They are going to play the theme from Superman tomarrow. Fitting.
I bet the majority of this cost is for developing a way to scan for kryptonite.
Posted by: He's the One | January 19, 2009, 8:29 am 8:29 am
Sorry, I couldn’t stomach more than a couple minutes of Obama as PopStarPreacher.
Posted by: bluecollarbytes | January 19, 2009, 8:45 am 8:45 am
Hey now, you’re a rock star, get paid. All that glitter is gold…
Posted by: smashmouth | January 19, 2009, 8:58 am 8:58 am
Uh oh..someone here is a bitter baby. I’m glad it’s not me, in fact I love Mr. President obama back..More
Posted by: carmela | January 19, 2009, 9:01 am 9:01 am
If all what is going on does not move you and feel proud of your country, but other nations around the world are having “Big Parties”, then you need to ask yourself; “Whats wrong with me??????????????????”
Posted by: Rita | January 19, 2009, 9:12 am 9:12 am
Small bitter people.
Posted by: Thinking | January 19, 2009, 9:14 am 9:14 am
$170 million of the taxpayers money for an innaguration? Now that’s change we cna believe in!
I’m not red or blue, just a reasonable man and I’ll tell you something: Obama will be as poor a president as Bush because he didn’t earn the presidency. It was given to him by the democratic party and the electoral system. He has no military experience, no foreign service experience, he’s never had fiscal responsibility for a budget, he has never worked in a monetary capacity, he has never been in a position of leadership in his life.
He was a student, then a lawyer then a prof. then a state senator, then a U.S. senator and then a political strategy for the dems.
He’s an icon for people who fancy themselves “liberal” whatever that means these days and nothing has yet to change.
I understand this is the most expensive innaguration – even in terms of real dollars – in the history of the country.
Business as usual folks. Sorry, I don’t make the news I just report it.
Posted by: don | January 19, 2009, 9:41 am 9:41 am
Sure glad we taxpayers have all this extra money lying around to pay for this extravaganza. The change is in the air…the “ME” generation has finally come to power. Look at me, look at me…look at me waste your money.
Posted by: dilligaf | January 19, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am
ohh a $150M inauguration booh booh..so unfair..so irreasonable..there’s a recession..blah blah blah… Bitter Babies
Posted by: carmela | January 19, 2009, 10:21 am 10:21 am
The Obama figure of $160 million that has been repeated in the press includes estimates of security costs associated with the event. The Bush expense of $42 million many are citing LEFT OUT those enormous security costs.
Weeks following the Bush inauguration, it was reported that the cost for Security cost alone of the Bush inauguration of a war-time President was
116 Million.
Posted by: Paige | January 19, 2009, 10:44 am 10:44 am
Sing along with the concert. Soon, you won’t be able to call PEBO PEBO since he will be PBO.
Posted by: skinny cat | January 19, 2009, 11:06 am 11:06 am
Former the late Pres. Reagan has the best inauguration during his first term in this history.
Posted by: anonymous | January 19, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
PBO still sounds PEBO. Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask “Whats wrong with me??????????????????”
Posted by: Rita | January 19, 2009, 11:12 am 11:12 am
“Responsibility” is a great theme for the Inaugural Address. But how does that apply to Tim Geithner? To Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd?
Posted by: frieda | January 19, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
These Obamites are almost beyond parody, since everything they do its justified as the height of rationality- fly out to take a chartered train back to where you started? Of course! Doesnt everyone? $160M to a Inauguration party? Perfectly natural if Lincoln was alive wouldnt you do the same?
I see Slate as a column that the first thing that Obama has to do it to restore the Whitehouse wine cellar. This is an urgent situation because:
- it has been depleted to only 500 bottles
- they are most big aggressive wines, and that is undiplomatic
- there are only American wines. Oh dear.
Posted by: BertieW | January 19, 2009, 11:28 am 11:28 am
All of the inauguration festivities are the most overwhelming display of political capital in presidential history. Combine the pomp and circumstance with 80% approval and the “loyal opposition – i.e; the GOP – will have a hard time trying to retain mainstream support if they continue fighting Obama’s agenda.
Posted by: matt | January 19, 2009, 11:40 am 11:40 am
“Combine the pomp and circumstance with 80% approval … ”
A zillion corporate dollars in puffery notwithstanding, those “approval” numbers are EXTREMELY suspect, given the surveillance state AND the “racist” intimidation pattern established by the “Obama” machine early in the formerly-Democratic primaries.
It’s a Pharoah’s New Clothes fairy-tale.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 19, 2009, 11:49 am 11:49 am
Belle-No matter who was president, you’d be wishing for the apocalyptic created by a patriarch of mythic proportions. Have a nice day. Try not to let the joyousness put a further damper on your outlook.
Posted by: kathy | January 19, 2009, 11:57 am 11:57 am
“Combine the pomp and circumstance with 80% approval ”
That approval for for how his handling the transition. He isnt governing jack. If all you do it announce Clinton warm overs to a salivating press core of course you come off good.
I have yet to see a corporate press release that made their product look bad.
At some point Obama is actually going to have to do something and not blame the situation on someone else. Obama has established a permanent campaign fund of $75M a year but at some point there is going to be a hurricane be forgets to hold back and it will leak out in press stories.
Posted by: BertieW | January 19, 2009, 11:59 am 11:59 am
“All of the inauguration festivities are the most overwhelming display of political capital in presidential history.”
Quite a display of CORPORATE capital, reminiscent more of Leni Riefenstahl spectaculars than of ANYthing having to do with either Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln.
Whether the figure-head is Bush or his new admirer Brock, this country is headed for revolution … and it won’t be led by the “Obama” machine.
Mob-friendly Brock will go down in history, if there IS any history, as the “black” Benedict Arnold.
Meanwhile, history moves a lot faster than it used to, and mob princess Pelosi’s back-pedalling the hijacked Democrats from Brock’s “Bush-is-a-good-guy” pronouncement, which didn’t set too well with the masses, even WITH the circus in town in DC.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 19, 2009, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
If Pullosee has anything to do with what we hear about obaba; it will be nothing, zip, nada. She will probably resurrect “Tokyo Rose” to do the news.
You folks that voted for this empty suit won’t remember WWII and what it was fought for…yeah, it was fought so we could have freedom of speech and to vote for whom ever we wished. Now you have your savior to pay your bills and feed, clothe and give you health care.
Not to mention to spit on the American Flag that those men died for. Who will e his choice to blabber the National Anthem tomorrow?
Some of you are morons. This is not paid for by tax payers. The inaugural committee raises private funds to pay for everything. I’m sure it has created some jobs and is helping restaurants and hotels in DC.
Posted by: Tk | January 19, 2009, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
Some of us read the papers.
Its now $170M. $41M of whi8ch has been raised from fat cat billionaires and recently bailed out Wall St types.
“Its now $170M. $41M of whi8ch has been raised from fat cat billionaires and recently bailed out Wall St types.”
AND, according to the Washington Post, the “Obama” machine — its ill-gotten gains kept separate from the “Democratic” Party it hijacked to get this far — is selling the rights to the networks.
It’s amazing: if the citizen-extras come to comprehend the nature of their participation in this bogus “history”, maybe they’ll just stroll over and dismantle the Capitol.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 19, 2009, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
The Obama inaugural cost figures in the press are still only estimates. Bush’s 2005 inauguration cost a hard $157 million. Were you right-wingers bellyaching back then?
“This is not paid for by tax payers.”
Whew! There for a minute, we thought wannabe Treasury Sec Geithner might be paying for the whole shebang out of his own deep pocket. (Oh, WAIT: Geithner doesn’t PAY taxes … )
Where do you think all the train-loads of corporate disposable income COME from? Not from building a better mousetrap. Corporations accumulate capital at the expense of the ENTIRE citizenry, including the millions whose income is so small they don’t have to pay taxes (and, of course, the super-entitled corporate rich — like Geithner — who simply DON’T pay taxes).
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 19, 2009, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
“It’s amazing: if the citizen-extras come to comprehend the nature of their participation in this bogus “history”, maybe they’ll just stroll over and dismantle the Capitol. ”
I doubt it. Most of them dont pay tax anyway and their mixture of illegal drugs and serotonin inhibitors have them pickled to a ‘T’. I doubt that they will see the parallels of social nationalism to National Socialism.
doubt it. Most of them dont pay tax anyway and their mixture of illegal drugs and serotonin inhibitors have them pickled to a ‘T’. I doubt that they will see the parallels of social nationalism to National Socialism.
Posted by: BertieW | Jan 19, 2009 1:46:44 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you think this is the group that elected him and are the ones running to Washington to aee “history” made? Just spend the gov’t check…..worry what you will eat unti next check comes.
Taxpayers are not paying for the inauguration, except for local security that would be offset by the flow of money into the DC area.
Ronald Reagan’s second inaugural had to compete with Super Bowl Sunday. (1985)
The inauguration stimulates the economy by creating jobs, which would include short-term jobs that would help the unemployed.
There are foreign visitors and foreign press buying airplane tickets and spending money in the U.S.
It would be nice if people could stop and think about what this day means for millions of Americans, especially African-Americans.
The inauguration is also meaningful for people of all colors around the world.
You might not appreciate the day, but how about not raining on other people’s parade.
Posted by: Julie K | January 19, 2009, 1:57 pm 1:57 pm
This inaug is putting government money back in the economy. Wouldn’t want to own or manage a hotel or restaurant there….monuments and streets in Washington were a nasty mess before this inaug. The city will look worse than the Astrodome after Katrina when this is all over.
“The city will look worse than the Astrodome after Katrina when this is all over.”
Where do the porta-potties go … after the Pharoanic ascension? There was a big media push about the ecologically-adorable disposal of the horse poop, but nary a public word on human waste statistics.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 19, 2009, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm
“The inauguration stimulates the economy by creating jobs, which would include short-term jobs that would help the unemployed.”
So why the big push against prostitutes (who are mostly financially-distressed women, and young folks of all genders)? That this particular bunch of corporate politicians and king-makers should be waxing officious about FREElance prostitutes is … funny? ironic? ridiculous?
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 19, 2009, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
“Taxpayers are not paying for the inauguration, except for local security that would be offset by the flow of money into the DC area.”
Except for the $110-120 million.
And this sales and room tax are local and state funds. There is no recovery for the federal government.
Inaugural costs are usually cited as the costs of the balls and festivities. In this respect, despite inflation Obama (approx. $45 million) is in line with the 2005 Bush inaugural which cost $42.3 million. In both cases, these costs are covered by donations.
And yes, for every inauguration there are millions and millions of dollars in costs beyond this that are covered by the government and include items like security, secret service, military personnel for the parade, public transportation, emergency services, porta-potties, restraining barriers, . .. and so on.
“Its now $170M. $41M of whi8ch has been raised from fat cat billionaires and recently bailed out Wall St types.”
Just one second here, Bush’s inauguration donations came in amounts up to $250,000 – that indeed came from fat cat billionaires and wall street types. $250,000 is an amount intended to ‘gain influence’.
Obama specifically and purposefully cut back the maximum amount on any contribution to $50,000 and if you check the web site (where all contributors are listed – transparency you see), you’ll find most of the contributors are not fat cat billionaires or wall street types at all, but regular citizens.
Please don’t denigrate the very real steps being taken to decrease the influence of big money in buying influence in Washington.
“a phony visit to vets”
Obama made a point throughout his campaign to quite consistently pay tribute to vets and those in service .. .. and to speak strongly on better support for them from the government . . . and he continues to do so. I think you’ll find vets get better treatment under the Obama administration.
That you can dumb this down to a “photo op” shows more about your attitude than Obama’s.
From ABC:
“The biggest group of donors were none other than the recently bailed-out Wall Street executives and employees.
“The finance sector is well represented, despite its recent troubles,” Ritsch said. “Those who worked in finance still managed to pull together nearly $7 million for the inauguration.”
The donors will get some of the best seats in the house for the inauguration, as well as admittance to some of the best balls and other events. ”
Billionaire investor George Soros and his family contributed $250,000 to the inauguration, and Google co-founder Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt each donated $25,000. ”
I was almost afraid that there wouldnt be space for Soros! What would the world have come to if a forgiegn billionaire couldnt manipulate his pet project!
Let me see, total donated – about $45 million; donated by financial sector (as you quote it) $7 million.
Amount of money that does not come from financial sector $38 million dollars ($45-$7 million).
So the largest contributions BY FAR come from OUTSIDE the financial sector. And no contributor was allowed to donate more than $50,000, whereas Bush’s contributors were allowed up around $250,000 – big time influence buying.
I love it when you are left desperately trying to defend a little tiny melting ice patch.
First note that rogue billionaire, currency speculator, George Soros’ “family” donated $250,000. I am sure little Betty Lou Soros is very interested in politics to have matched the maximum amount. Certainly dosnt look like an attempt to circumvent the maximum amount with funds that came out of Georges pocket in the first place.
If $250K is an amount intended to “gain influence” but $50K is perfectly innocent, then what do we make of all these $100K ‘couple’ contributions- Balmers, Gates, Speilberg (nice to see Madoff didnt leave him without walking around money), Katzenberg, Lucas. Do they only want to gain partial influence?
Since Obama is controlling the TARP funds, it sure is convenient that the Citibank buddies had a spare $7 million around to donate.
Spend, spend, spend. That is the one thing consistant with the One. That’s for sure.
He has quite the record. Campaign, victory party, Xmas vacation, train ride and now this party to take an oath.
Wonder what the hypocrite will say to make us think he is somehow going to be responsible. Oh I forgot, his mere presence will fix all. Cue the Superman music.
Posted by: Tori | January 19, 2009, 7:24 pm 7:24 pm
Try to expand your thinking bert. If Bush allowed single contributions of $250,000, don’t you realize doubling up that money turns it into $500,000 worth of influence – or by families or individuals from very wealthy companies into $750,000 or $1,000,000 worth of influence?
The difference is a factor of 5. Single donors were able to contribute 5 times as much money under Bush as under Obama.
That is a huge difference. That you fail to see it speaks more about your blinders than anything else.
I thought you had some magic ‘evil’ number there. My mistake. Now that democrats give the money its not evil anymore.
Money in politics = bad; unless it Obama’s money.
On the other hand I am glad that he is fleecing millionaires instead of poor people. There is no reason for him to be flim flamming the poor for donation after donation like he was selling a real estate course on tv.
“Try to expand your thinking bert. If Bush allowed single contributions of $250,000, don’t you realize doubling up that money turns it into $500,000 worth of influence – or by families or individuals from very wealthy companies into $750,000 or $1,000,000 worth of influence?
The difference is a factor of 5. Single donors were able to contribute 5 times as much money under Bush as under Obama.
That is a huge difference. That you fail to see it speaks more about your blinders than anything else.”
Poor bert . .. cutting back on people being able to buy influence – a simple concept your bias fails to grasp.
What are you even talking about? You have no evidence anyone ever even bundled up these contributions to $750K for Bush, but you have right in front of you news stories of fat cats ponying up $100K and $250K for the Messiah.
What happened to “whereas Bush’s contributors were allowed up around $250,000 – big time influence buying”?
Under Bush, contributors could purchase $250,000 worth of influence through donations to Bush.
Big time contributor after big time contributor. $250,000 at a pop. Big time sell off. No longer possible.
Only one of your two thin examples barely touches $250,000.
Big time contributors, corporations and lobbyists pumping $250,000 contributions into political pockets has been hugely reduced.
Posted by: pefros | January 20, 2009, 1:04 am 1:04 am
“Obama, who vowed during the campaign that special interests would not yield undue influence in his White House, is limiting inaugural contributions to $50,000 each and will not accept money from corporations, unions, political action committees, or federal lobbyists, inaugural spokesman Josh Earnest said.”
Posted by: pefros | January 20, 2009, 1:13 am 1:13 am
“Bush imposed a $250,000 cap on inaugural donations in 2004 but did not bar corporate contributions.”
Posted by: pefros | January 20, 2009, 1:17 am 1:17 am
We dumbed down the education system in this country and now we have dumbed down the US government.
“We dumbed down the education system in this country and now we have dumbed down the US government.”
Government just got a whole lot smarter now that George Bush is no longer in charge.
Posted by: Ryan C | January 20, 2009, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm
Email
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
They are going to play the theme from Superman tomarrow. Fitting.
I bet the majority of this cost is for developing a way to scan for kryptonite.
Posted by: He's the One | January 19, 2009, 8:29 am 8:29 am
Sorry, I couldn’t stomach more than a couple minutes of Obama as PopStarPreacher.
Posted by: bluecollarbytes | January 19, 2009, 8:45 am 8:45 am
Hey now, you’re a rock star, get paid. All that glitter is gold…
Posted by: smashmouth | January 19, 2009, 8:58 am 8:58 am
Uh oh..someone here is a bitter baby. I’m glad it’s not me, in fact I love Mr. President obama back..More
Posted by: carmela | January 19, 2009, 9:01 am 9:01 am
If all what is going on does not move you and feel proud of your country, but other nations around the world are having “Big Parties”, then you need to ask yourself; “Whats wrong with me??????????????????”
Posted by: Rita | January 19, 2009, 9:12 am 9:12 am
Small bitter people.
Posted by: Thinking | January 19, 2009, 9:14 am 9:14 am
$170 million of the taxpayers money for an innaguration? Now that’s change we cna believe in!
I’m not red or blue, just a reasonable man and I’ll tell you something: Obama will be as poor a president as Bush because he didn’t earn the presidency. It was given to him by the democratic party and the electoral system. He has no military experience, no foreign service experience, he’s never had fiscal responsibility for a budget, he has never worked in a monetary capacity, he has never been in a position of leadership in his life.
He was a student, then a lawyer then a prof. then a state senator, then a U.S. senator and then a political strategy for the dems.
He’s an icon for people who fancy themselves “liberal” whatever that means these days and nothing has yet to change.
I understand this is the most expensive innaguration – even in terms of real dollars – in the history of the country.
Business as usual folks. Sorry, I don’t make the news I just report it.
Posted by: don | January 19, 2009, 9:41 am 9:41 am
Sure glad we taxpayers have all this extra money lying around to pay for this extravaganza. The change is in the air…the “ME” generation has finally come to power. Look at me, look at me…look at me waste your money.
Posted by: dilligaf | January 19, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am
ohh a $150M inauguration booh booh..so unfair..so irreasonable..there’s a recession..blah blah blah… Bitter Babies
Posted by: carmela | January 19, 2009, 10:21 am 10:21 am
The Obama figure of $160 million that has been repeated in the press includes estimates of security costs associated with the event. The Bush expense of $42 million many are citing LEFT OUT those enormous security costs.
Weeks following the Bush inauguration, it was reported that the cost for Security cost alone of the Bush inauguration of a war-time President was
116 Million.
Posted by: Paige | January 19, 2009, 10:44 am 10:44 am
Sing along with the concert. Soon, you won’t be able to call PEBO PEBO since he will be PBO.
Posted by: skinny cat | January 19, 2009, 11:06 am 11:06 am
Former the late Pres. Reagan has the best inauguration during his first term in this history.
Posted by: anonymous | January 19, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
PBO still sounds PEBO. Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask “Whats wrong with me??????????????????”
Posted by: Rita | January 19, 2009, 11:12 am 11:12 am
“Responsibility” is a great theme for the Inaugural Address. But how does that apply to Tim Geithner? To Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd?
Posted by: frieda | January 19, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am
These Obamites are almost beyond parody, since everything they do its justified as the height of rationality- fly out to take a chartered train back to where you started? Of course! Doesnt everyone? $160M to a Inauguration party? Perfectly natural if Lincoln was alive wouldnt you do the same?
I see Slate as a column that the first thing that Obama has to do it to restore the Whitehouse wine cellar. This is an urgent situation because:
- it has been depleted to only 500 bottles
- they are most big aggressive wines, and that is undiplomatic
- there are only American wines. Oh dear.
Posted by: BertieW | January 19, 2009, 11:28 am 11:28 am
All of the inauguration festivities are the most overwhelming display of political capital in presidential history. Combine the pomp and circumstance with 80% approval and the “loyal opposition – i.e; the GOP – will have a hard time trying to retain mainstream support if they continue fighting Obama’s agenda.
Posted by: matt | January 19, 2009, 11:40 am 11:40 am
“Combine the pomp and circumstance with 80% approval … ”
A zillion corporate dollars in puffery notwithstanding, those “approval” numbers are EXTREMELY suspect, given the surveillance state AND the “racist” intimidation pattern established by the “Obama” machine early in the formerly-Democratic primaries.
It’s a Pharoah’s New Clothes fairy-tale.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 19, 2009, 11:49 am 11:49 am
Belle-No matter who was president, you’d be wishing for the apocalyptic created by a patriarch of mythic proportions. Have a nice day. Try not to let the joyousness put a further damper on your outlook.
Posted by: kathy | January 19, 2009, 11:57 am 11:57 am
“Combine the pomp and circumstance with 80% approval ”
That approval for for how his handling the transition. He isnt governing jack. If all you do it announce Clinton warm overs to a salivating press core of course you come off good.
I have yet to see a corporate press release that made their product look bad.
At some point Obama is actually going to have to do something and not blame the situation on someone else. Obama has established a permanent campaign fund of $75M a year but at some point there is going to be a hurricane be forgets to hold back and it will leak out in press stories.
Posted by: BertieW | January 19, 2009, 11:59 am 11:59 am
“All of the inauguration festivities are the most overwhelming display of political capital in presidential history.”
Quite a display of CORPORATE capital, reminiscent more of Leni Riefenstahl spectaculars than of ANYthing having to do with either Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln.
Whether the figure-head is Bush or his new admirer Brock, this country is headed for revolution … and it won’t be led by the “Obama” machine.
Mob-friendly Brock will go down in history, if there IS any history, as the “black” Benedict Arnold.
Meanwhile, history moves a lot faster than it used to, and mob princess Pelosi’s back-pedalling the hijacked Democrats from Brock’s “Bush-is-a-good-guy” pronouncement, which didn’t set too well with the masses, even WITH the circus in town in DC.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 19, 2009, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
If Pullosee has anything to do with what we hear about obaba; it will be nothing, zip, nada. She will probably resurrect “Tokyo Rose” to do the news.
You folks that voted for this empty suit won’t remember WWII and what it was fought for…yeah, it was fought so we could have freedom of speech and to vote for whom ever we wished. Now you have your savior to pay your bills and feed, clothe and give you health care.
Not to mention to spit on the American Flag that those men died for. Who will e his choice to blabber the National Anthem tomorrow?
Posted by: Mildred | January 19, 2009, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm
Some of you are morons. This is not paid for by tax payers. The inaugural committee raises private funds to pay for everything. I’m sure it has created some jobs and is helping restaurants and hotels in DC.
Posted by: Tk | January 19, 2009, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
Some of us read the papers.
Its now $170M. $41M of whi8ch has been raised from fat cat billionaires and recently bailed out Wall St types.
Posted by: BertieW | January 19, 2009, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
Read that he borrowed money from China to pay for the inaughhhhh.
Posted by: Moline | January 19, 2009, 1:18 pm 1:18 pm
“Its now $170M. $41M of whi8ch has been raised from fat cat billionaires and recently bailed out Wall St types.”
AND, according to the Washington Post, the “Obama” machine — its ill-gotten gains kept separate from the “Democratic” Party it hijacked to get this far — is selling the rights to the networks.
It’s amazing: if the citizen-extras come to comprehend the nature of their participation in this bogus “history”, maybe they’ll just stroll over and dismantle the Capitol.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 19, 2009, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
The Obama inaugural cost figures in the press are still only estimates. Bush’s 2005 inauguration cost a hard $157 million. Were you right-wingers bellyaching back then?
Posted by: Rudy | January 19, 2009, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
“This is not paid for by tax payers.”
Whew! There for a minute, we thought wannabe Treasury Sec Geithner might be paying for the whole shebang out of his own deep pocket. (Oh, WAIT: Geithner doesn’t PAY taxes … )
Where do you think all the train-loads of corporate disposable income COME from? Not from building a better mousetrap. Corporations accumulate capital at the expense of the ENTIRE citizenry, including the millions whose income is so small they don’t have to pay taxes (and, of course, the super-entitled corporate rich — like Geithner — who simply DON’T pay taxes).
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 19, 2009, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
“It’s amazing: if the citizen-extras come to comprehend the nature of their participation in this bogus “history”, maybe they’ll just stroll over and dismantle the Capitol. ”
I doubt it. Most of them dont pay tax anyway and their mixture of illegal drugs and serotonin inhibitors have them pickled to a ‘T’. I doubt that they will see the parallels of social nationalism to National Socialism.
Posted by: BertieW | January 19, 2009, 1:46 pm 1:46 pm
doubt it. Most of them dont pay tax anyway and their mixture of illegal drugs and serotonin inhibitors have them pickled to a ‘T’. I doubt that they will see the parallels of social nationalism to National Socialism.
Posted by: BertieW | Jan 19, 2009 1:46:44 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you think this is the group that elected him and are the ones running to Washington to aee “history” made? Just spend the gov’t check…..worry what you will eat unti next check comes.
Posted by: Mildred | January 19, 2009, 1:56 pm 1:56 pm
Taxpayers are not paying for the inauguration, except for local security that would be offset by the flow of money into the DC area.
Ronald Reagan’s second inaugural had to compete with Super Bowl Sunday. (1985)
The inauguration stimulates the economy by creating jobs, which would include short-term jobs that would help the unemployed.
There are foreign visitors and foreign press buying airplane tickets and spending money in the U.S.
It would be nice if people could stop and think about what this day means for millions of Americans, especially African-Americans.
The inauguration is also meaningful for people of all colors around the world.
You might not appreciate the day, but how about not raining on other people’s parade.
Posted by: Julie K | January 19, 2009, 1:57 pm 1:57 pm
This inaug is putting government money back in the economy. Wouldn’t want to own or manage a hotel or restaurant there….monuments and streets in Washington were a nasty mess before this inaug. The city will look worse than the Astrodome after Katrina when this is all over.
Posted by: Mildred | January 19, 2009, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm
“The city will look worse than the Astrodome after Katrina when this is all over.”
Where do the porta-potties go … after the Pharoanic ascension? There was a big media push about the ecologically-adorable disposal of the horse poop, but nary a public word on human waste statistics.
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 19, 2009, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm
“The inauguration stimulates the economy by creating jobs, which would include short-term jobs that would help the unemployed.”
So why the big push against prostitutes (who are mostly financially-distressed women, and young folks of all genders)? That this particular bunch of corporate politicians and king-makers should be waxing officious about FREElance prostitutes is … funny? ironic? ridiculous?
Posted by: Belle Starr | January 19, 2009, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
“Taxpayers are not paying for the inauguration, except for local security that would be offset by the flow of money into the DC area.”
Except for the $110-120 million.
And this sales and room tax are local and state funds. There is no recovery for the federal government.
Posted by: BertieW | January 19, 2009, 2:38 pm 2:38 pm
Inaugural costs are usually cited as the costs of the balls and festivities. In this respect, despite inflation Obama (approx. $45 million) is in line with the 2005 Bush inaugural which cost $42.3 million. In both cases, these costs are covered by donations.
And yes, for every inauguration there are millions and millions of dollars in costs beyond this that are covered by the government and include items like security, secret service, military personnel for the parade, public transportation, emergency services, porta-potties, restraining barriers, . .. and so on.
Posted by: pefros | January 19, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
“Its now $170M. $41M of whi8ch has been raised from fat cat billionaires and recently bailed out Wall St types.”
Just one second here, Bush’s inauguration donations came in amounts up to $250,000 – that indeed came from fat cat billionaires and wall street types. $250,000 is an amount intended to ‘gain influence’.
Obama specifically and purposefully cut back the maximum amount on any contribution to $50,000 and if you check the web site (where all contributors are listed – transparency you see), you’ll find most of the contributors are not fat cat billionaires or wall street types at all, but regular citizens.
Please don’t denigrate the very real steps being taken to decrease the influence of big money in buying influence in Washington.
Posted by: pefros | January 19, 2009, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm
pefros…I bet you got an invitation to sit on the front row..you should be in his cabinet.
Posted by: Mildred | January 19, 2009, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm
Yes I know Mildred. The man knows how to pick accomplished clear thinkers – and people who are half ways fair.
Posted by: pefros | January 19, 2009, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm
Yeah, right..you would pass muster.
He needs folks that will not get in
the way of a photo op or a phony visit
to vets.
Posted by: Mildred | January 19, 2009, 3:45 pm 3:45 pm
Not quite right Mildred
Haiku is five seven five
Nice try anyway
Posted by: Poet | January 19, 2009, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm
“a phony visit to vets”
Obama made a point throughout his campaign to quite consistently pay tribute to vets and those in service .. .. and to speak strongly on better support for them from the government . . . and he continues to do so. I think you’ll find vets get better treatment under the Obama administration.
That you can dumb this down to a “photo op” shows more about your attitude than Obama’s.
Posted by: pefros | January 19, 2009, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
From ABC:
“The biggest group of donors were none other than the recently bailed-out Wall Street executives and employees.
“The finance sector is well represented, despite its recent troubles,” Ritsch said. “Those who worked in finance still managed to pull together nearly $7 million for the inauguration.”
The donors will get some of the best seats in the house for the inauguration, as well as admittance to some of the best balls and other events. ”
Billionaire investor George Soros and his family contributed $250,000 to the inauguration, and Google co-founder Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt each donated $25,000. ”
I was almost afraid that there wouldnt be space for Soros! What would the world have come to if a forgiegn billionaire couldnt manipulate his pet project!
Posted by: BertieW | January 19, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
Let me see, total donated – about $45 million; donated by financial sector (as you quote it) $7 million.
Amount of money that does not come from financial sector $38 million dollars ($45-$7 million).
So the largest contributions BY FAR come from OUTSIDE the financial sector. And no contributor was allowed to donate more than $50,000, whereas Bush’s contributors were allowed up around $250,000 – big time influence buying.
Posted by: pefros | January 19, 2009, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm
I love it when you are left desperately trying to defend a little tiny melting ice patch.
First note that rogue billionaire, currency speculator, George Soros’ “family” donated $250,000. I am sure little Betty Lou Soros is very interested in politics to have matched the maximum amount. Certainly dosnt look like an attempt to circumvent the maximum amount with funds that came out of Georges pocket in the first place.
If $250K is an amount intended to “gain influence” but $50K is perfectly innocent, then what do we make of all these $100K ‘couple’ contributions- Balmers, Gates, Speilberg (nice to see Madoff didnt leave him without walking around money), Katzenberg, Lucas. Do they only want to gain partial influence?
Since Obama is controlling the TARP funds, it sure is convenient that the Citibank buddies had a spare $7 million around to donate.
Posted by: BertieW | January 19, 2009, 7:15 pm 7:15 pm
Spend, spend, spend. That is the one thing consistant with the One. That’s for sure.
He has quite the record. Campaign, victory party, Xmas vacation, train ride and now this party to take an oath.
Wonder what the hypocrite will say to make us think he is somehow going to be responsible. Oh I forgot, his mere presence will fix all. Cue the Superman music.
Posted by: Tori | January 19, 2009, 7:24 pm 7:24 pm
Try to expand your thinking bert. If Bush allowed single contributions of $250,000, don’t you realize doubling up that money turns it into $500,000 worth of influence – or by families or individuals from very wealthy companies into $750,000 or $1,000,000 worth of influence?
The difference is a factor of 5. Single donors were able to contribute 5 times as much money under Bush as under Obama.
That is a huge difference. That you fail to see it speaks more about your blinders than anything else.
Posted by: pefros | January 19, 2009, 7:54 pm 7:54 pm
I thought you had some magic ‘evil’ number there. My mistake. Now that democrats give the money its not evil anymore.
Money in politics = bad; unless it Obama’s money.
On the other hand I am glad that he is fleecing millionaires instead of poor people. There is no reason for him to be flim flamming the poor for donation after donation like he was selling a real estate course on tv.
Posted by: BertieW | January 19, 2009, 8:41 pm 8:41 pm
“Try to expand your thinking bert. If Bush allowed single contributions of $250,000, don’t you realize doubling up that money turns it into $500,000 worth of influence – or by families or individuals from very wealthy companies into $750,000 or $1,000,000 worth of influence?
The difference is a factor of 5. Single donors were able to contribute 5 times as much money under Bush as under Obama.
That is a huge difference. That you fail to see it speaks more about your blinders than anything else.”
Poor bert . .. cutting back on people being able to buy influence – a simple concept your bias fails to grasp.
Posted by: pefros | January 19, 2009, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
What are you even talking about? You have no evidence anyone ever even bundled up these contributions to $750K for Bush, but you have right in front of you news stories of fat cats ponying up $100K and $250K for the Messiah.
What happened to “whereas Bush’s contributors were allowed up around $250,000 – big time influence buying”?
Posted by: BertieW | January 19, 2009, 11:24 pm 11:24 pm
Under Bush, contributors could purchase $250,000 worth of influence through donations to Bush.
Big time contributor after big time contributor. $250,000 at a pop. Big time sell off. No longer possible.
Only one of your two thin examples barely touches $250,000.
Big time contributors, corporations and lobbyists pumping $250,000 contributions into political pockets has been hugely reduced.
Posted by: pefros | January 20, 2009, 1:04 am 1:04 am
“Obama, who vowed during the campaign that special interests would not yield undue influence in his White House, is limiting inaugural contributions to $50,000 each and will not accept money from corporations, unions, political action committees, or federal lobbyists, inaugural spokesman Josh Earnest said.”
Posted by: pefros | January 20, 2009, 1:13 am 1:13 am
“Bush imposed a $250,000 cap on inaugural donations in 2004 but did not bar corporate contributions.”
Posted by: pefros | January 20, 2009, 1:17 am 1:17 am
We dumbed down the education system in this country and now we have dumbed down the US government.
Posted by: Mildred | January 20, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
“We dumbed down the education system in this country and now we have dumbed down the US government.”
Government just got a whole lot smarter now that George Bush is no longer in charge.
Posted by: Ryan C | January 20, 2009, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm