Left-leaning Politico can’t make payroll

[Paul158]

20 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Did politico make payroll?

Yes. They had to borrow money from Elon.

[1032004]

7 minutes ago, mspart said:

Answer:  It seems so. 

mspart

Answer to what?

[PortaJohn]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Answer to what?

@mspart maybe 1032004 & I are in agreement here.  I see you respond to stuff but a lot of times have no idea who or what you're responding to.  Is it possible moving forward you can tag the subject matter your posting about?

Edited Thursday at 10:37 PM by PortaJohn

[Offthemat]

8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Answer to what?

 

4 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

@mspart maybe 1032004 & I are in agreement here.  I see you respond to stuff but a lot of times have no idea who or what you're responding to.  Is it possible moving forward you can tag the subject matter your posting about?

@Bigbrog’s question at the bottom of @Caveira’s post. 
 

“Do "news" organizations normally get federal funding?”

Edited Thursday at 10:42 PM by Offthemat

[1032004]

 

 

[mspart]

42 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Answer to what?

I try to do this immediately so I don't have to tag.   And it worked this time but I  guess it did not translate well. 

Question:  Do news organization normally get federal funding?

Answer:  It seems so. 

mspart

[mspart]

38 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

 

 

I'm not following.   USAID paid 8 million to Politico Pro.   These numbers, unless they are in the millions, do not add up to more than 8 million.   The reported 44k that POlitico Pro supposedly spent would cover only a 3 subscriptions.   Hardly worth the time.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-14368103/Politico-subscriptions-DOGE-defends-Musk.html

Politico fired back at what it called 'false' claims from the White House that it is a 'beneficiary of government programs' after the media outlet faced questions over $8.2 million it has received from 'government subsidies.' 

The huge sums Politico has received from the US government were uncovered by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) dragnet on wasteful spending.

The Musk-run entity is In the process of cancelling the payments from several government agencies, including the embattled USAID, as White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the money given to Politico was spent on, 'essentially subsidizing subscriptions to Politico on the taxpayer's dime'.

Politico's leadership said the millions spent by the government in subscriptions were from Politico Pro, which they said 'provides both private and public sector clients with granular, fact-based reporting, real-time intelligence, and tracking tools across key policy areas.'

So Politico Pro confirms the government gave them millions of dollars.   Whether from USAID or not, is this a useful use of taxpayer money?   Monies are fungible.   Those are millions of dollars Politico would not have had.   They were being propped up by the government.   No other way to look at it.

mspart

 

mspart

[Offthemat]

32 minutes ago, mspart said:

I'm not following.   USAID paid 8 million to Politico Pro.   These numbers, unless they are in the millions, do not add up to more than 8 million.   The reported 44k that POlitico Pro supposedly spent would cover only a 3 subscriptions.   Hardly worth the time.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-14368103/Politico-subscriptions-DOGE-defends-Musk.html

Politico fired back at what it called 'false' claims from the White House that it is a 'beneficiary of government programs' after the media outlet faced questions over $8.2 million it has received from 'government subsidies.' 

The huge sums Politico has received from the US government were uncovered by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) dragnet on wasteful spending.

The Musk-run entity is In the process of cancelling the payments from several government agencies, including the embattled USAID, as White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the money given to Politico was spent on, 'essentially subsidizing subscriptions to Politico on the taxpayer's dime'.

Politico's leadership said the millions spent by the government in subscriptions were from Politico Pro, which they said 'provides both private and public sector clients with granular, fact-based reporting, real-time intelligence, and tracking tools across key policy areas.'

So Politico Pro confirms the government gave them millions of dollars.   Whether from USAID or not, is this a useful use of taxpayer money?   Monies are fungible.   Those are millions of dollars Politico would not have had.   They were being propped up by the government.   No other way to look at it.

mspart

 

mspart

Other reporting shows more money, more outlets.  34.3 million to Politico over ten years with the bulk being during the Biden administration. 
 

“According to USASpending.gov, the federal government paid Politico more than $34 million from fiscal year 2016 through 2025. Politico's affiliate, Capitol News Company LLC, received another $4.5 millionfrom fiscal year 2011 through 2023.”
 

https://www.theblaze.com/news/politico-s-30-million-government-subscriptions-scandal-exposes-taxpayer-dollars-flowing-into-corporate-media

[1032004]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

I'm not following.   USAID paid 8 million to Politico Pro.   These numbers, unless they are in the millions, do not add up to more than 8 million.   The reported 44k that POlitico Pro supposedly spent would cover only a 3 subscriptions.   Hardly worth the time.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-14368103/Politico-subscriptions-DOGE-defends-Musk.html

Politico fired back at what it called 'false' claims from the White House that it is a 'beneficiary of government programs' after the media outlet faced questions over $8.2 million it has received from 'government subsidies.' 

The huge sums Politico has received from the US government were uncovered by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) dragnet on wasteful spending.

The Musk-run entity is In the process of cancelling the payments from several government agencies, including the embattled USAID, as White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the money given to Politico was spent on, 'essentially subsidizing subscriptions to Politico on the taxpayer's dime'.

Politico's leadership said the millions spent by the government in subscriptions were from Politico Pro, which they said 'provides both private and public sector clients with granular, fact-based reporting, real-time intelligence, and tracking tools across key policy areas.'

So Politico Pro confirms the government gave them millions of dollars.   Whether from USAID or not, is this a useful use of taxpayer money?   Monies are fungible.   Those are millions of dollars Politico would not have had.   They were being propped up by the government.   No other way to look at it.

mspart

 

mspart

Thanks for proving yourself wrong here.

USAID did not pay 8 million for Politico Pro.  That was from various different government agencies.  None of it was “given” to Politico.   It was a business transaction where a product was purchased.  I don’t know enough about it to know if it was worth the cost, but I doubt DOGE does either, seems like all they did was say “it’s owned by Politico?  End it.”  

So maybe the product wasn’t worth the cost.  I understand wanting to cut wasteful spending.  But hopefully people realize that there are entire industries and cities/towns that are “propped up” as the result of government contracts.  If we truly do cut this wasteful spending, we need to understand that it might tank our economy.  Oh and hopefully Elon checks to see if there’s any wasteful spending in the government contracts for SpaceX too.

 

[1032004]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

I'm not following.   USAID paid 8 million to Politico Pro.   These numbers, unless they are in the millions, do not add up to more than 8 million.  

The chart I shared was specific to “the Executive Office of the President.”  So just part of the 8 million.   Like how the $44K from USAID was just (an extremely small) part of the 8 million.

[Le duke]

Issued a freeze on funding for sanctuary cities.

Ordered prosecution of all jurisdictions impeding immigration enforcement.

Ordered a full investigation into violations of civil rights.

She’s going to get stomped into the ground by SCOTUS. A clear violation of the 10th Amendment.

Also, the administration suspended all work at the Civil Rights division of the DOJ, so I’m guessing that’s not happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caveira]

Just now, Le duke said:

She’s going to get stomped into the ground by SCOTUS.

Also, the administration suspended all work at the Civil Rights division of the DOJ, so I’m guessing that’s not happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would scotus say nah.  You don’t have to follow federal immigration law?

[Le duke]

Why would scotus say nah.  You don’t have to follow federal immigration law?

Exactly.

Immigration law is exclusively the province of the federal government. The federal government cannot compel states or cities to do anything regarding immigration. They MAY, if they wish.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caveira]

Just now, Le duke said:

Exactly.

Immigration law is exclusively the province of the federal government. The federal government cannot compel states or cities to do anything regarding immigration. They MAY, if they wish.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m under the assumption.   Federal law trumps state law boss.  I’m no attorney.  But whatever 

[Le duke]

I’m under the assumption.   Federal law trumps state law boss.  I’m no attorney.  But whatever 

There is no federal law that compels cities or states to help with immigration enforcement.

Again, 10th Amendment. Pretty simple stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, Le duke said:

 

There is no federal law that compels cities or states to help with immigration enforcement.

Again, 10th Amendment. Pretty simple stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well we shall see boss.  Sir Tom homan gonna arrest mayors and governors (I hope) who get in the way.  

[Le duke]

Well we shall see boss.  Sir Tom homan gonna arrest mayors and governors (I hope) who get in the way.  

He can try.

Unless the city/state is actively aiding and abetting, he has no case. The cities/states nothing is not a crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, Le duke said:

 

He can try.

Unless the city/state is actively aiding and abetting, he has no case. The cities/states nothing is not a crime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We shall see.  In the Mean time.  Hopefully Trump beats the #1 liberal deporter in chief sir Obama.    May he (Trump) strive to do better than the best leftist illegal alien exciter in history.     To shared goals my friend.  You are probably worried your blue deportation king will lose his record.  I assure you.  It’s cool if you lose that.