George W. Bush: What's Wrong With You?!?!
Appalling!
Bush's inauguration in 2005 cost $42.3 million -- a record. What a waste. What a pathetic waste of money that could've been used for better things for this country and/or to help the lives of others around the world who suffer so horribly, far worse than most do here in the U.S.
Here's what the Associated Press said about Bush's 2005 inauguration:
I couldn't agree more. Just pathetic.President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?
■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.
■ A down payment on the nation’s deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year….
The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat, suggested inaugural parties should be scaled back, citing as a precedent Roosevelt’s inauguration during World War II.
“President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake,” according to a letter from Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. “During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified.”…
Now (on the 20th) we'll have a new president, One (The Savior) who will bring Change to the American people, who will restore America's popularity throughout the world. No more of that crap that there used to be.
And the price tag on The Savior's inauguration? Let's see, Bush in '05 was at $42.3 million . . . how pathetic. How about this time, hmmmm . . . how about $150 million?!?? Yeah!!!! Let's blow Bush's record out of the water!!!!!
Yes, that's Change!!!!!!! This will be the most expensive inauguration ever.
Exactly what America needs.
Hmmm, how many vaccinations would that be this time?
Let the justification begin...
filed under...
Dissent is Patriotic - It's not Hatred,
What a Wonderful World?
22 comments:
and the republickers have done such a super job the last eight years (actually, 20 of the last 28). for instance, i know that i can objectively look back to around the time bush inherited a $42 billion surplus, compare and conclude that the world today is a far better place. bravo conservatives.
You are right, that is an obscene amount of money. But, some perspective...there are millions of people who want to be there for this inauguration-Washington DC is expecting the largest crowds EVER and while I haven't seen a budget so I don't know exactly how this money is being spent, my guess is it costs a lot of money for the city to handle such a large crowd and for security. How would it be if our government skimped on security and somebody got trampled? Large crowds like this can be dangerous.
My parents were in DC last weekend and they saw all of the work that was going into getting the city ready and one thing that my mom pointed out when we discussed it was all of the people who are being paid overtime to get the work done. These are ordinary people who are using the extra pay to pay their bills and feed their kids.
This is JUST THE START... Oh, how I can't wait to see all the great "changes" that are coming our way............
all of the people who are being paid overtime to get the work done. These are ordinary people who are using the extra pay to pay their bills and feed their kids.
I'm sure a lot of people appreciate the overtime pay but that justifies nearly QUADRUPLING what the previous inauguration cost?
People/the Press called Bush's $42.3 million wasteful, said better things could be done with the money.
The new president must believe expensive partying is more important than helping those he claims to care so much about.
Yup -- "Elitist Snob" clearly applies.
That may be true but having that many people in D.C. does cost money. Like I said, I haven't seen the budget but I do not know how much of this is necessary for safety/security and how much of it is frivolous. I'm sure that quite a lot of it is frivolous but not all and now I will stop because I really don't have enough facts about the details, so bite me.
i am loving this. can't help it, after the last eight years of horror.
and since when is being intelligent and possessing an actual vocabulary considered 'elitism'? so being smarter than the average schmuck isn't what we want in a president? really?
The elitism has nothing to do with perceived intelligence.
Bush was slammed for spending $42.3 million.
Shouldn't the new guy, for spending 4 times as much as Bush, get slammed 4 times as much also?
After all, he's all about Change. I thought his brand of change was supposed to be about helping more people and not doing things the way they were done before. Out with the old, in with the new.
The celebrations costing 4 times as much as 4 years ago won't inoculate children against deadly diseases or anything else like that. But then, I guess spending 4 times as much as Bush, that is change, isn't it?
And by the media and peers and fans, the costly lavish parties, to make a relatively few people feel good -- all approved.
Bush shouldn't have spent so much. For Obama it's okay? That's elitist snobbery.
f.y.i.: this is history, folks.
how sad that you can't get past the hate and see that for what it is. the sheer number of attendees will far exceed any inauguration.
Personally, I don't have hatred for the President-to-be . . . I just don't believe he's the right person for the job and there are millions upon millions of Americans who feel the exact same way. Annie, do all of those people hate Obama? Disagreement isn't necessarily hatred. I'm sure a lot of people felt Bush wasn't the right person for the job. Was that always hatred? Many people truly did and still do hate the man but disagreeing that someone isn't the best for the job, that doesn't mean there's hatred involved.
As far as it being history, it would also be history if Eddie Murphy was elected . . . but that doesn't mean Gumby's the right man for the job.
And just because it's history, does that mean Obama has to endorse such wasteful spending on something that's completely meaningless? (Balls and parties serve no purpose in the world, put no food on the plates of the homeless, or change the hearts and minds of those who want us dead.) He wants to be the President of "Change"? When Bush spend only $42.3 four years ago, $150 million is change for better or worse?
how much have we spent on wars and bail-outs in the last 8 years? something tells me bush has outspent
anyone.
Annie, that's absolutely true . . . but does that justify spending 4 times as much as Bush? Just because Bush spent spent spent, Obama has a free pass to spend even more?
I understand Obama does not personally approve each million dollars of inaugural costs, but he could've made such a tremendous statement by calling for RESTRAINT in inauguration spending (the same can be said about the amount of money spent to buy, I mean campaign for the Presidency.) Is this some left wing liberal mindset that I don't get? It's okay to be concerned for people and go on and on and on about helping people but it's more important to wastefully and selfishly spend? I honestly do not understand.
Look, Obama wants to be, and those who elected him want him to be, the President who is the opposite of W. Spending 4 times as much on his inauguration, how is that being better than W.? It's certainly a Change but is it better and what kind of precedent does it set? Whose lives are made better by bashes and balls totaling $150 million? Little Susie Jones in a homeless shelter with her recently laid off mommy in Kansas City, how do inaugural balls help her and her mom out? How do these inaugural balls and bashes change the minds and hearts of Muslim extremists who want to cut your head off in pursuit of spreading their brand of hateful Islam across the globe?
And why was Bush condemned for $42.3 million but $150 million for Obama is okay?
Except for the price tag, nothing is adding up.
That's right Dems the "Blame Bush" era is coming to an end, Your man will end up outspending the Bush administration 3 fold, while doing NONE of the things he promised, and presiding over the MOST corrupt Administration ever, all while keeping most of the "Evil" Bush Security policies in place, Keep that wool over your eyes, though, "Global Warming" is gripping the Mid West and East Coast and it will come in handy....
Calm down.
Much, but not all, of the cost of Barack Obama's inauguration is being paid through private donations. (Generally speaking, according to National Public Radio, private money covers most of the festivities: the elaborate balls, the huge video screens on the National Mall, the parade. And government funds are used for the actual swearing-in ceremony, security, crowd control, municipal workers' overtime, and so forth.)
Obama's Presidential Inaugural Committee has promised "an inclusive and accessible inauguration," one that "sets aside partisanship and unites the nation around our shared values and ideals."
Unlike previous inaugural committees, his has not accepted contributions from corporations, political action committees, labor unions, current federal lobbyists, non-citizens, or registered foreign agents. And it's limited individual contributions to $50,000.
"We'll scratch your back, if you scratch ours" could potentially be in play here.
90% of donations received so far have been raised by well-heeled fund-raisers, including Wall Street executives whose companies have received billions of dollars in federal bailout money.
"Hey, Barack, remember we helped raise money for your big day? Well... ummm, we need more help. Can you give us more taxpayer dollars, please?"
This is not good but it wasn't the point to my post.
Even though a lot of the record-setting $150 million is coming from private sources, why is it okay for this $150 million to be spent but Bush's $42.3 was out of line? Bush spending a lot in '05 = bad. Obama spending 4 times more only 4 years later = no problem.
We were led to believe that Obama will be different from the previous administration who did everything wrong. Spending so much on the inauguration is in line with doing things better for America?
The inauguration being so lavish and expensive doesn't bring people together, it serves only a relative few. I haven't been invited to any of the black-tie balls to drink champagne. Have you?
Let's put Barack Obama's tally into another form:
$150,000,000
That's an awful lot of money that's essentially doing no long-term good for people in this country or others who really need it. Other than having a good time for a few hours, who benefits? Whose life is made better by people in tuxedos and ballgowns partying in Washington, D.C.?
Add onto that the unbelievable cost to buy the Presidency. Soon, altogether, it'll be about a BILLION dollars, no? There's something not right about that.
Campaigning dollars aside, transfer of power does NOT need to involve partying. It can, like in many countries, be done without the pomp and circumstance. All we've done is blown a tradition way out of proportion, especially while so many suffer.
$150,000,000 is essentially for a fun time for only a few people. How do you think the rest of the world sees that? It would tell me what pathetic wasteful spenders those Americans are, they don't care about nothin but themselves. What snobs.
"It would tell me what pathetic wasteful spenders those Americans are, they don't care about nothin but themselves. What snobs."
In reality, they've been thinking and saying that for years.
"In reality, they've been thinking and saying that for years."
Why propagate that?
This inauguration isn't showing anyone that Obama's any better than Bush. If anything, he's starting off 4 times as bad.
But the mainstream media won't say that. They castigated Bush's $42.3 million inauguration but Obama's $150+ million -- that's cool!!!!!
Zooma...another reason for the massive price tag is that the security required is far greater than for any inauguration. Why, you ask? Because more people are attending this one than have ever attended one before.
Lots of us are SO ready to celebrate surviving the Bush presidency. I am sorry you don't share in the enthusiasm. History in the making...and before you claim he is worse than Bush, maybe you should let him take office.
"before you claim he is worse than Bush, maybe you should let him take office."
I'm tryin', Annie.
I don't know if I've said definitively that he's worse than Bush but it's a fear that millions of Americans have. I'm trying to take each day as it comes and we'll see what transpires.
The good and the bad, it's all on the new guy now. Ron H is right, there'll be no more blaming Bush.
Ron H. - ...and, McCain/Palin would NOT have presided over the MOST corrupt Administration ever, and would have abolished most of the "Evil" Bush Security Policies?
As far as the "Blame Bush" era, again, I suggest that, if you can approximate objectivity AT ALL, consider the world pre-Bush/2002 and compare it the the state of world RIGHT NOW. A far better place it is NOW, you're certain, right?
OK, we shouldn't blame Bush - he was just the perfect stooge for The ELITE, who accelerated their agenda. Bravo conservatives!
Obama is being inaugurated during a time of IMMENSE ECONOMIC WORRY! The
world is already in EXTREME TROUBLE, and this is before we are even feeling the
ramifications of a failing car industry (do you realize what the car industry
represents? how many industries it touches? we're talking plastics, metals,
chemicals, mining, the service industry). The word of the day is SACRIFICE! If
Obama was about "change", if he really wanted to LEAD BY EXAMPLE, he'd SACRIFICE
SOME OF THE EXPENSES OF THIS ABSURD INAUGURATION.
At this time, Obama should have spent FAR LESS, not far more money.
What a vindication it would be if he actually practiced what he preached
starting with the first act as president - what an example that would set for
the nation... This would have been a perfect place to cut back as despite it's
emotional ramifications, the inauguration really does not affect people's day to
day lives.
K. I voted for him, but...
Goddamn right!
WATCH what he does, NOT what he "represents"...
READ EVERYTHING...start with "Society of the Spectacle"...and Abbie Hoffman...and Harvey Wasserman...and Noam Chomsky, of course...
READ the rightest bastards who put us in this position...Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, William F. Buckley, et al.
AND THINK
AND CRITICIZE AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS!!!
USE ANY PLATFORM YOU CAN FIND to keep the heat on these people.
AND UNIONIZE!!!!
THEN, we stand a snowball's chance in hell of having true democracy.
PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment