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.
wrote on 15 Mar 2025, 19:42 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 15 Mar 2025, 19:51 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 15 Mar 2025, 19:52 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 15 Mar 2025, 19:56 last edited by
I agree that cutting studies off in the middle is stupid and lazy.
-
wrote on 15 Mar 2025, 19:58 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 15 Mar 2025, 20:07 last edited by
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.
wrote on 15 Mar 2025, 21:10 last edited by Copper@xenon said in It gets personal:
the new budget will add a record amount to the deficit
Does the new budget exist?
-
wrote on 15 Mar 2025, 22:41 last edited by
A budget resolution was passed, which outlines the increases or cuts expected from each committee of jurisdiction. So while we don't know precisely what the cuts are, we know generally.
-
wrote on 16 Mar 2025, 20:16 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 16 Mar 2025, 20:20 last edited by
-
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.
wrote on 16 Mar 2025, 20:39 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 16 Mar 2025, 22:43 last edited by
@kluurs Both of us here are thinking of the 2 of you there, hoping your wife’s research can continue. I can’t imagine having my life long passion, my area of expertise, being axed, after decades of contributing such good for medical research.
-
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.
wrote on 16 Mar 2025, 22:55 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 16 Mar 2025, 23:44 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 16 Mar 2025, 23:59 last edited by Jolly
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.
wrote on 17 Mar 2025, 14:08 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2025, 16:18 last edited by
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
wrote on 17 Mar 2025, 16:25 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2025, 19:31 last edited by Jolly
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
-
wrote on 17 Mar 2025, 21:14 last edited by
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.
