- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BBC - USAID was paying 8% of their freaking income!
Posted on 2/6/25 at 11:50 am to Godfather1
Posted on 2/6/25 at 11:50 am to Godfather1
quote:
Fungibility.
This guy gets it.
0
Posted on 2/6/25 at 11:51 am to Nosevens
quote:
Separate charity or not it seems to have helped BBC directly as any mom USAID provided was less money BBC needed to provide therefore they were benefactors of USAID.
Money is fungible. There is no way to differentiate.
This is like saying that I don't pay for my teenager to buy video games. He has a part-time job that he earns his own money. I also give him an allowance, but he uses that for other things.
Posted on 2/6/25 at 11:52 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
BBC has a separate charity which is where money was going to - not to fund the news operations of BBC.
The Clinton Foundation took the money, not Hilary!
Posted on 2/6/25 at 11:56 am to GhostOfFreedom
In what alternate universe can any American possibly justify American Citizens hard earned money being spent on the British Broadcasting Corporation?
Posted on 2/6/25 at 12:09 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
BBC has a separate charity which is where money was going to - not to fund the news operations of BBC.
I'm sure there was zero tangible benefit to the operations of the corporation.
Posted on 2/6/25 at 12:09 pm to Mike da Tigah
They will have to hire more people and cops to go door to door to shake down citizens to pay the TV tax.
Posted on 2/6/25 at 1:31 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
BBC has a separate charity which is where money was going to - not to fund the news operations of BBC.
1. Most charities are economic tools for laundering, evasion, etc.
2. Is this like the: "The Federal Government doesn't fund abortions because the money is separate!" Arguments?
3. Even if neither is true - Why are US Taxpyer dollars going to a charity owned by a another government entity?
Posted on 2/6/25 at 1:58 pm to bodask42
quote:
To be fair, it said 8% of the BBC’s charity division, not 8% of the whole company.
Correct. It isn't 8% of the BBC.
The pertinent question here is, why is the American taxpayer funding the BBC's charity work? There are at least two big players other than the US who should bear that obligation, the UK and the BBC itself.
Posted on 2/6/25 at 2:02 pm to tigeraddict
quote:
BBC stands for British Broadcasting Company..... by should the US Tax payers fund a British "Charity"
Why should the US fund any charities......
People here aren't saying they should, just pointing out the fact that USAID is not funding 8% of the BBC's budget. I don't see the issue with stating this......it is factual, and it is still a problem.
This post was edited on 2/6/25 at 2:02 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News