Breaking down claim Trump paid himself 2.5% contractor fee on new White House ballroom

 Breaking down claim Trump paid himself 2.5% contractor fee on new White House ballroom

. . . "In short, it was not possible to independently verify whether Trump or anyone related to him received such a kickback, but Snopes found no evidence of this occurring. For this reason, we left the claim unrated. 

"Social media users appeared to misunderstand a document that public interest watchdog Public Citizen obtained in April 2026 as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The document is an agreement between the White House, the National Park Service and Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit organization." . . .  Full article here...

But facts will not matter to Whoopi and the girls. TD

Eric Swalwell said any Democrat candidate had to commit to tearing the ballroom down.
Where is Eric now, by the way?

he FBI Just Told Fox News It Knows Who Funded the Riots and Indictments Are Coming    . . . "That investigation is now running in parallel with one of the most explosive financial crime cases in years.

Federal prosecutors in New York have opened a grand jury investigation into Neville Roy Singham – a China-based tech tycoon who pumped roughly $285 million through a Goldman Sachs philanthropy fund and a network of shell companies into Marxist activist groups across the United States since 2017.

Singham – who relocated to Shanghai after selling his company for an estimated $785 million – has funded CodePink, The People's Forum, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and BreakThrough News.

These are the same organizations whose affiliated activists showed up at Delaney Hall, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles screaming at ICE agents."

When this all completed and beautiful, I can't wait to see what the next Democrat Administration will do with it. "There were just too many issues with using the ballroom, so we had to go with the usual tent."

The Negative Impact of Socialism

I feel one must look at all the Greta Thunberg clones on streets with their Hamas scarves and raised fists to realize the types who support socialism. TD

Angry ExDemocrat   

"As societies seek to strike a balance between economic equality and individual freedoms, it is crucial to critically evaluate the potential trade-offs of embracing a socialist model of governance."

"Socialism, as an economic and political ideology, has been a topic of heated debate for decades. Proponents argue that it aims to reduce economic inequality and provide essential services to all citizens, while critics often emphasize its potential negative consequences. This article delves into the negative impacts of socialism, exploring its effects on economic growth, individual incentives, innovation, and personal freedoms. While socialism's intentions may be noble, its implementation can lead to a range of unintended and detrimental outcomes.

Stifled Economic Growth

"One of the fundamental flaws of socialism lies in its tendency to stifle economic growth. By placing significant control over the means of production in the hands of the government, socialism often results in inefficiencies, lack of competition, and reduced productivity. State-owned enterprises might prioritize political considerations over market demands, leading to resource misallocation and a decline in overall economic output. The absence of competition diminishes the incentive for businesses to innovate and improve efficiency, ultimately hampering

economic progress.

Incentive Erosion

"Individual incentives lie at the heart of any thriving economy. Socialism, however, can undermine these incentives by redistributing wealth and resources from the more productive members of society to those who contribute less. The promise of equal outcomes regardless of effort or talent can discourage hard work, entrepreneurship, and innovation. When there is no potential for greater personal gain through exceptional effort, individuals might lose the drive to excel and contribute positively to the economy." . . .  More...

Why socialism doesn’t work — Adam Smith Institute 

  "Socialism, when implemented as a political and economic system, has historically led to tyranny and persecution for several reasons:

"Socialism typically abolishes or severely restricts private property. Without private ownership and the ability to reap personal rewards from effort and innovation, productivity declines, and economic stagnation follows.

"Government-controlled economies lack the flexibility and efficiency of market-driven ones. Central planners cannot account for the complexity of supply and demand, leading to shortages, waste, and inefficiency." . . .

More...

The Destructive Consequences Of Socialism

Trump’s CEA reports on an ideology that retards growth—and worse.

Hoover Institution   

"In short, the Nordic tax systems are less “progressive” than ours. U.S. socialist Bernie Sanders claims that he wants the United States to emulate Scandinavia. That would mean driving U.S. tax rates on the middle class well above the levels we have now. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sanders has done so little investigation that he doesn’t know even that basic fact."

AfterMath - Home

. . . "But the CEA economists don’t just rely on empirical economic models. They also use good economic reasoning to point out the basic problem with socialism: bad incentives. Following Milton and Rose Friedman, they note four ways people can spend money: (1) spend their own money on themselves, (2) spend their own money on others, (3) spend someone else’s money on themselves, and (4) spend someone else’s money on others. The fourth way accounts for most government spending. The authors note a huge problem: the spenders don’t economize (they’re spending other people’s money) and they don’t seek the highest value (they’re spending on others.) For that reason, socialism and government spending generally are very wasteful.

"They use this basic spending framework to criticize the idea, which has become popular on the American left, of Medicare for All. They quote New York Times economics columnist Paul Krugman’s statement that under Medicare for All, “most people would gain more from the elimination of insurance premiums than they would lose from the tax hike.” The authors point out that Krugman fails to mention “any of the economic problems with spending someone else’s money on someone else.” (italics added)

"That criticism might account for Krugman’s calling the report “amazingly dishonest.” Krugman claims the report is “basically saying that if you favor Medicare for All, you’re Mao Zedong.” Not true. The authors note upfront that “Present-day socialists do not want the dictatorship or state brutality that often coincided with the most extreme cases of socialism.” Who’s dishonest?

"It’s easy to show that our mixed economy in the United States performs way better than the horrible socialist economies of Lenin’s and Stalin’s Soviet Union, of Chairman Mao’s Communist China, and of Fidel Castro’s Cuba." . . .More...   

David R. Henderson is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution. He is also a professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.