Incumbant inaugurations: Pompous ceremony waste of tax payer's money?

[Iamme]

What do you think?

These things cost millions. The security alone will cost a fortune.

Why should Bush, who was re-elected, go through yet another inauguration? He will swear under oath, again, to uphold the law of the land. Why? He already did that. And then, there is the partying.

All I see in this is people of power, flaunting their power. That we are NOT the government of, by and for the people, but a government of the big wigs to do as they choose.

 

[The Fool]

What do you think?

These things cost millions. The security alone wil cost a fortune.

Why should Bush, who was re-elected, go through yet anpother inauguration? He will swear under oath, again, to uphold the law of the land. Why? He already did that. And then, there is the partying.

All I see in this is people of power, flaunting their power. That we are NOT the government of, by and for the people, but a government of the big wigs to do as they choose.

The only problem you american have is you don't go far enough with te inauguration...you should have george on a horse with a silly hat with big feathers in it and a big brass band.

Come on yanks, admit it...you would dearly love a royal family and the ex presidents are a rather shabby substitute.....get with the program...pomp is good! Pomp is great! It makes people feel all warm and fuzzy.
Australia is the same....not nearly enough upper class twits in silly hats born to rule.....

 

[Nikk]

Re: Re: Incumbant inaugurations: Pompous ceremony waste of tax payer's money?

Come on yanks, admit it...you would dearly love a royal family and the ex presidents are a rather shabby substitute.....get with the program...pomp is good! Pomp is great! It makes people feel all warm and fuzzy.
Australia is the same....not nearly enough upper class twits in silly hats born to rule.....

Actually you are spot on here.

The Yanks are big on reverence. They revere bits of parchment, bits of cloth, clapped out religions and squalid politicians.

If they could only have a ceremonial Presidential family to revere with a CEO to do the dirty work they would be happier and bug the rest of the world less.

Perhaps we should lend them Harry as breeding stock. Tallish, reasonably good looking if you like that sort of thing and none too bright. Just the job really.

 

[Silicon]

I say do it.

Bigger buildings, more lavish parties. I think the next Inaguration should be done from an orbiting space casino and theme-park, at the cost of bazillions of dollars.

It shows our strength to those jihadists who can't even afford the dirt their shoes track into their huts.

 

[Random]

Why should Bush, who was re-elected, go through yet another inauguration? He will swear under oath, again, to uphold the law of the land. Why? He already did that.

Maybe it'll sink in this time.

 

[Garrette]

Inaugurations may well be a waste of money, but they are not, in the main, a waste of taxpayer money.

The vast majority of funding comes from businesses and private donations raised by the inaugural committee (basically a subset of the national party, if I understand correctly).

Taxpayer funding would be the indirect cost of paying for security and policemen, though, I think, this too is charged to the committee.

Read here for an incomplete rundown.

 

[Lemastre]

The inaugural parties have never had much practical value. Nowadays, they mostly demonstrate that the pols in DC either don't realize how obscene the whole ostentatious display looks to the other 99.9999 percent of the citizenry, or, more likely, they just don't care. Here's a nation trillions of dollars in the hole whose president, while seeming deeply concerned about Social Security funding, etc., is perfectly happy to blow millions of dollars on a party that is basically another Republican political rally.

It would be astoundingly refreshing for Mr. Bush to simply call off all this wastefulness, take the oath in his office during a normal workday, and get on with whatever he gets on with. Obviously the money that will be blown on the party could be far better used to replace funds Bush has cut from various worthwhile programs. But then, one doesn't expect anything like humility or public conscience from the Bushies.

 

[Tmy]

Im bothered by the amounts of money "donated" to the inauguration by businesses . Its smacks of payolla. Do these donations fall outside the lobbyist and campaine rules and regulation?

 

[corplinx]

Inaugurations help the DC economy. Its a big boon to them. As for cancelling the inauguration, no Bush supporter is going to give ear to that idea since the people saying not to do it are the ones who didn't vote for him. You don't let the losing team tell you how to throw your victory party.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Im bothered by the amounts of money "donated" to the inauguration by businesses . Its smacks of payolla. Do these donations fall outside the lobbyist and campaine rules and regulation?

Perhaps they're doing it like Star Jones's wedding, where she conned people into donating goods and services in exchange for promised publicity.

Look for product placement in the next State of the Union address. He'll be sipping from a can of Dr Pepper or a Starbucks latte or something, or maybe wearing a cap with a Dow Chemical label on it.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Incumbant inaugurations: Pompous ceremony waste of tax payer's money?

Actually you are spot on here.

The Yanks are big on reverence. They revere bits of parchment, bits of cloth, clapped out religions and squalid politicians.

If they could only have a ceremonial Presidential family to revere with a CEO to do the dirty work they would be happier and bug the rest of the world less.

Yap, yap, yap. The inauguration is one day. You have to feed the Royal Family all year round, sucker.

Perhaps we should lend them Harry as breeding stock. Tallish, reasonably good looking if you like that sort of thing and none too bright. Just the job really.

Breeding stock? No thanks, our dentists are doing just fine.

 

[Garrette]

Yes, the donations by businesses and individuals fall outside the funding laws. You could call it a loophole; I cynically think it's one of those intentional loopholes. The whole campaign finance reform thing was a PR show, nothing more.


I've no problem with people deriding the money spent on the inauguration, but let's not kid ourselves by thinking that W is the first to do it. Clinton's first inauguration set a then-record $29.5 million. Adjust that for today's dollar-value and I expect (but don't know) that it would come close to W's expected $40 million.

Criticize the whole idea of inaugural bashes, but don't falsely turn it into a strictly Bush thing.

 

[hgc]

Re: Re: Incumbant inaugurations: Pompous ceremony waste of tax payer's money?

The only problem you american have is you don't go far enough with te inauguration...you should have george on a horse with a silly hat with big feathers in it and a big brass band.

Come on yanks, admit it...you would dearly love a royal family and the ex presidents are a rather shabby substitute.....get with the program...pomp is good! Pomp is great! It makes people feel all warm and fuzzy.
Australia is the same....not nearly enough upper class twits in silly hats born to rule.....

Who wants royalty advice from Australia, a country that borrows its royal family from another country clear on the other side of the world? Pathetic. Sounds like republic-envy.

 

[Lemastre]

Inaugurations help the DC economy. Its a big boon to them. As for cancelling the inauguration, no Bush supporter is going to give ear to that idea since the people saying not to do it are the ones who didn't vote for him. You don't let the losing team tell you how to throw your victory party.

As I understand it, the taxpayers of DC are to provide some $17,000,000 for security. I doubt that the influx of visitors to DC will be enough larger than usual to make up this amount. Perhaps some of it will be reimbursed out of federal tax dollars. While Bush supporters are funding a lot of the revelry, it's still an embarrassing display of hubris in view of how narrowly Bush won and how ill-contrived his policies are.

 

[Number Six]

I agree that an inauguration gala for a re-elected President is silly. Okay, make a big deal over a new President, but when a guy is re-elected just give it a rest. It just looks silly and indulgent. It would make W look mature and serious if he just said "Don't bother with all that stuff, just gimmie the oath and let's get on with business."

 

[materia3]

As I understand it, the taxpayers of DC are to provide some $17,000,000 for security. I doubt that the influx of visitors to DC will be enough larger than usual to make up this amount. Perhaps some of it will be reimbursed out of federal tax dollars. While Bush supporters are funding a lot of the revelry, it's still an embarrassing display of hubris in view of how narrowly Bush won and how ill-contrived his policies are.

I heard on Hannity & Combs last night that DC's costs were coming out of its homeland security budget, which means yes, the feds are paying for it first by giving them a homeland security budget and then requiring them to use part of it to pay their end of the inaugeration costs. This is causing some concern.

Also are the private donations tax deductible? If so, taxpayors are indirectly paying for this as is any business man spending big bucks to get in on the festivities.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Re: Re: Incumbant inaugurations: Pompous ceremony waste of tax payer's money?

The only problem you american have is you don't go far enough with te inauguration...you should have george on a horse with a silly hat with big feathers in it and a big brass band.

Attendees at the Independence Ball, one of nine officially sanctioned galas celebrating President George W. Bush's second inauguration Thursday, will be treated to a viewing of a caged Saddam Hussein, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Monday. "What better way to honor the president than with a physical symbol of his many first-term triumphs?" McClellan said as Hussein rattled the bars of a cage already suspended above the ballroom where the event will be held.



http://www.theonion.com/nib/index.php?issue_id=421&nib=1

 

[Nikk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Incumbant inaugurations: Pompous ceremony waste of tax payer's money?

Yap, yap, yap. The inauguration is one day. You have to feed the Royal Family all year round, sucker.

Actually the Royal Estates have been managed by parliament ever since the mid 18th century. As the annual income to the exchequer greatly exceeds the expenditure the cost of the Royals is less than nothing.

However as a massive deficit appears to be an article of faith with neo-cons for reasons that I am admittedly too stupid to understand you probably find such comparative frugality ideologically offensive.

 

[Zep]

Re: Re: Incumbant inaugurations: Pompous ceremony waste of tax payer's money?

Australia is the same....not nearly enough upper class twits in silly hats born to rule.....

I'm going to stop you right there! Alexander Downer does NOT wear a hat. Although Ming did...

 

[Zep]

Re: Re: Re: Incumbant inaugurations: Pompous ceremony waste of tax payer's money?

Who wants royalty advice from Australia, a country that borrows its royal family from another country clear on the other side of the world? Pathetic. Sounds like republic-envy.

You don't know how TRUE that is for some of us. Well...MOST of us, really.

If you see a little lapdog with stupid eyebrows and specs humping GWB's leg at the inauguration, please (a) kick him, and then (b) tell him the above.