Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 618K
  • Politics 
Some unconnected thoughts:

1) This is part of the ongoing class warfare in which the administration is directly targeting the jobs of the "elite" in government and academia.

2) The fact that they are optimizing around medical research rather than say, space exploration, speaks volumes. Every time they have a chance to invest in people, they pass.

3) Reform on indirect costs is needed, but the current "move fast and break things" approach is going to kill people. It will shut down clinical trials that desperately sick people are relying on. Next fall's flu vaccine development is already in jeopardy.

4) Universities need to step up and apply their endowments against the shortfall. If they don't, that says as much about the schools as it does the current government.
 
korgguy1971 said:
And there it is.

No surprise at all to be sure, but it would seem we have yet another MAGA troll not interested in a good-faith discussion.
Click to expand...
Not a 100% sure he's MAGA. Definitely a troll, though. Also, I make it about that same 100% that he'll never show up with a reputable source or likely any source for what he's spewing.
 
Last edited:
Silence Dogood said:
You consume way too much left wing propaganda!! No wonder left wing media is failing at epic proportions!
Click to expand...
Facts are facts. They don't belong to any political persuasion.
They are not "right" or "left". They are not "liberal" or "conservative".
They are not Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green Party or MAGA.
Opinions are not facts. Entertainment is not facts. Using buzzwords like "left wing media" and "left wing propaganda" only indicates bias.
It has no bearing on what is factual and what is not.
 
Silence Dogood said:
You're missing the point. FEMAs job isn't to send money to luxury hotels.
Click to expand...
Actually, FEMA is authorized and directed by law to provide emergency housing assistance to certain migrants while their cases are being handled:

“The Shelter and Services Program (SSP), as directed by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, is administered by FEMA in partnership with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In Fiscal Year 2024, Congress appropriated $650,000,000 for SSP. SSP provides financial support to non-federal entities to provide sheltering and related activities to noncitizen migrants following their release from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The intent is to support CBP in the safe, orderly, and humane release of noncitizen migrants from short-term holding facilities.”

www.fema.gov

Shelter and Services Program | FEMA.gov

The Shelter and Services Program (SSP) is funded through U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and administered by FEMA, as directed by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.
www.fema.gov www.fema.gov

This funds were separately authorized and are different than the much much larger pot of hundreds of billions of funds and authorizations for disaster relief also administered by FEMA.

People in some remote areas use tent shelters because there are no available brick and mortar shelters due to hurricane damage and simple lack of motels or any other structures in remote mountain areas. Migrants in cities are placed in empty hotel space because that is what is available in a dense urban area.

When motels were available, FEMA provided them in NC:

“…
The temporary housing is provided through FEMA's Transitional Sheltering Assistance program, which covers the cost of short-term accommodations at local hotels and motels for those who have been displaced.

As of January 6, more than 5,600 households were staying in hotel or motel rooms paid for by FEMA, local news station ABC 13 reported.

But the agency has stated that nearly 3,500 households have been deemed 'no longer eligible' for for the program, either because an inspection had indicated their homes were now habitable, they declined an inspection, or FEMA has been unable to contact them to update their housing needs. …”

www.dailymail.co.uk

Winter storm hits Americans living in tents after hurricane season

A winter storm is barreling through the US, slamming into a state where people are 'still living in tents' after the hurricane season. Twenty states, from Texas to Delaware, were on alert Friday for snow.
www.dailymail.co.uk

And FEMA deadlines in NC keep getting extended as needed.

“…
Governor Josh Stein released the following statement regarding FEMA’s decision to extend its Transitional Sheltering Assistance (TSA) program for two months, through May 26, 2025:

“Today’s decision will help eligible disaster survivors stay safe and sheltered as we continue the hard work of rebuilding in western North Carolina. FEMA’s decision to extend the Transitional Sheltering Assistance Program for two months is a positive step forward and frees eligible disaster survivors from worrying about being kicked out of the program in March. I pledge to work with the new administration to find solutions and resources that will best serve disaster survivors in North Carolina. …”

Governor Stein On FEMA Extending Temporary Housing Program

Governor Josh Stein released the following statement regarding FEMA’s decision to extend its Transitional Sheltering Assistance (TSA) program for two months, through May 26, 2025:
governor.nc.gov governor.nc.gov

No one is staying in a luxury hotel in Swananoa NC b/c there is no luxury hotel there and even if there had been it probably would have been severely damaged or destroyed like virtually every other structure there.

As for whether FEMA is using “luxury” hotels for migrants in NYC, let’s see some evidence. If they are and there is a luxury premium being paid over what other available space costs, then definitely change that.
 
Huh? said:
Some unconnected thoughts:

1) This is part of the ongoing class warfare in which the administration is directly targeting the jobs of the "elite" in government and academia.

2) The fact that they are optimizing around medical research rather than say, space exploration, speaks volumes. Every time they have a chance to invest in people, they pass.

3) Reform on indirect costs is needed, but the current "move fast and break things" approach is going to kill people. It will shut down clinical trials that desperately sick people are relying on. Next fall's flu vaccine development is already in jeopardy.

4) Universities need to step up and apply their endowments against the shortfall. If they don't, that says as much about the schools as it does the current government.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with points #1-3 that you made, but in regard to #4, a lot of people have misconceptions about university endowments. (Apologies if what I'm about to write is something you already know. I'm definitely not intending to seem like I'm patronizing or talking down to you! This is just a very rare area in which I happen to have a little bit of expertise.)

University endowments should be thought of like giant mutual funds, not a big slush fund or checking account of sorts that schools can draw from whenever they want for whatever they want. The "endowment" at any major college or university is comprised of thousands upon thousands of small, individual endowments that are then pooled together in one larger endowment fund and invested for both growth and preservation. Let's take UNC, for example. UNC's overall endowment size is about $5 billion. Of that $5 billion, something like 85% of those funds are considered "restricted" meaning that they can only be used for very specific purposes. The 85% of endowment funds that are considered restricted are usually within smaller, individual endowed funds for specific scholarships, professorships, graduate student fellowships, research projects, capital projects, etc. Each of these smaller endowed funds are created by individual donors who sign individual, legally-binding gift agreements which are essentially contracts between the University and the donor outlining specifically how the funds can and cannot be used. So at UNC, 85% of the $5 billion endowment is already "spoken for" which leaves the remaining ~15% or so to be "unrestricted" funds, meaning that they can be used at the discretion of the Chancellor in consultation with other University leaders, administrators, and trustees.

So even though there are schools with endowment numbers that are eye-popping (take Harvard, for example, with a $55 billion endowment), the overwhelming vast majority of funds within the overall endowment are already spoken for and can't be used or "reallocated" to any other purpose other than what it outlined in the legally-binding gift agreement.
 
I respectfully disagree.

1. If endowments are giant mutual funds, then they should be taxed. They aren't because their purpose is to support their institutions. Our nation's non-profits bank way too much tax-free money - they need to spend more for the common good or lose their tax status.

2. In what world is it appropriate for taxpayers to fund a university's indirect costs but it's inappropriate to use the university's resources for the same? Especially in an instance in which the university's core research mission will be affected so dramatically?

3. I recognize that this required a sea change in how university administrators view their endowments. That's a good thing.
 
Huh? said:
I respectfully disagree.

1. If endowments are giant mutual funds, then they should be taxed. They aren't because their purpose is to support their institutions. Our nation's non-profits bank way too much tax-free money - they need to spend more for the common good or lose their tax status.

2. In what world is it appropriate for taxpayers to fund a university's indirect costs but it's inappropriate to use the university's resources for the same? Especially in an instance in which the university's core research mission will be affected so dramatically?

3. I recognize that this required a sea change in how university administrators view their endowments. That's a good thing.
Click to expand...
1. The option you present is essentially a choice between violating a legally binding agreement with a donor or refusing the gift.
2. Should government funding for other things like emergency aid (food, water, medical supplies) be divided between the functional purpose of the funding and the ancillary costs of executing that purpose (transportation, record keeping, etc)?
 
So you're going to lay off thousands of people while preserving billions in endowment money without any effort to ameliorate the situation?

In that case, the Visigoths are right - the system is broken and needs to be torn down.
 
Over the weekend, Elon sent out a Twit post. He is calling for the impeachment of the Federal judge that put a temporary block on DOGE's unfettered access to Treasury systems.

WTH is going on here? MAGAts truly do not understand the Constitution and the purpose of equal branches of gov. for checks and balances. Or they just don't care.

Aa a former Pub who has watched my party die and resurrect as the weird ignorant populist party, I am certain it is the former for the MAGAt cultists, and the latter for the spineless MAGA politicians.
 
Huh? said:
I respectfully disagree.

1. If endowments are giant mutual funds, then they should be taxed. They aren't because their purpose is to support their institutions. Our nation's non-profits bank way too much tax-free money - they need to spend more for the common good or lose their tax status.

2. In what world is it appropriate for taxpayers to fund a university's indirect costs but it's inappropriate to use the university's resources for the same? Especially in an instance in which the university's core research mission will be affected so dramatically?

3. I recognize that this required a sea change in how university administrators view their endowments. That's a good thing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. Just a note, though, I did not say that university endowments ARE mutual funds, I said that they are similar in that they are comprised of a large number of smaller funds that are pooled and invested. What you are proposing, taxing university endowments or using university endowment funds for purposes for which they were not intended, completely undermines the entire idea of the IRS and government incentivizing private philanthropic investment. If you remove the tax exemption status from universities and other similar entities, you remove enormous tax benefits for a whole lot of people who are able to use their wealth and resources to do a lot of good. Our government does not get much right when it comes to the tax code. Providing tax exemption to universities, public hospitals, and other institutions similar is one of the very best things the government has ever done.
 
Last edited:
The government incentivizes private philanthropic investment in the expectation that those funds will be devoted to the common good. When should that common good be realized? If a university is going to lay off thousands of people on mission-critical research because the government is no longer stepping up, what greater common good is there?

This is an emergent moment. If endowments don't step up, then they have simply become investment vehicles of self-perpetuation.
 
Huh? said:
The government incentivizes private philanthropic investment in the expectation that those funds will be devoted to the common good. When should that common good be realized? If a university is going to lay off thousands of people on mission-critical research because the government is no longer stepping up, what greater common good is there?

This is an emergent moment. If endowments don't step up, then they have simply become investment vehicles of self-perpetuation.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I don’t think you are understanding what we are saying. Those endowment funds are, in fact, supporting mission critical areas that promote the common good. What do you think scholarship programs that enable rural, first generation, low income students are? What do you think professorships that study the spread, prevention, and cure of infectious disease diseases are? Those are prime examples of how endowed funds are used and spent. Again, you are advocating for universities to be forced to break legally binding agreements with donors. As I said before, university endowments are not giant slush fund checking accounts, and those legally binding gift agreements are not just for show.

I understand where you are coming from and I think that you are well intended in your views, and I completely agree with you that we are in an emergent moment. I just disagree- and the government and IRS also happen to disagree – with your proposed solution as being impractical and self defeating.
 
Kraftyheel89 said:
Over the weekend, Elon sent out a Twit post. He is calling for the impeachment of the Federal judge that put a temporary block on DOGE's unfettered access to Treasury systems.

WTH is going on here? MAGAts truly do not understand the Constitution and the purpose of equal branches of gov. for checks and balances. Or they just don't care.

Aa a former Pub who has watched my party die and resurrect as the weird ignorant populist party, I am certain it is the former for the MAGAt cultists, and the latter for the spineless MAGA politicians.
Click to expand...
From one fellow conservative and former Republican to another, I just want to say how awesome it is that you, unlike a handful of other posters on here who scream that they are conservative until they are blue in the face but who are actually anything but, were able to put country and constitution over party.
 
CFordUNC said:
From one fellow conservative and former Republican to another, I just want to say how awesome it is that you, unlike a handful of other posters on here who scream that they are conservative until they are blue in the face but who are actually anything but, were able to put country and constitution over party.
Click to expand...
Yes. There's another upshot to this, which is that the rest of Americans understand who is and who isn't a good faith participant in democracy.

I disagree with Krafty on a lot of things. Ten years ago, it was hard to figure out whether his stance was based on principle or some combination of convenience, reflexive opposition and ignorance. It's much easier now. I mean, I still think some of his positions are not based on firm knowledge, but at least I know there's a principle there.

Which is to say, we can still have discourse with Krafty. I'm a liberal in part because for most of my life, conservatives have mostly taken unserious and misinformed positions on most issues. But not all! Conservatives invented cap and trade, and that was a great policy innovation and it's a good thing that back in the 1980s, there were serious conservatives who had serious ideas and took them seriously.

And sometimes liberals are wrong! The madness in Oregon about drug addiction is an example. But why did Oregon liberals get the opioid issue so wrong? Probably because they aren't in dialogue with conservatives, because conservatives aren't in dialogue with reality. Conservatives were carrying on about mask wearing and false flag school shootings and migrants taking over cities -- that is, they were not serious people to engage with. So when they said, "hey, this idea is going to fail," why should liberals pay attention? When a party is basically all bullshit, all the time, then people rightly stop listening.

This isn't to say that conservatives made liberals screw up in Oregon. Liberals did that. But it might have been avoided had there been two reality-based parties.
 
Huh? said:
I respectfully disagree.

1. If endowments are giant mutual funds, then they should be taxed. They aren't because their purpose is to support their institutions. Our nation's non-profits bank way too much tax-free money - they need to spend more for the common good or lose their tax status.

2. In what world is it appropriate for taxpayers to fund a university's indirect costs but it's inappropriate to use the university's resources for the same? Especially in an instance in which the university's core research mission will be affected so dramatically?

3. I recognize that this required a sea change in how university administrators view their endowments. That's a good thing.
Click to expand...
You need to read CFord's posts more carefully. I can't actually state with confidence that he's correct; I don't know much about this issue. But he's never shown himself to be anything but a good faith poster, and he's not some busy bee with a Cliff Clavin complex. There is absolutely no reason to doubt his sincerity; and since he rarely toots his own horn, I'm willing to believe that he's knowledgeable here.

If we assume that he's correct, then your points here are simply not responsive. They might be right. But they don't address the issue. If a university has a total endowment of $1B, and $750M of that is earmarked for purposes that are not related to research, then the university cannot by law direct more than $250M to making up a shortfall of federal funds. A different set of laws -- those that governs fiduciary responsibilities for trustees -- would probably constrain that $250M considerably more, because trustees generally cannot deplete a fund to cover present expenses. So maybe the university has $50M in flexible funding. Nothing you say can get around that. You can have the best arguments in the world for how that $1B should be used, but it doesn't matter because it can't be used that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top