|
Post by Jack on Jan 14, 2009 21:11:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jan 14, 2009 21:46:32 GMT -5
The entertainment is certainly first rate-Beyonce,Garth Brooks,Sheryl Crowe,Josh Graban,Herbie Hancock,John Legend,John Mellancamp,Bruce Springsteen,James Taylor,U-2,Stevie Wonder and others.If any of you need to take the MTD buses on Tuesday,I heard from aa bus driver friend that most of the black drivers won't be working that day.Mostly they're on central San Diego runs.I don't know how true that is.Fed Ex in LA is going to broadcast the speech on their internal closed circuit system for the employees but they're still expecting shortages of personnel.The portable potty problem is pretty severe.They need 1 per 100 people,that's like 20,000 possibly.As much as I'd love to be there,it's too many people in too small a space.
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Jan 14, 2009 22:13:19 GMT -5
bruce,
I'm hoping that my concerns over inauguration day problems are just an over reaction. I was just thinking about how there were such big concerns over Obama's victory celebration in Chicago and that event ended up going smoothly without incident. It's definitely an historic event and I just hope the common folk get to share in it without being crushed in the crowds.
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Jan 14, 2009 22:40:28 GMT -5
Well, I guess, thanks to a link from the past on the Drudge Report, this really is a partisan issue. What an interesting contrast between then and now. Check out this article from Jan. 2005 and compare it to today's reporting. "Giving Bush a pass -- again" "The D.C. press corps failed to ask hard questions about the inauguration's huge cost and its unprecedented security" dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/20/media_on_inaugurationExcerpts: "In Sunday's New York Times, John Tierney examined the delicate balancing act administrations face when throwing a lavish inauguration celebration against the backdrop of unsettling world events. Tierney wrote that inaugurations "become even trickier during times of war, particularly when television images of dancers in black tie can be instantly juxtaposed with soldiers in body armor." ... "This week's inauguration story came ready with two interesting news angles: the huge cost (in contrast with the dire situation in Iraq) and the unprecedented security. And in both cases, the political press corps, as has been its habit under the Bush administration, showed little interest in prying. In the days and weeks leading up to the event, the press has largely treated inauguration criticism as partisan and silly, making sure to give Bush backers lots of time and room to defend the unmatched pomp and circumstance." "Yet according to a mostly underreported Washington Post poll this week, a strong majority of Americans -- 66 percent, including 46 percent of Republicans -- would have preferred a "smaller, more subdued" inauguration, given the ongoing war in Iraq. In other words, Bush's overblown celebration ranks as one of the few political issues that most Americans agree on -- a phenomenon the press ignored." I'd hate to think that opinions on wasteful government spending are merely a matter of what political party you support.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Jan 16, 2009 19:13:55 GMT -5
I heard today the inauguration will cost upwards to 150 million. What recession?
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jan 16, 2009 22:48:34 GMT -5
The $150 million figure includes all costs;security,which is the largest cost,but also includes private costs for the balls,concerts,parties,dinners,etc which are not taxpayer funded.And a good part of that cost is the fact that 1.5 to 2.0 million people want to be there.400,000 attended Bush's inaugeration in '05.Should we forbid people to attend?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Oliver on Jan 18, 2009 11:26:25 GMT -5
Of course the UNREASONABLE Sarah Pallin republicans will question the cost of Obama's and America's great historic day.
Even though most is for security because of all of the americans that are going to attend.
what does the GOP want,, Joe the Plumber protecting Obama with his dirty used toilet plunger?
Notice these same TYPE OF REPUBLICANS say nothing of the billions and trillions of dollars WASTED IN IRAQ?
At least these crazy hypocritical TYPES of republicans are consistantly immoral.
Thank god THE REASONABLE REPUBLICANS are waking up and not following the Prk Roberts and Hanities of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Imogine Oliver on Jan 18, 2009 11:45:35 GMT -5
My dear little brother Jack! Is Sarah Pallin your new wantabe girlfriend? You always did reach well above yourself for the unattainable. I hope she stays in the news so you won't miss her so much. Where is your facts to support all your empty statements? You always were lacking the details. Oh, by the way, the institution want to know your new address! It seems your leg tracking thingy isn't working.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jan 18, 2009 12:03:07 GMT -5
My dear little brother Jack! Is Sarah Pallin your new wantabe girlfriend? You always did reach well above yourself for the unattainable. I hope she stays in the news so you won't miss her so much. Where is your facts to support all your empty statements? You always were lacking the details. Oh, by the way, the institution want to know your new address! It seems your leg tracking thingy isn't working. What Jack Oliver said is basically true,and you come on here and sat absolutely nothing except to put down another poster.Wht don't you act like an adult instead of an 8 year old. ;D
|
|
|
Post by jackoliver on Jan 18, 2009 12:12:40 GMT -5
Of course the UNREASONABLE Sarah Pallin republicans will question the cost of Obama's and America's great historic day. Even though most is for security because of all of the americans that are going to attend. what does the GOP want,, Joe the Plumber protecting Obama with his dirty used toilet plunger? Notice these same TYPE OF REPUBLICANS say nothing of the billions and trillions of dollars WASTED IN IRAQ? At least these crazy hypocritical TYPES of republicans are consistantly immoral. Thank god THE REASONABLE REPUBLICANS are waking up and not following the Prk Roberts and Hanities of the world. Imogine , the facts stand as what I have said above. your response leads me to belive you are the unreasonable hypocritical Ann Coulter type of republican who will attack Obama or any dem for ANY REASON. EVEN AT THE COST OF FIXING AMERICA. TO BAD YOU DIDNT HOLD YOUR BUSH UP TO THE SAME STANDARD. I hope I am wrong about you.
|
|
|
Post by jackoliver on Jan 18, 2009 12:46:14 GMT -5
Let me be a proud and happy American to say Obama's swearing in is already a historic moment for America. I am also happy to say that I am one of the majority of Americans who did not believe the GOP attack Machine of Fox News prior to the election I hope the rest of America will unite in order for ALL OF US TO HELP FIX AMERICA.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Jan 18, 2009 12:56:13 GMT -5
Jack Oliver, in case you have not heard Joe has turned his plunger in for a microphone. I didn’t you wore a leg thingy. Bruce, it is only natural for the other side to make an issue of the cost.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jan 18, 2009 13:07:51 GMT -5
Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain,
If you are going to throw stones at conservative talking points, than you must assume the risk when stones are launched at liberal talking points. It is not unreasonable to question the cost of the inauguration. Reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of this issue by reasonable people.
If we are to complain that the government catered to the wealthiest Americans over the last eight years and that the government was out of touch; it seems that the inauguration is an expensive event that really is most accessible to the wealthy.
People that complained that the executive branch's powers grew in ways not intended by the constitution, would have to look at a massive "coronation" as possibly a show of power. Celebrating a political victory is one thing, but if the celebration is over the top could it have an effect on Obama's desire to forge a government that is more inclusive and less partisan.
At the very least we should not consider this administration immune to criticism, especially after so much criticism was leveled at W for the 2004 inauguration.
An argument could be made that the inauguration should be reflective of it's historic significance. Likewise you could argue that much like FDR's inauguration the country and the economy would be benefited by a hope inspiring event. Either way it is not unreasonable to have an opinion either way.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jan 18, 2009 13:15:48 GMT -5
Truly amazing the cost of this Inauguration celebration, it is taking on a certain air of a coronation. We have the "grande progress" through the realm, meeting and collecting the "hangers-on" (the court) while the country is bled dry! And the talk revolves around more money being needed to "bail-out" the country!!! What foolishness! Hopefully Obama will rein in the greed and bring a semblance of normalcy and quash any further bail-outs!
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jan 18, 2009 19:30:12 GMT -5
Lou, I think the bar is set real low in regards to the bailout. Certainly Obama has to be able to make a bigger impact with the second half than Bush did with the first half. Perhaps we should revisit this conversation again in a year. At that point we can compare the lasting effects of Obamas increase in the debt to what W has to show for his contribution. Partisan to the end LOu.
|
|