Trump science funding cuts

[math]\color{green} {\textbf{RUDE}}[/math]
[math]\color{orange} {\textbf{RUDE}}[/math]
[math]\color{green} {\textbf{RUDE}}[/math]
[math]\color{orange} {\textbf{RUDE}}[/math]
[math]\color{green} {\textbf{RUDE}}[/math]
[math]\color{orange} {\textbf{RUDE}}[/math]
[math]\color{green} {\textbf{RUDE}}[/math]
[math]\color{orange} {\textbf{RUDE}}[/math]

I don't understand why literally anybody surprised that Trump is doing this or that this was even going to happen, literally any republican would have done this and any republican with a pulse could have beaten Hillary.

A 10% increase in defense spending is basically as much as all those cuts put together, since defense is by far the largest part of US discretionary spending.

It's a good budget plan.

NASA and the Department of Defense is all that matters anyways. Fuck the rest.

They should tax people 99% of their income and fund science.

should have bent the knee instead of shilling for the loser. time for the consequences of your actions.

ur analysis shows with large-scale evidence that the system is totally broken. The majority of the US authors of the most influential papers in medicine and life sciences in the last decade do not have NIH funding; their funding rate may even be less than the rate of the average applicant. Conversely, study section members are almost always funded (a corollary of their selection process by NIH), but their citation impact is typically modest, nothing exceptional. High-impact innovators and funded study section members are almost completely mutually exclusive groups.

scopeblog.stanford.edu/2012/12/05/nih-funding-mechanism-totally-broken-says-stanford-researcher/

HINT: Public funding is a shit way of directing funds towards science. It usually ends up being given to the worst and least productive possible research.

Science funding is good.
Government controlling science funding is bad.

The result? Only 40 percent of scientists with highly cited papers are listed as the principal investigators on NIH grants. That is, those scientists whose peers value their insights and research most highly in their field are often not receiving federal support for that work.

this. some of those cuts are even too small.

t. Trump

more /r/politics threads?

doesn't matter. the strongest and most intelligent will always rise to the top. why have the government keep paying to give niggers laptops and puppies for beta males to pet in class?

You don't know what you are talking about, kys

>percentage increase

BULLSHIT CHART IS BULLSHIT! Do you know how much fucking money the DoD gets? 9% is a fuckton increase.

Turns out lower taxes mean less money to spend
Who knew

DARPA and NASA is part of military budget iirc

He was smart enough to beat the system whereas others didn't

This.
Trump actually inflated the budget dedicated to actual science

>tenks twump

> - anyone with a triple digit IQ
Ftfy

Good. It's not like they were actually using that money to do science. Every one of those departments and agencies are a shitshow of internal politics, bureaucracy, and design by committee hell.

Maybe now they'll shape up.

>ad hominem
Shills please leave

>Shitposts on Veeky Forums
>Thinks he's the strongest or most intelligent

You and I are in the same category as the niggers and beta males.

lel, I was literally quoting a very respected critic of NIH. None of that was my "voice".

Does no one into economics here? Trumps tax plan could very well INCREASE tax revenue in our country as decreasing taxes could increase the inflow of money itself almost like how interest rates do.
Also more businesses are going to be incentivized to work HERE and thats even BETTER.
Sincerely, MAGA shill

What is Mr Trump afraid of? US has a fairly large and active military already no?
Some rogue country should start poking and prodding this huge retarded elephant just for entertainment. Maybe best Korea can step up to the plate someday!?

>expects to find non-fallacious arguments on Veeky Forums
No u

This thread belongs on /pol/

...

>drumpflets trying to defend this
face it, you can't

Military and tax cuts for the rich

Military spending is a key part of creating jobs for Trump's rural base

>Some rogue country should start poking and prodding this huge retarded elephant just for entertainment.
Osama bin Laden did this already desu, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He got America to start 2 wars, waste trillions of dollars, descend into levels of Muslim paranoia that shouldn't be possible culminating in the election of a president so incompetent and stupid that he'll permanently damage American credibility. He literally got America to have a 16 year chimpout with no sign of ending.

Reminders climate science is fake science

What is this wizardy.

>Some rogue country should start poking and prodding this huge retarded elephant just for entertainment.
Osama bin Laden did this already desu, he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He got America to start 2 wars, waste trillions of dollars, descend into levels of Muslim paranoia that shouldn't be possible culminating in the election of a president so incompetent and stupid that he'll permanently damage American credibility. He literally got America to have a 16 year chimpout with no sign of ending.

I kekked audibly for a long while. fuck

How much of that military funding will go into cybersecurty and warfare? Why is America allergic to getting good at the Internet we have so many neets.

America is a very sparse country aside from the northeast and LA

Shills have been leaking into other boards for some time now with their daily drumpf btfo threads. Don't think people don't notice.

This looks like a solid plan, he's cutting a lot of bullshit out. No idea why he's going for more defense spending instead of infrastructure but as long as he's not gifting money to terrorist countries I don't care.

>thinking this budget is anything but DOA

First foray into politics, nerds? Back to the lab.

>as long as he's not gifting money to terrorist countries I don't care.

You'll be very disappointed when we sends some new arms to Saudi Arabia.

zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-08/trump-set-approve-weapons-sales-saudi-arabia-bahrain-blocked-obama

Miss Obama yet?

LaTeX shitposting. that's next level Veeky Forums shit

that money is net 0 change

>cutting taxes magically makes more business appear
o I am laffer

If your science is so valuable then prove it in the free market

Science is not a product, it's a process.

>cut American science spending
>give tax cuts to the rich
>rich invest it in start ups by Wang and Pajib

>using the "free market" to measure the value of ideas

Maybe he is arming for war.

He shouldn't cut funds on NASA. He should give them more money. He also should give more money to Fusion, AI, Neuroscience and Quantum researches.

>argumentum ad snek
kys

>Military spending is a key part of creating jobs for Trump's rural base
Yup, this is good old fashioned spoils system.

Trump will be creating blue-collar, private industry, and military jobs, while cutting as much income and power as possible from blue-voting government employees, academics, and immigrants.

>defense is by far the largest...
No, it isn't.
Defense is large, but social programs are far larger.

I'm sure a concept as simple as "pay denbts" is not hard to understand.

WE DID IT Veeky Forums

But the military allows the oil-dollar system to continue. Which underwrites the rest of the budget.

Why do people assume Trump is stupid? You don't get to be a billionaire by being stupid. There's far too many high IQ sharks in the top.

So you're going to have government bureacrats decide the worth of something instead?

Sorry libfags, but the gravy train is over.
"mo money for dem programs" will have to wait for another president.

You want cheap energy? You're going to deal with slimebags.

You want to live a high standard of living? You're going to deal with slimebags.

>Why is America allergic to getting good at the Internet we have so many neets.

Because natural monopolies.

>The United States spends more on their defense budget than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, The United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan combined.[38] The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6–7 times larger than the $106 billion military budget of China. The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority)

why the fuck would you need to increase such a gargantuan budget even further? It is obvious that American military failures such as Afghanistan or Iraq result from bad policy/bad strategy, not from the ack of tanks, aircraft carriers or rockets.

*lack

whitehouse.gov/making-our-military-strong-again

>That’s why the Trump Administration will rebuild our military
>rebuild

mysides.jpg

> In FY 2015, Pentagon and related spending totaled $598 billion, about 54% of the fiscal year 2015 U.S. discretionary budget. For FY 2017, President Obama proposed the base budget of $523.9 billion, which includes an increase of $2.2 billion over the FY 2016 enacted budget of $521.7 billion.

unless your govenrmnent has some secret intel about an imminent ayy lmao invasion there are exactly zero reasons for all this.

>You want cheap energy? You're going to deal with slimebags.
Not true. America can produce its own cheap energy, just have to take the handcuffs off. That was why OPEC opened the floodgates: with the price of oil high, America was rapidly replacing them with high-tech production methods.

>You want to live a high standard of living? You're going to deal with slimebags.
Also not true. Same reason. Team Blue has been strangling American industry for decades, so they could get rich making deals with slimebags.

>zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-08/trump-set-approve-weapons-sales-saudi-arabia-bahrain-blocked-obama
>Miss Obama yet?

From the article:
>the Obama administration offered more than $115 billion worth of weapons to Riyadh in 42 separate deals between 2009 and 2016 — more than any U.S. administration in history.
>in the last months of his administration, Barack Obama decided to halt some arms sales to Saudi Arabia, following "allegations" of war crimes

>said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Whereas the Obama administration held back on these, they’re now in the new administration’s court for a decision — and I would anticipate the decision will be to move forward.”
>If confirmed, it would suggest

So you're talking about Obama's actual massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia, vs. an anonymous source's "anticipation" that Trump will be as bad as Obama (aside from Obama's irrelevant last-minute virtue signalling).

because education and health are way overrated
(the rich said and hey, they're rich, you know)

More proof that neither Trump nor Republicans know what these programs do.

The size of the budgets aren't the problem. The problem is focus, clarity of purpose, and integrity. You can't throw money at those.

The nuclear arsenal, the most important part of the military, is in a shameful condition. The upper ranks are loaded with the worst careerists rather than the best men. There's an entirely disgusting relationship between contractors and retired officers, which affects the decisions of current officers. They've been repeatedly sent out to fight without clear purpose, and pulled back without achieving victory.

Cutting military spending might eventually be the right thing, but starting out with it would send the wrong message entirely. First they'll spend more on the things that are being neglected, then they'll target the waste.

programs are things on the television between adverts user

>You don't get to be a billionaire by being stupid
Of course you can, you just need to have a very rich father, then you hire people who'll know how to manage your money (or your presidential campaign)

only brainlets choose to not have rich parents

What exactly is the bad thing about cutting the EPA budget? I am pretty sure it will survive even with a 31% decrease, what exactly is the EPA even doing?

>you just need to have a very rich father

I'm sorry but you're fucking retarded if you think that's the only way people get rich.

His father is smart and I'd assume that their children are smart.

Tell me, why isn't he smart? Even George W. Bush was smart. His fucking hokey schtick was adopted to endear himself to middle America.

CONT.

And there's one lesson of life. Top (western) politicians are smart generalists for the most part.

The important skill is picking out the right people and delegating them accordingly. I don't give a shit if he's studied topology or women's studes. He just needs to how to choose the right people.

Start with a lot of money, get involved with organized crime, ?????, profit

Organized crime is everywhere in real estate.

why don't you turn a thousand into a million then? it's the same order of magnitude increase as a million to a billion.

Can't hire people to make me richer with only a grand

>implying you didn't type that with the AC on full blast in the middle of March

Trump didn't start with only a million. He was raised into the family business worth at least a hundred million (in 2017 dollars) when he started, and eventually took charge of it all.

Anyway, you can't compare starting with thousands to starting with millions. There's a certain minimum amount of money where you can live comfortably off interest without working and without spending your investment funds, and it's vastly easier to increase your fortune after you have the option to be idly rich, than to reach this level from humble beginnings.

It's hard to say whether Trump's success as investor and businessman was luck or savvy. It can play out either way. If he had lumped all of the money available to him into index funds, he'd have done as well, but when he started out, it wasn't the conventional wisdom (as it is now) that index funds were a good investment. Safe conventional investments wouldn't have increased his fortune as much as he did, but on a good day a casino gambler makes a big profit, and he came close to disaster a few times. He has certainly profited from his colorful character, although that probably would have been ignored if he wasn't rich to begin with.

This meme is so old. Trump was raised in a family of millionaires. It's not a surprise that he had access to a great education, great private schools, and didn't have to pay for anything himself. He got born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Does that mean turning increasing his wealth even more isn't impressive? No, but it's much less impressive than say, someone like Warren Buffet who started with little to nothing and became a billionaire.

U hab stobbed our tedies flow.
We wil memb dis.

then get a loan. most successful businessmen build their wealth on credit.

Getting a loan is much easier for the wealthy. For someone like Donald Trump, his last name meant that he could walk into a bank and the bank would say "Oh, you're Fred Trump's son. Here, have 40 million dollars in construction funds." They were willing to loan him money not because he was trustworthy (and eventually they discovered that he really wasn't) but because his father had plenty of money. It took years for banks to realize that Donald Trump wasn't trustworthy as a borrower, and by then he had blown through millions of dollars of other people's money, whereas someone without Trump's last name wouldn't have even been given a chance in the first place.

>cheating is okay when Trump does it
>cheating is okay when whites do it

>cutting budgets of NASA, EPA, Agriculture, Health, Education, Energy, and Transportation
baka

To private.

It's that kid musk still playing with rockets?

>To (((private)))

The world is unfair and that includes genetics.

You can't fault people for thinking that smart people have smart kids or clever people have clever kids...

And they wouldn't be wrong. It's one of those facts of the world which darkens any model that failed to take it into account.

If a grant is already written and approved, but the funds have yet to be dispersed, will I still get money?

It's NHS, funding my master's degree and PI's new lab

>cuts NASA budget
>NASA can't make muslim outreach their #1 priority anymore
>all brainlets, women, diversity hires etc get sacked
>only hyper autistic huwhite men as God intended
>NASA starts to actually get shit done
Clever man.

Except that's been demonstrably wrong. It's one of the reasons we moved away from feudalism and nobility to begin with. A great king was a poor indicator the son would be a great king, especially since the son grew up in an environment separated from the peasants and could not understand their needs. The same flaws are appearing with capitalism and the system will be forced to change eventually. It's just dialectics in motion.

>NASA can't make muslim outreach their #1 priority anymore
Proofs?

I get that most of Veeky Forums knows nothing about .gov policy (this applies to /pol/ as well), but while money is being cut it's not going to be catastrophic. Here's why:

1. Most American bioscience initiatives is paid for by Medicare. The GOP will not dare touch it because most of their base belongs to the AARP.

2. The cutting edge of American applied physics/chemistry research is spearheaded by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who also happens makes our nuclear weapons (and made a major breakthrough in fuse design just last year). Trump has already greenlighted the nuke modernization program, which will cost over a Trillion dollars.

3. The Dept. of Education has been more or less the bitch of private contractors since the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act, which in practice created huge monopolies out of existing textbook publishers (Pearson, Houghton Mifflin, McGraw Hill, etc). The Common Core created a situation where education could be completely commodified on the Federal level, thereby making privatization efforts much easier. Trump cutting funding out merely accelerates the process. Congress has also floated the idea of letting college debt be absolved during bankruptcy, thereby allowing that market to function better. If this happens the market will crash and there will be no reason for large DoE grant programs.

4. Most of the Dept. of Energy cuts go to renewable subsidies, which states can reimplement if they so desire. Blue states (ie the states that consume the most energy) likely will.

5. The Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev. hasn't EVER done anything productive in it's entire existence. In the 60s they were the thing that knocked down urban districts to put up freeways and hi-rise social housing blocks. Cutting them out entirely gives large blue cities much more control over their own affairs.

6. Likewise, most of the Dept. of Transportation's budget goes toward freeway construction and maintence, thereby enabling unsustainable suburban sprawl. Gutting them means a rapid expansion of toll roads which is objectively good as it encourages better land use and transit use.

7. Foreign aid undercuts businesses in recipient countries and should be done away with entirely if we want those countries to improve. 2017 Africa is not 1947 Germany, Marshall Plan inspired policies do not work.

So, taken broadly Trump's cuts aren't that bad. They're just accelerating things that have already been in the works since the end of the Cold War. Which is it's not catastrophic.

Hereditary nobility isn't actually a good way of governing. You might think that the wealthy are somehow a more deserving breed of genetically superior beings, but actual human history has demonstrated that assigning positions of power based on birth is a recipe for a stagnant, corrupt society.

Wow a poster with a brain when it comes to government function rather than simply looking at numbers and crying. Color me surprised.

> Hereditary nobility isn't actually a good way of governing
> actual human history has demonstrated that assigning positions of power based on birth is a recipe for a stagnant, corrupt society
[citation needed]

History is full of examples of extremely effective monarchies. Are they "nice" by the standards of modern liberals? No. They didn't give a shit about "tolerance" or "gender identity" or any of that bullshit. But the fact is that they got shit done. Sre they were brutal, but that's why they worked. Brutality might be nasty, but it is undeniably effective. Modern liberal democracies, on the other hand, are festering shitholes that do nothing but hand out free stuff to an unproductive mob. They care so much about hurt feelings, minorities, and criminals that it completely paralyzes them. Nations need strong leaders, and democracies are shit when it comes to producing strong leaders. Monarchies at least have a chance at cultivating a good genetic lineage of strong leaders, whereas democracies are constantly being pulled away from strong leadership by the masses who want a government that will do nothing but take care of them.