Comments on: History Revisited: Inauguration Costs

By: cookie

cookie — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 02:56:00 +0000

Interesting post, thank your for sharing.

By: Joe Vetori

Joe Vetori — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:00:33 +0000

Bridget-

Read what investigators are saying about how Obama is getting several hundred million dollars a month kick backed to him by chicago political machines and gangs. And investigative reports have also shown that the rumor “Oh most of his donations were under 200 dollars.” is not true. In fact sixty-five percent of Obama’s cash can’t be accounted for by donations or even LOBBYISTS at all! Golly… I wonder where it came from…

By: Joe Vetori

Joe Vetori — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:58:13 +0000

Wait… Fiscal irresponsibility on OUR part?! Even while the Reps controlled both legislative branches they didn’t DO ANYTHING! It’s the liberals that have been passing things willy-nilly! The Democrats have had congress for the last three years now! They’ve been raising taxes, min. wage, all that crud. Giving more of our money away to other countries, you name it. Fiscal irresponsibility my foot. Bush doesn’t even have the right to propose spending, you idiot. Only senators can do that, you dumb piece of crud.

By: Bridget

Bridget — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:00:14 +0000

Maybe if you did the proper research you would see that previous inaugurations did not report their full spending. Also, you did not mention that he raised a large sum of money in private funds. Maybe before you all start typing through your rears you should read more than one story.

By: Susan J. Spaulding

Susan J. Spaulding — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:22:02 +0000

Inauguration Costs $$$$$$ :http://www.thehotjoints.com/2009/01/14/history-revisited-inauguration-costs/

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:28:13 +0000

While I’m in support of joining our country in celebrating a historic event such as the first African American to become President, there are several ways the cost of this event could easily be kept to one-tenth of what it normally costs for past and current events. Here is one for example: We live in a world of technology with the ability to broadcast this and any event around the world…why does it have to be outside? To minimize the security costs, it could take place in the Capital Rotunda or the White House; the world can still see and celebrate. Sure, its not as personal but our economic situation requires taxpayers to sacrefice, how about Washington? As for all the parties and balls, I agree with previous comments that the candidates should pay for those out of their own pockets. Political parties, elected official and voters are all guilty of this waste. If drastic steps aren’t taken to get rid of rediculous expenditures like this (and others) that our political leaders endorse, when will it all end??? When will the burden be lightened for the average taxpayer??? I for one am just thankful that I trust in the Lord who sets leaders in their positions and that it is the Lord who is truly in control of all things.

By: Stacey Tillman

Stacey Tillman — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:45:23 +0000

These numbers are very misleading. The majority of the increased costs are related to security. This inauguration is expected to draw the largest crowds in history and safety is the most important factor. The Fed is paying 49 million with D.C., Maryland and Virginia expected to spend about 75 million combined. Bush’s inaugural cost the Fed,D.C., Maryland and Virginia 115.5 million. Considering the crowds are expected to be nearly four times as big, they’ve done a great job. The rest of the inaugural celebrations, including the balls and the celebration concert were paid for by private donations-not tax payer money. So where’s the outrageous extravagance?

By: Chris Jones

Chris Jones — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:19:37 +0000

That’s a fair point. No doubt, the security costs are enormous and I’m the last person to call for less security.

But again, It’s the hypocrisy that I can’t stand. Liberals thought Bush’s party was too expensive because they hated his guts.

By: Jamale Ra'Mone

Jamale Ra'Mone — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:32:23 +0000

The millions that he is spending is just to me. The money he is spending on security is well spent. There will be millions of people who need protection. The people who are traveling to come see this event will spend tons of money which will boost the DC economy. Yes this will cost a lot but I believe that it is well spent. Not because history is being made but because if we didn’t spend so much money lives would be in risk.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:20:02 +0000

I’m wondering how much of the 130 million is spent on increased security? Because, sadly, he needs it. Please respond.