E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
President Barack Obama will accept unlimited corporate contributions to help finance his 2013 inauguration, a shift from 2009, when corporate funding was barred and per-person donations were capped at $50,000.
The president's inaugural committee made the decision, which was first reported by Politico, because, they said, contributions from individuals alone would not raise enough to cover the price tag of all the events.
"Our goal is to make sure that we will meet the fundraising requirements for this civic event after the most expensive presidential campaign in history," Addie Whisenant, spokesperson for the Presidential Inauguration Committee, said in a statement.
The inaugural committee in 2008 said that its ban on corporate funding, among other initiatives, would help "underscore their commitment to change business as usual in Washington."
Lobbyists and political action committees are still barred from donating, and there will be no sponsorship agreements. All corporate contributions will be vetted and the committee will not accept any from companies who accepted TARP funds and haven't paid them back yet.
The inaugural committee also notes that these are the same guidelines to which civic organizations like arts museums and the American Red Cross adhere.
Leave a Comment:
"most expensive presidential campaign in history"......."unlimited corporate contributions"......where are all the liberals bemoaning the buying of an election? and crying about eeeeeeeevil corporations and their unlimited contributions? Well, I imagine Hussein DOES need to outdo those Greek columns....but, the question is, will he reserve some money to clean up after all his adoring worshipers?
Right here...same as I said when "The 43rd President of the United States" was re-elected...we don't need all the pomp and circumstance as if it was the first inauguration.
...but I'm wondering...what are the odds that the Chief Justice f***s up the Oath of Office the second time?
If we see billboards with the names of corporations along the perimeter of the Capital park, I'm going to get upset.
Amy,
You aren't already upset that Obama is taking UNLIMITED corporate donations??
What a joke you liberals voted in again.
Well, for one thing, the Republicans can't bitch and moan about the President spending "their" money!
But we'll never match the punch line you guys voted in, huh kidding?
Relax and think of it as a stimulus. $200 million or so going to waiters, cooks, ballroom designers, stage architects and carpenters, painters, transportation, overtime for the police, street cleaners and secret service. Hotels will be booked full, taxi drivers will work non-stop, restaurants will be running at full capacity, bartenders will be handsomely tipped, the world press corps on larger than usual stipends ... I could go on and on ... confetti makers, fireworks makers, streamer makers, printers ....
Of course the "most expensive presidential campaign in history" that Oscar is so worried about only refers to spending by the Obama campaign, right? The Romney campaign never spent a dime. There were no Koch Brothers, no Sheldon Adelsons, and no Super-PAC's involved on either side. And of course if Romney had won the election, he's have just taken the oath of office in a back room somewhere and there'd be no crowd on the mall, no parade, and not a single inaugural ball.
Just like if Romney had won, he'd never take a day's vacation, would never travel abroad, would in fact retire Air Force One completely, would never host a single state dinner or any other party at the White House, and would never spend a single minute campaigning for re-election.
Give me a break.....
TO: Oscar Rules who wrote:
So you would prefer that the American People pay for the event?
That's why Republicans were labelled as being "nuts" during the election and why Republicans had Romney flip flopping all over the place, because Republicans change their mind from moment to moment.
Democrats have corporate "friends" just like Republicans do, and the only folks that labelled "rich folks" and "corporations" as being "evil" were the Republican followers.
What's all the fuss? It is a celebration of democracy, it's America's big party; the one we have every four years. It is who we are, it's tradition. It's amusing to read right-wingers disdain yet you can bet and win big that IF it was for Mitt Romney, they'd be happy as clams about it. What's that? You right-wingers think Mitt would have paid for it all himself?
As BCWC so perfectly stated...relax. It is stimulus, think of all the work for people; all funded through private donations.
Damn, these coronations are sure getting EXPENSIVE these days ..... "ooh, ooh I just cannot WAIT to be king" !
TO: JoAnne in PA who wrote:
JoAnne, you and I know that if Romney had won, every day would have been a "vacation day" for Romney because Grover Nordquist was waiting in the wings, ready to take over the Oval Office, while Romney The Puppet simply signed everything.
Forward >>>
Aint it funny how we made so much fun of Mitt Romney flip flopping! Now we can laugh when our guy does it, it really plsses off the republicans!
Jody,
EXACTLY! And to add to American Girl's comments, if Romney had won, the Koch Brothers & Adelson would probably have asked if they could take the oath with him since they tried to buy the White House for him!
No...I'm glad we taxpayers aren't paying the bill!
As an aside: the Presidential Inaugural Committee’s honorary co-chairs will be Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
good news, Supreme Court taking same sex marriage cases!
Conservatives have no problem with 0bama doing this. We are just curious about the amount of hypocrisy you liberals are able to live with in order to kiss 0bitchboy's ass.
Had a republican won and been doing this same thing there would be endless ranting about the GOP being bought and paid for by "big multinational corporations," "big oil" and "big business."
It truly is pathetic to see just how far you commies can twist your morals to accommodate your lord and savior, 0bitchboy.
TO: jim-1455434 who wrote:
Sorry, Romney didn't make it (and Romney nearly did a "John Boehner" at his consession speech), so Nordquist won't be "king".
Jody, I didn't think tradition mattered to democrats. It was tradition for nativity scenes in the public square. It was tradition for
TO: elliot-3020456 who wrote:
But Republicans DIDN'T win, so stop dreaming, and Romney and other GOP Members have been "bought and paid for by 'big multinational corporations'" but it wasn't enough to defeat the American People.
Hmmmmm...buying the presidency through a contribution to the
inaugurationcoronation fund? I wonder about this turnabout: from $50k to unlimited. Hmmmmmm...TO: Bookem' Danno who wrote:
I think you got cut off by the supreme being.
TO: Bob in KC-545426 who wrote:
Well, what about it?
Still not satisfied that American Taxpayer dollars are NOT paying for it, huh?
so...Obama has been pro-business; and businesses return the favor.
If Romney had gotten elected President, he and his family would probably still take their vacations at their place in Maine, that would cost the taxpayers tons of tax dollars. He would have his wife take her entourage to Europe at taxpayers' expense. He would be cognisant of using tax dollars and the expense to our country. Obama has NO regard for spending tax dollars and wasting them. If he did, he wouldn't be taking expensive vacations to Martha's Vineyard, or Hawaii at a time when Americans are hurting. He wouldn't have wasted tax dollars on companies like Solyndra that is now in bankruptcy.
I'm glad that corporations made all those huge profits, so they can fund this big party!!
see, they aren't so bad, are they?
JERSY GIRL - since you're making up scenarios you might as well make up good ones, right???? Mitt would have taken Ann all over the place and he, like President Obama - would be paying for all but security. See how that works dimwit?
Elliot, the level of rage and hatred that I can feel seething through your words is enough to make me hope, devoutly hope, that you have neither small children nor pets in your household. Someone who is carrying a burden of hostility like yours probably should never be left unattended around weaker creatures.
For that matter, I hope you don't own any firearms, but it's usually guys like you, who spend so much time simmering in the toxic stew of their resentment and frustration, who wind up going nuts at the local shopping mall. After all, it is too often the case that brandishing a weapon is the closest you can come to feeling like a Real Man. Paging Mr. Huberty...
And while I've got you on the horn, here: I've wanted to tell you for a long while that I think your avatar is easily the most pathetic example of grandiosity I've seen on this page to date. Oooohh, Mr. Atlas is walking off the job! Boy, that'll put the fear of
Rick SantorumGod into those pinkos! Actually, pal o' mine, the world would be greatly improved (almost instantly!) if about 90% of the Parasite Class whose ranks you so desperately wish to enter were lined up against a Wall (Street) and given a Bolshevik performance review.So, to sum up: 1. You obviously don't know Communism from a Moose Lodge social. 2. You really have no room to be calling anybody "pathetic" or "bitchboy". You are not only a loser on a personal level; you are representative of a quickly expiring class. Go crack another Busch Lite and CTFO. As your equally obnoxious (but far less volatile) Fellow Traveller, Joe in the Abyss, likes to say: "Life is good. Enjoy."
Peace!
The President needed vacations, all the other presidents took their vacations with families. Plus they all pay for their own expenses. Hell after getting Osama, he should have taken a month off.
Why does it matter? Obama hasn't honored the oath anyway.
What a ridiculous statement. You actually think that Hussein got Osama? How many Obama-phones do you have?
TO: rukidding47 who wrote:
Much better than the disaster that Republicans had in there before (Bush), and better than the airhead and warmonger Republicans nominated in 08 (Sarah "The Bimbo" Palin and Mr. Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran) and waaay better than the "Grover Nordquist Puppet" Republicans picked this time (Romney).
BCWC,
Ref #1.8
Good point, and I'd like to take that line of thinking one step further. There are many ways of looking at the concept of stimulus. Let's look at something I am familiar with, the misunderstood corporate jet. Those beautiful machines are my bread and butter and the people that own them are fickle indeed. The corporate jet is one of the first items discarded by their owners when there is but a sniff of financial trouble or instability. Recent hubub regarding depreciation schedule for jets pretty much brings forth a howl of protest from the public, why should fat cats get tax credits for their airplanes.
Here's where trickle down works - you could view favorable tax structure for jet owners as a form of stimulus. If financial conditions are favorable, Mr. Big is going to use his corporate jet. Every time Mr. Big takes off in his jet there are literally hundreds of people working to make that happen. It is easy to see the pilots but what about the army of supporting staff - mechanics, fuelers, caterers, accountants, and so on. And the manufacturers of the jet (by the way, one thing Americans do better than anyone is make the best airplanes in the world). And the companies that supply the raw materials to the manufacturers. And airports, with their restaurants, hotels, etc etc etc.
Stimulus takes many forms.
Back to topic at hand - I have no problem with Mr. Obama throwing a party with private money! I'd like to be there, I think a presidential inauguration would be a fine experience.
Elliot, great post, too bad it falls on absolutely deaf ears. That's the thing about hypocrites, they never get it.
This has to be one of the most stupid argument around. Stop making ignorant comments about Republicans or Democrats. Whether you agree with who was elected or not, we all must agree that we are blessed to live in a country where we can peacefully select our leaders. This is a celebration of that fact. Can you imagine living in Cuba, China, Syria, etc.?
TO: Colorado-Man who wrote:
Well, we know for sure Bush didn't get Bin Laden. Democrats don't let the bad guys get away.
Bush sent Black Hawk helicopters into Tora Bora to rescue Bin Laden, not to neutralize him.
In fact, Bush condemned Bill Clinton for admitting that Clinton "did more than anybody else" at that time to kill Bin Laden, but Bush went against Clinton and instead Bush defended Bin Laden as being a "religious figure" and accused Bill Clinton of "planning an assassination".
Mr. Obama does not mind if big business spends money on him. Hell he does not mind if all the taxpayers and all of the taxpaye's children and grandchildren spend money on him. Just do some investigation and see how much money We The People spend on Obama and his family. It is a stagering amount. I think one place that we can cut the budget on is on the spending on the presidents family and all their white house staff and travel. After all everyone should share in the sacrifice right?
TO: JERSY GIRL 1 who wrote:
Republicans are just mad because they know if Bush leaves the United States, he'll be arrested for war crimes. Same with Cheney.
President Obama can go anywhere in the world that he wants to go, but I have not ever seen President Obama abuse the privilege. All I hear is a bunch of unreasonble complaining coming from Republicans who are no doubt green with envy, and wrecked with jealousy.
rmoonrock - your name is apt. We spend no more on President Obama and his family than we have on other Presidents. So, your point is?????
Mr seekingsanity, do some homework. We have spent way more on Mr. Obama than other presidents. Besides he says that those that have money should sacrifice more (pay more taxes) so let Mr. Obama take the lead and show us how he will sacrifice for the good of this country.
rmoonrock - you're a liar. We spend the same amout - actually less so far during the same time period - on the Obama's than on the Bush's. NOW you want sacrifice - that's almost funny considering how Bush poured money down the drain!
If this guy had one percent as much talent as ego, our minimum standard of living would exceed that of the top one percent of Monaco. Dude, you've barely earned reelection. (Barely achieved reelection). What makes you think you deserve such pomp and wastefulness to celebrate your continued fumblings. Spending money is not a talent. Any New Jersey housewife could be president were that the case. An executive must use the resources at hand to establish the task at hand. Stop the insanity.
Jody....a celebration of democracy???? Is that what you think America is? You need an economics and/or history lesson....most of you probably do. We are a REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY! Theres a huge difference! That's why America is crumbling....we are turning away from our roots, our ideology and what our forefathers wanted for us. We are ruining it ourselves. In the words of Ben Franklin: "We have given you a republic.....if you can keep it". There is a reason for this. You dems need to learn the rules.
Robin - wow - what a whiney looser! You and OhTenn should go and have lost of WHINE this weekend. You are pathetic Republicans who can't accept your head was handed to you by the President and his supporters!
OhTenn - the rules are that the winners take office - see how that works!
Absolutely Eliot! The hyprocrisy is undeniable on the left! *IF* you were to replace Romney for Obama in that article and this whole board would be up in arms about how they've been bought and paid for... Now you see that Obama is doing the EXACT same thing and you get comments like..."well...at least we aren't paying for it...", "Democats have corporate "friends" too..."
American,
Just so you know, the left was the one screaming how those "evil" corporations weren't paying their fair share of taxes...now that they have footed the bill, well...now I guess in your eyes they just aren't evil anymore...
JK1963 - another sorry loser heard from. Wow you guys are truly pathetic!
OhTenn,
We have what is known as a democratic republic. Now I know the mere thought of the word democracy or democratic is distasteful to right wing extremist Fascist wannabes but we do have a democratic republic. Rome was a republic, the Soviet Union was a republic and Communist China is "The People's REPUBLIC of China but none of these are or wer democracies. They did not have elections between opposing parties, in some cases ordinary people were not able to express their opinon on leadership. Someone was appointed by the ruler or a committee who answers to the ruler to represent a given area of the country. In a democracy as ours we elect those who represent us. We have a say in who is and is not representing us and if they screw up we can have them removed from office. Pure democracy works in small communities but in governing entire countries or states it is best to have a democratic republic. We do.
Seeking...
You are beyond words with being pathetic...Your responses speaks VOLUMES about your character...needless to say, you have much "seeking" to do... Good luck with your journey to reality...
Obama spent just under one billion dollars 4 years ago to get elected and about the same this year.. 4 years ago the GOP made a greivous error and only spend about 500 million on the campaign.. Everyone knows that was the most critical error.. Obama has spent 2 billion dollars to get and keep the office. More than anyone in history. He spent 93 million last time on the inauguration.. why not push for 200 million this time.. after all you guys voted in a president that will bring forth unprecedented spending, why wait to get started REALLY showing the U.S. how much he can spend? If he gets the power to lift the borrowing cap without approval, he might be able to top 4 trillion before this term is over..
TO: rmoonrock who wrote:
Well he didn't exclude himself from paying taxes like Romney does.
TO: JK1963 who wrote:
Republicans are the only ones who called "corporations" and rich folks "evil", and you still are.
Democrats have only, and still only say that it's time to stop giving mega-billionaire corporations and the Top 2% wealthiest Americans free rides.
I don't see the comparison... Absolutely NO corporate or private entity spent a penny celebrating a win for Romney... They just held him out at arms length on a stick, plugging their nostrils with their free hand and saying over and over "look at him, he's white!"... And then they all lost their hundreds of millions that hardly dented them and went home. No after-party for losers.
JK- as I often say, seeking sanity in the Republican party but as you and others like jim, OhTenn, rmoonrock, taterboy, etc prove daily - there is absolutely no sanity or intelligence to be found in the Republican party - just a bunch of pathetic, sore losers!
TO: Colorado-Man who wrote:
Oh come on, Republicans are the ones who praise Grover Nordquist while they ignore their oath to protect America and the American People from folks who are just like Grover Nordquist -- trying to take over our government with bribes and thugery by paying off GOP political leaders.
TO: DaveK-1110204 who wrote:
"Greivous [sic] error"? Republicans couldn't stand John McCain and forced him to take public funds.
Seeking,
If you are intent on calling us names, then perhaps you should look at your own pathetic life. You sit here day after day belittling others that hold a different opinion than yourself in the vain attempt to make yourself feel you have have self-worth. You are in reality an insecure person that gets their enjoyment from insulting others. You are no different than the bully on the playground in grade school. I do feel sorry for you that you probably stay at home alone wondering why you don't have friends.
American,
Free rides? How about all those on the left that like to bash WalMart? And while you are at it, I hope you don't own any Apple products, because that "evil" company manufacturers it's product overseas and goes out of it's way not to pay federal and state taxes.
Oh America, you are sick, so sick, it stinks. Take that clown in a dimly lit room, read the required BS, and get it done with. It's shameful enough to have this joker for the next four years. And now he wants the money from the big boys. What a piece of sh.t.
Why bother spending ANYTHING? Just have him raise his hand & make the same claims that he didn't keep the last time.......
What's the big surprise?
He doesn't have to get elected again so there's no need to pretend he's not a a corrupt corporate stooge.
When are people going to learn: The Democrats are stealth Republicans.
http://www.dropshots.com/OldCrow2#date/2012-12-06/21:04:34
I am becoming more convinced that Obama used the left.
He will deliver the big three for savage cuts, in exchange for raising tax rates on the top 2% this December, to 39.6%, claiming a victory for Democrats. After the bargained entitlement cuts in the spring of 2013, he will work with Republicans in the fall of 2013, to cut the top 2% income tax rates to under 35%. All in time for the 2014 mid-term elections.
He knew he had the Left over a barrel running against Romney. Now he doesn't need the Left anymore. What a shyster!
the only folks that labelled "rich folks" and "corporations" as being "evil" were the Republican followers.
...
You are one confusing bitch. I could have sworn it was you libs that hated corporations... or was that only yesterday? It's tough keeping up with the liberal lies.
Grover Nordquist -- trying to take over our government with bribes and thugery by paying off GOP political leaders.
Kinda like Soros?
Go get your @!$%#ing welfare check.
As long as its from your bank account cap-sap! Ha! I like going through your wallet every day and taking what belongs to the me. And there isn't a thing you can do to stop it Clyde!
I can't believe I hear "people" claiming at least we, being taxpayers, aren't paying the bill. Where is the common sense. Obviously people who "work" for the companies who are not required to have a spending limits might just disagree. I am neither a "Repub or a Dem or teawhatever" They ALL have flawed ideas and they all have some good things about their party.
NOW...people who work for the COMPANIES that are paying anything they want are indeed footing the bill...no matter who they voted for. Their should be a limit on spending (I know it seems to be news to the Obama of Late because that last time he wanted less spending done on him.) But as the saying goes; no matter who took the presidency, I really don't care at this point I ONLY care about this COUNTRY (USA) we live in, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!" Just look at Egypt, Syria, Iran, China; never mind I can go on forever. I can tell all the posters on this board, no matter what political party you are, I HOPE with all my heart that we all believe that the constitution we hold dear doesn't die - It does start with "We the People" - That does include everybody in the US. That is my only hope! I wish you all a happy holiday and hope things go well in the new year!
What does it matter? Obama has already shown us that he can't keep a promise anyway... whether the promise is made with his hand on a bible or merely a campaign promise... it's just words to Barry, nothing more. A means to an end...!
"What a joke you liberals voted in again."
Who cares who pays for it. It should cost barely anything to inaugurate a president when we're standing on the edge of the cliff. Oh, that's right - gotta beat that chest at any cost!
JK, Pathetic Character is your journey to reality !!!!!!!!!!!!
Why should the Obama inauguration be any different then his presidency, spare no expense. Other lines work as well. Who cares what we say about you in the press, open your damn wallets. Do you take Visa, MasterCard, or American Express? Call China, tell them we need another trillion. Just tell them someone else will be paying for it and they will vote for you. If we all just stick to the same story everything will be fine. You tell them we will let them know what they are going to print. Camp David? I am not going to slum it as president. Do you take Visa, MasterCard, or American Express?
Oscar Rules! Exactly.
The coronation of the Tin Horned Dictator! All Hail His Majesty Obama!
His next endeavor is to ask Congress For the Full Unlimited Power of the Purse!Of the course the Congress, being the Sniveling Cowards that they, are will go right along with it!
Watch as all The Kool Aid Crazed Obama Subjects get upset,and defend their Criminal King,and Official Tin Horned Criminal Dictator!
So as the Sun Sets on what was once the Free United States of America,with a Heavy Heart,I Bid IT Adieu!
Barb, Ironically it will be the 47%ers (the people who voted for him) who will suffer the most with a second Obama term!
Oscar, honey don't be so bitter.......It's good for the economy and isn't costing you a dime. Mittens lost the election; just accept it and move on.
Obama's desire for another gaudy coronation speaks volumns about a guy who is incapable of controlling his wild spending! The next four years will be no different!
Allowing unlimited contributions from corporations is nothing more than legal bribery! Those that don't throw money at him will pay for their lack of loyalty down the road......
What a pathetic POS, America must throw an overinflated Party for the Dick-Tater.Let them Eat Cake Obamination Says!
Hey Ster2 very catchy,nice work! You're post is better than mine!
Dear Mr. President - SHAME ON YOU.....
Thankx somewhereintheUSA!
Sadly it wasn't hard to state the obvious,it's even more sad there are so many still wearing the Obama goggles,however to a few of them here,it appears they may be waking up a little bit to this Obamination in office.
Oscar Rules,
I'm a liberal and I completely agree with you that the money in politics is disgusting. I thnk we all can agree on that. In order to get it out, though, we all need to band together and be a little more civil so the people can unite in order to get things done. Right now we're divided and conquered by greedy politicians, their media minions, and 'ol fashion human belligerence. So how about you start my not using the guy I voted for's middle name in a derogatory fashion? All the politicians have their hands in pockets, I know that, but it's still the guy I voted for.
I am a little confused. They will not take donations from lobbyists, but will take them from the corporations that the lobbyists work for? Interesting says me.
Oh, and by the way, if the President was so concerned about our debt, why aren't all the donations going towards it.
LOL LOL LOL......flash forward to 2012.
Wait a minute.....that is what Mr. Obama said he was going to do during the 2008 Presidential campaign.
No coronation please.
Not nearly as big as the joke conservatives voted in for a second term. But, then again, I hope never to see that big a joke again! One Great Depression every century is enough!
He's already been elected. Try again..
I wish PSY will hang around for the inauguration and perform - Gangnam Style!!!
Really? Won using Karl Marx prescribed techniques!
Barb
It's more incestuous than that. Obama uses the left, just as Left is using Obama.
I'm glad Romney didn't win using Satan's techniques. I choose the lesser of the two main evils.
@ Barb Bennett
On Monday, the Progressive Coalition plans a "Fiscal Cliff Day of Action". They expect thousands of people in hundreds of cities to stand up and make their voice heard. The objective for Monday is “telling Democrats that they need to make sure in this negotiation that there are no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. The Coalition will be calling on their members of Congress to do the right thing and protect vital services, protect the middle class.
President Obama needs to meet with the Progressive Coalition in the White House, instead of Mitt Romney and business CEOs. What a disgrace. After they worked so hard for him in the election. Meet with progressives this week and reassure them that the big three are off the table. Bernie Sanders for President!
In light of the economy getting ready over the fiscal cliff, why doesn't he cancel the pomp and circumstance with the huge price tag no one can afford?
Since only the "rich that have all the money" didnt vote for him...he wants the poor to donate?
Didn't they waste enough money getting him elected, now he has to gloat too?
I do hope they publish the names of the donor companies so we can see how they are paid back
Bitch, bitch, bitch....that's all you'll do...
Hey Mr. President, good job, un-employment down, gasoline prices down, and you haven't even started your second term yet. Keep up the good work Mr. President, but remember, the "Obstructionist 13," from January, 2009, are still active and will continue their attempt to derail your Presidency, with Boehner at the helm!
You mean a list like this?
I say do like the gays do take him down to the local court house and swear him in it's not like anything is going to change once a ----- always a -----.
Cant wait for the cliff bring it on.
I say tax the rich and tax the poor.
What a hypocrite here he is trying to raise tax on the corporation and at the same time asking the corporation to give unlimited amount of money to cover for his inauguration expense. Mr Obama is there something you not telling us? I can not be friend with my enemy and drink from the same cup and yet you are doing just that.
Mosh,
Two things...you mean PSY the guy that has that Anti-American song?? You mean that one? Perhaps we should also invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also?? I mean why don't we make it one big Anti-American party?
Second,
While I don't bemoan Obama for taking corporate donations, it's the hypocrisy from the left that bitches about the right and corporation, but then sees not one problem with doing the same thing. That is what pisses people off...
Billion dollar campaigns, 'unlimited' funding for an inauguration... disgusting, excessive, gluttonous behavior in a day & age of lack, unemployment and an unprecedented national debt. Setting a great example for our youth. For shame.
The ranting wouldn't have anything to do with the party Romney would have thrown.
The ranting is, has been, and always will be because the republcans are bought and paid for by "big multinational corporations", "big oil" and "big business".
How can the headline speak of "unlimited" corporation contributions; when, in the article, the last paragraphs list the limits?
I'm just waiting on the day when the right hand will be placed on a copy of the latest earnings report and the Chief Justice is holding a double mocha latte, brand name out of course.
We're Broke remember? Better their money than ours!
There is still indirect costs to taxpayers, this idea will just differ most the cost.
Don't count on it SandieLove, our contribution will be significant.... Obama's narcissism precludes considering anyone else's concerns... this is all about him, not you or me, or anyone else for that matter!
Hey Reptards,
Consider this as inauguration tax on corporations. They are getting used to it. So should you.
Having said that - i don't really know what's the point of second inauguration at all - i mean the whole big ceremony behind it? Obama should do away with this tradition. And may be get inaugurated by the junior most justice on SCOTUS. I am sure she won't f---- up the inauguration oath like Roberts did.
PJ said "Reptards" because he is funny. Not partisan, though, just enlightened.
Surprise....no mention of "racism", just "Reptards". PJ is slipping.
@nawtark / Ido - yous brothers from another mothers or what?
Not that I know of... and I don't think you are slipping... that Reptards thing is HILARIOUS!!! Man... shine on you crazy diamond.
It's funny because Republicans starts with a "Rep" and retards, a terribly un-p.c. word unfortunately, ends with "tards". So, if you combine the "Rep" and the "Tards" it's like calling all Republicans retards! Amazing stuff!
It is not what Robin Hood took from the rich that was really important, what mattered is what he gave to the poor.
Well then going by that you probably were not fond of following exclusive terminologies by GW
1. Decider
2. Greecians
3. Eye-raq
4. Misunderestimation
5. Hanukkah
PJ-
Who is GW? George Washington? Oh, you mean George W. Bush! That guy who used to be president. You must really like him. You seem to talk about him A LOT! I have never seen anyone make fun of his malapropisms before, though. You are even funnier because you are original!
LoL! You must be stuck in the past a lot. George Washington! LoL!
Oh, that's right... George W. Bush and Cheney are the current President and Vice President! Oh, shoot... they aren't. Damn... and every time you mention them I think you are being current and relevant. Well, I still think you are SO funny and SO non-partisan. You know what would be SO funny? Make fun of William Taft for being fat! He was a Republican!
LoL! Somebody's raw nerve is hit now. if you are so sensitive to criticism then here is an antidote - leave GOP tent. Am I partisan - well ... dems happen to be on the right side of history on most issues. So if me supporting the right issues make me partisan then so be it. GOP can't stand so wrong on so many issues and be a viable party. Just my 2 cents..
Too funny... I am not a Republican... nor did I vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004. I do think it is funny that you are generally blinded by partisanship on many of your statements. I believe that is a problem from the voting public to the politicians. So... keep shouting and not listening and bang your drum. You have a doctrine to support! ;)
Raw nerves... nah. Pretty funny you stayed on partisan topic, though. ;)
So when you are you going to actually refute an argument or make an argument? Or does commenting on comments is your idea of being non-partisan.
nawtark
we can't forget bush. the dems keep blaming/ comparing obama to him on eveything. and we did not have an economy in dire straits when bush was potus. if the economy were the same when bush was potus we really don't know what would have happened now do we. it doesn't matter who or why we are in trouble but how it is fixed.
PJ-
I have made an argument. I have argued that you are blindly partisan. Without alluding to any political affiliation you have labelled me a Republican, brought George W. Bush negatively into the conversation, and explained to me how Republicans are wrong almost entirely.
I would contend that there are aspects of many of these issues where the Republicans have valuable things to say and dismissing them in a sweeping ideological manner does not help the discussion. Concerns raised by many Republicans about the effects of Obamacare, the solvency of social security, and the messy foreign situations we are dealing with are not just opposing lip service but real issues that need to be at least considered.
The real issue I have with it, though, is current politicians aren't as interested in the welfare of their country as they are their party and their agenda. This is echoed by their followers. By blindly raging against G.W. Bush as the great evil and extolling President Obama's endless virtues, a binary comparison is naturally set that does not allow for positive criticism of the current President and the current issues we have on hand.
The world is not black and white. It is full of issues that are neither exclusively right or exclusively wrong. The stupid comments beginning "Reptards", "Obummer", "Republican'ts", "Dumbocrats", etc. only further the binary and polarized divides.
So, in a more direct response to your question- I have made an argument, through a microcosm of your comments, that a greater dialogue than name calling and backwards looking comparisons are essential to moving forward for the good of the nation as a whole. While gamesmanship and prodding competitiveness is a reality in politics, when the endgame is only one side winning, we all lose.
Now that is what I am talking about Okie58.
@nawtark, I think now you are making an argument. All I saw in your previous posts was personal attack.
You named quite a few things - as serious problems facing the country. And I agree with some and may not necessarily agree with others. But the key point you raised is - the partisan politics. I wouldn't disagree but I blame republicans for that. I think that republicans have gone so far to the right that even center is looking like left to them. All I see republicans focusing on is issues that really divide the country - i.e. gay marriage or abortion. Where is the focus on things that Ron Paul - one of their own - wants to be i.e. fiscal conservatism rather than social conservatism - civil liberties at home rather than wars outside. Their agenda includes : cut taxes, increase war spending, help big corporations and drum up religion.
I know and understand politicians are all the same - whichever party. But focus of democrats looks much better to me - middle class economics, education, nation building at home, equal rights, immigration. i think that the contrast is so stark that i wouldn't be ashamed to be called a partisan democrat. In fact I am proud of it. Now that's one thing we probably agree on.
p.s. - I do not not see the virtues on republican side. Trust me - I do think that they absolutely have quite a few things. But I think the whole party has moved so much to right that they themselves don't quite remember what truly they stand for.
PJ-
lol... I am flattered that you think I am making an argument. Your approval is heartwarming. ;)
You blame the Republicans for partisan politics. Clearly there are worse partisan people than you that are Republicans that post here. Hell, there are worse Democrats as well. I would say that feeling that it is the Republicans fault is indicative of the problem. Who the hell cares who's fault it is. The Democratic Party clearly has the upper hand in driving policy right now and antagonizing the other side instead of dealing with them and not bothering to understand opposing views is imprudent and short sighted. I, for myself, find fault in supporting the Democrats as currently they are the lesser of two evils and neither party is producing the necessary or best solutions.
Ron Paul (yep, you got it, I have found myself in his corner more often than not) is not a Republican. He has stated that he ran as a Republican out of necessity to circumvent a largely unfair system that precludes a third party, let alone a full dialogue of ideas, from being considered. He has been quoted as saying so as recently as last week on NPR. I do not fall squarely with him on a fair amount of issues but his sincerity in what he means from what he says is astounding for a politician and if we as an electorate could learn to respect that and not vilify opposing ideas, we might get a new more effective brand of politician.
I do not begrudge you for supporting the Democratic party nor believing as they do. It is your right and am glad that you have something to say. I can agree that the Republican party as a whole made a terrible move in endorsing a Carl Rove model in this political landscape and they are paying for it. Yet, in saying that, to dismiss them with name calling is stuff for the ignorant. Let the regulars with less intellectual prowess venture down that road. You have had interesting comments, many after throwing in a ridiculous and sometimes vitriolic barb. Leave that sort of stuff to people like Starsailing or Feisty who have nothing better to say and I will be thrilled to hear your point of view. But when knee-jerk reactions to comments lead to name calling or comparisons that aren't relevant, you are no longer critically thinking but jumping on partisan ship. Honest dialogue and less partisanship may actually have trickle up effects.
Fun little dialogue we have had. I understand where you come from and hopefully I have conveyed where I come from. I can't say that I won't disagree with you down the road, as I am sure I will on something, but I hope when we do it will be a fruitful discussion. I will, however, most certainly call you out for assumptions and name calling as it has now become a hobby of mine . ;)
p.s. - I do not see a ton of virtues on the Republican side either but there are some, In giving full credence to one party the government will shift so definitively in one direction that it will shift too far. This was true during Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama. Even some of the Republican's overbearing social issues have some sort of merit to temper policy from becoming the ridiculous extreme in the other direction.
@nawtark, namecalling has its own benefits. One can't argue intellectually with everyone - neither one can resort to namecalling all the time. So lets leave it at that. But the nature of polity is such that any politician regardless of platform will try to exploit the differences of opinions in the society. Now, true leaders are made up of something else - their sights are so far beyond onto the promise of tomorrow that they can rise above these things. In fact that is true about leaders in all fields. But then the fact that there are so few of them - makes them special. But the politics as we know is going to be like this forever - as far as partisanship is concerned. I would be more worried about places where people don't have freedom to be partisan. Those places are far more dangerous than places that allow partisanship. (And by the way your point well noted about partisanship not being equal to namecalling). One more reason I am ok with partisanship is because I fundamentally believe that human spirit (or soul as I like to call it) is divine. (And I absolutely don't imply any religious connotations there). Humans fundamentally have a great sense of right vs wrong. They don't need any book or flashlight to tell them that. A quiet moment is all they need - lets say most of them. But hey ... now we are venturing in Deepak Chopra territory ;)
A few stray comments -
1. Ron Paul - i absolutely love. Agree about his audacity of speaking his mind for a politician. I am quite disappointed in his son though. But Son's virtues or lack thereof shouldn't reflect on father.
2. Need to temper policy - agree. But probably there is way to go. But I can see the point.
3. Republicans shift to Carl Rove model - My sense is they have been hijacked by gun and bible slowly since early 70s. Carl Rove probably only added his own color to the model of intolerance or intransigence. Personally speaking I am really passionate about 3 things: Civil liberties, Fiscal Conservatism & Equal Opportunity. If republicans go back to their libertarian roots - I should be more with them rather than democrats! Funny but true. The role of government is really a function to balance these three things.
I will look forward to you calling me out on name calling !! It's not as bad being called out by you.
Yes, this is the hypocrite who helped get our unemployment rate in the 7's, saved our manufacturing industry and is poised to get us securely back on the road to fiscal health.
I don't like unlimited corporate contributions, and I think the President should explicitly state that there will be no quid pro quo for anyone who contributes. But given the level of hypocrisy I see among Republicans, I can live with this.
Maybe you didn't read the unemployment report closely enough, but the reason that unemployment is 7.7% is because there are FEWER people seeking work. When the pool looking for work shrinks, so does the unemployment number. It was not a positive gain other than it being a lower number.
So now, with less people working and/or in the work force, how are we on the road to fiscal health? Is that achieved by planning on spending 3.2 trillion more in the next 10 years while raising taxes to collect 1.6 trillion more (meaning taking an additional 1.6 out of the economy)?
So, fewer people seeking work is a bad thing?
That's funny, Danno, because when the October jobs report showed an uptick in the unemployment rate because more people re-entered the jobs (read: MORE PEOPLE SEEKING WORK) the GOP didn't want to hear about it.
Bookem', seriously, there is a point when the pool of workers is smaller simply because the others have found work. That is how and why the number drops more steadily the further the distance we are from the Great Recession.
There are less people in the workforce and more on S.S. Security and dying....
Its called the baby-boom for a reason...
As they retire and we only have 2 kids instead of six there will be less in the workforce as a percentage..
We knew this was coming in the 70's and 80's....You GOPers don't because Fox didn't tell you and facts and math are liberal bias...
And for the last freakin' time a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut for the top 2% doesn't put money in the economy it puts it in the Caymans and Switzerland...
So therefore it in NOT taking 1.6 trillion out of the economy like you said....You know who I am talking to...
No, there are fewer people being counted because they gave up looking for work. Is this more clear now?
Jody, the NBC News article I read stated the numbers in the workforce are now lower too. It doesn't state the number is lower solely because of an explosion in hiring.
Bookem' Danno
No, there are fewer people being counted because they gave up looking for work.
Hey Danno....did these same people decide to give up eating too???? This "gave up looking line" never made sense to me. NO ONE WHO WAS REALLY LOOKING GIVES UP LOOKING! It is a nonsensical (sp) statement.
Watching the reaction of the right-wing to the publication of the monthly jobs report is certainly amusing. One minute, it is the holy grail of how awful the economy is doing, then the next month, it is a completely fictitious report with meaningless numbers, and then the next month it is a report produced for political gain. Why, even BookemDano claims all three scenarios are true with this months jobs reports. One thing we can count on is consistency from the right-wing. Regardless of the numbers, the jobs report is BAD.
CC - maybe you don't see the correlation between the fact that more people than ever before are on food stamps and the workforce has shrunk. Those who gave up are dependent upon government more and more.
The Republicans whine about Obama and his family going to Hawaii. It is his money can't he spend it like he wants? The only thing we pay for is what we would be paying for with any president which would be transportation which he would have no matter where he goes and secret service protection which he has no matter where he goes. He is on duty 24/7 and the Airforce one plane is like his mobile office where he can do anything he can do in the White House. All modern presidents have gone on trips, some business and some pleasure using the Airforce one planes. To single out Obama shows a blatant hatred for him just because.
Spare us all the BS danno. I dare you to find us just 2 specific examples of those on food stamps and welfare that are able to "live large" like you so ignorantly claim.
TO: Bookem' Danno who wrote:
Republicans have been hoping for bad news every single day. It's sickening to hear folks who call themselves "American" to continue to predict America's and the American People's demise.
The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency then to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is after all, merely a fool. it is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.
Actually we've reached the point under Obama that the money an average family receiving welfare benefits now exceeds that of the median income of a family that works and receives NO benefits! how ironic is that!
Obama has succeed in making it better to be on welfare than to work! His goal of increasing dependency on big government is working... unfortunately America can't afford to keep doing that!
"Watching the reaction of the right-wing to the publication of the monthly jobs report is certainly amusing."
Watching the reaction of the right-wing to any kind of good news or anything remotely positive at all is sad rather than amusing. The right wing HATES anything positive. The want the US to fail.
Poor whiney-assed little Republicans/Tea Party types. They are on the corporate dole year round, wo what's the problem?? This is what the problem? Guess the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling is still blowing up in your Republican, Tea Party right wing faces, eh?
Obama will 'accept unlimited corporate funds', this is just another way of saying purchasing his influence now has a price! Or put another way, Barry is saying... "look how my friend George Soros benefitted from helping me in my first term! Who else wants a piece of the pie in my second and last term?"
Best politicians money can buy.!!
There is probably enough campaign funds left over he could pay for his own party. But why bother when your surrounded by groveling suckers.
I can't wait for the Party for the real King,and he throws all these Evil Bastards in the lake of fire,Then Obama can join his real father.
Elliot. We can take all of the Hypocrisy that you can dish out. I see that you actually realize that Obama is the President of the United States. I know that it just kills your soul. I hope that Obama gets another Billion Dollars for his party. I just love to hear you Republicans squeal like little Pigs. You are pitiful.
Adler 273784 Owebama's 2012 campaign was that we needed to break away from the old ways that brought America to this debt we have now. Keep in mind this guy doubled the American debt in his 1st term.
Why not take the entourage on a tax payer funded Hawaiian (money is no object) 20 day vacation. America is only 16 & a half trillion dollars in debt. No worries.!!
No other president has taken this country to this kind of debt. The blind followers will lay blame on anything and everything, instead this prince of fools.
I've said it before...as other small business owners have been saying, and it's not really hard to understand. There ARE indeed fewer prospects out there, but MANY prospective employees have said (to me, personally) that they would rather keep getting their unemployment checks and sit at home, rather than work. Other owners are getting the same thing. Years ago we'd have people beating down our door for a job, and we had applications up the kazoo. Now? A fraction of that. I hope you enjoy who you got as your guy, because if this trend continues (sit at home on unemployment rather than work for a living) we're screwed.
But hey, you can always blame it on Bush and keep telling us how much you hate Romney because he's rich.
charlie
no its obama that wants america to fail. if america fails the obamas and soros of the left think it can be rebuilt as a socialist country.that way they can then go for full blown communism. who do you think backs the dem party? I think most commentors on here really don't know the background of obama other than what msm puts out. I wish they would do some real checking and not believe what msm puts out but they don't want to know or are not able to research so its easier to listen to what they are told.
The highly profitable GE (among many others) says thank you Mr. President for allowing them to continue to avoid paying taxes. And PS: Enjoy your tax payer funded vacation to Hawaii.
The taxpayers can not paying for his trip! What kind of fools do you think that "the taxpayers" are?
Taterhead - as has been explained OVER AND OVER - all Presidents pay for their own vacations - always have. We pay for their security - always have. Got it now dummy?
From the Hawaii Reporter:
"With the staff, special forces, local police presence and equipment, the President's visit adds up annually to at least a $4 million vacation courtesy of the Hawaii and federal taxpayers."
Tater don't get it.......The President pays for the vacation....The taxpayers pay for the police and stuff(Stuff being the aforementioned special forces, staff and equipment)
How much clearer can it be for you....The biased people that feed the crap into your brain makes you read that as the president gets a taxpayer funded vacation....I read it the taxpayers pay to protect the guy we elected from death even while on vacation because that is important...
LOL, especially with Biden waiting in the wings !!
;-)
What does he pay for then? Airfare? No. Lodging? No. And I doubt he stands in line at Hertz waiting for a rental car. And food? Maybe a few bucks for a shaved ice and a puka dog.
Please explain what he pays out of his pocket for this trip. And what price do the locals pay for the tremendous interruption to their lives while he and his entourage bask in the tropical sun?
And please feel free to comment on my first sentence instead of obsessing over my PS.
Taterhead - he DOES pay for his family's loding, meals, etc. Anything they buy in Hawaii he pays for. This is the way it has been for ALL President's - nothing new here. Did you whine when Bush took all of his vacations?? Or Regan??? Or Bush I?????? my guess is no! Get a life you pathetic boy!
So TaterBoy, you're saying the Pres should NOT get a vacation in 8 years? How would you like your employer to tell you no vacations for 8 years? I bet you wouldn't take kindly to that! Maybe it wouldn't be so expensive if we didn't have fear for the life of the President by nutjobs!
What so hateful, SS? Weren't you loved as a child? And The President does not pay for his lodging. Look it up. So once again my dim-witted troll, what does he actually pay for? Meals?
Blue: All I want is for the President to pay his fair share.
I think the POTUS pays for food and lodging which pales in comparison to transportation. In the end the taxpayers cover most of the tab.
Taterhead - yes he DOES pay for his food, lodging and anything he buys. Try going somewhere other than rightwing lying websites for actual facts.
I was and am very loved. Clearly you weren't and still are missing that as an adult. I'm assuming you're an adult - that could be the problem!
According to published reports in the Hawaii newspapers:
The Hawaii Reporter states that the Obamas are not staying at the "Winter White House" (check out video of it here) this year and instead have rented and paid for their own accommodations in the form of a beach front rental on Kailua
So, taterhead, you had to read that and you CHOSE to post an absolute lie!
Too bad Obama is walking away from the fiscal cliff ... looks like he doesn't want a resolution !
A REAL leader who have a special session of Congress, hold them together until a compromise is reached ... and THEN, only then .... go away on vacation !
But then again, Obama has never been a real leader in anything other than class warfare !
Tater boy you are as smart as the average potato. President Obama, as with all other presidents, pays for everything, lodging, unless staying with a friend or a place donated for the purpose by a family member or friend. He pays for any rental car if needed but for security reasons the secret service isn't going to let him rent a car. No matter how much he might like to rent a car it can't be done due to security reasones. Romney would have had it the exact same way. So stick a fork in Mr Taterboy, break him open throw in some sour cream, a little butter, chives and bacon bits as that's all he's good for. enjoy.
Lil Michelle is just a little confused I think... bet she's getting max welfare benefits as well, lol! The Obama's spent almost $1.5 billion on their vacations first term and we paid for it NOT THEM! Part of that expense was that Barry and Michelle took seperate planes, doubling the travel costs! And remember when they flew their dog Bo out to them in Hawaii... he was the sole passenger on that 6000+ mile trip!! Wonder if he flew 1st Class?
Yep! And ol' Romney was gonna fix that right up, wasn't he? Well, let's see... with all this talk from Republicans about tax reform, how much of it involves fixing the breaks that companies use to avoid taxes by moving profits overseas? Exactly... NONE!
Just shows that members of both parties no matter what rhetoric they used are nothing more than corporate whores. I wonder if they charge by the hour?
Winner, most correct post of the day!
Tater Boy is certainly a tot, and a bratty one at that. Why is anyone against the president taking an earned and entitled vacation. Ah, now I see, the right wingers hate earned entitlements, things like vacations, pensions, social security, medicare.
RedDev - I believe tatet tot is Mitt - just sayin....
Say, Lil Michelle?
I don't know Courtney Love personally, but I do live in her home state, and am a huge fan of her music.
I can't help thinking that if she finds out that you're trolling under her picture, she'd more than likely drop 'round your place- stone sober!- and give you an ***- whuppin' that would make Desert Storm look like an ice-cream social.
Just a friendly word to the wise... or to you, anyway.
Fox, thank you. That bothered me as well.
Happy weekend! :)
Fox and Layton,
So still bullies just like in school?Or something you just picked up by watching the other Bullies on here? Do you make fun of everyone who disagrees with you? Courtney Love? even with plastic surgery and air brushing she wouldn't look like Lil Michelle,Your so pathetic and sad to attack someone's face,at least she doesn't act like babies when it's pointed out AGAIN that Dick-tater Obama has once fooled his flock,at some point you too may wake up and see what he is doing.
You may have heard that Hostess Bakery has shut down thanks to obamacare and other onerous o'bama policies.
But you haven't heard how it will be split up...
The State Dept. hired all the Twinkies
The Secret Service hired all the HoHo's
Our Generals are sleeping with the Cupcakes
and the voters sent the Ding Dongs back to the White House!
The taxpayers get the shaft!
Wow, ster! Did you sit up all night thinking up that post? It resonates with the complete utter stupidity one would expect from a trolling poster.
Ster2, most of us ignore old lady Layton's bitter rants...and so should you. For some reason her mean spirited attacks on those who don't care for the Kenyan are ignored by the moderators here at libbieville, aka First Read. Only conservative posts are punished... kind of like the communist purges of the Cold War.
Anyone remember the specifics about who donated how much for the inaugurals in 2001 or 2005 or any of the years prior? Thought not. Unless First Read had put this information up, I seriously doubt anyone would recall how it was paid for in 2009.
We do need to remember that in 2009 the full impact of the Bush 43 economic collapse had yet to hit most people. We're still recovering and I, for one, want this inauguration to be close to or as grand as the 2009 one. It is history as well, we re-elected the first African American President. We are celebrating democracy; and we are celebrating President Obama's win despite the GOPTP obstruction, lies, and disrespectful treatment and comments. President Obama was re-elected by a majority of the people who still believe that all things are possible. It didn't matter who donated the money for 2009 any more than it matters who donates it this time; and it doesn't matter who donated it for 2001 or 2005. The inauguration is a celebration.
Jody -
Yes, it is a celebration, and the president really has little or no control over how many people want to come to Washington or how they want to celebrate. I, for one, did not receive a personal invitation to a single event in 2009, but I was there anyway, along with the millions of others who drove, flew, or chartered busses into D.C. from all over the country. I ended up so far back on the Mall I could barely see the last of the jumbo-tron screens, let alone the actual Capitol steps, and there were still thousands and thousands of people even further back than us. I very much hope to be there again this January, and I hope every single one of those people makes it back again, too. And I don't really care who pays for the extra cars on the Metro that morning, as long as I can squeeze in!
JoAnne, exactly right. My guess is there will be many attending who weren't able to go the first time as well as those who will go again. It's exciting.
I read somewhere that the most expensive and grandest inaugerations were for none other than the demigod himself Saint Ronnie Reagan. So to complain about what is spent on Obama's big party is pure unadulterated hatred for the sake of it.
He is not a black man quit patting yourself on the back for voting in a White50% Arab40% 10% Kenyan...So really you voted in a light skinned Arab,Congrats,Wow.Now you know why he is so tight with the Islam Arab Terrorist in the ME..yes congrats on that.
@JoAnne in PA - Every negative article that comes out about this administration is met with this notion that "Well, Obama really doesn't have control over this...".
What exactly DOES he have control over then?
Fantastic! Just think of all those workers out there? Everyone will be getting their due, thanks to this inauguration. Thank you, Mr. President!!!
Washington DC has the highest earnings per capita of anywhere in the country...
Lil Michelle,
No it doesn't. It's not even in the Top 10.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_places_in_the_United_States
Highest earning "per state", as it is really not in a state.
Then the cost of everything will be passed on to the consumer, and who suffers not Obama or corporations?
This is probably true, however it will be denied.
Just get the damn thing over with already.
I think that the Celebration should go on for weeks, or at least until the last Republican chokes on there Hatred.
Sounds like free market principles at work to me...if corporations don't want to have anything to do with it, they won't.
What's the problem?
Obama, nothing more than a slimy piece of sh*t, bought and paid for by Corporate America.
Boozer - no you would be the slimey piece of sh*t!
I just can't wait for you to try and tell someone calling you out on your nasty posts ..... just how nice you are compared to others. I bet your parents are sooooooo proud of your tongue !
little jim - learn to read and comprehend. I was mocking Boozer's post - word for word. I realize that is above your comprehension level but some day you MIGHT understand - probably not but there is a small chance!
SS,
E. Deboo - I will often say someone is ignorant or a buffoon but that is as low as I go.
Boozer - no you would be the slimey piece of sh*t!
Looks like you set the bar a tad bit lower.
Can't wait till they start announcing the China National Petroleum Presidential Inauguration Ceremony and see Mr Obama sporting a Sinopec logo on his suit.
That one is funny...on CSpan we will see a banner for GE instead of the flag. Each podeum will have it's own sponsor...
Obama is no different than the rest of the bums. He says one thing and does another. This is his last 4 years (lets hope, unless he declares himself King). He is worthless and is a sham of a president. Remember, anyone can be bought and he is definitely FOR SALE
Just like Romney, right?
....he will probably not be back from Hawaii by Inauguration Day.....
if not, going to miss on heII of a party!
Are all you libs sure this isn't going to be his coronation? And then where will all those constitutional rights you claim to support be?
LOL!! Obama doesn't have to pander to the lackeys who elected him now. Now, he can parade his super rich, corporate sponsors around with impunity. And liberals believed he was "different." Yes, he is, but not in the most basic, greed-ridden political way of all of the creeps in Washington.
And don't anyone forget what he whispered to the Russians... we'll be reading about his dirty dealings with them in the near future too.
So, if CEOs get bonuses, the Dems cry and scream that the average worker does not make a "living wage" while the CEO is overpaid.
Now the corporations want to donate large sums to Obama's inauguration and the Dems don't have a problem? Why aren't they screaming and crying about the donations being money that could pay for employee healthcare or living wages?
This should not even be allowed, this is absolutely ridiculous - 50K+/- for a freaking party - STOP IT NOW. Especially this president - who says he can relate to the middle class. Use the money that is raised for the party go to paying down deficit, or paying back the taxpayers or, or, or, or - anything but a freaking party.
He doesn't say aye or nay to the celebrations. It is like a friend of mine, if he wants to have a big beer bash it is his business and if he wants to let his nephew pay for it that is his business I don't care. Obama's only concern is the oath of office. Then he selects or more accurately his people select which galas he will attend. He won't stay long at any of them. Any and all presidential inaugerations are as close as we come to a coronation. Fortunately the pomp and circumstance of the coronation is greatly lacking in America. Basically we have a simple ceremony and that is it. If we, the people, choose to party we party. We all invite the president who may or may not honor us with an apperance at the party. It has been that way since the first inaugeration of George Washington.
If corporations want to celebrate with the rest of us so be it. Corporate interests have always had a hand in the inaugeration and always will. If CEOs get bonuses that they EARNED because their company is successful great. Most liberals won't begrudge them that but if the company is failing and they get a golden parachute of millions of dollars one but wonders what they did to EARN those many millions in bonuses they are getting that's all. Liberals have nothing against people being wealthy nor earning their money what they object to is greed. Greed is not a good thing and when a CEO, company or anyone, for that matter, acts and makes decisions out of greed they object. But in a black and white world of the conservative they just can't understand even slighly complex concepts like color or shades of black and white, for example.
Adler - how many people will have jobs - even temporary - because of the inauguration? I'd say, it's money well spent! And, having Corporations foot the bill is perfect!
That's nice of him...giving all those who contributed to his rivals a chance to say "sorry."
Will someone please explain to me why this is so bad? Corporate donations to a campaign to buy an election is one thing, but this is not that...it's funding an event, which, being the inauguration for the second and last term, cannot have any political influence. What's the alternative? Tax money?
A beer and hot dog on the back lawn of the White House.
Typical trailer trash Tea Party response for a world class gala to honor the most influential person in the world.
Nah, no way would a big corporation a$k for favor$ after pouring out hundred$ of thousand$, no way!
RedDev, I think you left out a vowel between the "P" and the letter "S" ....besides, when Bam-Bam f_cked up his criticism of a police officer, didn't he go for a beer summit to cover his mistake ?
If it was a low keyed celebration, the teatards would be whining about that. Face it -- ANYTHING this president does, doesn't, thinks, says, anything at all connected with this president -- they will whine, bitch and cry about.
Respectfully, you obviously don't have much experience with the political process. Corporate donations buy access. During an election, donations are limited. For this inauguration they are unlimited. Thus corporations seeking access to the White house or to the dem party ie., in the senate will make big buck donations to the inauguration. What's worse is that small business that can not afford to make large donations will be shut out. You see, obama made money and access a gop issue during his first camapign. He said there would be no pay to play and leveled the playing field by capping donations at 50K. In lifting the cap, he is signaling pay to play is back on. Do you really think that a corp that gives 500,000 won't get access to the white house? Do you really think a small business that give a $1,000 will have access? Obama is a liar and a hpypocrite.
REDDEV -- Obama is NOT the most influential person in the world. But he has now shown himself to be the person who can be most influenced.
A beer and hot dog on the back lawn of the White House.
And he makes his own beer too!
To Jody - this is no celebration of democracy . . . for a president to go from a dead tie to all of a sudden 3-4 point win? Seems like somebodies been voting a bit too often, eh?
DEMOCRAT MOTTO - vote early - and often
Ah...Acorn stole the election, eh?
Why didn't Romney complain?
Still crying over that never said statement. I thought that now the election was over, we would quit hearing the oft repeated lies from the right.
stone6: My guess would be that Romney didn't complain because he didn't want anybody looking too closely at his campaign's ground operations in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Florida... you know, all the states that the GOP guaranteed to deliver.
All that money wasted on voter suppression and electronic vote fraud, wasted because a handful of nameless hacktivists (Anonymous) were able to counterattack Rove's billion- dollar assault on Democracy. I wonder how long it'll be before ole Karl turns up on the back of a milk carton?
Addie - you know your post just makes you look like a doddering fool, right?
And your post makes you look like a five-letter word .... and "woman" is not what I had in mind !
She has every right to question the accuracy of the tally ... its the same thing you libs whined about ad nauseam when Al Bore lost Florida.
You gotta love those vote totals in NUMEROUS Philadelphia voting districts where Obama's opponent did not get the first vote there ... not one, not even an "accident" .... all for Bam-Bam ..... all above board and no corruption there at all .... no 'maam ! LOL !!
jim - your constant stalking of me makes you look the pathetic little boy you are. So, now you are on ignore because your petty childishness is beyond boring and annoying - it is sickening!
Someone call jim a waambulance!
No, we'll have Jim over for a beer summit- lunch will be a WAAAAHmburger and a side of CRIES!
Seeking, Jim was on my ignore a long time ago.
"Ah...Acorn stole the election, eh?"
Something like 47% of Republicans think that. They're too stupid to know Acorn hasn't existed for more than 2 years. But -- when Fox and Limbaugh the junkie are your sources of information, it's understandable.
Unlimited funding? Civic event? Wow, what times does Air Campaign/Vacation One land to pick me up? Hope I get on the flight with some of those Vegas showgirls. Would like to hang with some celebs. This sounds great!
Man, economy collapsing, Air Vacation One flies the family out to Hawaii, then turns around to pick me up the next day, after three weeks blowing reefer and dancing in the waves, back to D.C. for an unlimited fund party in my honor. It is good to be King.
At least he is taking donations and NOT charging the American Taxpayers. I bet Romney would have let the tax payers pay for his Party!
that would be a safe bet....
Actually, the funding is for the private parties and things. All the official events are on the gov check book. I doubt if I will get my "civic" invite.
Gofigureit - yes and the official events will cost about the same as they have for each President since they vary little.
Sounds like it's going to be an expensive coronation... er, inauguration.
All the old commitments to transparency, etc., have now gone by the boards, haven't they?
Let, clearly you haven't the slightest clue as to what the word transparency means. If it's transparent, you SEE it, you know about it. Clearly you know about it because here you are whining and making a fool of yourself in full view. Good lord, do you always sound this ignorant?
Shellie - yes!
In the minds of his mindless supporters, Obama can do no wrong.
If Romney had been rightfully elected we could be looking at putting some of these brainwashed, looney worshipping supporters of Obama's into mental institutions where they belong.