George Bush spends $40,000,000 on his inauguration party.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

And frankly it's about time we defended ourselves.

15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq. Your point?

I'm not afraid of anyone. Especially someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

You'll never get it.....

Then enlighten me, oh, informed one who doesn't even know who attacked us on 9/11.

The fact is, I understand your argument *completely* (even though you haven't laid out one iota of it), it's just that it's based completely on "faith". There are no facts to back it up. In fact, the news coming out of the region suggests that the plan is in dire straits and that we will leave the region w/ our collective tail between our legs once the "elections" are done. People like yourself, those that support the war, will continue to believe that it was the right thing to do, even after the newly elected leader of Iraq is assassinated and civil war breaks out. You will blame it on the people of Iraq, "they don't want freedom, they won't work for it", even though our armies have completely destroyed their infrastructure and killed *hundreds* of thousands of innocent civilians amongst the "insurgents". You will continue to believe that we are safer, even though CIA reports tell us that Iraq has become the new training ground for highly skilled terrorists. Surrounding extremist theocracies will obtain power over the remaining "elected" puppet government. They will obtain weaponry and support from surrounding "hostile" nations (Iran) after which they will enter the U.S. to strike a blow directly to our nation.

You will cover your eyes, you will cover your ears and you will wet your bed. It will feel like the end of the world. You will eat your cyanide tablet, shortly after you realize that Dear Leader Bush has failed you and that there is no God.

I know a lot. It's just that you wouldn't like to hear it!   

Sounds like fantasy?? So does your argument. Let see whose plays out over the next several months...

[GGKoul]

Well, from what I understand, W. probably wouldnt' of had to go to war if tricky Bill had taken care of business in the first place and got the Taliban when he had the chance. Then he (W.) wouldn't have inherited the problem.

Through out history, Presidents come and go every 4 or 8 years, but an enemy of the state is always there.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Well, from what I understand, W. probably wouldnt' of had to go to war if tricky Bill had taken care of business in the first place and got the Taliban when he had the chance. Then he (W.) wouldn't have inherited the problem.

His above statement also disregards the fact that is wasn't Bill Clinton that first drove Saddam out of Kuwait, refusing to conquer him in Baghdad, after we had fermented and supported a popular uprising among the Iraq population. Bush senior walked away from them when they needed us the most, when we had the support of the people and broad support from the U.N., leaving thousands to die as Saddam sought revenge on those who rebelled by using the very weaponry *we* had earlier supplied. Furthermore, we then proceeded to apply 10 years of sanctions and looked away blindly as hundreds of thousands more Iraqis died due to the very sanctions that were applied, seeding a deep mistrust inside the civilians and an immense hatred throughout the region.

This was George H. W. Bush, Dubya's father.

Junior seeks to put us in the middle of this heated battle once again, as he completely disregards the hunt for the real terrorists, Al Qaeda (of which there were NONE in Iraq pre-war), and specifically Osama Bin Laden (architect of the 9/11 attacks)

Clinton spent a microscopic fraction of what these two geniuses spent and he missed killing Osama w/ a cruise be merely an 1hr. The fact that he didn't catch him, while regrettable, DOES NOT outweigh the fact that Bush has had an army of 150,000 on the ground in the *wrong country* and hasn't mentioned Osama since the election.


mrC



 

[Pacific Ripper]

And what is the whole reason for this war again? Certainly not WMD's..... so it would be resolve, hopes and dreams, selling oil or are we warring for the sake of being in a war?

[fredster]

First off, all the Money for the ceremony was private Money.  Clinton's was about the same amount of money, more if adjusted for inflation.  It's a tradition to do this, it proves that the US is a stable democracy.  I don't care if Kerry had won, I think the celebration should be AS BIG and as AS GRAND as the US, every time. 

President Bush signed the order to goto war, not Clinton.

Actually, it was congress that gives the power to the President to go to war in the US.  It took a majority in both houses, and I believe the majority was like 95%.

Clinton spent a microscopic fraction of what these two geniuses spent and he missed killing Osama w/ a cruise be merely an 1hr. The fact that he didn't catch him, while regrettable, DOES NOT outweigh the fact that Bush has had an army of 150,000 on the ground in the *wrong country* and hasn't mentioned Osama since the election.

We don't know that yet.  Do you believe that Saddam was NOT a terror supporter?  What would be happening now if he Was in Power with the shift in power in Palestine?  Should we have backed down and cowtowed like GB1 did? Is that what you are saying?

People like yourself, those that support the war, will continue to believe that it was the right thing to do, even after the newly elected leader of Iraq is assassinated and civil war breaks out.

You don't know that. There is that possiblity.  There are a lot of negative possiblities.  There is the possiblity that an asteroid will hit the country as well.

Furthermore, we then proceeded to apply 10 years of sanctions and looked away blindly as hundreds of thousands more Iraqis died due to the very sanctions that were applied, seeding a deep mistrust inside the civilians and an immense hatred throughout the region.

"We" being the UN also. No doubt the situation was getting worse for the people.  NO Doubt.  Now you are so good at speculating about the future of Irag Mr.C. Can you say what would have happened if we DIDN'T take him out and why? 

Leftist" like myself don't believe in throwing valuable soldiers like your brother into a danderous situation unless ABSOLUTELY necessary.

That's the major point of contention.  Was it necessary? Now we may not know. 

Go to sleep..sweet apologist. When there is a draft, I hope they draft Republicans first.

I do believe that there were some leading Democrats who supported the war.  Mr. Clinton, John Kerry, Evan Byah, Lieberman, etc.  The UK threw in and backed up the war resolutions, etc.  I guess they were fooled by their intel also, I guess EVERYBODY was mistaken and wrong.

Bush's vision is to divide the Middle East and put down Tyranical governments that openly torture and kill their people like the Taliban and Bathasts do. 

In this war on terror we have swung Lybia out of the Arms race and we have held Pakistan on our side.  Turkey is held back, but wavering somewhat.  The whole region is a powderkeg.  Bush's vision is to cut a path of freedom through the middle, minimize and divide the area so that we prevent "terrorist" armies from forming or being funded by governments. 

Iran is a big problem, and getting bigger. Iraq was not dangerous now, but had the capacity to become a huge problem.

I agree that GB1 should have taken care of this problem for good back in 1990, but that didn't happen.  His gamble that the people of Iraq would overthrow the government was abandoned, along with a lot of kurds who paid for that US defection with their blood. Not good, not good at all.

GW1 pulled back and Clinton didn't go back in.  GWB had a choice not to go in after afgahnistan or to push his political capital to go.  Risk Saddam being good and ineffective or clean up the problem while he had the chance for good. 

Saddam could re-organize his military might pretty quickly. (3-5 years)  A destroyed Iraqi government will take much longer.

Which is better?  What do you think would happen if we just left them alone? 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I don't care if Kerry had won, I think the celebration should be AS BIG and as AS GRAND as the US, every time. 

I would have preferred the sentiment be as big and as grand as the spirit and conscience of the United States. I am so confident in the strength of our American ideals that I don't feel the need to have flashy celebrations without substance. I would have preferred Bush to have set an example of sacrifice in a time of war. I would have preferred he call on his rich buddies to send money to support our troops rather than on themselves. We just have a different opinion here. Whether you believe it or not, I would have been *just* as critical and angry if Kerry had won and spent that kind of money without matching support. I wanted Kerry to win and get to work. Not play action-figure President.

Which is better?  What do you think would happen if we just left them alone?

Well to answer that question, it would have certainly been better to have flooded Afghanistan with so many g'damned soldiers that they be popping out from underneath donkey carts at every backwater sheep farm across that whole d*mned country. As for Saddam, even though he "expressed interest" in reconstituting his various weapons programs, there was no physical evidence supporting the idea that it was anything more than a threat. He *did not* have the resources to bring any viable threat in the time frame you suggest, and this whole, "are we to believe the words of a madman!!" argument is total B.S....we believe the words of madmen all the time...and it wasn't even a matter of that, we had the place crawling w/ inspectors that *weren't* being blown to bits by insurgents, so we had the capacity, given enough time, to actually PROVE, without firing one single shot, whether Saddam had WMD or not.

Finally, as for Democrats supporting the war, while I am certainly disappointed and I've held various members to account in my own way, they cannot, not matter how much you wish it, be held to the same standards as those responsible for "selling" the war, ie: Bush Administration.

What Bush/Powell/Condi/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Etc.. did to Congress and the U.N. was akin to running into a crowded theater and screaming "Fire!"...we'll there was no fire, but you can't fault those who ran. You don't have to agree w/ this sentiment, but that is close, I imagine, to what the 56% of Americans now shown to no longer support the war in Iraq probably feel.

I guess they were fooled by their intel also, I guess EVERYBODY was mistaken and wrong.

Yup. Personally, I support holding them all accountable. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, anyone who voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. But do it from the TOP DOWN. I wouldn't shed a tear if Kerry* was held accountable in some way for voting for the use of force (Even though I believe him when he says he felt Bush wanted to use the power to present a "viable threat" to Iraq, and not actually rush to war)...However, that is *ALL* predicated on the fact that they Bush be held to the highest account, because he's (as he CONSTANTLY feels the need to remind everyone, even by wearing cheesy flight-suit, and specially made CinC jackets) the frigging Commander-in-Chief. Even Spider-man understood that with great power comes great responsibility.

Why is this concept so hard for war-supporters to fathom? I thought the idea of attacking Iraq was wrong from word one (Not because I'm a some hippie-peacenik either, I'm not), so I don't have any blood on my hands. Maybe that's the problem. To admit it was wrong would be to accept responsibility, of sorts? I don't know.


mrC

[lokki]

According to this article http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm

Clintons' second inaguration cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.

[versapak]

Yeah, but there was not a single bad thing going on in the world at that time.


lol

[shmokes]

Yeah, but Clinton is a cool guy.

[ChadTower]

Actually, what I'm saying is that I'm sick of hearing it.  Write to him, not us. 

YOU SUPPORT BUSH...THEREFORE YOU SUPPORT THE WAR AND NOW YOU DON'T WANT TO *HEAR* ABOUT IT?? 

I'm leaving the rest of his post alone, since clearly he's not thinking rationally.

Stop making assumptions about me.  You're making very bad assumptions and have no idea you're doing it.  I'll lay out some of my beliefs for you.

I do not support Bush nor do I like him.  What I do support is the sovereignty of the United States of America.  Kerry wanted to hand that back to the United Nations and Bush did not.  Kerry wanted to put US military decisions in the hands of people from France, Germany, and 100 other nations that should have no say in what the US does or does not do.  I do not give a DAMN what the leader of Cameroon thinks about anything.  Bush has made a lot of mistakes but the split from the UN had to be done eventually.  The UN is corrupt, it is obsolete, and it is irrelevant.  The US is the first of likely many countries to act thusly and as the world leader we are it had to be us first.

I do not support the war.  I do not think we should have gone in there, nor do I think we should still be there, but as it is the 'job' has to be finished.  Some type of gov't has to be put in place or we will have created a vacuum that will seal itself with a larger threat than we eliminated.  Many of the soldiers over there are my age and many of my high school friends are there.  I have a few relatives my age there.  I know the risks but I cannot come up with a better course of action given the current situation.  If you can maybe you should run for office.

You know why I don't want to hear about it?  Because I can't change it.  You can't change it.  We all know who can change it.  Tell THEM.  Write THEM.  Run against THEM.  Sitting in Cambridge bitching and moaning into your double foam latte isn't going to change anything, nor is bitching and moaning at us constantly.  Take some kind of action that is a little more effective than a message board post. 

[TOK]

Yeah, lets take a moment from our celebration to comfort the minority of the people. After all they have been so kind as to bash me every day of my term in office. While I'm at it, let me announce that I am a democrat. All the beliefs that I held as a republican are gone, and I now hold the ideals of the minority.


ooooops

My bad, that would be the other guy that does that sort of flip flopping.


He didn't inherit this war, and I never make any such claim or attempt to direct as such.

I support the war. I supported the reasons to go in, and when they turned to be bad intel, I still supported us being there. I think more good will have eventually come from us having done what we did, then would have ever come had we not.

I share the opinion of this poster, but I'd like to add that the intel wasn't bad. Sadaam made an agreement with the UN at the end of the first Gulf War to allow inspections. He immediately voilated this agreement along with any other that wasn't convienient for him.
Basically, by PRETENDING to have something to hide (still inconclusive since he had 6 months to stash them) he gave the UN every reason to believe he did... Particularly since he'd used chemical weapons in the desert killing his own people and Kurd's previously.

One thing that never seems to get mentioned is that the US civilians were supposed to be swimming in their own blood by now. Hussein was caught hiding in a hole, and Bin Laden is most likely doing the same thing. There hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil despite the promises, and a well organized underground of attackers. For this, Bush has my support.
It seems to me that some people got so wrapped up in the mess in Iraq that they kind of lost site of what led up to it. I think anyone who says Jr. is just doing it to appease his father or had an agenda is short sighted.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You know why I don't want to hear about it?  Because I can't change it.  You can't change it.  We all know who can change it.  Tell THEM.  Write THEM.  Run against THEM.  Sitting in Cambridge bitching and moaning into your double foam latte isn't going to change anything, nor is bitching and moaning at us constantly.  Take some kind of action that is a little more effective than a message board post.

I don't live in Cambridge. I live in the industrial area of Lowell. I don't drink coffee, let alone double foam lattes. I'm lived a lower middle-class life in the Detroit area until 2000, and after having put myself through college, moved to Boston for a job. I don't need anyone to help me direct my anger, and I will continue to express my opinion when I see fit, wherever I see fit.

You expressed your opinion, and I expressed mine. Don't like to hear these arguments, don't read the threads. If you don't want a response, don't post a comment. Simple. When someone makes a one-off comment that I find disrespectful and thoughtless, be it in public or be it on a specialized hobby site, and it angers me enough to respond...I will.

As for assumptions, based on the things you've said in the past, albeit you now seem to have been joking, I didn't think I was making assumptions. However, now that you've cleared up some of your positions, I'll take them into consideration next time I address you. Funny that you'd make a bunch of assumptions about me at the same time you chide me.

Also, thanks for the pointer about being an activist, but I already am. I actively work to further causes I believe in, in a multitude of ways. I've protested the war at various times in public, I've actively campaigned for Kerry, I'm working to push Howard Dean for DNC chair, I've donated money to various causes I believe in, I've donated time as well. I've written Congressmen/women, editors and anyone else I feel needs to hear what I've got to say. I will continue to do this as I see fit.

It doesn't hurt to sharpen an argument on a web forum... even though it may appear useless at times, I ultimately feel I come away with a stronger understanding of the other side.

mrC

[iwillfearnoevil]

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/01/continued_the_m.html#comments
this isn't the most expensive inauguration ever, once you adjust for inflation. In fact, all of the inaugurations since 1981 have cost about $40 million, between $36 million and $47 million.

This issue would be clearer if the

[saint]

Ooohhh here's another one I've gotta say something about.

Calling a question about the money spent on the inaugaration party "flip flopping" is weak.  You're making a comparison between a party thrown during peace time in a prosperous economy and a party thrown while our country is at war and suffering from a struggling economy.

If person A hits person B in the nose unprovoked, that's one situation. If person A hits person B in the nose because person B hit him first, that's another situation.  One could reasonably condemn the first situation while condoning the second, even though the end result (person A hits person B) is the same. That's hardly being hypocritical.

What's that got to do with the inaugaration party? The parties are taking place in two different environments -- one prosperous and peaceful, the other in a hurt economy during wartime. Accusing someone of being a "flip flopper" because they object to one and not the other is a weak argument -- in point of fact, it's just silly.

Note: I have no objection to Bush's party. He won, let him celebrate. But I can understand the argument of those who object.

--- saint

[hulkster]

that first cartoon is retarded.  yeah i feel sorry for the troops fighting, but theres one thing.....

they are troops, they signed up to be in the army, marines, whatever.  if you sign up for that crap and then get all pissy when you actually have to do something, then you got problems.  i mean, dying isnt fun, but i dont think signing up to be in the army and to "protect" this country, is the best way to avoid dying. 

"i cant believe we have to actually fight in a war!  oh crap what are they thinking."

[ChadTower]

Funny that you'd make a bunch of assumptions about me at the same time you chide me.

That was irony.  I did what I said you were doing, and did it in a way I knew to be producing assumptions just as poor.  You seem to have missed that and taken it too literally. 

[SirPeale]

they are troops, they signed up to be in the army, marines, whatever.  if you sign up for that crap and then get all pissy when you actually have to do something, then you got problems.  i mean, dying isnt fun, but i dont think signing up to be in the army and to "protect" this country, is the best way to avoid dying. 

It's not the fighting that's the problem...it's not being equipped with proper safety gear that is.  Having to scrounge for scrap to partially protect your vehicle?  That's insane.  Why aren't they amoured to being with?

[versapak]

"Why aren't they amoured to being with?"



Because people like John Kerry voted against it.

[SirPeale]

Because people like John Kerry voted against it.

IIRC he didn't vote against it, he was voting against something else, but this was a subset of a wider package. 

[fredster]

MrC,

You are man who truly believes in your cause and I salute you.

[SirPeale]

No, I wasn't in the military.  I tried for early enlistment when I graduated from high school (just before, actually) because I was only 17, and wouldn't be 18 for quite a few months.  Parents wouldn't sign the release papers.  After that I got busy on other things and pretty much forgot about it.

[versapak]

IIRC he didn't vote against it, he was voting against something else, but this was a subset of a wider package.

True

Still...

I blame all of our executive branch for this one, and not just Bush. I think as a whole, at a time when the troops really need DC's cooperation to get things done for them, that they, as usual, are all caught up in petty my side vs your side squabbles.

The fact that last year was very bitter election year, REALLY took a huge toll on our nation as a whole. So much could have been done, if instead of having to focus on fighting a ridiculous battle on our soil, they could have worked together and focused on the needs elsewhere.

That isn't the American way though.

[ChadTower]

Keep in mind that a large % of the humvees ARE armored... it's the old ones that you can't exactly fly home to the US for retrofitting that are not armored.  I have noticed that the media has never mentioned that fact.

Also keep in mind that by 'armoring' the humvees by hard welding nonspec pieces to them, they are actually creating a problem larger than they are solving.  They MAY save themselves the initial injury of the explosion, but then again they may NOT.  What they are definitely doing is sealing off, with welded steel, their vehicle in a way that makes it impossible to get into to retrieve wounded soldiers.  See how that works?  If that armor does not save them, and often it will not, they've sealed themselves into a flaming steel coffin.  THIS is why the military objects to them supplementing the vehicles on their own.

Where is the media mentioning that?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Where is the media mentioning that?

While they're at it, why don't they mention that Rumsfelds comment about the lack of armor being "essentially a matter of physics" rather than a "matter of money"...which is complete B.S. because shortly afterward, the largest supplier of humvee up-armor for our troops was quoted as saying that they could increase armor output by 50% and *no additional cost*, but they were never asked by the Pentagon.

To me it's a matter of absolute failure of leadership, not a matter of physics.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You are man who truly believes in your cause and I salute you.

Thank you. I've had a lot of decent debates with you as well and I respect your position as well.....when you're not commenting with *yawns*. 

At least we could play Robotron without complaining, and that's the American way.

Hehe. I think all the world's problems should be solved by video game challenges. High score tables would define a country's rank in the world. America would be on top too, we've got the Pac-man world champion!

mrC

[ChadTower]

To me it's a matter of absolute failure of leadership, not a matter of physics.

They said that to the media... but we have no way of knowing that they had ever said that to the Army.  Given that producing 50% more product at no additional cost would cut dramatically into their profit margin, it is not likely that they would have.  How many businesses do you see offering 50% more product at no additional cost?

[iwillfearnoevil]

Note: I have no objection to Bush's party. He won, let him celebrate. But I can understand the argument of those who object.
--- saint

the plain fact is that these are very bitter liberals with no life who hate bush and really don't need a reason to object to anything.

[saint]

It's not plain to me at all.  There are radical extremists on both parties, in any party, this is true. However, your perspective seems to be that you're either with us or against us, and that anyone raising an objection is one of them radicals. Is there any room for a middle ground?

Here's a frank and straight forward question for you: For the next four years, will anyone who raises a concern or objection to a Bush policy be a bitter, Bush hating liberal with no life?

--- saint

the plain fact is that these are very bitter liberals with no life who hate bush and really don't need a reason to object to anything.

[saint]

By the way, here's an open question to anyone stating that Clinton's inaugural was more expensive when adjusted for inflation. Can you point out your sources please?  I went looking but couldn't find the numbers to back that up. I *did* find some numbers though. Here they are, with my sources:

With different sources it's hard to easily analyze the numbers of course, but as near as I can tell the numbers on the left are "then" dollars, the numbers on the right are adjusted to 2004 dollars. Carter's seems kind of low though. The higher numbers came from Newsweek who expressly stated the numbers were adjusted for 2004 dollars.

1977 - Carter  - $3.5 - $11  million
1981 - Reagan  - $16 - $34   million
1985 - Reagan  - $20 - $35   million
1989 - Bush    - $30 - $46   million
1993 - Clinton - $25 - $30   million.
1997 - Clinton - $23.7 - $35 million
2001 - Bush    - $35 - $43   million
2005 - Bush    - $40         million

The winners being Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.  Draw whatever conclusions either side wishes to draw, but if you've got other numbers I'd like to see them.

Newsweek, January 24, Page 28.
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/wire.ssf?/base/news/1105698269144200.xml
http://blogger.xs4all.nl/steeph/archive/2005/01/15/22180.aspx

[Arcadiac]

FYI, according to this article:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012105Y.shtml
President Carter budgeted $1 per guest for his inauguration, opting for a cash bar.
The article also lists other ways in which the current administration could have chosen to spend the money in less extravagant, more useful ways, check it out.
ARCADIAC!

[DrewKaree]

It's not the fighting that's the problem...it's not being equipped with proper safety gear that is.  Having to scrounge for scrap to partially protect your vehicle?  That's insane.  Why aren't they amoured to being with?

The vehicles are armored to the extent protection is capable of, while still maintaining the vehicle's purpose.  The vehicles spoken of are HMMWV's.  Hummers, more commonly.  In case it isn't known, the description (all those letters - would you like to buy a vowel?) of an HMMWV is as follows:

High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle = HMMWV

The first two letters are the reason for the armor, or percieved lack thereof, and the extent to which these vehicles are armored.  These vehicles are outfitted with armor designed to be bullet resistant.  The soldier inside of these vehicles naturally want as much armor as possible, more so than is on there already, and as such will search for this "scrap metal" to outfit their vehicle with.  I would want it too.

Why are the first two letters important - as that didn't really describe it, you say?  The HMMWV's purpose is to be able to move about quickly - to be Highly Mobile.  Adding armor above and beyond the amount deemed necessary for protection makes this vehicle less mobile, leading to a reduced usefulness of its intended purpose.  Add a BUNCH of armor to this vehicle, and you have a redundant vehicle, one which the army already has over there.  It is called a "tank".  It is NOT Highly Mobile, at least in comparison to the HMMWV.  Thus the reason for requiring both vehicles there, the differences in outfitting each one, and your "why". 

They also may have (in fact probably do) have HMMWV's with no armor in use.  Why?  Is it necessary for these vehicles to have armor when used in rear formations, where the chance for attack is slim to none?  Not really.  While the armed forces may think this wise, the men driving them around may feel a bit differently, maybe they don't have body armor for THEMSELVES, therefore they want a bit more on the vehicle they drive around. 

It's the armed forces' environmental policy    More armor = heavier vehicle = more gas required to move it about = more vehicle emissions.  We should applaud the environmental concern shown by our armed forces...we're saving millions of lives daily by doing our part re: ozone depletion    

The armor spoken of when referencing Mr Kerry's vote is body armor.  The kind used to protect another item starting with "H".  That item is known as a "Human".  Two different kinds of armor.

The HMMWV and its armor fittings may have been in that bill, but the armor consistently referred to is body armor for Humans.  Has been throughout the debates, and by both campaigns leading up to the elections. 

[DrewKaree]

By the way, here's an open question to anyone stating that Clinton's inaugural was more expensive when adjusted for inflation. Can you point out your sources please?  I went looking but couldn't find the numbers to back that up.

Not giving this as "proof", as it doesn't matter to me how much Clinton spent, but this article mentions this amount, and also speaks of the amount the taxpayers were going to foot at Clinton's inauguration, as well, something that was much ballyhooed re: Bush's inauguration

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm

This AP story seems to be the source for numerous quotes regarding this figure.  I do not know what sources they used in reviewing inaugural expenditures.

FYI, according to this article:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012105Y.shtml

FYI, the minute I read an article titled "Inauguration: Lifestyles of the Rich and Heartless", it tells me this is going to be as far removed from a "useful" read as anything else.  Thanks for the help, but I'd rather read saint's links.  At least he offers something to think about, rather than tripe ill-sutied to even lining the bottom of a bird cage 

[iwillfearnoevil]

saint, use the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator:
http://www.bls.gov/bls/inflation.htm

via Scott Burgess
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/01/continued_the_m.html#comments

Year Inauguree Cost (current $) Cost (2004 $)
1981  Reagan  19.4  44.47
1985  Reagan  20  36.36
1989  Bush  30  47.9
1993  Clinton  33  44.43
1997  Clinton  30  36.12
2001  Bush  40  43.88

Averaging the 2004 equivalent amounts yields a result of $42.19m.


don't always trust "your sources". we all know what happened to dan blather and cbs. your sources use too low a value in yesterdays dollar so out lower after adjusting.

besides, it doesn't really matter. since when do democrats care about spending money since they are happy giving away my money I worked for to others. it's all one big flip-flop for convenience sake. just another thing for the stinky hippie prostestors to work themselves into a frenzy over.

[DrewKaree]

TA Pilot?  It doesn't sound quite like you, yet.....somehow......it does 

Jened, if you want your points to be taken at face value, it would behoove you to refrain from the name calling.  Even if they DO stink, ARE hippies, and DON'T care, you pointing those things out aren't the way to convince someone to think about your point of view.  It does no good to tell them that politically correct term of "commune" actually means they're living on a stench ranch.  It only helps to enforce THEIR view of YOU as a heartless money-grubbing cheat out to screw humanity for the sake of your own gain. 

See how that works?

p.s. saint has a little odor to him, too   

[iwillfearnoevil]

p.s. saint has a little odor to him, too

[mr.Curmudgeon]

p.s. saint has a little odor to him, too

And I stink to high heaven...I mean, hugging trees all day tends to make one sweat. Plus, having to walk around town and hand out small percentages of my weekly earnings, like any good socialist, sure doesn't leave much time to shower. Pardon my latte breath...

mrC

[DrewKaree]

And I stink to high heaven...I mean, hugging trees all day tends to make one sweat. Plus, having to walk around town and hand out small percentages of my weekly earnings, like any good socialist, sure doesn't leave much time to shower. Pardon my latte breath...

mrC

I figured your stink was from licking various frogs and the eating of dirt. 

How much does tree-hugging pay these days?  I need some part-time income, and I can start small, mebbe by hugging a few Bushes (the twins come to mind) and working my way up to trees.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I figured your stink was from licking various frogs and the eating of dirt. 

How much does tree-hugging pay these days?  I need some part-time income, and I can start small, mebbe by hugging a few Bushes (the twins come to mind) and working my way up to trees.

Frogs? No. Wouldn't want to disturb their habitat and dirt is over-rated. Grass is where it's at! 

[Crazy Cooter]

Year Inauguree Cost (current $) Cost (2004 $)
1981

[Arcadiac]

FYI, according to this article:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012105Y.shtml

DrewKaree replies:
FYI, the minute I read an article titled "Inauguration: Lifestyles of the Rich and Heartless", it tells me this is going to be as far removed from a "useful" read as anything else.