ceejayoz

Maybe you're projecting your own beliefs about government subsidizing things a little on other people. The government made a risky bet; that's one of the important things governments exist for. Sometimes they pay off (SpaceX), sometimes they don't (Starliner).

Perhaps the next time someone correctly notes SpaceX got subsidized you might lead with the clear positive cost savings you eventually defended them with?

> What was your purpose in insta-citing that article…

It was the first reputable source that came up in Google? It gives several specifics that directly match the Wikipedia definition of a subsidy?

> because of that Falcon 1 program two decades ago

Falcon 1 got them the subsidies. It was the most unsubsidized part of SpaceX!

> If believing that makes you feel better about the accomplishments of someone you admit to greatly disliking, congratulations.

I can be a big SpaceX fan and still wish the man running it hadn't gotten brainworms.

> And before you deny doing so, you are the one who wrote…

Why would I deny that? I asserted Starlink has been subsidized, and stand by that claim. I'd thought we'd settled that point handily by now.

> A subsidy, subvention or government incentive is a type of government expenditure which redistributes from tax payers to individuals, households, or businesses. Subsidies take various forms, such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives, soft loans, price support, and government provision of goods and services.

SpaceX benefited from the italicized items in this definition.

That he should be grateful for the taxpayers support? That government interventions can, at times, be highly successful?

Do you base every conversation on "what would the dumbest Redditor think"?

That is correct.

> Every small business that gets an SBA loan—the type of low-interest loan that the Post article highlights—is being subsidized.

Yes.

> Meanwhile, in addition to Boeing being paid substantially much for its half of the program, the company received a $300 million special, uncontracted payment in 2016 (not disclosed until 2019) to further accelerate development.

"Boeing is subsidized" is not a controversial statement.

> On the civilian side, SpaceX saved NASA $2 billion for just one payload

Yes, this is why we do subsidies - they (potentially) pay off. We subsidize healthcare for poor people because it saves us money in the long run. We subsidize infrastructure because it helps the economy. We subsidize critical manufacturers for national security reasons.

How is it you're reading "x is subsidized" - a simple fact - to mean "subsidizing x is bad" - a matter of opinion that varies from subsidy to subsidy and company to company?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

"A subsidy, subvention or government incentive is a type of government expenditure which redistributes from tax payers to individuals, households, or businesses. Subsidies take various forms, such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives, soft loans, price support, and government provision of goods and services."

A painting can be valued. A vintage car can be valued. A movie script can be valued. My house's value changed a bunch during COVID; I'm still taxed on it! Each is an asset; none of these examples can be perfectly valuated; each may see its value change dramatically over time, but you can still estimate its worth pretty well.

Hell, I can put my house address on Zillow and get an estimate in real time.

You're correct that "we'll pay you to launch this satellite" isn't a subsidy. But "we'll pay you to develop this satellite launcher, and this cargo capsule, and this crew capsule, with the explicit goal of kickstarting a new launch provider" is.

Things like the EV tax credit also apply, considering Musk has leveraged his Tesla holdings to help SpaceX at times.

And to be clear: this was a very good use of public funds, whatever I think of Musk these days.

If you don't count the launcher it rides on, and the company that owns both.

C'mon, man. We know Musk's net worth. It's public knowledge!

Valuing assets is a routine, widespread thing.

You can't just handwave away the fact that the real world exists.

They just get completely watered down for production. As will happen here. That's why they're concepts.

Nothing says the 1996 law can't be undone (as it's not an amendment), and states can permit noncitizen voting outside of the Federal context if they feel like it. That's Federalism for you.

https://www.sec.gov/files/forms-3-4-5.pdf

Here are Musk’s. https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1494730.htm

Oh, are those real now?

Good way to find out it this is the case: take it away. Not real, right? Why would they mind?

The why of things matters. There’s long standing precedent on this.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/569...

> We think that notice to the unsuccessful applicant of the factual bases for denial with an opportunity to rebut is a minimum prerequisite for ensuring that the denial is indeed in furtherance of Presidential protection, rather than based on arbitrary or less than compelling reasons.

Similarly, not credentialing an incidentally Jewish reporter wouldn’t be a violation. But removing their pass for being Jewish later would be.

This is the case in the US, too, as public utilities.

> Theyve got 58 reactors operating (about 56 GW) and 33 more (over 35 GW) under construction.

They added 315 GW of solar in 2025 alone, so we agree.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/611

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and...

Maybe we can ask SCOTUS to overthrow it on the "history and tradition" test Dobbs & Bruen recently (ironically) created.

The problem is when "oops we did a little oopsiefuckup" starts to look like a deliberate pattern to cause chaos.

If we're citing that sort of thing, I'm gonna go ahead and quote the Declaration of Independence, which should be at least as instructive as to intent.

The Federalist Papers are, after all, advocacy efforts (opeds, even) by three people, not policy decisions agreed upon and ratified by the states.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

"All men" and "the governed" seem like they could easily have said "landowners" if that were genuinely the intent.

(Nor should we necessarily be permanently bound to the opinions of people who predate germ theory.)

Versus, say, this sort of prediction market wisdom: https://imgur.com/a/pw5hW9x

But it does largely determine if they can win.

Which is functionally identical.

https://www.npr.org/2026/05/15/nx-s1-5822329/memphis-gerryma...

Both systems have strong benefits for incumbents.

Until 2013, some states were under Federal preclearance rules because those "totally different goals" were historically "don't let black people vote".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder

Dems keep losing, in part, because they're following the rules the other team is openly flouting. There's no real pleasant answer to that in any direction.