Slashdot Mirror
US Federal Budget Proposal Cuts Science Funding (washingtonpost.com)
hey! writes: The U.S. Office of Management and Budget has released a budget "blueprint" which outlines substantial cuts in both basic research and applied technology funding. The proposal includes a whopping 18% reduction in National Institutes of Health medical research. NIH does get a new $500 million fund to track emerging infectious agents like Zika in the U.S., but loses its funding to monitor those agents overseas. The Department of Energy's research programs also get an 18% cut in research, potentially affecting basic physics research, high energy physics, fusion research, and supercomputing. Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E) gets the ax, as does the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, which enabled Tesla to manufacture its Model S sedan. EPA loses all climate research funding, and about half the research funding targeted at human health impacts of pollution. The Energy Star program is eliminated; Superfund funding is drastically reduced. The Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes cleanup programs are also eliminated, as is all screening of pesticides for endocrine disruption. In the Department of Commerce, Sea Grant is eliminated, along with all coastal zone research funding. Existing weather satellites GOES and JPSS continue funding, but JPSS-3 and -4 appear to be getting the ax. Support for transfer of federally funded research and technology to small and mid-sized manufacturers is eliminated. NASA gets a slight trim, and a new focus on deep space exploration paid for by an elimination of Earth Science programs. You can read more about this "blueprint" in Nature, Science, and the Washington Post, which broke the story. The Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department and Agriculture Department took the hardest hits, while the Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Veterans Affairs have seen their budgets grow.
Total, utter morons.
THANKS, Trump voters.
Where is athena when you need her?
While everyone will bitch about (with merit) or rave about (maybe with merit) the actual details of the budget, the big requirement this time, MIGHT be, it actually be a budget.
Or at least, soon.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view...
I'm not sure if the current proposed budget seriously expects the debt ceiling to remain in effect. What is sure is that the debt ceiling has been punted in the past: hence it being suspended until yesterday. Talking about the budget without any decision on the debt ceiling is pretty stupid, but we will do it anyway. If the debt ceiling is real, we probably need to cut more than 18% off of a few things, and eliminate more than just a few programs- we probably need to axe at least one department over the next few years. If instead it is just another punt to younger people to pay off our national credit card, then you can go ahead and parse the proposed budget through a petty and partisan lens.
Anything that contradicts their beloved bible, or their beloved campaign contributors, they hate. It's really sad.
I get you don't like accepting climate change cuz of oil donations, whatev, but physics, fusion, and superconducting? Good thing we'll have all those 20th century robots making shit the manufacturing "the jobs will come back" should have, cuz we're now behind China and Russia in the 21st century economy.
I know every budget has to be criticized by 'the opposing party' with a list of all the wonderful things that are going to be cut, but you all DO realize that the US government is nearly $19 TRILLION in debt - or more than $50k per person in the country?
Every single program that we're paying for, essentially we're living off credit cards. We are the wealthiest nation in human history, and we still cannot afford all the crap we want.
At some point, someone has to be the grownup in the room and say "you know, that would be really nice, but we simply can't afford it".
-Styopa
This indicates the new administrations priorities. Congress ultimately decides the funding, and a number of the "eliminated" agencies have bi-partisan support in Congress.
Let the sausage making begin.
The federal government says our National Debt is near 20 Trillion dollars. But that is a misdirection so they can hide the fact we are almost over the edge.
Once one considers the future liabilities (promised benefits) of Social Security (SSA & SSD), Medicare and Medicad which are all off budget (hidden) we are close to 100 Trillion in debt. And those programs in 2015(maybe 2014) made up 47% of all Federal spending. Medicad alone grew at a pace of 27% in 2015!!
And consider that Interest on our National Debt made up another 19% of Federal Spending!!
I don't think this can be hidden for more than 4-5 years before the bottom falls out. Then the drastic spending spending cuts will get made.
Because the Federal level politicians and bureaucrats will need to really start making big cuts in the entitlement programs just to save their own pay checks and retirements.
One last item, this is a bi partisan problem (Dems and Repubs) they have diverted the funds paid in for 50+ year to spend on other stuff!
But it is going to happen if we don't start cutting big time now!!
Makes my head hurt.
Endocrine disruptors may be associated with the development of learning disabilities, severe attention deficit disorder, cognitive and brain development problems...
Gee. I wonder why the Big Cheerio wants more of them running around in your water supply?
Does anyone have the numbers on total money cut from those programs axed or trimmed? What percentage of the budget is actually being saved by trimming and axing these programs (not including those programs that are staying the same or having their budgets increased)?
-SaNo
Trump supporters that still support this Orange cunt remind me of pot committed poker players on full tilt. Even when it's pointed out that what they're doing is just fucking themselves, they just blindly carry on.
At some point, someone has to be the grownup in the room and say "you know, that would be really nice, but we simply can't afford it".
There is another alternative so solve that if what you are going to cut is really important: you can raise taxes. However I understand that Trump wants to lower taxes and apparently by cutting basic science. That's a very short term strategy. It may take a decade or two but if you fall behind the rest of the world in science you are handing us a huge economic advantage....errr...so forget I said anything, this sounds like a great plan!
I can only get so erect!
not tired of winning though
Starting with the biggest area of discretionary spending:: the military.
Also, spending isn't the only way to affect the problem. Taxes on the wealthiest Americans could be increased.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I don't think this can be hidden for more than 4-5 years before the bottom falls out. Then the drastic spending spending cuts will get made.
Because the Federal level politicians and bureaucrats will need to really start making big cuts in the entitlement programs just to save their own pay checks and retirements.
One last item, this is a bi partisan problem (Dems and Repubs) they have diverted the funds paid in for 50+ year to spend on other stuff!
But it is going to happen if we don't start cutting big time now!!
Seconded.
All of us are expected to make prudent financial decisions, balance our checkbooks, figure out monthly expenses and income, and dole out money such that we can pay our mortgages, bills, food, tuck away an emergency fund - all the little pieces that make up the job of adulting.
It's ridiculous that the only thing our elected officials can agree on is that they're going to spend more money than we have - so much more money than we have that it's a hopeless spiral that no one has to take responsibility for because bad policy decisions don't get politicians in the kind of trouble that regular adults do.
So let's default. Follow Greece and friends. We need some ridiculous austerity measures.
I agree we should cut the military!! But since discretionary spending only makes up 34% of federal spending. But it is the easier part to cut.
But the entitlements are the biggest problem 47% (with interest being 19%) when it comes to getting to a fiscally responsible budget.
We have been sending the credit card bill to future generations for decades.
And if I were young I would be screaming about that! Because the young will pay in to Social Security, Medicare their entire lives and never get a penny back.
Your comment, and the attitude it exhibits, is a perfect example of the reasons why so many Americans chose to vote for President Trump.
Republicans aren't "anti-science". In fact, many Republicans work as scientists, engineers, medical professionals, and as executives in businesses that depend very heavily on technology and science. They aren't dumb, contrary to how you mistakenly portray them.
What they are upset about is poorly done science that's driven by biased politics and ideology instead of the objective and impartial scientific method. Climate "science" is a good example of this, with data that's "corrected"/"massaged" and predictions that prove to be wildly inaccurate, decade after decade. Republicans don't like "science" like that. They have much higher standards than what we've seen from leftist scientists. They demand fact-based science, not politically driven "science".
They're also against pointless regulation, especially when it's regulation that causes more harm than benefit. But they aren't against sensible regulation that provides a social and economic benefit. They want the nation's water supplies protected. They want the air clean. They want immigration controlled so that criminals can't enter easily. But what they don't want are useless regulations like carbon taxes, or worse, like absurd vehicle emission standards that can't be economically obtained.
As for religion, many Republicans aren't religious at all. Yes, there are some Republicans who are Christians. But there are many who aren't. In fact, there are Republicans who practice Islam. There are Republicans who practice Hinduism. There are Republicans who practice Buddhism. It's absurd for you to label all Republicans as Bible-thumping idiots, when that just isn't the case.
Leftists such as yourself have been shitting all over Republicans for decades now, without any justification. Just look at your comment. It's hyperbole and one unsubstantiated ad hominem attack after another. You attack and attack and attack people who have done absolutely nothing to you other than have higher standards and maybe have slightly different religious beliefs (which ends up being irrelevant in practice).
Yes, when people like you unjustifiably ridicule and insult and harass and demean millions upon millions of Americans who are actually decent, hard-working, industrious people, of course they'll turn against you politically. It's unbelievable how badly we've seen leftists treat their fellow Americans, especially when these other Americans really haven't done anything to the leftists.
And before you start claiming I'm a Republican, or that I'm one of these other Americans, or that I'm a Trump supporter, let me inform you that I'm not. I'm just an impartial observer who has seen what has gone on for many years now, and it's quite clear who the aggressors are (leftists) and who the victims are (centrist and rightists who generally just want to be left alone).
All of us are expected to make prudent financial decisions, balance our checkbooks, figure out monthly expenses and income, and dole out money such that we can pay our mortgages,...It's ridiculous that the only thing our elected officials can agree on is that they're going to spend more money than we have
If you have a mortgage, then you already spent more money than you have. Why is debt ok for you but no ok for the government?
I hope he leaves in enough money so we can bomb children in Yemen, because that makes America great.
You are welcome on my lawn.
At this point, I think most thinking people would agree that President Trumpf is a clear and present danger.
Don't think so? Look at what he is cutting and what he is increasing spending on.
What is our country permitted to do in the event of a clear and present danger?
The baby boomers have elected their king to lead us into ruin. Their generation was raised with the belief that economic growth would continue forever and the money from next year's prosperity could be used to pay for what they wanted today. Less taxes, more defense, don't touch my social security (because I "earned" it, dammit!)
http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/03/08/bruce-gibney-sociopaths-baby-boomers
It will take more than a decade for them to die off, by which time we will really be fucked.
Americans clearly don't give a shit about science.
They only care deeply about guns.
Put the money in the military.
(nt)
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
The Science! people chose the other side. They've been really nasty and partisan for more than 10 years now. Then their party lost the election and they're crying that the side they chose to make into enemies is cutting their funding.
Here's a clue for the future:
Stop being partisan jerks and go back to studying things. Then next time you can say "we're not political, we just need funding to learn useful new things". It might take a while to make that message believable, but that's the way it goes. Hope you learned something.
I think it was the Lexington columnist for the Economist who said that Republicans are for small government, except when they aren't. And when it comes to defense, they aren't. Trump complained about wasted defense spending in the Middle East and complained about our allies not paying their fair share - so his solution is to spend more. Businessman my ass, now he's playing army with other people's money.
(first my disclaimers...) I'm a research scientist. I've worked in academia, for a government lab managing grants, and in private industry.
There are many good reasons to change the way science funding is done in the USA.
First, we all know here that there is a surplus of certain STEM labor, including a large number of the researchers (postdocs, grad students, etc.) funded by the government.
Second, there is a serious and long running lack of practical progress being made in science. By some metrics (# of degrees, # of papers), we are doing great, but by others (# of companies founded, return on investment, research efficiency) we are at a generational low-point.
Third, some practical STEM fields (i.e. medicine, manufacturing engineering) DO exhibit a labor shortage, and also rely on training programs largely outside the research grant driven model.
The budgets we're looking at in the government grant space are enormous. It doesn't seem that way to many researchers, but the annual NIH budget alone is about equal to all of the funding provided to all startup companies annually. There's a lot we can do with that, provided the right direction. NIH, for example, could be re-focused on grants for training medical doctors, PAs, nurses, etc., instead of researchers. Yes, that would slow research down, but it would also contribute significantly to lowering the cost of medical care, and it would be appropriate for the mission and people at the NIH. A mature approach to climate change might cut some climate research funding, but increase funding for faster roll-out of a power and transportation infrastructure free of fossil fuels. Surely such an infrastructure could be an obvious point of agreement between the right and the left; start the construction in coal country.
A thoughtful approach to science funding would encourage researchers to look beyond their next federal grant to other (private) funding sources, and would encourage (force) private funding sources to invest in transitional research. The UC pension system has been instrumental in fueling the startup economy for a long time by devoting 1% of it's money to funds investing in startup companies. If other groups did the same (... were forced to do the same...), we would increase the total amount of science funding by several orders of magnitude more than the total federal R&D budget. Prior to the 1990s, all large DoD contractors were required to spend 15% of their budget on R&D projects that were reviewed by government scientists to ensure they were actual R&D projects. Removing that requirement shut down a lot of very good industrial research programs. We learned then that most companies performing internal R&D can't compete with companies using subsidized academic R&D. That's an important lesson that the pharmaceutical industry is just now discovering, and it's an economic fact we need to fight. Reinstating requirements like minimum and audited internal R&D budgets for government contractors would also increase private spending on real research.
Not all research can use a "transition to private funding" model, so there is a need for continued blue sky research funding from the government. However, right now, we are saturated with the results of blue sky research and in serious need of support for transitional and applied research. As a nation, we are paying for this basic research, but we are not seeing the benefits of it. Some small amount is commercialized here, some is commercialized elsewhere, but a whole lot just gets forgotten. That's a waste, and it's stupid.
So basic research could be de-emphasized for a while, and non-government resources could be directed to lead to an overall increase in work and funding for researchers (while also delivering a profit... usually). That's another way of saying that a decrease in federal research funding could be done in a constructive way. We could even look at the labor market for cues as to whose graduate education we should be subsidizing. However, this is not what Trump is suggesting here... but it's nice to daydream about what an intelligent jobs-and-commerce science budget would actually look like.
From 1972 to today, the EPA has grown by 115%. Funding for the EPA is up 51% during just the Obama administration. The total number of employees "reduced" over the last 40 years is almost all in military service personal cuts. Every other agency has grown, as have their budgets. The EPA, as an easy target, has projects and funding for things like "clean energy" redundant with at least a dozen other agencies. That is just one area of dozens of redundant projects and redundant bureaucrats handing out tax payer money to pet projects.
Citation and first interesting quote. "From 1972 until 2011, the number of EPA employees increased by 107 percent while the number of total federal personnel decreased by 15 percent," he said on March 25 during testimony before the House Budget Committee. Today that office is at an estimated 18,500 employees.
The only staffing reductions in Washington over the last 40 years happens to be the dwindling Military. The second quote is only covering up until 2011, and since then there has been growth in every single agency in Washington. "Executive branch civilian employees numbered 2.82 million in 1972 and 2.76 million in 2011, a drop of 2.1 percent. Meanwhile, uniformed military personnel numbered 2.36 million in 1972 and 1.58 million in 2011, a decrease of 33.1 percent. So the reduction in federal employees has more to do with a smaller fighting force than with a shrinking bureaucracy.
I think an important point here is that the President's budget matches exactly what he said during the campaign. A whole lot of people are in shock that a President is doing what he claimed he would during the campaign. That really has to blow people's minds after nearly three decades of years of "read my lips, no new taxes" (Bush SR.), "we will increase transparency" (Bush SR, Clinton, Bush, Obama), "we will fix immigration" (Sr. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama), "we will balance the budget and work on the deficit" (Bush SR, Clinton, Bush, Obama), and since we isolated the first Republican I'll close with "Hope and Change" (Obama).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Debt is worthwhile when it's invested in future income sufficient to cover the debt, and then some.
Military spending does not produce future income. It should be limited to ensure reasonable security, and no more - when you're already outspending the next biggest eight countries combined, that's clearly far more than required for deterrence.
.08% Not much of a cut, and it does not pertain to any of the space programs. I would strongly recommend people read or listen to Directory Mulvaney's Q&A session for answers, as apposed to reading some propagandist's opinion of the briefing.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"It's got electrolytes plants crave"
Military spending does not produce future income.
ARPANET says you're a fucking moron.
This theologically driven budget would drastically harm our economy by destroying entire sectors of it. As an example, Trump wants to "privatize" the Air Traffic Control system; turning something done for the public good into something done for profit (the way he thinks). The argument he makes is that we need to catch up to the other countries that already do this. Well, I can tell you that those other countries don''t have an aviation industry like we do. User fees in those other countries mean it''s damned near impossible to own a small aircraft and get a pilots license, unless you're filthy rich or under contract to an airlines. Those other countries buy their aircraft from us and their people come to the USA to train. Just like Teddy Kennedy destroyed the small ship building industry in the US with ideologically driven taxes back in the 1980s, the Trump plan will destroy our general aviation (less than commercial airliner sized) industry at the benefit of a few companies. This proposed budget has many other changes that will destroy other industries as well, to the benefit of a few well connected people.
Fixing things would require a complete reassessment of the world economy,and finding out ways for people to contribute positively to the best of their abilities and helping them to improve.
How much do you propose to tax the rich?
Be specific. A person who makes X should pay Y:
$10,000 -> ?
$100,000 -> ?
$1,000,000 ->?
$10,000,000 -> ?
$1000,000,000 -?
What is your specific proposal for what each of these earners should pay to non producers?
Try again.
The sentence, "Try again" is a sentence fragment. I agree with you. If President Trump funded education more, you might be educated enough to use grammar correctly.
Because my mortgage is an investment in my future and the alternative, paying rent, just means paying someone else's mortgage.
If I stop paying my mortgage I lose my house so I have to be responsible or there are severe consequences.
If politicians over spend their stupid constituents vote them back in to office for life.
You see the difference now?
The citation claims that Rep. Morgan's numbers are correct. The only differential would be the 1 time drop of employees at the EPA due to retirements, which if you read today's numbers (as I reported) the numbers went up and beyond.
Maybe if you spent more time at school instead of trolling you would be educated. Then again, Leftism hates facts. Namely the summary paragraph which you intentionally ignored.
There are a few minor issues with Griffith’s choice of dates and numbers, but we won’t quibble. The EPA increase would have dipped below 100 percent if Griffith had used the most current employment figures from 2013. On the other had, Griffith could have made the growth sound more dramatic if he had started his comparison in 1970, when the EPA was born.
Yeah, but those people with facts are "dildo"s, not the people who ignore them.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The president is proposing a increase in defense spending of 54 billion dollars. The total annual spending on non-defense research is 69 billion, so you'd have to cut science funding by about 80% to pay for that. And then there are no doubt tax cuts for the wealthy coming too.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You are either a complete Trump fanboy, or just hopelessly naive because this budget IN NO WAY reduces the debt. Never mind you silly argument of "living off a credit card" (if you don't know how public debt different from revolving debt, go spend some time reading or take ECON 200) let's just focus on the budget:
It includes a massive increase of $54 Billion to the military. This is the military that is already funded 3x the next highest military (in fact if you add #2-8 in spending together you don't equal it), that has spending more than transportation, education, housing, international affairs, science, labour, and agriculture COMBINED. We really need this? We need that much more money for the military?
On top of that they are also set to propose sweeping tax cuts, particularly for the rich.
This is NOT something that'll reduce the debt, not even reduce the rate of increase.
If you want to compare it to a family (which as I said, it doesn't really work like personal finances) this is a parent saying "No I'm sorry kids, we can't afford to get a new water heater even though ours isn't working well, and I can't get you new clothes, we have too much debt. In other news I'm buying myself another new car and cutting my hours to 35 per week!"
You show me a budget that cuts the military like everything else, that at the very least keeps taxes where they are if not increases them, I'll give the "we have to cut the debt" argument credit. However so long as it is "less taxes, more defense spending" you can GTFO with that crap.
Because it not only doesn't cut the military, ti increases it by $54 billion. That offsets any other cuts. Combined with them wanting big tax cuts for the wealthy (who have the most to tax) that means a higher deficit. If you thing is cutting the debt, these guys are not interested in it. This proposal does nothing in that regard.
Also cutting spending isn't the only way to balance the budget. Increasing income works too, either via raising taxes or increasing the overall economy. Well guess what? Many of the programs being cut are the kind of things that help economic growth. Science is that way. The US is rich and prosperous in no small part because of science and development. When you are on the forefront of new things, you make a lot of money. Cut that, and it cuts future growth.
Once one considers the future liabilities (promised benefits) of Social Security (SSA & SSD), Medicare and Medicad which are all off budget (hidden) we are close to 100 Trillion in debt.
Try aren't hidden, the SSA makes regular reports on projections. You can read them.
And those programs in 2015(maybe 2014) made up 47% of all Federal spending.
Much of that is not Federal spending but individuals spending their own money to live. Will you steal from them?
Medicad alone grew at a pace of 27% in 2015!!
Your number is wrong, but you are forgetting to ask why it did grow. To m
And consider that Interest on our National Debt made up another 19% of Federal Spending!!
I don't think this can be hidden for more than 4-5 years before the bottom falls out. Then the drastic spending spending cuts will get made.
That's your rebuttal? Grammar?
Then restoration is not the way to go. You can't on the one hand say "We have to cut spending!" and then on the other say "We have to give the military back what we cut!" If you want budget cuts to try and balance the budget ok, but then the military has to be part of it. It is bigger than any other agency, by a large margin. You could eliminate (not cut, completely eliminate) education, transportation, agriculture, HHS, and the DoE and not even come close to the whole military budget.
Another way of looking at the military cuts is restoring it to 1990s levels, percentage wise. In the mid 90s defense spending was about $270 billion which was about 16% of the budget. In 2015 defense spending was about $640 billion (estimates are harder here since congress doesn't include Iraq and Afghanistan costs directly in the budget) which is about 16% of the budget.
Yep. As we've been saying for 150 years: Government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.
Maybe, other nations prefer to be governed by the benevolent and omniscient elites, who know, what's good for their subjects better, than the subjects themselves do. But we here prefer the government, that follows the will of the people, however dumb.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
5%, then an extra 5% per $100,000, capped at 30%. America is a nice place to live. If you want to live here you pay. Go live in Bangladesh if you can't be happy with $600,000 on a $1,000,000 income.
and I don't really get how this concept is so damn hard for the ostensibly well educated population of /. to understand. Governments operate on completely different forms of credit and debt then people do.
Also, I don't make jack shit and over the course of my life $50k isn't all that much money. Especially when you consider things like roads, hospitals, the Internet and just about everything more important than a twinkie is paid for by the government in one way or another.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What these idiots don't seem to realize is that one of the biggest factors that made the USA great was our leadership in science and engineering. If we're willing to give that up then maybe we deserve a slide into mediocrity.
to drop bombs on people. One of the leftists sites (politico? I forget) made the point that Trump's cuts to foreign aid will result in food scarcity and destabilization of regions Isis and the like are looking to expand into. Americans will be damned if we'll pay for some lazy foreigner to sit around eating their food but they'll gladly pump 'em full of lead that costs 5x as much. That crap shows up in our health care system too. Anything but prevention.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How are we supposed to develop things like ARPANET if we're not educating new scientists?
Maybe Trump is just preparing for the pending apocalypse.
Social Security is NOT a liability it is self funded. It is separate and NOT hidden and not budgeted. You risk harm to it by misleading people to think it is a budget item. Medicare and Medicad are knock off programs which are not as well designed or protected but still are not normal budget items.
Separate taxes fund those programs and they go up or down based upon what the public puts into them. Not borrowed money. Social Security can never go bankrupt by design, it simply has less money to work with and goes down. If morons like the parent poster believe the lies they'll let crazy schemes to borrow against such programs or schemes to STEAL from them. Medicare and Medicad have suffered instead of improved to be more like social security and they should never be allowed to be morphed into anything like the failed spending process the rest of the government uses.
The whole monetary system we have as a big ponzi scheme; the debt isn't that big of a deal when the whole world system is huuuge a mess. Limiting factors on endless growth are beginning to impact our systems and fundamental changes will have to be made to any kind of system to adapt.
If you want to help medicad and medicare, you'd be addressing problems OUTSIDE of those programs because they are not the cause of the problems. Problems which impact our EXPENSIVE private health insurance too.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Yeah 30 minute video but explains the problem very clearly , tldr the dept ceiling will never be reduced until something catastrophic happens https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0
Medicad alone grew at a pace of 27% in 2015!!
Number is wrong, but you are forgetting to ask why it did grow. To cover more people. With healthcare. So they can contribute to the economy.
And consider that Interest on our National Debt made up another 19% of Federal Spending!!
Consider that interest on the debt purchased is low. Below inflation low.
I don't think this can be hidden for more than 4-5 years before the bottom falls out.
But none of this is hidden. It is all known.
Then the drastic spending spending cuts will get made.
Why is it that people like you think the only option is cuts? Why not increase revenue? But then you think a country with a hundred trillion in assets and less than a fifth that in debt is bankrupt.
Apologies for the double post. On mobile and misclicked.
Scientists work for the military moron.
It does. Enumerated and quoted cuts:
1. about half the research funding targeted at human health impacts of pollution. 2. The Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes cleanup programs are also eliminated 3. as is all screening of pesticides for endocrine disruption. 4. Sea Grant is eliminated, along with all coastal zone research funding. 5. JPSS-3 and -4 appear to be getting the ax. 6. Support for transfer of federally funded research and technology to small and mid-sized manufacturers is eliminated. 7. Agriculture Department took the hardest hits
Lets hurt the little people and the back bone of the US employment the most!
Why not return the tax rate to 91% for the top bracket, like in 50-s when America was supposedly great?
That's your rebuttal? Grammar?
Where is that parent incorrect? Or do you thing its ok for the uneducated to hold more power than the educated?
Why, exactly, is this a sentence fragment?
"Go!"
is a sentence, consisting of a verb in imperative form, with the understood subject 'You' (the listeners). So is "Try." So is "(You) go again." Or "(You) try again."
Oh, and since you are supposedly representing the grammar police on /., and I'm challenging your absurd statement that this is a fragment, I suppose I ought to provide you with at least some K-12 level documentation that your assertion is, in fact, absurd:
http://www.k12reader.com/learn...
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Fuck you.
"From 1972 to today, the EPA has grown by 115%"
From https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget:
1972: $2,447,565,000
2016: $8,139,887,000
So, first up, you pulled numbers from your ass. Good job. It's actually increased by a factor of 3.3. Before your stupid ass starts gloating, let's look at what inflation has done since then.
From: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=1972&year2=2017
A 1972 dollar is worth $5.83 now. So in constant inflation adjusted dollars, the EPA budget only has 57% of the purchasing power it did in 1972.
Learn to do actual research, with actual sources, and don't quote some fucking "conservative premiere media watchdog." I mean, for fuck's sake, they can't even capitalize shit correctly. Why do you think they can do math?
Adam and Eve didn't have science and things worked out just fine for them.
gdewilde@gmail.com
Most of the people who voted for Trump are not as stupid as Trump and the people who work for him.
Eating the seed corn is never a good idea, and this is that sort of budget.
If this was fiction the most credible plot would be that Trump is someone Putin has groomed to destroy America. Reality is of course far more stupid than that, but Trumps efforts to "fix" things are going to have a similar result if unchallenged.
Frankly who votes in the US elections ? Somehow it seems the 400 richest guys in America have managed to command a massive Zombie army to vote for their reverse Robin-Hood program.
Did you not see the news ? The military budget will be inflated , but the science one take a dive. Does this not tell you something important ? Please explain us in careful term why the budget of the first country military worldwide, need to be increased by so much, while science is asking to take a dive ? What do you think is more propitious to help us in the future : a bigger military then it already is, or advance in science ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
What is your specific proposal for what each of these earners should pay to non producers?
Oh, how precious! A Randroid! I haven't seen one of these in, wow, I don't know how long.
What did Ayn Rand ever produce, except a dodgy philosophy with an even dodgier economic model and a few horrible fiction novels? What did she produce, as she lay dying of cancer she caused through excessive smoking, pushing the cost onto society as she received Medicare and Social Security benefits?
Guns will replace the national flag. Wave that AR-15 proudly in the air, Americans! (Not you black guys, you'll just get yourselves killed by a cop).
I tell you what, guns can solve any problem.
Lost a can opener and need to make beans to go with your hotdogs? *BLAM* can has been opened!
Kitchen table wobbly? *BLAM* *Blam* *Blam* now that table is steady as a rock!
Kid not studying after dinner? *BLAM* "Next time, Timmy, it won't be over your head" Problem solved!
Wife not barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen? *BLAM* Now you just need to get a new wife!
But really, the biggest problem with people who love guns so much? It's right between their ears... *BLAM* problem solved.
A whole lot of people are in shock that a President is doing what he claimed he would during the campaign.
Um yes? The president made an awful lot of idiotic campaign promises, and most people (by the widest margin ever) didn't vote for him. And now people are not happy that he is indeed following through on his stupidity.
Still, eh, how's it coming with making Mexico pay for the wall? I can see that's going to work aaaany day now.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Several years of sequestration between Obama and Republican Congress has resulted in less money being spent on the military, and low readiness.... I think the military could be operated more cheaply.
Government spending has been out of control for decades. We're finally at a point where we *have* to reign it in, or we become the next Greece (and there isn't a Germany big enough to keep us afloat, if we do). There is too much "pork" everywhere. Just because some of it is for science, or arts, or whatever your pet cause is, doesn't mean it should be excluded from the axe. I just wish he also cut military spending, rather than increase it. Our bloated military needs to be streamlined, just like all the other federal departments.
Much of what might be cut is pork handed out in the name of science, and keep in mind that the "blueprint" is a long ways from a final budget.
Also note that this came from a WaPo article so you know it's completely one-sided.
It's about time all that garbage was sliced from the budget. Government is not the answer to all questions.
Also you can find your own damn money if your project is so worthwhile.
There are a significant number of Republicans who support fiscal restraint.
Bullshit. There isn't a single republican seriously asking for cutting the military budget or medicare which are by far the two biggest line items on the federal budget along with social security. Any discussion about "fiscal restraint" that does not involve cutting the military or medicare is a bogus argument. The republican's don't give a shit about fiscal restraint. They care about getting elected and promising to cut people's taxes (while ignoring the consequences of doing so) is a good way to do that. In reality we need to RAISE taxes to cover the entitlements we so clearly are unwilling to do without.
I have no problem cutting programs which are peripheral to core government. But I want that to be accompanied with tax cuts, which allows those who wish to support specific programs to "vote with their dollars."
Again, you are studiously ignoring the elephant in the room. Tax cuts? We aren't even paying for the government services we use. The federal deficit last year was right around $600B. You would have to cut basically every single program in the government except for the military, social security, medicare/medicaid, and interest on the debt to make up for the missing taxes. We basically fund almost the entire budget of our military (coincidentally around $600B) by borrowing it. Tax cuts? Taxes have to go up to pay for the stuff we already refuse to cut. Pay for what we buy before you talk to me about tax cuts. Otherwise you are just loading up your children and grandchildren with debt.
. . . Please try a more valid argument.
. . . . .that gets modified as negotiations over the budget proceed. .
And since when was ANY "Presidents' Budget Proposal" not Dead on Arrival ?
My comma-usage was developed while studying Ukrainian and Russian grammars, which do require commas just as I used them. Your nit-picking needs a trigger-warning, you English-centric bully!!!!!
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Your comment, and the attitude it exhibits, is a perfect example of the reasons why so many Americans chose to vote for President Trump.
Almost all of those people would have voted for Trump or whatever the republican candidate was if he was running against Hitler reincarnated. Hillary lost because of two reasons - 1) gerrymandering and 2) the fact that she wasn't especially charismatic so not enough of her base turned out. She actually won the popular vote but that didn't matter because of gerrymandering.
Republicans aren't "anti-science".
How many democrats do you see trying to teach creationism in the science classroom? It's true that not all republicans are anti-science but a HUGE number of them very much are, particularly those who are religiously motivated or have economic self interest incompatible with scientific evidence. Now to be fair the democrats have their share of anti-science loonies too (different topics but still wrong) but let's not pretend that republicans over the last 20 years have been even remotely pro-science. Ironically many of our best science accomplishments came under republican administrations - prior to the Reagan administration and the rise of the religious right.
What they are upset about is poorly done science that's driven by biased politics and ideology instead of the objective and impartial scientific method. Climate "science" is a good example of this, with data that's "corrected"/"massaged" and predictions that prove to be wildly inaccurate, decade after decade. Republicans don't like "science" like that.
Science didn't bring the politics to that debate. Republicans with an economic self interest did that. The climate science work stands on its own. It is apolitical. The republicans aren't arguing against it with facts and evidence because they don't have facts or evidence to support their position. They are employing a "god of the gaps" strategy claiming that the evidence isn't conclusive (even when it is) and that we need to keep studying it. They are trying to defund government research of the problem. They have fossil fuel energy companies funding "studies" to prove that dumping carbon into the atmosphere isn't having an effect. The science isn't "wildly inaccurate" despite your claims and there is a mountain of credible evidence. The problem is that dealing with climate change goes against the economic self interest of a good portion of the republican party base and so they have turned objective facts into a political debate.
As for religion, many Republicans aren't religious at all. Yes, there are some Republicans who are Christians. In fact, there are Republicans who practice Islam. There are Republicans who practice Hinduism. There are Republicans who practice Buddhism. It's absurd for you to label all Republicans as Bible-thumping idiots, when that just isn't the case.
Sure there are some aethiest republicans. Are you seriously arguing that the vast majority of the republican party isn't christian or that the the evangelical christian religious right isn't a very powerful force within the party? You can find examples of any minority you want within the party but I'm not about to pretend that it isn't primarily a party controlled by white christians or that christian sects don't lean strongly republican. There is a reason over 90% of black people vote democrat. There is a reason most minorities do not vote republican. You'll find that most christian religious groups tend to vote republican unless they are a minority and most everybody else tends to vote democrat. Atheist, agnostics, hindus, muslims, jews, etc all vote overwhelmingly democrat. Some like the catholic church reflect approximately the same composition as the overall voting population.
Complain if you want to, but when was the last time someone actually had the guts to propose spending cuts to ANY federal government programs? For decades, federal spending has vastly outpaced GDP growth. The federal budget has more than doubled since the early 2000s and increased by 18% in a single year 2008-2009. These people now have a $4 trillion annual budget! Isn't that more than enough?
Spending cuts are not popular. You're going to stir up a shitstorm no matter what you propose cutting. Tax increases are likewise not popular. The scumbags in Washington DC therefore avoid making the hard decisions about spending priorities and play "kick the can down the road" by borrowing. Not only have these assholes racked up $20 Trillion in debt, they've made well over $100 Trillion in future promises that cannot possibly be kept.
I'd certainly prefer that the cuts be made in other areas, but any net reduction in federal spending is a welcome development. Cheers to Trump for having the courage to actually make such a proposal. Let's see some of these critics come up with a competing plan that also cuts spending. Cutting defense would just bring a new set of critics out of the woodwork.
Thanks Donald, for keeping your promises and proposing a budget that matches my priorities.
Science was invented by Ben Franklin in 1776 when he couldn't find his keys in a thunderstorm.
That's over 200 years ago.
If they don't know everything (or at least everything worth knowing) by now it's time to give up.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The military (and the spending on it) is not discretionary, it is a requirement.
This will be your undoing. If Trump actually achieves what he's promised, you'll be a broke and environmentally and industrially destroyed 3rd-world country before 2020, regardless of whether Trump is still in power by then or not. The giant useless monument to xenophobia standing in the middle of the desert, and ridiculous collection of weapons you couldn't even afford to use will be your Moai. Hopefully, at least other countries would learn from your failure.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
A different electoral system would surely result on a totally different campaign strategy. So is very hard to tell if, effectively, the "broken" electoral system is the cause of Trump precidency.
Hush. Your alternative facts have no place here! California knows whats best for you so shut up and obey.
2/3 of all Americans (that "Average American") live on the coasts, that's also where the government gets its money to redistribute to the states that voted for Trump. Why the fuck we give people who produce far less and take far more than they give in to the system is ludicrous.
Any everyone is shocked that cuts ave being made? I thought this forum had more smart people in it.
bullshit that only proves you dont know what youre talking about.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
21 M illion dollars will buy a lot of chicken wire and paper mache. These dipshits won't know the difference, and if they did, they'd probably appreciate the traitorous Russian reference.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Um yes? The president made an awful lot of idiotic campaign promises,
Which happen to match many of the same promises as Barack Obama, GW Bush, Bill Clinton, Bush SR. So what you really mean to say is "not my party/candidate".
While it may give you some cognitive dissonance, why not go read the campaign speeches of the previous 4 Presidents and let me know how many times they claimed that we need to fix the border, clean up corruption, strengthen the Military, hold Government accountable, increase transparency, etc.. etc.. etc... People disliked the last president primarily because not only did he live up to any campaign promises, but once in power actively worked against every single one of them.
In fact why not look at Hillary's rhetoric, and see how many of her popular positions were exactly that of President Trump. How about Cruz's most popular rhetoric moving to exactly that of President Trump. Too foolish to see your own bullshit? Enjoy your aneurysm.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
We have been sending the credit card bill to future generations for decades.
Protip: The national budget is nothing at all like a household budget.
We're finally at a point where we *have* to reign it in
No, we don't.
doesn't mean it should be excluded from the axe.
Yes, it does. All that stuff you listed is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the big ticket items (eg, the DoD).
The word 'average' actually has a meaning. Hint, the Electoral College skew toward low-population states is not part of that meaning.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Can't wait for the first release of Brawndo...seems we are headed that direction.
Those entitlements are paid for out of taxes that are explicitly earmarked for those entitlements. Social security, you pay in and the money is supposed to go to social security, same thing for medicare.
If you are going to cut those entitlements you had damn well better cut out those taxes and you really ought to return the massive amounts of money paid into those programs that we will never see. The budget would be just as fucked, if not more than it is now and I'm damn well not giving back some of that tax money just so we can spend another 100 billion on the military.
The problem is that the government has consistently borrowed against that money and not paid it back, entitlements aren't the issue, we pay for those, we should get them. The issue is that our discretionary spending isn't sufficiently covered by our other taxes. This is in large part because the rich don't pay nearly as much as they used to and because corporations often pay little to no tax. We have been cutting the taxes on the wealthy for years while increasing discretionary spending, thats the problem, not entitlements which have been properly funded since they came into being.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
While there is considerable truth to that statement, unfortunately, one of the primary mechanisms put in place to try and protect the people from their own stupidity, the Electoral College, has just demonstrated that it is, in fact, stupider than the people it was put in place to protect.
And so now we have Trump.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
(North) Korea is likely where we'll see Trump begin to play with his new toys.
Sadly, NK seems to be doing everything it can to give the Orange-Moron-In-Chief every excuse he needs.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Doesn't mean the amount or quality of science research will go down. If anything the amount and quality will go up as private interests start allocating resources to those science projects most likely to make a big return on investment. I for one want to get the government out of as much science funding as possible, According to this article https://mises.org/blog/trumps-... the NIH science research alone is 87 percent waste. Also I don't like science being guided by political interests. I remember learning how the government paid scientists to 'prove' that cannabis damaged brain cells. So one particular scientist pumped so much cannabis smoke into monkeys mouths that they passed out from oxygen deprivation. Then when he dissected the monkey brains later, surprise surprise! evidence of brain cell death! This "Cannabis kills brain cells" research paper was cited by other researchers and considered legitimate for decades....
So yeah, get the government out of science research. If this bill didn't also allocate a ridiculous amount of money to the military (our largest money pit in the US) I would root for it!
Oh yeah and i'm not in favor of the State Department either. I don't think they do as much 'diplomacy' as they say they do. Its really just the 'Department of Neo-cons'
The "average American" did vote for Trump.
Only if you consider urban votes not worth counting. Democracy is supposed to be one person-one vote. Not one acre of land-one vote.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
While it may give you some cognitive dissonance, why not go read the campaign speeches of the previous 4 Presidents
That has no bearing on the fact that 1. Trump's campaign promises were idiotic, 2. He's the biggest ever loser of the popular vote and 3. he's trying to follow through on idiotic promises.
People disliked the last president primarily because not only did he live up to any campaign promises
And because he was black. There's no other reasonable explanation for the birther movement.
In fact why not look at Hillary's rhetoric, and see how many of her popular positions were exactly that of President Trump.
Except better thought out. Both are in favour of building new infrastructure. Hillary had a well though out plan on how to pay for it. Trump just seemed to declare it would happen as if by magic.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yes, but what about her emails?
From 1972 to today, the EPA has grown by 115%.
Gosh, you mean that Nixon's initial EPA budget isn't enough to pay for all this country's environmental protection needs almost 40 years later?
Funding for the EPA is up 51% during just the Obama administration.
From the EPA:
(Funding and Employees)
FY 2016 $8,139,887,000 15,376 FY 2015 $8,139,887,000 14,725 FY 2014 $8,200,000,000 15,408 FY 2013 $7,901,104,000 15,913
FY 2012 $8,449,385,000 17,106 FY 2011 $8,682,117,000 17,359 FY 2010 $10,297,864,000 17,278 FY 2009 $7,643,674,000 17,049
FY 2008 $7,472,324,000 16,916 FY 2007 $7,725,130,000 17,072 FY 2006 $7,617,416,000 17,355 FY 2005 $8,023,483,000 17,495
FY 2004 $8,365,420,000 17,611 FY 2003 $8,078,703,000 17,741 FY 2002 $8,078,813,000 17,590 FY 2001 $7,832,211,000 17,558
FY 2000 $7,562,811,000 17,726 FY 1999 $7,590,352,000 18,110 FY 1998 $7,363,046,000 17,739 FY 1997 $6,799,393,000 17,152
FY 1996 $6,522,953,000 17,082 FY 1995 $7,240,887,000 17,508 FY 1994 $6,658,927,000 17,106 FY 1993 $6,892,424,000 17,280
FY 1992 $6,668,853,000 17,010 FY 1991 $6,094,287,000 16,415 FY 1990 $5,461,808,000 16,318 FY 1989 $5,155,125,000 14,370
FY 1988 $5,027,442,000 14,442 FY 1987 $5,364,092,000 13,442 FY 1986 $3,663,841,000 12,892 FY 1985 $4,353,655,000 12,410
FY 1984 $4,067,000,000 11,420 FY 1983 $3,688,688,000 10,832 FY 1982 $3,676,013,000 11,402 FY 1981 $3,030,669,000 12,667
FY 1980 $4,669,415,000 13,078 FY 1979 $5,402,561,000 12,160 FY 1978 $5,498,635,000 11,986 FY 1977 $2,763,745,000 11,315
FY 1976 $771,695,000 9,481 FY 1975 $698,835,000 10,438 FY 1974 $518,348,000 9,743 FY 1973 $2,377,226,000 9,077
FY 1972 $2,447,565,000 8,358 FY 1971 $1,288,784,000 5,744 FY 1970 $1,003,984,000 4,084
Gosh, with all that money, why haven't they fixed the environment completely? Shouldn't we all be living in some sort of weather-controlled paradise?
Where are our flying cars?
But no, your claim doesn't add up. Sorry. Even the largest year increase was only temporary, and that was the ARRA which was short-lived.
The total number of employees "reduced" over the last 40 years is almost all in military service personal cuts.
Gosh, I wonder why the Military got cut. Whatcould have been behind that. What indeed. (Oh and side note, Trump has called for more cuts in that area, hasn't he? Huh.)
Every other agency has grown, as have their budgets.
Yeah, terrible thing, population has grown, inflation, more tasks, it's like we're expecting them to not shrink, and do more with less. What a terrible world it is, isn't it?
The EPA, as an easy target, has projects and funding for things like "clean energy" redundant with at least a dozen other agencies. That is just one area of dozens of redundant projects and redundant bureaucrats handing out tax payer money to pet projects.
Oh, but Trump is cutting those clean energy programs, in fact, he appointed a guy who declared he was going to cut the Department of Energy to run the Department of Energy. Brilliant.
Citation and first interesting quote. "From 1972 until 2011, the number of EPA employees increased by 107 percent while the n
Haha, so much delusion and idiocy it's hard to picture you as a real person. I see you as a bot repeating talking points from the last batch of political losers.
By your own admission every previous candidate made the same claims, yet you don't call them or the failed candidate Hillary a "loser". Just the person who won.
Then you claim that Trump lost by the biggest number in popular vote vs. electoral college which ignores the fact that population today is higher than in the last, every election. By percentage the biggest difference was in 1824, second to 1888. Math and research are not that hard, but you are not even trying. Citation for the mentally handicapped. President Trump won the second largest amount of electoral college votes in a split vote by percentage.
You then go to the claim which has no basis in reality, that people didn't support Barack Obama because of his skin color. Strangely 70% of the independent who voted for Obama voted for Trump. You also ignore that even among Democrats the turnouts dropped by 2.8% for the same exact candidate between 2008 and 2012. The percentages of woman and minorities were higher for Trump than McCain or Romney, hence the blue states turning Red. Asians preferred Trump, as did the people who immigrated from Europe and Russia. Again, numbers prove you wrong.
Except better thought out. Both are in favour of building new infrastructure. Hillary had a well though out plan on how to pay for it. Trump just seemed to declare it would happen as if by magic.
That statement has no basis in reality. None, zero, zip, nada. Hillary had a few sound bytes and power point slides, most of which started to go up in September (for Infrastructure, Immigration) and in terms of Government accountability there was no platform. She ran on "he's bad", which is why Democrats didn't vote for her. She was caught in double speak, open lying, and literally hid from the public and media for nearly a year. She was lazy and relied on a lying media (who was caught openly cheating for her), who performed such a constant stream of hit pieces on Trump that he is going to be untouchable even if he actually does something wrong.
There is simply no further point in attempting to have a discussion with a person who feels justified to argue against facts. You are delusional at best, and a Hillary shill at worst. I know the lines. Everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, Islamophobe, and hates the poor. People simply don't believe you and your ilk any longer, you wore out the lies.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
There is no such thing as an "Average American". Apparently half of us are educated or at least have some common sense, and half are hillbilly trailer trash stupid.
You sure you aren't talking about Trump? Because almost everything you state could be applied to him.
All this penny-wise pound-foolish quibbling is a distraction.
What are some thoughts on how to tackle the Mandatory Spending?
And is it even possible to bring down a 19 trillion dollar debt, ever?
Except only 55% of registered voters even cast a vote at all. So barely more than a quarter of the voting-eligible population voted for Trump.
The low turnout is easy to understand, since we were forced into a choice between two shit sandwiches. And since I suspect that, as usual, most of the votes were _against_ the other one rather than _for_ the one, it is quite safe to say that the average American didn't vote for him.
Apparently you don't like the Constitution, then. It's very clear on this, and nothing in it suggests "one person-one vote" for the presidential election.
I think your fooloshness stems from your utter inability to read. Take, for example, this gem:
By your own admission every previous candidate made the same claims, yet you don't call them or the failed candidate Hillary a "loser". Just the person who won.
It's like you've taken the words in my post, put them in a blender, added your own and claim that it's what I said. It's not classical Latin we're speaking here: the order of words matters, so swizzling them round changes the meaning.
Then you claim that Trump lost by the biggest number in popular vote vs. electoral college which ignores the fact that population today is higher than in the last, every election. By percentage the biggest difference was in 1824
I learned something new today! Though wikipedia seem to have omitted 1824 from the main comparison chart since the US was a lot different then from what it is now. By 1876 it was a rather more familiar shape.
That statement has no basis in reality.
Except the bit where it does.
You are delusional at best, and a Hillary shill at worst
Yep, Hillary is paying a Brit to support her election campaign months after the election ended. True story.
Everyone who disagrees with you is a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, Islamophobe, and hates the poor.
Liar. See here's the thing. I knew you'd eventually starting inventing lies about me because it's the only argument you have, ultimately.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
She actually won the popular vote but that didn't matter because of gerrymandering.
Please explain your claim of gerrymandering in relation to this presidential election. Did they redraw the state lines in favor of Republicans since the last time a Democrat won the presidential election?
First, cutting funds from an agency does NOT necessarily mean cutting the important things it does - it can and should mean the agency must actually PRIORITIZE and stop doing the stupid stuff it does, like studying shrimp on treadmills and keeping employees who are criminal or incompetent on the payroll because its easier than firing them. It means the EPA might actually have to focus on things like real pollution and less on the quality of water in puddles on farmer's fields after a rain event, or the dust kicked-up when a farmer plows his field, or treating one of the most vital components of our atmosphere (CO2) as a pollutant because doping so enables a lot of leftwing political activities.
The USA is about $20 TRILLION dollars in DEBT. With interest rates flat, we've still been paying over $400 Billion per year in interest on that debt, which is approaching the approx $600 billion we spend on defense and actually surpasses the inflation-adjusted estimated cost of the Apollo Moon program (often cited at about $300 billion). Every time somebody proposes cutting ANYTHING in Washington, the special interests come out and scream that the world is about to end, so all that usually is "cut" is the rate of increase. The Democrat-dominated Federal Reserve kept interest rates at nearly zero through the entire Obama admin (they usually hold flat when their fellow Democrats have the white house) but they have now raised rates and are widely expected to raise some more, shich means the interest we all pay on the $10 Trillion all the presidents before Obama borrows plus the $10 Trillion Obama borrowed will begin to rise alarmingly. EVERY part of our government is going to have to do something none of them have been told to do for decades - learn to be more-efficient, more-responsible with taxpayer dollars, and focus on only the core things they are supposed to be doing.
You, sir or madam or (your preference), are incorrect. Please try again.
Haha, so much delusion and idiocy it's hard to picture you as a real person.
Yes, that's what we say about Trump. I think he's acting. I almost think his plan is to destroy the Republican Party from within.
I see you as a bot repeating talking points from the last batch of political losers.
And we say that about Trump and yourself.
By your own admission every previous candidate made the same claims,
No, that's your assertion. You're confusing refusing to argue with you when you make an asinine assertion with agreeing with you.
No, nobody else promised to build a wall that Mexico would pay for, nobody else promised to crush ISIS with his secret plans, nobody else promised to find Obama's REAL birth certificate this time, nobody else promised to stick his head so far up his ass the sun wouldn't shine, but oh wait, you don't care.
Just the person who won.
No, the person who made idiotic promises. And thus America will pay the price.
Then you claim that Trump lost by the biggest number in popular vote vs. electoral college which ignores the fact that population today is higher than in the last, every election. By percentage the biggest difference was in 1824, second to 1888. Math and research are not that hard, but you are not even trying.
Obviously you aren't. Here's Serviscope Minor's words:
and most people (by the widest margin ever) didn't vote for him.
Given that Trump only managed 63 million votes, that means over 130+ million voters didn't vote for him.
Citation for the mentally handicapped. President Trump won the second largest amount of electoral college votes in a split vote by percentage.
You mean out of 5? Gee whilickers! But it wasn't a landslide, it wasn't the second most since Reagan even.
You then go to the claim which has no basis in reality, that people didn't support Barack Obama because of his skin color.
Yeah, except the basis in reality of the racist birthers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/27/nyregion/carl-paladino-michelle-obama.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/west-virginia-mayor-michelle-obama-racist-facebook-trnd/
https://www.rt.com/usa/372300-teacher-resigns-obama-rant/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/senior-level-bank-employee-fired-posting-anti-obama-message-facebook/
Strangely 70% of the independent who voted for Obama voted for Trump.
Nope. Can't be, since he gained only 1 million on George W. Bush, and yet Obama is 10 million+ ahead of Trump. That means millions of Obama voters didn't vote, which means 70% of the independents couldn't vote for Trump. It's not mathematically possible.
You also ignore that even among Democrats the turnouts dropped by 2.8% for the same exact candidate between 2008 and 2012.
You also ignore that turnout dropped, it didn't go up, so...when you factor in population gains, compared to Bush or Obama, Trump didn't gain voters. He lost them. Hugely.
The percentages of woman and minorities were higher for Trump than McCain or Romney, hence the blue states turning Red. Asians preferred Trump, as did the people who immigrated from Europe and Russia. Again, numbers prove you wrong.
Actually, numbers prove you wrong. He only had one million voters over George W. Bush in 2004. In Wisconsin for example, Trump LOST voters to 2004. Want to look at other states, and see where Trump lost votes?
Trump ultimately gained nothing. Certainly not any in-roads in "blue" states. Notice how many of the states that he "won" all had Republican governors and Legislatures. Ones who myster
the current spending path is mathematically unsustainable for future generations. someone had to make the hard choices. glad it was trump.
The only staffing reductions in Washington over the last 40 years happens to be the dwindling Military. The second quote is only covering up until 2011, and since then there has been growth in every single agency in Washington. "Executive branch civilian employees numbered 2.82 million in 1972 and 2.76 million in 2011, a drop of 2.1 percent. Meanwhile, uniformed military personnel numbered 2.36 million in 1972 and 1.58 million in 2011, a decrease of 33.1 percent. So the reduction in federal employees has more to do with a smaller fighting force than with a shrinking bureaucracy.
1972 was in the midst of the Vietnam War. 2011 was when we got out of Iraq. Nice cherries your source has picked there. "Dwindling" my ass.
It's a sentence fragment because there is no subject moron.
For operation "Get them out of the woodwork" to begin?
I haven't yet sharpened all the knives I'll need for all them racist lunatics. I only have enough knives for the adults.
I need at least a day more to get ready for my share of babies.
Not following the issue very well are you? Currently most of the Muslims on the planet actually quite like the USA (eg. Indonesia that you mentioned has a very good opinion of the USA). Trump appears to be trying very hard to change that one artificial emergency at a time.
You have mistaken part of a small tree for a forest.
Over a partisan summary of a rough draft. We have no idea what the final budget will look like. all this is a few bullet points by WaPo which is AntiTrump central but continue on in your 5 minute Hate. And you guys call yourselves rational.
Well, a good place to start "reigning it in" would be the Trump trips to Mar-a-Lago. He's got a place in D.C. already paid for. Tighten the belt. Stay in D.C. and work.
It started back in Team Fortress Classic
The United States is not now and never has been a democracy. The founders wisely and deliberately avoided creating a democracy.
Average Americans did vote for Trump. Democrats tend to attract the mentally disturbed and other people who can't hold a job, and the people who've spent more than four years in college being subjected to intensely biased left wing professors. Republicans tend to attract people in the middle, the average.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
We need a War on Science. Better yet, a War on Good Science. Good, Reproducible Science.
If it works out as well as the "Wars" on poverty and drugs, we'll be up to our armpits in the stuff.
(H/t to the owner of the sig line that I sto... adapted.)
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Does this mean we'll have enough money to start another war? Oh goody, goody.
It's been so long since we started our last war, I think we're all starting to Jones a little bit.
Might I suggest North Korea as a target? That will almost certainly lead to WWIII with China and Russia.
MAGA!
(Just make sure you get Barron into a deferred service program so he doesn't have to fight. Only poor people should go to war. War is God's way of clearing out the undesirables.)
Don't worry, China is doing plenty of science. Just one more thing outsourced.
Only if you consider urban votes not worth counting. Democracy is supposed to be one person-one vote. Not one acre of land-one vote.
So you're saying that you firmly support tyranny of the majority. Any abuse of fundamental human rights is ok so long as the majority is dumb enough to think it's ok.
There was a group in Germany called the Nazis that you probably would have enjoyed supporting.
To Progressives, gerrymandering is settled science in the abstract. They never admit to being wrong.
The public and the press failing to defend against lawyer politicians exploiting and creating loopholes may never be able to protect it 100%. As far as T bonds... the only more stable thing I can think of is gold... and they USED to be almost as good as gold before Nixon. What else can they do with excess funds they need to save? We have an inflation based system, they can't just dump dollars into a vault! Using it to help support the monetary system arguably makes it more secure in helping prop up a system that if it failed would make things extremely difficult for S.S.A. I can see the argument.
The fact remains that it is not liability, it is not part of the normal budget. Most the money is paid out not saved and as the Social Security Admin letters you get from time to time in the mail point out in simple terms--- the payout will go down if there are not enough funds coming in. So mismanagement results in people getting 70% or whatever lower amount in X years. A decrease in population would ALSO result in similar situations.
Social Security was designed to keep the elderly and unemployable out of poverty - that is the civilized and moral thing to do. You can fight over how much above that or how to define that all you want. Which is done--- the upper middle class and wealthy do not want to pay their fair share so we spend all our debates fighting over everything else. A lot of people think it is supposed to support their lifestyle. We also never set things pegged on inflation in the law... or cost of living... which would kill most issues off-- everything would be automatic and some minor variations could just be ignored without "fixing" but then perfection is often the enemy of good... politicians would constantly be trying to ruin a good thing under the excuse it's not perfect.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news