Jump to content
OtakuBoards

Inauguration Costs Fortune . . . and Bush Declares State of Emergency?


Recommended Posts

[FONT="Arial"][CENTER][URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush-declares-state-emergency-Washington-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html"][COLOR="Blue"]Article[/COLOR][/URL].[/CENTER]

Wow, £110m. That's equivalently almost $160.5 million dollars for the next President of the United States to take his oath of office.

...and host massive balls, and provide massive-screen televisions for the masses who can't even get close enough to see Mr. Obama as a speck across the way, and so on and so forth. Cripes, let's just host the Super Bowl on the President's lawn, why don't we? :p

Since I don't usually keep up with these things, can someone tell me if we've done the super-event deal for the Bush and Clinton inaugurations also? I don't care about starting any right vs left stuff; I just wanna know why the frill we're spending so much money. :p[/FONT]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIZE="1"]I watched both of Bush's inaugurations, and I don't remember stuff like that being used at all. I think that's just a tad bit much, no matter who it is...

Also:

[quote name='"The Article"]The Obamamobile: The first official photograph of Obama's new [B]armoured limo,[/B] which he will ride in for part of the swearing-in parade, and [B']which can withstand rocket and chemical attacks[/B][/quote]

Why does that amuse me so much?[/SIZE]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][COLOR="Indigo"]Never mind that, I only see one thing of interest.

lolfotune.

No no, I jest. I don't really know about all the hub-bub that's going on before the inauguration, but I can certainly understand all the security measures going on for President Obama's inauguration. This really kinda pulls into question... "So he throws a massive party that costs this much money, but he wants to reform our economy?" but it will provide a stimulus to the DC area, where hotels are booked and you won't get 4 blocks near the door of a restaurant in the area. Good thing for a severely ailing town, but I don't know that all the celebration should be THAT big for something that is normally seen as an honorable and leaning towards the serious side for important events. [/COLOR][/FONT]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT="Arial"]Since I don't usually keep up with these things, can someone tell me if we've done the super-event deal for the Bush and Clinton inaugurations also? I don't care about starting any right vs left stuff; I just wanna know why the frill we're spending so much money. :p[/FONT][/QUOTE]My understanding, besides the obvious that previous ones were not so expensive, is that part of the cost is coming from Obama's desire to make it more accessible to the public than it normally would. Something I read about here: [URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_obamas_inauguration_is_most_expensive_ev.html"][U]Article[/U][/URL]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Being someone old enough to remember the last administration, when Bush's inaguration cost $40 million, everyone from France to England to Massachusetts Democrats called it a wasteful evil horrible thing.

Now Obama's "Inaguration" read: Canonization, is costing three times as much and that number just keeps climbing. And as far as accessability, they've decided to provide a grand total of 5,000 porta-johns which will not be enough for the how many million people? Also they'll keep bars open until 4 or 5 am, which will be good for promoting public drunkenness, and also strollers are banned. No strollers, no baby bags [might contain bad things], no flags over a certain size, and no jackets held over the arm [might hide handgun].

So the draconian attempts to make the public more welcome at this enormous event not only hinder everyone showing up, but the parade after has become a hilarious conflagration of grievance groups complaining about everything from the Alabama based Civil War era ladies to the high school marching band with the culturally insensitive name "The Chiefs." It's turned into a chance for every group to complain about something in the other groups, and to be quite frank, it's embarrassing.[/FONT][/COLOR]
Link to post
Share on other sites
The size of the event is only in response to public interest. Costly measures had to be taken to meet public demand and avert certain mishaps from happening. Though many will definitely occur regardless. This is a money making machine for the DC area, which will certainly recoup any losses. The bars, shops, stores, restaurants, hotels... hundreds of millions of dollars are coming to DC on the 20th. About 40 million dollars has already been raised to offset the cost of the event, and certainly much more will be raised on inauguration day.

Also, the high security detail... I don't think anyone can deny that this president will be a marked man his entire time in office. Measures must be taken, even those seen as extreme.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Arial"]You're so cynical, like always Raiha. =P

No matter how you look at it, having someone like that sworn into office is a huge event and milestone so I can understand why they want to make it more accessible. This in spite of the very real security concerns that he'll face and the current economic issues.

However, there will be no sympathy from me when it comes to whining over the costs, and though I'm not directly involved, at least not personally, I know people who are, so far be it from me to rain on their parade.

[URL="http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=011509-1"][U]Generous Donors Send the Marching Utes to Inauguration Parade[/U][/URL]

I'm not in the band here at the University so I won't be going, but I think it's pretty damn nifty that they are. :catgirl: [/FONT][/COLOR]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[font=franklin gothic medium]The whole Inauguration spectacle is somewhat humorous from the outside looking in, but I tend to forgive America for the pageantry - after all, you don't have a Monarch anymore. So your President is the next best thing, right?

And however that may read, I don't mean it in a cynical way.

In the UK and Australia for instance, our Prime Ministers don't receive such enormous pageantry - that is really reserved for the Queen. I wonder what we might do in the absence of a Queen.

Although I suppose Australia would still never afford such a luxury to our PM, given that the office of Prime Minister has a somewhat different tone for us.

In any case, while this is an enormous amount of money to spend on what is largely ceremonial, I do see the value in making this moment accessible to as many Americans as possible. That is a reasonable thing to try to do.[/font]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Now Obama's "Inaguration" read: Canonization, is costing three times as much and that number just keeps climbing. And as far as accessability, they've decided to provide a grand total of 5,000 porta-johns which will not be enough for the how many million people? Also they'll keep bars open until 4 or 5 am, which will be good for promoting public drunkenness, and also strollers are banned. No strollers, no baby bags [might contain bad things], no flags over a certain size, and no jackets held over the arm [might hide handgun].[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]I can't believe you're serious.

President-elect Obama has received an unprecedented amount of death-threats because of his race. This is obvious - it was deemed necessary that he accept Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate. Naturally, security is a great concern for this inauguration, especially when a record number (millions) of people are projected to descend upon the capital to see this man. The entire event is a terrorist attack waiting to happen, a security nightmare of sorts.

I thought it would be clear that A) these security measures will be especially stringent considering the heightened threat and B) these measures are also designed to lower the number of people coming to make the event run smoother. So yes, accessibility is to a minimum on purpose, to reduce the possibility of assassination.

And obviously the bars will be open - I thought you supported the free market? If millions of people will be milling about in the city all day, isn't it clear they'll want to get lost in the sauce for a bit? Is "public drunkenness" threatening enough to force these stores to close? Jeez.[/font]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote=Korey][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][COLOR=Purple]Never mind that, I only see one thing of interest.

lolfotune.[/COLOR][/FONT][/quote]

[SIZE=1]Not to mention lolinaguration. Uhoh, I'm gonna be in trouble with 'Morph now...

[/SIZE][quote name='James][FONT=franklin gothic medium']In the UK and Australia for instance, our Prime Ministers don't receive such enormous pageantry - that is really reserved for the Queen. I wonder what we might do in the absence of a Queen.[/FONT][/quote]

[SIZE=1]Not only that, but the major thing with a Monarch is the coronation, and we haven't seen one of them for over 50 years. I suppose the Jubilees count for something, but for America the inauguration ceremony happens every four years. That's a lot of money on what is essentially a big party with a lot of bouncers.

Although having said that, I suppose the inauguration of the first black President is something we haven't seen in, oh, call it forever. From that viewpoint I can vaguely understand why it's costing four times as much as Bush's.

Actually, scratch that, I really can't. You Yanks and your crazy traditions...
[/SIZE]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]The whole Inauguration spectacle is somewhat humorous from the outside looking in, but I tend to forgive America for the pageantry - after all, you don't have a Monarch anymore. So your President is the next best thing, right?

And however that may read, I don't mean it in a cynical way.

In the UK and Australia for instance, our Prime Ministers don't receive such enormous pageantry - that is really reserved for the Queen. I wonder what we might do in the absence of a Queen.

Although I suppose Australia would still never afford such a luxury to our PM, given that the office of Prime Minister has a somewhat different tone for us.[/font][/QUOTE]No worries, I know you're not being cynical. It's different from this side since that's just how it's always been done, or I should say for as long as I'm aware of it. I haven't studied history to know if it always was a big affair.

Still quite a few people here expect it. Though sometimes it does seem as if they go a bit overboard. o_O If not for the security issues surrounding this upcoming president, I would question it more.[quote name='James][font=franklin gothic medium']In any case, while this is an enormous amount of money to spend on what is largely ceremonial, I do see the value in making this moment accessible to as many Americans as possible. That is a reasonable thing to try to do.[/font][/quote]I agree. And yes I know some of that is biased by what Crystia mentioned in her post. Like her I won't personally be involved, but the fact that the band here for the school even gets to go, is as she puts it, pretty damn nifty.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here in New Zealand, we've got radio stations and networks running live coverage of the inauguration. This is something we haven't done before, both Bush and Clinton inaugurations were footnotes in the world section of the news broadcast.

I'm looking forward to the event, and seeing just what is involved in seeing a president take office. I suspect it will be worth the exhorbirant price tag in Mr. Obama is kept safe fom the wackos and nutters who will be looking for an opening to harm him. Sadly, soem people will never recognise his presidency because his skin is darker in tone to theirs.

So to finish: Good luck to Mr. Obama for tomorrow, and the next four years. I hope the mantra of change is substantially more than "elect me, elect me!" hyperbole.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[FONT="Arial"]Normally I'd be a bit leery of the amount being spent. However, from a historical stance, I'm pleased that they're going the extra mile to open it up as much as possible to everyone. It's an enormous milestone for the US and as such it's only natural that people want to be a part of it. I know I'll be watching the broadcast. [/FONT]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]

In the UK and Australia for instance, our Prime Ministers don't receive such enormous pageantry - that is really reserved for the Queen. I wonder what we might do in the absence of a Queen.[/font][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]It's the same in Canada James. The Queen or one of the other royals comes here (and even though Canada has been independant since 1918 she is considered the Queen of Canada) and everything is crazy (same in the US for some reason) but frankly I don't think they really care much about the Prime Minister unless it's that he'll finally step down.

As for the inaguration, I'm watching it with my daughter right now (off of work til 3PM EST!) because it's a rather big occasion. Yes it's a rather exhorbant cost. But some people need to take into effect that soon to be president Barack Obama has received a lot more death threats than Bush so the biggest cost is for security. If you remember back in November two men were arrested for a plot to assasinate then president elect Obama. THere's still a lot of stupid people in this country and there are people who do want to carry out on these threats.

For sobbing out loud though, it's history. The resident director got bawled out yesturday because the family memeber was told by his mom that they weren't watching the inaguration (uh hello, like she'd remember it anyway?) so even people who won't remember it ten minutes after are watching it. They even changed Lunch to 1pm.

I'd continue, but I need to go out and get gas before the inaguration, and maybe some McDonald's[/color]
Link to post
Share on other sites
Minus security, why are we spending millions of dollars just so that Barack Obama can swear to uphold the constitution?

It's a waste of money. We don't need these parades! Those balls are needed. Those musicians aren't needed.

This is what is wrong with American. We are in a recession for God's sake, and we are spending $100,000,000+ just so Obama can promise to uphold the constitution.

That is all that the Inauguration is about, folks. A man, who will become president, promises to defend the Constitution.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkRed]Matt[/COLOR] and I share the same sentiments. HOWEVER, I [I]would[/I] like to point out that were it McCain being sworn in with the same degree of hoopla, I would be saying the same thing.

Now then. I do understand the security beef-up because unfortunately some people are still stupid about skin color. I [I]can[/I] understand the need for big-screen TVs all over the place for the people who attended the parade and can't get close enough to the actual ceremony to witness it?but then again I wonder why you just didn't watch the parade from your house. (Some people enjoy pageantry, I have no use for it, to-may-to, to-mah-to.) I . . . don't really understand the concert.

I am, however, extremely disappointed that I don't have access to a television. I did want to watch the inauguration myself. :animesigh[/FONT]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkRed]Matt[/COLOR] and I share the same sentiments. HOWEVER, I [I]would[/I] like to point out that were it McCain being sworn in with the same degree of hoopla, I would be saying the same thing.

Now then. I do understand the security beef-up because unfortunately some people are still stupid about skin color. I [I]can[/I] understand the need for big-screen TVs all over the place for the people who attended the parade and can't get close enough to the actual ceremony to witness it?but then again I wonder why you just didn't watch the parade from your house. (Some people enjoy pageantry, I have no use for it, to-may-to, to-mah-to.) I . . . don't really understand the concert.

I am, however, extremely disappointed that I don't have access to a television. I did want to watch the inauguration myself. :animesigh[/FONT][/QUOTE]

SOMEONE AGREES WITH ME! HOOPLAH!

NOW I AM GONNA SPEND A MILLION DOLLARS TO CELEBRATE! YAAAA!
Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIZE="1"]You can add me to the "agree with you roster", since I do too. Alla just put it better.

In any case, the inauguration was on in our cafeteria, so I glanced at it once in awhile, but didn't really bother to watch it. However, my history teacher really wanted to see it, since we actually got out about an hour early because of it. But since I didn't give a rip, I got to go home! Whoopee.[/SIZE]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Mr. Blonde']Well that went off pretty well.[/QUOTE][size=1]Not for [url=http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20090120/sen-ted-kennedy-suffers-seizure]Ted Kennedy[/url]. Poor guy.

I woke up early to watch the ceremonies, and even though a lot of the time was filled with newsmen blathering about equality, I enjoyed it greatly. This is an important milestone in my nation's history, and I'm glad it happened within my lifetime. [strike]Twenty[/strike] even five years ago this sort of thing would have been impossible.

Fun fact: There are exactly four black people in the entire world who were not interviewed on camera about the inauguration today. Hello television, this is an important day not just for blacks but for all minorities. Diversity is a two-way street...

-Shy[/size]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Sangome'][SIZE="1"]I watched both of Bush's inaugurations, and I don't remember stuff like that being used at all. I think that's just a tad bit much, no matter who it is...

Also:



Why does that amuse me so much?[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm not sure on this one.... so please do look it up if you're interested and don't take my word on it. But i think because of the confusion with Florida back when Bush won his first term he was unable to get sworn in all fancy like Obama and other presidents. As for the cost of Obama's inauguration.... eh, whatev. Let him do what he wants. Obviously people feel more strongly (for or against) for Obama than many previous presidents. Let the guy go all out! [/FONT]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=Shy][size=1]I woke up early to watch the ceremonies, and even though a lot of the time was filled with newsmen blathering about equality, I enjoyed it greatly. This is an important milestone in my nation's history, and I'm glad it happened within my lifetime. [strike]Twenty[/strike] even five years ago this sort of thing would have been impossible.

Fun fact: There are exactly four black people in the entire world who were not interviewed on camera about the inauguration today. Hello television, this is an important day not just for blacks but for all minorities. Diversity is a two-way street...

-Shy[/size][/QUOTE]I did the same. I personally think it's great that they did as much as possible so as many people as possible could be there. People can whine that no one in the past got such treatment, but the fact still remains, he's the first black president and that's something I'm glad to see happen. It's long overdue in my opinion. Just as I think it's understandable that people are excited about it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][QUOTE=Matt]Minus security, why are we spending millions of dollars just so that Barack Obama can swear to uphold the constitution?

It's a waste of money. We don't need these parades! Those balls are needed. Those musicians aren't needed.[/QUOTE]Yes I know donations won't cover all of that expense, however, last time I checked, people [I]are[/I] allowed to waste their money however they see fit. =P

[URL="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/inaug.php?cycle=2008"]Inauguration Donors[/URL][quote=Matt]This is what is wrong with American. We are in a recession for God's sake, and we are spending $100,000,000+ just so Obama can promise to uphold the constitution.

That is all that the Inauguration is about, folks. A man, who will become president, promises to defend the Constitution.[/quote]Define how it's [I]wrong[/I] for America or rather an indication. It's not like our government is going to be tossing out huge parties like this during his entire term.

I really don't see people being excited over our first Black President and therefore wanting to be a part of it as wrong [I]or[/I] an indication of what's wrong with our country. In the end, I really see no harm in it.

Yes it's expensive, but until it starts become a regular occurrence, I'm not going to get bent out of shape just cause millions of American wanted to be a part of it. =P

And since I'm in here, I did watch it and like Shy I enjoyed it greatly. Seeing something that wouldn't have been possible when I was a kid become possible... is just downright nifty. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...