5 ms·

The point seems to be to cut US scientific capacity (and more generally intellectual research capacity) across the board, as a way of hitting back at "the elite

The point seems to be to cut US scientific capacity (and more generally intellectual research capacity) across the board, as a way of hitting back at "the elites" who have the temerity to call GOP politicians and donors out for their lies and bad behavior.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> a way of hitting back at "the elites" who have the temerity to call GOP politicians and donors out for their lies and bad behavior True for academic institutions. No evidence this is the motivation at NASA. Simpler: science costs money and leadership believes that money is better spent giving folks like me a tax cut than paying for poor folks' healthcare or basic research. Fortunately, it looks like Beijing is ready to pick up the torch [1]. [1] https://www.fdd.org/analysis/policy_briefs/2025/03/19/aiming-for-parity-with-u-s-china-announces-increase-in-science-and-technology-spending/ https://www.fdd.org/analysis/policy_briefs/2025/03/19/aiming...
- msgodel 1y ago
  >that money is better spent giving folks like me a tax cut The federal government now accepts donations if you don't want the money.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > federal government now accepts donations if you don't want the money This is silly. I prefer the money be spent on things that have a larger ROI, collectively, than I can attain individually. Destroying the money doesn't achieve that aim.
    - msgodel 1y ago
      Well, the rest of us disagree. You need consensus for public institutions and no one on the left or the right has been willing to build that.
      - jacobolus 1y ago
        Actually, the "rest of us" largely agree, as reflected in the laws our elected representatives have established. We have collectively appropriated the money and set up the institutional framework for spending it. Folks smashing down that system are doing a significant part of it illegally, with no credible justification or public support, in several recent cases in contemptuous violation of direct court orders.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > the rest of us disagree Irrelevant to the silliness of suggesting destroying money as a solution.
  - throwawayq3423 1y ago
    The current government would take any money you give them and give it back to rich people in the form of tax cuts. So no, I don't want to Venmo cash to somebody who doesn't need it.
    - msgodel 1y ago
      That has always effectively been how government programs work, even if they launder it through poor people and immigrants first.
      - throwawayq3423 1y ago
        Except for in your example, the poor people and immigrants get to eat and sleep indoors and maybe one day become educated. I won't make any assumptions about your politics, but I'm assuming that doesn't move the needle for you.
  - saratogacx 1y ago
    The federal government has, pretty much always, accepted donations, but recently the time and effort were spent to make those contributions available via digital instead of the old check and mail method of yesteryear.
  - harimau777 1y ago
    I'd definitely donate if it meant that billionaires also had to give a proportionate amount of their wealth.
- acdha 1y ago
  NASA is “the elites” in a key area: they’ve done a ton of research confirming climate change is real and impactful. I think the general antipathy for education intersected strongly with the wing of the Republican Party which sees climate change as the enemy both because many of them are funded by fossil fuel companies and because they see all forms of collective action or addressing externalities as an existential threat.
- jacobolus 1y ago
  The cuts to NASA as well as NOAA, NIH, USGS, USDA, FWS, DOE, etc. are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value (not to mention all sorts of work whose value can't be easily quantified). Maybe "smashing things and ruining people's lives and work is fun per se" is a better explanation than anything more complicated. Pretty shitty for the rest of us though.
  - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    NOAA, NASA, NIH, FWS, and DOE all regularly push how bad the situation is around global climate change. That's likely why they're getting targeted. The GOP's position on climate change is sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming LALALALALA and having credible government agencies pointing out the ongoing effects is detrimental to this strategy. Meanwhile the USDA, FWS, and DOE do those pesky regulatory things, like making it so you can't torture animals quite as much in the pursuit of profits, can't build coal power plants in the center of national parks, and can't dump raw chemical waste into your local wetlands. Utter killjoys they are. Like, not meaning to be shitty to you in specific, but it's no secret why these agencies are getting targeted. If you say anything the admin doesn't like, or dare to tell people with money that they can't do literally anything they want at all times irrespective of it's effects on broader society, you've got a target on your back.
    - wat10000 1y ago
      I think it’s even simpler: government is seen as bad. The military and some law enforcement are excepted, but otherwise, dismantling government agencies is a goal in and of itself. I listened to way too much Rush Limbaugh in the 90s and none of this stuff is a surprise. Distressing, but exactly what this particular segment of Republicans have been working towards.
      - hansvm 1y ago
        I could buy that argument if it weren't for the disparity in which organizations are being targeted and the degree to which they're being attacked. Getting rid of all government is just the story they use to appease their base.
- kube-system 1y ago
  > Simpler: science costs money and leadership believes that money is better spent giving folks like me a tax cut than paying for poor folks' healthcare or basic research. That's a simple explanation but not a good one. All government salaries across all jobs everywhere in the federal government are about 4% of the federal budget. The DRPs going on are 100% about "draining the swamp", not saving money. This is literally what the administrators of these agencies are saying on TV news. They think science is biased against their worldviews and they want to replace them.
Supermancho 1y ago
I think NASA cuts are about giving money to billionaires, so they can build or expand their capitalist version. Obviously, this will be more efficient because it funnels money to the wealthy directly.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> a way of hitting back at "the elites" who have the temerity to call GOP politicians and donors out for their lies and bad behavior True for academic institutions. No evidence this is the motivation at NASA. Simpler: science costs money and leadership believes that money is better spent giving folks like me a tax cut than paying for poor folks' healthcare or basic research. Fortunately, it looks like Beijing is ready to pick up the torch [1]. [1] https://www.fdd.org/analysis/policy_briefs/2025/03/19/aiming-for-parity-with-u-s-china-announces-increase-in-science-and-technology-spending/ https://www.fdd.org/analysis/policy_briefs/2025/03/19/aiming...

msgodel 1y ago
>that money is better spent giving folks like me a tax cut The federal government now accepts donations if you don't want the money.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > federal government now accepts donations if you don't want the money This is silly. I prefer the money be spent on things that have a larger ROI, collectively, than I can attain individually. Destroying the money doesn't achieve that aim.
  - msgodel 1y ago
    Well, the rest of us disagree. You need consensus for public institutions and no one on the left or the right has been willing to build that.
    - jacobolus 1y ago
      Actually, the "rest of us" largely agree, as reflected in the laws our elected representatives have established. We have collectively appropriated the money and set up the institutional framework for spending it. Folks smashing down that system are doing a significant part of it illegally, with no credible justification or public support, in several recent cases in contemptuous violation of direct court orders.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > the rest of us disagree Irrelevant to the silliness of suggesting destroying money as a solution.
- throwawayq3423 1y ago
  The current government would take any money you give them and give it back to rich people in the form of tax cuts. So no, I don't want to Venmo cash to somebody who doesn't need it.
  - msgodel 1y ago
    That has always effectively been how government programs work, even if they launder it through poor people and immigrants first.
    - throwawayq3423 1y ago
      Except for in your example, the poor people and immigrants get to eat and sleep indoors and maybe one day become educated. I won't make any assumptions about your politics, but I'm assuming that doesn't move the needle for you.
- saratogacx 1y ago
  The federal government has, pretty much always, accepted donations, but recently the time and effort were spent to make those contributions available via digital instead of the old check and mail method of yesteryear.
- harimau777 1y ago
  I'd definitely donate if it meant that billionaires also had to give a proportionate amount of their wealth.
acdha 1y ago
NASA is “the elites” in a key area: they’ve done a ton of research confirming climate change is real and impactful. I think the general antipathy for education intersected strongly with the wing of the Republican Party which sees climate change as the enemy both because many of them are funded by fossil fuel companies and because they see all forms of collective action or addressing externalities as an existential threat.
jacobolus 1y ago
The cuts to NASA as well as NOAA, NIH, USGS, USDA, FWS, DOE, etc. are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value (not to mention all sorts of work whose value can't be easily quantified). Maybe "smashing things and ruining people's lives and work is fun per se" is a better explanation than anything more complicated. Pretty shitty for the rest of us though.
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  NOAA, NASA, NIH, FWS, and DOE all regularly push how bad the situation is around global climate change. That's likely why they're getting targeted. The GOP's position on climate change is sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming LALALALALA and having credible government agencies pointing out the ongoing effects is detrimental to this strategy. Meanwhile the USDA, FWS, and DOE do those pesky regulatory things, like making it so you can't torture animals quite as much in the pursuit of profits, can't build coal power plants in the center of national parks, and can't dump raw chemical waste into your local wetlands. Utter killjoys they are. Like, not meaning to be shitty to you in specific, but it's no secret why these agencies are getting targeted. If you say anything the admin doesn't like, or dare to tell people with money that they can't do literally anything they want at all times irrespective of it's effects on broader society, you've got a target on your back.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    I think it’s even simpler: government is seen as bad. The military and some law enforcement are excepted, but otherwise, dismantling government agencies is a goal in and of itself. I listened to way too much Rush Limbaugh in the 90s and none of this stuff is a surprise. Distressing, but exactly what this particular segment of Republicans have been working towards.
    - hansvm 1y ago
      I could buy that argument if it weren't for the disparity in which organizations are being targeted and the degree to which they're being attacked. Getting rid of all government is just the story they use to appease their base.
kube-system 1y ago
> Simpler: science costs money and leadership believes that money is better spent giving folks like me a tax cut than paying for poor folks' healthcare or basic research. That's a simple explanation but not a good one. All government salaries across all jobs everywhere in the federal government are about 4% of the federal budget. The DRPs going on are 100% about "draining the swamp", not saving money. This is literally what the administrators of these agencies are saying on TV news. They think science is biased against their worldviews and they want to replace them.

Supermancho 1y ago

I think NASA cuts are about giving money to billionaires, so they can build or expand their capitalist version. Obviously, this will be more efficient because it funnels money to the wealthy directly.