The government has always subsidize important future technology. That is nothing new.
NIL issue
- Thread starter TAV31
- Start date
There's a big difference in my mind in subsidizing research/development of a new product vs subsidizing finished products or services where you are bypassing the market so that the public can afford it. The latter almost never brings prices down. That said tho, I am no fan of either.
Not if it bypasses the market using my tax dollars. Private businesses can take out loans to finance their ideas without my help and they can create something market friendly if the want to sell their product and be profitable. At the same time, the public shouldnt require my help to afford said product. No. I am not for a future that requires subsidies.
Got it so if you had it your way, we wouldn’t have 1/2 the fighter jets we have. We wouldn’t have 1/2, the technology we have. You see we subsidize companies like Lockheed Martin to study defenses. Without that money we wouldn’t be advancing on the battlefield. Civilian advances and military advances run hand and hand in a lot of categories. I am a surveyor. I use the same data collector that the military uses. It’s made by juniper. See how that works.
Military spending is a different animal altogether.
One of the few responsibilities the govt should be tasked with is the defense of it's people. The govt isnt capable of manufacturing military equipment so exceptions can be made. I see nothing wrong if the military purchases a product it needs and because it needs it, it is willing to help with the production of said product. That is not the same as subsidising a product in order to make it affordable to the public.
Last edited:
Yet- no one on here is complaining about all the farm subsidies that the government has been responsible for - for decades and decades.
milk
sugar
corn
rice
wheat
cheese
meats
and many, many more.
It's funny how EVs draw the ire - but tons of other things are ignored or explained away.
Funny how that works.....
Yeah, but- uh, uh- we need those fighter jets because- well- we just need hundreds and hundreds and hundreds- even thousands- more than everyone else because-
well, I'm not sure because we really don't (except to subsidize defense contractors like we have done for decades to make politicians with defense contractors in their districts happy)
but yeah- let's focus on electric cars because- well,,,,, because being totally inconsistent is the American way.
Yeah, it is the same when you realize the taxpayer is subsidizing defense contractors even when they are making fighter jets and military equipment that are purchased by other countries- all the while the defense contractor is making billions in profit.
The inconsistency and rationalizations offered by some folks on here is incredible.
It's interesting how the idea of EVs makes people twist themselves into the ground with inconsistent stances.
I'm not anti EV. I have a poor man's EV in a golf cart I take where ever I can. What I am for is making EVs as affordable as they can be in the shortest time possible. You may disagree but I believe subsidies slows if not prevents that because it eliminates the need to do so.
Yeah, funny how everybody needs food. And nobody NEEDS an EV.
And, for the record, I'm fine with getting rid of those too. But food supply is critical to our national security. EVs aren't.
Last edited:
Nothing inconsistent about it. We NEED these weapons to protect our country. It's one of the things that is explicitly listed in the Constitution as something the Federal government is required to do. EVs are a luxury item that aren't required for anybody or needed for any type of security.
That’s arguable. You don’t think it is a matter of national security to have an alternative if oil collapses and runs dry? Sure that’s down the rd but so is war, and many other things. Rome wasn’t built in a day.
Using poor examples to get a point across seems to be a common occurrence with today's liberal. It's entertaining. Entertaining as well is their simplistic view that if it ain't this, it must be that. If it ain't white, it must be black. They overlook the middle ground as if it isnt there or is an invalid position to take. Their result usually ends with a wrong assumption. But that's ok. I look forward seeing how they do with independant thinkers.
It's always interesting to me to see the majority of fans on this board are against NIL and also claim to hate liberals. I would think people on the right would support adults making as much money as they legally can for themselves.
I am all for nil, just not for schools using it to get kids to go to the highest bidder. That’s not good for college football as a whole. The ncaa is about to set some rules per reports and are prepared to end up in court over it.
Regulations are needed, but will they be upheld by the courts? The SCOTUS is also helping rurn college football with it's 9 - 0 decision regarding "education-related benefits." If they'll make such a ludicrous decision, I have no doubt they'll agree with the NIL free for all that will not put us closer to UGA at all, and likely not to clemmons. WVU and Pitt will play for the first time in 11 years this season, but at least Pitt and Duke have played each other every year since 2013(except the coronavirus year). How great for college football. Nebraska and Oklahoma played last season for the first time in 11 years, but you better by god believe Nebraska has gotten to play Northwestern every year since 2011. College football has been so much better since Nebraska left the Big 12. Hey, with any luck, maybe we'll finally put an end to that pesky Notre Dame - Southern Cal rivalry.
Similar threads
