Friday, January 16, 2009

Obama's Inaugural and a Double Standard

Read this short post (and accompanying comments) for background information on the cost of this inaugural compared to 2005. Hint: it will cost four times as much.

I don't find fault in blowing money on the inaugural; I find fault in the double standard of those who thought too much money was spent last time but have no problem with this year's expense.


neko said...

Come on now. I think we can all agree that $150,000,000 is a small price to pay to witness the ascension of a god.

Come, Darren. Kneel before Zod!

Ellen K said...

Apotheosis was the theme begun at the DNC Convention, I guess next we will have a triumphal arch built and some nice bling for the President. Of course, that is the point where Rome dissolved the Republic and began labeling their rulers as gods. And that's pretty much when most of the problems began. Julius Caesar learned the hard way that popularity is no shield against political treachery. They can label him a deity, but he's a human and will fall to human failings. I wish him well, but I think his supporters are doing him more harm that good. It will be hard for out of work citizens to revel in what amounts to a big glitzy party for Obama and his celebrity friends.

Neko said...

Et tu, Bruce? ^_^

DADvocate said...

The carbon footprint of Obama's inauguration: "The average household would take 57,598 years to produce as much CO2 as Obama's inauguration."

Sacrifice for thee but not for Obama and the other Dems.

PeggyU said...

I'm limiting my energy consumption and minimizing my carbon footprint by not turning on the television to watch the mega-blinga-inaugurathon. We all must make sacrifices, after all.

Ellen K said...

I have decided to celebrate the inauguration, coronation, whatever it is, by watching "Duck Soup" and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

Anonymous said...

Once again, RotLC nurtures fiction. The quoted price tag is without basis.

Reality check.

Darren said...

As usual? Really?

Get a grip.

Darren said...

WASHINGTON – Unemployment is up. The stock market is down. Let's party.

The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun.

Obama's inaugural committee has raised more than $41 million to cover events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. Add to that the massive costs of security and transportation — costs absorbed by U.S. taxpayers — and the historic inauguration will produce an equally historic bill.
The above is from the AP at

Darren said...

Oh look, here's what ABC News, hardly a conservative mouthpiece, has to say about it:

"The biggest group of donors were none other than the recently bailed-out Wall Street executives and employees."

What's the title of this ABC News piece?

What Recession? The $170 Million Inauguration

I can feel the hopenchange already.

Anonymous said...

The 2005 Bush Inauguration cost $157 Million Add four years and more than 4x the turnout and even the unsubstantiated "estimate" of $170M sounds like a bargain.

Don't hate the fact that so many people are going to such great lengths to be there. The overwhelming interest requires additional security. And that costs money. Clearly you're able to do the math on that!

I'm willing to wager cash money that the cost per capita of attendees will be cheaper for Obama than it was for Bush.

Darren said...

I provided citations/links for my numbers. Can you?

Thought not.

Darren said...

Oh look, the guy who says it cost $157M said, just a few years ago, that it cost less than half that. Imagine!

Again, the link:

Anonymous said...

There is no there in your "news items." Estimates can go anywhere. That's what makes them so fun to squawk about.

The lowball numbers for Bush2005 DIDN'T include security. The high estimates for Obama2009 DID.

If you weren't so busy congratulating yourself for linking to baseless "news items," you would have read the "Reality Check" link above. It's all there.