January 15, 2009

The Messiah inaugural: $150,000,000

The Bush 2005 inaugural was a mere $42.3 million by comparison. And remember the screaming and yelling at that?? "Unseemly." "Wholly inappropriate." The festivities "should be muted if not cancelled." The argument then was that we were (are) at war.

What has changed? Are we not still at war? And now we have the added mess of our current economic crisis, to boot. So ... almost four times the cost of the Bush inaugural ... a mere four years later??

Have you heard a word of protest from the MSM? Of course not.

(h/t: Malkin.)

More at Newsbusters.

Posted by Hube at January 15, 2009 08:10 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Where is the money coming from to carry out this inaugeration, Hube? Malkin doesn't say.

I will tell you that I have contributed to the cost, in response to a request from the Obama people.

Moreover, the interest in this inauguration is the most massive ever, thus we can expect costs to scale higher.

Of course, Malkin does not make these points.

It is quite clear that no matter what Obama does, Malkin will come out as a critic, therefore she deserves little attention.

Posted by: Perry at January 15, 2009 08:44 AM

Perry: Use your feeble melon. Where's the cost of police, secret service protection, etc. coming from? BTW, where did Bush's funds come from in '05? I'm certain you were likewise as accommodating. Right? HA!

As Malkin may impulsively criticize Obama, you will impulsively praise him at every turn.

Posted by: Hube at January 15, 2009 08:47 AM

2005 = $42.3 mil

2009 = $150 mil

Hube, you haven't taken inflation into account(wink,wink).

Perry, I'm sure those who voted for Bush in '05 showed interest in the inauguration as well.

Posted by: h. at January 15, 2009 09:05 AM

Without knowing the origin of the funds for this inauguration, none of us can comment intelligently. But it is a fact that the interest in this one vastly exceeds the 2005 inauguration, therefore we must expect the expenses to scale up accordingly.

Posted by: Perry at January 15, 2009 09:48 AM

Oh please. The economy is in shambles, isn't it? If it is, then using public monies for this "festival" is excessive. If [a lot of] public monies aren't being used, then the economy must not be THAT bad, eh?

Interesting dichotomy.

Posted by: Hube at January 15, 2009 09:52 AM

I'm with Perry on who's paying for what. However, unlike Perry, I'm not willing to accept this arrogant and decadent display. We're effed because of eight years of George Bush and any such displays like this should be seriously muted. I understand millions of people want to rally around their new boy-king, but this whole inaugural ceremony/coronation is just ridiculous. $150,000,000 for this shit is absurd whether it's being paid for by donors or by the public. I mean, you could film the Iron Man sequel with that kind of budget. The only difference between that spectacle and this ridiculous spectacle is that Iron Man 2 will post a very profitable return on the investment!

Posted by: Mike Matthews at January 15, 2009 10:55 AM

Mike: "We're effed because of 8 years of George Bush ...?" Are you referring to the economy?

Posted by: Hube at January 15, 2009 11:19 AM

No, I'm talking about mostly everything. Y'know, I'm with the 75% of the country that believes the guy's left us off worse off then where we were 8 years ago.

Posted by: Mike Matthews at January 15, 2009 01:37 PM

Actually, that's now at 65%. Nevertheless, at least you don't include the economy. I know you're smarter than that!

Posted by: Hube at January 15, 2009 02:47 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?