• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

TellyKNeasuss said:
What would your company have to do to cut out 25 percent of its overhead expenditures?

I'm not totally sure on what falls under "overhead" expenses. I was always under the impression that my employers could only bill the govt. for hours that I actually worked, so that vacation and holiday pay, and any pay that employees received when govt. offices were closed due to weather conditions were "overhead", but perhaps that is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Partly true.

They likely bill for your hours...or rather an hourly rate. But that hourly rate is probably not simply the amount you get paid per hour. It may also include the vacation/sick leave you accrue during that time as well as your benefits or other forms of compensation. Holidays, being paid time off, may factor into the rate. Some definitions consider these as "indirect costs." Likely, other indirect costs are built into that rate as well. If you work for a private entity, these rates would also include a profit margin. Profit and the ability to pay for rent, utilities, and support staff have to come from somewhere.

By limiting indirect costs, what Trump/Musk is really suggesting is that research organizations subsidize a portion of federal research, which may or may not be legal depending on the entity and state laws that govern them. It's certainly not going to happen in a private for profit entity unless there is some way to monetize the results. Because capitalism.
 
theprestige said:
OK?
Click to expand...
The NIH funding is the major funding for many universities and med schools. It is not a trivial matter. The drug industry is separate. They will still continue funding drug trials. They pay the hospitals to do it. But much fundamental work goes on at univeristies. Trump is disrupting the entire research community. I took part in many many science meetings where we met the academics. This is not a competition, it is cooperation. I had a few papers with an MIT professor. Her papers, I just wrote some experimental parts.
 
Last edited:
Trump has already sent mercs into Gaza to guard checkpoints - I'm sure it will be cheap for the taxpayers to send in a couple hundred thousand more.
 
theprestige said:
USAID isn't the only source of funding for such things. And
Tero's argument was specifically about cancer researchers needing jobs. He could have made an argument about how USAID funding was a vital element in global cancer reserch, but he didn't. He made an argument about how cancer researchers need to pay the bills.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean NIH, not USAID. It's NIH that placed the limit on rate.

Also, following the trail back to Tero's post, the highlighted is incorrect.
His post was about researchers needing facilities to conduct their research in and utilities for the buildings.

Of course, cancer research can't happen without researchers, so I suppose cancer research is a jobs program for researchers in the same way that factories are a jobs program for workers and banks jobs programs for bankers and bridges and jobs programs for engineers.
 
Tero said:
The NIH funding is the major funding for many universities and med schools. It is not a trivial matter. The drug industry is separate. They will still continue funding drug trials. They pay the hospitals to do it. But much fundamental work goes on at univeristies. Trump is disrupting the entire research community. I took part in many many science meetings where we met the academics. This is not a competition, it is cooperation. I had a few papers with an MIT professor. Her papers, I just wrote some experimental parts.
Click to expand...

TomB said:
I assume you mean NIH, not USAID. It's NIH that placed the limit on rate.

Also, following the trail back to Tero's post, the highlighted is incorrect.
His post was about researchers needing facilities to conduct their research in and utilities for the buildings.

Of course, cancer research can't happen without researchers, so I suppose cancer research is a jobs program for researchers in the same way that factories are a jobs program for workers and banks jobs programs for bankers and bridges and jobs programs for engineers.
Click to expand...
You guys are right, and I was wrong. I jumped to conclusions, said some really stupid stuff, and made a complete fool of myself. Tero, I'm sorry.
 
I guess the cutting of cancer research makes sence. a LOT of cancer research is done using HeLa cells.
She was a 'gasp' black woman.
If that isn't DEI, I don't know what is.

I guess we will have to wait until Elon, Trump or Vance develop a lethal tumor so cancer research can be done on cells not discriminating white men.
 
Ron Obvious said:
I don't know what else to call your line argument, frankly. I suspect you're either trolling or otherwise suffering from cognitive dissonance: trans people are oppressed victims and must be indulged, reality be damned.

Your video is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It's my video, and I think it's relevant. It points out that the stereotypical beliefs about what men and women are capable of, what activities they *ought" to engage in (like being barefoot and in the kitchen) are a thing of the ancient past--but that thing is what Trumpism wants to bring back, it wants to designate "proper" roles for women and men in. both sports and society as a whole. It is not about "indulging" trans people, it is about respecting *all* people. "Reality" is important, and how trans and intersex and others are treated in athletic competitions is an important scientific and societal issue. Unfortunately we have lunatics in government who want to politicize it into THEIR issue, for their own political gain. And note, I personally think this can be shameful on both sides of the aisle. But Trump wants to redefine reality ("alternative facts") purely to indulge his own pathological insecurities. He is a poor candidate to be addressing something that affects anyone other than his own obvious need for therapy.
 
Stupid question about pennies (cause I'm too lazy to research it): How does this affect pricing? What happens to $1.99? Does it suddenly have to become $1.95? If so, you would think that would lower prices by 4 pennies...which probably would not be popular with merchants. ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom