The President's Speech Offficial Thread
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
It's ****ing cutting funding for cancer research. Who tries to argue with taking money away from from ****ing cancer research?
Unfortunately, a rogue federal judge blocked this, so funding will continue, for now.
Focus on the word, "cap". Could that indicate run away spending, spending on things that are unrelated? It doesn't surprise me some wacky judge would do that if it was run away spending.
Don't even know who that guy is, but when they kicked him out, the cool factor in that room when down by about 50.Pimp cane. Wish I could see his shoes
Now I'm wondering how many MAGA weirdos don't know the difference between transgender and transgenic? At least two ...
He had a stool at a bar around the corner being held for him
This won’t take long….
Probably a dozen drinks already lined up and paid for too.
The proposed 15% cap on indirect costs is not that hard to understand.
Say that my research institute has 50 professors doing biomedical research based on Federal grants. The grants pay the cost of making and testing the drugs we are trying to invent (supply costs) as well percentages of salaries and benefits of professors, graduate students, and other lab workers (personnel costs).
But the research institute has a big building and it needs to be air conditioned, heated, have custodians, have a health & safety department (OSHA laws), have a human resources department, have administrative assistants (i.e. secretaries) have someone to maintain the buildings, etc. Non-research people that make the place function.
All of these things besides supply costs and personnel costs are called indirect costs. You need them to keep the doors open.
Every place of research has a different indirect cost rate, but 50-60% is typical. This is based on actual expenditures and reviewed by the NIH and NSF.
Cutting the indirect cost rate to 15% from 50-60% means laying off >75% of the non-research people that make the place function. You will keep the power on. That isn't a workable solution. You shut the doors.
Now, can a huge public university with 30,000 undergraduates use some of that undergrad tuition money for heating, air conditioning, and staff? Sure. They can do some cost cutting, and should.
But a good portion of the high level research is done at research institutes that do not do undergraduate teaching, including medical schools and pharmacy schools at those public universities, which are separate entities.
It was intended to hit the "ivory tower schools" like Harvard with big endowments. But red state research let Trump know that they would all be shut down, at least with respect to research. Places like IU school of medicine, Baylor College of medicine, UNC pharmacy, U. Florida Health, etc.
Say that my research institute has 50 professors doing biomedical research based on Federal grants. The grants pay the cost of making and testing the drugs we are trying to invent (supply costs) as well percentages of salaries and benefits of professors, graduate students, and other lab workers (personnel costs).
But the research institute has a big building and it needs to be air conditioned, heated, have custodians, have a health & safety department (OSHA laws), have a human resources department, have administrative assistants (i.e. secretaries) have someone to maintain the buildings, etc. Non-research people that make the place function.
All of these things besides supply costs and personnel costs are called indirect costs. You need them to keep the doors open.
Every place of research has a different indirect cost rate, but 50-60% is typical. This is based on actual expenditures and reviewed by the NIH and NSF.
Cutting the indirect cost rate to 15% from 50-60% means laying off >75% of the non-research people that make the place function. You will keep the power on. That isn't a workable solution. You shut the doors.
Now, can a huge public university with 30,000 undergraduates use some of that undergrad tuition money for heating, air conditioning, and staff? Sure. They can do some cost cutting, and should.
But a good portion of the high level research is done at research institutes that do not do undergraduate teaching, including medical schools and pharmacy schools at those public universities, which are separate entities.
It was intended to hit the "ivory tower schools" like Harvard with big endowments. But red state research let Trump know that they would all be shut down, at least with respect to research. Places like IU school of medicine, Baylor College of medicine, UNC pharmacy, U. Florida Health, etc.
He certainly didn’t when he attended the same white office with his child- the respect was so evident in his actions then lol. DOGE will need to touch military, social security, and Medicare to make a dent. How about a national sales tax of 1% on every single thing bought by an American in America- with revenue ear marked/mandated only for federal debt reduction? We are going to have inflation, an extra 1% can make us feel sense of ownership. LFG regressive sure but also a way to ensure the wealthy pay more than middle class.
Pimp cane. Wish I could see his shoes
People are saying online he got kicked out because he had a weapon. Yes, his pimp cane is now considered a weapon.
Lmao. Tell me you’re from hickory huck Indiana without telling me. That man has caned more heads than Tyson has punched.
You better believe it’s a weapon
And no man on Earth could pry it from him
Bro, that's not much of a weapon around my neck of the woods when its common to walk into walmart and see uncle Buck with his 9 strapped to his side.
Nobody is worried about a God damn cane.
You are correct tariffs are taxes on consuming. The US has had tariffs on different items such as imported automobiles for decades. Unfortunately when you try to oversimplify that tariffs are not cumulative or retaliatory on country to country basis you have truly missed out on the effect. There are consumables that will be effected, day to day products while we pay more for the same item. Ie ketchup. When tomatoes are being taxed as the us imports more than 60% of tomatoes from Mexico especially in the winter the price not only for tomatoes goes up but all related byproducts do as well. Etc etc. if you wanted to tax consumables you would imply a value added tax model (VAT) which is applied in multiple countries world wide. We use a two tiered tax system with sales tax both state and federal which also tax consumables. When you ask this basic question, would you buy the same product at twice the price and you answer no, you are now affecting both manufacturing and consuming. Because if products now stay on the shelves for longer manufacturers will start supplying less of the items which in turn now affects the overall price by further increasing the price of said item. So on and so forth.
Unfortunately I don’t have the time and inclination to further expand your horizons on how a system works. The best advice I may offer you is this. Knowledge is power, the more you know the more BS you can pick up.
Similar threads
