March 24, 2025Mar 24 56 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: People have no idea how big the federal government is. Should they go program by program, dept by dept, line by line, and debate everything in Congress? Is that how you want it to be done? 85 years and literally no changes later you'll still be crying about how they didn't do it right Right, which is why anyone who ACTUALLY understood this knew how hilarious of a premise it was that they were going to make significant deficit reductions by "cutting waste". It's all good, this will all come out by the end of the year when we run another $2 trillion deficit. Beyond hilarious to me that after the last time Trump was president and we saw the deficit skyrocket (and that's before COVID) that anyone could be fooled into thinking that this time it would somehow be different. But alas here we are...
March 24, 2025Mar 24 28 minutes ago, Paul852 said: Nah, I'm good with my tax dollars being spent on scientific advancement. You need to stay in your lane. Yeah it sounds so sciency, it must be worth millions and millions! Here take my money, scientist! I'm smart, I'm helping!
March 24, 2025Mar 24 33 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: I'll play along. So do you advocate eliminating all federal funding for science research in the US? If not, who should decide on what gets funding and what doesn't? I await your well thought out and nuanced response No we can't eliminate genetic mechanisms of animals adjusting to acute chemical stressors in their habitat. genetic mechanisms of animals adjusting to acute chemical stressors in their habitat is far too important and if you take it away you may as well close the entire govt boo hoo! Tomorrow you can substitute whatever other dumbassery you want to pretend is important and worthy of all our money
March 24, 2025Mar 24 16 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Right, which is why anyone who ACTUALLY understood this knew how hilarious of a premise it was that they were going to make significant deficit reductions by "cutting waste". It's all good, this will all come out by the end of the year when we run another $2 trillion deficit. Beyond hilarious to me that after the last time Trump was president and we saw the deficit skyrocket (and that's before COVID) that anyone could be fooled into thinking that this time it would somehow be different. But alas here we are... There will be a huge reduction in the federal workforce and that will have ripple effects for years Again, these people should be applauded for having the balls to do what was the political 3rd rail for all of our lifetimes. Instead you're all just bishing and complaining for no reason
March 24, 2025Mar 24 23 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: I'm happy with them going at a slower pace. What I'm not happy about is them "pretending" to find things at a faster pace when it isn't true. Yes, 35B in real savings is peanuts vs. the goals they have stated AND in relation to the mess they have made. We'll see how excited you all are about saving real money when they go after entitlements. I can already hear the distant whine of building liberal tantrums.
March 24, 2025Mar 24 2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: No we can't eliminate genetic mechanisms of animals adjusting to acute chemical stressors in their habitat. genetic mechanisms of animals adjusting to acute chemical stressors in their habitat is far too important and if you take it away you may as well close the entire govt boo hoo! Tomorrow you can substitute whatever other dumbassery you want to pretend is important and worthy of all our money Yeah man, definitely no way toxin mitigation is relevant to humans. But again, who makes that decision Mike? What's your proposal? I yearn to hear your solution.
March 24, 2025Mar 24 4 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: Yeah man, definitely no way toxin mitigation is relevant to humans. But again, who makes that decision Mike? What's your proposal? I yearn to hear your solution. It's relevance to humans isn't really the question. Someone can pay billions to study genetic mechanisms of humans adjusting to acute chemical stressors in their habitat if they want. I just don't know why I'm forced to pay for this or I go to jail. Again where is this covered in the Constitution?
March 24, 2025Mar 24 11 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: There will be a huge reduction in the federal workforce and that will have ripple effects for years Again, these people should be applauded for having the balls to do what was the political 3rd rail for all of our lifetimes. Instead you're all just bishing and complaining for no reason No it won't. Federal employee compensation accounts for about 6% of federal spending. So no, taking a fraction of 6% will not have a ripple effect for years. For crying out loud you could 0 out that number completely and you'd be talking about only a 6% reduction in the deficit. The political third rail is social security. Yeah let me know when they touch that.... "Instead you're all just bishing and complaining for no reason" Um no, I'm calling out BS.
March 24, 2025Mar 24 14 minutes ago, The Norseman said: We'll see how excited you all are about saving real money when they go after entitlements. I can already hear the distant whine of building liberal tantrums. LOLOL right right because only democrats are on social security and medicare.
March 24, 2025Mar 24 13 minutes ago, The Norseman said: We'll see how excited you all are about saving real money when they go after entitlements. I can already hear the distant whine of building liberal tantrums. I'd be surprised if they go after those as it would probably guarantee that they would lose the House but we shall see. I'd be happy to look at some of the arguments to see what can be done. I'd be ok with dropping SS for those that don't need it. I'm one of those people.
March 24, 2025Mar 24 29 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: It's relevance to humans isn't really the question. Someone can pay billions to study genetic mechanisms of humans adjusting to acute chemical stressors in their habitat if they want. I just don't know why I'm forced to pay for this or I go to jail. Again where is this covered in the Constitution? Ok so that means you want zero federal research funding. Correct? Cause none of it is in the constitution.
March 24, 2025Mar 24 https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/24/fbi-tesla-elon-musk-task-force-threats-trump-doge.html So are we pro or against wasteful government spending now?
March 24, 2025Mar 24 22 minutes ago, Mike030270 said: @Mike030270's hit rating on the above photo: 2,1,nope
March 24, 2025Mar 24 3 hours ago, The Norseman said: We'll see how excited you all are about saving real money when they go after entitlements. I can already hear the distant whine of building liberal tantrums. You will surely hear tantrums from those of us who have been paying their share of those entitlements our entire lives.
March 24, 2025Mar 24 2 hours ago, DEagle7 said: Ok so that means you want zero federal research funding. Correct? Cause none of it is in the constitution. You're not paying attention - @Mike31mt doesn't want any science done anywhere ever. If you can't figure out how to feed 5,000 people with two tilapia and five matsah's you're SOL.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 10 hours ago, The Norseman said: What a bunch of absolute nonsense It is. And it's exactly what they're doing. They're doing a basic text search on anything remotely "DEI", cancelling it (for a minute) an declaring savings. Research institutions are not nearly as dumb as Musk's minions think they are and are already scrubbing grant applications yielding no fundamental change in allocation of tax dollars. Congratulations on getting played again.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 12 hours ago, DEagle7 said: Fun anecdote. One of my brother's colleagues recently had all of his research funding frozen. He studies the genetic mechanisms of animals adjusting to acute chemical stressors in their habitat. It was flagged because he used the term "acclimate" his papers titles and abstracts. But go on. Go ahead and tell me about how this is all just part of the process and not just a bunch of dopes typing in "climate" "environment" "black" "trans" "immigrant" into a search functions and just blindly cutting whatever pops up. Yup. Grant applications are becoming a game of term mismatching nonsense. To no benefit of science but the rubes get to believe their tax dollars aren't going to "DEI" so I guess it's a win because they're too dumb to understand.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 9 hours ago, vikas83 said: Congress appropriates the money, so they have a role to play in larger decisions. For instance, Congress created the DoE, and only Congress can formally terminate it. Now, the executive branch has broad discretion in how it spends the money allocated, and Congress has abrogated a ton of its responsibilities on a range of issues to the executive branch (e.g., tariffs). I think this trend to strengthen the executive branch has been a mistake, but it has been a bipartisan effort. I think what people want, more than anything, is basic competence and to simply operate within the existing rules and contracts. Move fast and break things is fine for Silicon Valley, but it's not going to work with the behemoth that is the Federal Government. Employees have contracts and unions, and there are rules on how they need to be terminated. Don't just fire a bunch of people and then scramble to rehire people who you actually need -- take a minute and get it right. Simply put, you can't ignore rules, contracts and laws simply because you claim to have noble purpose. That has been the justification of every autocrat in history. The system of checks and balances exists precisely to stop this kind of thing. Do I wish we never entered into onerous labor contracts for federal workers? Of course. But we can't just ignore binding contracts because we find them inconvenient. THANK YOU. Please come again.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 8 hours ago, The Norseman said: We'll see how excited you all are about saving real money when they go after entitlements. I can already hear the distant whine of building liberal tantrums. If you think it's liberals that will be whining when they go after entitlements you're hilariously misled.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 16 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said: No it won't. Federal employee compensation accounts for about 6% of federal spending. So no, taking a fraction of 6% will not have a ripple effect for years. For crying out loud you could 0 out that number completely and you'd be talking about only a 6% reduction in the deficit. The political third rail is social security. Yeah let me know when they touch that.... "Instead you're all just bishing and complaining for no reason" Um no, I'm calling out BS. You guys are acting like absolute children about this You're pretending like no cuts would do anything, which is absurd, so none if it is worth it. And you all wonder why the govt literally never ever shrinks in size. It's because of whiny babies like you. If it cant be exactly the way you want it, which is impossible and never did happen and would never happen, then we should just give up and not even try. Sorry, they're moving forward and this will absolutely help. Burn baby burn
March 25, 2025Mar 25 16 hours ago, DEagle7 said: Ok so that means you want zero federal research funding. Correct? Cause none of it is in the constitution. Is that what I said? Don't be mad because your pals research is absolutely stupid and pointless and now he/she may have to actually contribute to society to earn money.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 16 hours ago, DEagle7 said: Ok so that means you want zero federal research funding. Correct? Cause none of it is in the constitution. Is that what I said? Don't be mad because your pals research is absolutely stupid and pointless and now he/she may have to actually contribute to society to earn money.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 17 hours ago, vikas83 said: Congress appropriates the money, so they have a role to play in larger decisions. For instance, Congress created the DoE, and only Congress can formally terminate it. Now, the executive branch has broad discretion in how it spends the money allocated, and Congress has abrogated a ton of its responsibilities on a range of issues to the executive branch (e.g., tariffs). I think this trend to strengthen the executive branch has been a mistake, but it has been a bipartisan effort. I think what people want, more than anything, is basic competence and to simply operate within the existing rules and contracts. Move fast and break things is fine for Silicon Valley, but it's not going to work with the behemoth that is the Federal Government. Employees have contracts and unions, and there are rules on how they need to be terminated. Don't just fire a bunch of people and then scramble to rehire people who you actually need -- take a minute and get it right. Simply put, you can't ignore rules, contracts and laws simply because you claim to have noble purpose. That has been the justification of every autocrat in history. The system of checks and balances exists precisely to stop this kind of thing. Do I wish we never entered into onerous labor contracts for federal workers? Of course. But we can't just ignore binding contracts because we find them inconvenient. So spell out how that is done in one four year term, Vikas. This is exactly why it will never be done unless it's this way. Clear them out with the early retirements and then go by attrition. Federal employee unions should absolutely be illegal anyway. F them, I will never, ever feel sorry for a single federal employee union. Ever.
March 25, 2025Mar 25 8 minutes ago, Mike31mt said: now he/she may have to actually contribute to society to earn money. I'm sorry, what is it you do again?
Create an account or sign in to comment