And, of course, the money spent is itself a mini stimulus package, going to the wages of all those service providers and product manufacturers involve. In other words: a pretty good deal for the economy at large.

Why would Bush's inaugural cost so much for security? There weren't that many people who came, and the biggest threats were clearly identified by their pink clothing.

Turnout for Obamacon 2009 will completely swamp Bush's numbers. If turn out is 10x greater and costs are basically the same (adjust for inflation!), isn't the real story how incredibly inexpensive this shin dig is?

If I'm informed correctly, by those who wish me to believe hype... security folks are law n' order types.

Putting money in law and order people's hands is a boon to Republicans, right?

Why wouldn't they want Obama to spend twice this much?

Obama's party SHOULD be triple Dubya's even though it's not.

After all, Obama won an election, not just a presidency. Despite Diebold/Premiere's best efforts.

Well, now. With Bush, you had to bus people in, to stack the place with what looked like a crowd. With Obama, you have to turn people away, so many have wished to be there ...

This is evidence of direct distortion to favor one party or movement. I think Congress or a committee should hold a hearing and the numb-nut editors should be hauled in and questioned about it directly. At least get the truth out there and maybe put paid to that whole "Liberal" media bullshit.

It's time for the puppeteers who work in the dark to have the klieg lights shined on them for once.

A global celebration should cost a little more.

And as I added over at Digby's, the right wing radio hack I heard on the way home was saying $180 million and I'm sure the number will continue to be inflated. The rupubs come in lying and leave lying.

But it AIG spent that money on a vacation for its executives, well, that would be all right!

Bottom Line

The Obama inauguration will cost a few million more than Bush's. But people actually want to attend Obama's inauguration.

On Wednesday, I'd prefer to see per capita cost comparison.

I'm with Goldilocks.

This money, however you calculate it, is not some bank-to-bank-to-bank fictitious funny money that is wiped away when someone notices that the emperor's butt is showing. It is going to actual people, doing actual work, who are probably incredibly grateful for the opportunity.

From the same wonderful people who brought you "UAW auto workers make $75 an hour." They are now in a state of permanent self-induced outrage, making things up and then getting angry about them.

I agree with goldilocks & Old Patch that whatever the expenditures, it is being paid to people for actual goods and services. What could be wrong with that? I hope it is not being paid for massive freedom cages and walls that prevent the people from enjoying this event. Somehow, I believe that Obama's message to the people is that he is one of us, only on a more committed and determined scale. He, and we, are to rebuild this nation into one of peace, cooperation and freedom and an integral part of the world family. The big picture is one of great hope and intention for good.

I feel blessed that I am alive today and can see this great change taking place. May we all celebrate this great man, his family and all who made this day possible.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

The evidence suggests Bush's and Obama's will end up costing about the same.

Not per capita.

This is more of the traditional reverse hair-shirting our culture uses to defame anyone acting blatantly out of moral purpose. If you are promoting a moral agenda, you have to be "self-righteous," "judgemental," and a hypocrite. You could make a list a mile long of songs, movies, television, books, comics, etc., all pushing the same meme.

Inside the Beltway, this cultural trend has gelled into an assault weapon used almost exclusively on progressives. John Edwards, the Clintons, Pelosi, any number of activists, particularly entertainers: if you speak out against waste, self-indulgence, abuse of workers, abuse of the environment etc., you must be a phony, must be a hypocrite. Every media outlet will dissect your life for factoids to prove it, then flog them over and over again.

It is important to remember that, while a lot of our media elite learned to mouth liberal thoughts in college, almost none of them actually had any direct involvement in liberal causes. The older generation of reporters avoided the Vietnam draft, the younger generation got their little journalism degrees and learned their trade covering parades and car accidents for local news stations. The real lesson they learned over the years was to justify their narcissistic life-style by classifying everyone who really cared about helping people or their country as hypocrites and fakes.

Of course, this makes the media, as a class, the perfect patsies for right-wingers whose ideology requires them to believe that all liberals are phonies, or at least that they need to be denounced as such. A confluence of interests, as it were.

(Screwing up face) These grapes are so damned sour.

The key here is to be vigilant and keep calling bull shit on these hacks.

2 Things:

How many hours/minutes in Iraq/Afghanistan war costs does this equate to?

In dire times such as this, what price tag do you put on the renewal of the American people, who will face seriously nasty conditions for the the next two years (if we are lucky)?

With the economy crunch,I feel personally that with so many Americans starving and losing their homes that the price tag for the inauguration is a disgrace.How many children could be fed with this amount of money,and how many families could stay in their homes?

Yeah, I know the Jefferson Airplane will not be there, but, what they sang in '92 for Clinton is still apt, today. "Yesterdays gone, yesterdays gone..........."

And, the RepuGs fail to mention how St Nancy was so eager to bring back glamorand glitz for St Ronny's Ball.

Quite a week for liberals - the holiest day of the liberal year (MLK) followed by The Coronation of The One. Are liberals in a state of (secular) reverence?

Ostentatious pigs have no business talking about others "serving and sacrificing" for free while they feed at the trough. Can't talk about AIG execs having a little party now and then at the public expense while Washington pols outdo them in spades. Such hypocrisy.

I must be a back-sliding liberal, rachel, as I've apparently been oblivious to this religious significance.

To all the poopers: This launches a great and needed change for the country and we deserve a party. The money spent doesn't go down a black hole never to be seen again, so what's the problem? How many people are employed in planning and working the event? How many businesses are involved?

(Screwing up face) "These grapes are so damned sour."
Posted by: the GOP on January 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM

And, as always, the GOP gets it wrong:
The point of the Aesop fable, if you will remember, is that the fox assumes the grapes must be sour -- but doesn't know that they are, as they remain forever out of his reach.

Republicans: wrong by definition. About everything.

"So, how much did Bush's 2005 inauguration actually cost, using the standard the media is applying to Obama? Boehlert crunched the numbers and came up with a total of $157 million."

Not to be nitpicky, but when you factor in inflation (via The Inflation Calculator at the Dollar Times website), $157M in 2005 dollars would be $173M in 2008 dollars.

So in other words, this inauguration will actually cost less than the last one, from a certain point of view.

Can't talk about AIG execs having a little party now and then at the public expense while Washington pols outdo them in spades. -Luther

To begin with, you have no sense of scale. The 'Washington pols' are not outspending the billions of dollars that AIG has gotten by any stretch of the imagination. Not to mention the AIG party was what, a hundred or two hundred people. Call me when it's two or more million.

And secondly, the money being spent on the inauguration is, deep breath, for the inauguration. The money given to AIG was not for executive retreats.

Are the poor widdle twolls having a bad week aweady? Cue up the tiny violins, liberals, and a one, and a two...

Are Fox & Friends really taking issue with the cost of the inaugural or instead that money is being spent by the people, for the people. I believe the average taxpayer is tired of bailing out the usually fat corporate welfare mongers and are ready to put the Bush years of corporate sloth behind us. Celebrating tomorrow is our right of passage. We have(paid)for that right.

And, as always, the GOP gets it wrong: The point of the Aesop fable, if you will remember, is that the fox assumes the grapes must be sour -- but doesn't know that they are, as they remain forever out of his reach. Republicans: wrong by definition. About everything.

Heh, well, actually, that was just I being wrong about the GOP being wrong about Aesop--which I could pretend was intentionally meta, but was really just my mistake. Of course, that doesn't change the GOP being wrong about everything. Right?

Sounds like the CBO report on our progressive tax code.

In order to make the tax rates look progressive (rich pay more by percent), a neat trick us used:

Corporate taxes become part of shareholder taxes. Corporate taxes are generated when a non-S corp declares a profit and pays tax on income. Even if dividends are never paid out to the shareholders, they get this tax as both income and tax, that is a 100% tax rate on that income! If dividends are paid, the capital gains rate is added to this, but also real income.

Now, corporate profits are also a 100% tax on employee wages, with no chance at a dividend.

So the CBO trick is to remove income from the lower brackets and add it, plus taxes to the higher brackets.

Otherwise it is hard to figure out how the highest .01% pay the most percent tax (around 30%). This bracket pays 15% of their tax on earned income, 44% of their tax as a result of dividends and another 13% of their taxes come from corporate taxes (that they never pay).

It is a common trick to use one word to refer to two different things, then compare them because you used previously used the same word.

While I congratulate our new President I wonder how it would have "changed" things if he simply told everyone there wasn't going to be the enormous amount of money spent to swear him in as President!! Good luck and God's speed.

I don't think we should be debating the cost of the inaugural ceremony, because I have no doubt that the majority of Americans or Tax Payer Residents of the USA(like me) would NOT oppose spending $150M or even $200M on such a historic event, whatever the total tab is, IT IS WELL spent and I hope when 2012 comes, I will be an American citizen to help re-elect Obama and his team...and have a second party at a higher cost, because I’m sure by then, prosperity will fill every single American household and no one will mind spending a few dollars.

Once again Obama is showing he can not control money, durning the campaign he spent 4 times the money that McCain spent to only win by 5% of the vote---not very cost effective, then he ask for 700billion more money not even knowing how to spend or control it, he spent how many millions on a new car and some 150mil for tomorrow---what a waistful man. The real problem is people will trust him to spend OUR money when he has clearly shown NO control of money.
All I can say is you voted for him so hold on to your wallets!!!!!!

Some are calling this a global celebration, as well they should since many people contributed untractable money's to Obama to buy the white house, is the 700bil that obama has asked for to pay them back???????

For the person that thinks repub's are wrong---I'm not repub but you should realize that we had a growing economy untill Nancy and her clowns took over--then is when it went sour!!!!

Jon is correct regarding Nancy and Clowns. But back to the Innauguration. What an Obamanation!
It's disgusting given how many people cannot even afford food right now. Sad.
This showy event has been identified as historic. It is alright. It is because we are recognizing NOT the first African American to become president. Afterall, we aren't to encourage racism, now, are we? He's no more black than he is white. What we are celebrating is, in truth, the first MULATTO-AMERICAN to become president of the United States of America. By the way, where IS his birth certificate?

I think to spend this much money on ceremony at this time is obscene.

I agree. Let the millions of people walk into DC without any security or crowd control. It's the only right thing to do.

Seriously. WTF? Security expenses are NOT discretionary.

I just don't get it.
I thought we were in a recession?

Didn't they use to get sworn in on the steps and then have a party? And the guests had to pay so much plate to be there? What the heck? 150 million? Is that a type O.
I believe, We are some over the top, money spending, partying people. Wow... I hope the vendors paid their people well.

Did someone call in the clowns to make the past few posts?

They are not giving Obama $150,000,000, or whatever the figure is. It is going to people for services rendered and products supplied. Isn't that what all the consumerism is about? I don't see the banks offering to donate large sums to house the homeless, feed the hungry and clothe the naked. The cost of this event is well within the bounds of reasonableness, when taken into account the massive costs of security, traffic management and people services. People who do not recognized the significance of this event and what it is celebrating are not ever going to let this cost be justified. It is best we stop the arguing and move on to finding ways to support the massive effort required to bring our nation back into its vision.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

It is obscene to spend this much on a Victory PARTY and it doesn't matter for who or when. It was obscene when it was for Bush and it's obscene for Obama. Think what a statement could have been made if this money had been used to aid the unemployed or feed the hungry or for education for minorities. I hoped Obama would be different but I guess I forgot he was a politician. Stimulus package indeed! LOL! More like political business as usual on the Hill.

WTF you guys have got to be kidding me. Yes our nation is celebrating the first BLACK President of the US. Everyone knows one part black this country considers you to be black. At least that what I remember from the history books when we were considered slaves. Stop fooling yourselves and take pride that this country is trying to change. Also remember that most of the money being spent is through donated funds, therefore if yo didn't donate its not your money so Shut the F up and quite whinning.

Actually we are celebrating the election of the first HALF BLACK - HALF WHITE president.

in response to the idiots that complain about AIG and blame Bush, Hey geniuses, who has had control of congress for the last two years? Who oversaw the banking industry? Who ignored Bush's warnings about Freddie and Fannie?

Hmmm, seems like they had a D after their names.

You conveniently left out the FACT that this inauguration will cost more by at least $5million than W's. Talk about stacking the deck. I'm sure you were one of those who complained vehemently about W's cost. Hypocrit.

More evidence of your so called facts. Here is a quote from the BBC back in 2005. $100m for security is absurd. How about $17.

"With an estimated price tag of $40m, the three-day celebration that is President Bush’s second inauguration will be the most expensive ever.

The lavish dinners, parties and fireworks began on Tuesday and will continue through his swearing-in on Thursday, followed by a parade and nine official inaugural balls.

The cost will be paid by individual and corporate donations, while the city of Washington is being asked to pay for an estimated $17m in security costs.

Some have criticised the expense, questioning the propriety of a flashy celebration as US troops are dying in Iraq and South Asia still recovers from last month’s deadly tsunami.

A million here, a million there and you're not event talking about a drop in the bucket of the fiscal and financial tsunami we're being drowned in right now.

Go celebrate. Spend what's left of your savings. Might as well have a little fun while there's still some left to be had.

"Are liberals in a state of (secular) reverence?"

Hell, no, honey. We're PARTYING!

Quite a week for liberals - the holiest day of the liberal year (MLK) followed by The Coronation of The One. Are liberals in a state of (secular) reverence?

It's called patriotism. I realize that's not a concept you're familiar with.

Uh, Bob?

The cost will be paid by individual and corporate donations, while the city of Washington is being asked to pay for an estimated $17m in security costs.

That $17 million was the city of Washington DC's portion of the bill. Why don't you try and find out what the overall cost was, not just the city's portion?

Everyone does realize the actual cost of the inauguration is only 45 million and 100 million in security Bush spent like 42 million but that does NOT include his security expenses its like comparing apples and oranges let's hear all the facts.

He is so entitled! Why is this man not accountable for anything?

President Obama’s election was historical, but in this time of financial woes should his inaugural have been so grandiose? Where’s the change he promised? Just think of what else we could spend our time and $150-160 millions on? There are parents on hunger strikes because of education funding cuts, our infrastructures have been neglected and people are loosing their jobs. People are spending money traveling to DC instead of their mortgages, exposing themselves to frigid weather, security and adding to their green footprint.

President Obama has been named the first “Internet President”, so why not used the Internet and our so-called “free press” to celebrate this historical presidency? Also historic was the cost of the campaigns, mainly a two party race as well as the inaugural. Include the largest government bailout of private companies and banks and I guess we have changed. We are socialist, God bless the Queen, I mean the President.

Bruce Tumin
An American Citizen and Voter

You're joking, right? The cost of a party with 1.5 million people is the same as the cost of a party with 300K people. Wow, I should have invited 1000 people to my daughters wedding instead of the 200 that actually came.

For an "inauguration", it's a digustingly high cost. For a "coronation", it's really not that bad...

No Matter what the total amount spent comes out to be, how can it be justified. For over a year the president elect has preached to cut spending cut costs and get the country back on the right track. In reality the president has not been in office one day and has already racked up a expense of $150 million plus dollars. Seems a bit self centered and a complete oppisite from the song and dance of cutting spending... Only time will tell what kind of president we have elected to run our country. If you ask me its the same old shit just another face at the stand

I don't have an hour to read through the hundred comments. Did any one notice that the security detail was reported as if it was much larger than ever before, but the cost was relatively unchanged? More homework

The point is that no matter what the prior costs were, the CURRENT state of economic realities dictate that costs should be reduced. If everything is now "transparent", the President should have told us how much of taxpayer money was being used, then there would be no question and no media outlets could speculate. I was convinced that this sniping between conservatives and liberals, ABC and cable, and happy people and sad people would be over with this new presidency. By the way, ABC - a non-conservative outlet - did a whole segment on what they thought.