Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The USC Financial statement....http://about.usc.edu/files/2011/07/USC-FY12-Annual-Report.pdf.....does not state that at all. USC receives over $300 million in federal grants and contracts. Plus another $60 million in federal money for student loans.Do you have any evidence that they have received any federal funding?
Positive claims hold the burden of proof, it's not up to me to prove your negative.
The organization funding the grant is The California Endowment, they're a private trust.
Jesus fucking Christ. Will no one bother to read the damn article?
It's not tax money. It's not government money. It's not "our" money, or "your" money.
It's a grant from a private foundation called The California Endowment.
Federal grants to the University of Southern California:
Rates at a Glance | Research | USC
Those are federal grants given to students for research, not to the college - and are entirely irrelevant to anything we're talking about.
You also need to re-read the OP. The grant was given to Hollywood Health & Society (which is associated with USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center), from The California Endowment.
The USC Financial statement....http://about.usc.edu/files/2011/07/USC-FY12-Annual-Report.pdf.....does not state that at all. USC receives over $300 million in federal grants and contracts. Plus another $60 million in federal money for student loans.
Those are federal grants given to students for research, not to the college - and are entirely irrelevant to anything we're talking about.
You also need to re-read the OP. The grant was given to Hollywood Health & Society (which is associated with USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center), from The California Endowment.
Pretty hard to dent the school's financial statement.
It's all in the OP.
USC is NOT the "entity" recieving the grant. Hollywood Heath & Society is - they are associated with The Norman Lear Center, which is in turn associated with USC Annenberg School.
The grant was given by The California Endowment.
Ah.
You mean this Hollywood Health & Society that receives federal funding too?
Hollywood, Health & Society | About Us
Sorry man, this is exactly like the bailout banks claiming that their lavish bonuses came from operations and not taxpayer money.
Again - Hollywood Health & Society is receiving the grant - not giving it.
From the OP:
Thanks to a $500,000 grant from The California Endowment, the Hollywood Health & Society, associated with with the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center, will "help TV writers tell better stories about the new health insurance law."
The USC Financial statement....http://about.usc.edu/files/2011/07/USC-FY12-Annual-Report.pdf.....does not state that at all. USC receives over $300 million in federal grants and contracts. Plus another $60 million in federal money for student loans.Those are federal grants given to students for research, not to the college - and are entirely irrelevant to anything we're talking about.
You also need to re-read the OP. The grant was given to Hollywood Health & Society (which is associated with USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center), from The California Endowment.
Pretty hard to dent the school's financial statement.
Of course USC gets federal grants - they're one of the largest private universities in the country.
That still has nothing to do with this story.
Ah.
You mean this Hollywood Health & Society that receives federal funding too?
Hollywood, Health & Society | About Us
Sorry man, this is exactly like the bailout banks claiming that their lavish bonuses came from operations and not taxpayer money.
Again - Hollywood Health & Society is receiving the grant - not giving it.
From the OP:
Thanks to a $500,000 grant from The California Endowment, the Hollywood Health & Society, associated with with the USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center, will "help TV writers tell better stories about the new health insurance law."
Yes, I get it.
"Those bank executive bonuses didn't come from taxpayer bailout money, they came from some other source."
Same thing here. A federally-supported organization promotes a federal program but does it with private dollars.
The USC Financial statement....http://about.usc.edu/files/2011/07/USC-FY12-Annual-Report.pdf.....does not state that at all. USC receives over $300 million in federal grants and contracts. Plus another $60 million in federal money for student loans.
Pretty hard to dent the school's financial statement.
Of course USC gets federal grants - they're one of the largest private universities in the country.
That still has nothing to do with this story.
How does one claim to be private when there is so much federal money being received?
Hollywood Gets A $500K Grant to Weave Obamacare into TV Storylines
amazing where dems get all this extra cash
No different to all the money McDonalds threw at the producers of Richie Rich to feature a McDonalds store in the film. If you can afford the promotion, why not?
Because the government can't afford it.
Imagine the outrage if the government funded anti-abortion scripts.
Imagine the outrage if the actual check came from a foundation set up by Blackwater, a former defense contractor.
Again - Hollywood Health & Society is receiving the grant - not giving it.
From the OP:
Yes, I get it.
"Those bank executive bonuses didn't come from taxpayer bailout money, they came from some other source."
Same thing here. A federally-supported organization promotes a federal program but does it with private dollars.
Your analogy is asinine.
The grant has been announced. There's no mystery as to where the money is coming from, since the people giving the money are the ones announcing it.
Of course USC gets federal grants - they're one of the largest private universities in the country.
That still has nothing to do with this story.
How does one claim to be private when there is so much federal money being received?
I'm not going to explain to you what "private university" means, or how grants work.
Suffice it to say, every "private university" gets some federal money.
Yes, I get it.
"Those bank executive bonuses didn't come from taxpayer bailout money, they came from some other source."
Same thing here. A federally-supported organization promotes a federal program but does it with private dollars.
Your analogy is asinine.
The grant has been announced. There's no mystery as to where the money is coming from, since the people giving the money are the ones announcing it.
If I ran an anti-abortion organization like this I would be shut down.
"But the money I spent to put anti-abortion messages in TV shows came from private money!"
Still commingling, still illegal.
No different to all the money McDonalds threw at the producers of Richie Rich to feature a McDonalds store in the film. If you can afford the promotion, why not?
Because the government can't afford it.
Imagine the outrage if the government funded anti-abortion scripts.
Imagine the outrage if the actual check came from a foundation set up by Blackwater, a former defense contractor.
It's funny that you should mention that.
Erik Prince (the founder of Blackwater) and his foundation have, in fact, donated millions of dollars to various right-wing causes and candidates.
Because the government can't afford it.
Imagine the outrage if the government funded anti-abortion scripts.
Imagine the outrage if the actual check came from a foundation set up by Blackwater, a former defense contractor.
It's funny that you should mention that.
Erik Prince (the founder of Blackwater) and his foundation have, in fact, donated millions of dollars to various right-wing causes and candidates.
Are you saying there is no outrage over that?
Your analogy is asinine.
The grant has been announced. There's no mystery as to where the money is coming from, since the people giving the money are the ones announcing it.
If I ran an anti-abortion organization like this I would be shut down.
"But the money I spent to put anti-abortion messages in TV shows came from private money!"
Still commingling, still illegal.
It is NOT co-mingling unless funds are mingled. There's no reason to think they are.
There is no law preventing an organization from accepting grants from both the federal government, and private sources, for different purposes.
As you've pointed out, those funds can't be mingled - which is why they are accounted for separately. That's how grants work - the money in the grant can only be used for the purposes of the grant. Grant money from the federal government is used for federally-funded research, and private grants are used for private research and programs.
One does not prevent the other.
How does one claim to be private when there is so much federal money being received?
I'm not going to explain to you what "private university" means, or how grants work.
Suffice it to say, every "private university" gets some federal money.
By design.
It's the same "private hospital" claim that Moffitt Cancer Center claims until you try to sue them for malpractice. Then it comes out that they are a covered by sovereign immunity because they are a government facility.
Although Hillsdale College does not get any federal money. I'm not sure it's a place I'd send my kids, but I'm not at that point yet.
If I ran an anti-abortion organization like this I would be shut down.
"But the money I spent to put anti-abortion messages in TV shows came from private money!"
Still commingling, still illegal.
It is NOT co-mingling unless funds are mingled. There's no reason to think they are.
There is no law preventing an organization from accepting grants from both the federal government, and private sources, for different purposes.
As you've pointed out, those funds can't be mingled - which is why they are accounted for separately. That's how grants work - the money in the grant can only be used for the purposes of the grant. Grant money from the federal government is used for federally-funded research, and private grants are used for private research and programs.
One does not prevent the other.
So where's the overhead rate agreement from the private foundation?
It doesn't exist. No need for you to prove a negative. It doesn't exist.
It's funny that you should mention that.
Erik Prince (the founder of Blackwater) and his foundation have, in fact, donated millions of dollars to various right-wing causes and candidates.
Are you saying there is no outrage over that?
I'm not outraged about it, I can't speak for anyone else.
I am saying it's completely legal, though.
Are you saying there is no outrage over that?
I'm not outraged about it, I can't speak for anyone else.
I am saying it's completely legal, though.
There is plenty of outrage that federal money has been used to fund rightwing causes in the case of Blackwater, including a huge smear campaign:
Through Bradley Manning, Jeremy Scahill Learned Blackwater?s Erik Prince Was Going to United Arab Emirates | The Dissenter
Erik Prince - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies
Erik Prince, Former Blackwater CEO, Threatens Jan Schakowsky Over Her 'Defamatory Statements'
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/23-4
Right-Wing War Profiteer Erik Prince's New Project: Contracting Mercanaries Out to Arab Countries | Alternet
and even a connection to Hillsdale College
Hillsdale College is Right Wing U where Blackwater's Erik Prince went to school... (Reply #100) - Democratic Underground
Here's how this works: federal money is used to pay for the overhead and federally approved expenditures of this "private" (progressive) organization. Then private money is used to do all the rest, while being careful to not use the resources funded by federal money. So since there are all these people on staff anyway, and since the rent is covered by existing federal dollars, well then all of the private money can go towards some cause. Since it's private money, there's no problem.
Now find me an anti-abortion group that gets the same sweet deal.
Notice how it's just progressive causes that aren't funded with federal money but use organizations that receive massive federal grants for other activities and yet there is not one single conservative organization that has that same arrangement with the federal government.
The very best parallel is the faith-based charity initiatives that do not allocate federal money for overhead but do use federal money for federal assistance disbursement.
Period Federal Non-Federal
7/1/2012 6/30/2013 32.80% (predetermined) 33.50%
7/1/2013 6/30/2014 32.80% (predetermined) 33.50% (provisional)
7/1/2012 6/30/2014 22.50% (postdoc) 22.50% (postdoc)
It is NOT co-mingling unless funds are mingled. There's no reason to think they are.
There is no law preventing an organization from accepting grants from both the federal government, and private sources, for different purposes.
As you've pointed out, those funds can't be mingled - which is why they are accounted for separately. That's how grants work - the money in the grant can only be used for the purposes of the grant. Grant money from the federal government is used for federally-funded research, and private grants are used for private research and programs.
One does not prevent the other.
So where's the overhead rate agreement from the private foundation?
It doesn't exist. No need for you to prove a negative. It doesn't exist.
You're going to have to explain what you mean here.
I'm not going to explain to you what "private university" means, or how grants work.
Suffice it to say, every "private university" gets some federal money.
By design.
It's the same "private hospital" claim that Moffitt Cancer Center claims until you try to sue them for malpractice. Then it comes out that they are a covered by sovereign immunity because they are a government facility.
Although Hillsdale College does not get any federal money. I'm not sure it's a place I'd send my kids, but I'm not at that point yet.
I'm pretty sure a good malpractice attorney would beat that claim in court. The majority of funding for the Moffitt Cancer Center came from the state of Florida, not the federal government - and the policy of the state of Florida is to waive sovereign immunity for claims up to $100,000.
I'm not outraged about it, I can't speak for anyone else.
I am saying it's completely legal, though.
There is plenty of outrage that federal money has been used to fund rightwing causes in the case of Blackwater, including a huge smear campaign:
Through Bradley Manning, Jeremy Scahill Learned Blackwater?s Erik Prince Was Going to United Arab Emirates | The Dissenter
Erik Prince - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies
Erik Prince, Former Blackwater CEO, Threatens Jan Schakowsky Over Her 'Defamatory Statements'
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/23-4
Right-Wing War Profiteer Erik Prince's New Project: Contracting Mercanaries Out to Arab Countries | Alternet
and even a connection to Hillsdale College
Hillsdale College is Right Wing U where Blackwater's Erik Prince went to school... (Reply #100) - Democratic Underground
Here's how this works: federal money is used to pay for the overhead and federally approved expenditures of this "private" (progressive) organization. Then private money is used to do all the rest, while being careful to not use the resources funded by federal money. So since there are all these people on staff anyway, and since the rent is covered by existing federal dollars, well then all of the private money can go towards some cause. Since it's private money, there's no problem.
Now find me an anti-abortion group that gets the same sweet deal.
Notice how it's just progressive causes that aren't funded with federal money but use organizations that receive massive federal grants for other activities and yet there is not one single conservative organization that has that same arrangement with the federal government.
The very best parallel is the faith-based charity initiatives that do not allocate federal money for overhead but do use federal money for federal assistance disbursement.
Oh, I think I understand what you're claiming now.
You're using these numbers: Rates at a Glance | Research | USC
...and claiming that because USC takes 32% of Federal grant money for overhead, they're paying for this.
Did you not notice that your own link shows that USC takes an even larger percentage for "Non-federal" grants?
Period Federal Non-Federal
7/1/2012 6/30/2013 32.80% (predetermined) 33.50%
7/1/2013 6/30/2014 32.80% (predetermined) 33.50% (provisional)
7/1/2012 6/30/2014 22.50% (postdoc) 22.50% (postdoc)
