3 ms·

the "drops in the bucket" mindset is the problem, the federal government absurdly overspends and we've not had any serious politicians to address the issue. the

the "drops in the bucket" mindset is the problem, the federal government absurdly overspends and we've not had any serious politicians to address the issue. the interest on our debt is going to bankrupt us and there will be nothing left afterwards if these things aren't reeled in and examined. political opponents of the newly elected administration are obviously going to go fully hysterical over any change, they already did last time. the science industries in the US aren't going anywhere, neither is research at the universities. the ideological discrimination and money laundering coming out of these departments are going to end. and did we all forget about COVID? The fact that the NIH funded the research that happened in china ILLEGALLY, because this was a really stupid idea and we found that out the hard way, and it was covered up, and we were lied to, it killed millions, destroyed economies on a global scale.... do we really not want to see this agency dissected under a microscope? They need to be investigated.

bad_haircut72 2y ago
I feel like were on the same side but youre gonna need a (credible!) source that US govt money was funding virus research in China, that doesnt seem to pass the sniff test
- stainablesteel 2y ago
  is this sarcasm? it's been known for years and we got some more "official" info recently this is the grant, but this was public info for years https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Year-5-EHAv.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Year-...
  - bad_haircut72 2y ago
    No its not sarcasm, thanks for the reference. However since you were rude Im gonna ignore this evidence (this attitude can work for or against Republicans I guess)
    - dekhn 2y ago
      I'll be less rude: the US funded virus research in China. Some people argue this was wise because it gave us insight into China's bioweapons plans, or be prepared for world disasters, or whatever. It's still not entirely clear why NIH leadership thought this was a good idea, given our understanding of China's relative immaturity in working with dangerous viruses, as well as preventing that funding from going to US researchers.
      - bad_haircut72 2y ago
        I had sorta thought this was a right wing conspiracy, as it seemed so unlikely to be true. I can very clearly understand why the new administration is being ruthless with them now, especially given Trumps experience with Covid (a more enlightened leader might say the buck stopped with him instead of blaming underlings, but I digress). Thanks for replying.
        dekhn 2y ago
        I'm not sure how to interpret what you're saying. NIAID has worked with China for decades, https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/niaid-research-china https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/niaid-research-china which spans multiple partisan administrations. I think (but can't find at the moment) that there was a law mandating NIAID work with China to keep up-to-date on evolving biodefense. The complaint is really about the establishment, not decisions from a specific president or party.
amluto 2y ago
> the "drops in the bucket" mindset is the problem, the federal government absurdly overspends The federal government almost certainly does absurdly overspend, but you’re missing the point: all of these drops in the bucket add up to far less than the deficit. Also, for better or for worse, operating departments efficiently may well be the executive branch’s job, but setting all these budgets is Congress’s job, not the executive branch’s. In fact, Congress tried, not all that long ago, to allow the President to veto specific line items, and the Supreme Court struck it down: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

bad_haircut72 2y ago

I feel like were on the same side but youre gonna need a (credible!) source that US govt money was funding virus research in China, that doesnt seem to pass the sniff test

stainablesteel 2y ago
is this sarcasm? it's been known for years and we got some more "official" info recently this is the grant, but this was public info for years https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Year-5-EHAv.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Year-...
- bad_haircut72 2y ago
  No its not sarcasm, thanks for the reference. However since you were rude Im gonna ignore this evidence (this attitude can work for or against Republicans I guess)
  - dekhn 2y ago
    I'll be less rude: the US funded virus research in China. Some people argue this was wise because it gave us insight into China's bioweapons plans, or be prepared for world disasters, or whatever. It's still not entirely clear why NIH leadership thought this was a good idea, given our understanding of China's relative immaturity in working with dangerous viruses, as well as preventing that funding from going to US researchers.
    - bad_haircut72 2y ago
      I had sorta thought this was a right wing conspiracy, as it seemed so unlikely to be true. I can very clearly understand why the new administration is being ruthless with them now, especially given Trumps experience with Covid (a more enlightened leader might say the buck stopped with him instead of blaming underlings, but I digress). Thanks for replying.
      - dekhn 2y ago
        I'm not sure how to interpret what you're saying. NIAID has worked with China for decades, https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/niaid-research-china https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/niaid-research-china which spans multiple partisan administrations. I think (but can't find at the moment) that there was a law mandating NIAID work with China to keep up-to-date on evolving biodefense. The complaint is really about the establishment, not decisions from a specific president or party.

amluto 2y ago

> the "drops in the bucket" mindset is the problem, the federal government absurdly overspends The federal government almost certainly does absurdly overspend, but you’re missing the point: all of these drops in the bucket add up to far less than the deficit. Also, for better or for worse, operating departments efficiently may well be the executive branch’s job, but setting all these budgets is Congress’s job, not the executive branch’s. In fact, Congress tried, not all that long ago, to allow the President to veto specific line items, and the Supreme Court struck it down: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York