Skilifts.org / SORT Forum

I wrote up a blog entry about this, but I'm still steamed so I thought I'd start a discussion about it as well. Anyone else have a problem with the $47 million price tag on Bush's inauguration shindig? Conversely, anyone care to justify it? You can read my blog to see why I'm steamed, I don't feel the need to post it twice. If you don't have a problem with the whole thing, don't feel like I'll be offended. I'm open to all points of view; I just need to vent.

Posted this in John's blog before this topic was started:

Quote

But $47 million is hardly anything to an economy this size. We just got done with our small recession and the economy is back on track I think it's fare to say. Think about all the money that goes towards reparing just a small section or road or paying for a person's lawyer who is on death row.

Time to go write something in my blog.

People have trouble with justifying any sort of money thing and will often protest it without knowing why it's being spent or what it's being spent on. An example is the new Churchill square upgrades in Edmonton. 12 million was spent to develop the square to make it easier to hold festivals and lessen the continual maintnence. Though it probably coast the city millions to perpetually replace the grass after every festival most people including many news columnists protested this investment regardless. I think it's often a matter of being informed, if you protest a point that you have little stance on or perhaps only one or two facts, there is very little justification to be doing so.

Relating to this issue, it basically comes down to the effective use of money. Wether this amount of money was justified based on the circumstances is a question not easily answered. In the long run 47 million isn't going to draw the bank coffers dry. also what amounts of money have been spent on former inaguaral galas?

Just did some searching on the internet and found out that $17 million of the $47 million was spent on security alone. Also if you adjust the price of Clintons inauguration with inflation, Clintons second inauguration costed more than Bush's. So there John, you no longer have to feel that it was just Bush who wasted the most money for an inauguration party.

it's bullshit......

Rather than just saying "it's Bullsh!t", can you have something to back it up with? For example, I can back up the argument saying that Bush's inauguration was actually cheaper than Clinton's if you count for inflation and subtract the extra money for security!

I don't want this to turn into some Republican/ Democrate bashing thread, we should share equal view points or have something to back it up atleast I think.

i feel that the party itself is a waste..

Aren't all of the parties thrown by politicians?

Well here's a fact, the money rasied for Bush's inaguration could have bought 670 new fully armoured Humvees and give a $230 bonus to every soldier serving in Iraq. Source: New York Times/ Salt Lake Tribune/ Deseret News.

Now I don't think that there shouldn't be an inaguration or a celebration of some sort but this is just outrageous. You tell me whats more important.

It's not a matter of importance. Sure the government should spend $47 million on better things but who's to decide what is important? Ultimatley it is YOU the voter who gives the go ahead to spend $47 million on a big party. The principle of voter acountability gives you the option to not vote for the republicans in the next election if you feel that this is too much of an issue to let pass over. Though by suggesting this money could have gone to better use isn't the greatest argument either. Wether it went to funding the war in iraq or to needy people across american the fact remains that 47 million would be spent regardless. Though it is less likely to be protested many still would find ways to protest the spending of 47 million dollars sighting it as wasteful or the like.

Regardless of whether $17 million of the total was spent on security, I feel that the whole idea of a big gala to celebrate the second term of a president is too much. It's not that I don't think we should be spending money that we (or our elected representatives) have already agreed to pay in taxes; rather, I think there are more important things going on in this country and the world at large that could use the money. So $47 million isn't a big pile when the deficit is measured in the billions. It's the principle of the thing. In retrospect, if Clinton's inaugural gala cost that much, then it was too much as well. No president needs to be feted like he (or she, in the future) is some kind of king. We did away with that over two hundred years ago.

Quote

And then we elected Bush.

Here in alberta Premier Ralph Klein Has had a book written after him entitled "King Ralph"

I think it really should have never happened. Yes Clinton's may have cost more but the county and world were no where close to the state they are in now. Bush has the lowest approval rating of any returning president ever, 51%. The was a tsnumai that killed close to 200,000 and we are fighting a war in iraq. I'm sure the soldiers would appreciate some more armor or better food or something. The fact is our country has the largest debt it has ever had and its not going down. With all that just spend 17 million on security and just do it plain and simple. Outrageous.

edmontonguy, on Jan 23 2005, 08:35 PM, said:

But he's still premier, isn't he? I forgot about that- the Canadian news media always refer to him that way. I don't think it's in a negative way, though. You Albertans- what do you think of him? I know-