Ballroom is already funded by private philanthropists, Nancy.
Hey, while we're on the subject, what do you think of Obama's $376 million White House renovation costs? (2010-2014).
All core building renovations were funded by U.S. taxpayers, through the Architect of the Capitol and the General Services Administration (GSA) budgets.
Don't be such a naive fool, Nancy.
Obama renovations? Congress approved the funding in 2008 following a report by the administration of then-President George W. Bush, and the renovations aimed to upgrade the building's aging infrastructure. Upgrades included replacing decades-old heating, cooling, electrical, and fire-alarm equipment as well as unspecified security systems.
Sounds like they did it the right way. A study of the structure and existing systems, followed by Congress approving funds, etc.
Really nothing at all like the Big Beautiful Ballroom.
Oh, Jesus. You guys want to argue for the sake of it. The construction and implementation took place under Obama, mouse brains. He could have cancelled it, but didn't.
Missed the point, didn't you? We paid for that. We are not paying for the Ballroom. There have been renovations throughout history.
Do you really believe presidents should live in perfectly preserved, mold and all, 1776 tech? Stupid.
The ballroom is aimed at increasing diplomacy. What did you achieve so far today in your cubicle, Nancy?
Hey, while we're on the subject, what do you think of Obama's $376 million White House renovation costs? (2010-2014).
I think that simple statement, without its context, . Feel free to fact-check each part of this summary:
Publicly funded infrastructure project Funding and approval: A four-year project to upgrade the White House's heating, cooling, electrical, and fire-alarm systems was approved by Congress in2008, during the George W. Bush administration. Purpose: The $376 million was allocated to replace decades-old, failing infrastructure. It was not used for cosmetic or decorative purposes. Oversight: The work was overseen by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and was part of a planned modernization, not an initiative by the Obama administration.
Privately funded aesthetic updates Family quarters: The Obama family paid for the redecoration of their personal living quarters using private funds, declining to use the $100,000 allowance provided to incoming presidents for that purpose. Oval Office: The Oval Office was redecorated with new furnishings and a custom-made rug. These updates were paid for with private money from the White House Endowment Trust. Outdoor spaces: First Lady Michelle Obama planted the White House Kitchen Garden on the South Lawn. The family also paid for the resurfacing of the existing tennis court to double as a basketball court.
So? You proved my point, didn't you.
Renovations happen under all types of situations and presidents however, when it happens under Trump, orange man bad. Give me a break. L0sers.
Ballroom is already funded by private philanthropists, Nancy.
Hey, while we're on the subject, what do you think of Obama's $376 million White House renovation costs? (2010-2014).
All core building renovations were funded by U.S. taxpayers, through the Architect of the Capitol and the General Services Administration (GSA) budgets.
Don't be such a naive fool, Nancy.
I usually don't go on social media to call people an idiot but you win the title. You Idiot!!! The $376 million was approved in 2008 when Bush was president. Remember him???
Further proving my point.
And in the 4 years under Obama, he implemented it, mouse brains.
Obama won by a landslide but he was expected to win. Trump’s victory is more historic because of the amount of lawfare he endured and that he wasn’t expected to win the popular vote. But he won everything because the American people resoundingly chose him over Kamala.
So, you're saying that a rich white guy beating a multi-racial woman was more unexpected and historic than a black man becoming POTUS?
Hey, I'm with you, AA - the new KING of parody.
Trump rose on the third election to heights never seen before. Nobody in history overcame what he did - the tremendous amounts of lawfare against him, the 2 assassination attempts, etc - and yet he ascended to the highest office in the land. And he did all of this when the entirety of the mainstream media was fully against him. Words cannot describe how incredible his victory was.
Obama renovations? Congress approved the funding in 2008 following a report by the administration of then-President George W. Bush, and the renovations aimed to upgrade the building's aging infrastructure. Upgrades included replacing decades-old heating, cooling, electrical, and fire-alarm equipment as well as unspecified security systems.
Sounds like they did it the right way. A study of the structure and existing systems, followed by Congress approving funds, etc.
Really nothing at all like the Big Beautiful Ballroom.
Oh, Jesus. You guys want to argue for the sake of it. The construction and implementation took place under Obama, mouse brains. He could have cancelled it, but didn't.
Missed the point, didn't you? We paid for that. We are not paying for the Ballroom. There have been renovations throughout history.
Do you really believe presidents should live in perfectly preserved, mold and all, 1776 tech? Stupid.
The ballroom is aimed at increasing diplomacy. What did you achieve so far today in your cubicle, Nancy?
Why would Obama have canceled the funds that Congress approved for needed renovations?
White House Renovation & Decoration Costs President Original Cost Today's Equivalent
James Monroe (1817) $20,000 ~$600,000 Abraham Lincoln (1861) $20,000 ~$600,000 Chester A. Arthur (1881) $110,000 ~$3.5 million Harry S. Truman (1948–1952) $5.7 million ~$179.6 million Jacqueline Kennedy (1961–1963) Funded privately N/A Richard Nixon (1969–1974) ~$1 million ~$6.5 million Bill Clinton (1993–2001) ~$4 million ~$6.5 million George W. Bush (2001–2009) $8.5 million ~$14.5 million Barack Obama (2009–2017) $376 million ~$472.5 million Donald Trump (2017–2021) $1.75 million ~$5.5 million
Oh, Jesus. You guys want to argue for the sake of it. The construction and implementation took place under Obama, mouse brains. He could have cancelled it, but didn't.
Missed the point, didn't you? We paid for that. We are not paying for the Ballroom. There have been renovations throughout history.
Do you really believe presidents should live in perfectly preserved, mold and all, 1776 tech? Stupid.
The ballroom is aimed at increasing diplomacy. What did you achieve so far today in your cubicle, Nancy?
Why would Obama have canceled the funds that Congress approved for needed renovations?
Your argument makes no sense.
Nice straw man.
I made a point that many administrations have made renovations, decorative changes, etc., yet Trump is attacked when he does the same.
Your weak argument was that Obama didn't approve the renovations, Bush did.
Now you're deflecting. Just admit it, you have TDS.
There's an obvious implication in that if Trump's renovations are bad, all White House renovations and additions are bad. Otherwise, cherry picking this administration and arguing it as an example of poor stewardship lacks integrity if all others are licensed.
I usually don't go on social media to call people an idiot but you win the title. You Idiot!!! The $376 million was approved in 2008 when Bush was president. Remember him???
Further proving my point I'm an idiot.
And in the 4 years under Obama, he implemented it, mouse brains.
Why would Obama have canceled the funds that Congress approved for needed renovations?
Your argument makes no sense.
Nice straw man.
I made a point that many administrations have made renovations, decorative changes, etc., yet Trump is attacked when he does the same.
Your weak argument was that Obama didn't approve the renovations, Bush did.
Now you're deflecting. Just admit it, you have TDS.
There are any number of reasons why people may be upset about the ballroom construction and changes Trump has made.
Trump originally promised that the new structure would be next to the existing structures and nothing would be torn down. Obviously, that was a lie.
A lot of people have questioned whether the existing structure could be modified without any study or architectural review -- let alone demolishing an entire wing. They're wondering what happened to art, was asbestos remediated, etc. They consider it the "people's house" and there doesn't appear to have been any studies or reviews from outside parties.
Some people are upset at the lack of transparency into the funds, wondering if this is another Trump corruption scheme where he's selling influence.
There probably other thing as well.
All that to say, this is nothing like whatever Bush approved and Obama implemented. So your "but Obama" argument falls really flat.
Obama renovations? Congress approved the funding in 2008 following a report by the administration of then-President George W. Bush, and the renovations aimed to upgrade the building's aging infrastructure. Upgrades included replacing decades-old heating, cooling, electrical, and fire-alarm equipment as well as unspecified security systems.
Sounds like they did it the right way. A study of the structure and existing systems, followed by Congress approving funds, etc.
Really nothing at all like the Big Beautiful Ballroom.
Oh, Jesus. You guys want to argue for the sake of it. The construction and implementation took place under Obama, mouse brains. He could have cancelled it, but didn't.
Missed the point, didn't you? We paid for that. We are not paying for the Ballroom. There have been renovations throughout history.
Do you really believe presidents should live in perfectly preserved, mold and all, 1776 tech? Stupid.
The ballroom is aimed at increasing diplomacy. What did you achieve so far today in your cubicle, Nancy?
The point isn’t preservation, the point is that the WH does not belong to Trump, it belongs to the nation.
He is not allowed to treat it like his personal property. Everyone else went through proper committees and got approval.
trump , as usual, acted like a king and is doing whatever he wants with national property.
I made a point that many administrations have made renovations, decorative changes, etc., yet Trump is attacked when he does the same.
Your weak argument was that Obama didn't approve the renovations, Bush did.
Now you're deflecting. Just admit it, you have TDS.
There are any number of reasons why people may be upset about the ballroom construction and changes Trump has made.
Trump originally promised that the new structure would be next to the existing structures and nothing would be torn down. Obviously, that was a lie.
A lot of people have questioned whether the existing structure could be modified without any study or architectural review -- let alone demolishing an entire wing. They're wondering what happened to art, was asbestos remediated, etc. They consider it the "people's house" and there doesn't appear to have been any studies or reviews from outside parties.
Some people are upset at the lack of transparency into the funds, wondering if this is another Trump corruption scheme where he's selling influence.
There probably other thing as well.
All that to say, this is nothing like whatever Bush approved and Obama implemented. So your "but Obama" argument falls really flat.
New Semi-Surprising Thought/Question of the Day: If I recall correctly, why was Trump OK with the GOP MERELY having no platform? With it ONLY being implicit that it's whatever Trump wants?
Shouldn't he have been pissed about that, insisting that they have an affirmative platform that STATES, "We're for ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that Trump wants. Period. Amen. And with North Korean-like enthusiasm!"
It sure is a good thing that it's those libs who are the weak sheep, and not those manly (fake) Republicans.....
I made a point that many administrations have made renovations, decorative changes, etc., yet Trump is attacked when he does the same.
Your weak argument was that Obama didn't approve the renovations, Bush did.
Now you're deflecting. Just admit it, you have TDS.
There are any number of reasons why people may be upset about the ballroom construction and changes Trump has made.
Trump originally promised that the new structure would be next to the existing structures and nothing would be torn down. Obviously, that was a lie.
A lot of people have questioned whether the existing structure could be modified without any study or architectural review -- let alone demolishing an entire wing. They're wondering what happened to art, was asbestos remediated, etc. They consider it the "people's house" and there doesn't appear to have been any studies or reviews from outside parties.
Some people are upset at the lack of transparency into the funds, wondering if this is another Trump corruption scheme where he's selling influence.
There probably other thing as well.
All that to say, this is nothing like whatever Bush approved and Obama implemented. So your "but Obama" argument falls really flat.
More TDS. Classic keyboard architect response. Did you forget I am an architect/ developer and Ivy League trained? All of what you say is nonsense because it is required to obtain permits. Your sense of things is adolescent at best.
The White House is maintained by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) — a professional federal agency that handles engineering, historical preservation, asbestos abatement, and structural reviews. Unlike a public renovation project, these studies are mostly internal for security reasons, so the public doesn’t see the reports.
Asbestos remediation: mandatory for federal construction; the AOC wouldn’t skip that.
Art and historical objects: the White House has museum-grade protocols, curated and moved for any construction.
Calling it “the people’s house” is rhetorical — the White House isn’t a community center; decisions are made by professionals and Congress.
All major federal spending must be approved and accounted for by Congress. It isn’t a private corporation where he could secretly “sell influence.” Claims of corruption are speculation, not evidence. Suggesting this without proof is just the internet’s default outrage mode. Do you have any proof, Nancy?
“nothing like Bush/Obama” argument is cherry-picked. Most White House renovations (Truman, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama) involve internal changes, modernization, and some temporary relocations, which are invisible to the public. The outrage isn’t about the scale, it’s about visibility — which is not a fair comparison.
You guys whine about nothing.
If there is an argument about anything, and this should be your side's argument because it is hard to debate against, is the aesthetics/ intrusive design to a historical application. All of the other nonsense you people are crying about aside, the design could be argued that it lacks hierarchy and possibly overshadows the White House to some degree as it may be over-scaled.
There are any number of reasons why people may be upset about the ballroom construction and changes Trump has made.
Trump originally promised that the new structure would be next to the existing structures and nothing would be torn down. Obviously, that was a lie.
A lot of people have questioned whether the existing structure could be modified without any study or architectural review -- let alone demolishing an entire wing. They're wondering what happened to art, was asbestos remediated, etc. They consider it the "people's house" and there doesn't appear to have been any studies or reviews from outside parties.
Some people are upset at the lack of transparency into the funds, wondering if this is another Trump corruption scheme where he's selling influence.
There probably other thing as well.
All that to say, this is nothing like whatever Bush approved and Obama implemented. So your "but Obama" argument falls really flat.
New Semi-Surprising Thought/Question of the Day: If I recall correctly, why was Trump OK with the GOP MERELY having no platform? With it ONLY being implicit that it's whatever Trump wants?
Shouldn't he have been pissed about that, insisting that they have an affirmative platform that STATES, "We're for ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that Trump wants. Period. Amen. And with North Korean-like enthusiasm!"
It sure is a good thing that it's those libs who are the weak sheep, and not those manly (fake) Republicans.....
Hey F-150 patriots, how much longer are you going to be perfectly OK with the GOP essentially denying the election of a Dem. Congresswoman from Arizona? 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, maybe forever?
I'm straining a bit, but I just don't remember Reagan ever saying, "F*** democracy."
The point isn’t preservation, the point is that the WH does not belong to Trump, it belongs to the nation.
He is not allowed to treat it like his personal property. Everyone else went through proper committees and got approval.
trump , as usual, acted like a king and is doing whatever he wants with national property.
Trump is a builder at heart. The renovation is done at no cost to the American taxpayer. Even talcum X (Shaun king) and the Washington post agreed that we needed a ballroom - a tent looks pathetic when you’re hosting world leaders.
Oh, Jesus. You guys want to argue for the sake of it. The construction and implementation took place under Obama, mouse brains. He could have cancelled it, but didn't.
Missed the point, didn't you? We paid for that. We are not paying for the Ballroom. There have been renovations throughout history.
Do you really believe presidents should live in perfectly preserved, mold and all, 1776 tech? Stupid.
The ballroom is aimed at increasing diplomacy. What did you achieve so far today in your cubicle, Nancy?
The point isn’t preservation, the point is that the WH does not belong to Trump, it belongs to the nation.
He is not allowed to treat it like his personal property. Everyone else went through proper committees and got approval.
trump , as usual, acted like a king and is doing whatever he wants with national property.
It belongs to the Republicans for at least the next 11 years.
Nothing illegal occurred. Reviews and approvals occurred. They have to to obtain permits. You may not like that he didn't hold a public review and that's fine. Not illegal. My assumption is he didn't want the rabid liberals coming out of the woodwork with sniper rifles.
Also, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) is responsible for reviewing federal construction projects in Washington, D.C., including those at the White House. The NCPC's jurisdiction typically covers the "vertical build" phase of projects. According to Will Scharf, the NCPC chair appointed by President Trump, demolition and site preparation do not require prior approval from the commission.
The point isn’t preservation, the point is that the WH does not belong to Trump, it belongs to the nation.
He is not allowed to treat it like his personal property. Everyone else went through proper committees and got approval.
trump , as usual, acted like a king and is doing whatever he wants with national property.
Trump is a builder at heart. The renovation is done at no cost to the American taxpayer. Even talcum X (Shaun king) and the Washington post agreed that we needed a ballroom - a tent looks pathetic when you’re hosting world leaders.
I agree. Women in heels slopping through the mud is a little 3rd world.
New Semi-Surprising Thought/Question of the Day: If I recall correctly, why was Trump OK with the GOP MERELY having no platform? With it ONLY being implicit that it's whatever Trump wants?
Shouldn't he have been pissed about that, insisting that they have an affirmative platform that STATES, "We're for ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that Trump wants. Period. Amen. And with North Korean-like enthusiasm!"
It sure is a good thing that it's those libs who are the weak sheep, and not those manly (fake) Republicans.....
Hey F-150 patriots, how much longer are you going to be perfectly OK with the GOP essentially denying the election of a Dem. Congresswoman from Arizona? 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, maybe forever?
I'm straining a bit, but I just don't remember Reagan ever saying, "F*** democracy."
Which country are you from? England? Don't you guys have worse problems with the Muslims taking over? Might wanna give some attention to that. Whining about someone from Arizona halfway across the world is pathetic.
"A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted from Oct. 15-20 indicated Trump’s approval rating at 42%, a minor increase within the poll’s margin of error. The poll, which surveyed 4,835 U.S. adults, has a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points. Fifty percent of respondents pointed the finger at the Republican congressional leadership for the shutdown, while 43% blamed Democrats. A separate YouGov poll conducted on Oct. 23 found that 53% of the 2,326 U.S. adults surveyed were against Trump’s decision to demolish the East Wing of the White House, compared to 28% who were in favor."
A snap shot about recent Trump's inaction and his wonderful renovation !!