January 20th 2025 - Donald Trump is BACK!

[Man_in_the_Middle]

This breaks Trump promise of private funding. That's point. He broke promise.

....

*By the way, on financing public infrastructure usual method is to lie on costs to get project approved and....uppss..we run out of money. Since unfinished project is bad, therefore pay more. Check California railroads for best example.

You highlight a truth that many do not know. It is often a political gambit to estimate costs low to begin with and then ask for more once the project is underway.

Then again..... Why would people be more angry with Trump for doing this if this is the normal way of doing things....

As an example... perhaps not the best one but still...

Estimated Cost vs. Reality - Obamacare

• Initial Estimate (2010): The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) originally projected the 10-year cost of the ACA (2010–2019) to be approximately $940 billion.
• Updated Estimates (2012–2018): By 2012, the CBO updated the 10-year projection (2012-2022) to $1.8 trillion. By 2018, when fully implemented, costs were closer to $2.5 trillion.

Estimated Cost vs. Reality - USA Interstate system.
The original 1950s estimate for the Interstate Highway System was roughly $25 billion for 41,000 miles, but the reality was a $114 billion price tag (approx. $660 billion in 2026 dollars) and a 35-year construction span, representing one of the largest cost overruns in US history. The project was plagued by severe underestimations of inflation, urban land costs, and safety standards


The list goes on and on...

 

[steve]

This breaks Trump promise of private funding. That's point. He broke promise.

C'mon, adequate security should be included from start, not found wanting. Before start of any works, there were already attempts on his life, tso security shouldn't be forgotten.

So now adequate design will cost 1.4 billion instead of 0.4 so designers have totally missed costs.*

So this shows that Congress isn't able to create bill without pork inside. Project only requires bill to avoid court order. Therefore Congress only needs to create bill authorizing changes already included in original plan.

Besides, this also shows cultural issue in US public finances: total disregard to bang for buck. No way thinking "resources arr limited, how we can achieve best results for invested money" is used. If this was used around additional 0.1/0.2 would be (more that enough) which could be provided by private means.

For additional examples starts with military.

No wonder US is in soo much debt.

*By the way, on financing public infrastructure usual method is to lie on costs to get project approved and....uppss..we run out of money. Since unfinished project is bad, therefore pay more. Check California railroads for best example.

The only discussion of other-than-private funding that I have seen involves denying Trump the right to build it because congress is not in control. If he bailed on the funding, show me the facts and stop pretending.
Also, you have no right to decide what should be funded privately. Putting up the building is separate from funding security.

Being judged by someone from a pipsqueak country that can’t protect itself is really annoying.
Fix your own problems.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

The only discussion of other-than-private funding that I have seen involves denying Trump the right to build it because congress is not in control. If he bailed on the funding, show me the facts and stop pretending.
Also, you have no right to decide what should be funded privately. Putting up the building is separate from funding security.

Being judged by someone from a pipsqueak country that can’t protect itself is really annoying.
Fix your own problems.

Merica!! I love your patriotism!!

 

[MemeFan]

The only discussion of other-than-private funding that I have seen involves denying Trump the right to build it because congress is not in control. If he bailed on the funding, show me the facts and stop pretending.
Also, you have no right to decide what should be funded privately. Putting up the building is separate from funding security.

Being judged by someone from a pipsqueak country that can’t protect itself is really annoying.
Fix your own problems.

Lol, qouting from article I posted which qoutes Washington Post:

Start here:----
According to the Washington Post, the categories include:

• $200 million for "hardening" the party room, from both above and below; finishes include bulletproof glass, and systems to detect chemical weapons and drones
• $180 million for a new White House visitor-screening setup
• $175 million for training Secret Service agents and improving "protectee security"
• $150 million to ward off "emerging threats" to include bioweapons and airborne attacks
• $100 million to secure high-profile national events

End------
Point 1 is changes on building itself. Point 2 and 4 are very probably. Only point 3 and 5 can be just more people and their training.

Fact they now buy bulletproof glass is because they didn't bought it in first place. And this is both security and building.

Building without lass on windows and doors isn't unsecured building, but unfinished.

 

[steve]

Lol, qouting from article I posted which qoutes Washington Post:

Start here:----
According to the Washington Post, the categories include:

• $200 million for "hardening" the party room, from both above and below; finishes include bulletproof glass, and systems to detect chemical weapons and drones
• $180 million for a new White House visitor-screening setup
• $175 million for training Secret Service agents and improving "protectee security"
• $150 million to ward off "emerging threats" to include bioweapons and airborne attacks
• $100 million to secure high-profile national events

End------
Point 1 is changes on building itself. Point 2 and 4 are very probably. Only point 3 and 5 can be just more people and their training.

Fact they now buy bulletproof glass is because they didn't bought it in first place. And this is both security and building.

Building without lass on windows and doors isn't unsecured building, but unfinished.

I have no problem with the country paying for the upgrades to a building that they are giving us.
It saves millions in the rental of the tents that they have been holding events in. Which had zero ballistic protection.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I have no problem with the country paying for the upgrades to a building that they are giving us.
It saves millions in the rental of the tents that they have been holding events in. Which had zero ballistic protection.

For real on this one! This protects not only our president but visiting dignitaries and all those associated with running our government. As much as we like to hate on the government, it is far better than anarchy!!

 

[Mojo]

I’m a little confused. Is this an end around to approve and budget the building so as to get the project moving and out of the courts, while still allowing the private funds to remain as the primary funding mechanism, or is this footing the bill? The article could be read in different ways.

The article says the lawsuit is claiming lack of congressional approval should stop the project. So, if Congress does its official duty, that stops the lawsuit and private money kicks in, with the added public funds used to upgrade security features. Am I reading it wrong?

 

[steve]

I’m a little confused. Is this an end around to approve and budget the building so as to get the project moving and out of the courts, while still allowing the private funds to remain as the primary funding mechanism, or is this footing the bill? The article could be read in different ways.

The article says the lawsuit is claiming lack of congressional approval should stop the project. So, if Congress does its official duty, that stops the lawsuit and private money kicks in, with the added public funds used to upgrade security features. Am I reading it wrong?

My understanding is that Congress authorizing the security upgrades does in fact authorize the structure.

 

[Mojo]

My understanding is that Congress authorizing the security upgrades does in fact authorize the structure.

But it’s still not funding the actual structure, just the upgrades? That’s how I’m reading it.

If so, then is the “controversy” that public funds are still bringing used, even if technically not to build it?

I’m wondering if this arrangement was the plan all along.

 

[steve]

If so, then is the “controversy” that public funds are still bringing used, even if technically not to build it?

The controversy is that the haters are trying to make it look like private funding was a lie.

 

[frederick]

The controversy is that the haters are trying to make it look like private funding was a lie.

Wait! ... surely not another outbreak of TDS amongst the demoncrats?

 

[steve]

Wait! ... surely not another outbreak of TDS amongst the demoncrats?

I know, shocking!

 

[MemeFan]

I’m a little confused. Is this an end around to approve and budget the building so as to get the project moving and out of the courts, while still allowing the private funds to remain as the primary funding mechanism, or is this footing the bill? The article could be read in different ways.

The article says the lawsuit is claiming lack of congressional approval should stop the project. So, if Congress does its official duty, that stops the lawsuit and private money kicks in, with the added public funds used to upgrade security features. Am I reading it wrong?

Court has forbidden building some part of structure, so Trump needs Congress to create bill to finish works.

Original building was supported to cost 400M. All private money. Horewer, in Congress bill there is 1B funding. Now, not all money is for building itself. But, there will be changes in design of building*. Hardening of structure can only mean changes in building itself.

So final result will be mix of private and public money. Horewer, let's check incentives of Republican Congressman. He has access to pool of money greater than any private source plus he can brag about being responsible for more security/beauty* by financing it. And since for US politicians concept of cost effectivness is practically unknown, well, they will spend truckload of money.

Which means, this bill guarantees public money will make significant contribution. In my personal opinion, now it's at least 1/3 (400M private, 200M public). At this is me being conservative and before any cost overruns.




*At least, depending how much was build.

**It doesn't matter what excuse, Republican Congresman has reason to give money.