to accept government rule:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4412331/Sports-club-removes-sexist-word-from-name.html

Quote :

"Broad Plain Boys' Club, which has gone under the name since 1894, faced the loss of funding unless it could show it was inclusive, so submitted an alteration. The sports club, which does now have girl members, has changed the name to Broad Plain Working With Young People Group. ... "We need the funding so we have to back down. We haven't even had any additional girls coming down - it seems another case of political correctness gone mad." ... A Bristol City Council spokesman said: "The criteria is that if you want funding, you have to show that you are meeting the needs of all young people, not a specific group of people."

Because clearly you can't meet the needs of all young people without a properly sanitized name.

2/1/2009 10:29:51 PM

MINORITY
CAREER
FAIR

2/1/2009 10:35:50 PM

Government funding is a favorite tool of politicians to control otherwise "free" people. Once you get on Uncle Sam's teat, weaning is difficult. A lot of people have sold their freedom to governments to get some "free" money that was taken by coercion from someone else (taxes).

2/1/2009 11:04:13 PM

STUDENT
GOVERNMENT
FEES

2/1/2009 11:32:29 PM

THE JOLLY OLD WOLFE WEB

2/2/2009 12:05:45 AM

^^^ yep, that's how they beat the 10th Amendment.

2/2/2009 9:36:52 AM

as soon as they realized that they could vote money from the public coffer into their own pockets, we were all screwed

2/2/2009 9:40:37 AM

Quote :

" A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: * From bondage to spiritual faith; * From spiritual faith to great courage; * From courage to liberty; * From liberty to abundance; * From abundance to complacency; * From complacency to apathy; * From apathy to dependence; * From dependence back into bondage. "

alexander tytler

2/2/2009 9:45:31 AM

Quote :

"yep, that's how they beat the 10th Amendment. "

its sad how people have forgotten the point of the sepearation of state versus federal powers. Thomas Jefferson is probably rolling in his grave.

2/2/2009 10:25:06 AM

i'm assuming the uncle sam and 10th amendment comments were just statements in general, because there is no uncle sam or 10th amendment with regards to this story.

2/2/2009 10:43:27 AM

^
Um, no. The 10th amendment has everything to do with this story.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

How is our system of checks and balances supposed to keep the government in line with the constitution? I mean, how the fuck do we just let this shit happen? What can stop this? Under what circumstances could citizens force the government to obey it's own rules? Is a violent revolution really the only way? Is it just a "pipe dream" that more people would start caring about this shit, and the whole country go on "strike" until some new way of ensuring constitutionality is worked out? (I, for one, think it is absolutely indefensible that individuals can't sue the government.)

Is this country going to crash and burn? It is really fucking fucked.
We've gone way down the wrong paths. Is there hope?

[Edited on February 2, 2009 at 10:59 AM. Reason : ]

2/2/2009 10:55:22 AM

.co.uk

2/2/2009 11:02:57 AM

L
G
B
T
CENTER

2/2/2009 11:05:12 AM

^^
Yeah, and?

(the issue is the same -- the UK doesn't have a 10th amendment, while we practically ignore it)

2/2/2009 11:14:41 AM

my post was just pointing out that this is not in the us, in case anyone missed that

2/2/2009 11:27:36 AM

well i am sure plenty of anecdotes could be created that fits the same theme.

Like they wouldn't make mens lacrosse a varsity sport in charlotte mecklenburg schools unless they created a new girls sport. boo hooo the boyz have one more sport than the girls; title 9 crap

2/2/2009 11:54:04 AM

MIDDLE CLASS WHITE GUYS

ARE BEING OPPRESSED

2/2/2009 12:08:40 PM

if you take tax payers money to fund your lame club how can you complain about this shit.

stop taking the money and call it whatever you want. Until then no bitching.

2/2/2009 12:30:47 PM

Quote :

"stop taking the money and call it whatever you want"

I have incredible respect for organizations that firmly, on principle, refuse "government money". Where could one find a thorough list of such private organizations? (that accept donations)

2/2/2009 12:41:39 PM

^Why?

And I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an organization that didn't at least accept the tax breaks that come along with their being a charitable organization.

So...

2/3/2009 2:55:53 AM

Quote :

"Why?"

Because the proper role of government isn't to take money from one private entity and give it to another, therefore, obviously, organizations that refuse to accept that money, at least in practice, agree with that philosophy. Furthermore, by adhering to this particular philosophy, they stand to lose potential funds. Refusing "dirty" or "ill-gotten" money deserves respect. That's why.

Quote :

"And I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an organization that didn't at least accept the tax breaks that come along with their being a charitable organization."

I never said anything about the organizations necessarily being "charitable". Also, any charitable organizations that I would've been referring to must, as I said, "refuse 'government money'," and therefore wouldn't be seeking tax breaks. (As we all should know, only some charitable organizations get tax breaks in the first place.)

Quote :

"So..."

So what?

2/3/2009 5:28:29 AM

^^ Tax breaks and accepting government funding are two separate things. (until you start having a negative tax due to tax breaks). A tax break is being allowed to keep more of the money you earn, which is significantly different from being given someone else's money.

I find it frightening that politicians have somehow managed to convince the public that a tax break is the equivalent of the government handing you a welfare check. Certainly there are circumstances where it is akin to welfare (tax breaks for say, american auto makers but not foreign ones operating in the US) but it's still not the same.

2/3/2009 9:59:38 AM

In similar news...

CNN, of all people, listed the wasteful spending on Dem's handout plan... that's probably the worst I've seen come out of the House of Congress lately http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html

2/3/2009 10:55:55 AM

Quote :

"Willy Nilly: Because the proper role of government isn't to take money from one private entity and give it to another, therefore, obviously, organizations that refuse to accept that money, at least in practice, agree with that philosophy. Furthermore, by adhering to this particular philosophy, they stand to lose potential funds. Refusing "dirty" or "ill-gotten" money deserves respect. That's why. I never said anything about the organizations necessarily being "charitable". Also, any charitable organizations that I would've been referring to must, as I said, "refuse 'government money'," and therefore wouldn't be seeking tax breaks. (As we all should know, only some charitable organizations get tax breaks in the first place.) So what?"

AHA, I can't believe you responded to me. You're a giant stereotype, dude. I mean, if I ever ask you a question, don't bother responding...I already know what you're going to say. Shit, I even know how you're going to say it--douchey.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: ^^ Tax breaks and accepting government funding are two separate things. (until you start having a negative tax due to tax breaks). A tax break is being allowed to keep more of the money you earn, which is significantly different from being given someone else's money. I find it frightening that politicians have somehow managed to convince the public that a tax break is the equivalent of the government handing you a welfare check. Certainly there are circumstances where it is akin to welfare (tax breaks for say, american auto makers but not foreign ones operating in the US) but it's still not the same."

I'm aware of the difference. So don't get "frightened" on my account.

2/3/2009 12:45:07 PM

Quote :

"AHA, I can't believe you responded to me. You're a giant stereotype, dude. I mean, if I ever ask you a question, don't bother responding...I already know what you're going to say. Shit, I even know how you're going to say it--douchey."

2/3/2009 5:50:54 PM

Quote :

"Because the proper role of government isn't to take money from one private entity and give it to another, therefore, obviously, organizations that refuse to accept that money, at least in practice, agree with that philosophy. Furthermore, by adhering to this particular philosophy, they stand to lose potential funds. Refusing "dirty" or "ill-gotten" money deserves respect."

<3

2/4/2009 1:08:41 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/03/obama-plans-cap-executive-pay-government-assisted-financial-institutions/

Quote :

"The Obama administration plans to limit pay to $500,000 a year for executives of government-assisted financial institutions in a new get-tough approach to bankers and Wall Street, a senior administration official said Tuesday."

I think it is ridiculous that government is setting wage caps on private industry. Then again, I think it is ridiculous that a failing "private" industry was propped up by the government and used said government money to pay bonuses to the upper level executives of said failing companies.

2/4/2009 7:26:33 AM

its mostly a PR move.

there are a large number of people in this country who are essentially player haters. they hate on anyone who makes a large salary (except sports figures). Obama will curry public favor with this move.

on the other hand, there is something to be said for it. if a company decides it needs another major investor (government) that company is going to have to accept input from that investor. I dont necessarily have a problem with that as long as the company knows this up front. I am against coming back to the company later and imposing a bunch of rules on them after the fact.

2/4/2009 8:08:38 AM

Quote :

"I think it is ridiculous that government is setting wage caps on private industry. Then again, I think it is ridiculous that a failing "private" industry was propped up by the government and used said government money to pay bonuses to the upper level executives of said failing companies."

that's a lot of ridiculousness!

2/4/2009 10:08:50 AM

Quote :

"I think it is ridiculous that government is setting wage caps on private industry. Then again, I think it is ridiculous that a failing "private" industry was propped up by the government and used said government money to pay bonuses to the upper level executives of said failing companies.""

I agree. Our government is getting more and more ridiculous. Our founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves.

Can we start a new country that gives a shit about freedom yet?

2/4/2009 11:37:51 AM

Madison is not. This crap is the reason he put all the loopholes into the constitution.

2/4/2009 4:32:45 PM

Regarding the title, there is an old saying:

Government shekels bring government shackles.

On this same line, there are a whole host of charities that wish they'd never been part of Bush's "faith-based initiative." Their entire operations had to be overhauled in many cases just to stay on the government payroll. But, when one gets in bed with government, one must also expect the diseases it spreads.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 10:24 PM. Reason : a]

2/4/2009 10:23:31 PM

Quote :

"I am against coming back to the company later and imposing a bunch of rules on them after the fact."

Maybe if the companies had done with the funds what was asked of them in the first place (like make loans to people) the government wouldn't have to get tough with them.

2/4/2009 10:58:46 PM

Government funding is pretty sweet through the NSF sorry nerds

Plus they don't control the nature of your work

2/4/2009 11:03:32 PM

^^ When a corrupt government wrongly takes tax money and gives it to corrupt and failed businesses in order to wrongly keep those businesses afloat, why is anyone surprised that there is corruption and mishandling of the money involved? The government getting tough on the businesses over this is like the mob complaining when the crooks that run drugs for them take a bit off the top for themselves.

For the record, I'm perfectly fine with the government attaching whatever strings it wants to the money it hands out (provided it does so in a non discriminatory way, which is a topic for another thread) but it better not be money that is forced on a company or strings attached after the fact.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:05 PM. Reason : asdf]

2/4/2009 11:05:28 PM

Quote :

"For the record, I'm perfectly fine with the government attaching whatever strings it wants to the money it hands out (provided it does so in a non discriminatory way, which is a topic for another thread) but it better not be money that is forced on a company or strings attached after the fact."

We don't know what went on behind closed doors. But I'm guessing it had something to do with Wall Street lying to our representatives and Dow 2000 if they weren't given money. Our congress buckled on good faith and then watched as the crooks sat on the funds for the time being to keep their bonus money and fiefdom in tact. Thank god someone in DC has the balls to go back to those fuckers and give them a dose of their own medicine.

2/4/2009 11:10:00 PM

Quote :

"We don't know what went on behind closed doors. But I'm guessing it had something to do with Wall Street lying to our representatives and Dow 2000 if they weren't given money. our corrupt politicians promising the various corrupt companies that came waddling up the hill like a bunch of Hillsborough Street hobos as much tax payer money as they could squeeze out of the tax payers if the corporations would provide a little bit of "support" (read campaign money and/or freebies) when election time rolled around again. Our congress buckled on good faith and then watched as the crooks sat on the funds for the time being to keep their bonus money and fiefdom in tact. Our congressional twits then realized that all the campaign money in the world wouldn't save them from angry voters when it turned out that the "emergency" money was really bribe money, so now they get on TV and are just shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that this free money given by a corrupt government to a corrupt group of businesses was spent on things other than the good things the congressmen told the public it would be used for but never actually specified. Thank god someone in DC has the balls to go back to those fuckers and give them a dose of their own medicine. media savvy to get on TV and pontificate about the abuses and corruptions that they themselves both created and contributed to."

Fixed it. You have far too much faith in our government my friend. Even if Messiah Hope and Change Himself had declared the bail out to be Pure and Honest he couldn't have changed decades of growing political corruption and abuses that made it into this mess.

2/4/2009 11:47:32 PM