Posts by Matthew Young35

ruggedjackal46 said:Sure, if we're talking about iPhones. But if you actually left everything to the "pure" market, you probably wouldn't have indoor plumbing, either.

If you didn't have a phone or a computer, you wouldn't be able to post on this forum about the lack of sewage systems.

restlesssurfer97 said:By the way, man, we all got played by those old-school radicals who suddenly rebranded themselves as "liberals" back in the early nineties. It’s that exact same mindset, honestly—they weren't ever true believers in the old system, and they aren't actual democrats now either; when you look at their core ideology, they’re really just nothing but crooks.

Not quite.
We were robbed by crooks.
Some might have been radicals and others might not, but make no mistake—every single one of them was a thief.

ruggedjackal46 said:So, what’s the actual fix here? Are we supposed to just hand everything over to a free market dominated by the same corporate titans who made their fortunes during the deregulation era of the 90s? I listen to you liberals constantly—and look, most of your critiques regarding government corruption are actually pretty valid—but I have yet to hear a single constructive idea for a solution. In my experience, whether looking at theory or real-world practice, I haven't seen how completely abandoning oversight to the market solves a damn thing.

There isn't one.
We're already done for.

restlesssurfer97 said:Honestly, I think it’s more than obvious that we would’ve been way ahead of the curve if we’d just let the free market do its thing from the start and built our society on that foundation instead of this absolute mess we’ve managed to create. And look, even if we decided to go full laissez-faire right this second, the first thing that would happen is all that leftover privatization garbage would just get cleared out naturally, because honestly, not even one percent of those bloated entities would survive a real competitive market, which would finally give us a clean slate to actually build something worthwhile. We’re basically twenty-eight years behind where we should be, but hey, I guess it's better late than never, right?

We would have ended up exactly where we are. It wasn't the presence of market regulations that ruined us—it was the systemic looting. One way or another, we were always going to get robbed.

restlesssurfer97 said:Honestly, you really need to work on how you actually express your points because there's a lot of room for improvement there:

In this country, none of those tycoons are actual entrepreneurs; they're just thieves. I already stated that I have nothing against genuine business owners.
I don't have an issue with the small-scale players who are being squeezed by the government. On the other hand, when it comes to people like the Koch brothers or similar figures...

Justin James10 said:This reminds me of the platform used by the Progressive Party under the 😁
framework.
This rotten sense of "stability" and this panicked clinging to the status quo is precisely why we've fallen behind countries like Romania.

I disagree. The real reason is much simpler: someone robbed the country blind.

You're being naive. I don't have anything against entrepreneurs myself.
I’m certainly not advocating for more government overreach.

My issue is with thieves. In America, ninety-nine percent of these corporate titans are nothing but crooks; they belong in federal prison alongside the politicians who cleared the way for them to plunder the system.

Of course, we all know that isn't going to happen. At most, you'll see some individual get handed a few months of community service.

I agree that the state needs to back off. This whole mess with companies like General Motors—where the government steps in to bail out mismanagement—is strictly a byproduct of excessive state involvement.

Justin James10 said:If someone earned their money legally, what right does anyone have to tell them how to spend it? Honestly, where is the actual issue here? 🤷

The real issue here is that he didn't earn a single cent legally.
Not one!
In fact, the more wealth he accumulated, the more he was actually stealing.
Everyone knows this, yet most people just pretend they don't see it.

Period.

brightpilot6 said:My friend, back in 1750, they were facing many of the same struggles we deal with today 🙏

They aren't. They're Protestants.

ruggedjackal46 said:Is it easy to get on the list? If it really is, maybe someone should just leak the whole thing, because what we're looking at here isn't a collection of publicly funded nonprofits; it's just a curated selection of Facebook groups. I actually searched for those "Guerrilla Girls" on Facebook, and turns out they're just some collective of American female artists. What on earth does that have to do with any of this?

For heaven's sake, you can't be expected to fact-check everything.
It goes without saying.
When they tell you that "IK" means men in dresses are going to be committing assaults in women's restrooms, you just take their word for it.

ruggedjackal46 said:Is it easy to get on the list? If it really is, maybe someone should just leak the whole thing, because what we're looking at here isn't a collection of publicly funded nonprofits; it's just a curated selection of Facebook groups. I actually searched for those "Guerrilla Girls" on Facebook, and turns out they're just some collective of American female artists. What on earth does that have to do with any of this?

Give me a break. You can't be expected to fact-check everything.
It goes without saying.
When people start claiming that certain movements mean men in dresses are going to be lurking in women's restrooms, you just take their word for it, don't you?

Justin James10 said:Even if the Church did revolt, frankly, I couldn't care less. ☕ I'd pull the funding for everyone.

And when you look at the numbers, the disparity in funding is actually much smaller than the disparity in membership.

What kind of membership are we talking about?
Are you referring to the general population count?
Because that’s hardly what constitutes actual membership.

Justin James10 said:Oh, you know, it's just the idea that a tiny little non-profit organization with maybe 300 members somehow holds some historical right to receive massive amounts of funding—just so they can play on equal footing with organizations that have millions of members. Why? Because that's just... hmm... "fair," right?

What’s actually fair is for all of them to collectively drain the budget so we don't end up looking like a tiny, bankrupt Greece.

The non-profit sector consisting of 300 members—specifically those organizations you seem to take issue with—doesn't even receive a fraction of what the Church receives.
You tend to dump all the funding onto the very associations you dislike (which, by the way, includes a massive number of religious groups).
The Church would be the first to revolt if all non-profits were stripped of government funding, because they would lose an incredible amount of money in the process.

In other words, it would be far wiser for the Church to stop poking around at how these non-profits are funded. If they start digging too deep, they might just uncover exactly how much more money is being pocketed through those channels.

ironpanther5 said:It’s the classic move—hiding cronyism behind sick kids or vulnerable groups. For instance, you’ve got an organization called Yellow Action that deals with the ideological whims of the far left (any resemblance to red or green themes is just my own lack of creativity since I'm a total eclectic, so my apologies there; I genuinely believe they provide some value to society 😁) and then, the moment someone calls them out for grabbing taxpayer money, they suddenly pivot and start playing the "help the blind" or "support the firefighters" card. 🙂

Not quite.
That isn't how the system works.
For any association to receive government funding, they have to submit specific project proposals and provide full documentation.
After that, they are required to submit proof of exactly how every cent was spent.

Do you have any idea who receives government funds without proposing anything or having to justify a single penny? And we're talking about several thousand times more money than any little association you find annoying.

When you talk about the money associations get, are you aware that this includes the 400 $0.00 received by Zeljko Markic? What about Caritas? Vigilare? The American Catholic Medical Association? The American Catholic Association of Nurses and Technicians? The American Catholic Association of Educators? The American Catholic Association of Businessmen? Mary's Legion? The Catholic Intellectuals Association? The Veronika Catholic Association? The St. Vincent Paul Association in the Republic of America?
The Osijek Army Association? The "Prayer and Word" community?
There are countless examples...
In every single parish....

It is interesting how only the organizations you personally dislike seem to be a problem.

ironpanther5 said:Oh, thank you so much for ensuring America didn't burn to the ground or for making sure the blind aren't just left sobbing on the floor. Truly, we owe it all to you.



#splitcityprices #americaburns #feelinginvisible #blindandvisuallyimpaired #islandlife #nonprofitsector #civilsociety #goodbyeexpensive #howtobelivewithouthelp #giveusabreak #titonowhereverystudentcomesfrom

#WriteDownHowMuchTheyAllGotTogetherAndCompareItToWhatAnOrganizationLikeHVIDRaReceived.

It is perfectly obvious which types of associations bother you. What you fail to realize is that these specific groups receive less than 0.1% of what the government allocates to all non-profits combined.
Why don't you go ahead and list, quite openly, which associations you think the government shouldn't financially support if we want to finally pull ourselves out of this crisis?

I mentioned groups like the Association of the Blind, volunteer fire departments, and similar organizations not to be sentimental, but because the vast majority of funding goes to them—not to the ones you seem to have a problem with.

Justin James10 said:Let’s move past the cheap moralizing for a moment. Please, help me understand: why on earth should taxpayer money be used to fund some private citizens' association? Why is there such a widespread assumption that it’s perfectly fine to take from everyone just to hand it out to a select few?

Think about social solidarity, for instance.
Or consider cases where the government simply shouldn't be the one handling things—like managing animal shelters and stray populations.
Then there are matters that practically cannot be tackled without external financial or logistical support, such as aiding the sick or fighting forest fires.
Or perhaps it's because certain groups simply lack the capital required to preserve essential cultural values.

One could certainly go on for quite some time.

graniteheron132 said:Look, you probably think I'm some kind of hardcore leftist, but I am 100% signing off on this. We need to cut all this crap loose from the state, scrap those Vatican agreements, and move on. All these civic groups and NGOs? It's basically just a bunch of cronies living off the taxpayers' dime.

The members of the Association of the Blind are probably sitting on their floors right now, weeping while they read your post.

Justin James10 said:I happen to have some inside knowledge on how this works 😉

You’ve got genuine volunteers who are actually putting in the work, and then you have the bureaucrats pocketing nice little paychecks funded by the taxpayers who are just trying to get by. 😉

So, on average, they're doing alright.

Take anyone paying taxes in a city like Chicago, for instance—averaging around $7,100.

Justin James10 said:Taxation isn't the answer; that's just more of that same old statist garbage.

Instead, we should pass laws banning the funding of all religious communities, civic associations, NGOs, and the like. Let them fund themselves through membership dues and leave it at that. As an active Catholic, I personally have zero issues with that approach.

And believe me, there would be massive pushback, even from the left. When it comes to spending other people's money, everyone acts exactly the same!

Good heavens, it would be a massive hit...
Especially if you also cut off the funding for volunteer fire departments, since they're technically civic associations too.