Is spending $150 million on the upcoming inauguration on Jan 20, 2009 money well spent ? ?

Question

Wouldn't this money be better spent on training a few thousand people that are out of work for new positions ? And on the cost, haven't the last 2 inaugurations cost 20 and 30 million respectively ?

Answer 1

The many fold spending increase on this one time event does seem to be out of phase with the message of change coming from Obama. Not much change here just a politician exercising his ego at the expense of the working people.

Answer 2

I am a Obama supporter, but I happen to agree with you that this is way too much money to be spending on a ceremonial and ostentatious event. Barack Obama becoming president is history in the making, but at the same time, spending so much money on the inauguration does not give due respect to th dire situation the economy is in.



People are losing their jobs and their homes and it seems disrespectful and flippant to be wasting this much money for a showy event when this money could be put towards stimulating the economy.

Answer 3

It is Money well spent on Inauguration.....

Obamas utilization of the remaining 350B of so called bailout money will be better spent than the first half that was gifted to the SUITS that are the cause of present financial crisis...





re cost of Inauguration:

from link:

Much, but not all, of the cost of Barack Obama's inauguration is being paid through private donations. (Generally speaking, according to National Public Radio, private money covers most of the festivities: the elaborate balls, the huge video screens on the National Mall, the parade. And government funds are used for the actual swearing-in ceremony, security, crowd control, municipal workers' overtime, and so forth.)

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/01/whos-picking-up-the-tab-for-ob.html



Donors to the Presidential Inaugural Committee:

This chart will allow you to view, sort, and search virtually real-time information on all donors contributing over $200 to the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee.



Unlike previous inaugural committees, the 2009 PIC does not accept contributions from corporations, political action committees, labor unions, current federally-registered lobbyists, non-U.S. citizens and registered foreign agents and does not accept individual contributions in excess of $50,000.

http://www.pic2009.org/page/content/donors

Answer 4

Just as with Bush, this ostentacious display of wealth couldn't come at a worse time... The money could be better spent on other things... Washington and the politicians DO NOT need another lavish extravegant celebration to disply thier filth wealth... Yes it is a ceremonial celebration of the ringing in of a new president, but should be cancelled until th eeconomy is sound, people are working, hungry peole are fed, and homeless people are housed, troops are home, and people aren't losing thier homes to foreclosure at an alaming rate, the big three are producing cars during all 3 working shifts...so on and so on.

When Bush did his second inauguration, which I worked and was present at, our troops were getting slaughtered from shrapnel from bombs because they claimed they didn't have the funds to arm our soldiers with protective armour... I had a problem with that, since we were spending millions upon millions for what ammounted to a 3 day party in Washington DC for someone who had actually been inaugurated before.... At least if the inauguration is a celebration they must have, surely they could forego the second one, espacially since our troops are dieing due to lack of funds...Don't you think?

Elaborate parties and wreckless display of wealth is the very filth wealth we need to eliminate and by thinking you got some change with Obama is a joke, what you have is the same nonsense you've always had, nothing is changing, and it wure would look like change, and I would feel a whole lot better if he cancelled this party to save the money ... That would impress me, but of course that'll not happen, because there is no change...

Answer 5

No it is not. I love Obama, but he should of done as Roosevelt did and say no, cut that money down to 20 or 30. Roosevelt did this when elected back in 1932.

Answer 6

no it is not money well spent. Jesus Christ himself rode an *** Obama is spending way too much on this where is the outrage about this everyone screamed bloody murder when bush spent 40 mil on his

Answer 7

i thought obama said stop the wasteful spending, share the wealth, and be fair. LOL what a bunch of balogna. he is a coward.

Answer 8

It's a def waste of money is you ask me.

Answer 9

No imagine how many foreclosures that would buy, it would also throw George one Hell of a retirment party.

Answer 10

I am really glad that THIS one is in the dead of winter!

Answer 11

NO, everyone needs see Barrack and the fact that he is the most powerful leader in the world. Peace and plenty is on the way. Only three more days

Answer 12

yes because it created jobs (short term job's, but job's) so people have to get paid from the maintenance staff on up to security.

Answer 13

better than giving it to isreal to kill and main innocent children