> That’s not a post–hoc justification, that’s avoiding bankruptcy.
Let's be clear. Cutting NSF, NIH, and higher education funding has nothing to do with bankruptcy and everything to do with the gutting and dumbing down of the US with some retribution sprinkled in. In fact, these types of cuts will likely lead to increase costs in the medium/long term as the population ages with worse preventative medicine.
If avoiding bankruptcy was really the goal as you say, Trump would not be proposing to increase defense spending by 13% and further cutting taxes. So just stop with this bankrupt the country angle because it's BS.
And lets also go ahead and use some real numbers. The increase in defense spending is ~113B to over 1T while the cuts to NIH/NSF have totaled ~23B. In 2024 the total NSF/NIH budget was ~60B.
Forgive me, I was obviously not clear enough. knowaveragejoe said that my reasons for cutting this funding were a post–hoc rationalization. I tried to clarify that because our debt has been growing faster than our economy for a while now, _I_ am willing to put luxuries and subsidies on the chopping block. I don't know Trump’s motivations, or Congress’s. They are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Personally I have no problem with Trump withdrawing funding from institutions that clearly, by their own actions and words, support antisemitism. I’d prefer he went further though.
Except NIH/NSF are not luxuries. They're investments with positives returns. If the goal is to address the debt, they are the wrong things to cut. First they are relatively small and second they generate positive economic output. In fact, the government should be adding investment into NIH/NSF.
That’s just the broken window fallacy writ large. The positive economic output of the research is counterbalanced by the negative economic output of the taxes paid. There are certainly worse things to spend tax money on, since there are things that generate no economic output at all, but that alone doesn’t justify it.
The fact is that taxpayer–funded medical research is just a subsidy for the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical companies rake in billions in income from their successful products and don’t really need any subsidies.
And you’re right, the NIH is relatively small. A back of the envelope calculation suggests that ending the NIH entirely would raise the cost of developing medicines by less than 10%. There’s no way that’s a crisis. That’s just a slightly different way of doing business.
Let's be clear. Cutting NSF, NIH, and higher education funding has nothing to do with bankruptcy and everything to do with the gutting and dumbing down of the US with some retribution sprinkled in. In fact, these types of cuts will likely lead to increase costs in the medium/long term as the population ages with worse preventative medicine.
If avoiding bankruptcy was really the goal as you say, Trump would not be proposing to increase defense spending by 13% and further cutting taxes. So just stop with this bankrupt the country angle because it's BS.
And lets also go ahead and use some real numbers. The increase in defense spending is ~113B to over 1T while the cuts to NIH/NSF have totaled ~23B. In 2024 the total NSF/NIH budget was ~60B.