlander]

But DAMN... doncha know that Rush said the party costs are the 'issue of the week' for everyone who claims to be a conservative?
Maybe that's just to take their minds off of the almost TRILLION tax-payer dollars pissed away by Paulson to his cronies on Wall Street INCLUDING Goldman-Sachs, the company he left to become Sec of Treas.
Naw... many would much rather sweat the partisan stuff than what has REALLY fucked us!

Woolly,

Does this site have an ignore feature? 

[Gofisher]

But DAMN... doncha know that Rush said the party costs are the 'issue of the week' for everyone who claims to be a conservative?
Maybe that's just to take their minds off of the almost TRILLION tax-payer dollars pissed away by Paulson to his cronies on Wall Street INCLUDING Goldman-Sachs, the company he left to become Sec of Treas.
Naw... many would much rather sweat the partisan stuff than what has REALLY fucked us!

Touche...

[Woolly Bugger]

But DAMN... doncha know that Rush said the party costs are the 'issue of the week' for everyone who claims to be a conservative?
Maybe that's just to take their minds off of the almost TRILLION tax-payer dollars pissed away by Paulson to his cronies on Wall Street INCLUDING Goldman-Sachs, the company he left to become Sec of Treas.
Naw... many would much rather sweat the partisan stuff than what has REALLY fucked us!

Woolly,

Does this site have an ignore feature? 

yeah, it looks like this:

[Fire-Fly]

"Obama's inaugural committee is in the midst of raising roughly $45 million in private funds,

Here's why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush's 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration's security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press. For instance, here's The Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush bash:

The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment.

For decades, that represented the norm in terms of calculating inauguration costs: Federal dollars spent on security were not part of the commonly referred-to cost. (The cost of Obama's inauguration, minus the security costs? Approximately $45 million.) What's happening this year: The cost of the Obama inauguration and the cost of the security are being combined by some in order to come up with the much larger tab. Then, that number is being compared with the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2005, minus the money spent on security."

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003

I read that site and its no more than the authors opinions of what he beleives, just as all the major news networks, it does puzzle me though that the same news media that is dying to wipe Obamas tail just so they can be close to GREATNESS, has come out with this story. I didnt read it on Fox news, i got the story from the New york times, huh?

[Woolly Bugger]

it's all about CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE.... $170,000 WORTH OF CHANGE....


http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6680531&page=1

INCLUSIVE ADMINISTRATION

[troutphisher]

Nice political thread.

TB duce doesn't have a clue.

He couldn't even come up with a single accomplishment Obama had. Duce had no clue who he was voting for, and when confronted with it, his only defense was to play the race card. I think any political response "Ole duce" makes, has absolutely no credibility.

Now he claims independent? WTF...ya right. Independents don't blindly  vote for a candidate so they can be the first on the block to pronounce " I voted for a black guy!".

We put a little more substance behind our votes, by actually researching the records, finding the facts.
We don't let Oprah pick our candidates....he he he


Maybe he the Duce will quit again and come back as a singular? TB I? .....LOL

[trout_boyII]

Sorry TP.  I'm back to stay.  Although I've suggested that we move beyond the election and concentrate on the job our new President does or does not do, I stand by my earlier statements about your comments during the election.  "Me thinks he doth protest to much..."  comes to mind, but whatever.

And yes, I am an independent - have voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the past.  Sorry I didn't meet your expectations on my "research" into the candidate I voted for.  I was satisfied with my decision and, (this is still the USA right?), thats all I needed to do since I meet the age and and citizenship requirements.  I suggest that if you have a better way to run elections in the United Sates in the future, you tell your elected official or run for office yourself.  If you are successful in changing the law, then I will surely follow it.  In the meantime, get over it.

TP, I'm pretty sure I never minimized your concerns about a relatively inexperienced politician obtaining the highest office in our land.  I agree that we are betting a lot on Obama being something special with little history to support that belief.  But enough of us saw something there that we voted him into office.  Perhaps that will be a good thing.  Perhaps not, but history will be the judge.  That's the way we do it in the United States.  We get it right most of the time.  When we don't, we try something else.  That's our plight and our honor as American citizens.

TP, you are truly a hell of a fisherman, no question about it, but your citizenship skills could use a little work.  Barack Obama will be your President as well as mine and everybody else's tomorrow afternoon.  We need to back him until he gives us reason not to.  That's where the "United" States of America comes from.

TB

[troutjedi]

40 million dollars for a second-term inauguration?  Why couldn't they just have a pot luck and a keg and call it done?

[Shane]

Good Riddance to George Bush. I could not be more happy that this era of American history has finally come to pass.
I tip my glass to his exit and smile broadly.
S