Mark Cuban

[bamabake]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...p_on_go_pr_wh/inaugural_price_tag_3&printer=1

Should shut his mouth and pay for the event if he is so concerned. This is akin to hooywood actors that falsly accused the Reagan admin for creating homlessnes (bahahah) and then calling the cops when the drunks show up at their house( see martin sheen). Well it is almost akin.

 

[Queasy1]

A few points:
1) Clinton's last inaugural ball cost $33 million. $40 million seems in line for 8 years later.
2) American private donations to the tsunami victims has already surpassed half a billion dollars. There were a couple of charities that turned away money because they already had too much.
3) The economy is growing, not shrinking. What NBA afro has Cuban been hiding under?
4) Believe it or not, the deficit is actually shrinking. Link

This week’s Treasury report on the nation’s finances for December shows a year-to-date fiscal 2005 deficit that is already $11 billion less than last year’s. In the first three months of the fiscal year that began last October, cash outlays by the federal government increased by 6.1 percent while tax collections grew by 10.5 percent. When more money comes in than goes out, the deficit shrinks.

At this pace, the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004. As a fraction of projected gross domestic product, the new-year deficit will descend to 2.9 percent compared with last year’s deficit share of 3.6 percent.

5) Would we be hearing anything about this had Kerry been elected and his inauguration decided to spend the same amout or more? Doubtful.

 

[jthomas666]

Would we be hearing anything about this had Kerry been elected and his inauguration decided to spend the same amout or more? Doubtful.

Yes, because you would have been yammering that Teresa should be picking up the tab. :biggrin2:

Whether or not the economy is growing is irrelevant. The issue is whether the $40 million being spent on the Inauguration (aka The Mother of All Keggers ) might be better spent elsewhere (And for the record, I thought Clinton spent too much on his as well).

 

[Queasy1]

Whether or not the economy is growing is irrelevant. The issue is whether the $40 million being spent on the Inauguration (aka The Mother of All Keggers ) might be better spent elsewhere (And for the record, I thought Clinton spent too much on his as well).

Whether or not the economy is growing is relevant because Cuban decided to make it a reason as to why the $40 million should not be spent on the inauguration.

Also, the $40 million is all private money from companies and individuals on the various parties and balls around the actual inaugruation. This is not the government spending tax money. If private companies and individuals CHOOSE to spend their money this way it is their right.

Money could always seemingly be better spent elsewhere. I recall a long opinion article blasting the money spent on the Matrix movies and how it could have been better spent building homes for the homeless and other causes. This and the anti-inauguration argument ignores the fact that this money spent means jobs and salaries for all the various people and their families that worked to make the Matrix movies happen and are working to make the inauguration and all the various parties happen.

 

[jthomas666]

Whether or not the economy is growing is relevant because Cuban decided to make it a reason as to why the $40 million should not be spent on the inauguration.

Also, the $40 million is all private money from companies and individuals on the various parties and balls around the actual inaugruation. This is not the government spending tax money. If private companies and individuals CHOOSE to spend their money this way it is their right.

Isn't the inauguration foisting the ~$12 million bill for security off on D.C.?

 

[Queasy1]

Isn't the inauguration foisting the ~$12 million bill for security off on D.C.?

Federal money is paying for security from what I understand since this is a federal event.

 

[bamabake]

Isn't the inauguration foisting the ~$12 million bill for security off on D.C.?

5) Would we be hearing anything about this had Kerry been elected and his inauguration decided to spend the same amout or more? Doubtful

This is what really irks me actually. There will always be a double standard for the media between how liberals are treated and everyone else is. I know many dont see this. My personal thought is if we didnt **** away so much money everyday, this couldnt be an issue at all.
The president is just a man after all and a servant of the people. A wave from the white house shoud be enough. I am all for tradition and all but...

 

[bayoutider]

5) Would we be hearing anything about this had Kerry been elected and his inauguration decided to spend the same amout or more? Doubtful

This is what really irks me actually. There will always be a double standard for the media between how liberals are treated and everyone else is. I know many dont see this. My personal thought is if we didnt **** away so much money everyday, this couldnt be an issue at all.
The president is just a man after all and a servant of the people. A wave from the white house shoud be enough. I am all for tradition and all but...

Of course you would. The media would just spin it from the other side.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

A few points:
1) Clinton's last inaugural ball cost $33 million. $40 million seems in line for 8 years later.
2) American private donations to the tsunami victims has already surpassed half a billion dollars. There were a couple of charities that turned away money because they already had too much.
3) The economy is growing, not shrinking. What NBA afro has Cuban been hiding under?
4) Believe it or not, the deficit is actually shrinking. Link

5) Would we be hearing anything about this had Kerry been elected and his inauguration decided to spend the same amout or more? Doubtful.

Just because the Dems did it doesn't mean the Reps shoud too. That's why our country is so screwed up. The party of the "conservatives" took over and have spent as much as the Dems did when they had the power.

As for the deficit shrinking. Deficit spending may be shrinking, but the national debt continues on its rocket journey to the netherworlds.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Federal money is paying for security from what I understand since this is a federal event.

Glad our tax dollars are so well managed.

 

[Bamaro]

A few points:
1) Clinton's last inaugural ball cost $33 million. $40 million seems in line for 8 years later.
Link

Bubba or Dubya, Dem or Rep. That amount is almost obscene :eek2:

 

[jthomas666]

Bubba or Dubya, Dem or Rep. That amount is almost obscene :eek2:

Omit the "almost".

 

[bamabake]

Bubba or Dubya, Dem or Rep. That amount is almost obscene :eek2:

I bet you think tht sports figures and actors make "obscene" amounts of money too huh?

 

[Pachydermatous]

Peace, children!

This is the standard Washington Press Corps story which runs before every inauguration. This year it is "all that money we could spend on tsunami victims." Before Reagan's first inauguration it was "all that money we could spend on the homeless." I forget what the complaint was before Clinton's, maybe it was the deficit, but it doesn't matter. D.C. reporters will fill in the blanks on this standard form with something : orphans in Patagonia, UN medical scarcities, California mudslide victims, whatever.

Then they will telephone Democrats, who won't approve. They will take those statements to Republicans who will get mad and strongly endorse the expenses. Now you've got your story; all that's left is the typing.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

I bet you think tht sports figures and actors make "obscene" amounts of money too huh?

Bake - That's different. That's private sector/market driven.

Because they make so much money is why I choose not to go to but a few games each year...I can't afford the ticket prices.

Taxpayer dollars are being spent for security for a party. That's ridiculous.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Peace, children!

This is the standard Washington Press Corps story which runs before every inauguration. This year it is "all that money we could spend on tsunami victims." Before Reagan's first inauguration it was "all that money we could spend on the homeless." I forget what the complaint was before Clinton's, maybe it was the deficit, but it doesn't matter. D.C. reporters will fill in the blanks on this standard form with something : orphans in Patagonia, UN medical scarcities, California mudslide victims, whatever.

Then they will telephone Democrats, who won't approve. They will take those statements to Republicans who will get mad and strongly endorse the expenses. Now you've got your story; all that's left is the typing.

Pachy - I could give a rat's about the Tsunami victims...I care about my kids' future.

 

[Queasy1]

Taxpayer dollars are being spent for security for a party. That's ridiculous.

Taxpayer dollars are being spent on the security for the inauguration and the general DC area where the parties happen to be going on. Not just individual parties (though I'm sure security will likely be more concentrated around person's of interest)

Again, the $40 million is all private money and is seperate from the money spent on security.

 

[Queasy1]

As for the deficit shrinking. Deficit spending may be shrinking, but the national debt continues on its rocket journey to the netherworlds.

Reducing deficit spending is a start to reducing national debt. The quote contains encouraging news about the increase in tax revenues which will lead to more of a reduction in deficit spending and even more of a reduction in debt.

On the long list of egregious spending from DC, this inauguration thing has to be at or near the bottom of the list (See FBI spending millions on computer software that doesn't work and starting all over).

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

Reducing deficit spending is a start to reducing national debt. The quote contains encouraging news about the increase in tax revenues which will lead to more of a reduction in deficit spending and even more of a reduction in debt.

On the long list of egregious spending from DC, this inauguration thing has to be at or near the bottom of the list (See FBI spending millions on computer software that doesn't work and starting all over).

Queasy - I agree to a point..ending social services, pork and foreign aid should be at the top of the list.

But you have to start some where...$11 million for security may not seem like a lot, but from my vantage point it is.

Maybe they should scale back the parties and have a smaller ceremony at the White House where security is already fully in place.

 

[Tide and True]

1) Clinton's last inaugural ball cost $33 million. $40 million seems in line for 8 years later.

If I ask nicely, could we please stop using the "But Clinton did it too!" line?