On 8/10/2025 at 8:32 AM, The Norseman said:

Sure they were, but probably not at this scale. Most importantly, it was never so publicly tracked, and never organized and cataloged centrally across the various different agencies. Nor was there the level of transparency of these contracts so that we could see the egregious things that our money is being spent on.

1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

@MidMoFo We were talking about this under the context of contracts being cut, not general information about spending. Go back and read the conversation.

If you want transparency, Congressional votes are made public. I gave you a link that showed contracts. Congress, per the constitution, is responsible for approving or denying funding. Yay/nay votes are public so we can see who votes and how.

Doge, working outside the guidelines of the constitution, did the job granted to Congress by cutting funds that were approved, by Congress. Has it ever crossed your mind that a lot of the cuts couldn’t have been passed through congress because reps/senators wouldn’t have wanted their name publicly tied to voting for the cut? Which eliminates the burden of transparency, and more importantly accountability, on congress?

You’re crying about transparency, but supporting less transparency and accountability, because you like the cuts. If doge goes against the will of the majority, how do we hold them accountable?

3 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

If you want transparency, Congressional votes are made public. I gave you a link that showed contracts. Congress, per the constitution, is responsible for approving or denying funding. Yay/nay votes are public so we can see who votes and how.

Doge, working outside the guidelines of the constitution, did the job granted to Congress by cutting funds that were approved, by Congress. Has it ever crossed your mind that a lot of the cuts couldn’t have been passed through congress because reps/senators wouldn’t have wanted their name publicly tied to voting for the cut? Which eliminates the burden of transparency, and more importantly accountability, on congress?

You’re crying about transparency, but supporting less transparency and accountability, because you like the cuts. If doge goes against the will of the majority, how do we hold them accountable?

You're seriously talking about "transparency and accountability" in a legislative process that has been pushing thorough obscene, pork filled omnibus bills for the last quarter century? This process has failed the American people and the spending of federal tax dollars on pork, grift and nonsense that never sees the light of day is is completely out of control. The website you shared might advocate "transparency", but it looks like something an overpriced nursery school would use for marketing outreach to new parents.

I could care less how it gets done, it needs to get done and the American people need to see what their hard earned money has been spent on. Not in some fluffy website where you have to nonsensical download government reports, in a simple, line item fashion.

And to be clear, the only people I hear crying in here are those like you, making the arguments that "they're not doing it the right way". Meanwhile, what the American people finally see is the grotesque spending on garbage like overseas DEI initiatives and gender study analytics initiatives.

28 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

You're seriously talking about "transparency and accountability" in a legislative process that has been pushing thorough obscene, pork filled omnibus bills for the last quarter century? This process has failed the American people and the spending of federal tax dollars on pork, grift and nonsense that never sees the light of day is is completely out of control. The website you shared might advocate "transparency", but it looks like something an overpriced nursery school would use for marketing outreach to new parents.

I could care less how it gets done, it needs to get done and the American people need to see what their hard earned money has been spent on. Not in some fluffy website where you have to nonsensical download government reports, in a simple, line item fashion.

And to be clear, the only people I hear crying in here are those like you, making the arguments that "they're not doing it the right way". Meanwhile, what the American people finally see is the grotesque spending on garbage like overseas DEI initiatives and gender study analytics initiatives.

The phrase is "couldn’t care less.”

You may be the only person in the country who still bought the entire DOGE side show. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Non-discretionary and debt interest makes up the large majority of spending.

DOGE tinkering at the margins of discretionary spending is nothing more than performative nonsense.

If Trump gets serious about entitlement reform I'll sit up and listen. Until then he's playing "look at me and how great I am" games that morons fall for.

13 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Non-discretionary and debt interest makes up the large majority of spending.

DOGE tinkering at the margins of discretionary spending is nothing more than performative nonsense.

If Trump gets serious about entitlement reform I'll sit up and listen. Until then he's playing "look at me and how great I am" games that morons fall for.

I've made this point 1000 times in here and I agree. But until either side gets serious about entitlement reform I'll take what I can get.

The idea that we should cut nothing if we can't cut the big stuff is ludicrous.

21 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

I've made this point 1000 times in here and I agree. But until either side gets serious about entitlement reform I'll take what I can get.

The idea that we should cut nothing if we can't cut the big stuff is ludicrous.

...and yet you don't accept the fact that the DOGE effort has been highly performant with the actual outcomes being extremely minor from a relative perspective and also vastly overstated. A lot of bark and very little bite.

8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

...and yet you don't accept the fact that the DOGE effort has been highly performant with the actual outcomes being extremely minor from a relative perspective and also vastly overstated. A lot of bark and very little bite.

What I don't do is try to find every possible way to tear down an initiative that is doing something good and very much needed. Yes, I wish we were addressing entitlements, and yes I wish Doge was able to save more.

But, let's be honest, if either of those things were to happen, I'd have to listen to all of you scream about how awful they were for overstepping their bounds.

In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy watching them systematically destroy the partisan pet projects that our government has been spending our money on.

Oh the DOGE website says it's true? I guess that settles it.

6 hours ago, The Norseman said:

In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy watching them systematically destroy the partisan pet projects that our government has been spending our money on.

Destroying partisan pet projects like cancer research, followed up by requiring political appointees signing off on research.

Trump is literally doing all the things you don't want government doing, but you're ok with it because it's Trump.

Is there stupid research being funded by the government? Sure, some, and due to transparency it gets paraded around right wing media so you can **** about it.

But 99% of funded research is beneficial and often feeds into seeding the next generation of innovation.

All for a fraction of a percent of federal spending.

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Destroying partisan pet projects like cancer research, followed up by requiring political appointees signing off on research.

Trump is literally doing all the things you don't want government doing, but you're ok with it because it's Trump.

Is there stupid research being funded by the government? Sure, some, and due to transparency it gets paraded around right wing media so you can **** about it.

But 99% of funded research is beneficial and often feeds into seeding the next generation of innovation.

All for a fraction of a percent of federal spending.

no, no ,no. Let's overthrow democracy because some lesbo with an afro scored 250k for gender violence research.

.

On 8/14/2025 at 2:10 PM, The Norseman said:

You're seriously talking about "transparency and accountability" in a legislative process that has been pushing thorough obscene, pork filled omnibus bills for the last quarter century? This process has failed the American people and the spending of federal tax dollars on pork, grift and nonsense that never sees the light of day is is completely out of control. The website you shared might advocate "transparency", but it looks like something an overpriced nursery school would use for marketing outreach to new parents.

I could care less how it gets done, it needs to get done and the American people need to see what their hard earned money has been spent on. Not in some fluffy website where you have to nonsensical download government reports, in a simple, line item fashion.

And to be clear, the only people I hear crying in here are those like you, making the arguments that "they're not doing it the right way". Meanwhile, what the American people finally see is the grotesque spending on garbage like overseas DEI initiatives and gender study analytics initiatives.

Hey F-****! Answer the question.

If doge goes against the will of the majority, how do we hold them accountable?

Checks and balances and accountability are kind of important.

On 8/16/2025 at 1:10 PM, MidMoFo said:

Hey F-****! Answer the question.

If doge goes against the will of the majority, how do we hold them accountable?

Checks and balances and accountability are kind of important.

The judicial branch has been doing just fine at keeping them in line.

On 8/15/2025 at 1:54 PM, JohnSnowsHair said:

Destroying partisan pet projects like cancer research, followed up by requiring political appointees signing off on research.

Trump is literally doing all the things you don't want government doing, but you're ok with it because it's Trump.

Is there stupid research being funded by the government? Sure, some, and due to transparency it gets paraded around right wing media so you can **** about it.

But 99% of funded research is beneficial and often feeds into seeding the next generation of innovation.

All for a fraction of a percent of federal spending.

Yawn...and left wing media gets you and all the other theater kids panicked over some cuts to NIH and a few other bloated institutions. Spare me your regurgitation from the outrage machine.

still truckin

still retarded

34 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Yawn...and left wing media gets you and all the other theater kids panicked over some cuts to NIH and a few other bloated institutions. Spare me your regurgitation from the outrage machine.

I assure you that I am far more knowledgeable about the kind of research being cut.

You should be embarrassed about what is being cut, and what that signals to the best and brightest minds around the world.

You won't be, but you should be.

Countries like China are going to eat our lunch the next generation, all because Trump convinced you that spending money on research is bad.

27 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I assure you that I am far more knowledgeable about the kind of research being cut.

You should be embarrassed about what is being cut, and what that signals to the best and brightest minds around the world.

You won't be, but you should be.

Countries like China are going to eat our lunch the next generation, all because Trump convinced you that spending money on research is bad.

Unlike China, we don't rely solely on the government for research. And no, they will not eat our lunch, nor have they ever in medical research.

2 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Unlike China, we don't rely solely on the government for research. And no, they will not eat our lunch, nor have they ever in medical research.

I assure you that I know more than you on this. The pullback has resulted in significant layoffs at various medical research universities.

You trusted a con artist. Now the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater.

But you can tout pretend DOGE claiming that are generously 15% of what they are reporting, but likely lower. All while this administration continues to increase overall spending with pork bills.

34 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I assure you that I am far more knowledgeable

I have a feeling that's typical for Norseman.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I assure you that I know more than you on this. The pullback has resulted in significant layoffs at various medical research universities.

You trusted a con artist. Now the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater.

But you can tout pretend DOGE claiming that are generously 15% of what they are reporting, but likely lower. All while this administration continues to increase overall spending with pork bills.

The drama from you people is exhausting. Things get cut everywhere, government shouldn't be any exception. They will restructure and de-prioritize the non research related roles. We will be fine, and CNN will post something new today for you to be outraged about.

Take a breath.

12 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

The drama from you people is exhausting. Things get cut everywhere, government shouldn't be any exception. They will restructure and de-prioritize the non research related roles. We will be fine, and CNN will post something new today for you to be outraged about.

Take a breath.

This is about research cuts. Not indirect costs, which is its own issue - where you want Universities to provide oversight for how tax dollars are spent but not pay the necessary overhead costs of doing so.

Again, I know more about this than you do. You are, again, thinking that the approach that can sometimes work in corporate America during M&A are appropriate here - because that's what you claim to know something about.

I've already seen incredibly talented researchers from abroad starting to balk and withdraw; they're going to take their talents elsewhere. America isn't the only gig.

11 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

This is about research cuts. Not indirect costs, which is its own issue - where you want Universities to provide oversight for how tax dollars are spent but not pay the necessary overhead costs of doing so.

Again, I know more about this than you do. You are, again, thinking that the approach that can sometimes work in corporate America during M&A are appropriate here - because that's what you claim to know something about.

I've already seen incredibly talented researchers from abroad starting to balk and withdraw; they're going to take their talents elsewhere. America isn't the only gig.

If and when they go elsewhere their research won't be shared with the world?

26 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

If and when they go elsewhere their research won't be shared with the world?

You really are clueless about these things if you think the next generation of talented researchers choosing to take their abilities to other nations is somehow a net positive for America.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

You really are clueless about these things if you think the next generation of talented researchers choosing to take their abilities to other nations is somehow a net positive for America.

I didn't say it was a net positive. I just didn't subscribe to your unhinged theory that cancer would now run rampant in our society because Trump cut some money from Federal health research.

Besides, think of the national pride Liberia will have when these distinguished researches go there and find the cure for pancreatic cancer.