It gets personal
-
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.
They’ll end up, after a lot of drama, with the same formula they use every time they have a trifecta: take away health care and food assistance from low income families and use the money to fund tax cuts for their donors.
-
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.
-
Smart scalpel is preferred, but the political will won't be there when you need it.
It's going to be the roast chicken method, if it's done
-
Smart scalpel is preferred, but the political will won't be there when you need it.
It's going to be the roast chicken method, if it's done
@Jolly said in It gets personal:
Smart scalpel is preferred, but the political will won't be there when you need it.
How so? Don't you think an approach where Trump said something like "I'm going to deploy 10 genius analysts into each <whatever> branch and ask them to provide a full report in 6 months of what should be cut immediately and what should be sent back to congress to review appropriations". It doesn't have to take 4 years, but it also doesn't have to take 4 weeks. The latter is reckless and lazy.
-
A very smart man once said, If t'were done, it is well it t'were done quickly.
In politics, when you've got Big MO, you gitter done. The longer something rattles around in the box, the more opposition you'll tend to have.
In the case of cuts, corporate or government, you cut fast and hard. Sometimes, you have to adjust the cuts later, but that's usually easier than the paralysis of analysis.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Reminds me of a contest at college where they wanted to rename the "Great Hall" into something more interesting. Someone submitted "Nixon's Tomb" - which I thought was wonderful. I was actually on the committee that would decide the name - and spoke forcefully in favor of the name change - but by the time I got done speaking, even I was convinced it wasn't such a great idea since Nixon seemed to take things personal and while it would have made the national news - not the news that would result in good tidings.
-
A very smart man once said, If t'were done, it is well it t'were done quickly.
In politics, when you've got Big MO, you gitter done. The longer something rattles around in the box, the more opposition you'll tend to have.
In the case of cuts, corporate or government, you cut fast and hard. Sometimes, you have to adjust the cuts later, but that's usually easier than the paralysis of analysis.
@Jolly said in It gets personal:
A very smart man once said, If t'were done, it is well it t'were done quickly.
In politics, when you've got Big MO, you gitter done. The longer something rattles around in the box, the more opposition you'll tend to have.
In the case of cuts, corporate or government, you cut fast and hard. Sometimes, you have to adjust the cuts later, but that's usually easier than the paralysis of analysis.
Ah, but Macbeth was speaking of murder, not cost cutting.
"The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like the condemned man who is proud of his large cell." Simone Weil
-
A very smart man once said, If t'were done, it is well it t'were done quickly.
In politics, when you've got Big MO, you gitter done. The longer something rattles around in the box, the more opposition you'll tend to have.
In the case of cuts, corporate or government, you cut fast and hard. Sometimes, you have to adjust the cuts later, but that's usually easier than the paralysis of analysis.
@Jolly said in It gets personal:
A very smart man once said, If t'were done, it is well it t'were done quickly.
In politics, when you've got Big MO, you gitter done. The longer something rattles around in the box, the more opposition you'll tend to have.
In the case of cuts, corporate or government, you cut fast and hard. Sometimes, you have to adjust the cuts later, but that's usually easier than the paralysis of analysis.
Great. What have they actually cut?
-
All told, more than 30,000 federal employees were fired in recent weeks after the Trump administration directed a mass purge of probationary staff.
