5 ms·

The Dept of Education budget also is proposed to be cut significantly, including deep cuts in financial aid to college students. NIH research also is proposed

The Dept of Education budget also is proposed to be cut significantly, including deep cuts in financial aid to college students. NIH research also is proposed to suffer large cuts. And while I'm at it, the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities are proposed to be eliminated entirely.

Finnucane 10y ago
Yeah, basically, if it doesn't involve killing people or the police state, it's getting a cut. Unfortunately, the language I would use to describe my feelings about this is probably not considered appropriate for HN.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  Yes, but it's also important to realize that this is the will of the American people. They voted for this; they voted for this Administration, and they voted for this Congress.
  - knz 10y ago
    The popular vote would disagree with this sentiment in regards to voting for this administration.... If the will of the people was a consideration then we would see a more balanced proposal without such severe cuts to agencies and programs that Trump associates with "liberals". Abolishing the NEA or destroying the ability of the EPA to regulate pollution is pure political ideology. Reducing the ability of our government to study climate change isn't based upon scientific fact - it's done because it doesn't fit within the worldview of our current administration.
    - Arizhel 10y ago
      The popular vote wasn't that far away; it never is, or else the election would have gone the other way. The Electoral College gives extra weight to votes in smaller states, but only so much. That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this Congress, not just this Administration. They voted GOP not only for the House, but for the Senate too, so you can't even make any claims about "gerrymandering". They even voted GOP for governorships and local elections. The bottom line: outside of a few particular places (namely California), the people of this country want the GOP and its policies. As for your "balanced proposal" idea, things don't work like that. When one party has total power in both Congress and the White House, they can do pretty much whatever they want. If the people had wanted more balance, they would have voted for a more balanced Congress. They didn't. They overwhelmingly filled the seats with GOP candidates.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > The popular vote wasn't that far away; Yes, it was > it never is, or else the election would have gone the other way. The electoral college can, in principle, support very radical differences from the popular vote; the actual difference in 2016 was mild compared to what is theoretically possible in that regard, but still a pretty extreme far outlier compare to historical norms. > That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this Congress, not just this Administration. But numerous prominent Republicans in Congress have dismissed the Trump budget as unacceptable. You can't say "the American people voted for this" and then defend that by pointing to—even if completely accuratelt—thr American people voting for a set of politicians that don't clearly support the thing you claim the American people voted for by voting for those politicians.
      - neaden 10y ago
        >That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this Congress, not just this Administration. They voted GOP not only for the House, but for the Senate too, so you can't even make any claims about "gerrymandering". The majority of voters voted for a Democratic senator.
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        > The popular vote wasn't that far away; it never is, or else the election would have gone the other way. The Electoral College gives extra weight to votes in smaller states, but only so much. Even if there was no difference in weighting, the all-or-nothing nature of the electoral college allows for huge disparities. If half-plus-one of the electoral votes are won in states one by one vote, and all of the other states vote 100% the other way, and there was no distortion or aliasing, we'd see 3/4 of America having voted for the losing candidate. In principle, the "extra weight" allows it to be even worse than that. Of course in practice it will never hit the extreme, but there's plenty of room for "that far away".
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Yes, but it's also important to realize that this is the will of the American people. No it's not. > They voted for this No, they didn't. > they voted for this Administration No, neither a majority nor even a plurality of the American people—even only of those actually voting—voted for this Administration.
    - Arizhel 10y ago
      They absolutely did vote for this Congress.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        It's far from clear that even this Congress supports the Trump budget, so that's irrelevant to the argument that the American people, in general, voted for the contents of the Trump budget, even indirectly by voting for politicians that support it.
        Arizhel 10y ago
        Most of the points of the Trump budget are things the Republican Congresspeople agree with to some extent. They're just arguing now among themselves, with extremist Republicans wanting even more cuts, and moderate ones wanting less. They're all basically in favor of things like gutting the EPA and social programs. So it's entirely logical to conclude that the American people want a budget more-or-less like this one. They're just quibbling over details.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Most of the points of the Trump budget are things the Republican Congresspeople agree with to some extent. Only in the sense that being tied down and forced to consume a gallon of everclear, because it is "consuming alcohol", is something that someone who ocassionally has a drink or two in an evening supports "to some extent". > So it's entirely logical to conclude that the American people want a budget more-or-less like this one. Defined broadly enough, any budget is "more-or-less" like this one, but there's not any evidence that the American people support a budget very much like this one.

Finnucane 10y ago

Yeah, basically, if it doesn't involve killing people or the police state, it's getting a cut. Unfortunately, the language I would use to describe my feelings about this is probably not considered appropriate for HN.

Arizhel 10y ago
Yes, but it's also important to realize that this is the will of the American people. They voted for this; they voted for this Administration, and they voted for this Congress.
- knz 10y ago
  The popular vote would disagree with this sentiment in regards to voting for this administration.... If the will of the people was a consideration then we would see a more balanced proposal without such severe cuts to agencies and programs that Trump associates with "liberals". Abolishing the NEA or destroying the ability of the EPA to regulate pollution is pure political ideology. Reducing the ability of our government to study climate change isn't based upon scientific fact - it's done because it doesn't fit within the worldview of our current administration.
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    The popular vote wasn't that far away; it never is, or else the election would have gone the other way. The Electoral College gives extra weight to votes in smaller states, but only so much. That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this Congress, not just this Administration. They voted GOP not only for the House, but for the Senate too, so you can't even make any claims about "gerrymandering". They even voted GOP for governorships and local elections. The bottom line: outside of a few particular places (namely California), the people of this country want the GOP and its policies. As for your "balanced proposal" idea, things don't work like that. When one party has total power in both Congress and the White House, they can do pretty much whatever they want. If the people had wanted more balance, they would have voted for a more balanced Congress. They didn't. They overwhelmingly filled the seats with GOP candidates.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The popular vote wasn't that far away; Yes, it was > it never is, or else the election would have gone the other way. The electoral college can, in principle, support very radical differences from the popular vote; the actual difference in 2016 was mild compared to what is theoretically possible in that regard, but still a pretty extreme far outlier compare to historical norms. > That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this Congress, not just this Administration. But numerous prominent Republicans in Congress have dismissed the Trump budget as unacceptable. You can't say "the American people voted for this" and then defend that by pointing to—even if completely accuratelt—thr American people voting for a set of politicians that don't clearly support the thing you claim the American people voted for by voting for those politicians.
    - neaden 10y ago
      >That's why I pointed out that the people voted for this Congress, not just this Administration. They voted GOP not only for the House, but for the Senate too, so you can't even make any claims about "gerrymandering". The majority of voters voted for a Democratic senator.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      > The popular vote wasn't that far away; it never is, or else the election would have gone the other way. The Electoral College gives extra weight to votes in smaller states, but only so much. Even if there was no difference in weighting, the all-or-nothing nature of the electoral college allows for huge disparities. If half-plus-one of the electoral votes are won in states one by one vote, and all of the other states vote 100% the other way, and there was no distortion or aliasing, we'd see 3/4 of America having voted for the losing candidate. In principle, the "extra weight" allows it to be even worse than that. Of course in practice it will never hit the extreme, but there's plenty of room for "that far away".
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Yes, but it's also important to realize that this is the will of the American people. No it's not. > They voted for this No, they didn't. > they voted for this Administration No, neither a majority nor even a plurality of the American people—even only of those actually voting—voted for this Administration.
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    They absolutely did vote for this Congress.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      It's far from clear that even this Congress supports the Trump budget, so that's irrelevant to the argument that the American people, in general, voted for the contents of the Trump budget, even indirectly by voting for politicians that support it.
      - Arizhel 10y ago
        Most of the points of the Trump budget are things the Republican Congresspeople agree with to some extent. They're just arguing now among themselves, with extremist Republicans wanting even more cuts, and moderate ones wanting less. They're all basically in favor of things like gutting the EPA and social programs. So it's entirely logical to conclude that the American people want a budget more-or-less like this one. They're just quibbling over details.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Most of the points of the Trump budget are things the Republican Congresspeople agree with to some extent. Only in the sense that being tied down and forced to consume a gallon of everclear, because it is "consuming alcohol", is something that someone who ocassionally has a drink or two in an evening supports "to some extent". > So it's entirely logical to conclude that the American people want a budget more-or-less like this one. Defined broadly enough, any budget is "more-or-less" like this one, but there's not any evidence that the American people support a budget very much like this one.