Skip to main content

View Diary: Fox "News" Host Offers To Pick Up $74K Weekly Tab For Cancelled White House Tours (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's what taxes are for (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, Wisper, Neuroptimalian

    as long as people pay their taxes according to law, there's no problem with them voluntarily paying additional money to support something of their own choosing.  It's like giving to a charity or any other non-profit.  When you are voluntarily giving away your money, you get to decide where that money goes.  

    If you think that more money should go to Head Start and WIC, you are free to voluntarily pay additional money, over and above your taxes, to those things.  

    •  NO.NO NO (11+ / 0-)

      YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT

      AS USUAL

      tHEY Want to completely defund the government to the point where it doesn't work at all, because they hate paying taxes. Then, they want to pick and choose what they get to fund with their taxes - like White House Tours.

      SORRY. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY

      "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

      by eXtina on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:40:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My guess is that if some group offers to pay (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wisper, Neuroptimalian

        the $2 million to keep the tours open for the balance of the year that the White House will graciously accept. The optics of declining would be terrible for the President. Spring is when many of the nation's children have their one chance to come to DC and see so many of our historical landmarks, including the White House.  

        I have been to the White House three times, once as a normal tourist with my children and twice for a personal tour, which included many of the areas not typically seen by the public. It's a special place and it would be great if it could be reopened through the spring and summer.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:53:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is NOT "with their taxes." (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, Wisper, Neuroptimalian

        Presumably (unless the IRS is coming after them) they have PAID their taxes.  

        This would be a voluntary donation.  

        When I voluntarily donate money, I get to decide where I want that money to go.  I worked to earn it, it's mine, and if I want to give it away, I get to decide where it goes.  That's how things work.  

        •  again, you miss the point that there is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          trumpeter, Tonedevil

          disagreeement on the need for how much taxes need to be collected. You seem to think it's enough. It's not.

          "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

          by eXtina on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 08:59:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, here's my disagreement. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, Neuroptimalian

            You seem to think that a person should not be able to voluntarily donate money to a cause unless that person simply donates it to the federal government.  That's where I  disagree.  

            And I think that, next year, we probably will be back up to "enough" taxes.  If you look historically, except for WWII, federal receipts topped out at about 18 - 19% of GDP (there was only one year it hit 20% of GDP).

            After the fiscal cliff deal, the CBO predicts that starting next year, we'll be back at that level.  Pdf here.  I think that probably is about the right amount of revenue for the federal government to take in.  If it increases above the historical average, all of that increase should probably be in the realm of Medicare, which is going to be a huge long-term spending problem, according to the Medicare Trustees.  

      •  Id be more convinced (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, Neuroptimalian

        if you used more capital letters.  

        Your argument could be used to decry any donation to charity.  People pay their taxes based on the universal system as it applies to them.  They are obligated to pay the minimum required under current law and not a 1¢ more.

        The SCOTUS has ruled several times that no one has the right or ability to dictate or dispute how that money is spent in aggregate.

        But BEYOND that money, any money you want to give to anything from your local ASPCA to your Church to your nearby elementary school, you get to put any strings and conditions on your "donation" that you see fit.

        You can even make donations directly to the Department of Defense if you feel compelled to help equip our soldiers.

        This is all perfectly legal.  The White House opened this door.  Now they should take the money and run the tours.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:08:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  again with the assumption that we are (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, trumpeter

          already collecting enough taxes

          we're not. we're running a deficit and need to collect more in taxes to make up the shortfall

          "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

          by eXtina on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:10:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Than raise taxes (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, Neuroptimalian

            Until then, people pay the minimum.  When its raised, people will then pay the new minimum.

            These are different issues.  I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

            And its not a given that we need to collect more.  We collect a lot already.  We could spend it more wisely.  Maybe not give away billions to in oil subsidies.  Not hand out obscene amounts under the Farm bill.  Maybe rein in duplication functions across parallel agencies.  And, oh I don't know... buy less new toys used to kill people around the world.  There's a thought.

            If we did these things, maybe we could fund our priorities without putting more tax burdens on the American people.

            Now if we, as a nation, really decide that we WANT all this spending.  That its all required and must never be reduced.  Then yeah, we need to raise taxes.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:15:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  well that's what the bill in the Senate to prevent (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tonedevil, trumpeter

              the sequester proposed, but was filibustered by Republicans

              .  Maybe not give away billions to in oil subsidies.  Not hand out obscene amounts under the Farm bill.
              S. 338. I did a diary on it. Look it up. Well, the jackasses in the Senate filibustered it, so now we get White House tours cut back because they decided oil and ag subsidies were more important

              "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

              by eXtina on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:18:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are right (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coffeetalk, VClib, Neuroptimalian

                and now someone is offering to pay (beyond their tax obligation) to fund tours as a public service.

                So is your argument just one of principle?  Congress didnt pass the right bills so people need to be taught a lesson and if some private citizen steps in to offer to pay for things to try and lessen the pain they are thereby minimizing the PAINFUL LESSON that America needs to understand the issue?

                If so, you are essentially arguing that people (who are in no position of power or authority) NEED to suffer and feel the pain of Congress' actions.  No mitigating allowed.

                So if someone offers to pay for Veteran's programs or to keep a local school open, are you going to make the same argument?  NO!  No paying to just keep the veteran rehab clinic in YOUR neighborhood open because Congress is dysfunctional.  Your community's veterans MUST SUFFER until everyone learns!

                I think I am mistating your argument.. or at least I sure as hell HOPE I am .. but I confess.. I do not understand your point.

                Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                by Wisper on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:47:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  no one's doing that (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  trumpeter, Tonedevil
                  So if someone offers to pay for Veteran's programs or to keep a local school open
                  mr. strawman

                  "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

                  by eXtina on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:49:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I was asking IF you saw this as the same (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coffeetalk, Neuroptimalian

                    By your logic, I dont understand how you wouldnt respond with the same "Sorry.. thats not how this works Douchebag" argument.

                    Veteran's benefits are the cost of running the country... etc etc

                    I was just trying to understand how you are differentiating between this guy offering to pay extra money out of his pocket to fund an existing public program (albeit a small one) and other similar things.

                    You are clearly against this, as your diary states.  I guess I just dont get it.

                    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                    by Wisper on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:52:57 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  You have never been more wrong. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina, Tonedevil, trumpeter, blueoasis

      The WH isn't a goddamned charity.


      Not this mind and not this heart, I won't rot • Mumford & Sons

      by jayden on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:18:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which means its not tax deductable (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coffeetalk

        doesn't people cant donate to it.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:49:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What gives a Fox News Host... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          trumpeter, eXtina

          the right to produce tours of the White House? The US government once gave tours of the White House and now they have stopped because of the sequester. How does a private citizen have the right to order them up again, even if they are willing to open up their own check book to fund it.

          This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

          by Tonedevil on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 01:29:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neuroptimalian

            Hes not ordering.  What he's saying is that the publicly stated reason the tours stopped is because of cost.  It was to save the $74,000 so he is offering to pay the $74k himself if that's the only reason the tour isnt happening.

            Why am I suddenly having to defend some douche from FOX News?  I couldn't give one-half of one rat's ass about this guy but I dont understand why some non-elected person offering to pay for this for some kids from Iowa is the most dickish move we've ever seen some right-wing hack make.

            Seems a simple minor side-show distraction kind of thing.. how'd did we get to "How dare this scumbag offer his own money to pay for something that hes thinks is good and involves children!!!!"?

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:57:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              eXtina

              what priority list the White House tours are on nor do I know what money bucket the cash comes from. What I am pretty sure is it is someone's job to make that list and to apportion that money. I am also pretty sure that job doesn't fall to a Fox News Host. If said host wants to give $74,000.00 to the White House that is fine, but I don't think that means he gets to say it goes for White House Tours.

              This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

              by Tonedevil on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 04:17:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Wisper - if we wanted to fund White House tours (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neuroptimalian

          it could be very easily be done as a charitable deduction. When a new POTUS is elected it is common that a tax exempt foundation is established to give the new First Family a budget to redecorate. That's just one of many White House items funded by private, tax deductible donations. The same could be easily done for White House tours. If someone starts a fund to raise the $2 million for this fiscal year, or an endowment to take White House tours off the White House budget forever, I will donate to both.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 02:45:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  there's probably not even a way to put (0+ / 0-)

          money directly into whatever account would pay for those expenses. fungible and all that, you know

          "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

          by eXtina on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 05:25:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site