By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The US Politics |OT|

jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

No, but an American sports organization founded in the 1960s that is dependent on various sources including the US government.

They will now have to cut their budget, operate in the red or increase their other revenue streams (higher fees, etc...).  Because apparently we can't afford that $18 million per year we provide....because POTUS can't cut 3 of his golf trips per year (same costs).

It would be an awesome gesture if Trump or any of his billionaire cabinet ponied up the difference.  But...see picture.  That's not going to happen.

Well if its not ran by the government then the government should not give it money imo.

You know the government doesn't run a lot of what it helps fund, right?  So nothing to the states either?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

Well if its not ran by the government then the government should not give it money imo.

You know the government doesn't run a lot of what it helps fund, right?  So nothing to the states either?

Yeah I do. Like if its a contact like we have with SpaceX thats understandable since they are making stuff for the government to use. But something like the special olympics which we give them money to run their own private event should not be government funded

States are different since they are part of our government.

Last edited by jason1637 - on 26 March 2019

jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

No, but an American sports organization founded in the 1960s that is dependent on various sources including the US government.

They will now have to cut their budget, operate in the red or increase their other revenue streams (higher fees, etc...).  Because apparently we can't afford that $18 million per year we provide....because POTUS can't cut 3 of his golf trips per year (same costs).

It would be an awesome gesture if Trump or any of his billionaire cabinet ponied up the difference.  But...see picture.  That's not going to happen.

Well if its not ran by the government then the government should not give it money imo.

Then how do you fund public organizations that act independently from the government? No, I don't think you should categorically bar any instance of funding a non-government organization with government money. If it performs a good public service, and does so in an efficient, non-corrupt, and not-for-profit way, it's a good idea to fund it as it can perform its mission without the inefficiency of partisan gridlock. Sure there are other ways to fund such organizations, but they usually aren't enough, and these things tend to be worth it for the public good. If it's something people want, but it would suffer if corporate greed got involved, and would also suffer if the government could corrupt it or gum it up with partisan bickering, a non-government organization is the best option. We should be using them for a lot more.



jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

You know the government doesn't run a lot of what it helps fund, right?  So nothing to the states either?

Yeah I do. Like if its a contact like they have with SpaceX thats understandable since they are making stuff for the government to use. But something like the special olympics which we giive them money and they run their private event should not get government funding.

States are different since they are part of our government.

So no government funding whatsoever unless it's another government entity.  Interesting.

There goes the National Endowment for the Arts, National Science Foundation, PBS, NPR, federal grants, the Small Business Administration, National Institute of Health, about 40 major labs including the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory...and so much more.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

HylianSwordsman said:
jason1637 said:

Well if its not ran by the government then the government should not give it money imo.

Then how do you fund public organizations that act independently from the government? No, I don't think you should categorically bar any instance of funding a non-government organization with government money. If it performs a good public service, and does so in an efficient, non-corrupt, and not-for-profit way, it's a good idea to fund it as it can perform its mission without the inefficiency of partisan gridlock. Sure there are other ways to fund such organizations, but they usually aren't enough, and these things tend to be worth it for the public good. If it's something people want, but it would suffer if corporate greed got involved, and would also suffer if the government could corrupt it or gum it up with partisan bickering, a non-government organization is the best option. We should be using them for a lot more.

Well you dont. If the government wants to fund a certain program them they should make a government program for it. Government money should be spent om government run programs and contracts only.



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
jason1637 said:

Yeah I do. Like if its a contact like they have with SpaceX thats understandable since they are making stuff for the government to use. But something like the special olympics which we giive them money and they run their private event should not get government funding.

States are different since they are part of our government.

So no government funding whatsoever unless it's another government entity.  Interesting.

There goes the National Endowment for the Arts, National Science Foundation, PBS, NPR, federal grants, the Small Business Administration, National Institute of Health, about 40 major labs including the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory...and so much more.

Shrug I guess. The government shouldn't fund them.



jason1637 said:
HylianSwordsman said:

Then how do you fund public organizations that act independently from the government? No, I don't think you should categorically bar any instance of funding a non-government organization with government money. If it performs a good public service, and does so in an efficient, non-corrupt, and not-for-profit way, it's a good idea to fund it as it can perform its mission without the inefficiency of partisan gridlock. Sure there are other ways to fund such organizations, but they usually aren't enough, and these things tend to be worth it for the public good. If it's something people want, but it would suffer if corporate greed got involved, and would also suffer if the government could corrupt it or gum it up with partisan bickering, a non-government organization is the best option. We should be using them for a lot more.

Well you dont. If the government wants to fund a certain program them they should make a government program for it. Government money should be spent om government run programs and contracts only.

Like I said, if it's in the public interest, and they can run it better than a government program and without corporate greed, why not spend government money on a non-government organization? I mean it's our money, if that's how we want it spent (as a democratic whole, not as individuals obviously), then it should be spent that way.



HylianSwordsman said:
jason1637 said:

Well you dont. If the government wants to fund a certain program them they should make a government program for it. Government money should be spent om government run programs and contracts only.

Like I said, if it's in the public interest, and they can run it better than a government program and without corporate greed, why not spend government money on a non-government organization? I mean it's our money, if that's how we want it spent (as a democratic whole, not as individuals obviously), then it should be spent that way.

what are you defining as a "democratic whole"? the majority of the population?



SuperRetroTurbo said:
If anyone would like to discuss the US' judicial system, I'm all ears.

I was having a conversation this morning about it. At the end of the day, it's corrupt but to what extent?

Yeah, it's broke as f**k. Jussie Smollet just got away with faking a hate crime - scott free. And we'll never know why because they sealed ALL the documents pertaining to the case.

If that's not Hollywood privilege, then I don't know what the hell is. He was guilty as sin with concrete imlerimp evidence such as footage, transactions, confessions... And just like that, prosecutors dropped the case.

So basically, if you're black and in Hollywood - you're impervious to taking accountability for faking a hate crime as long as it's against Trump.

What bullshit...

Last edited by TranceformerFX - on 27 March 2019

TranceformerFX said:
SuperRetroTurbo said:
If anyone would like to discuss the US' judicial system, I'm all ears.

I was having a conversation this morning about it. At the end of the day, it's corrupt but to what extent?

Yeah, it's broke as f**k. Jussie Smollet just got away with faking a hate crime - scott free. And we'll never know why because they sealed ALL the documents pertaining to the case.

If that's not Hollywood privilege, then I don't know what the hell is. He was guilty as sin with concrete imlerimp evidence such as footage, transactions, confessions... And just like that, prosecutors dropped the case.

So basically, if you're black and in Hollywood - you're impervious to taking accountability for faking a hate crime as long as it's against Trump.

What bullshit...

He's been blacklisted in Hollywood.  He'll never get a solid acting gig again.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."