PDA

View Full Version : Wow! Just wow! REALLY hypocritical of the left...


revefsreleets
01-19-2009, 07:54 AM
Bush's inauguration cost 40 million, and the Democrats were FURIOUS (and the economy was 10,000 times stronger 4 years ago). Now Obama's will cost ONE HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION and all is right with the world.

Shame on you, Democrats...

http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/37785504.html

Inauguration party pricey in dicey economic times
Some estimate gala event could cost as much as $150 million, break records
By Matt Apuzzo
Associated Press

Published on Sunday, Jan 18, 2009
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 the events.
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.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.
''President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake,'' the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. ''During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified.''
The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate. Four years later, the nation is still at war. Unemployment has risen sharply. And Obama pressed Congress to release the second half of a $700 billion bailout package in hopes of rescuing a faltering banking industry.

Obama's inauguration committee says it is mindful of the times and is not worried people will see the four days of festivities as excessive.
''That is probably not the way the country is going to be looking at it,'' said committee spokeswoman Linda Douglass. ''It is not a celebration of an election. It is a celebration of our common values.''
Douglass said the campaign sought to keep costs down by having the same decorations at each of the 10 balls, eliminating floral arrangements and negotiating prices on food.
''Those at the Obama administration are trying to be reflective of the climate,'' McDermott's spokesman, Mike DeCeasar, said Saturday.
Obama has pledged transparency in his inaugurationfundraising. He has disclosed inaugural donors as the fundraising continued, though he is not required to do so until after the ceremony.
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 the events.
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.

In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.
''President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake,'' the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. ''During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified.''
The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate. Four years later, the nation is still at war. Unemployment has risen sharply. And Obama pressed Congress to release the second half of a $700 billion bailout package in hopes of rescuing a faltering banking industry.

Obama's inauguration committee says it is mindful of the times and is not worried people will see the four days of festivities as excessive.
''That is probably not the way the country is going to be looking at it,'' said committee spokeswoman Linda Douglass. ''It is not a celebration of an election. It is a celebration of our common values.''
Douglass said the campaign sought to keep costs down by having the same decorations at each of the 10 balls, eliminating floral arrangements and negotiating prices on food.
''Those at the Obama administration are trying to be reflective of the climate,'' McDermott's spokesman, Mike DeCeasar, said Saturday.
Obama has pledged transparency in his inaugurationfundraising. He has disclosed inaugural donors as the fundraising continued, though he is not required to do so until after the ceremony.

revefsreleets
01-19-2009, 08:00 AM
To be fair, MOST of the costs of the inauguration are privately funded, but I'm curious: There is a big difference between the $41 million rasied and the projected $150 ticket. I KNOW Bush's fund raisers paid for his, but who foots the bill if this one comes up short?

KeiselPower99
01-19-2009, 08:57 AM
They are makin such a big fn deal about Obama getting in and its costing more money. The dems are very critical on the right but dont feel bad when they do it. if that makes sense. Government spending is gonna be out of control while the dems run everything and thatll put us in a deeper debt.

Polamalu Princess
01-19-2009, 11:51 AM
:pity:And the American people voted to spend more of their hard earned money by electing Obama.:doh:

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
01-19-2009, 11:57 AM
But but but....Sarah Palin's wardrobe cost X amount, even though it was auctioned off!

GBMelBlount
01-19-2009, 11:59 AM
They are makin such a big fn deal about Obama getting in and its costing more money. The dems are very critical on the right but dont feel bad when they do it. if that makes sense. Government spending is gonna be out of control while the dems run everything and thatll put us in a deeper debt.

Ya, but in all fairness, spending was out of control when Bush was in office too. The larger problem is that government spending is completely out of control in general. The government needs to be run like a business, otherwise things will only continue to get worse.....

cubanstogie
01-19-2009, 12:00 PM
no different than the CEO's celebrating at a spa after bailout really. It must have been hard to dig this up in a newspaper, as opposed to on every front page in the US when it was Bush. Typical liberal bias.

TeeJay
01-19-2009, 12:29 PM
But but but....Sarah Palin's wardrobe cost X amount, even though it was auctioned off!

You think you've got issues! - We've got Gordon 'freaking' Brown in charge here.

At least with SP you just know she could do that 'take the glasses off and shake her hair down, naughty secretary thing'. And if she can do that, then who gives a stuff about the politics! :wink02:.....OK......I'll go now.

revefsreleets
01-19-2009, 12:50 PM
Here's my real problem with all this. I get it. Obama is a galvanizing figure for many. It's a historic day. Security needs to be higher. Whatever...

But DON'T make a big deal out of Bush's PRIVATELY FUNDED inauguration (and make no mistake about it, the Dems were purposelly trying to mislead the general public into thinking it was taxpayer money being "wasted") then turn around and run up the credit card bill 4 years later and act like nothing is wrong.

It's disingenuous.

cubanstogie
01-19-2009, 12:54 PM
Here's my real problem with all this. I get it. Obama is a galvanizing figure for many. It's a historic day. Security needs to be higher. Whatever...

But DON'T make a big deal out of Bush's PRIVATELY FUNDED inauguration (and make no mistake about it, the Dems were purposelly trying to mislead the general public into thinking it was taxpayer money being "wasted") then turn around and run up the credit card bill 4 years later and act like nothing is wrong.

It's disingenuous.

Be careful, you don't want to be called a racist.

KeiselPower99
01-19-2009, 01:44 PM
You think you've got issues! - We've got Gordon 'freaking' Brown in charge here.

At least with SP you just know she could do that 'take the glasses off and shake her hair down, naughty secretary thing'. And if she can do that, then who gives a stuff about the politics! :wink02:.....OK......I'll go now.

Hell Yea!!!!

kittenfantastico76
01-19-2009, 01:47 PM
maybe some of these private investors could shell out some of that dough to help the economy or something... I'm all for a good party but WOW that's a chunk of change!

TackleMeBen
01-19-2009, 01:50 PM
and for the next four years we are going to know everytime barack goes to take a dump too....

i understand its a historical day, and that is fine, but there wasnt this much attention given to any other in coming president.

PGH_Futbol
01-19-2009, 01:56 PM
isn't there a board for politics??? Let's fn cheer our victory last night!!

wow.

Leftoverhard
01-19-2009, 04:03 PM
But DON'T make a big deal out of Bush's PRIVATELY FUNDED inauguration

I understand where you're coming from - but I think to be fair, it's important to recognize that (and I think it's pretty clear now), any private money Bush took for any reason, he paid back, trust me. He paid it back in contracts, he paid it back in many forms of political favors (favors is a nice way of putting it) and guess whose money he used, whose name he paid these bribes back with? Ours. I would rather us, as a country, pay for a President's innauguration flat out, then owe the slimebags for their clandestine bribes later on.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
01-19-2009, 04:49 PM
Gotta Love Politics

tony hipchest
01-19-2009, 04:55 PM
To be fair, MOST of the costs of the inauguration are privately funded...so are you trying to be fair or point out major hypocricy?

who are we to tell oprah what to spend her money on? (im sure she pays more in taxes and contributes more to charities, than you or i combined.) :noidea:

btw- i thought the bill for obamas inaug was 160 mil.

MACH1
01-19-2009, 05:02 PM
Another waste of my tax dollars. Way to go Obama.

millwalldavey
01-19-2009, 05:49 PM
Left or Right. It does not matter. People with the money and the power will do anyhting to take your money and power and make sure you have no money or power.

SteelCityMan786
01-19-2009, 08:06 PM
To be fair, MOST of the costs of the inauguration are privately funded, but I'm curious: There is a big difference between the $41 million rasied and the projected $150 ticket. I KNOW Bush's fund raisers paid for his, but who foots the bill if this one comes up short?

Unfortunately the rest of us.

revefsreleets
01-20-2009, 08:39 AM
Correction: Most of the costs SHOULD be privately funded. BUT we have a 110 million deficit running right now for Obama.

And the whole "Bush's funds were bribes" is the biggest crock of shit I've heard yet. I can sort of buy "Security costs are higher because of more people" but to claim that Bush is corrupt because his inauguartion was actually paid for and Obama is clean because he can't raise the 4X more than normal for his inauguration is beyond ridiculous. Democratic money is clean and Republican is dirty? Really? C'mon, you're sharper than that...

Again, my main problem is this "What's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander" mentality the Dems have. They rip up Bush for 40, and claim that 150 is somehow a good thing, and they can't even get the private funds to pay for it!

It's shameful, and this weak and pathetic spin makes it even more ironic, even more hypocritical, even more pitiful.

KeiselPower99
01-20-2009, 09:16 AM
Im tired of all this Obama horseshit. They act like this guy can do no wrong and Bush was a horrible man. They are turning the Presidency into a joke. Its not about politics anymore its image and looking good. The man hasnt said one damn thing I support yet. Thank god Glenn Beck is back on tv and can spread the voice of REAL AMERICANS. 150 million dollars for this???? I wonder how much of that privately funded money came for the Middle East and terrorist supporters???? The man is shady and that got looked over cause no one wanted another Republican. In less then 2 hours I will support the new President but I dont have to like it or him. And another thing Im pissed off about...while Im trying not to sound like a racist but I understand the significance of today I dont want it shoved down my throat. Its great and all but when you shove stuff like that down peoples throats that my friends creates racism. Here is another thing for ya...the economy is in such shambles and the Republicans get blame for it how about these lil facts for ya.....While the economy was tanking it was under a DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED Congress. Your DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT Bill Clinton gave huge corporations TAX BREAK TO SHIP JOBS OVER SEAS!!!!!! Look it up its all true. Bush may have got us into a war but at least its on the other side of the world and not here. He did the best he could with the resources given.

Stlrs4Life
01-20-2009, 10:40 AM
But but but....Sarah Palin's wardrobe cost X amount, even though it was auctioned off!


Exactly. Boo Hoo.




I am enjoying today, it's an end to an error.

revefsreleets
01-20-2009, 02:36 PM
Exactly. Boo Hoo.




I am enjoying today, it's an end to an error.

It will be interesting to see just how many of Bush's "failed policies" Obama keeps on. He's already flipped on a bunch. He's staying in Iraq. Wire taps. He's all over Afghanistan.

This is the harsh reality of leading: It's easy to toss rocks but, as he's quickly finding out, he lived in a glass house himself. His simple idealistic view of the World is changing FAST.

MACH1
01-20-2009, 02:40 PM
I personally love how he's being compared to Lincoln with out doing a eff'n thing yet.

SteelCurtain7
01-20-2009, 03:29 PM
Here's my real problem with all this. I get it. Obama is a galvanizing figure for many. It's a historic day. Security needs to be higher. Whatever...

But DON'T make a big deal out of Bush's PRIVATELY FUNDED inauguration (and make no mistake about it, the Dems were purposelly trying to mislead the general public into thinking it was taxpayer money being "wasted") then turn around and run up the credit card bill 4 years later and act like nothing is wrong.

It's disingenuous.

Quoted. For. Truth. :cool:

ALL HAIL THE OBAMESSIAH!!!!!!!!!!! :banging:

SteelCurtain7
01-20-2009, 03:30 PM
It will be interesting to see just how many of Bush's "failed policies" Obama keeps on. He's already flipped on a bunch. He's staying in Iraq. Wire taps. He's all over Afghanistan.

This is the harsh reality of leading: It's easy to toss rocks but, as he's quickly finding out, he lived in a glass house himself. His simple idealistic view of the World is changing FAST.

Good, salient points. :cool:

I almost predict that Alan Moore's scenario of V For Vendetta will come true with this man. Only it won't be some far-right fascist state in place...it will emanate from the Left.

revefsreleets
01-20-2009, 06:20 PM
I'm not nearly that extreme in my outlook. I'm merely pointing out that, like the boiling frog, slowly, over time, the Obama Administration will realize that Bush wasn't quite the idiot they underestimated him to be. They were too extreme in their criticism, and only now, after moving into office and having the big picture revealed will they understand that some tough (and unpopular) choices that were already made will need to be maintained.

Stlrs4Life
01-31-2009, 09:55 PM
Yeah hypocrsy:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_barack_obamas_inauguration_really_cost_4.html


January 21, 2009
Updated: January 23, 2009
Q:

Did Barack Obama's inauguration really cost 4 times as much as George Bush's 2005 inauguration?
There seems to be a lot of sloppy reporting about the total cost of the Obama inauguration vs. the Bush inauguration that is being used for partisan attacks. I've heard $160 million for Obama vs. 40 million + for Bush. I've also heard Bush's 2005 inauguration was really $157 million. What are the facts?
A:

Claims of a huge disparity are untrue. Actually, an apples-to-apples comparison shows that the two inaugurations likely cost about the same.
For much of the past week, several right-leaning news sites have compared an estimated $160 million price tag for Barack Obama's 2009 inauguration to a $42 million tally for George W. Bush's 2005 inauguration. For example, Newsmax reported that Obama's inauguration "will be the most expensive ever" with a cost "nearly four times what George Bush's inauguration cost four years ago." And Fox News' Sean Hannity told viewers that "the cost of Obama's inaugural will dwarf past celebrations and make those of President Bush's look like budget bashes."

They're wrong. They've misinterpreted mainstream news accounts from the Associated Press, ABC News and the New York Times, among others. The AP and ABC News both report that Obama's inauguration could cost between $160 and $170 million, while Bush raised a net total of $42.3 million to cover the costs of his inauguration, according the New York Times and others, based on the report Bush's committee filed with the Federal Election Commission a few months after the event. But those aren't direct comparisons; the Obama estimates include the cost of security, while the figure for Bush's inauguration does not.

Inauguration costs are divided up into two categories. In one category is all the fun stuff: the inaugural balls, luncheons and Springsteen appearances. That's also the category for things like the 20 JumboTrons placed around the National Mall and the special payment to keep the Smithsonian Institution open for the day. The fun events don't cost taxpayers a dime. Presidential inauguration committees raise money from private donors for all the fun stuff. A spokesperson for Obama's inaugural committee told ABC News that the committee raised about $45 million to cover the costs of events in the fun category. (A full accounting will eventually be filed with the FEC, probably in April.) Adjusting for inflation, Obama's estimated total is about $41.4 million in 2005 dollars or slightly less than the $42.3 million Bush raised for his second inauguration.

But the cost of all the fun stuff is actually less than the cost of providing security for the various events. Taxpayers are on the hook for that bill, and while we won't know for several weeks just how big that tally will be, there's every reason to expect that it'll be hefty. The Times reports that in 2005 the District of Columbia and the federal government spent a combined $115.5 million, mainly on security. ABC News reports higher numbers for this time, with the federal government estimating a $49 million cost and Virginia, Maryland and D.C. requesting a combined $75 million more to cover their inauguration-related expenses. If those estimates hold up, that would work out to around $114 million in inflation-adjusted figures.

It's possible that the security costs could end up being higher. Roughly 400,000 people attended George Bush's 2005 inaugural festivities, according to estimates at the time. CNN estimates that 1.5 million attended the 2009 version, and other estimates range from over 1 million to 1.8 million.

All the bills for Obama's event won't be in for several more weeks, but it appears likely that his inauguration will not cost significantly more than Bush's second inauguration, and could conceivably cost less after adjusting for inflation.

-Joe Miller

Update Jan. 23: We updated this article with quotes from Newsmax and Fox New's Hannity, to give specific examples of the kind of inaccurate reporting we are criticizing.
Sources
Apuzzo, Matt. "Obama Hosting Pricey Party in a Dicey Economy." 17 January 2009. Associated Press. Accessed 21 January 2009.

Bureau of Labor Statistice. "Inflation Calculator." Accessed 21 January 2009.

CNN.com. "Security Tight, Movement Slow on Inauguration Day." 20 January 2009. Accessed 21 January 2009.

Dwyer, Timothy. "Snow and Crowds Descend on Capital." 20 January 2005. Washington Post. Accessed 21 January 2009.

Mayerowitz, Scott, "What Recession? The $170 Million Inauguration." 19 January 2009. ABC News. Accessed 21 January 2009.

Seelye, Katherine Q. "Obama's Inauguration Fund-Raising Tops $24 Million." 5 January 2009. New York Times. Accessed 21 January 2009.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-01-2009, 01:49 AM
Exactly. Boo Hoo.




I am enjoying today, it's an end to an error.

Guess I needed the sarcasm smiley on that one! :noidea:

Preacher
02-01-2009, 02:36 AM
Yeah hypocrsy:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_barack_obamas_inauguration_really_cost_4.html

.


Hmmm.

Quite an interesting little story. Too bad it is quite wrong on two main points.

1. We are in a DEFLATIONARY cycle. Homes, cars, gas, etc. etc. is going DOWN, as are salaries. So there is very little adjustment for inflation. Therefore, it WILL cost more.

2. EVEN if it DOESN'T cost more, let's say the same amount is spent, where is the frugal calls from the dems? When we are in a war with a worse economy, why should actions that were considered unfrugal 4 years ago now be ok?

It is STILL called hypocrisy. Try to justify it all you want. it won't go away.

IronFan
02-01-2009, 07:50 AM
Ya, but in all fairness, spending was out of control when Bush was in office too. The larger problem is that government spending is completely out of control in general. The government needs to be run like a business, otherwise things will only continue to get worse.....

This^^^

We have a winner.

Stlrs4Life
02-01-2009, 08:47 AM
Hmmm.

Quite an interesting little story. Too bad it is quite wrong on two main points.

1. We are in a DEFLATIONARY cycle. Homes, cars, gas, etc. etc. is going DOWN, as are salaries. So there is very little adjustment for inflation. Therefore, it WILL cost more.

2. EVEN if it DOESN'T cost more, let's say the same amount is spent, where is the frugal calls from the dems? When we are in a war with a worse economy, why should actions that were considered unfrugal 4 years ago now be ok?

It is STILL called hypocrisy. Try to justify it all you want. it won't go away.

just showing the cost, the costs were the same. What the original post was about.

revefsreleets
02-01-2009, 12:10 PM
No, it was not. The original post was, is, and will continue to be about the hypocrisy of the left. Even IF the costs are the same, the left is just as hypocritical. Why? They made a HUGE stick bout the cost of Bush's inauguration, going on and on and on and on and on ad nauseum about what how wasteful it all was (during a relatively strong economy) and what do they do when their candidate is elected? Do the SAME EXACT THING. That, my friend, is the very definition of hypocrisy.

xfl2001fan
02-01-2009, 12:12 PM
Sorry Rev, but it's very different. Bush did it during a relatively strong economy...whereas Obama pulled it off during a declining economy. It's a worse form of hypocrisy.

SteelShooter
02-01-2009, 12:15 PM
It figures.............