Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy

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 events ranging from a Philadelphia-to-Washington train ride to a megastar concert with Beyonce, U2 and Bruce Springsteen to 10 official inaugural balls. 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090117...on_spending;_ylt=AiQRHVQacAJIqXhW_4S6LxIEtbAF

i am surprised to see a media article regarding this...

i see it as excessive...but i guess i don't count under an obama presidency

the democrats are truly proving what hypocrites they are...and obama's excessive inauguration truly shows his priorities...it is not the country or the economy, it is his ego and moment in history. he is a fraud, simple and plain.
 
"the democrats are truly proving what hypocrites they are...and obama's excessive inauguration truly shows his priorities...it is not the country or the economy, it is his ego and moment in history. he is a fraud, simple and plain. "

Did you feel the same about Bush throwing a big party for his inauguration when the economy sucked in '01?

I didn't get that impression from the other thread you ditched...
 
Onceler said:
"the democrats are truly proving what hypocrites they are...and obama's excessive inauguration truly shows his priorities...it is not the country or the economy, it is his ego and moment in history. he is a fraud, simple and plain. "

Did you feel the same about Bush throwing a big party for his inauguration when the economy sucked in '01?

I didn't get that impression from the other thread you ditched...
Click to expand...

what say you regarding obama's inaug? and what did you say regarding bush's? in '01 and '04?

as for me....i could have cared less in '01....just started grad school. as for '04...was just getting into political morass so didn't even form an opinion. and honestly, since you asked me personally and nicely, the only thing i remember was the dems complaining about bush's inaug....and i shrugged my shoulders and didn't care.

now, as the article stated, the economy is worse, the war is still going on....yet now....now....the dems are silent....despite telling bush to take it down a notch 4 years ago when things were actually better.

let me ask you a question: do find this at all, even a wee bit, hypocritical?
 
Sure; I don't care. Any Dem who criticized Bush on the inauguration but has no problem w/ Obama's is a hypocrite.

It's hardly the 1st example of political hypocrisy.
 
What a stupid thread. Spurt did it escape your notice that the Inaugural parties are being funded by private sources and not tax dollars? Which makes this a complete "WHO GIVES A RATS ASS" issue.
 
If you DO NOT understand the significance of THIS election to the entire American people then you are a complete Idiot.
 
evince said:
If you DO NOT understand the significance of THIS election to the entire American people then you are a complete Idiot.
Click to expand...

So we should spend tons of taxpayer money on it?

I'm pretty sure if we gravedugg a bit we would find desh criticizing Bush's celebrations. Desh is a Grade-A, USDA-certified hypocrite.
 
Spending money is good for the economy, if he was doing it on credit I can see there being a problem.
 
Damocles said:
Spending money is good for the economy, if he was doing it on credit I can see there being a problem.
Click to expand...

my issue is not so much with the spending, rather, the blatent hypocrisy. sure, hypocrisy exists and is nothing new, but it needs to be pointed out, it takes away from the dems claiming the moral highground all the time.
 
Mottleydude said:
What a stupid thread. Spurt did it escape your notice that the Inaugural parties are being funded by private sources and not tax dollars? Which makes this a complete "WHO GIVES A RATS ASS" issue.
Click to expand...

Anyone who cares about the influence of money and corporations in politics SHOULD give way more than a rats ass.

Obama's inauguration, like his campaign, is being bankrolled by Wall Street and many of the same corporations that are getting billions of dollars in US taxpayer money.

The influenece of money in politics and the intrusion of corporations into government USED to be an issue democrats claimed they were concerned about.

"Who are the corporations that Dick Cheney is meeting with and why can't the American public know what was said."

Now that its their turn at the corporate money pool, suddenly money and corporations in politics ain't so bad after all.

Obama demonstrates the hypocrisy of democrats.
 
Last edited:
evince said:
If you DO NOT understand the significance of THIS election to the entire American people then you are a complete Idiot.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the significance is Americans are still just as dumb and easily manipulated and controlled as they were when Bush was in office.
 
"Obama's inauguration, like his campaign, is being bankrolled by Wall Street and many of the same corporations that are getting billions of dollars in US taxpayer money"

Is that a fact?

About a quarter of his campaign funds came from donors who put in $200 or less. About half came from those between $1,000 & $2,500. He did not accept money from PAC's or lobbyists.

Most of the inauguration is also being paid for by individual donors, many of whom donated the max of $50,000.

Obama hasn't signed one law or issued one executive order yet. I'll wait until he does before I go throwing around accusations of hypocrisy & corporate influence.
 
Onceler said:
"Obama's inauguration, like his campaign, is being bankrolled by Wall Street and many of the same corporations that are getting billions of dollars in US taxpayer money"

Is that a fact?

About a quarter of his campaign funds came from donors who put in $200 or less. About half came from those between $1,000 & $2,500. He did not accept money from PAC's or lobbyists.

Most of the inauguration is also being paid for by individual donors, many of whom donated the max of $50,000.

Obama hasn't signed one law or issued one executive order yet. I'll wait until he does before I go throwing around accusations of hypocrisy & corporate influence.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't expect that anything Obama does will rankle you as I'm sure there are convienent excuses waiting for anything he does.

His claim that he doesn't accept money from corporations is the mindfuck for people who don't pay attention and know nothing about politics. It's been against the law to accept money directly from corporations to ANY federal candidate for at least 100 years. No presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't because corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.

The truth is Obama has raised more money from Wall Street (individuals, executives, and spouses than any candidate in American history .. and he got about the same percentage of contributions from small donors as Bush did in 2004 .. and a far less percentage than did Howard Dean.

And, although he claims he doesn't accept lobbyist money, as with everything OBama says, you have to lift up his skirts to find the truth in his nuances.

He'll happily accept money from the spouses of lobbyists, accepts money from lobbyists registered in state capitals, accepts money from partners at law firms that engage in lobbying, and accepts money from the C.E.O.’s, chairs, and officers of corporations, but not their lobbyists

Feel free to ignore truth if you must.

PACs and lobbyists aided Obama's rise - Data contrasts with his theme
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

Microsoft Lobbyists Raised Money for Obama Campaign

WE HAVE BEEN writing quite extensively about ways in which Microsoft prepares to influence Obama [1, 2]. It’s already paying him. According to the following leaked E-mail, Obama’s claim that he does not accept money from lobbyists is false. Here is Microsoft’s head of government affairs raising money for Obama, which essentially has the same effect.
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/07/microsoft-lobbyists-for-obama/

Obama draws fine line between lobbyist, lawyer donors

WASHINGTON - Last fall, Barack Obama quietly slipped into the Miami headquarters of a major law firm scarred by the scandals of Jack Abramoff, its once-powerful Washington lobbyist who now sits in jail.

Arriving a little after 10 a.m. on Oct. 1, Obama spent the next three hours schmoozing, speaking in a video conference to branch offices and raising money at Greenberg Traurig, a billion-dollar firm with one of the biggest lobby shops here.

Obama has now raised about $125,000 from Greenberg Traurig employees - nearly half of it at the time of the event - more than from any of the other top law and lobby firms.

Symbolically, it was a starkly contradictory event: an appearance by the candidate who crusades most adamantly against lobbyists at the onetime firm of the poster child for out-of-control influence peddling.

Public anger over the Abramoff lobbying scandal led Obama to institute the ban on lobbyist money in the first place, an aide said last year.

Realistically, it shows the fine line Obama draws when he says he does not accept money from lobbyists and political action committees, while raising a stunning $200-plus million overall.

Taking funds from lawyers but not lobbyists - the distinction Obama draws - is "hair splitting," according to League of Women Voters president Mary Wilson.

"It has huge symbolic value to take the no-PAC pledge and reject lobbying money, particularly for a campaign that presents itself as populist," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics.

But she added, "When you dig deeper, the interests that finance the Obama campaign are much the same as the others."
http://www.latimes.com/news/ny-usobam135648320apr13,1,299811.story?page=1
 
I know about all that, but the fact is that a large portion of his donations HAVE come from small individual donors, and that the man has not committed one action as President yet for you to imply he's already corrupt & in Wall Street's pocket.

No one can win the Presidency without a huge inflow of cash. I'm sure you knew this back when you were gaga about Obama, but it didn't matter to you then. Just because you're all jealous & consumed by hate now doesn't really change the dynamics of that.
 
Onceler said:
I know about all that, but the fact is that a large portion of his donations HAVE come from small individual donors, and that the man has not committed one action as President yet for you to imply he's already corrupt & in Wall Street's pocket.

No one can win the Presidency without a huge inflow of cash. I'm sure you knew this back when you were gaga about Obama, but it didn't matter to you then. Just because you're all jealous & consumed by hate now doesn't really change the dynamics of that.
Click to expand...

"Jealous and consumed by hate", as is your "gaga about Obama" comments are an idiots response and beneath you. I was late even supporting Obama, did so with a caveat, and jumped off that boat even before the general began. Only an idiot out of reasoning would call that "gaga."

The flaw in your illogic is that democrats have whined about the influence of money and corporate interests in politics for years, yet because I remind them of that I'm "jealous and consumed by hate" .. uber-stupid. If you can't win the presidency with huge influxes of cash, why do democrats whine about it when republicans do it?

Additionally, whether democrats whine about it or not, do you somehow not recognize how their influence is destructive to this nation? Are you familiar with the term "plutocracy." I'm well aware of the dangers of the influence of money in politics regardless of if you are nor not .. THUS, I will be just as critical about it now as I was critical about it with Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. AND, you can expect that I will remain just as critical of war now as I was with all the others. If you have a problem with my consistency .. that's your problem brother. You're a democrat .. I don't expect much. Just because you can't see the dangers of Summers doesn't mean that everybody is blind.

Your claim that "he hasn't done anything yet" means that you don't actually know politics, or as I suspect, self-induced blindness.

Obama championed the first 350 billion dollar bailout and convinced many democrats who wanted to see more details about where the money was going and how it was to be spent, to drop their concerns and get Wall Street the money immediately, and hope Treasury would do the right thing. He was wrong, which is why so many democrats are adamantly against doing the same thing again, even though Obama is singing the same song. Perhaps you can explain the excuse for Obama trying to circumvent congressional oversight again. He was wrong then and he's wrong now .. and I suspect if this was Bush you'd be creating a thread about it.
 
Last edited:
I supported the immediacy of the bailout package. It wasn't like I didn't think there would be waste, but to me, the immediacy of relief outweighed that. Frankly, we'll never know who was "right" on that. Who is to say that if the bailout didn't pass for another few weeks, the market would be around 5,000 right now, and another 500,000 jobs lost?

To me, that danger is far graver than some of the bailout not being used well; for the most part, I wouldn't say it has worked out poorly. It has kept banks afloat, and lenders are still lending.

To charge that Obama championed the immediacy for any other reason - as some sort of "favor" - without any proof whatsoever IS hate, BAC. You ARE consumed by it. That is a very serious allegation, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up. If you were a journalist, any media outlet worth their salt would fire you for it.
 
Onceler said:
I supported the immediacy of the bailout package. It wasn't like I didn't think there would be waste, but to me, the immediacy of relief outweighed that. Frankly, we'll never know who was "right" on that. Who is to say that if the bailout didn't pass for another few weeks, the market would be around 5,000 right now, and another 500,000 jobs lost?

To me, that danger is far graver than some of the bailout not being used well; for the most part, I wouldn't say it has worked out poorly. It has kept banks afloat, and lenders are still lending.

To charge that Obama championed the immediacy for any other reason - as some sort of "favor" - without any proof whatsoever IS hate, BAC. You ARE consumed by it. That is a very serious allegation, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up. If you were a journalist, any media outlet worth their salt would fire you for it.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your advice about being a journalist and how to work within the media and all .. but I don't need it given working with the media is one of the things I do for a living .. successfully .. and my brother, I know how to say everything I've said on this website in ways to draw conclusions and lead readers just like I did you. I never gave a reason why Obama championed the bailout .. you assumed that conclusion without me saying it. You're the one who should be producing "proof", not me.

All I did was post FACTS along with opinion .. FACTS, I might add, that you didn't/couldn't challenge. Ever heard of an Op/Ed?

What you are consumed by is blindness, and anybody not in love with your lover must be full of hate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top