Leaving aside the foolishness of DeVos's attempt, what is the argument for why the taxpayers should be be subsidizing the one charity that will never lack donors and goodwill?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Eli's trying to participate in good faith.
(no message)
"ESports" competitors at various world tournaments represent the United States. May I put you down as a "Yes" in supporting federal payments to the organizations that allow these gamers to compete under the banner of the USA in these events? So, if a private organization
Kind of a feeble argument, isn't it? Particularly when you consider that the subsidies in question are not even for Special Olympians competing in these world events.
You weren't providing the mechanism he needed to attack both the Left and Right partisans.
In answer to MAS: Most people want their favorite programs to get funding, left and right. I suppose I am unique in that I think most of even the most noble causes should not be funded by the government, but should instead by funded by private charity alone. We have so many fights about stuff we shouldn't be fighting about in the Federal budget, and once you fund something nationally, you can't unfund it. Look at the Left's outrage at defunding Special Olympics. They would support a bill to kill the would-be Special Olympics participants at a young age (in the womb or shortly after birth...even if they would not do it themselves, of course), but they oppose killing that funding because they see an opportunity to make political points for election purposes. Pull out of Syria? People who would oppose us going there in the first place will then oppose us withdrawing because they see an opportunity to make political points for election purposes. It's all about appearances for elections to gain power. The Special Olympics, Planned Parenthood, etc. are pawns in the power game to placate/inflame select portions of the masses. At the Federal level, I'm skeptical that anything is ever as straightforward as a city park. But, the system is what it is, so we all have to play political games, because if the spending will occur no matter what (and it will), it might as well be spending for our favorite cause, right? And, guess what?...we apparently don't have to worry about the National Debt.
That is my best attempt at an answer. If you think I'm wrong, please provide your best attempt at an answer.
(no message)
She has already given more to SO before the controversy than all of her critics combined (including you).
She would not say whose decision it was, but there is wide speculation that it was Trump (of course, who else would the msm speculate that it was - but in this rare case, they might be right).
Regardless, DeVos argued vehemently against the move. She has more money than Trump ever dreamed of having and could have walked away long ago. But she has a rare kind of self-effacing character along with a strong desire to make a difference in the educational system of this country. Thus, she endures the attacks from those envious of her wealth as well as those who foolishly presume to categorize her based on limited information (that is your special ability).
This person has given over and over of her time, effort, and wealth. And she has more genuine concern and actions for the handicapped, disabled, and afflicted than any one of her critics.
Instead of your emotive, tribal ramblings, how about answering my question?
Why do you care? God forbid we collectively fund something that improves us as a society.
Baron was 100% right about DeVos, by the way. He’s just being “emotive,” I guess, not staid and composed and macho like you.
Yes, his was an emptive response. I defended DeVos at the time and have defended her here other times. He has a tribal and geographic connection with her and chose to imagine that I am a critic of hers rather than answering a simple question.
I articulate a communitarian philosophy all the time in explaining why I support taxpayer funding of parks, libraries, partnerships with private non-profits and many other things at the state and local levels. I enthusiastically support such things.
Why do we want the federal government subsidizing Special Olympics?
DeVos fought it and then took one for the team because it appears to have come from Trump. When it blew up, Trump pointed at the Ed Dept. DeVos, being the head of the dept just took the hit for the team like a good soldier (This could have come from someone below DeVos in the dept as well in Trump’s defense, but I doubt it).
My comments are hardly tribal since I criticize The chief of that tribe - Trump.
Also, I do not base my affiliations with people on geography which would be a rather stupid reason to like someone since there are both idiots and good people everywhere (I leave that puzzling behavior to Big 10 fans).
If you had made some mention of the uncertainty of your statement, I probably would have been quiet. Also, had it not been about one of those rare camels that can actually fit through the eye of a needle, I also would have said things less strongly. There has been comments that would suggest that her husband would like to spare her from this stress, and as you know, many with comfortable lives have resigned from cabinet positions over the years. But not her.
Now, to answer your question....the government should fund Special Olympics. I believe that it is specifically the role of government to protect, support, and nurture the truly disadvantaged, along with providing a defense, infrastructure, etc.....and otherwise stay out of the way.
Did you read where I agreed that the state has a role to play in these things? Why does the (I'll just make it even more explicit) federal government have a role in subsidizing Special Olympics? I suspect you've understood my point from the outset, as a self-identified conservative. If this is simply a personal-emotional position, then just state it and clarify that it's not a matter of philosophical consistency for you.
We can't question something like this because the people who make these decisions are afraid of broaching the subject, even when it's the right thing to do, because demagogues will exploit it to the Nth degree, as we saw in this case. No one can explain in any intelligent way why the Special Olympics needs this sort of subsidy. The responses here are akin to what I get when I ask things like, "Why does the federal government subsidize artists?"Or, "How does the Dept. of Education improve public schools in the United States?"Or, "Why should the federal government subsidize corn-based ethanol?" It's either crickets or tortured contortions full of vague word salad phrases that mean nothing because there aren't any good defenses. Oh, and wrap it up in some emotive, demagogic language to try and silence any rational questions about whatever subsidy is in question.
(no message)