ceejayoz

One of the Constitution's big failings is this sort of thing; deeply vague wording. What counts as interstate commerce? What counts as reasonable? What's considered press activity? What's considered illegal speech?

If you were writing a new one today, you'd define some stuff more.

Do you think these are random searches?

https://elenco.com/snapcircuits/

You’ve essentially described the ending of every Survivor episode.

> they certainly wouldn’t have safety concerns as grown up (mostly) men from a small girl

I take it you’ve never had to contain a raging toddler.

> like a public lynching

> all hyper liberal... the types that cannot help but judge individuals based on whether they’re in their group on not

I'm starting to wonder what "some normal thing you did" entailed.

Plenty of the tasks that keep a company running can benefit from good-enough (and better than the competition).

Well, the President wants to redesign the Navy to look "cool" - battleships, carriers with steam catapults again and center islands. Why not the Air Force too?

If your point is "we can't tax people because estimates aren't perfect", sure. But it's a silly point. We already tax people off estimates - if you own a house, your property taxes are assessed in exactly this fashion - an estimate of its value.

> It was "public knowledge" when his estimated net worth hit a trillion.

No. It was public knowledge when his known numbers of shares in his publicly traded companies reached a known price point.

This is, ironically, more of a guess/estimate than determining Musk's net worth is. We don't actually know that!

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

That the estimates vary a bit on the edges doesn't mean they've no value. It was public knowledge when his net worth confirmably hit a trillion dollars in share holdings.

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

"Subsidies take various forms, such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives, soft loans, price support, and government provision of goods and services."

Tesla received low-interest loans (and tax credits for their customers). SpaceX was given funds (that'll be "direct government expenditures") to develop the Falcon 9, Cargo Dragon, and Crew Dragon (and now the lunar lander). Those funds were not conditional on completion of the program (as we've seen with Starliner); they were R&D funding in milestones in hopes of a functional spacecraft at the end.

> with Musk throwing his entire $100 million fortune into starting a cockamamie rocket startup despite having zero experience in the field having absolutely nothing to do with the rocket meeting the program's goals, of course

Again with the strawmen.

"You got subsidies" and "you had nothing to do with the success" are wildly different statements. You can be both an extremely hard worker and supergenius and still need government support for your very expensive good idea.

> Your implication is that every single thing Musk and Musk's companies are doing today—Dragon, Crew Dragon, Falcon 9, Starship, xAI, Tesla, etc., etc.—are "subsidized"—again, with the "sacks of free money with dollar signs painted on them" connotation—because of that Falcon 1 program two decades ago.

No, the opposite. Falcon 1 is the single least subsidized part of it. It was the one big bit Musk completely self-funded.

They demonstrated an ability to get to orbit (after almost going bankrupt), which gave NASA the confidence to subsidize them in a larger project.

Please, read, then react to it.

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.