putcleverusernamehere
9867
509
5
May 12, 2025 12:27 AM
putcleverusernamehere
9867
509
5
AverySillyName
That's also not taking into account that walmart makes a significant amount of money from people using their food stamps there.
b1candy2
Intel, Micron, and Texas Instruments is money distributed through the Chips Act, a $50b bipartisan program to help reinvigorate the US semiconductor industry and reduce reliance on TSMC in Taiwan. TSMC also had 5b+ in grants through this program for its new facilities in Arizona.
Safflower777
THIS is what is exploding the USA fed govn budget!!!!!
Solkanarmy
so if I make a business can I get some of that?
blahblahbushes
That's $123.8 billion to 14 companies, all of which make billions in profit.
orp0piru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare#cite_ref-Huff_1993_34-1
thisiswhyicanthaveanythingnice
This double dipping bullshit.
thomn8r
Sauce(
bloodbloodbloodblood
Boeing gets a lot of money to set planes and passengers on fire.
WaxedApple
Carbon credits are also corporate welfare.
MechKelly
I'm surprised Space-X isn't on that list.
mgrg
Reusability is hella drug, when you're the first and only on the market to leverage it and save mad moneyo in recovered and reused rockets.
If you wants SpaceX's profitability to start falling, there needs to be more launch providers with reusability and launch vehicle performance AT LEAST on the level of Falcon 9. Without it, the SpaceX will continue to rake in cash by doing what should've been - and could've been - done in 20th century, as Phil Bono, von Braun and many more worked on (reuse).
cosinewave
Somehow Capitalism requires gobs of public money to stay afloat
doccynical
You don't expect capitalists to take risk, do you? They only take profits.
orp0piru
heads I win, tails you lose
OhIfIMust
It sure as shit ain't going to their workers.
IGotLordVoldemortsNose
They don't need it, they do get it though, it pays to buy decision makers
rubypilgrim
taxpayer dollars, at that. Overcharging us apparently isn't making them enough.
ThePandamancer
It's also funny because it's not true capitalism. In an actual capitalist state, you would let those companies fail if they cannot carry themselves and let the remains break up and start new businesses. Those businesses now have more potential for growth and the story repeats if they cannot keep.up
Gonstackk
A source list. https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent-totals
phobosorbust
Source doesn't list Starlink.
It's also combining federal grants with state tax deferrals, etc., and going back to 2000 or earlier to generate these top-line numbers. Doing all of that together makes this essentially clickbait despite what looks like accurate underlying data.
I'd prefer federal and state numbers separately, as some states are run by insane people. (I mean... the federal government is right now as well, but still.)
NeurodivergenceMedley
From everything I've been able to find, tracking corporate welfare is not an exact science, as there's no standard definition for it - e.g. are grants for energy research considered corporate welfare because only energy companies are going to benefit from that research?
phobosorbust
It's a complex dataset for sure, and the way one slices up that data (and varying definitions) will depend on objectives.
I seek a distinction between state and federal aid because federal aid either comes from actual policy objectives or some flavor of bribery, while state aid is often a competition between states to convince a company to invest or relocate with a little bribery on the side. Different power dynamics and very different methods of intervention.
FlippedOut
I'm pretty sure starlink is still part of SpaceX, isn't it. But SpaceX isn't listed either. IDK, last I heard, they tried to get the grants for providing rural people access to the internet, but they blocked them. A quick google shows that trump is trying to give them $20B of that now. So maybe.
phobosorbust
Yes, Starlink is still part of SpaceX.
SpaceX draws a lot of unfounded or poorly-reasoned attacks due to being owned by a fascist asshole. Which is a shame, because there are legitimate objections people could be making instead of easily disprovable ones.
For example, the rural development grant program you've mentioned was a morass of lawsuits over existing providers trying to demote SpaceX's bid by grouping it with geosync service. Their awards were competitive and contingent on performance.
phobosorbust
It's also common to claim that major parts of SpaceX's NASA funding is somehow a subsidy or give-away rather than fixed-price contracts with specific milestone payments.
Their very earliest awards were effectively subsidies, NASA making bets on a small company to see what would happen, but that's on the order of a few tens of millions and in line with similar investments in other firms like SNC or Ball or Masten.