Hell no.  Just once I would like to see congress get together and actually consider what they can afford with the money that they are taking in rather than just spending money that they don't have.  I would really like to see someone come in and make the case that X number of programs need to be shut down completely before any more spending packages can even be voted on.  I know nothing like that will ever happen, it would just be nice to see.

Geeeze 150 million for the installation of the Messiah? I would think having the son-of G-D incarnate taking office would cost at least twice as much as that, and of course the MSM is not going to say anything about the cost because they are to busy sucking the Messiahs dick to print anything.

I think most of it is private cash . . in which case it being spent is a good thing, right?

is it?  When we are told millions go to bed each night starving?  WHile those who tell us this waste millions of dollars on champaign and caviar?

Don't you know people are only starving when there is a Republican in office.

Would I spend my money differently?  Yes.  But that is a personal decision, not a "public" one.

My point was to counter the topic at hand:  Do You Support the Governments Spending Plans?

From various news outlets:

Part of the spending includes emergency funding announced by the White House on Tuesday to help with the soaring costs. Most of this new federal funding will be to deal with the huge influx of people, estimated 1.5 million to 2 million.

A White House statement said that President Bush "declared an emergency exists in the District of Columbia"

The federal government has budgeted $49m for the inauguration. But this does not take account of other demands, such as from Virginia and Maryland, the states surrounding the capital, that have also asked for emergency funding.

---

Next week's presidential inauguration of Barack Obama has already cost Maryland at least $11 million, state officials said today. The unbudgeted spending, mainly for transportation and security, is part of some $75 million that Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia have already had to absorb, Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty told reporters. The $11 million figure also includes costs associated with Obama's Saturday train trip and scheduled stop in Baltimore. (Baltimore Sun)

[thanks for the info.  source?]

Because the recession is resulting from reduced demand; people cut back on their spending, causing businesses to fail (especially since finance has dried up meaning they can't obtain a loan to keep them going until spending picks up again), causing increased unemployment+job uncertainty, causing people to cut back on their spending, and so it goes on.

The capacity is there in the economy to obtain a higher output, hence if people aren't going to increase their spending to utilise this, the government can look to increase demand to expand the economy to this point (or at least closer to it than if they did nothing). The end result of this (if it goes to plan of course) is that you can avoid the worse parts of a recession, and then when the economy is back on track and starting to grow again the government help can be withdrawn. The economy will get to that position eventually, but the idea of increased government spending is to get us there sooner ("in the long run we are all dead").

Of course it helps if you are starting from a fairly strong (budgetary) position which will allow you to borrow enough in the short term to have the desired effect. Also working out the amount required for the desired effect, and how best to target, are also far from clear. One option the government has would be to cut taxes. However for many people in these uncertain times they would likely keep much of the surplus rather than spend it. So another alternative is for the government to give handouts to people on lower incomes. They're much more likely to spend it (due to their lower incomes), and so that is another option. There are of course plenty of other ways, but that gives a basic introduction to it.

The more long term idea behind this would be to smooth out output growth so that it is stable and positive - the government should save a bit in the good years, and then when the economy looks to be headed to a recession use those savings to keep it growing (or at the very least not shrinking). The economy benefits even more in this situation from avoiding the negative effects of the recession, and providing greater confidence in the economy allowing businesses to plan and invest with greater confidence. A shame then that a republican president has been responsible for running up hefty deficits during the 'boom' years.

fine, how about he walks his talk and spreads his wealth? o thats right its HIS money.... not someone elses

In that you are correct.  I just dont like blatant hypocrisy that is being demonstrated by the noblesse oblige.

The media criticized Bush inauguration spending in 2004. Obama's will dwarf that. Will we hear a peep about it?

Nope.

Just more of the hypocisy. On top of that, we were not in the depths of a recession in 04.

BREAKING NEWS! They HAVE ANOTHER 800+ BILLION ON THE TABLE!!!

and who is paying for it ? WE ARE THE TAX PAYERS!

HAHA..... all you BO lovers just got punked!