Jump to content

Obama's Inaugural Costs not Questioned


Buzzard

Recommended Posts

The Left slanted MSM once again SKEWS the NEWS!!

 

Link

 

AP Slammed Bush’s ‘Extravagant’ Inaugural in ’05,

 

But Now It’s Spend, Baby, Spend

 

By Rich Noyes

January 14, 2009 - 13:51 ET

 

Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”

 

Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?

 

Nope. “For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy,” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance, starting with the lede:

 

So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable?

 

To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must.

 

"This is a time to celebrate. This is a great moment. Do not dress down. Do not wear the Washington uniform," said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian and Chief Creative Officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.

 

"Just because the economy is in a downturn, it doesn't mean that style is going to be in a downturn," agreed Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus.

 

And if anyone does raise an eyebrow at those sequins, remind them that optimism is good for times like these. "Just say you're doing it to help the economy," chuckled good manners guru Letitia Baldridge.

 

That spin is a far cry from four years ago, when the AP seemed interested in spurring resentment of the Bush inaugural’s supposedly high cost. Of course, displays of Republican wealth are routinely slammed by the media as elitist or aristocratic, while reporters seem to consider rich Democrats as stylish paragons whom we all should copy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How dare you bring this up!

 

We had 8 years of Bush totaltarianism and now we are free and have an agent of change of running the government.

 

He DESERVES a massive bash! What better way to spend my tax dollars than by helping to usher in a new era of peace with Iran and a society where I don't have to pay my bills or my mortgage!

 

Happy times are here again!!! :Drunk emoticon:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember the Liberal media and the Dems Screeching about Bush spending $40 million on inauguration. It is now estimated at $150 million+ for the Messiahs inauguration yet the Liberal msm nor the Dems have said a word, considering that at least twice a day Obama says that this finacial crisis is the worst since the great depression. :Drunk emoticon:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there truth to the counter argument that the 150million stated for Obama includes security costs and the 43million for Bush do not and when you factor them out the cost for Obama's is 45million?

 

Also, is it true that this money comes from private donations not taxes? If so, are the donations tracked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there truth to the counter argument that the 150million stated for Obama includes security costs and the 43million for Bush do not and when you factor them out the cost for Obama's is 45million?

 

Also, is it true that this money comes from private donations not taxes? If so, are the donations tracked?

 

It was reported that some of the highest donations came from the same banks that recieved TARP bailout money the most coming from citibank who just recieved another 20 billion. :headbang1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...