so that logic makes RFK a good pick? What’s its about one upping each other as nut jobs?
Pause on Federal Grants - MD25-13
- Thread starter xebadir
- Start date
- Status
Wildabeest
Well-known member
I guess we’ve resurrected this thread after a brief pause because the others have all been shut down? 
Nick87
Well-known member
I hope they leave the smoker thread alone.I guess we’ve resurrected this thread after a brief pause because the others have all been shut down?
El Jason
Well-known member
Screwing that one up should = perma ban.I hope they leave the smoker thread alone.
ismith
Well-known member
Hopefully nobody buggers up the 2025 Garden! thread.I guess we’ve resurrected this thread after a brief pause because the others have all been shut down?
WildWill
Well-known member
Surely somethings must remain sacred.I hope they leave the smoker thread alone.
Rainer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2016
- Messages
- 776
With all the cutbacks. Just think of all the Cyber Trucks the Feds can now buy to replace their current vehicles
Well this thread went on an interesting tack.
If anyone thinks that research funding allows researchers to live large or get rich, then I'd love to show you my or pretty much anyone else's pay check - most people are doing it out of passion for the job - as pretty much any trade, UPS driver's or start jobs in the private sector with a BS required make more. Congressmen's pay is 2-3x most university faculty, and if not more for soft-money researchers. Federal grants, at least to the sciences and conservation as I've heard it have audits if you don't make sure to request a damn pencil. And even if you say pencil, they require it to be specified by type before its approved.
Are there things that can be more efficient about granting? Sure. Should we take a look at administrative bloat and overhead? Sure. Should all project foci be funded equally, probably not, and that is a reasonable thing for the administration to look at changing. But the way to address that is through use of the appropriations process and making congress do its job - not by just randomly cutting and causing massive instability, only to reverse position when people go what the heck. The problem with making changes rapidly is the collateral damage can be irreparable to things that were worthwhile. The same is true for personnel changes. The money lost to lawsuits will dwarf any savings, and there is only one group that wins from that arrangement.
If you want to find cost overruns or savings, science and conservation doesn't have the money heck - add all research and conservation funding together over several years and you won't even touch the overrun from F35 development - 10 years late, 80% over its 233 billion dollar budget...
If anyone thinks that research funding allows researchers to live large or get rich, then I'd love to show you my or pretty much anyone else's pay check - most people are doing it out of passion for the job - as pretty much any trade, UPS driver's or start jobs in the private sector with a BS required make more. Congressmen's pay is 2-3x most university faculty, and if not more for soft-money researchers. Federal grants, at least to the sciences and conservation as I've heard it have audits if you don't make sure to request a damn pencil. And even if you say pencil, they require it to be specified by type before its approved.
Are there things that can be more efficient about granting? Sure. Should we take a look at administrative bloat and overhead? Sure. Should all project foci be funded equally, probably not, and that is a reasonable thing for the administration to look at changing. But the way to address that is through use of the appropriations process and making congress do its job - not by just randomly cutting and causing massive instability, only to reverse position when people go what the heck. The problem with making changes rapidly is the collateral damage can be irreparable to things that were worthwhile. The same is true for personnel changes. The money lost to lawsuits will dwarf any savings, and there is only one group that wins from that arrangement.
If you want to find cost overruns or savings, science and conservation doesn't have the money heck - add all research and conservation funding together over several years and you won't even touch the overrun from F35 development - 10 years late, 80% over its 233 billion dollar budget...
Last edited:
Nick87
Well-known member
Just think, about logging onto a hunting forum to talk about politics in a country you don't even live in.
BrentD
Well-known member
As an ex university research, I can tell you that auditing is pretty intense. And, in itself, auditing is VERY inefficient. We spend far more on auditing that we recover in fraud or errors. Spending a dollar to ensure the safety of a dime, is the American way when it comes to managing federal grant dollars. There are other models - for instance, simply a pay for a study rather than pay for a given item. But we cannot do that with federal contracts except in limited exceptions that may not even exist any longer. But that is what you would do in the private sector. Pay me this much and I will perform X for you (and of course the private sector would have already factored in a profit margin before making that bid). Anyway, if you want to save some money, stop paying to have it counted and recounted thousands of times.
And oh yeah, field biology, all if basic and applied, is a drop in a spittoon. Do not think you will balance the budget there. That is laughable.
Elon Musk mulls sending all Americans $5,000 checks using DOGE savings
The proposal would give taxpayers a refund check of $5,000 funded by the savings from Musk's (DOGE) Department of Government Efficiency.
www.forbes.com.au
We can start a HT go fund me for conservation projects with our Doge checks!
Let me be the first to demand a wasteful audit of that account to ensure there’s no waste.
BuzzH
Well-known member
And the bootlickers will lap it up...amazing how little money it takes to buy a soul.Elon Musk mulls sending all Americans $5,000 checks using DOGE savings
The proposal would give taxpayers a refund check of $5,000 funded by the savings from Musk's (DOGE) Department of Government Efficiency.
We can start a HT go fund me for conservation projects with our Doge checks!
Rainer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2016
- Messages
- 776
As a current university researcher, I know your pain. Agree that less auditing would definitely be a start - If I could bill for time taken to complete paperwork, or address audits for a few measly dollars I'd have a fortune.
Yeah, I was surprised how little it took to buy our last prez and his family.
Doesn’t take much these days.
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,888
Fun fact: The earliest known use of the term "bootlicker" is from around 1846–47, in the writing of F. M. Whitcher.
Benfromalbuquerque
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,746
I’m big time into useless shitfacts and thank you! I never knew and now I’m going to whip that out some night watching Jeopardy.
Nick87
Well-known member
Yah, that'll certainly help combat Inflation...Elon Musk mulls sending all Americans $5,000 checks using DOGE savings
The proposal would give taxpayers a refund check of $5,000 funded by the savings from Musk's (DOGE) Department of Government Efficiency.
If someone steals $5k from you and then gives it back, does that cause inflation?
- Status
Similar threads
