Quote
Politics
Trump's Budget Cuts Deeply Into Medicaid and Anti-Poverty Efforts
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
The Failing New York Times
MAY 22, 2017
WASHINGTON — President Trump plans to unveil on Tuesday a $4.1 trillion budget for 2018 that would cut deeply into programs for the poor, from health care and food stamps to student loans and disability payments, laying out an austere vision for reordering the nation's priorities.
The document, grandly titled "A New Foundation for American Greatness," encapsulates much of the "America first" message that powered Mr. Trump's campaign. It calls for an increase in military spending of 10 percent and spending more than $2.6 billion for border security — including $1.6 billion to begin work on a wall on the border with Mexico — as well as huge tax reductions and an improbable promise of 3 percent economic growth.
The wildly optimistic projections balance Mr. Trump's budget, at least on paper, even though the proposal makes no changes to Social Security's retirement program or Medicare, the two largest drivers of the nation's debt.
To compensate, the package contains deep cuts in entitlement programs that would hit hardest many of the economically strained voters who propelled the president into office. Over the next decade, it calls for slashing more than $800 billion from Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor, while slicing $192 billion from nutritional assistance and $272 billion over all from welfare programs. And domestic programs outside of military and homeland security whose budgets are determined annually by Congress would also take a hit, their funding falling by $57 billion, or 10.6 percent.
The plan would cut by more than $72 billion the disability benefits upon which millions of Americans rely. It would eliminate loan programs that subsidize college education for the poor and those who take jobs in government or nonprofit organizations.
Mr. Trump's advisers portrayed the steep reductions as necessary to balance the nation's budget while sparing taxpayers from shouldering the burden of programs that do not work well.
"This is, I think, the first time in a long time that an administration has written a budget through the eyes of the people who are actually paying the taxes," said Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump's budget director.
"We're not going to measure our success by how much money we spend, but by how many people we actually help," Mr. Mulvaney said as he outlined the proposal at the White House on Monday before its formal presentation on Tuesday to Congress.
Among its innovations: Mr. Trump proposes saving $40 billion over a decade by barring undocumented immigrants from collecting the child care tax credit or the earned-income tax credit, a subsidy for low- and middle-income families, particularly those with children. He has also requested $19 billion over 10 years for a new program, spearheaded by his daughter and senior adviser Ivanka Trump, to provide six weeks of paid leave to new parents. The budget also includes a broad prohibition against money for entities that provide abortions, including Planned Parenthood, blocking them from receiving any federal health funding.
The release of the document, an annual ritual in Washington that usually constitutes a marquee event for a new president working to promote his vision, unfolded under unusual circumstances. Mr. Trump is out of the country for his first foreign trip, and his administration is enduring a near-daily drumbeat of revelations about the investigation into his campaign's possible links with Russia.
The president's absence, which his aides dismissed as a mere coincidence of the calendar, seemed to highlight the haphazard way in which his White House has approached its dealings with Congress. It is just as much a sign of Mr. Trump's lack of enthusiasm for the policy detail and message discipline that is required to marshal support to enact politically challenging changes.
"If the president is distancing himself from the budget, why on earth would Republicans rally around tough choices that would have to be made?" said Robert L. Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan organization that promotes deficit reduction. "If you want to make the political case for the budget — and the budget is ultimately a political document — you really need the president to do it. So, it does seem bizarre that the president is out of the country."
The president's annual budget — more a message document than a practical set of marching orders even in the best of times — routinely faces challenges on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers jealously guard their prerogative to control federal spending and shape government programs. But Mr. Trump's wish list, in particular, faces long odds, with Democrats uniformly opposed and Republicans already showing themselves to be squeamish about some of the president's plans.
"It probably is the most conservative budget that we've had under Republican or Democrat administrations in decades," said Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina and the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
But in a signal that some proposed cuts to domestic programs are likely to face resistance even from conservatives, Mr. Meadows said he could not stomach the idea of doing away with food assistance for older Americans.
"Meals on Wheels, even for some of us who are considered to be fiscal hawks, may be a bridge too far," Mr. Meadows said.
Republicans balked at Mr. Trump's demand for money for the border wall in negotiations over a spending package enacted last month. Many were deeply conflicted over voting for a health care overhaul measure that included the Medicaid cuts contained in the budget to be presented on Tuesday. Now the president is proposing still deeper reductions to the federal health program for the poor, as well as drastically scaling back a broad array of social safety net programs that are certain to be unpopular with lawmakers.
"The politics of this make no sense to me whatsoever, in the sense that the population that brought them to the dance are the populists out there in the Midwest and South who rely on these programs that he's talking about reducing," said G. William Hoagland, a former senior Republican congressional budget aide. Referring to Representative Paul D. Ryan, he said: "I don't see how Speaker Ryan gets anywhere close to 218 votes in the House of Representatives if this is the model. It's an exercise in futility."
Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, said Monday that the Medicaid cuts would "carry a staggering human cost" and violate Mr. Trump's campaign promise to address the opioid epidemic.
"Based on what we know about this budget, the good news — the only good news — is that it was likely to be roundly rejected by members of both parties here in the Senate, just as the last budget was," Mr. Schumer said on the Senate floor.
The budget itself avoids some of the tough choices that would be required to enact Mr. Trump's fiscal vision. The huge tax cut was presented but without any detail about its elements or cost. Mr. Mulvaney said the tax plan would not add to the deficit, implying that its cost would be made up with other changes, such as eliminating deductions.
To balance the budget, Mr. Trump's budget relies on growth he argues will be generated from the as-yet-unformed tax cut.
The blueprint also steers clear of changing Social Security or Medicare, steps that Mr. Mulvaney, a former South Carolina congressman who has backed entitlement cuts, said he had tried to persuade Mr. Trump to consider.
"He said, 'I promised people on the campaign trail I would not touch their retirement and I would not touch Medicare,' and we don't do it," Mr. Mulvaney said. "I honestly was surprised that we could balance the budget without changing those programs, but we managed to do that."
But budget experts argued that was little more than fiction, and the plan could never deliver the results it claims to.
"The central inconsistency is promoting a massive tax cut and spending increases in some areas and leaving the major entitlement programs alone," Mr. Bixby said. "You don't have to be an economist to know that that doesn't add up, and that's why there's a great deal of concern about the negative fiscal impact that this budget will have."
While past presidents have often launched a road show with stops around the country to promote the components of their inaugural budgets, Mr. Trump is spending the rest of the week overseas, leaving his staff to explain his plan while Republicans prepare their own response.
"This budget is dead before arrival, so he might as well be out of town," said David A. Stockman, a former budget director under President Ronald Reagan. :lol:
Mr. Stockman said both political parties had grown comfortable with running large annual budget deficits. "There's not a snowball's chance that most of this deep deficit reduction will even be considered in a serious way."
On one hand there is a 0% chance any part of Congress will seriously consider this budget proposal, on the other hand I can't put into words how much of a hero you are for not putting this into the TRUMP MEGATHREAD.
I'm reading that the budget expects a 4.4% growth this year to make ends meet?
Are they really serious? At least Bushie Jr. tried to sell its magic tax cut mojo with a straight face.
Nice of him to leave the country when launching this. :lol: Underlings must be ecstatic.
Didn't he take pretty much all the senior staff with him too? :lol:
Quote
To Your Health
Trump budget seeks huge cuts to disease prevention and medical research departments
By Joel Achenbach and Lena H. Sun
The Failing Washington Post
May 22 at 7:19 PM
President Trump's 2018 budget request to Congress seeks massive cuts in spending on health programs, including medical research, disease prevention programs and health insurance for children of the working poor.
The National Cancer Institute would be hit with a $1 billion cut compared to its 2017 budget. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute would see a $575 million cut, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would see a reduction of $838 million. The administration would cut the overall National Institutes of Health budget from $31.8 billion to $26 billion.
The full budget document is scheduled to be released Tuesday morning, but either by mistake or design, the administration posted the section dealing with the Department of Health and Human Services late Monday afternoon. The document was soon taken offline but can be read here.
"The only official version of the HHS budget will be released by the Office of Management and Budget at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. At that time, Budget Director [Mick] Mulvaney will hold a press briefing and address any questions," HHS national spokesperson Alleigh Marré wrote in an email to The Post.
The slashing of programs that normally have enjoyed bipartisan support is part of the Trump administration's effort to trim trillions of dollars in spending over the next decade while at the same time paying for tax cuts and increases in military spending.
Trump's Office of Management and Budget produced a "skinny budget" in March, in effect an outline with few details, and that document delivered a number of surprises, including a call to cut nearly one-fifth of National Institutes of Health budget and nearly one-third of the Environmental Protection Agency funding.
Lawmakers appeared to ignore that budget request entirely when putting together a spending plan for the rest of fiscal 2017, which runs through September. Much of that spending plan had been in the works before the November election. It is unclear how Congress, which has the power of the purse, will treat this new and more detailed budget request.
But the document posted late Monday shows that blow-back from that earlier budget request did not dissuade the administration from its strategy of cutting nonmilitary discretionary spending to pay for tax cuts and a boost in the Pentagon budget.
Among the highlights:
Funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be slashed by at least 20 percent for the next two fiscal years. According to the budget document, the administrator favors a renewal of CHIP, a program created 20 years ago for the children of lower-working class families and which currently insures 5.6 million children.
The spending plan would, however, eliminate an element of the Affordable Care Act that increased by 23 percent the portion of the program's costs that is paid for with federal money, leaving states to shoulder a larger share. It would also for the first time essentially limit states' eligibility levels to qualify, saying that the government would no longer help cover children from families with incomes of more than 250 percent of the federal poverty level. Currently, 18 states plus the District of Columbia allow families with incomes higher than 300 percent of the poverty line to sign up their children for CHIP, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The Trump budget asks for cuts to several key programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which responds to disease outbreaks in the United States and around the world, makes sure food and water are safe, and helps people avoid heart disease, cancer, stroke and other leading causes of death.
The president's budget seeks an $82 million cut at the center that works on vaccine-preventable and respiratory diseases, such as influenza and measles. It proposes a cut of $186 million from programs at CDC's center on HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted infections and tuberculosis prevention. One of the biggest cuts, $222 million, is to the agency's chronic disease prevention programs, which are designed to help people prevent diabetes, heart disease and stroke, and obesity.
Some of those funds are being channeled into a new $500 million block grant program to states and territories to focus on "leading chronic disease challenges specific to each state." Critics have said block grants allow states to plug holes in their budgets, without accountability that federal programs require.
The agency's center on birth defects and developmental disabilities also gets a 26 percent cut to its budget at a time when researchers have yet to understand the full consequences of Zika infections in pregnant women and their babies.
The budget calls for a 17 percent cut to CDC's global health programs that monitor and respond to disease outbreaks around the world. It also cuts about 10 percent from CDC's office of public health preparedness and response.
The budget document highlights $35 million that the CDC spends on childhood lead poisoning prevention. But the overall spending on environmental health would under Trump's plan be cut by $60 million, down to $157 million, according the document.
Trump administration officials have also proposed the establishment of an Emergency Response Fund to respond quickly to emerging public health threats. In the wake of the Ebola and Zika epidemics, U.S. officials have repeatedly called for the need for such a fund. The budget does not provide a specific amount. It says HHS would have "department-wide transfer authority to support the Fund in the case of a natural or man-made disaster or threat." The fund would be available to receive a transfer of up to one percent of any HHS account, without any limitation on the total, for use in emergency preparedness and response.
The Food and Drug Administration would see a cut from $2.74 billion to $1.89 billion. User fees paid by manufacturers of drugs, devices and other products would be increased by close to $1 billion to pay for product reviews.
Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the chairman of the health committee, has said he does not want to reopen negotiations with the industry over fees that it pays to support FDA activities, as the Trump administration has previously suggested. His committee recently approved legislation that ignores the administration request.
Quote from: The Larch on May 23, 2017, 04:26:56 AM
Nice of him to leave the country when launching this. :lol: Underlings must be ecstatic.
Nothing like issuing a budget that punishes the poor out of sheer cruelty in time to meet the Pope.
How can undocumented illegals earn tax credit? You know what, let's not go there again. It's just distasteful that you Americans so can't make it without slavery, that you would recreate it via pushing a lot of people into this legal limbo where they can be part of the system, but on extremely shaky and convoluted grounds, always one wrong move from losing it all.
Apart from that, a fascist has proposed a fascist budget. At the end of it all, the collapse of living standards for his fans will be the fault of Obama. News at 11.
Figures like US$35 million sounds quite small for the US Federal government. I know every penny counts, but it is probably more efficient to deal with the big ticket items.
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2017, 05:55:45 AM
How can undocumented illegals earn tax credit?
Citizenship is not a legal requirement to pay taxes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2017, 06:29:11 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2017, 05:55:45 AM
How can undocumented illegals earn tax credit?
Citizenship is not a legal requirement to pay taxes.
For sure, but if somebody is an undocumented illegal, it means he/she has no legal basis to even stay in the country, let alone have a tax record accepted by the tax authority. In a civilised country that is.
These people should be given a legal resident status, or if it's really impossible because America First, then sent home. But then who the fuck would paint the weekend homes for a few cents, hoping the Masters will not report them after the job is done, amiright?
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2017, 06:35:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2017, 06:29:11 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2017, 05:55:45 AM
How can undocumented illegals earn tax credit?
Citizenship is not a legal requirement to pay taxes.
For sure, but if somebody is an undocumented illegal, it means he/she has no legal basis to even stay in the country, let alone have a tax record accepted by the tax authority. In a civilised country that is.
These people should be given a legal resident status, or if it's really impossible because America First, then sent home. But then who the fuck would paint the weekend homes for a few cents, hoping the Masters will not report them after the job is done, amiright?
Well municipalities, states and the feds can all have different policies and stances.
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2017, 06:35:43 AM
For sure, but if somebody is an undocumented illegal, it means he/she has no legal basis to even stay in the country, let alone have a tax record accepted by the tax authority. In a civilised country that is.
And if their appeal on their immigration status is winding its way through the federal court system, they have legal standing in the courts but not with the IRS?
QuoteThese people should be given a legal resident status, or if it's really impossible because America First, then sent home. But then who the fuck would paint the weekend homes for a few cents, hoping the Masters will not report them after the job is done, amiright?
Beet Panther Party radicalism does not become you.
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2017, 06:35:43 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2017, 06:29:11 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 23, 2017, 05:55:45 AM
How can undocumented illegals earn tax credit?
Citizenship is not a legal requirement to pay taxes.
For sure, but if somebody is an undocumented illegal, it means he/she has no legal basis to even stay in the country, let alone have a tax record accepted by the tax authority. In a civilised country that is.
These people should be given a legal resident status, or if it's really impossible because America First, then sent home. But then who the fuck would paint the weekend homes for a few cents, hoping the Masters will not report them after the job is done, amiright?
You sound uppity.
Sounds more like a libertarian than a national-socialist budget.
You don't recognize it because they're specifically punishing all the poors instead of the Jews and other ethnicky Euro types. That's what's throwing you off.
Comte de Largent facetious or not, it's still missing Trump's Kraft durch Freude program, as mentioned by Zanza. So sad!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy)
QuoteStarting in 1933, KdF provided affordable leisure activities such as concerts, plays, libraries, day trips and holidays.[1] Large ships, such as Wilhelm Gustloff, were built specifically for KdF cruises. They rewarded workers with taking them and their families to the movies, to parks, keep-fit clubs, hiking, sporting activities, film shows and concerts. Borrowing from the Italian fascist organization Dopolavoro "After Work", but extending its influence into the workplace as well, KdF rapidly developed a wide range of activities, and quickly grew into one of Nazi Germany's largest organizations. The official statistics showed that in 1934, 2.3 million people took KdF holidays. By 1938, this figure rose to 10.3 million.[4]
Two weeks after the Anschluss, when SS-Gruppenführer Josef Bürckel became Reichskommissar für die Wiedervereinigung as well as Gauleiter, the first five trains with some 2,000 Austrian workers left for Passau, where they were ceremonially welcomed. While Bürckel announced that he did not expect all KdF travelers to return as National Socialists, he did expect them to look him in the eyes and say, "I tried hard to understand you."[5]
At the outbreak of war, holiday travel was stopped. Until then KdF had sold more than 45 million package tours and excursions.[6] By 1939, it had over 7,000 paid employees and 135,000 voluntary workers, organized into divisions covering such areas as sport, education, and tourism, with wardens in every factory and workshop employing more than 20 people.
The National Socialists sought to attract tourists from abroad, a task performed by Hermann Esser, one of the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda's (Ministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda) secretaries. A series of multilingual and colorful brochures, titled "Deutschland", advertised Germany as a peaceful, idyllic, and progressive country, on one occasion even portraying the ministry's boss, Joseph Goebbels, grinning in an unlikely photo series of the Cologne carnival.[7]
The KdF was awarded the 1939 Olympic Cup by the International Olympic Committee.[8]
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2017, 12:08:54 PM
You don't recognize it because they're specifically punishing all the poors instead of the Jews and other ethnicky Euro types. That's what's throwing you off.
I think the GOP's goal of destroying or at least severely limiting the federal government by starving it from revenue streams is stupid and sometimes malicious, but it has very little to do with a totalitarian state in the national-socialist mold. It's actually quite the opposite.
Forget it Zanza. These people don't understand National Socialism, and I doubt they ever will.
Eat me, antisemite shitbirds. I'm not addressing Reich armaments laws, but the selective and punitive social welfare plans that provided aid and assistance to certain predetermined groups. Kinda like this one.
Quote from: Zanza on May 23, 2017, 11:55:57 AM
Sounds more like a libertarian than a national-socialist budget.
No it is not remotely a libertarian budget. He is still budgeting billions for a wall, and additional billions to arrest, capture and detain undocumented immigrants.
Forget it Minsky. These people don't understand Libertarianism, and I doubt they ever will.
I don't want to understand libertarianism. I don't want to be a fruitcake.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 23, 2017, 03:23:39 PM
Forget it Minsky. These people don't understand Libertarianism, and I doubt they ever will.
:face:
It's as libertarian as the Roman Empire, or 1400s Venice.
Don't confuse gross plutocracy with libertarianism. This regime is about keeping the rabble down and in their place. Look at the praise for way that Saudi Arabia keeps protestors off the street. It's no wonder they got along so well with the Sauds.
:lol: I sent my father that clip of Ross saying that, he nearly shit himself.
Death of the National Endowement for the Humanities and the National Endowement for the Art, both established in 1965.
Something something something STEM. Something something something complete.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 23, 2017, 01:59:08 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 23, 2017, 11:55:57 AM
Sounds more like a libertarian than a national-socialist budget.
No it is not remotely a libertarian budget. He is still budgeting billions for a wall, and additional billions to arrest, capture and detain undocumented immigrants.
You are right, it's not libertarian either.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 23, 2017, 04:17:01 PM
Death of the National Endowement for the Humanities and the National Endowement for the Art, both established in 1965.
Not a big loss. Trump TV is all the people should need.
(yes, that was sarcasm, even I would not go that far).
Republicans have been calling for the total abolition of those things for awhile. But surely they combined budget is less than a rounding error by this point.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 23, 2017, 04:17:01 PM
Death of the National Endowement for the Humanities and the National Endowement for the Art, both established in 1965.
LBJ was alright, aside from dragging us into Vietnam.
Eh we were already there.
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2017, 07:59:04 PM
Republicans have been calling for the total abolition of those things for awhile. But surely they combined budget is less than a rounding error by this point.
Yes. There used to be a moment when Republicans cared about the arts, culture, the life of the mind, and the society to which they belonged. It is long gone. Now, it has ideologues, whose ideology is almost entirely reactionary. And these things have become symbols of all which they hate, which goes well beyond the trivial point that "the government shouldn't spend in these domains" - for it is quite clear there are only a few dogmatic libertarians. The rest is content to wallow in a patriotism of guns, and strength, and obedience, pettiness and selfishness all rolled into one, dressed in empty strings of words like "making American great again".
I continue to be astounded at the general mediocrity of the Republican caucus.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/opinion/trump-vs-math.html
QuotePresident Trump's first budget has two themes: redistribution and innumeracy.
Let's start with the redistribution. The budget calls for shifting many billions of dollars a year from the middle class and the poor to the very richest Americans. The very rich would receive this money through tax cuts. The rest of the country would lose out thanks to cuts in government programs that touch almost every citizen, including Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps.
"On top of all of this," Jamelle Bouie of Slate writes, "Trump's budget makes substantial cuts to job-training programs, rental assistance, heating assistance for the elderly, education, and projects at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as funding for rural health and substance-abuse programs."
As for the innumeracy: The budget commits a jaw-dropping error of economic logic. Proponents of tax cuts have long argued that, while they may cause a short-term deficit, they pay for themselves in the long run by pushing economic growth (an argument not borne out by history).
The Trump budget goes even further. It imagines that the tax cuts won't even have any short-term costs. When affluent families start paying less in taxes, the shortfall will magically, and immediately, be made up.
"This is a mistake no serious business person would make," Lawrence Summers, the former treasury secretary, explains in The Financial Times. "It appears to be the most egregious accounting error in a presidential budget in the nearly 40 years I have been tracking them."
In an Op-Ed in The Times, Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calls the assumption "at odds with everything the administration has proposed and said on the issue." In The Upshot, Susan Chira and Quoctrung Bui look at the effects of Trump's budget on women.
When a president releases his budget, as journalists like to point out, the proposals do not become law. They are wish lists. Congress, not the White House, writes the more meaningful draft of the federal budget.
But a president's budget still matters. It's a sign of how an administration plans to govern. It is a statement of his administration's values and, apparently, attitude toward reality.
It makes perfect sense to a three-card monty shark that stiffs everybody he owes, files lawsuits against the rest, and declares bankruptcy while laundering money for Russian oligarchs for undeclared liquidity. That's a very specific kind of accounting.
As far as the Ryan/Mulvaney group is concerned, the more federal programs zeroed out, the better.
German paper called him "Robin Hood of the Rich" because of the budget proposal, since he's taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
The poor haven't earned it. Next time, make more money, suckers.
The fact it makes us all make terrific sacrifices for absolutely nothing, the deficit will not significantly be reduced, is what I find most frustrating. Austerity without any of the benefits. I think most people would tolerate cuts if they led to a balanced budget and secured the financial footing of the government, instead it is just to fund tax cuts we cannot afford.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 23, 2017, 10:13:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 23, 2017, 07:59:04 PM
Republicans have been calling for the total abolition of those things for awhile. But surely they combined budget is less than a rounding error by this point.
Yes. There used to be a moment when Republicans cared about the arts, culture, the life of the mind, and the society to which they belonged. It is long gone. Now, it has ideologues, whose ideology is almost entirely reactionary. And these things have become symbols of all which they hate, which goes well beyond the trivial point that "the government shouldn't spend in these domains" - for it is quite clear there are only a few dogmatic libertarians. The rest is content to wallow in a patriotism of guns, and strength, and obedience, pettiness and selfishness all rolled into one, dressed in empty strings of words like "making American great again".
I continue to be astounded at the general mediocrity of the Republican caucus.
At this point, I would be happy if they rose to the level of "mediocre". :(
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2017, 09:28:36 AM
The fact it makes us all make terrific sacrifices for absolutely nothing, the deficit will not significantly be reduced, is what I find most frustrating. Austerity without any of the benefits. I think most people would tolerate cuts if they led to a balanced budget and secured the financial footing of the government, instead it is just to fund tax cuts we cannot afford.
Come on now. "A balanced budget and secured the financial footing of the government" is just a fig-leaf to lower the taxes for rich people and hurt the cultural enemies of the Republican parties.
Quote from: Jacob on May 24, 2017, 11:05:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2017, 09:28:36 AM
The fact it makes us all make terrific sacrifices for absolutely nothing, the deficit will not significantly be reduced, is what I find most frustrating. Austerity without any of the benefits. I think most people would tolerate cuts if they led to a balanced budget and secured the financial footing of the government, instead it is just to fund tax cuts we cannot afford.
Come on now. "A balanced budget and secured the financial footing of the government" is just a fig-leaf to lower the taxes for rich people and hurt the cultural enemies of the Republican parties.
Is it? The Republicans have constantly undermined that goal. They did so in the 80s, the 2000s and now seem to be doing a third time. Unlike those last two times we are already in a deficit crisis though.
This is the 'starve the beast' mentality. The fact it might lead to the collapse of our country should give them pause.
The 'balanced budget and secured financial footing of the government' is what I want not what they want.
OK Larry, now tell us how you really feel: http://larrysummers.com/2017/05/23/a-budget-warning/
QuoteTrump's budget is simply ludicrous
Details of President Trump's first budget have now been released. Much can and will be said about the dire social consequences about what is in it and the ludicrously optimistic economic assumptions it embodies. My observation is that there appears to be a logical error of the kind that would justify failing a student in an introductory economics course.
Apparently, the budget forecasts that US growth will rise to 3.0 percent because of the Administration's policies—largely its tax cuts and perhaps also its regulatory policies. Fair enough if you believe in tooth-fairies and ludicrous supply-side economics.
Then the Administration asserts that it will propose revenue neutral tax cuts with the revenue neutrality coming in part because the tax cuts stimulate growth! This is an elementary double count. You can't use the growth benefits of tax cuts once to justify an optimistic baseline and then again to claim that the tax cuts do not cost revenue. At least you cannot do so in a world of logic.
The Trump team prides itself on its business background. This error is akin to buying a company assuming that you can make investments that will raise profits, but then, in calculating the increased profits, counting the higher revenues while failing to account for the fact that the investments would actually cost some money to make. The revenue generated by the investments might exceed their cost (though the same is almost never true of tax cuts), but that doesn't change the fact that the investment has a cost that must be included in the accounting.
This is a mistake no serious business person would make. It appears to be the most egregious accounting error in a Presidential budget in the nearly 40 years I have been tracking them.
Who knew what when? I have no doubt that there are civil servants in OMB, Treasury and CEA who do know better than this mistake. Were they cowed, ignored or shut out? How could the Secretary of Treasury, Director of OMB and Director of the NEC allow such an elementary error? I hope the press will ferret all this out.
The President's personal failings are now not just center stage but whole stage. They should not blind us to the manifest failures of his economic team. Whether it is Secretary Mnuchin's absurd claims about tax cuts not favoring the rich, Secretary Ross's claim that the small squib of a deal negotiated last week with China was the greatest trade result with China in history, NEC Director Cohn's ludicrous estimate of the costs of Dodd Frank, or today's budget, the Trump administration has not yet made a significant economic pronouncement that meets a minimal standard of competence and honesty
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18700205_1845331225477847_650927788019075112_n.png?oh=91774dc2c14069ea2a664f4bea612dc5&oe=599E6450)
It is not Ryan's budget though, it is Trump's right?
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2017, 11:54:54 AM
It is not Ryan's budget though, it is Trump's right?
Heh.
Hey I can hope. He is supposed to be a 'deficit hawk' :rolleyes:
Quote from: Syt on May 24, 2017, 09:00:48 AM
German paper called him "Robin Hood of the Rich" because of the budget proposal, since he's taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
Okay, I gotta object here. Cutting a program that benefits the poor isn't taking money from the poor. It's not "their" money - it's a government program. And cutting tax rates for the rich is not giving them money - it was already their money! The government is just taking less of it.
As a matter of general philosophy I like the idea of shrinking government, and cutting taxes. What astounds me is that seeming indifference to the budget deficit.
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2017, 12:17:36 PM
As a matter of general philosophy I like the idea of shrinking government, and cutting taxes. What astounds me is that seeming indifference to the budget deficit.
Why is that astounding? It is a tradition established by Reagan. Whenever the Republicans are in power they work to bankrupt us. American Republicans are not like Burkean Conservatives.
Well except Bush 41. And we saw how well that went for him.
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2017, 12:17:36 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 24, 2017, 09:00:48 AM
German paper called him "Robin Hood of the Rich" because of the budget proposal, since he's taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
Okay, I gotta object here. Cutting a program that benefits the poor isn't taking money from the poor. It's not "their" money - it's a government program. And cutting tax rates for the rich is not giving them money - it was already their money! The government is just taking less of it.
You are straying from the Socialist narrative and therefore evil.
Quote from: Barrister on May 24, 2017, 12:17:36 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 24, 2017, 09:00:48 AM
German paper called him "Robin Hood of the Rich" because of the budget proposal, since he's taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
Okay, I gotta object here. Cutting a program that benefits the poor isn't taking money from the poor. It's not "their" money - it's a government program. And cutting tax rates for the rich is not giving them money - it was already their money! The government is just taking less of it.
As a matter of general philosophy I like the idea of shrinking government, and cutting taxes. What astounds me is that seeming indifference to the budget deficit.
I'd say I'm astounded by how much of an asshole you are, but it's not really all that astounding.
I'd be happy to see the National Endowments ditched.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2017, 01:27:29 PM
I'd be happy to see the National Endowments ditched.
Why? I will miss the little caption about the NEH before every PBS documentary.
Not that their budgets are just really huge.
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2017, 01:32:00 PM
Why? I will miss the little caption about the NEH before every PBS documentary.
Not that their budgets are just really huge.
Because funding art and literature is a silly thing for the government to be involved in, the benefits of which extend to a tiny fraction of the population.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2017, 01:35:03 PM
the benefits of which extend to a tiny fraction of the population.
Hey! Millions of people watched those docu...ok you are probably right.
But the real reason is political I think. I think the Republicans think most NEH and NEA money goes to fund leftwing anti-American projects.
Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2017, 01:40:48 PM
In Sweden the state broadcaster's educational arm (Utbildningsradion) is an openly racist organization.
It preaches the purity of the mighty viking race?
Maybe the job is one only black people can do.
Quote from: The Brain on May 24, 2017, 01:55:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2017, 01:53:41 PM
Maybe the job is one only black people can do.
Fuck you, we don't even have cotton here.
I shouldn't laugh, but I did. Sorry garbon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2017, 01:27:29 PM
I'd be happy to see the National Endowments ditched.
And that's the kind of tinsel and window dressing they dangle to conservatives to distract from the fact that this budget proposal is the worst clusterfuck in an accounting document since Enron was still a public company.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2017, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2017, 01:32:00 PM
Why? I will miss the little caption about the NEH before every PBS documentary.
Not that their budgets are just really huge.
Because funding art and literature is a silly thing for the government to be involved in, the benefits of which extend to a tiny fraction of the population.
Wasn't Reading Rainbow funded in part by the NEA?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2017, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2017, 01:32:00 PM
Why? I will miss the little caption about the NEH before every PBS documentary.
Not that their budgets are just really huge.
Because funding art and literature is a silly thing for the government to be involved in, the benefits of which extend to a tiny fraction of the population.
It costs a tiny amount as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2017, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2017, 01:32:00 PM
Why? I will miss the little caption about the NEH before every PBS documentary.
Not that their budgets are just really huge.
Because funding art and literature is a silly thing for the government to be involved in, the benefits of which extend to a tiny fraction of the population.
depends at wich level. I object to art funding in Quebec and Canada because the government is the main entity funding nearly everything cultural, except stand up comics and books, and they get generous tax breaks. The situation for the US seems different though.
But their excuse is that if they didn't fund it those industries would be subsumed by the US versions, which makes sense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2017, 01:35:03 PM
Because funding art and literature is a silly thing for the government to be involved in
Why?
Quotethe benefits of which extend to a tiny fraction of the population.
What's your metric?
Quote from: HVC on May 24, 2017, 03:42:43 PM
But their excuse is that if they didn't fund it those industries would be subsumed by the US versions, which makes sense.
not really. People still shun theaters with Quebec productions because they lack mass appeal. And like Yi, I don't see why should subsidize over 90% of the costs for something that benefits 1000 people in the entire province. Especially when you don't subsidize everyone equally and use some weird metrics to exclude some creators from the mix.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 24, 2017, 03:47:12 PM
Why?
Art, because by its nature is something that is local. Literature, because we already have plenty, and the only possible rationale for a public subsidy scheme is that the market is not producing the "right kind," which leads invariably to issues of acceptable and non-acceptable thought.
QuoteWhat's your metric?
People? I don't understand your question.
I would be surprised if that many artists or humanities professionals were counting on its continued existence after 30 years of these endowments being under siege anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2017, 12:01:54 PM
Art, because by its nature is something that is local.
How is art, "by nature", local? What does that even mean, and why does it disqualify government support?
QuoteLiterature, because we already have plenty, and the only possible rationale for a public subsidy scheme is that the market is not producing the "right kind," which leads invariably to issues of acceptable and non-acceptable thought.
How do you go from subsidy to the right kind, and the right kind to non-acceptable thought? Art should only exist to cater to current taste? Should the government refrain from investing in certain research in fundamental sciences because it would disqualify "other kinds" of science? Or is there some fundamental difference between science and art on that regard?
QuotePeople? I don't understand your question.
How do you measure benefits, and what is the acceptable threshold for reach? Would subsidies be justified if art reached, what, 20% of the population? 50% ? 100%? Is it simply a question of majority rule?
Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2017, 12:03:38 PM
I would be surprised if that many artists or humanities professionals were counting on its continued existence after 30 years of these endowments being under siege anyway.
You would be wrong.
The NEH and the NEA subsidizes collective projects, like the digitalization of archives for local repositories (because, shockingly, many states are not entirely fond of allocating funds for preserving their history, or even their very recent past), or large endeavors, like the Transatlantic Slave Trade Database, which has sent researchers in half a dozen countries to document tens of thousands of slaving expeditions. The NEA gives money to museums in more remote locations, to help them host big exhibitions, or pay for the insurance costs, which have risen dramatically since 2001. They fund local projects to reinsert ex-convicts, or to make concerts free. The subsidies are usually quite tiny (10,000$, 40,000$), but for regional institutions, that's often crucial. Not every place is New York, or San Francisco.
But then again, I am sure the market was being unfairly shut out of the profits to be had on Transatlantic Slave Trade Databases.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 25, 2017, 12:53:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2017, 12:01:54 PM
Art, because by its nature is something that is local.
How is art, "by nature", local? What does that even mean, and why does it disqualify government support?
QuoteLiterature, because we already have plenty, and the only possible rationale for a public subsidy scheme is that the market is not producing the "right kind," which leads invariably to issues of acceptable and non-acceptable thought.
How do you go from subsidy to the right kind, and the right kind to non-acceptable thought? Art should only exist to cater to current taste? Should the government refrain from investing in certain research in fundamental sciences because it would disqualify "other kinds" of science? Or is there some fundamental difference between science and art on that regard?
QuotePeople? I don't understand your question.
How do you measure benefits, and what is the acceptable threshold for reach? Would subsidies be justified if art reached, what, 20% of the population? 50% ? 100%? Is it simply a question of majority rule?
Art is local in the sense that it has a physical location. If my tax dollars go to fund a rusting iron installation symbolizing the ur-mother in Pittsburgh, I don't get anything out of it. The residents of Pittsburgh might not either for that matter.
Of course science is different than art and literature. Science makes our lives easier. Science propels economic growth. Science solves problems.
The only time subsidies are warranted IMO is if there is some sort of market failure that the subsidy is correcting. My opinion wouldn't change if 100% of Americans had read every NEH subsidized poem. But the fact that consumption of the subsidized output does appear to be very limited does exacerbate the problem.
I would actually take the opposite position of Yi, in that the NEH and NEA should be subsidizing things that aren't popular but are significant for reasons other than economic viability.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 25, 2017, 01:02:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2017, 12:03:38 PM
I would be surprised if that many artists or humanities professionals were counting on its continued existence after 30 years of these endowments being under siege anyway.
You would be wrong.
The NEH and the NEA subsidizes collective projects, like the digitalization of archives for local repositories (because, shockingly, many states are not entirely fond of allocating funds for preserving their history, or even their very recent past), or large endeavors, like the Transatlantic Slave Trade Database, which has sent researchers in half a dozen countries to document tens of thousands of slaving expeditions. The NEA gives money to museums in more remote locations, to help them host big exhibitions, or pay for the insurance costs, which have risen dramatically since 2001. They fund local projects to reinsert ex-convicts, or to make concerts free. The subsidies are usually quite tiny (10,000$, 40,000$), but for regional institutions, that's often crucial. Not every place is New York, or San Francisco.
But then again, I am sure the market was being unfairly shut out of the profits to be had on Transatlantic Slave Trade Databases.
What do you have to say to this Yi? Most historical work is probably not suited to be put on display to millions anyway.
Quote from: frunk on May 25, 2017, 01:10:17 PM
I would actually take the opposite position of Yi, in that the NEH and NEA should be subsidizing things that aren't popular but are significant for reasons other than economic viability.
What would those other reasons be?
Quote from: viper37 on May 24, 2017, 03:50:58 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 24, 2017, 03:42:43 PM
But their excuse is that if they didn't fund it those industries would be subsumed by the US versions, which makes sense.
not really. People still shun theaters with Quebec productions because they lack mass appeal. And like Yi, I don't see why should subsidize over 90% of the costs for something that benefits 1000 people in the entire province. Especially when you don't subsidize everyone equally and use some weird metrics to exclude some creators from the mix.
Luckily the NEA seldom, if ever, funds Quebec productions that lack mass appeal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2017, 01:08:58 PM
Art is local in the sense that it has a physical location. If my tax dollars go to fund a rusting iron installation symbolizing the ur-mother in Pittsburgh, I don't get anything out of it. The residents of Pittsburgh might not either for that matter.
I don't understand. What's the problem? I pay for all sorts of things I never use, including subsidies for research into stuff that will never ever affect me. If I happen to live in New York city, it's great. I have dozens of museums to visit, and the capacity to see great art all the time. If I live in Missoula, perhaps less so. How is that so terrible?
QuoteOf course science is different than art and literature. Science makes our lives easier. Science propels economic growth. Science solves problems.
That's just silly - unless you simply hold that art is distraction/entertainment, or that ease of life is only measured by physical comfort and that there is no value to the human community in itself. Someone's life can be made infinitely worse with science, and much better with literature. Science can waste dozens of years on problems deemed important by pharmaceutical companies, and abandon whole fields where there is not enough money. It can also consume millions of dollars for research onto diseases that affect only tens of thousands of people on the planet. History, and sociology solve problems - it all depends what problems you want solved.
What I am asking is whether these traits - which you assume are fundamental to science (?) - change things when it comes to your criteria of reach and benefits. Would government subsidies be warranted to research diseases which do not affect large swaths of the population? Is theoretical physics - which makes very few people's life better - something to ditch entirely? Should scientific research be determined by whether or not an article in Nature will be read by 100% of Americans? In short, is there something in scientific judgments of worth that you are not willing to submit to mass appeal, and conversely, is there something about aesthetic, or historical, or sociological judgements of worth which can only be valued through mass appeal?
Living in Missoula would seem terrible.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 02:15:11 PM
Living in Missoula would seem terrible.
I hear it is actually a pretty cool town. I mean as cool as something can be in Montana.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 02:15:11 PM
Living in Missoula would seem terrible.
Are there many Chinese in your state?
Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2017, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 02:15:11 PM
Living in Missoula would seem terrible.
I hear it is actually a pretty cool town. I mean as cool as something can be in Montana.
Montana is cool. :mad:
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 25, 2017, 01:29:59 PM
I don't understand. What's the problem? I pay for all sorts of things I never use, including subsidies for research into stuff that will never ever affect me.
R&D subsidies are a huge problem, as they are totally ineffictive and the government seldom if ever truly measure itself if it gets its money back (as you would for any investment).
QuoteIf I happen to live in New York city, it's great. I have dozens of museums to visit, and the capacity to see great art all the time. If I live in Missoula, perhaps less so. How is that so terrible?
Isn't it a question of what kind of museum and at what level you will fund them?
Should museums be 100% funded by public funds no matter what they show, even if they aren't really musuem? Should a city need 200 museums on art, each totally subsidize by the public with no contributions from users?
I don't think we can reason in absolutes on either side.
Quote from: The Brain on May 25, 2017, 02:40:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 02:15:11 PM
Living in Missoula would seem terrible.
Are there many Chinese in your state?
Yes. Lots of Chinese nationals go the university 30 miles to the North.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
Yes. Lots of Chinese nationals go the are stealing the living fuck out of every piece of data not nailed down at the university 30 miles to the North.
Quote from: viper37 on May 25, 2017, 02:56:04 PM
R&D subsidies are a huge problem, as they are totally ineffictive and the government seldom if ever truly measure itself if it gets its money back (as you would for any investment).
:yeahright: We had something in the country called the "Space program". I strongly suspect that satellites have paid for themselves.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
Yes. Lots of Chinese nationals go the are stealing the living fuck out of every piece of data not nailed down at the university 30 miles to the North.
They seem nice. I friend of mine married a Chinese national. I wonder how finding out that their grandchildren were black went over with the inlaws.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
Yes. Lots of Chinese nationals go the are stealing the living fuck out of every piece of data not nailed down at the university 30 miles to the North.
A buddy of mine works for a geosurveying company in Houston. ChiComs are pulling out all the stops to infiltrate that company and steal every bit of data they can get their hands on. He told me some of the tactics they use. Pretty crazy.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
Yes. Lots of Chinese nationals go the are stealing the living fuck out of every piece of data not nailed down at the university 30 miles to the North.
A buddy of mine works for a geosurveying company in Houston. ChiComs are pulling out all the stops to infiltrate that company and steal every bit of data they can get their hands on. He told me some of the tactics they use. Pretty crazy.
Ha, I doubt they could get anything from me. I challenge the Chinese to send me their most seductive submissive agents.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 03:03:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 25, 2017, 02:56:04 PM
R&D subsidies are a huge problem, as they are totally ineffictive and the government seldom if ever truly measure itself if it gets its money back (as you would for any investment).
:yeahright: We had something in the country called the "Space program". I strongly suspect that satellites have paid for themselves.
we subsidized the biotech industry for years, in Quebec. Both the Federal and Provincial govt subsidized them. It was important to keep jobs and medication costs low. There ain't much biotech companies left in Montreal.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
Yes. Lots of Chinese nationals go the are stealing the living fuck out of every piece of data not nailed down at the university 30 miles to the North.
A buddy of mine works for a geosurveying company in Houston. ChiComs are pulling out all the stops to infiltrate that company and steal every bit of data they can get their hands on. He told me some of the tactics they use. Pretty crazy.
Stick with the classics. Honey pots never go out of style.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
Yes. Lots of Chinese nationals go the are stealing the living fuck out of every piece of data not nailed down at the university 30 miles to the North.
A buddy of mine works for a geosurveying company in Houston. ChiComs are pulling out all the stops to infiltrate that company and steal every bit of data they can get their hands on. He told me some of the tactics they use. Pretty crazy.
Go fuck yourself.
Quote from: The Brain on May 25, 2017, 03:24:41 PM
Ha, I doubt they could get anything from me. I challenge the Chinese to send me their most seductive submissive agents.
He's busy.
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PM
A buddy of mine works for a geosurveying company in Houston. ChiComs are pulling out all the stops to infiltrate that company and steal every bit of data they can get their hands on. He told me some of the tactics they use. Pretty crazy.
Like what?
DONT TELL HIM DERFETUS
ITS A MOLE HUNT
Quote from: viper37 on May 25, 2017, 03:41:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 03:03:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 25, 2017, 02:56:04 PM
R&D subsidies are a huge problem, as they are totally ineffictive and the government seldom if ever truly measure itself if it gets its money back (as you would for any investment).
:yeahright: We had something in the country called the "Space program". I strongly suspect that satellites have paid for themselves.
we subsidized the biotech industry for years, in Quebec. Both the Federal and Provincial govt subsidized them. It was important to keep jobs and medication costs low. There ain't much biotech companies left in Montreal.
A quick look reveals there are 23 biotech firms with a presence in Montreal.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 05:44:33 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 25, 2017, 03:41:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 03:03:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 25, 2017, 02:56:04 PM
R&D subsidies are a huge problem, as they are totally ineffictive and the government seldom if ever truly measure itself if it gets its money back (as you would for any investment).
:yeahright: We had something in the country called the "Space program". I strongly suspect that satellites have paid for themselves.
we subsidized the biotech industry for years, in Quebec. Both the Federal and Provincial govt subsidized them. It was important to keep jobs and medication costs low. There ain't much biotech companies left in Montreal.
A quick look reveals there are 23 biotech firms with a presence in Montreal.
that's what I said. Not much left compared to what it was.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2017, 04:44:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
Yes. Lots of Chinese nationals go the are stealing the living fuck out of every piece of data not nailed down at the university 30 miles to the North.
A buddy of mine works for a geosurveying company in Houston. ChiComs are pulling out all the stops to infiltrate that company and steal every bit of data they can get their hands on. He told me some of the tactics they use. Pretty crazy.
Go fuck yourself.
:huh:
Quote from: viper37 on May 25, 2017, 08:39:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 05:44:33 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 25, 2017, 03:41:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 03:03:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 25, 2017, 02:56:04 PM
R&D subsidies are a huge problem, as they are totally ineffictive and the government seldom if ever truly measure itself if it gets its money back (as you would for any investment).
:yeahright: We had something in the country called the "Space program". I strongly suspect that satellites have paid for themselves.
we subsidized the biotech industry for years, in Quebec. Both the Federal and Provincial govt subsidized them. It was important to keep jobs and medication costs low. There ain't much biotech companies left in Montreal.
A quick look reveals there are 23 biotech firms with a presence in Montreal.
that's what I said. Not much left compared to what it was.
It was working very well there for a long time but they quit on us.
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2017, 07:34:26 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2017, 04:44:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 25, 2017, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2017, 03:02:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 25, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
Yes. Lots of Chinese nationals go the are stealing the living fuck out of every piece of data not nailed down at the university 30 miles to the North.
A buddy of mine works for a geosurveying company in Houston. ChiComs are pulling out all the stops to infiltrate that company and steal every bit of data they can get their hands on. He told me some of the tactics they use. Pretty crazy.
Go fuck yourself.
:huh:
He's a huge Les Grossman fan.
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2017, 07:34:26 AM
:huh:
I know. You really must have said something he liked for him to be so nice to you.
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2017, 09:54:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2017, 07:34:26 AM
:huh:
I know. You really must have said something he liked for him to be so nice to you.
I have been sounding the alarm against Chinese espionage throughout industrial, commercial and academic assets for over 10 fucking years, and nobody wanted to fucking listen. SO I DONT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT ANYBODY FUCKING CRYING ABOUT IT NOW
You were right. China was in Teledyne's system for 7, S.E.V.E.N., years before IT caught up.
:frusty:
How long was Chyna in Teledine's system?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2017, 11:07:08 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2017, 09:54:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 26, 2017, 07:34:26 AM
:huh:
I know. You really must have said something he liked for him to be so nice to you.
I have been sounding the alarm against Chinese espionage throughout industrial, commercial and academic assets for over 10 fucking years, and nobody wanted to fucking listen. SO I DONT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT ANYBODY FUCKING CRYING ABOUT IT NOW
Seedy = Cassandra in a bunny suit. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2017, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2017, 01:32:00 PM
Why? I will miss the little caption about the NEH before every PBS documentary.
Not that their budgets are just really huge.
Because funding art and literature is a silly thing for the government to be involved in, the benefits of which extend to a tiny fraction of the population.
odd thing to say given that goverments have been funding the arts for centuries.
Quote from: Malthus on May 26, 2017, 12:50:44 PM
Seedy = Cassandra in a bunny suit. :D
Ain't that the fucking truth. PLA hopping down the bunny trail.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 26, 2017, 11:29:44 AM
You were right. China was in Teledyne's system for 7, S.E.V.E.N., years before IT caught up.
:frusty:
tbh, Chinese cyberespsionnage in our universities has been reported before, and not just by CdM. How do you figure they closed their technlogical gap? Aliens? :P
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 26, 2017, 12:55:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2017, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 24, 2017, 01:32:00 PM
Why? I will miss the little caption about the NEH before every PBS documentary.
Not that their budgets are just really huge.
Because funding art and literature is a silly thing for the government to be involved in, the benefits of which extend to a tiny fraction of the population.
odd thing to say given that goverments have been funding the arts for centuries.
Yup, it was always considered a means to add to the glory and prestige of the state to fund, say, monumental murals of national achievements, or statues of past heroes, philosophers and leaders.
Now some states do it by funding photos of Mapplethorpe shoving a bullwhip up his anus. :D
Quote from: viper37 on May 26, 2017, 01:06:42 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 26, 2017, 11:29:44 AM
You were right. China was in Teledyne's system for 7, S.E.V.E.N., years before IT caught up.
:frusty:
tbh, Chinese cyberespsionnage in our universities has been reported before, and not just by CdM. How do you figure they closed their technlogical gap? Aliens? :P
Well, if you watch the History Channel,
everything is caused by aliens. :hmm: