Comment by throwawaylinux | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaylinux | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Right, organizations routinely admit they are getting too much funding and ask for it to be reduced. There are so many examples of this, perhaps you could provide just one?

I have been in several situations where I have been asked to prioritize and categorize essential and non-essential funding. Not for public / public funded / government jobs, so it's not necessarily made public. But it obviously happens.

If they don't want to outright admit it so openly is one thing, but lying about their operations and public funding is quite another.

> Again, so they don't lose that funding.

That didn't address the content of my reply. You're just repeating the same thing again lol, so same reply applies.

> I don't think any of them could have predicted a right wing billionaire would buy Twitter and give them a misleading label because he doesn't understand the difference between state and public media.

The label that might mislead people into believing the government provides essential funding for their operation?

>I have been in several situations where I have been asked to prioritize and categorize essential and non-essential funding. Not for public / public funded / government jobs, so it's not necessarily made public. But it obviously happens.

What you were asked to do sounds more like an audit, which isn't what i'm talking about. Government organizations (or non-profits, NGOs, etc.) don't announce to the world they don't need as much money as they are getting. Or if they do, i'm still waiting on an example.

> but lying about their operations and public funding is quite another

Don't know how you got there, clearly not what i'm saying.

> The label that might mislead people into believing the government provides essential funding for their operation?

I have a question. The House GOP tweeted out "Defund @NRP" - Elon tweeted the same thing a hour later, highlighting the "essential funding". How does that work? How does the entire right wing internet get behind the same talking points all at once?

Losing 1% (or 4% depending how you look at funding) will not make any organization go away, use basic logic. They are clearly saying that as to not disrupt future funding.

> What you were asked to do sounds more like an audit, which isn't what i'm talking about. Government organizations (or non-profits, NGOs, etc.) don't announce to the world they don't need as much money as they are getting. Or if they do, i'm still waiting on an example.

So, goalpost moving?

> Don't know how you got there, clearly not what i'm saying.

Sounds like you are. Either they're lying or the government funds essential operations.

> I have a question.

How about you address what I wrote first before you keep deflecting. I don't give a rats ass about "the house GOP" and they have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com