DC Emergency Declared for Obama Inauguration

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mkrishnan, Jan 13, 2009.

  1. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #1
    This news story is so odd that it gives me a headache. :eek:

    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/13/bush-frees-inauguration-emergency-funds/

    So FEMA is failing out the Obama inauguration? Wow. Just wow. I mean, not in a partisan sort of way, not in a reactionary way, just wow. Who'dve thought that the presidential inauguration would require emergency funding?
     
  2. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #2
    I am not surprised buy the huge extra cost to the city.

    This was the right move for Bush to do. He going to get flamed for it but if he did not do it people would say he allowing much needed funding for the city.

    A lot more people are going to show up than for a normally. We have evidence of that by how Campaign and voter turn out this year being hirer than normal.


    It is still pocket change compared to the amount of money Obama spent on Campaigning. Hell I think it should come out of his campaign funds. he spent over 600 mil which goes to show you how much money is WASTED on campaigning.
     
  3. mkrishnan thread starter Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #3
    Wasted is all a relative concept... arguably Obama took money that would languish in your bank account and used it to pay low-wage underlings, and jack-booted thugs, buy airplane tickets, hire people to make video segments, hire people to create mailers, etc, etc. All generating more economic turns from your money than the bank would have. So arguably he did a great service to the economy. ;) As perhaps will Bush with this move.

    (P.S. I agree that it was generally the right thing to do on Bush's part, which is the most headache inspiring aspect of all)
     
  4. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #4
    Well, Obama could have raised the money in follow-up fundraising - that was what was done in the past. It would have only taken $1+ from each person that voted for him. Instead, we are going to have even more deficit spending to pay for the pomp and circumstance that accompanies these things.

    With so many idiot tourists taking over the metro area and what I expect to be a multitude of failures by the local governments and agencies involved, I am so glad to be getting out of town.
     
  5. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #5
    Awesome that the only way we can pay for our ceremony is to turn on the "security" spigot. Neat little re-enforcement of a broken paradigm, there...
     
  6. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #6
    The other option would be for the PEOTUS to either a) limit activities and participation to $15m worth or b) fund the rest.

    Also, it appears that Bush may be paying for this after the concern expressed about his lavish '05 ceremony.
     
  7. mkrishnan thread starter Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #7
    As I understood it, the money actually goes for crowd management, etc, for the city of Washington, DC. That is, for people out partying on the street and so on. There is the problem that the crowd outside the invited events (which, like Obama's Election Day rally at Grant Park here, is forecast to be ginormous) is not really under his control.
     

Share This Page