• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

White House Closed for public Tours. Open for private tax payer paid parties

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
2
0
That's not the argument.

The argument is that the sequester requires across the board cuts from all departments, and PBS and the White House secret service are not in the same department.

People have been telling you this for, oh, 220 or so posts now. You either refuse to get it, or you're incapable.


Again...... I do not care. The bottom line is that the source of the "major funding" (per their own site) for this house party comes from the taxpayer pocket.

Just because he can game the system and it's not due to the sequester doesn't automatically mean it's ok....
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,068
18,808
136
Are you capable of answering my question?

Did the Secret Service provide security for the event, or not?
Shouldn't the question be 'did the secret service provide additional security for the event that was beyond normal expenditures and went uncompensated by those hosting the event'?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Again...... I do not care. The bottom line is that the source of the "major funding" (per their own site) for this house party comes from the taxpayer pocket.
You don't care.

Over and over you claimed that Obama was spending White House money on this, and now, you finally accept that PBS is not part of the White House, but... you don't care.

So, basically.. you're throwing a temper tantrum.
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,168
3
61
Well that will likely be an impossible question to answer as nobody here has access to their budgets.

Regardless, a one time event is hardly a good comparison to an ongoing expense.
"One time event"? This has been going on THIRTY FIVE YEARS!!!1111111
Why do you think this will be the last one?
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
2
0
You don't care.

Over and over you claimed that Obama was spending White House money on this, and now, you finally accept that PBS is not part of the White House, but... you don't care.

So, basically.. you're throwing a temper tantrum.

I'm saying I don't care if they're from different departments, and I don't care if white house pop star parties aren't included in the sequester. It still doesn't make it "right".



It also doesn't change the fact that our Dear Leader is making out like he's sacrificing with the people while we (indirectly) are paying for his luxury house parties.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
2
0
"One time event"? This has been going on THIRTY FIVE YEARS!!!1111111
Why do you think this will be the last one?

Six it's tough, those goalposts move about every other post depending on which aspect of this they're trying to defend.
 

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,907
14
81
I would have no problem with them cancelling the WH tours to save money, if they were trying to save money anywhere else - and it certainly doesn't appear that they are. Quite the opposite, in fact.
go back to giving terrible advice in L&R. you're much better at that.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
I'm saying I don't care if they're from different departments, and I don't care if white house pop star parties aren't included in the sequester. It still doesn't make it "right".
So what would you like Obama to do -- break the law?

As I said, you're like a child throwing a temper tantrum.

"Mommy, I want a chocolate donut!"
"Sorry, honey, but they're all out of chocolate."
"I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY'RE OUT OF! I WANT CHOCOLATE!"
"Sorry, dear".
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,518
1
81
I'm saying I don't care if they're from different departments, and I don't care if white house pop star parties aren't included in the sequester. It still doesn't make it "right".



It also doesn't change the fact that our Dear Leader is making out like he's sacrificing with the people while we (indirectly) are paying for his luxury house parties.

No, you're saying you don't care because the truth is inconvenient and doesn't support the shitty argument you have been trying to make.
 

sixone

Lifer
May 3, 2004
25,168
3
61
Well that will likely be an impossible question to answer as nobody here has access to their budgets.
As far as I can tell, no one has access to PBS's budget, either - and yet the claim has been made that PBS funded the entire event.

I'm asking for evidence to support that. Evidently, that claim is originating in someone's nether regions.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
And people keep saying that because they are presuming that the funds for the two come from the same source, when they do not. The White House tours were cut because of cuts to the White House secret service staff. This is a PBS program and is not funded by the White House secret service.

And you know as well as I do that this event is deliberately being mischaracterized with phrases such as "private hip hop concert for our Dear Leader and his friends". That's propagandizing.
I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the Secret Service did not incur massive costs to support a concert with hundreds of guests and technicians, many of whom probably have previous convictions and some of which need access to White House infrastructure. I'm assuming (though I don't know) that these costs on an annual basis would be significantly less than daily tours on an ongoing basis. They'd almost have to be, since one can only pack in so many Secret Service agents (although background checks on all those people aren't cheap either.) And yes, describing this event as a "private hip hop concert for our Dear Leader and his friends" is a gross mischaracterization; it's a private by-invitation party, but also one that is being broadcast for everyone and nominally exists for everyone. By that definition the State of the Union address would also be a private party since it has invited guests and is not open to the general public.

Shouldn't the question be 'did the secret service provide additional security for the event that was beyond normal expenditures and went uncompensated by those hosting the event'?
That should be the first question. The second question should be the relative worth or bang for the buck of this event versus tours or other cut expenses. And it's not necessary that we agree with Obama's valuation of the two, as long as the relative value isn't too badly out of whack. Someone has to make the decision, and not everyone is going to be happy with whatever decision is made.

As far as I can tell, no one has access to PBS's budget, either - and yet the claim has been made that PBS funded the entire event.

I'm asking for evidence to support that. Evidently, that claim is originating in someone's nether regions.
I am absolutely sure that the federal government had significant costs above and beyond its relatively small portion of PBS' budget. I don't think that is unreasonable. Both White House tours and White House concerts are one way that the public is invited into the White House, and I don't think it's reasonable for us to expect that "someone else" pick up the tab for our being invited into our own house.

In a way this reminds me of the debate over Thatcher's performance. The argument against her is that although unemployment and the dole were cut in half and every socioeconomic group experienced real and significant improvements in real income, the lower socioeconomic quintiles cannot possibly enjoy their increased standard of living because the richest quintile had an even bigger increase in income. Seems to me that there is a tendency to feel that since Obama obviously enjoys his party and White House tours are probably a bother at best, his decision to continue the one while discontinuing the other is somehow illegitimate if not downright insulting. Frankly I don't see it. If we're going to insist on across-the-board cuts, and I think that's the only way we're ever going to get any cuts at all, then we need to allow a lot of latitude in what's going to be cut.

Virtually everything that costs tax money has some sort of constituency; oxen WILL be gored. Obama is going to make the cuts highly visible and perhaps painful from time to time because he wants to spend even more money, but that does not mean that every spending decision is based on that approach. And even when they clearly are based on that approach, we're getting what we want, even if we dislike exactly how we're getting it. Can't have everything.

I'll also add that while I've never watched one of these concerts, I have no problem with them existing.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,068
18,808
136
As far as I can tell, no one has access to PBS's budget, either - and yet the claim has been made that PBS funded the entire event.

I'm asking for evidence to support that. Evidently, that claim is originating in someone's nether regions.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that the basis for claiming PBS and other groups funded the event was the explicit statement made in connection with the event that PBS and other member stations funded it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,489
3,250
126
go back to giving terrible advice in L&R. you're much better at that.
You, on the other hand are doubtless worthless everywhere. sixone's arguments are reasoned and open to debate. Your comment is nothing but a slur empty of any rational thought at all.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,550
666
126
"One time event"? This has been going on THIRTY FIVE YEARS!!!1111111
Why do you think this will be the last one?
Apparently you can't understand the concept of that in the context of a yearly budget. It is a one timer vs. the every day occurrence of WH tours.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,489
3,250
126
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that the basis for claiming PBS and other groups funded the event was the explicit statement made in connection with the event that PBS and other member stations funded it.
And I believe that member stations are funded to the tune of about 90% private donations, 10% federal grants.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
I'm assuming (though I don't know) that these costs on an annual basis would be significantly less than daily tours on an ongoing basis.
It's completely unreasonable to assume that the cost for putting on one event would be comparable to the cost for running something that happens daily.

Getting rid of the White House tours means the infrastructure required to operate them can be dismantled. Canceling one event means absolutely nothing is dismantled. At most you save the specific variable costs associated with the event, which are minimal -- most of the cost of the secret service is in the personnel, which are there permanently.

Canceling this event would save very little money, and would be highly stupid. If he had done it, it would have been all over the news, and then.. guess what? The very same morons whining in this thread that Obama didn't cancel it, would be whining that he did cancel it "just to make the sequester look worse than it is".

And that's because they don't really give a shit about a few bucks spent on a concert. They just want to bash Obama, and any excuse will do (even if it's bullshit).
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
It's completely unreasonable to assume that the cost for putting on one event would be comparable to the cost for running something that happens daily.

Getting rid of the White House tours means the infrastructure required to operate them can be dismantled. Canceling one event means absolutely nothing is dismantled. At most you save the specific variable costs associated with the event, which are minimal -- most of the cost of the secret service is in the personnel, which are there permanently.

Canceling this event would save very little money, and would be highly stupid. If he had done it, it would have been all over the news, and then.. guess what? The very same morons whining in this thread that Obama didn't cancel it, would be whining that he did cancel it "just to make the sequester look worse than it is".

And that's because they don't really give a shit about a few bucks spent on a concert. They just want to bash Obama, and any excuse will do (even if it's bullshit).
Although there are some people who are a minority who want to bash obama this is a legitimate criticism. obama shouldn't be going to concerts and having the taxpayer pay for them. He should be a little more interested in fixing the economy.
 

etrigan420

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2007
1,723
1
71
The very same morons whining in this thread that Obama didn't cancel it, would be whining that he did cancel it "just to make the sequester look worse than it is".
BOOM! Headshot.

r: "We want him to cut stuff."

d: "Okay, he's cutting stuff."

r: "BUT HE'S NOT CUTTING THE STUFF WE WANT HIM TO CUT, AND ON TOP OF THAT, HE'S CUTTING STUFF WE *DON'T* WANT HIM TO CUT!!"

d: "Soooo, do you want him to cut stuff?"

r: "Yes...No...wait, which one makes him look worse?"
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,349
1
0
It's completely unreasonable to assume that the cost for putting on one event would be comparable to the cost for running something that happens daily.

Getting rid of the White House tours means the infrastructure required to operate them can be dismantled. Canceling one event means absolutely nothing is dismantled. At most you save the specific variable costs associated with the event, which are minimal -- most of the cost of the secret service is in the personnel, which are there permanently.

Canceling this event would save very little money, and would be highly stupid. If he had done it, it would have been all over the news, and then.. guess what? The very same morons whining in this thread that Obama didn't cancel it, would be whining that he did cancel it "just to make the sequester look worse than it is".

And that's because they don't really give a shit about a few bucks spent on a concert. They just want to bash Obama, and any excuse will do (even if it's bullshit).
The US President is arguably the most powerful person on the planet. To fund his reelection, Obama raised 750 million dollars.

You are welcome to believe that he couldn't find a few thousand dollars a day to fund visits to the White House for school children.

You are also welcome to be pleased that Obama decided to deprive school children of their White House visits to make a partisan political point.

Be proud of him and his politics of revenge if you want.

Me, I never thought that using school children as pawns to make a political point was anything to be proud about.


Uno
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,068
18,808
136
The US President is arguably the most powerful person on the planet. To fund his reelection, Obama raised 750 million dollars.

You are welcome to believe that he couldn't find a few thousand dollars a day to fund visits to the White House for school children.

You are also welcome to be pleased that Obama decided to deprive school children of their White House visits to make a partisan political point.

Be proud of him and his politics of revenge if you want.

Me, I never thought that using school children as pawns to make a political point was anything to be proud about.


Uno
Interesting that you believe the president should raise money to cover cuts demanded by his political opposition.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Me, I never thought that using school children as pawns to make a political point was anything to be proud about.
Oh, cry me a fucking river.

The Republicans created this entire mess for political reasons. They used the entire country as pawns to make a political point.

As a result of these budget cuts, children with REAL problems and REAL needs are being impacted, due to cuts in programs like Head Start. And I'm supposed to lose sleep over a handful of kids who had White House tours cancelled?

Spare me your entirely-partisan, completely-transparent crocodile tear bullshit. You people are the worst types of frauds.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,489
3,250
126
Oh, cry me a fucking river.

The Republicans created this entire mess for political reasons. They used the entire country as pawns to make a political point.

As a result of these budget cuts, children with REAL problems and REAL needs are being impacted, due to cuts in programs like Head Start. And I'm supposed to lose sleep over a handful of kids who had White House tours cancelled?

Spare me your entirely-partisan, completely-transparent crocodile tear bullshit. You people are the worst types of frauds.
Actually I think this can be traced to the purity and disgust moral factors conservative minds are fixed on. They have a range of moral issues, 4 or 5 or so, I forget, that they value that liberals basically see as bull shit. Personally, I believe their behavior was controlled that way as children my making the retch at the feeling of being dirty.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY