Good faith privately-funded White House ballroom discussion

Callatoroy said:
Wonder how it got off track?
Click to expand...
Probably your failure to engage any substantive points.

Again, the first place to start on this topic is "why should we want our government to be privately funded." And you didn't answer that question. Instead, you sloughed it off as just like campaign donations, which is a) untrue; b) irrelevant; and c) doesn't prove the point you think it does.

Let's suppose they get $400M in commitments. They start building the project. Then oh no, it's over budget; $50M more is needed. Now what? We've got a half-finished ballroom. The donors now have all the leverage. "Oh, you want more money? Here's what you have to do for me."

This is such a basic point in civics education that it's astounding it has to be explained to an adult. And yet here we are.

Again, let's look around the world. How many government assets (other than a few monuments) have been funded with private donations? By my count, none. In the modern history of the United States. It doesn't happen in Europe either. So basically what you are saying here is that Trump knows how to do things better than all presidents and congresses over the last century combined. Hmm.

Maybe it would be better to tax those big donors and then use the money when they can't control it any more. Have you ever thought about that? Have you ever wondered why you carry water for the George Soroses and Warren Buffets of the world?
 
I'm OK with $400 million of taxpayer dollars on the ballroom, provided the design can be modified to better match the existing structure. It will serve a public purpose that long outlives Trump. In fact, Trump would likely never use it given construction timelines.
 
Calheel said:
I pay a shit ton in property tax every year, and it goes up by 2% every year. Prop 13 causes a lot of market and fairness issues, but it is not a "don't raise taxes" law. More like a limit the tax raising law.

And California's homelessness problem has a lot more factors than just conservative bullshit. NIMBY-ism is just at home on the left as it is on the right. Liberals have backyards, too.

I'd put problem number 1 at exceptionally good weather, which makes homelessness a far more attractive option in LA than Madison, WI. Problem 2 is the extreme demand to live in the good weather, which pressures CoL. Problem 3 is the limit of buildable land due to geographical/water constraints not faced in the East. Problem 4 is the car culture legacy of the 1950s and the concurrent lack of density in housing construction (exacerbating Problem 3). Problem 5 gets into Prop 13 and certain California values (lack of neighborhood community, etc.)
Click to expand...
1. Yes on Nimbyism, but why is NImbyism such a problem in CA? It's because the housing markets are so distorted.
2. Your property taxes are considerably lower as a % of your home than mine, I'm confident. It's not a "you can never raise taxes" law, that's correct. But it's a "you can't ever raise taxes enough to meet the needs."
3. Yes, buildable land because of water etc. is a huge problem. That problem exists in the East, but usually in reduced form. Manhattan, obviously, has a buildable land issue. So too cities like Pittsburgh. Chicago. The issue is more local than regional.
4. I would not say the car culture tegacy of the 1950s is what causes the lack of dense housing construction. I would say the opposite: the lack of dense housing construction caused the car culture. California's zoning issues go way further back than the 1950s. It's more or less wanting to keep out undesirables (both minorities and Okies).
 
Ramrouser said:
I wouldn't since it doesn't do any good. California alone has spent $30M on homelessness since 2019 and the homeless population has increased by 181,000. It just goes to the grifter NGO groups who want to keep the problem going for more funding.

At least you get to see a ballroom on the White House grounds after spending the money.
Click to expand...
That's the goal. Newsome thought it would be better to spend that money on a marketing program to the homeless. Worked brilliantly. Look at how many more they have now. Who needs pesky billionaires paying taxes. CA, always on the cutting edge, has figured out how to chase wealth out of the state and attract the the truly sought after citizens (and non citizens). Why do you think Walz has his head so far up Newsome's ass? He is in apprentice mode.
 
Calheel said:
I'm OK with $400 million of taxpayer dollars on the ballroom, provided the design can be modified to better match the existing structure. It will serve a public purpose that long outlives Trump. In fact, Trump would likely never use it given construction timelines.
Click to expand...
$400M in taxpayer dollars would be much cheaper than $400M in private dollars, as that $400M would come with corruption that would be 10x, 100x more expensive. Like getting rid of environmental regulations.

It's really sad that conservatives have allowed them to be fooled about regulations, especially environmental regs. Environmental regs save lots and lots of money. Imagine if LA still had air like in the 1970s. That would cost at least tens of billions of dollars annually, in the form of health expenses, loss of human capital, lead exposure leading to more crime, less educational attainment, etc.
 
Calheel said:
I pay a shit ton in property tax every year, and it goes up by 2% every year. Prop 13 causes a lot of market and fairness issues, but it is not a "don't raise taxes" law. More like a limit the tax raising law.

And California's homelessness problem has a lot more factors than just conservative bullshit. NIMBY-ism is just at home on the left as it is on the right. Liberals have backyards, too.

I'd put problem number 1 at exceptionally good weather, which makes homelessness a far more attractive option in LA than Madison, WI. Problem 2 is the extreme demand to live in the good weather, which pressures CoL. Problem 3 is the limit of buildable land due to geographical/water constraints not faced in the East. Problem 4 is the car culture legacy of the 1950s and the concurrent lack of density in housing construction (exacerbating Problem 3). Problem 5 gets into Prop 13 and certain California values (lack of neighborhood community, etc.)
Click to expand...
You know way more about CA issues than I do, but I'd say problem 1 is keep electing the wrong people and a 1 party system.
 
superrific said:
$400M in taxpayer dollars would be much cheaper than $400M in private dollars, as that $400M would come with corruption that would be 10x, 100x more expensive. Like getting rid of environmental regulations.

It's really sad that conservatives have allowed them to be fooled about regulations, especially environmental regs. Environmental regs save lots and lots of money. Imagine if LA still had air like in the 1970s. That would cost at least tens of billions of dollars annually, in the form of health expenses, loss of human capital, lead exposure leading to more crime, less educational attainment, etc.
Click to expand...
A lot of Democratic opposition about the $400M, which is a rounding error to the federal government. I understand the "let them eat cake" politics of all this, but aren't there real issues for the parties to fight over? Make a horse trade deal for greater ICE restrictions and approve the ballroom.
 
Last edited:
Callatoroy said:
So to the left its get rid of, with no misinterpretation that it could mean to kill. Got it.
Click to expand...
I bought my 86 45 tee shirt that I wore ( and wore yesterday ) during trump's 1st impeachment meaning remove Trump from office. Would your interpretation be that I was advocating kill the president ?

Us "radical leftists " don't advocate killing Trump; we just want to remove Trump from office within the law.
 
Ramrouser said:
I wouldn't since it doesn't do any good. California alone has spent $30M on homelessness since 2019 and the homeless population has increased by 181,000. It just goes to the grifter NGO groups who want to keep the problem going for more funding.

At least you get to see a ballroom on the White House grounds after spending the money.
Click to expand...
We should install cots in the ballroom to help the homeless in DC.
 
Callatoroy said:
What kind of question / response is that? First its "there are no private funds". Then "there won't be enough private funds". Now its "what if the private funds go missing" At this point, all you have to bitch about is he didn't follow protocol and I don't like the drawing.
Click to expand...
The, he didn't follow protocol is the number one issue, but you guys love a good king, so you don't see it.

Really, it shouldn't be privately funded as that gives those billionaires more leverage.
 
superrific said:
I love how our conservative mooks keep referring to following the law as "respecting protocol.'

It's not protocol dipshits. Protocol is something optional that one does for appearances. The law specifies what people MUST do (usually)
Click to expand...
The same way they are now calling the first Europeans to reach America "settlers" instead of "immigrants", it makes them feel better about how cruelly they treat immigrants.
 
superrific said:
Probably your failure to engage any substantive points.

Again, the first place to start on this topic is "why should we want our government to be privately funded." And you didn't answer that question. Instead, you sloughed it off as just like campaign donations, which is a) untrue; b) irrelevant; and c) doesn't prove the point you think it does.

Let's suppose they get $400M in commitments. They start building the project. Then oh no, it's over budget; $50M more is needed. Now what? We've got a half-finished ballroom. The donors now have all the leverage. "Oh, you want more money? Here's what you have to do for me."

This is such a basic point in civics education that it's astounding it has to be explained to an adult. And yet here we are.

Again, let's look around the world. How many government assets (other than a few monuments) have been funded with private donations? By my count, none. In the modern history of the United States. It doesn't happen in Europe either. So basically what you are saying here is that Trump knows how to do things better than all presidents and congresses over the last century combined. Hmm.

Maybe it would be better to tax those big donors and then use the money when they can't control it any more. Have you ever thought about that? Have you ever wondered why you carry water for the George Soroses and Warren Buffets of the world?
Click to expand...
"I don't think your good faith discussion thread got very far."
That was 5 posts into the thread. Before any conservative posted anything.

"Probably your failure to engage any substantive points."
Bullshit. I started in total good faith. Look where the bad faith posts come from.

"Again, the first place to start on this topic is "why should we want our government to be privately funded."
No its not because privately funding one wing of a building isn't privately funding the g'ment. Over-exaggerate much?

"How many government assets (other than a few monuments) have been funded with private donations? By my count, none. In the modern history of the United States."
I guess someone should call every state supported university in the country to tell them you can't accept private donations for building rennovations because some hermit loon on a political message board is worried it might go over budget and then the donors will hold the g'ment hostage trying to extort it. Private donations have been used to fund projects in White House on numerous occassions. Most recently in the Rose garden. Building a ballroom doesn't equal a high speed rail system.

"Maybe it would be better to tax those big donors and then use the money when they can't control it any more. Have you ever thought about that? Have you ever wondered why you carry water for the George Soroses and Warren Buffets of the world?"
There it is. The Liberal Holy Doctrine. Many of these donors are corporations. What happens when you keep taxing them? Same for people. Are you not aware of the wealth migration out of high tax states? How many times do you need see it keep happening before you realize your approach is so idiotic? The money donated is no different than making campaign contributions. The entire point is to gain favor and influence. If they don't donate it for the ballroom it will just get cycled into the political process another way. You saying it isn't the same doesn't make you right, but it sure does make you naive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top