On TARP, PEBO Threatens to Veto

The Senate will have to decide who/what holds more sway for them on the bailout: Obamamania and the pull of a glamorous president-elect, or the anger of most Americans toward expending any more cash through the TARP program.

I think this story needs a rewrite for clarity. If these are “sense of the House” resolutions then why does Obama care? And you cant veto a “sense of the House” resolution.
And Liberman said that there was “no veto strategy”. So how is a veto threatened?
Let PEBO be PEBO!

matt, the issue is with how the $350 billion left of the original $700 billion TARP money will be spent. The money is already allocated, it will be spent. Obama wants to be able to put his administrations’s ideas into play with how it is spent. If Congress doesn’t vote to switch the remaining money over, it will be spent in the same mostly useless-to-the-economy way Paulson & company set it up to be.

The problem with TARP was how Bush handled it and the total lack of accountability. Obama will do it right. Obama has a strong mandate from the American people to get things done now. Dems in Congress should rally behind him and not impede his swift action.

samhiguchi: It’s not “the Big O’s” big day, it is more for his supporters. And he has a larger number of supporters than any presidential candidate, ever, in the history of the US, so I’d expect his inauguration party to be a bit pricier since it is a lot bigger. Of course, complaining about ‘extravagant’ inaugurations is a pretty de rigor whine:
“As recently as last week, officials put the inaugural celebrations’ cost at $40 million-plus and said they would be the most expensive in history…Since then, the inaugural committee has come under some criticism as extravagant…”
I think they brought the office price down in the face of bad press, but that price is about what I’ve seen bandied about for the ’08 inaguration (although I’d expect it to at least reach $80M since it will have twice as many people and be in 2008 dollars).

He is not even a President yet. It sure is strange. Glad I didn’t vote for Obama.

Concerned in OH: “The 110M (British Pounds actually not USD) comes from an article linked to on the front page of drudge.
The 2 minutes was being kind, from the same article:”
The Drudge report is hardly a reputable source – I recall you getting quite excited about their big scoop on that ‘Black man carved a B in my face for Barack!’ story.
You clearly implied the full budget amount was for the 2 minute ceremony. This is laughably false. There is a huge music festival on Sunday, a ball on Monday night, the inauguration and a 2 hour parade on Tuesday, and a national prayer service on Weds.
In addition, you seem entirely ignorant of the tax windfall being brought in – ranging from the complete sale of every hotel within 100 miles to the massive influx of tourist spending (restaurants are going to 24 hour operation, bars have received permission to close 2 hours later, etc.). Not to mention the large portion of the cost privately funded.

I think you Republican whinners are getting rediculous with your criticism of this event.
If the money the Inauguration Committee is getting already from private donors like myself (just like we did during the elections) is anything to go by, Obama will have money left in the coffers of the Inauguration Committee after the $160.00 millions is spent.
The tax payers will not shell a dime for this Inauguration.
Salaries paid to the Secret Service and Police and Homeland Security Agents is already budgetted and will be spent even if just the Bushes and the Obamas show up for the Inauguration.
The city governments and businesses in and around DC will have a windfall during this Inauguration.
So stop whinning Bozos.

BertieW: “The question is what is the rationale for the government spending ~$160M for this event?”
First, the government is NOT spending $160 million for this event. Actual net *government* expenditure will probably be lower after accounting for private support (via donations rather than the traditional lobbiest funded galas) and the direct increase in tax revenue. There is no need to falsely represent the numbers to legitimately debate the core issue.
Second, the purpose is the same as it always is, from Johnson’s inauguration during Vietnam to Reagan’s funeral: To increase international stature by showing off the stability and cohesion of the US government.
And to actually maintain national stability and cohesion. Such events do serve to reinforce the national identity. Our nation shies away from nationalism (quite rightly in my view), but it is valuable to occasionally display to the world a sincere support of our government. You won’t have such an inauguration event in Iran, even with their paid supporters. A crowd that would make Musolini blush at a handoff of power that would only occurs over his dead body is an American tradition repeated every 4 – 8 years. And that is certainly noticed.
It is also traditional that every inauguration is pilloried by the opposition as too gaudy, inappropriate in a time of war/famine/recession/etc.

I may have been responding to major hyperbole with slight hype of my own. Let’s say that 160 million is over 300% of the 48 million dollar cost of the inauguration, rather than close to 400%.

“The question is what is the rationale for the government spending ~$160M for this event? And milking a gullible populace for probably 5 times the amount?”
A two for one deal on lies.
First the public’s cost for the inauguration (ie: security) then what has been raised by the inauguration.

“If you google “Palin, wardrobe” you get 1.2 million results. That was 150K of private money”
That wardrobe (and her family’s) was bought for her by skating campaign finance rules put in by the top of the ticket.
That from a self claimed reformer.
Right wingers hate it when their hypocrisy is exposed far and wide.

“Time for you to stop blaming everyone else and blame those responsible…”
Oh the irony! The above from a right winger who blames today ill’s on a President Elect yet to take office and a President from 8 years ago.

“The $150K was private donations.”
There were political donations to the party.
The party paid for her clothing vs the McCain campaign because campaign finances laws prohibited buying personal items such as clothing. The author of that legislation? John McCain.
BTW, did she pay taxes on the $60K in travel expenses for her family she charged to the state of AK?
“And its a good thing it was spent because apparently the press felt it was necessary to report on everything she was wearing.”
ROFLMAO……$200K+ to outfit Palin and her family was a good thing!
“The $160M- that is number that is a 1000 times larger- is public money.”
“Being spent in a way that is more lavish and over the top than ever before.”
Lavish and over the top is opening the Mall to the public?
“Florman deals specifically with the inauguration ceremony at the Congress, which is relatively modest. The surge in spending is partly because of the Obama’s decision to open the entire Mall to the public”

“”Being spent in a way that is more lavish and over the top than ever before.”
Lavish and over the top is opening the Mall to the public?”
Its multiples more than anyone else has ever spend and is completely out of context of the times.
Why do they bars need to stay open all day and all night for this booze soaked bacchanalian?