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

Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 420 posts

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#311

Post by Whoppertime »

tstactplsignore wrote: post #85
palmfacehn wrote: post #15

Wherever budget cuts are proposed, you can rely upon detractors to present the issue in apocalyptic terms. If we believed all of these claims, then it would be impossible to cut the scope of government spending. Furthermore, if we accepted the premise promoted by some commenters here, then research, which is presented as incredibly valuable - would be unable to be funded or valued in the private market. For these rea…

This is a tiny portion of government spending though. You could completely eliminate the NASA budget entirely and it'd make absolutely no difference on the federal government's bottom line. The NASA budget, the NIH budget, the NSF budget, the USAID budget, the EPA budget, the NOAA budget - all of these unbelievably useful with high ROI agencies combined do not amount to more than the margin of error in the US governm…

"all of these unbelievably useful with high ROI agencies" Unbelievably useful to whom? A lot of people seemed to have problems with what institutions like USAID were doing. I can think of the CIA during Iran Contra as a very useful comparison. Funding the Contras and getting around Congressional obstruction was very useful to Ronald Reagan. The CIA facilitating Cocaine trafficking into the United States by groups supporting the Contras made the CIA offer a high ROI. Those black ops planes carrying cocaine into the United States had some valuable cargo. And yet, after all this came to light I would have had no problem with Bill Clinton reducing the size and scope of the CIA, even if it was offering a high ROI and "was useful"

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#312

Post by method_capital »

eigenman wrote: post #142
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest driver of increasing debt has been tax cuts for the rich. If you really cared about the national debt you would be campaigning hard against the proposed budget.

If you want to start cutting money from the budget, cut the things that are the: defense spending. There is just so much waste defense procurement.

Defense won't do it.

https://manhattan.institute/article/a-comprehensive-federal-...

"Deep defense cuts. Since the 1980s, the Pentagon budget has fallen from 6% to 3% of GDP—not far above Europe’s target of 2%. Cutting U.S. defense spending to the levels pledged by European members of NATO would save 1% of GDP, or less than one-fifth of the Social Security and Medicare noninterest shortfall by the 2040s and 2050s."

Read the budget. Learn something. None of the partisan mantras solve the problem. The only solution is to trim ss, trim medicare, and raise taxes across the board.

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#313

Post by api »

hyperman1 wrote: post #268
api wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Narcissism is actually, in a sense, a very small ego, an enormously fragile sense of self that requires constant validation from outside. It looks a lot like an addiction, with withdrawal occurring when the 'fix' is not obtained. You can see this clearly in certain individuals with obvious narcissistic personality disorder where withdrawal of approval results in an insanely irrational tantrum where they basically rev…

I've never seen this behaviour trough that lens. Thanks, you've made me learn something unexpected today.

It's generally understood that way in psychology. The term "narcissistic supply" is used for the constant approval and praise and adulation that narcissists crave, and the symptoms of its revocation are similar to some forms of drug withdrawal. A narcissist who is confronted or even just cut off will often fly into a blind rage or revert to what seems like an early childhood state of mind and throw tantrums.

There's some evidence that neglectful or abusive parenting during certain developmental phases might predispose one to it, basically creating a very deep emotional imprint of "you aren't good enough and must constantly earn love." There's probably more to it than that but I could see that being a factor. For adults there's probably also an ideology / belief system dimension.

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#314

Post by leptons »

Loughla wrote: post #227
leptons wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the dems are feckless and useless for similar reasons being that any sort of long term consequences does not matter to them. Please elaborate on this.

Old. They're old. Gerontocracy means old people. Dems, republicans, both are old. The average age for republicans and democrats in the house is 57 or so. The average in the senate is 62(r) and 65(d). While 57 isn't ancient, it's also not young enough to give a shit about 2070. 62 and 65 year olds certainly don't care about a date so far in the future that their kids will be dead.

[flagged]

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#315

Post by pstuart »

mindslight wrote: post #219
pstuart wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only do they not care, they actually relish destroying anything they consider to be "woke", like science. It's unfortunate, but modern American conservatism is now defined by hating everything that liberals love. This is a pity, because there should be a balance between "progress" and "government restraint" -- and that is no longer possible.

> modern American conservatism is now defined by hating everything that liberals love Please stop giving this movement a disguise by continuing to call it conservatism. I know that word has had negative connotations to a large segment of liberals/progressives, but conservatism actually has a bunch of worthwhile values - despite being harmful when taken to the extreme, like everything . What we're dealing with now is…

> conservatism actually has some worthwhile values

Did you read the whole of my comment?

As to who to ascribe as "conservatives", the GOP and its voters are a not entirely unreasonable association.

If you have public communicators for "modern conservatism" that you'd care to share I would be happy to check them out as I'm interested in broadening my understanding of the world.

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#316

Post by Ray20 »

jeremyjh wrote: post #293
Ray20 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a result of these things millions of people were unable to vote. By similizing the American electoral system to those in authoritarian countries, you trivialize the suffering of people oppressed and often physically exterminated by authoritarian regimes around the world. Millions? Seriously? Try talking to any refugee from an authoritarian country about this. Just please be as polite as possible and choose a smal…

What do you call it when people are rounded up and sent to a gulag in El Salvador without due process? What do you call it when monies appropriated by Congress that literally kept starving people alive in other parts of the world, are unilaterally rescinded by an executive with no legal power to do so? The richest man in the world caused the deaths of some of the poorest in the world, and fulfilled not one of the ben…

[flagged]

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#317

Post by redczar »

xedrac wrote: post #309
jeremyjh wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you call it when people are rounded up and sent to a gulag in El Salvador without due process? What do you call it when monies appropriated by Congress that literally kept starving people alive in other parts of the world, are unilaterally rescinded by an executive with no legal power to do so? The richest man in the world caused the deaths of some of the poorest in the world, and fulfilled not one of the ben…

What do you call it when people flood into a country without due process?

Due process is the wrong term. What you describe is called immigration. Sometimes immigration is illegal.

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#318

Post by redczar »

Ray20 wrote: post #316
jeremyjh wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you call it when people are rounded up and sent to a gulag in El Salvador without due process? What do you call it when monies appropriated by Congress that literally kept starving people alive in other parts of the world, are unilaterally rescinded by an executive with no legal power to do so? The richest man in the world caused the deaths of some of the poorest in the world, and fulfilled not one of the ben…

[flagged]

Your reasoning is quite. That the U.S. has committed atrocities is not pertinant to whether or not it is becoming an authoritarian state. Please try to stay on point and not bring up irrelevant facts.

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#319

Post by mindslight »

pstuart wrote: post #315
mindslight wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> modern American conservatism is now defined by hating everything that liberals love Please stop giving this movement a disguise by continuing to call it conservatism. I know that word has had negative connotations to a large segment of liberals/progressives, but conservatism actually has a bunch of worthwhile values - despite being harmful when taken to the extreme, like everything . What we're dealing with now is…

> conservatism actually has some worthwhile values Did you read the whole of my comment? As to who to ascribe as "conservatives", the GOP and its voters are a not entirely unreasonable association. If you have public communicators for "modern conservatism" that you'd care to share I would be happy to check them out as I'm interested in broadening my understanding of the world.

Yes, I did. We are coming from places that are mostly in agreement - I'm not trying to thump some slightly-different no-true-Scotsman version of conservatism here. I am a libertarian, and I was unaligned and came to see the wisdom and failings of both tribes.

My first point is that the people calling themselves conservatives are nowhere close to those values - the people who remain truer to conservatism get called "RINOs" and pushed out of the party (part of the large trend of othering).

My main point is that this distinction is important because calling this movement "conservatism" ends up supporting it - it gives them cover as if they are merely advocating for some measured stick-with-traditions cautious reform and reverting recent developments, while they are actually actively lighting the better part of a century's American institutions on fire and dancing around the blazes - NASA, universities, scientific research, relationships with our allies, foreign outreach, USD as a reserve currency, etc. Never mind their rejection of much older American freedoms like freedom of assembly, right to keep and bear arms, etc.

Re: Trump's NASA cuts would destroy decades of science and wipe out its future

#320

Post by lossolo »

Ray20 wrote: post #256
bobthepanda wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orban and Erdogan also won the popular vote, that's hardly a get-out-of-authoritarianism free card.

>Orban and Erdogan also won the popular vote, that's hardly a get-out-of-authoritarianism free card. You should learn more about the electoral system under authoritarianism. In any free election, Orban or Erdogan have no chance.

You're missing a key point about how modern authoritarian regimes operate. Just because a country holds elections doesn’t mean it’s a democracy. Authoritarian systems like those under Orban or Erdogan often maintain the appearance of democracy free elections, parliaments, courts but in reality, these institutions are hollowed out or heavily controlled.

Orban and Erdogan do win elections, but the playing field is far from level.

In both Hungary and Turkey, the judiciary has been systematically brought under the control of the ruling party. Independent courts are a cornerstone of democracy because they ensure that laws are applied fairly and check the power of the executive. When this independence disappears, so does accountability. Free press is another essential pillar. In these regimes, the government or its allies own or dominate most media outlets. Critical voices are marginalized, harassed etc. As a result, voters are often exposed to only one narrative, the government’s making truly informed choice nearly impossible. NGOs, academic institutions, and opposition are often harassed, defunded, or labeled as enemies of the state. This further reduces checks on power and narrows the public discourse. Gerrymandering, changing election laws, and limiting opposition access to media or funding are common tactics. Even if voting itself is not rigged, the entire process leading up to it is skewed.

So when you say "in any free election, Orban or Erdogan have no chance" you're implying the elections are genuinely free and competitive. They are not. These leaders win not because they represent the will of a fully informed and free electorate, but because they control the information environment, the rules, and institutions that should hold them in check. That’s not democracy, it’s authoritarianism dressed in democratic clothing.

Post reply on HN