It gets personal
-
There will be blood.
I've already given the roasted chicken example. I think that's what will be done.
-
I thought the blanket J6 pardon smacked of laziness. Seems that is a trend. I approve of the goals but not the means.
@Mik said in It gets personal:
I thought the blanket J6 pardon smacked of laziness. Seems that is a trend. I approve of the goals but not the means.
I don't think it's clear what those 2000 citizens of other countries were being paid to do, by the US taxpayers. This may or may not be a tragedy. But per se, it's what Maga was voted in to do.
-
That’s one example only and related to USAID. How many offshore employees did Jon’s study employ?
I think my point on laziness stands.
@Mik said in It gets personal:
That’s one example only and related to USAID. How many offshore employees did Jon’s study employ?
I think my point on laziness stands.
I'm lost regarding what we're actually talking about, but 83% of USAID programs were cut, after a 6 week review. We don't have any information about the Johns Hopkins programs that were cut, but I am sure it's safe to say that "people will die" narratives can be crafted. Cuts are hard, as those of us in the private sector who've been surrounded by layoffs our entire working lives will attest to. But I'm not going to get too precious about it.
-
We're feeling it as well. My spouse's grant has been slated for termination. She's appealing and looking at alternative funding. It is challenging to think what the environment is going to be in a couple of months - let alone, years. She's done research on nerve regeneration involved in urologic conditions.
-
There’s no way to cut painlessly, I agree. I also believe there are taxpayer supported studies that are not worth the expense. But many if not most are. To cut them off in mid study while still proposing deficit spending seems less than due diligence.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
I'm still waiting for an actual budget.
-
If there were painful cuts across the board and belt tightening, that’d be one thing.
These seem like theatrical cuts, since the new budget will add a record amount to the deficit.
-
These are ‘preconditions’ set by the administration that are supposed to be met before they will sit down with Columbia.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/6d3c124d8e20212d/85dec154-full.pdf
One wonders what the negotiations would then be about.
“Don’t make me repeat myself”
- history
-
These are ‘preconditions’ set by the administration that are supposed to be met before they will sit down with Columbia.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/6d3c124d8e20212d/85dec154-full.pdf
One wonders what the negotiations would then be about.
@jon-nyc said in It gets personal:
These are ‘preconditions’ set by the administration that are supposed to be met before they will sit down with Columbia.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/6d3c124d8e20212d/85dec154-full.pdf
One wonders what the negotiations would then be about.
-
These are ‘preconditions’ set by the administration that are supposed to be met before they will sit down with Columbia.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/6d3c124d8e20212d/85dec154-full.pdf
One wonders what the negotiations would then be about.
@jon-nyc said in It gets personal:
These are ‘preconditions’ set by the administration that are supposed to be met before they will sit down with Columbia.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/6d3c124d8e20212d/85dec154-full.pdf
One wonders what the negotiations would then be about.
I don't have too many problems with the preconditions. I'm not sure about the receivership, as that goes too far.
-
I'm not sure about the receivership, as that goes too far.
I can’t imagine why you might think that. It is, after all, just one those useless touchy-feely interdisciplinary social science programmes. Or would you like it to be a Bible Studies programme under the guise of interdisciplinary studies programme? Just asking.
-
BTW, using Federal funds as a bludgeoning tool of compliance is nothing new.
In 1979, I was attending a private college. The Feds dropped in and told the College Administration you don't have enough black students. The college replied that 13% of the student body is black and here is documentation of our efforts to recruit more... We are offering substantial scholarships, particularly to those more economically unfortunate, but they must meet entrance criteria (which wasn't onerous, just a 23 ACT and graduation in the top 25% of your class).
And besides, we don't take any Federal funds.
Well, said the Feds, the college may not, but your students have Pell Grants and student loans, which we will be happy to terminate.
Unless you can bring those black student percentages up to at least 20%So the college had to find another 100 black students, qualified or not.
-
There’s no way to cut painlessly, I agree. I also believe there are taxpayer supported studies that are not worth the expense. But many if not most are. To cut them off in mid study while still proposing deficit spending seems less than due diligence.
@Mik said in It gets personal:
There’s no way to cut painlessly, I agree. I also believe there are taxpayer supported studies that are not worth the expense. But many if not most are. To cut them off in mid study while still proposing deficit spending seems less than due diligence.
Yeah agreed. Lazy is a good term for it, chasing headlines is another. As you said, whether it's research grants, or federal employees, or other programs, there is good work out there, perhaps most of the time, and our country is better than the "meh, there will be blood" wrecking ball approach when a smart scalpel could be used to avoid hurting the good work that's out there.
