GW inauguration - Thought for the day

[TheArmourer]

I heard that NY spent $17M on security for GW's inauguration.
Surely somebody could have come up with $18M?

[The Armourer]

What do you say to the little girl that I know that asked why it was so expensive and couldnt all that money have been given to the Tsunami victims? I dont think saying well the USA gives a lot of money to help other people anyway really explains it away. Would they have taken a cheque do you think?

[Maeve_Mari]

I heard that NY spent $17M on security for GW's inauguration.
Surely somebody could have come up with $18M?

Why do you say NY?
It was the city of Washington, DC that had to spend $17 million on security during the innaguration. The White House spent another $40 million on ball festivities and other details for the innaguation. Many people critisized him for conducting such a lavish innaguration considering we are a nation at war.

Some of the "other" costs listed:

$40 million: Cost of Bush inaugural ball festivities, not counting security costs.

$17 million: Amount of money the White House is forcing the cash-strapped city of Washington, D.C., to pony up for inauguration security.

$20,000: Cost of yellow roses purchased for inaugural festivities by D.C.'s Ritz Carlton.

$10,000: Price of an inaugural package at the Fairmont Hotel, which includes a Beluga caviar and Dom Perignon reception, a chauffeured Rolls Royce and two actors posing as "faux" Secret Service agents, complete with black sunglasses and cufflink walkie-talkies.

400: Pounds of lobster provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the exclusive Mandarin Oriental hotel.

3,000: Number of "Laura Bush Cowboy cookies" provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the Mandarin hotel.

$15,000: The down payment to rent a fur coat paid by one gala attendee who didn't want the hassle of schlepping her own through the airport.

$200,500: Price of a room package at D.C.'s Mandarin Oriental, including presidential suite, chauffeured Mercedes limo and outfits from Neiman Marcus.

2,500: Number of U.S. troops used to stand guard as President Bush takes his oath of office

$6.3 million: Amount contributed by the finance and investment industry, which works out to be 25 percent of all the money collected.

9: Percentage of D.C. residents who voted for Bush in 2004.

66: Percentage of Americans who think this over-the-top inauguration should have been scaled back.


and this one was funny:
$1: Amount per guest President Carter spent on snacks for guests at his inaugural parties. To stick to a tight budget, he served pretzels, peanuts, crackers and cheese and had cash bars.

[L.O.A.S.]

What do you say to the little girl that I know that asked why it was so expensive and couldnt all that money have been given to the Tsunami victims? I dont think saying well the USA gives a lot of money to help other people anyway really explains it away. Would they have taken a cheque do you think?

It depends if the little girl is liberal or conservative. If she is liberal, you say its because the right wing neocons care nothing for the suffering of the common man, and would rather celebrate their own importance in lavish extravagence (much like the hollywood elite). If she is conservative, tell her that in a free society, people can both mourn and celebrate, and to give generously to whom they please, although most of the complaints is just sour grapes.

[TheArmourer]

Why do you say NY? It was the city of Washington, DC

Sorry - must have picked that up incorrectly form the UK media.

... considering we are a nation at war.

Shouldn't that read

... considering I declared war under false pretences because I think muslims shouldn't be allowed to have control over their own natural resources (ie oil). Now wathch this drive

... President Carter ... served pretzels ...

If only GW had served pretzels

[Bayou Bum]

Just another example of the hypocrisy of the left and MSM. Bush is evil for spending $40m at a time of war and Obama is worshipped for spending $150m for his inauguration while the economy is a disaster and people are losing their homes.

[lindajdunn]

Years ago, I volunteered at a church camp and when they weren't getting the level of donations they wanted, they closed the concession stand so kids couldn't spend their money on candy and drinks. That, they felt, would increase the donations. Downscaling the inaguration sounds like the same tactic to me. Let's take away the good stuff and try to force them to donate to charity.

[tchwojko]

Just another example of the hypocrisy of the left and MSM. Bush is evil for spending $40m at a time of war and Obama is worshipped for spending $150m for his inauguration while the economy is a disaster and people are losing their homes.

Hypocrisy of a few does not mean the entire group is hypocritical. This kind of rhetoric drives me nuts when it's used in either direction.

[Hauptman]

Just another example of the hypocrisy of the left and MSM. Bush is evil for spending $40m at a time of war and Obama is worshipped for spending $150m for his inauguration while the economy is a disaster and people are losing their homes.

It's about context; nobody complained about GWB's first inauguration. By his second inauguration however, after the lies, incompetence, and disregard for the congress, supreme court, and public opinion, he had very little in the way of good will left with the American people.

In short, your comparison is not accurate. Compare Obama's first inauguration to GWB's first inauguration. And then in 4 years we might be able to make another comparison.

[tchwojko]

It's about context; nobody complained about GWB's first inauguration. By his second inauguration however, after the lies, incompetence, and disregard for the congress, supreme court, and public opinion, he had very little in the way of good will left with the American people.

In short, your comparison is not accurate. Compare Obama's first inauguration to GWB's first inauguration. And then in 4 years we might be able to make another comparison.

There's also a context difference. Paul Krugman and many other economists believe that massive government spending is critical in bringing the economy back on track. (Whether you agree with that or not is a different question.)

I have no love lost for President Bush, but I don't think his inauguration wasn't one of his mistakes. It's a petty complaint. Given the number of people attending and the importance of the event, I don't have an issue (yet) with either spending amount.

[Sean Butler]

It's about context; nobody complained about GWB's first inauguration. By his second inauguration however, after the lies, incompetence, and disregard for the congress, supreme court, and public opinion, he had very little in the way of good will left with the American people.

Which is why he was reelected... riiiight.

In short, your comparison is not accurate. Compare Obama's first inauguration to GWB's first inauguration. And then in 4 years we might be able to make another comparison.

Yes, let's do that (http://www.newsaic.com/ftvww79i.html):

"George W. Bush reportedly raised more than $35 million for his inauguration in 2001."

So, $35 million when the Dow Jones was at about 10,600 and rising (aside from the dip after the terrorist attacks), vs. $160 million when the Dow Jones is at 8,600 and falling. Consider too that most of the money for Bush's inaugurations was funded by supporters of Bush, not the tax payers, while Obama's extravaganza is costing the tax payers $49 million, which is more than triple what they paid for Bush in 2001. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...ensive_ev.html)

[Hauptman]

If you're going to quote that Daily News article how about the rest of it?

"While the inauguration comes with a host of costs, officials predict the economic impact on the local economy will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars."

"This is our Super Bowl multiplied significantly," Bill Hanbury, president of Destination DC, the organization that promotes and markets the capital city. "It is a chance for us to really take advantage of a downtime in the economy for us."

I think it's a great bit of economic stimulus. It's certainly better than handing billions of dollars to the idiots who tanked our economy in the first place. Gotta love the great Republican Trickle-down economics; the only thing that trickles down are pink-slips and the bills. I think there's also an expression about something else that flows downhill...

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Just another example of the hypocrisy of the left and MSM. Bush is evil for spending $40m at a time of war and Obama is worshipped for spending $150m for his inauguration while the economy is a disaster and people are losing their homes.

Nope.

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200901140010 --- The estimate, when comparing apples to apples, is closer to $40m. That's right, when you're comparing what the $40m that Bush spent, and only count the things that were totaled in there, the cost is approximately the same---- only a LOT more people are involved in Obama's inauguration.



Look, it doesn’t really matter if Obama&Co. plan a party for 10 or a party for a million, there are going to be more people in the city and surrounding than the area can support. Many people are coming in from out of town– I know significantly more people from out of town who are going to inauguration than people from the area going.

A lot of the money is security for Obama— but a lot of it is for the people who are going to attempt to get to inauguration. I say try, because it’s going to be impossible. For example, every single bridge from Virginia into DC is closed to normal traffic. The metro will be running on “rush hour” schedule, but they anticipate “crush” levels. Yes, that is exactly as scary as it sounds.

The federal government didn’t spend money preparing for Katrina, and we aren’t happy they saved the money. Declaring the DC Metro area a free-for-all zone except immediately around Obama would save a lot of money too—- but it would also result in a National Tragedy

[Inquartata]

I think it's a great bit of economic stimulus. It's certainly better than handing billions of dollars to the idiots who tanked our economy in the first place. Gotta love the great Republican Trickle-down economics; the only thing that trickles down are pink-slips and the bills.

Er...you do realize that this IS "trickle-down economics", do you not?

Oh, wait---I forgot that when Democrats do a thing it's a completely different beast entirely, and will, of course, work splendidly...

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Er...you do realize that this IS "trickle-down economics", do you not?

Oh, wait---I forgot that when Democrats do a thing it's a completely different beast entirely, and will, of course, work splendidly...

*Shrug* I might call that "trickle out", since the money is going out among all sorts of different sectors and income levels, and "trickle down" seems to often to imply that if you give a tax cut to the wealthiest, that everyone else benefits.......

Sometimes giving one group money and hoping it goes elsewhere works. Sometimes the economy does work that way. You have to give the very rich a WHOLE lot of money in order for the poor to see much... but they very well might spend it.

With the consumer confidence where it is right now, I'm worried that tax cuts can't stimulate the economy, because people will save the money for the next shock, as every personal financial adviser is suggesting. So I say only give the money to the poorest of the poor. I mean, those of us with NO MONEY are often this way given to choices we have made (and some of them are bad!), but at least we promise to spend the money on rent and food, and other silly things liike that.

[lindajdunn]

I decided to do some digging and came up with figures that show the 2005 and 2009 expenses will not be that far apart. In fact, Obama's might even come in lower.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003

quote:

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.

[snip of other information]

You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million.

[Hauptman]

Er...you do realize that this IS "trickle-down economics", do you not?

Oh, wait---I forgot that when Democrats do a thing it's a completely different beast entirely, and will, of course, work splendidly...

Actually, no, it's not trickle-down. I'm surprised and disappointed that you don't know the difference.

Trickle-down economics refers to the idea of putting money in the hands of investors and credit for businesses, not the simple spending of money in the economy which actually promotes competition and sustainable economic growth.

[Inquartata]

Sometimes giving one group money and hoping it goes elsewhere works. Sometimes the economy does work that way.

It ALWAYS works that way. This is a fundamental of economic theory: marginal propensity and multipliers.

If an entity---be it an individual, household or business---receives income, there are really only two things to do with it: spend, or save/invest. How much will be done of each varies, but in this country the marginal propensity to save is very low; most income is spent. It then becomes income to someone else, who also will save some portion and spend some...which will become income to someone else. And so on.

There is also a drain from income taxation at each stage, but since tax revenue is income to the government and the government is an economic entity it too will spend that income ( and then some, unfortunately ).

Even the amount saved/invested is not just sitting under a mattress. Businesses spend it on plant and equipment, and it becomes income to the equipment makers and construction companies. Banks lend it out at interest ( well, usually ) where it is spent on cars, homes, etc. As soon as it is spent it becomes income and is subject to the same process as delineated above.

It doesn't much matter to whom the income goes first, apart from the fact that rich individuals and businesses generally have a somewhat larger marginal propensity to save...

Hauptmann, don't make me go to my reference books for quotes. Even Paul Samuelson, one of the architects of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society economics programs and scarcely a political conservative has agreed that economic activity does indeed go on exactly by "trickling down"...and he did use that term.

[Hauptman]

Hauptmann, don't make me go to my reference books for quotes. Even Paul Samuelson, one of the architects of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society economics programs and scarcely a political conservative has agreed that economic activity does indeed go on exactly by "trickling down"...and he did use that term.

The term, as it has been used since the Reagan years thanks to Stockman and others, applies to putting more money into the hands of investors, the supposed top of the money chain. If you want to argue semantics then be my guest, but it doesn't change the facts.

Spending money in of itself is not "trickle-down" economics.

Putting money at the bottom of the economic ladder is much more effective in that:

Those of lower income status are more likely to spend the money, mostly out of necessity,

It is spent at more local businesses and not mostly on publicly traded companies,

And there is real competition among those businesses for those dollars, so you won't see that money going to companies that produce little or nothing of lasting worth and/or following the speculation fad of the day.

But like I said, if you'd rather argue semantics then knock yourself out.

[Slim]

The world is about to be saved and some are worrying about how much money is being spent? C'mon, lets all just hold hands and sing with the children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAlrSRVdKZY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOtGr...eature=related