Obama Extravagances And What They Mean

[mudwhistle]

I don't really feel like going over it again, but here goes.

You claimed that Obama's inauguration cost many times what Bush's did.
Including security costs, Bush's cost 157 million dollars. Obama's cost 166, with nearly 10 times the number of people there.

You (or the OP) claimed that the Obama's were spending ridiculous amounts of the public's money in various ways, from Michelle's make-up lady, to a 71 car motorcade.
For each of those things, I've shown that to be either entirely not true (Michelle pays her makeup lady out of her own pocket) or just spin (the 71 car motorcade included an unknown number of Chinese government cars).

Got anything?

Michelle claims she pays it out of her own pocket. She claims it and we're supposed to believe her.....fine....no problem. She would never ever lie.

You still haven't shown any proof that Bush's cost $157 million.

But let's assume you're correct...Obama spent $166 million which I guess is more..about 9 million more.....aren't we in the worst economy since the Great Depression? I would think he would want to lead by example rather then up the ante. Don't you think?

No of course not.

But I'm still waiting on links bud. Otherwise you're just talking smack.

 

[mudwhistle]

mudwhistle



Coming from a guy who has been caught lying his ass off in this thread

Prove it is all I can say.

Lying is when you say something you know isn't true.

Being not exactly 100% accurate over a matter of what the actual costs were and what they were spent on because I was trying to remember from memory is another thing entirely, which I might add is still up in the air because they won't open the books. Hard to be exact when all of our sources aren't exact.

Go figure!!!

However.....

I've proved that the Obama's are spending like crazy in comparison to Bush...yet you call me a liar?

You support an asshole that lies for a living and you call me a liar?

After all of the times he's been caught lying you still believe him or at least don't question him.

Un fucken believable.

You don't seem to like lying but you support a liar 100%.

It boggles the mind.

LOL..

Now I get it! You didn't LIE....You misremembered

So I shouldn't consider you a LIAR.....just someone who doesn't have a good memory on all things Obama

And you never misrememered anything. Like the Makeup and Hairdressing statement....remember that??? Just a minor misrepresentation.....nothing important.

No...you need to get off while your behind.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't really feel like going over it again, but here goes.

You claimed that Obama's inauguration cost many times what Bush's did.
Including security costs, Bush's cost 157 million dollars. Obama's cost 166, with nearly 10 times the number of people there.

You (or the OP) claimed that the Obama's were spending ridiculous amounts of the public's money in various ways, from Michelle's make-up lady, to a 71 car motorcade.
For each of those things, I've shown that to be either entirely not true (Michelle pays her makeup lady out of her own pocket) or just spin (the 71 car motorcade included an unknown number of Chinese government cars).

Got anything?

Michelle claims she pays it out of her own pocket. She claims it and we're supposed to believe her.....fine....no problem. She would never ever lie.

Or you can refuse to believe her. I don't care. But unless you can give me some evidence, it's pretty clear you're reaching.

You still haven't shown any proof that Bush's cost $157 million.

Here's some. Bush's campaign committee raised $42 million dollars for his inauguration.
Then DC and the federal government chipped in another 115.5 million. 42.3 + 115.5 = 157.8.
Here's a link. Scroll down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html

In 2005, Mr. Bush raised $42.3 million from about 15,000 donors for festivities; the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers.

But let's assume you're correct...Obama spent $166 million which I guess is more..about 9 million more.....aren't we in the worst economy since the Great Depression? I would think he would want to lead by example rather then up the ante. Don't you think?

2 million people came to DC to watch Obama's inauguration. Explain how the inauguration could possibly be cheaper.

No of course not.

But I'm still waiting on links bud. Otherwise you're just talking smack.

Link is right there.

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't really feel like going over it again, but here goes.

You claimed that Obama's inauguration cost many times what Bush's did.
Including security costs, Bush's cost 157 million dollars. Obama's cost 166, with nearly 10 times the number of people there.

You (or the OP) claimed that the Obama's were spending ridiculous amounts of the public's money in various ways, from Michelle's make-up lady, to a 71 car motorcade.
For each of those things, I've shown that to be either entirely not true (Michelle pays her makeup lady out of her own pocket) or just spin (the 71 car motorcade included an unknown number of Chinese government cars).

Got anything?

Michelle claims she pays it out of her own pocket. She claims it and we're supposed to believe her.....fine....no problem. She would never ever lie.

Or you can refuse to believe her. I don't care. But unless you can give me some evidence, it's pretty clear you're reaching.


Here's some. Bush's campaign committee raised $42 million dollars for his inauguration.
Then DC and the federal government chipped in another 115.5 million. 42.3 + 115.5 = 157.8.
Here's a link. Scroll down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html

But let's assume you're correct...Obama spent $166 million which I guess is more..about 9 million more.....aren't we in the worst economy since the Great Depression? I would think he would want to lead by example rather then up the ante. Don't you think?

2 million people came to DC to watch Obama's inauguration. Explain how the inauguration could possibly be cheaper.

No of course not.

But I'm still waiting on links bud. Otherwise you're just talking smack.

Link is right there.

From your link this is what I found :

he $24 million puts Mr. Obama more than halfway toward the goal of raising $40 million to $45 million for what could be the most expensive inauguration ever, topping the $42.3 million that President Bush spent in 2005.

Sorry, it looks like you're wrong.

I posted proof that Obama's cost $166 million....all I see is $42.3 million for Bush.

This is not looking good buddy....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Michelle claims she pays it out of her own pocket. She claims it and we're supposed to believe her.....fine....no problem. She would never ever lie.

Or you can refuse to believe her. I don't care. But unless you can give me some evidence, it's pretty clear you're reaching.


Here's some. Bush's campaign committee raised $42 million dollars for his inauguration.
Then DC and the federal government chipped in another 115.5 million. 42.3 + 115.5 = 157.8.
Here's a link. Scroll down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html



2 million people came to DC to watch Obama's inauguration. Explain how the inauguration could possibly be cheaper.


Link is right there.

From your link this is what I found :

he $24 million puts Mr. Obama more than halfway toward the goal of raising $40 million to $45 million for what could be the most expensive inauguration ever, topping the $42.3 million that President Bush spent in 2005.

Sorry, it looks like you're wrong.

Maybe you should just keep reading the article.
Like, maybe down to around the 20th paragraph.
Where it says this:

Ms. Douglass of the committee said the expenses this year would be greater than those for any previous inauguration. In modern times, inaugurations have been financed by a combination of public and private money. In 2005, Mr. Bush raised $42.3 million from about 15,000 donors for festivities; the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers.

Maybe you won't miss it this time, I made it nice and big for you.
Once again, 42.3 million + 115.5 million = 157.8 million

 

[mudwhistle]

Or you can refuse to believe her. I don't care. But unless you can give me some evidence, it's pretty clear you're reaching.


Here's some. Bush's campaign committee raised $42 million dollars for his inauguration.
Then DC and the federal government chipped in another 115.5 million. 42.3 + 115.5 = 157.8.
Here's a link. Scroll down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html



2 million people came to DC to watch Obama's inauguration. Explain how the inauguration could possibly be cheaper.


Link is right there.

From your link this is what I found :


Sorry, it looks like you're wrong.

Maybe you should just keep reading the article.
Like, maybe down to around the 20th paragraph.
Where it says this:

Ms. Douglass of the committee said the expenses this year would be greater than those for any previous inauguration. In modern times, inaugurations have been financed by a combination of public and private money. In 2005, Mr. Bush raised $42.3 million from about 15,000 donors for festivities; the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers.

Maybe you won't miss it this time, I made it nice and big for you.
Once again, 42.3 million + 115.5 million = 157.8 million

Once again...Obama's cost $166 million.....at least that's what they projected. How does this show he's trying to cut expenses. Doesn't this show he's not really worried about the costs?

Can you understand that????

 

[rightwinger]

mudwhistle..

Still waiting on those links supporting any of your wild statements

You still have not provided any proof that President Obama is spending more than his predecessors. Other than your wild misrepresentations you still haven"t backed anything up

CalliGurl ran out on you but you are still here spouting your propaganda

 

[theDoctorisIn]

From your link this is what I found :


Sorry, it looks like you're wrong.

Maybe you should just keep reading the article.
Like, maybe down to around the 20th paragraph.
Where it says this:

Ms. Douglass of the committee said the expenses this year would be greater than those for any previous inauguration. In modern times, inaugurations have been financed by a combination of public and private money. In 2005, Mr. Bush raised $42.3 million from about 15,000 donors for festivities; the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers.

Maybe you won't miss it this time, I made it nice and big for you.
Once again, 42.3 million + 115.5 million = 157.8 million

Once again...Obama's cost $166 million.....at least that's what they projected. How does this show he's trying to cut expenses. Doesn't this show he's not really worried about the costs?

Can you understand that????

Having a hard time admitting you were wrong? It's ok, everyone is wrong sometimes.

Can you understand that the incredible cost of the inauguration is caused by the need for extra security and cleanup caused by the 2 million people that came to Obama's inauguration?

Only 300,000 people came to Bush's in 2005.

 

[mudwhistle]

mudwhistle..

Still waiting on those links supporting any of your wild statements

You still have not provided any proof that President Obama is spending more than his predecessors. Other than your wild misrepresentations you still haven"t backed anything up

CalliGurl ran out on you but you are still here spouting your propaganda

Go back through the thread....I'm sure you'll find them....if you care to take the time to look this time.

 

[mudwhistle]

Maybe you should just keep reading the article.
Like, maybe down to around the 20th paragraph.
Where it says this:



Maybe you won't miss it this time, I made it nice and big for you.
Once again, 42.3 million + 115.5 million = 157.8 million

Once again...Obama's cost $166 million.....at least that's what they projected. How does this show he's trying to cut expenses. Doesn't this show he's not really worried about the costs?

Can you understand that????

Having a hard time admitting you were wrong? It's ok, everyone is wrong sometimes.

Can you understand that the incredible cost of the inauguration is caused by the need for extra security and cleanup caused by the 2 million people that came to Obama's inauguration?

Only 300,000 people came to Bush's in 2005.

The story said 400,000 came:

Still, only about 400,000 people attended in 2005, while officials expect at least two million this year. That means added costs for opening the whole Mall, setting up more JumboTrons and providing 5,000 portable toilets, among other items. (The District of Columbia alone spent more than $15 million in 2005 and says costs this year will triple.)

Having a hard time admitting you're wrong????

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Once again...Obama's cost $166 million.....at least that's what they projected. How does this show he's trying to cut expenses. Doesn't this show he's not really worried about the costs?

Can you understand that????

Having a hard time admitting you were wrong? It's ok, everyone is wrong sometimes.

Can you understand that the incredible cost of the inauguration is caused by the need for extra security and cleanup caused by the 2 million people that came to Obama's inauguration?

Only 300,000 people came to Bush's in 2005.

The story said 400,000 came:

Still, only about 400,000 people attended in 2005, while officials expect at least two million this year. That means added costs for opening the whole Mall, setting up more JumboTrons and providing 5,000 portable toilets, among other items. (The District of Columbia alone spent more than $15 million in 2005 and says costs this year will triple.)

Having a hard time admitting you're wrong????

A typo in my post. Is that all you've got?

 

[mudwhistle]

Even after putting all of the other expenses....Obama still spent more by millions.

So my original point is still valid.

Nothing you posted changes that. Even your story said as much.

What was the phrase..."what could be the most expensive inauguration ever...."

 

[mudwhistle]

Having a hard time admitting you were wrong? It's ok, everyone is wrong sometimes.

Can you understand that the incredible cost of the inauguration is caused by the need for extra security and cleanup caused by the 2 million people that came to Obama's inauguration?

Only 300,000 people came to Bush's in 2005.

The story said 400,000 came:

Still, only about 400,000 people attended in 2005, while officials expect at least two million this year. That means added costs for opening the whole Mall, setting up more JumboTrons and providing 5,000 portable toilets, among other items. (The District of Columbia alone spent more than $15 million in 2005 and says costs this year will triple.)

Having a hard time admitting you're wrong????

A typo in my post. Is that all you've got?

Ohhhhhh....a typo....that's what it's called. A mistake is a typo when you do it but with me I'm just flat out wrong.

Pathetic

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Even after putting all of the other expenses....Obama still spent more by millions.

So my original point is still valid.

Nothing you posted changes that. Even your story said as much.

What was the phrase..."what could be the most expensive inauguration ever...."

Bush spent 3,945 dollars per person who came to his inauguration.
Obama spent 83 dollars per person.

 

[mudwhistle]

You must be a lib.

When you do it it's an honest mistake, a typo...just being sloppy.

With me it's a totally intentional fuckup.

In other words....a lie.

 

[mudwhistle]

Even after putting all of the other expenses....Obama still spent more by millions.

So my original point is still valid.

Nothing you posted changes that. Even your story said as much.

What was the phrase..."what could be the most expensive inauguration ever...."

Bush spent 3,945 dollars per person who came to his inauguration.
Obama spent 83 dollars per person.

But he just happened to spend millions more.

I'm really sure all of this is 100% accurate anyway.[Yeah right]

Course nobody really knows how much he spent anyway.

The NYT isn't exactly an honest broker.

They're worse then Moveon.org and the Daily Kos.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You must be a lib.

When you do it it's an honest mistake, a typo...just being sloppy.

With me it's a totally intentional fuckup.

In other words....a lie.

I never said you were lying.

In fact, I did say something along the lines of "Having a hard time admitting you're wrong?", which implies that I believe you were not lying, but in fact had made a mistake.

The difference is, when called on my mistake, I owned up to it, and corrected it. Whereas you still can't seem to admit that you were in fact wrong.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Even after putting all of the other expenses....Obama still spent more by millions.

So my original point is still valid.

Nothing you posted changes that. Even your story said as much.

What was the phrase..."what could be the most expensive inauguration ever...."

Bush spent 3,945 dollars per person who came to his inauguration.
Obama spent 83 dollars per person.

But he just happened to spend millions more.

I'm really sure all of this is 100% accurate anyway.[Yeah right]

Course nobody really knows how much he spent anyway.

The NYT isn't exactly an honest broker.

They're worse then Moveon.org and the Daily Kos.

Unless you have any actual information that contradicts what I have posted, this is what's called a logical fallacy.

 

[mudwhistle]

Bush spent 3,945 dollars per person who came to his inauguration.
Obama spent 83 dollars per person.

But he just happened to spend millions more.

I'm really sure all of this is 100% accurate anyway.[Yeah right]

Course nobody really knows how much he spent anyway.

The NYT isn't exactly an honest broker.

They're worse then Moveon.org and the Daily Kos.

Unless you have any actual information that contradicts what I have posted, this is what's called a logical fallacy.

To you maybe but to me it's a very logical assumption.

They've shown themselves to be Obama shills too many times for them to be trustworthy anymore.

I really don't need any actual proof to question their word or their motives.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But he just happened to spend millions more.

I'm really sure all of this is 100% accurate anyway.[Yeah right]

Course nobody really knows how much he spent anyway.

The NYT isn't exactly an honest broker.

They're worse then Moveon.org and the Daily Kos.

Unless you have any actual information that contradicts what I have posted, this is what's called a logical fallacy.

To you maybe but to me it's a very logical assumption.

They've shown themselves to be Obama shills too many times for them to be trustworthy anymore.

I really don't need any actual proof to question their word or their motives.

Except when you're debating someone on facts. Then you do, otherwise your argument fails.