| ▲ | bko 16 hours ago |
| > Rather, people doubt that they would belong to the over-policed parties I don't think the people recording regular police interactions and refusing police instructions when stopped ever had any doubt about being over-policed. > NSF funding from my relatives: "yes, funding has been illegally cut,..." How is a cut illegal? Does any additional dollar in funding have to persist for all of eternity. For reference: | FY | NSF appropriation | | 1952 | $4M | | 1960 | $153M | | 1970 | $440M | | 1980 | $992M | | 1990 | $2.08B | | 2000 | $3.91B | | 2010 | $6.87B | | 2020 | $8.21B | | 2024 | $9.06B | | 2025 | $9.06B | | 2026 | $8.75B | |
|
| ▲ | mullingitover 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > How is a cut illegal? If the Office of Management and Budget follows a president's order to cut NSF funds and they violate the Anti-Deficiency Act, it's literally a crime. If the president orders the violation in order to achieve some political outcome, that's also bribery and extortion. In this mafia regime it's a case of 'throw it on the pile,' but it doesn't change the fact that this stuff is wildly illegal. The president's job is to be the dumb unthinking agent of Congress and to execute the laws they pass on behalf of the people. Budgets are laws. |
| |
| ▲ | Supermancho 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The president's job is to be the dumb unthinking agent of Congress Execution will never be as simple as the textual content of a bill, so I'm not sure 'mindless' is a useful term. While the POTUS is expected to be a bureaucrat, functionally and conceptually that is only one aspect of their responsibilities. Military oversight and diplomatic coordination as head of state, comes to mind. | | |
| ▲ | mullingitover 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm oversimplifying, but when it comes to the budget I'm pretty accurate: the president can't just decide they won't spend the money because they don't like where it's going or who it's going to. They certainly can't extort the lawful recipients of the money. | | |
| ▲ | blooalien 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm not 100% sure about your usage of the word "can't" since it's been actively happening. Maybe "shouldn't" might apply better to the reality of the world we now find ourselves living in. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ipython 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you feel there should be cuts to nsf, then congress should do so (as enshrined by law). Not executive fiat by the president. Per the constitution the congress has the power of the purse. |
| |
| ▲ | blooalien 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > If you feel there should be cuts to nsf, then congress should do so (as enshrined by law). Not executive fiat by the president. Per the constitution the congress has the power of the purse. Yes, exactly, and if someone don't like what the Constitution says, then you either do the proper patriotic thing and gather enough folks who agree with you to change or amend it, or you (as the MAGA loons are so fond of telling folks) move to a different country with rules you can agree with. Sadly, that's not the world we now live in. We've let psychotic narcissists overun our government to a dangerous degree, making it near impossible to change those things that need changed, because they have all the money, power, and weapons, and they're not afraid to use them against "We The People". At this rate, I half-expect I'll see Trump out on 5th Avenue one day soon, testing his theory about him shooting someone without consequence. |
|
|
| ▲ | odo1242 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Government funding must be approved by Congress. If Congress already approved funding the NSF, then it has to be Congress that removes the funding. |
| |
| ▲ | bko 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | GymInMeCricket 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Appologies, but I don't see how this supports your point. It actually seems to support the claim that the reduction in NSF awards is illegal because it states that the request was explicitly rejected by Congress | | | |
| ▲ | oh_my_goodness 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Your link confirms that the cuts are illegal. | | |
| ▲ | bko 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wrong again. Read it, feed it to your LLM, but you're wrong. | | |
| ▲ | GymInMeCricket 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Your pasted quote explicitly says that Congress did not allow the cuts. I do not know what point you are trying to make. For good measure, I pasted it into Gemini as you requested, and this is what it said: > Me: Does this say that the president is allowed to prevent distribution of funds from NSF without congressional approval: https://www.aip.org/fyi/trump-proposes-deep-research-cuts-ne... > > Gemini: No, it does not. [etc.] | | |
| ▲ | bko 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Lets me help you since you seem confused, i put the parts you should pay close attention to > > The request PROPOSES $4 billion for NSF, a 54% cut from the fiscal year 2026 enacted level. The amount echoes last year’s proposal of $3.9 billion, which Congress soundly rejected, FUNDING THE AGENCY at $8.75 billion. The current FUNDING is $8.75b, not the $4b he PROPOSED. Here's the wikipedia. Hope this helps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation | | |
| ▲ | GymInMeCricket 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your statement is irrelevant to the fact that, on the executive branch's insistence, NSF has distributed far fewer funds this year (approximately 30%) than were required by Congress. We know and have repeatedly stated that the amount of money that Congress ALLOCATED TO the NSF has not changed. It is the amount of money DISTRIBUTED BY NSF that has been restricted. I don't know why you insist that allocations and disperment are the same thing. Repetition does not make it so. If you wish to present convincing evidence for your position, you must provide evidence that DISPERSEMENTS FROM the NSF have not changed. Otherwise, I see no point in continuing this circular conversation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | bdangubic 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | file this under definition of self-own in Webster’s :) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | GymInMeCricket 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My understanding is that congress chooses how much money should be distributed to each organization (e.g. NSF) each year, and preventing that money from being distributed is not legal. If I understand correctly, your table is of appropriation from Congress, not distribution[1]. I am open to being corrected if I am wrong. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02574-6 |
|
| ▲ | oh_my_goodness 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Cuts must come from congress. Read Constitution. |
|
| ▲ | Forgeties79 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The cuts can be illegal if one doesn’t have the authority to cut it and/or violates the procedures required. |
| |
| ▲ | bko 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You're trying to back into a position that you read in some article and trying to come off as just an impartial judge who cares about procedure and rule of law. Excuse me? I was answering the question, I didn’t say anything beyond that. Ease off the gas. Also, based on your other comment chain it looks like Congress did not approve it. But I don’t know enough about the specific cut to say either way. You came in here with a clear ax to grind and decided I was going to be your target. Don’t project your anger at some caricature on to me. Take a beat. |
|
|
