6 ms·

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 fu

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.
    - WorldMaker 1y ago
      There's definitely a Venn Diagram intersection of "small government means 'no Science' because it is a 'waste' of money" and "Science is bad because it keeps talking about Climate Change", but it's not clearly all one set or the other of that chart (it's a full union applying pressure here).
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- elcritch 1y ago
  > Meanwhile the USDA, FWS, and DOE do those pesky regulatory things True and that’s awesome. However to put up some of a counter those agencies also over-regulate. Bureaucracy tends to over-expand. Musks example of SpaceX having to calculate the likelihood of a rocket hitting a shark in the pacific. Musk is certainly exaggerating a bit, but is speaking to a real issue for many businesses struggling to keep up with absurd regulations. My grandfather fought for years with USFWS to be able to re-build infrastructure for a small town near a popular wilderness area. A small bridge upstream washed away one year and they refused to allow rebuilding it. The claim was that rebuilding the small bridge would disturb some endangered fish species. So instead hundreds or thousands of vehicles every summer would drive through that small river instead to get to the wilderness area beyond. That created a lot more destruction and impact on the fish. Trucks and vehicles wash off a lot of oil and chemicals like that.
  - vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
    “ However to put up some of a counter those agencies also over-regulate.” Musk and DOGE had a wonderful opportunity to analyze these issues and address them and improve government efficiency. Instead they opted to cut whatever they didn’t like or couldn’t understand within five minutes. Musk should be deeply ashamed.
    - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
      I would caveat that further that they seemingly at least in part targeted agencies that were going after his various companies. Coincidentally I'm sure.
  - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    Given Space Xs issues in the subsequent years with complying with environmental regulations, it doesn’t seem that ridiculous to me. It’s not as though the shark question was simply posed in a vacuum: it was part of a broader inquiry into potential impacts of launching rockets into space. And Space X wasn’t singled out. Blue Origin had to do the same paperwork, yet bezos didn’t feel the need to whine about it.
godelski 1y ago
> The cuts to [...] are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value I think everyone (or at least the parent) understands that. I mean there's a part that's deeply connected to what I said in another comment[0] The real issue is essentially: which would you rather have, $1 now or $10 tomorrow?[1] People see it as savings because they have that money now. That's the way JumpCrisscross used it (and I very much don't think they agree that this is how the gov should be working). But the way you're using it is "I'd rather have the $10 tomorrow". I'm pointing this out because now people are talking past one another. I'm pointing this out because it is a really common pattern ("now" vs "later") that is used and frequently causes miscommunication due to different assumptions about what we want (e.g. "maximize money now" or "maximize money during x period of time"). Though it doesn't always have to do with money. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705004 [1] Be careful to not trivialize this. The numbers are abstract as well as the points in time. Also consider that $1 now might be far more valuable than $10 tomorrow. For example, if you get $1 now you might be able to afford a bus ticket to a location where you can get $1m, but only if you get there today. That's worth a lot more than $10 tomorrow. So we have to be mindful of what conditions actually exist if we want to actually communicate. Unfortunately, these are usually assumed and not communicated... The people that want to just take the money are well aware of this tendency...
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  This apologia for the cuts would be more persuasive if they didn’t come in concert with record-breaking increases to the pentagon budget and historic deficits. There’s no calculation happening here with present or future value, they’re lavishly funding things they like and decimating things they don’t. You don’t place a reality TV ‘star’ as the director of any agency you care about.
  - godelski 1y ago
    > This apologia for the cut What gave you the impression I was in favor of the cuts?

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.
  - WorldMaker 1y ago
    There's definitely a Venn Diagram intersection of "small government means 'no Science' because it is a 'waste' of money" and "Science is bad because it keeps talking about Climate Change", but it's not clearly all one set or the other of that chart (it's a full union applying pressure here).
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
elcritch 1y ago
> Meanwhile the USDA, FWS, and DOE do those pesky regulatory things True and that’s awesome. However to put up some of a counter those agencies also over-regulate. Bureaucracy tends to over-expand. Musks example of SpaceX having to calculate the likelihood of a rocket hitting a shark in the pacific. Musk is certainly exaggerating a bit, but is speaking to a real issue for many businesses struggling to keep up with absurd regulations. My grandfather fought for years with USFWS to be able to re-build infrastructure for a small town near a popular wilderness area. A small bridge upstream washed away one year and they refused to allow rebuilding it. The claim was that rebuilding the small bridge would disturb some endangered fish species. So instead hundreds or thousands of vehicles every summer would drive through that small river instead to get to the wilderness area beyond. That created a lot more destruction and impact on the fish. Trucks and vehicles wash off a lot of oil and chemicals like that.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
  “ However to put up some of a counter those agencies also over-regulate.” Musk and DOGE had a wonderful opportunity to analyze these issues and address them and improve government efficiency. Instead they opted to cut whatever they didn’t like or couldn’t understand within five minutes. Musk should be deeply ashamed.
  - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    I would caveat that further that they seemingly at least in part targeted agencies that were going after his various companies. Coincidentally I'm sure.
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  Given Space Xs issues in the subsequent years with complying with environmental regulations, it doesn’t seem that ridiculous to me. It’s not as though the shark question was simply posed in a vacuum: it was part of a broader inquiry into potential impacts of launching rockets into space. And Space X wasn’t singled out. Blue Origin had to do the same paperwork, yet bezos didn’t feel the need to whine about it.

godelski 1y ago

> The cuts to [...] are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value I think everyone (or at least the parent) understands that. I mean there's a part that's deeply connected to what I said in another comment[0] The real issue is essentially: which would you rather have, $1 now or $10 tomorrow?[1] People see it as savings because they have that money now. That's the way JumpCrisscross used it (and I very much don't think they agree that this is how the gov should be working). But the way you're using it is "I'd rather have the $10 tomorrow". I'm pointing this out because now people are talking past one another. I'm pointing this out because it is a really common pattern ("now" vs "later") that is used and frequently causes miscommunication due to different assumptions about what we want (e.g. "maximize money now" or "maximize money during x period of time"). Though it doesn't always have to do with money. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705004 [1] Be careful to not trivialize this. The numbers are abstract as well as the points in time. Also consider that $1 now might be far more valuable than $10 tomorrow. For example, if you get $1 now you might be able to afford a bus ticket to a location where you can get $1m, but only if you get there today. That's worth a lot more than $10 tomorrow. So we have to be mindful of what conditions actually exist if we want to actually communicate. Unfortunately, these are usually assumed and not communicated... The people that want to just take the money are well aware of this tendency...

mikeyouse 1y ago
This apologia for the cuts would be more persuasive if they didn’t come in concert with record-breaking increases to the pentagon budget and historic deficits. There’s no calculation happening here with present or future value, they’re lavishly funding things they like and decimating things they don’t. You don’t place a reality TV ‘star’ as the director of any agency you care about.
- godelski 1y ago
  > This apologia for the cut What gave you the impression I was in favor of the cuts?