Most Expensive Inauguration Ever

[Proteas]

-----------------------------
Obama's inauguration set to be the most expensive in US history
The $150m (£102m) cost of the celebration will dwarf the amount spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005

President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m (£102m). This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993.

Part of the spending includes emergency funding announced by the White House on Tuesday to help with the soaring costs. Most of this new federal funding will be to deal with the huge influx of people, estimated 1.5 million to 2 million.

A White House statement said that President Bush "declared an emergency exists in the District of Columbia".

If there is snow, the costs will grow higher. The long-term forecast suggests there is a chance of snow on Sunday and again on the day of inauguration, on Tuesday.

Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies, told the New York Daily News, which estimated the cost at $160m: "We're always very budget conscious. But we're sending a message to the entire world about our peaceful transition of power, and you don't want it to look like a schlock affair. It needs to be appropriate to the magnitude of events that it is."

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.

The federal government has budgeted $49m for the inauguration. But this does not take account of other demands, such as from Virginia and Maryland, the states surrounding the capital, that have also asked for emergency funding.

In addition, funding will come from Obama's own fund-raising efforts and from private contributors.

One of the biggest costs is transport, and the Washington DC transport authority has also put in a request to the federal government for extra funding.

Obama today issued a statement calling on people across the nation to participate by holding their own neighbourhood events, including their own balls. He acknowledged the logistical problems that will face Washington.

"Now, you've probably heard the reports that unprecedented numbers of Americans are planning to join us in Washington. That will mean long lines, a tough time getting around, and most of all, a lot of walking on what could be a very cold winter day," Obama said.

The presidential inaugural committee today published details of the inauguration and the days running up to it.

On Sunday, there will be a free concert opened by Obama at the Lincoln Memorial, with songs from Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé and others and historical readings by actors including Jamie Foxx and Denzel Washington.

On Monday night, there will be a children's inaugural event in Washington.

On Tuesday, there will be the inauguration, parade led by the Obamas from Congress to the White House and a series of balls in the evening.

The inauguration events will end on Wednesday with a prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral.

Source: The Guardian

---------------------

I find it interesting that there's not been much of a peep on the national news about this, or at least not the national news I've seen lately. I'm not even sure I want to go into why as that is, I'm just more curious as to how much Washington is actually going to pay past it's budget for the inauguration and how much Obama is going to pay out of his own pocket, and why they're only justification for it is to keep it from being a "schlock affair."

[Psycho-Medic]

I saw some news about how alot of republicans were leaving for the inauguration because they didn't want to be there with a million drunken Obama supporters celebrating his inauguration (it didn't actually say "million drunken Obama supporters celebrating his inauguration" of course but that's basically what I got from it). I'd assume that there was concern about people partying too hard and breaking shit and people are bound to get hurt, I mean when he got elected there were people out in the streets yelling and throwing stuff (a "happy riot" my sister called the occurrence at her university). Other than that though, I really haven't seen much about it.

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 1/17/09 02:31 PM, Proteas wrote:

I find it interesting that there's not been much of a peep on the national news about this, or at least not the national news I've seen lately. I'm not even sure I want to go into why as that is, I'm just more curious as to how much Washington is actually going to pay past it's budget for the inauguration and how much Obama is going to pay out of his own pocket, and why they're only justification for it is to keep it from being a "schlock affair."

I've seen a bit about it on the news. But, I think this is also supposed to be the most attended inauguration ever. Plus a large portion of the costs was security.

[Memorize]

At 1/17/09 02:46 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 1/17/09 02:31 PM, Proteas wrote:

I find it interesting that there's not been much of a peep on the national news about this, or at least not the national news I've seen lately. I'm not even sure I want to go into why as that is, I'm just more curious as to how much Washington is actually going to pay past it's budget for the inauguration and how much Obama is going to pay out of his own pocket, and why they're only justification for it is to keep it from being a "schlock affair."

I've seen a bit about it on the news. But, I think this is also supposed to be the most attended inauguration ever. Plus a large portion of the costs was security.

It's more of a preview of how much money were going to spend.

I mean after all, Obama's only stated that we're going to have "Trillion dollar deficits for years to come" and is already on the way to the $2 trillion mark on his first year (practically tripling Bush's record highs... sort of how like his inauguration is almost triple Bush's... oh the irony).

[aninjaman]

If its not taxpayer money why should I get worried. This is paid for by donations from his campaign and if you donated to his campaign what did you expect?

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 1/17/09 03:18 PM, Memorize wrote:
I mean after all, Obama's only stated that we're going to have "Trillion dollar deficits for years to come" and is already on the way to the $2 trillion mark on his first year (practically tripling Bush's record highs... sort of how like his inauguration is almost triple Bush's... oh the irony).

Yeah. It pisses me off. But, either way we'd have had a big spender in office. Hopefully congress will keep Obama in check. I think I'm going to write my senators and congresspersons, as well as Mr Biden a letter (VP's are likely to read mail), expressing my concern with spending. I think I made the right choice with my vote, though. I was too concerned McCain would start another war, which would cost trillions in the long run as well. (You have to keep in mind that combat veteran's care and benefits often outweighs the immediate operating cost of war). But yes, this is why congress matters. There are some smart Dems out there, and I hope they're as hesitant about trillions being spent as I am.

As far as the inauguration goes, can they be blamed for going over the top with security? It's not like they're spending the money on cake and champagne (I mean I'm sure there's some, but that's a small part of the budget). This is going to be record attendance. The audience and politicians need to be safe. Ceremony still holds some importance, and this is a historic occasion.

[Korriken]

At 1/18/09 03:43 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 1/17/09 03:18 PM, Memorize wrote:
I mean after all, Obama's only stated that we're going to have "Trillion dollar deficits for years to come" and is already on the way to the $2 trillion mark on his first year (practically tripling Bush's record highs... sort of how like his inauguration is almost triple Bush's... oh the irony).

Yeah. It pisses me off. But, either way we'd have had a big spender in office. Hopefully congress will keep Obama in check.

Tax and spend liberals control both houses and tax and spend liberals are in the white house. I would not count on them keeping each other in check. I'm expecting the opposite, for them to enable each other to spend even MORE.

and this is a historic occasion.

Personally I can't wait for this shit to pass. "its historic!" yeah like the other 43 presidents. People put WAY too much into the whole "black man won!" deal.

Of course... in '05 Bush's $50 million inauguration was "extravagant" and "wasteful". in '09 Obama's $150-$175 million inauguration is "magnificent" and not "extravagant" or "wasteful" to the point where Bush has to declare a state of emergency to get more money to fund it!

God I love the double standards.

[SomeCrappyUsername]

colt 45's and fried chicken for everyone

Obama is going to be a mad FDR.

[Patton3]

Considering the number of people there, and what some people are threatening, AND that it's nt taxpayer money, I think it's money well spent.

[JackPhantasm]

At 1/18/09 08:38 PM, Patton3 wrote: Considering the number of people there, and what some people are threatening, AND that it's nt taxpayer money, I think it's money well spent.

Yeah, JoS, come on, did you expect it to be cheaper given the number of people?

Were there less people at the previous ones? Or FAR less?

I don't know, I think there is so much that goes into controlling that number of people. It does seem a little high though.

[Juneau0408]

It's history in the making, of course celebs want to be in it so they can be like "I was there" I'm not surprised by the numbers... if I were going I would say the food better be good :)

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/18/09 07:48 PM, SevenSeize wrote: It's like more of an entertainment issue than it is a political/current events issue.

Which is what the Obama campaign has been all along, and why he won I think. Obama is great at public relations, if nothing else. He sold himself in such a way, and got a big boost from a news and entertainment media that happily bought what he was selling (especially once Hillary was out of the race). Of course this is what worries me about him, is this a guy who is a great marketer but once we actually let him into power he'll do nothing to help us? Or will he stand behind the changes he promised, and the discouraging events like this will be viewed as just a necessary evil to putting the right person into the big chair? Going to be interesting (and at times I'm sure frightening) to watch.

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 1/18/09 07:40 PM, Korriken wrote: Tax and spend liberals control both houses and tax and spend liberals are in the white house....

As opposed to the borrow and spend NeoCons that we could have voted for.

[Driver80Deep]

This is absolutely absurd. People are so blinded by Obama's great public speaking ability, that they don't see nor do they understand what they were really voting for.

I will admit that I am not a huge fan of his...

I admit that he is a great public speaker...

I admit he has made history with this election and I tip my hat to him for this...

But people simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND that just because he is black... just because he is making history... Those facts are irrelevant. Our country is in shambles and we are in need of someone that will stand up and make some damn changes around here. Yes, Obama based his campaign on change, but everyone fails to realize that it is going to take TIME. Everyone expects the world to be filled with unicorns as soon as he is sworn into office.

Sadly, that won't be the case.

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 1/19/09 02:36 AM, Driver80Deep wrote: Sadly, that won't be the case.

No unicorns, but pigs will be in flight.

[Driver80Deep]

At 1/19/09 03:14 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: No unicorns, but pigs will be in flight.

Hopefully the sun is out. If not, it is likely no one shows up.

[morefngdbs]

As a grand finale George Dub Ya put US tax payers on the hook for 800 BILLION+.
Let's not forget that's on top of his 3 trillion dollars the War on Terror,especially in Iraq is costing the U.S. or that's an amount in the Washington Post last year

3,800,000,000,000 =isn't even all of Georgie's fun in office.
--------150,000,000 = The Party to get rid of Georgie.....is hardly even noticable.

[Korriken]

At 1/19/09 07:51 PM, morefngdbs wrote: As a grand finale George Dub Ya put US tax payers on the hook for 800 BILLION+.
Let's not forget that's on top of his 3 trillion dollars the War on Terror,especially in Iraq is costing the U.S. or that's an amount in the Washington Post last year

3,800,000,000,000 =isn't even all of Georgie's fun in office.
--------150,000,000 = The Party to get rid of Georgie.....is hardly even noticable.

no, but a $1 trillion+ "stimulus package" is most certainly noticeable.

Its interesting how history repeats itself.

The great depression was in part caused by banks that made risky loans for stocks (risky housing loans) Then the stock bubble burst (housing bubble burst) banks started failing (Banks are failing) the value of stocks fell (hey, look, our stock market is down too!) Hoover was thrown out of office (Bush's 2nd term ended, but his successor was beaten) "Roosevelt remained vague on the campaign trail, promising only that under his presidency government would act decisively to end the Depression." (sounds like... gasp. OBAMA!) I just hope world war 3 isn't around the corner...

Under the new deal, unemployment dropped a little, but didn't fall below 20%. after phase 2 began, unemployment ROSE above 25%. at the beginning of world war 2, unemployment was at 25%. Of course the war dropped unemployment like a brick. at the end of WW2 unemployment was at about 2.5%-3%.

don't get me wrong. the 1st phase of the new deal worked to an extent. it dropped unemployment by a fair margin. Phase 2 actually saw the unemployment RISE, then fall a bit.

The government's first plan to stabilize banks have more or less failed to stabilize anything. I don't have high hopes for the concept of handing people money and saying "spend this to boost the economy"

New Deal 2.0 I don't think is gonna work. We need to spur job growth, not hand people money to spend. We also don't need temporary jobs, we need permanent jobs. We need in invest in Trade Schools that can train people for meaningful jobs. It wouldn't fix the problem by itself, but it would help in the long run. Free public trade schools would be a massive boon to the country.

I'll just leave this chart here for reference.

[Der-Lowe]

At 1/19/09 08:26 PM, Korriken wrote:

Why non-farm workers?

[bcdemon]

If the money comes from Tax payers, then that should be a no-no. But if Obama supporters donated all the money that is to be used for the inauguration, I really can't see what the problem is. Accept of course, Obama could use his own donations to spur the economy, create a few jobs, or help out some folks down on their luck, which would only boost his popularity.

[morefngdbs]

The local cartoonist here has a Fun panel in todays paper.
Some things... really are priceless ;)

[axcho]

Perhaps then the plan is to create a "war economy" for building green energy infrastructure. :p I know South Korea did something kind of like that (war economy) to build up their industry after the Korean War. Not to say that it was a good thing...

[Korriken]

At 1/20/09 08:56 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 1/19/09 08:26 PM, Korriken wrote:

Why non-farm workers?

*shrug* I couldn't find any other charts that looked credible.

[Patton3]

Considering that Obama's inauguration is only 3x more than Bush's even though fully 100x more people were there is not mentioned in you're post. Also, it's not taxpayer dollars, so why the hype?

[Korriken]

At 1/20/09 08:05 PM, Patton3 wrote: Considering that Obama's inauguration is only 3x more than Bush's even though fully 100x more people were there is not mentioned in you're post. Also, it's not taxpayer dollars, so why the hype?

Well, it partially was, just like Bush's partially was. A lot of private citizens, groups, and businesses donated to fund Bush's Inauguration. However, the media was quick and blatant to point out how evil Bush's inauguration was over the top, and how he was having this big celebration despite there being 2 wars going on and the economy being troubled.

Obama's Inauguration cost 3X as much with a far WORSE economy, but no one wants to mention that. He could have said, "Scale this back some, we need to lead by example" He made a big talk about sacrificing, yet, he goes all out for himself.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/19/09 08:26 PM, Korriken wrote: The government's first plan to stabilize banks have more or less failed to stabilize anything. I don't have high hopes for the concept of handing people money and saying "spend this to boost the economy"

It can only work in the short term (if at all). It can get some cash flowing out there in one short burst. Theoretically. As I said when Bush's stimulus came out, my whole problem with this idea is that if there's no way to stop people from taking their check, and depositing the cash in the bank, or just cashing the check and sticking the cash under the mattress at home, then you could wind up giving people money they'll just hoard away for fear shit will get worse. The government needs a concrete way to restore consumer confidence and make people feel like they can make a life changing purchase (cars, homes, etc.) confident that they will be able to keep them, and even perhaps be able to profit from them. Therefore helping create true growth and stimulation.

It's ugly out there, and yeah, cash giveaways are in no way a long term solution, just a short term boost (we hope).

[Patton3]

At 1/20/09 08:09 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 1/20/09 08:05 PM, Patton3 wrote: Considering that Obama's inauguration is only 3x more than Bush's even though fully 100x more people were there is not mentioned in you're post. Also, it's not taxpayer dollars, so why the hype?

Well, it partially was, just like Bush's partially was. A lot of private citizens, groups, and businesses donated to fund Bush's Inauguration. However, the media was quick and blatant to point out how evil Bush's inauguration was over the top, and how he was having this big celebration despite there being 2 wars going on and the economy being troubled.

Obama's Inauguration cost 3X as much with a far WORSE economy, but no one wants to mention that. He could have said, "Scale this back some, we need to lead by example" He made a big talk about sacrificing, yet, he goes all out for himself.

Yeah that money couldn't have had anything to do with the fact fully 100x the amount of people were at Obama's inauguration today, as I mentioned. You conveniently left that part out.

[fli]

At 1/20/09 08:09 PM, Korriken wrote: Obama's Inauguration cost 3X as much with a far WORSE economy, but no one wants to mention that. He could have said, "Scale this back some, we need to lead by example" He made a big talk about sacrificing, yet, he goes all out for himself.

What I've seen, literally through out the country, people being VERY happy. After all, this president won by a land slide. If people are happy and they're willing to pay through taxes... why not?

From what I'm seeing, the only bitchers are the Republicans, but even then... it also seems they're divided by this historic event. A lot of them seem pretty happy by Obama's victory and are celebrating with him.

And I'm hearing that this is one of the biggest inaugurations ever in terms of how everyone is clamoring all over Washington.

Wish it costed less, but-- I'm happy too at the same time, and perhaps more than half this country. Do I believe this will be some sort of precedent as to outlandish spending, as fiendishly insinuated by certain Republicans?

Nope.
It's seems to me that they're sucking on sour grapes right now...

[Proteas]

At 1/20/09 08:56 AM, Der-Lowe wrote: Why non-farm workers?

Because farmers always have work. People have to eat, clothes have to be made.

That, and the government can always subsidize farmers not to grow stuff. So either way, they're employed.

[Korriken]

At 1/20/09 08:22 PM, fli wrote:

What I've seen, literally through out the country, people being VERY happy. After all, this president won by a land slide. If people are happy and they're willing to pay through taxes... why not?

I don't remember there being an election on how much to spend for the inauguration party.

From what I'm seeing, the only bitchers are the Republicans, but even then... it also seems they're divided by this historic event.

Well yeah, just like the only bitchers about Bush's '05 inauguration were liberals, and the left wing of the media.Of course, I'm not republican.

Perhaps one day we'll be a nation that thrives on equality where all people have to live up to the same standards, where no one will be favored over the next and all have an equal shot at prosperity..... yeah right.