Not quite true...the US doesn't always get a new president every 4 years. Obama is not a new president...that's why I don't see the point of spending taxpayers money on another ceremony.

I agree with you about the amount spent on the presidential elections...same goes for Congress/Sentate/Mayor etc elections. The amount spent is obscene.

It shows it takes a lot of money to get around democratic practices.

Yes, the cost of the ceremony probably pales in comparison to what is spent on the election.

You probably don't get the money thing because you don't see what other things the money could be spent on. Oh well the traditions of Rome and power live on. We are the most powerful nation in the world (their words not mine) I think half the world detests the US and the power they throw around. This is unfortunate because again Washington doesn't represent the working American. Love that power.

Music. We have cats that visit our garden who make similar noise.

When Obama was making speeches at the different Balls last night it sounded like they had a applause machine that would respond on cue.

It is amazes me that a common man can still get elected in the US. He WAS someone without wealth and connections. I think he is likable and sincere. All the forces are now in place to block anything he tries to do for the next four years. You might call that democracy?

We watched the inauguration too and enjoyed it, we always do like the pageantry, it's all part of national identity - and we also commented that 4 years ago we had been comfy in USA watching and that now magically we are comfy in UK watching.

and war.

That, too. It really seems to age presidents - Obama seems to have aged more in his first 4 years than the Queen has in a 60-year reign.

You know what I would like to see?

In the shops if you buy an item of food, it shows how much it is per 100g, or per litre, etc. (so that you can compare across items of different weights, etc.)

I would love to see legislation that the government has to tell you how much something costs per person (or preferably, per taxpayer).

I think then people might get a bit more upset about how our governments spend OUR money. I think people have grown almost immune to the billions, trillions and squajillions that get spouted on telly. If they were told "This war has cost you £5,731", people might get a bit more vocal.

That cheap? Lets have a few more! Think of how many jobs it would create. Sorry for the sarcasm. I need some breakfast.

Dunroving, Going off topic here. Recently, on another thread, you mentioned a TV show that interested me. I can't remember the name of it or the thread in which you mentioned it. I have looked at the BBC and ITV websites, but nothing has jogged my memory. It was a show on politics/current affairs and perhaps in a discussion format. Can you tell me what it is called. Thanks

It's called This Week, hosted by Andrew Neil (former Editor of .... the Indpendent or Times, maybe, I can't recall).

It's on Thursday night, late, after Question Time. Michael Portillo is a weekly "man on the sofa", often with Allan Johnson. It's refreshingly open, witty, incisive, self-effacing, and although they are obviously voicing their opinion, you don't see rabid party-politicking.

Thank you, I'll set up a recording. Speaking of Michael Portillo, I have been enjoying his train journey through Britain on BBC. I want that job!

Jerseygirl...Yes I should have said we could have a new President every four years. What I meant to say was that when you are a returning President things should be a little less grand. Like I said cheese and crackers......

Dunroving...I think thats an execellent idea if people really knew how much it costs they would be really upset and may do something about it but just to hear a word "trillion" doesnt do it for most people they cannot visualize it. So much is wasted on stupid projects.

Exactly...a little less grand...that's what I was getting at.

cheers, I don't understand your comment about me not understanding where the money could be spent. I was active in volunteer life and political circles my whole time in the US, so I'm very aware of where money needs spending.

But the facts are this: this year's inauguration is projected to cost just over $100M (last time it cost $170M). Of that about $50M is raised in private donations from supporters of the President. This pays for the ceremony and all associated costs. The tax payer covers the other $50M or so, which pays for security and clean-up. This amount is higher or lower depending on how many people who show up.

It would be hard to argue that the Washington DC economy doesn't receive at least $50M in economic benefits from the influx of people staying in hotels and eating out and shopping. That's why this is a non-issue cooked up by certain elements of the media with an axe to grind, just as the same is true of left-wing UK media attacks on royal family expenditure. It's all political.

trotty, the cats are well thanks. Both are oldish (13 and 14 this year) but they got over the trauma pretty quickly. They've both had health problems since we arrived but we're lucky enough to have found a really good vet and he saved both their lives literally. One had surgery for a thyroid problem that was making him waste away and the other had a spot that he saw and turned out to be skin cancer. Now they're both well and as I write, they're dozing on the sofa

We were lucky to move so quickly, but partly it was because we priced our house at slightly below market value. I'd advise anyone to do the same if it's financially possible. Those extra dollars might have been handy but we might still have been waiting to leave - and life here has turned out to be much cheaper than in America for us, so it's probably all balanced out by now.

We're about to exchange contracts on the purchase of a new house and will hopefully be moved in before our one-year anniversary. My mum says we don't mess around!