21 million dollars !?

Bush and his cronies really have a lot to answer for.

At a total cost of 21 million , Bush's inauguration ceremony has got to be the biggest load of garbage ever. Think what all that money could have done for the Third World , in particular , towards the international relief aid for the South Asian tsunami disaster ... 21 million dollars down the drain in the name of pomp and circumstance while millions suffer from starvation , thirst and disease elsewhere...

:mad: I am both disgusted and shocked at this outrageous waste of money.

I agree with you, that money could have made a difference to other people's lives, not a difference to the presidents day!

wow that is sickening..

and since when bush decided to save money?

Most of the presidents and Bush in this case are so hypocrites..They spend a lot of money thinking only about themselves..
I wonder why still do people "support" them?
It's just so disgusting..21 Millions Dollars could have make a great difference to a thousands poor families...

21 million? I thought it was 40 million? Not including security costs?
Here's what I found on it, speaks for itself...

Inauguration: Lifestyles of the Rich and Heartless

January 20, 2005
From "The American Progress Report"
by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin
with Nico Pitney and Mipe Okunseinde

Due to $17 million worth of inaugural security – paid for by the city of Washington, D.C. – the Progress Report is unable to access its office. Never fear – it takes a lot more than that to keep us down. We put this list together for you ahead of time. Your regularly scheduled Progress Report returns tomorrow.

A look at this week’s festivities by the numbers:

$40 million: Cost of Bush inaugural ball festivities, not counting security costs.

$2,000: Amount FDR spent on the inaugural in 1945…about $20,000 in today’s dollars.

$20,000: Cost of yellow roses purchased for inaugural festivities by D.C.’s Ritz Carlton.

200: Number of Humvees outfitted with top-of-the-line armor for troops in Iraq that could have been purchased with the amount of money blown on the inauguration.

$10,000: Price of an inaugural package at the Fairmont Hotel, which includes a Beluga caviar and Dom Perignon reception, a chauffeured Rolls Royce and two actors posing as "faux" Secret Service agents, complete with black sunglasses and cufflink walkie-talkies.

400: Pounds of lobster provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the exclusive Mandarin Oriental hotel.

3,000: Number of "Laura Bush Cowboy cookies" provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the Mandarin hotel.

$1: Amount per guest President Carter spent on snacks for guests at his inaugural parties. To stick to a tight budget, he served pretzels, peanuts, crackers and cheese and had cash bars.

22 million: Number of children in regions devastated by the tsunami who could have received vaccinations and preventive health care with the amount of money spent on the inauguration.

1,160,000: Number of girls who could be sent to school for a year in Afghanistan with the amount of money lavished on the inauguration.

$15,000: The down payment to rent a fur coat paid by one gala attendee who didn’t want the hassle of schlepping her own through the airport.

$200,500: Price of a room package at D.C.’s Mandarin Oriental, including presidential suite, chauffeured Mercedes limo and outfits from Neiman Marcus.

2,500: Number of U.S. troops used to stand guard as President Bush takes his oath of office

26,000: Number of Kevlar vests for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that could be purchased for $40 million.

$290: Bonus that could go to each American solider serving in Iraq, if inauguration funds were used for that purpose.

$6.3 million: Amount contributed by the finance and investment industry, which works out to be 25 percent of all the money collected.

$17 million: Amount of money the White House is forcing the cash-strapped city of Washington, D.C., to pony up for inauguration security.

9: Percentage of D.C. residents who voted for Bush in 2004.

66: Percentage of Americans who think this over-the-top inauguration should have been scaled back.

Link here: http://www.americanprogressaction.or...JcP7H&b=296187

Australia gave 10 billion to the isunarmi victims

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kathryn

Australia gave 10 billion to the isunarmi victims

---

Do you have a link to an article proving this?

Hey I live in thwe Australia

Good for you? I don't, and I haven't heard anything about this. Which is why I asked for a link. No need to get jumpy.

I know because it was raised from a concert

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kathryn

Australia gave 10 billion to the isunarmi victims

---

I think 10 million would be the actual figure. Australia's economy isn't that strong to give away that much...at least I don't think.

The US has pledged 350 mil, the most I know of from any single gov't(not including citizens of that country).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...1/s1277477.htm

It's 1 billion over 5 years.

Bush didn't invent the concept of an inaugural ceremony, and he can't be the first president to have "wasted" millions on one. If you're outraged by this one, you ought to be outraged by all the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

Bush didn't invent the concept of an inaugural ceremony, and he can't be the first president to have "wasted" millions on one. If you're outraged by this one, you ought to be outraged by all the others.

---

Agreed, just like how you catch a few police brutalities, theres always more that we obviously didnt catch or were covered up.

But i guess its kinda still shocking because of his war spendings which is over 800billion? I forget...but i know its over in the hundreds of billions, so this is like an add on to it =/

Yes, there are and always will be lavish inauguration ceremonies, but not many of them occur while American troops in Iraq are using scrap metal for "hillbilly armor".

I think we need to set a few things straight here. Technically, most of the cost is paid for by private companies/individuals. Who are you to say what they should do with their money? Would you like people going around telling you to buy less videogames and give more to charities?

Second, while not at war/during a natural disaster, Clinton's second inauguration ceremonies cost (inflation accounted for) roughly the same as Bush's second (the Washington Post 2001 article's data would put it a bit below, the Washington Times data puts it 25% above).


So, do you all want (French) cheese with your whine?

Quote:

---

most of the cost is paid for by private companies/individuals. Who are you to say what they should do with their money?

---

Yes. [img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img] Endless.

You guys are unbelievable. .-.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

Bush didn't invent the concept of an inaugural ceremony, and he can't be the first president to have "wasted" millions on one. If you're outraged by this one, you ought to be outraged by all the others.

---

You're right, we ought to be. Though there are some president's who cut it back a bit. Aside from the fact that he's throwing such a huge party for being re-elected, he's doing it with all our troops overseas using inferior armor-- note, which is all thanks to him.

Perhaps we failed to take note of some of the other lavish parties, but at the very least Bush's has brought it to our attention. Now we can do something about it so should we choose.

Quote:

---

So, do you all want (French) cheese with your whine?

---

I thought we were all entitled to share our opinion, whether it be outrage or not? I hardly consider it whining. It's not as if we're all upset we didn't get invited to the party, we're a little sick to our stomaches as to what the money is being ridiculously lavished on. If we're upset about it, then we are, and perhaps if enough people are upset about it, we can make a difference as to how things work.

Edit: Donated or not, Bush never had to accept the money. It was his party and if he wanted to be conservative about it he could've very well made sure that happened.

Wait, did he throw the money into a bonfire? Or did it go into the economy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martyr

Wait, did he throw the money into a bonfire? Or did it go into the economy?

---

The "trickle down" theory has never actually worked.

Who thinks Kerry would've done the same thing? *raises hand*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ching Chong

Who thinks Kerry would've done the same thing? *raises hand*

---

And...? That's completely besides the point. I would hope the American people would be just as outraged if Kerry spent an obscene amount of money on his party. It's not about Bush, it's about the action he took.

Oh I'm sorry I'll try again:

Who thinks just about any president would've done the same? *raises hand*

My point is that while it's a large sum of money to spend on a party, I don't find it surprising for people of politics to spend large sums of (our) money any more.

Go forth and fight all you wish, but I for one don't feel outraged. Now if conscription was in effect and I was sent to Iraq then found out the threat was less than it was, and all that, then I would be outraged. I'm also outraged by other things I won't mention here. But 'a president holding an exensive party'...maybe I don't see things the way you did?

Quote:

---

Bush didn't invent the concept of an inaugural ceremony, and he can't be the first president to have "wasted" millions on one. If you're outraged by this one, you ought to be outraged by all the others.

---

I agree.

Some of you guys just hate Bush, and get over it. I just laughed at those protesters trying to interfere with Bushs' innaugaration, the police laying down the law and responding with tear gas and water hoses to the crowds throwing snow balls and trying to climb over the fences. And stupid protesters waiving signs like "Bush is the #1 terrorist", and "Regime Change". They're like a bunch of hippy liberals.

It isn't so much the idea that all presidents typically have insanely lavish inaugeral ceremonies (with the exception of a few), it's the idea that they ought not to, because other people take precidence.

If you're going to place blame on an action/theory/motivation, at least try not to do the same yourself. There is no easy answer to properly distributing wealth to those who need it. Either you give some (which is not enough, apparently. I'm sure the administration has allocated tax dollars to those who need it), more than some (in which case you'd be at fault because you probably only give 'some', but not 'a lot'), or all, which is just stupid because then you'd be the one being poor and needing money.

Contrary to popular belief , I am NOT one of these fanatical anti-Bush campaigners - and he's obviously not the first president to have spent huge amounts on lavish inauguration ceremonies , I realize that , but given these present circumstances , this one is just OTT. Ok , so nobody has to make snipes at Bush , and I'm not saying he or anyone else has to donate but I just think it's in bad taste in lightof recent events.

And I'm sure that speech sent a shiver down the spine of everyone listening ...

That money could've been used for hte american public schools.They suck.Tax dolars go mor einto prisons then they go into public schools.

I think how much the Reagan's spent on new china and other decorations for the inside of the white house as soon as Ronald got in is more sickening than this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordblazer

That money could've been used for hte american public schools.They suck.Tax dolars go mor einto prisons then they go into public schools.

---

The problem with the public school system in America isn't a lack of money.

Quote:

---

The problem with the public school system in America isn't a lack of money.

---

Right.
I wonder how many of those people complaining about this have put aside their shopping trips and fancy electronic equipment and instead given money that could be lavishly spent on such things to needy families or relief funds. Anybody?

Well I think everyone needs to get off their high horses.

Yeah, it's disgusting that rich people do stupid things with money that could go to other places. It's also stupid that people complain about it, when they really have no basis for complaint. And it's stupid that people complain about the people complaining about it.

It's ridiculous that people want to impress one another so much that they spend millions of dollars for some ugly fabric and nasty food, but they aren't taking food out of the mouths of babies.

And the trickle down theory doesn't work.

And hippy liberal is one of the most inane terms I've heard come out of the extreme right, you fascist conservatives. noname, I believe you need to "get over" the fact that this country is built on protest, and people are going to do it whether you agree with it or not.

PS: All of you go plant some corn or something.

EDIT: Also, throwing snowballs was probably meant more symbolically than anything else. *cough Boston Massacre cough*

Question:

Wasn't the the DC area asked to foot the bill?

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

The problem with the public school system in America isn't a lack of money.

---

IT BETTER BE! If it isn't, then there's nobody to blame but ourselves!!!! You be careful or else you'll have a world which understands that consequences exist!!!

And what was I going to say? Oh, right. 21 million isn't really all that much money. I mean, if it was in one family, then it'd be a lot. But concerning spillover for campaigning and/or other donations (Keep in mind that the word "donations" is used and not very innacurately. Unless Bush paid out of his pocket, whereas there still wouldn't be a problem), then it isn't really a big deal to splurge it. And anyway, I think that the trickle down theory (If that's what you call it) must work. The rich/poor gap in the US isn't big enough to think that money doesn't go around.

Quote:

---

And hippy liberal is one of the most inane terms I've heard come out of the extreme right, you fascist conservatives. noname, I believe you need to "get over" the fact that this country is built on protest, and people are going to do it whether you agree with it or not.

---

I knew someone was going to take it personally! Haha. Whatever, I know this country was built on protest. And I dont see why you guys are making a big deal about this 21 million when it has been like this for years.

What I want to know is why the hell noname thinks that the terms
"hippie" and "liberal" are insults.

I don't associate myself with any political group because they're essentially
all the same. The matter isn't really about who you support. Many people
seem to make cases against Clinton whenever Bush does something wrong,
how is this logic even remotely acceptable? When will people realize that
it's not about liberal democrats or conservative republicans, it's not about
the person in the white house, it's about the ACTIONS taken by that person,
no matter what side of the coin they're on. You need to look above your
"loyalty" to a party and think about these actions with only a sense of logic
to guide your opinions. Only then will you see that each side is just as
bad as the other and the ultimate goal is and will always be more power
for those with it, and less for those without.

On the 21 million: it doesn't bother me as much as the recent events
with the Dept. of Homeland Security spending actual tax dollars without
anyone knowing (basically destroying all checks and balances put in
place under the reasoning of "national security") on a party. It's easy to
criticize someone when you're not in their shoes, so Bush throwing a
big party, while I hope I would never be that big of an asshole, I've
never been in that position so I have no idea what I'd do. It reminds me
of the time when Modest Mouse started selling their songs to advertisements
and many of their loyal fans (including myself) got pissed off, at which
time the word sellout was thrown around quite a bit. Isaac's reply was
something along the lines of "When you stop spending your parents'
money or you stop selling french fries, then you can criticize our
principles. We're just trying to pay for our goddamn electricity."

.opt

Hah!

Tyshat communiest oui sound like!

By which I mean, you sound to me like you'd like everyone in the world to have the same amount of cashola in the bagola!

Life, as I would like to work like, doesn't work like that, because greed exists. We cannot all be equal or the world itself would explode and everyone would die a horrible flaming death.

Kud ed?

I also thought the number was closer to $40 million, which is a large gap to fill.


I recall reading articles in the NY Times and BBC Weekly that said the DC Area was asked to pay whatever the corperations didn't cover, though I can't find the link at the moment.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

What I want to know is why the hell noname thinks that the terms
"hippie" and "liberal" are insults.

---

Ok so I used hippy liberals as a insult, in your context. But I used those words to describe them, and their feeble attempts to disrupt the inaugural ball. Is that such a bad thing to say?

Quote:

---

I don't associate myself with any political group because they're essentially
all the same. The matter isn't really about who you support. Many people
seem to make cases against Clinton whenever Bush does something wrong,
how is this logic even remotely acceptable? When will people realize that
it's not about liberal democrats or conservative republicans, it's not about
the person in the white house, it's about the ACTIONS taken by that person,
no matter what side of the coin they're on. You need to look above your
"loyalty" to a party and think about these actions with only a sense of logic
to guide your opinions. Only then will you see that each side is just as
bad as the other and the ultimate goal is and will always be more power
for those with it, and less for those without.

---

Clinton, the guy who did it because he could. :p

"And anyway, I think that the trickle down theory (If that's what you call it) must work. The rich/poor gap in the US isn't big enough to think that money doesn't go around."

Actually, I believe America has the largest gap in the western world between the richest and the poorest classes, though that can partially be attributed to capitalism.

Take care all.

Well I'm glad you addressed the points of my post. Congratulations to you.

.opt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

Actually, I believe America has the largest gap in the western world between the richest and the poorest classes, though that can partially be attributed to capitalism.

Take care all.

---

I'd attribute it mostly to capitalism. And, of course, I don't care about anybody who can't generate power and wealth in the land of the free.

Last November, I remember that there was an option on the ballot to screw the economy and promote inflation (Slyly camouflaged under the deceptively innocent title: Increase Minimum Wage). Lower classes, mostly stupid women, were the targets. (Obviously not women with IQs in the range of real numbers)

And there were enough idiots in this state to pass it! So screw anybody who can't figure this crap out. I have no sympathy at all!

And for anybody who wants to know, my second job payed more than minimum wage, and I've worked 75 hour weeks before to maintain myself extroardinary comfortably at 2 jobs. Weakness is no excuse. 21 million isn't a lot of money. And, uh, I have no love for liberals. And if I called you bleeding hearts, morons, caterpillars, humans, or people with "certain" ideas in the proper manner to make you take offense, then you will and you should. If anybody has a problem with being called a "Hippy Liberal" then the name caller has aced his communication skills test!
On a side note, I'm not calling anybody names. Except "weak." But you can't really accurately say that you have any semblance of strength of character, skill, or work ethic if you can't make a living in this country.

I'm just tired of people complaining about money. I understand that some girls get pregnant early, their boyfriends leave them (Or it was a one night stand), and their parents disown them. Then the government can only provide for their basic survival (maybe). My heart goes out to you. But you're not the overwhelming majority. So there's something to be dealt with here!
Harshly! Fine! Work or die!

Note: But 40 million is pretty steep. But, I mean, what else are they really going to do with it. I know that moving $40.00 from one store to another takes more than $40.00 worth of paperwork. I would blow it all at an innauguration party too, just to save time, work, and other expenses. We have money going places and to the right places.
Remember the athlete metaphor! So they're getting paid millions to play a game. There's all that money. Where else is it going to freaking go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noname

I knew someone was going to take it personally! Haha. Whatever, I know this country was built on protest. And I dont see why you guys are making a big deal about this 21 million when it has been like this for years.

---

I'm not taking it personally. I think what I'm trying to say is I don't get how that's an insult, basically what opt said I guess.

However much was spent on the stupid thing, it was just a chance for all the big shots in Washington to throw themselves yet another party and for the Bush girls to look positively trampy. I just don't see why I should have to help foot the bill for booze and hookers I can't be a part of.

And I don't see how anyone has the right to complain about how this money could've been used to feed children and all that stuff. It's not like it was money already dedicated to a better purpose. Hell, the money put out for this "event" could've been used to fund drug cartels if not for the inaugural ball/ceremony/whatever.

Personally, I wash my hands of the entire ordeal, protestors and all. It doesn't make sense to do something like this, and it doesn't make sense to complain about something like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

Well I think everyone needs to get off their high horses.

Yeah, it's disgusting that rich people do stupid things with money that could go to other places. It's also stupid that people complain about it, when they really have no basis for complaint. And it's stupid that people complain about the people complaining about it.

It's ridiculous that people want to impress one another so much that they spend millions of dollars for some ugly fabric and nasty food, but they aren't taking food out of the mouths of babies.

And the trickle down theory doesn't work.

And hippy liberal is one of the most inane terms I've heard come out of the extreme right, you fascist conservatives. noname, I believe you need to "get over" the fact that this country is built on protest, and people are going to do it whether you agree with it or not.

PS: All of you go plant some corn or something.

EDIT: Also, throwing snowballs was probably meant more symbolically than anything else. *cough Boston Massacre cough*

---

:love: :love: :love: :love: :love:

I actually find the people who say "stupid protestors" far more hilarious than the protestors themselves. It's utterly laughable how the people who claim to be "the true patriotic Americans" bash what America is, and was built upon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Endless

I think we need to set a few things straight here. Technically, most of the cost is paid for by private companies/individuals. Who are you to say what they should do with their money? Would you like people going around telling you to buy less videogames and give more to charities?

So, do you all want (French) cheese with your whine?

---

That's the main argument right there. Bush is a twit, don't get me wrong, but HE didn't spend the money on the ceremony. Nor did the U.S. Government, (although the City of D.C. did spend alot of its tax revenue on security) the money came from private donations made by major corporations and individuals. It's like the donations raised for political campaigns and the like, it's not the public's money so it's not our place to say what these people spend their money on. I hope that many of these corporations and individuals have also made significant contributions to charities and disaster relief.

Last weekend alone, the Americans people spent 22.5 MILLION DOLLARS to see the movie "Meet the Fockers". Just that one single movie, just that one single weekend; not even counting all the other movies over the weekend, which actually puts the total into the hundreds of millions of dollars. How can people spend money on movies when tsunami victims need that money to live? Everyone who watches movies should be ashamed. I am both disgusted and shocked.

Actually I'm not. That was sarcasm. People are allowed to spend their own money on whatever they want.

It's easy to bash on Bush because most of the internet population is anti-Bush.

That's like saying if someone bought a $40000 car, you call them seflish and ignorant because they could've spent that money on charity. Just because someone doesn't spend _ALL_ of their money on charity doesn't make them selfish.

We're all "guilty" of that at one time or another. I don't need the new shirt that I bought the other day, but I wanted it. Sure, it could have gone to charity, but I've donated enough money and I don't think donating more money would make me less selfish.

Had every person in the U.S. donated a dollar, think of the money that could've been raised. Sure, 40 million isn't an awful lot. But what was more necessary, four days of partying for wealthy Americans, or improved armour for soldiers fighting for our supposed 'freedom' in Iraq? Shows how much they care for our troops.

And no, people shouldn't be offended by being called a 'hippy liberal.' I'm damn proud of my dissent. Hearing the announcer tell people to, "Stand up and clap for President and Mrs. Bush. Show them how much you love America!" is just infuriating. This country's about improvement via protest.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Teddy Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, 149
May 7, 1918

I think the main reason people are so outraged is that Bush keeps saying there isn't money for schools, healthcare, eqipment for soldiers, Social Security ect... and yet can still find $40 mil for a party. It says alot about his priorities, don't it?

No, it says stuff about all the private individuals and comapnies that donated money. They gave money for the ceremony, not for the schools/healthcare/whatever. Bush didn't say "I want to make a $40m ceremony", they gave the money they chose to give for the ceremonies they would be attending, not for Bush to spend on healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Endless

No, it says stuff about all the private individuals and comapnies that donated money. They gave money for the ceremony, not for the schools/healthcare/whatever. Bush didn't say "I want to make a $40m ceremony", they gave the money they chose to give for the ceremonies they would be attending, not for Bush to spend on healthcare.

---

Not all of the money came from private interests though. A significant portion came from the taxpayers. 'Fiscal Conservatism' my ass.

EDIT: What I mean by this is that the conservatives/republicans make it such a point to be anti-all spending. One of the conerstones of the anti-kerry ideology was something to the effect of "Kerry's got all these new programs, but who will bear the brunt of this? The taxpayers." To spend this much money on a fanciful presidential parade (With much of it coming from the taxpayers) seems to me hipoctritical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moose Knight

Not all of the money came from private interests though. A significant portion came from the taxpayers. 'Fiscal Conservatism' my ass.

---

I was wondering just how much you claim has come from tax revenue? I know that there was a donation "cap" placed at $250,000 from any one individual or corporation, yet many conglomerate corporations donated 250k from the parent company and another 250k from each subsidiary company, and even another 250k from the President/CEO. So I really don't think they needed to use any taxpayer money for this megaparty. The corporations throw a hell of a lot of money into this thing because they are trying to buy future favors and considerations from the administration. :evilking:

Damn straight I'm a hippie liberal, but unlike the ones who protest, I shall actually attempt to enter the government myself and make some changes.

Anyway. I agree that this is horrible, disgusting, etc. but the fact of the matter remains that every president since ever has spent huge amounts of money on themselves. Its not "liberal" or "conservatives," its the rich that do so.

Actually I shouldn't even go that far. It was a human. Humans are greedy. They like to spend money on themselves. They love to be treated like royalty. I'm pretty sure some of you would do the same thing. I cannot answer for myself, as it hasn't happened yet, but due to human nature, and my current lack of willpower, I might end up doing it as well.

This is expected from a human, but that does not mean that it should be tolerated. We must somehow weed out this tendency for greed if we are to achieve our full potential as a species.

I think the main point is Jebus, is that its not HIS money, part of what he spent is money from us taxpayers =/

It should be illegal for politicians to spend this kind of money on something this trivial.

You spend your money on things just as trivial, like posting here, playing video games, or going to the theater. Should it be forbidden to you too?
Second, and that's like the third or fourth time I'm saying it, it's not politicians who spent money, it companies/private individuals. Now, since you don't seem to see why it's not trivial to their eyes, let me explain it shortly: the inauguration ceremonies are a very good place for big companies, influential people or celebrities to be seen with the new administration, to talk to them and show support so that they have influence later when decisions will affect their business area. It's lobbying, and (sadly) if you want to stand out, you have to do it. Companies did it with Clinton, they did it with Bush, and I have no doubt they will do it with the next President.
Third, that inauguration is a display to the rest of the world to show them your power/wealth.

Last, about the taxpayer money: the inauguration is in fact in two parts: there's the inauguration itself, where the President is sworn in, and one ball after. That's what is paid by taxpayers money (DC area I think), to which you add the security (which might have been a bigger part of the bill this year, since a few things happened since Jan 2001) (and some also count the "lost revenue due to the day off"). All the other side ceremonies, all the other balls are paid for by private contributors, not taxpayers money.

This really isn't that big of a deal, for the most part. I'm by no means a Bush supporter (quite the opposite, in fact), but this is one thing I'm really not all that upset about. Some of this has already been mentioned, but consider the following:

- This inauguration is actually less expensive than Bush's last one (which according to Newsweek was $43 million). Considering that security was probably a lot tighter this year (and thus more expensive), I think that's pretty good.
- As mentioned, security has been increased compared to past years. Whether or not this is justified is pretty debatable, but the fact is that even if some of us don't like Bush, he is the president and should be adequately protected. After a controversial first term and a somewhat disputed election, one could argue in favor of the increased security.
- 95% of the tab is covered by corporations and executives who donated money (Newsweek once again). Very little of it is tax dollars, so it would not have gone to anything like education. And as Endless said, the part that is tax dollars goes to the more "governmental" part of the inauguration.
- Every president since Reagan (including Reagan himself) has had an expensive inauguration of at least $30 million. This doesn't justify the cost, necessarily, but this year's situation is non-unique.

So yeah, you can complain about the inauguration costs, but there are many more important issues out there. Pick one.

you do know the liberals are really Progressives right?and the conservatives always want to be hte conservatives lol.Except I think people who are conservative have a really really really off beat view of the world.