Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

sensible-med.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 340 posts

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#101

Post by [deleted] »

bbor wrote: post #56
torstenvl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is a strong legal argument that overruling congress via impoundment and/or the actions discussed here violate the constitutions most basic precepts No there isn't. The text of the Constitution says the opposite: it makes appropriation a necessary condition for expenditures, but omits any clause making it a sufficient one. And the only case law on this issue is Train v. New York, which assiduously avoids rulin…

What is the role of congress, if its enumerated powers do not imply that any of those things should actually happen...? Honest question. Are you honestly saying that there's an implied 100% veto available to the executive for anything done by congress?

[deleted]

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#102

Post by bongodongobob »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #31
PKop wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

They're not advocating for violence, they're answering the question of "what's left?" And, given the American justification of the right to bear arms, such a response is coded into American culture's DNA. Unless all the 2FA proponents were lying about needing those guns to prevent tyranny?

[flagged]

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#103

Post by mullingitover »

wyager wrote: post #76
jghn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person You're not wrong. However the portrayal of a mandate is a bit of a media fiction. He didn't have notably more votes than any other recent president.

But the people who did vote for him explicitly voted for all the stuff he's doing right now. Nothing that he's currently doing is surprising , except maybe for the fact that a politician actually followed through on so many campaign promises.

I don’t recall “we’re gonna kill science research, cancer research, we’re gonna make a million poor children die of AIDS and tuberculosis” in any campaign ads.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#104

Post by noduerme »

modzu wrote: post #60
D13Fd wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I give it 50/50 they do that. Do they even need to, though? If the president cannot be prosecuted for any official acts, and has the power to pardon any subordinate for ignoring the law, and to fire (and then prosecute) anyone who insists on following the law, what does the law matter?

[flagged]

That's a demented way of looking at the world, and it's disproven by the historical success of America as a republic, compared with countries in which "survival of the fittest" is the only rule, like Russia, or pick any dictatorship.

Survival of the fittest leads to dictatorship; dictatorships stagnate, because they spend all their energy only on maintaining power. They are efficient in one sense, at maintaining order. But they are centralized and limited in throughput and therefore are never dynamic systems capable of growth and innovation.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#105

Post by throwaway48476 »

slater wrote: post #9
lazide wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same people voted the folks into Congress too.

One can only hope for a blue tsunami for the midterms, though I'm not getting my hopes up.

Only possible if they reinvent themselves and dump as many 20/80 issues as possible.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#106

Post by a-dub »

bryant wrote: post #2

Practically speaking, when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person applying these policies, what mitigations are left? The courts are themselves slow and ultimately roll up to allies of the despot. People say that the midterms are crucial, but the midterms are only likely to be won if Democrats truly unify and apply winning strategies. Sadly the only winning strategies now seem to involve tell…

encourage all the laid off federal employees to move to the three special election counties, flip the house next month, use the house majority to push back on the most absurd/draconian moves, push harder at the midterms and try again two years later.

long term, figure out a better politically independent structure (perhaps similar to the fed) for important institutions.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#107

Post by breadwinner »

bryant wrote: post #2

Practically speaking, when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person applying these policies, what mitigations are left? The courts are themselves slow and ultimately roll up to allies of the despot. People say that the midterms are crucial, but the midterms are only likely to be won if Democrats truly unify and apply winning strategies. Sadly the only winning strategies now seem to involve tell…

> when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person applying these policies

No candidate got a majority of votes. A majority means more than 50% of the votes. In this case, the leading candidate only received 49.5%, which is a plurality, not a majority.

What is really happening is that Billionaires are taking advantage of less educated voters by convincing them to vote against their self-interests. They do so by shifting focus to the "values and cultural issues" of the moment. In the past, it was gay marriage and abortion; today, it's trans kids and DEI. Once these issues dominate the conversation, little attention is paid to the real priorities and actions of these Billionaires: cutting funds to Medicaid, food stamps and other welfare programs, cuts to health insurance subsidies, cuts to education, cuts to medical research funding, cuts to development assistance to the poorest in the world and so on, all to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.

What is the solution? Democrats should shift towards the center on the "values and cultural issues" in order to neutralize the conservative advantage, then they will be able to do things that the middleclass (and lower) cares about, such as healthcare and health research, education, consumer protections and so on, and make the Billionaires pay their fair share of taxes.

The debate can't be on "values and cultural issues", whatever they are, because that plays into Republican strengths.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#108

Post by EdwardDiego »

llm_trw wrote: post #52
EdwardDiego wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, reform your Presidency to be a constitutional role only, with executive power devolved to the party or parties of your elected representatives that is able to show the head of state that they have the numbers to govern. E.g. like the President of Ireland, or the King of England (via the Governor General proxy) in countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Also, the Electoral College is an archaic anachronism,…

What works for a country the size of a New York neighbourhood doesn't work for a country the size of a continent.

Britain ran a global empire using this model, why wouldn't it work for the US?

Maybe read up on how it works before rejecting it out of hand?

Britain has a bicameral parliament, with the leader of the majority of the lower house forming the executive, but the head of state retains the constitutional ability to dissolve parliament and order new elections if the current government is unable to function.

Having an apolitical head of state might be worth looking into.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#109

Post by btilly »

bbor wrote: post #49
ivraatiems wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, I am not at all convinced any further elections in the US will be free or fair given who is currently in power and what they've openly said about elections and what they want to do to them. The only real functional way forward at this point is some form of mass protest or resistance, which I see as unlikely to occur (and which I am not necessarily advocating for here on HN). Barring that, the reality is that…

I appreciate the perspective, and I know it's trite, but it's important: how would you feel about a resident of 1933 Germany writing your comment? Some good people fled, true, but staying and complying because mass protest seems "unlikely" is almost definitely something posterity will frown upon -- not to mention the rest of the world. I think that's something that should give one pause. Remember, mass protest to (pu…

FDR was more extreme than Trump so far. For instance consider banning private ownership of gold by executive order.

Mind you, Trump could still declare himself dictator. But based on what's happened so far? FDR was more extreme.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#110

Post by bryant »

Terr_ wrote: post #50
bryant wrote: post #2

Practically speaking, when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person applying these policies, what mitigations are left? The courts are themselves slow and ultimately roll up to allies of the despot. People say that the midterms are crucial, but the midterms are only likely to be won if Democrats truly unify and apply winning strategies. Sadly the only winning strategies now seem to involve tell…

> the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person applying these policies Careful, you're spreading a little falsehood there, Trump got 49.81% which is not a majority. His first term was 46.09%. Every other winner of the past 6 Presidential elections got >50% except for him. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/2024

Yeah, I suppose I binned the "other" voters as no-votes, but thanks for pointing it out.
Post reply on HN