Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

 Before I begin this is NOT a bash post for the President or anyone in office, please refrain from bashing them.

I have heard many say they were upset with the up scales parties and the millions of dollars that is spent to hold these events. These events could and maybe should be on a lesser budget to show American that are suffering that they are important and the economy is important enough to take this money they would have used and placed it back to the American people.

The economy has decreased in the last four years (average  medium income household by over $2100 a year) and poverty levels are even higher than 4 years ago.

Again without bashing, should these events be on a budget that isnt millions of dollars? Thoughts?

Join the fun at 40ish and beyond ~~

by on Jan. 22, 2013 at 6:12 AM
Replies (21-27):
by Manning Fan on Jan. 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM

 Yes, they ought to have very limited budgets. No sense in what I saw yesterday; use it for things America needs, and show us YOU are willing to sacrifice, too.

by on Jan. 22, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Totally ageee that these parties are way too lavish when the majority of Americans are just barely making it but too be fair, none of this money comes out of our pockets. Most of it comes from private donations! 

by Sue on Jan. 22, 2013 at 7:02 PM

A second term, in my opinion, does not warrant such a lavish and expensive affair. When I saw the list of celebs who made an appearance/performance I actually shook my head. Not only was I not impressed, I was appalled at how over-the-top the event truly was. In my opinion, even a first term president doesn't need this kind of bravado, and if a performer wishes to be a part of history, let them volunteer without compensation to pay homage to a politician they admire.

by Bronze sister on Jan. 22, 2013 at 7:09 PM

I'm guessing that the Secret Service costs are infintely higher for just one party in public than one party held in the White House, which could still probably be paid for by donors.  The fact that there are multiple parties multiplies the cost.  Unless the constitution's amended, he can't be re-elected for another term so he would have nothing to lose by appearing at the donor parties via closed circuit TV, alleviating a huge extra cost for protection.

Quoting badlandsgirl:

The inauguration parties are paid for by donations from contributors. Are they lavish? Yes. We pay the cost of the Secret Service to protect the President. How can we decide what the event budget should be when it is paid for by contributions?

by Sister on Jan. 22, 2013 at 7:43 PM

  I do not think millions of dollars should be spent on an inauguration. When Bush got reelected in 2005 I saw no reason for all the fanfare. That was a month after a devastating Tsunami occured in Dec 04. I felt then that the money spent on the inauguration could have gone to those poor people affected. I feel the same with Obama. Democrat or Republican, Tea Party, Liberal or Right to Life. We are all part of this great Nation known as the USA. Instead of extravagant balls and parties maybe we should use some of this money to love thy neighbor.

by Bronze sister on Jan. 22, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Actually, this was a scaled back event and there was one fewer or the balls this year. I believe this is a celebration of our democracy no matter who is in office. I LOVED watching the bands. I LOVED seeing a Supreme Court Justice with republican leanings issue the oath of office. I loved seeing leaders from both major parties and tea party representatives on the same stage. If aI nything, I think the extravaganza shows that we should have a desire to come together and I heard republican pundits last night say that they were encouraged at one of the luncheons. I don't think that having an event that was "done on a dime" would send a message to the world that we are coming back and that we have pride in our style of government. Even poor countries like North Korea have extravaganzas...

by Bronze sister on Jan. 22, 2013 at 8:04 PM

This inauguration actually cost $50 million less than the last and $15 million less than Bush's second inauguration. Given the cost of just about anything, I honestly don't know how we could have an event without the expense. THOUSANDS of people want to be there. Bands long to be invited. Think about the average cost of a small wedding. The national AVERAGE is $25K . Now, think about something of international and historic importance that involves hundreds of thousands of people and come up with a way for it to not cost millions. Historically, from the first inauguration on, this is a celebration of democracy, not just a celebration of the president and vice president. I think they did an amazing job with $50 million LESS than the last event. 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)