# If Donald Trump is so awful, then... **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 27, 2017, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966 "2017-02-27T19:05:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/161 "2017-03-08T19:39:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but the portion of the article you quoted is in reference to NOAA’s polar-orbiting satellites, not the geostationary GEOS-R program that I was talking about. You’re contending that these paragraphs about GEOS-R are not about GEOS-R? Or are you just unhappy that the article didn’t have more to say about it? “I complained about the poor service at the restaurant, but the amount of complaining I did paled in comparison to the amount of time I talked about other things, so it couldn’t have been that bad.” > [@](#): > > GAO also warned of potential gaps in coverage if NOAA geostationary spacecraft fail before their successors can take over. To ensure that its geostationary satellites continually provide imagery for weather forecasts, NOAA maintains two spacecraft and one spare in orbit. The oldest satellite in NOAA’s current geostationary fleet, GOES-13, is expected to provide data until April 2015, according to GAO. The first satellite in the next-generation GOES-R constellation is scheduled to launch in October 2015. Program managers said, however, there is only a 48 percent chance the first GOES-R satellite will launch on schedule, according to GAO. After launch, NOAA plans to spend six months preparing the new satellite for its operational role. > > “As a result, there could be a year or more during which time a backup satellite would not be available,” which could pose problems if one of the operational GOES satellites experiences technical problems, the GAO report said. ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/162 "2017-03-08T19:43:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m not ready to call his assertion a myth. For example, my office had some funds at the end of the year that were in the “use or lose” category. We bought new computers for the first time in probably like six years (bye bye, Windows Vista!), and replaced monitors that were much older. Taking care of some long-term but not urgent needs when you can is a not the same as buying a bunch of stuff you don’t need to protect your budget level (and in this case, for security and maintenance, you were approaching urgent I’d say). ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/163 "2017-03-08T19:46:08Z")
> [@squidfood](#): > > But, you said that you yourself would approve of a 30% cut in NOAA. We’ve noted that the standard talking line of “every agency can take a haircut because waste, fraud, and abuse” is pretty much a myth, so you are in fact advocating some kind of capacity reduction - hence it would be interesting to hear what you would do without. I’ve got to run for now, but you seem to be genuinely interested in this question, so I’ll try to look over their budget and get you an answer later (probably tonight). > [@squidfood](#): > > And if you think NOAA should take the cut “just because”, then why NOAA? (and if it’s because of general fiscal responsibility throughout the government, it’s clear from the memo reporting that this is to get funds to the Military or the Wall, no net fiscal responsibility is implied by the administration). I agree that this administration is unlikely to make balancing the budget / fiscal responsibility a major point of emphasis, at least from what I’ve seen from the proposals. If they are at least seeking offsetting cuts, that’s even better than I thought they’d do, so it’s a small victory in my eyes. As for “why NOAA?”, it’s not any particular animus to the NOAA specifically, but a broader desire to see fiscal responsibility from Washington. That would necessitate budget reductions to a whole slew of government programs, including, but not exclusively, the NOAA. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/164 "2017-03-08T19:48:27Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > . Let them rank their programs from most-critical to least, and cut the last one on the list. If you’re still above your budget, cut the next one. Keep going until you’ve met your new budget. By the way, do you see the fallacy with this thinking? For example, what if I asked you to rank your limbs from most to least important? Just because your left arm may be the least important of your limbs, doesn’t mean that it is superfluous. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/165 "2017-03-08T19:49:50Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > What about the Amorites? It always comes back to Syria: > [@](#): > > The Amorites (/ˈæməˌraɪts/; Sumerian ������������ MAR.TU; Akkadian Tidnum or Amurrūm; Egyptian Amar; Hebrew אמורי ʼĔmōrī; Ancient Greek: Ἀμορραῖοι) were an ancient Semitic-speaking people from Syria (Wikipedia) > [@squidfood](#): > > … It’s also a mistake to summarize a top-line agency budget by the final drop amount (17%) and say “hey, everyone can take a haircut, no biggie.” Because there are substantial fixed costs, so this really is “keep program A 100%, but cut program B 100%”. In the NOAA case, you need to look at the specifics: are you happy cutting the next generation weather satellite? How about university funding for the next generation of weather models (we’re already way behind the Europeans). … It’s amazing how _consistently_ conservatives express their contentment with seeing the USA fall behind the rest of the world in technology. ---
**Author:** ![Beren\_Erchamion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90ced4/32.png) [@Beren\_Erchamion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beren_Erchamion)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/166 "2017-03-08T20:01:44Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > It always comes back to Syria: > > (Wikipedia) > > It’s amazing how _consistently_ conservatives express their contentment with seeing the USA fall behind the rest of the world in technology. Because conservatives hate America and want to destroy it. The right wing is nothing more than a gigantic fifth column. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/167 "2017-03-08T20:03:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m not ready to call his assertion a myth. For example, my office had some funds at the end of the year that were in the “use or lose” category. We bought new computers for the first time in probably like six years (bye bye, Windows Vista!), and replaced monitors that were much older. > > Meanwhile, we all know how lean and mean all private business spending is. Those golf club memberships are very important for senior executives. But such things might be a small fraction of the overall budget. I can see computers being among those items that would get bought at the end of the FY. It seems the myth is that most of the agency budget is spent that way. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/168 "2017-03-08T20:11:38Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Trump defenders HAVE to believe that she had no policies. Trump is manifestly terrible, so Hillary must have been worse–and part of being worse is ‘having no policies.’ I’m not a Trump supporter. I’m not even an American. I’m not entitled to vote in American elections. That’s why I voted for Hillary! Joke. All that I know about the American election is what I have failed to avoid in the media and on the internet. From that I know the aforementioned policies that Trump had, and that his catchphrases were all about things he wanted to do. Buildng the wall, and so forth. Clinton, on the other hand, I heard only about her, not her policies. Maybe she had some, but no-one talked about them so she must have failed to communicate them. I heard she was responsible and experienced, and not Donald Trump, that it was her turn, that people were with her, and that “one of my merits is that I’m a woman”. So maybe people just voted for Trump because they’re idiots or monsters or because people who voted for Obama suddenly became racist. Or, alternatively, maybe they just thought that a man who looks like he enjoys the smell of his own farts was less self-obsessed than the “I’m with her” brigade, ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/169 "2017-03-08T20:15:03Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > It’s amazing how _consistently_ conservatives express their contentment with seeing the USA fall behind the rest of the world in technology. To be fair, this is a place where shining a light on NOAA would be useful: according to this [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/magazine/why-isnt-the-us-better-at-predicting-extreme-weather.html) (pre-election story), the National Weather Service may be overdue for reforms, as an example of savings, the air force is paying $100K to Britain’s forecasters (peanuts, but it’s the principle) to get better forecasts than the U.S. provides. Unfortunately, the small amount we know about the proposed Trump cuts seems to hit the researchers actually trying to improve things… ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/170 "2017-03-08T20:32:59Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I agree that this administration is unlikely to make balancing the budget / fiscal responsibility a major point of emphasis, at least from what I’ve seen from the proposals. If they are at least seeking offsetting cuts, that’s even better than I thought they’d do, so it’s a small victory in my eyes. As for “why NOAA?”, it’s not any particular animus to the NOAA specifically, but a broader desire to see fiscal responsibility from Washington. That would necessitate budget reductions to a whole slew of government programs, including, but not exclusively, the NOAA. Though I am genuinely interested, don’t feel obliged to go through it in detail unless you would enjoy it :), it helps to understand that you’re coming from the general fiscal responsibility angle applied across the government - there are many places I would cut myself, but I’m a strong supporter of expanded science. For me then, it’s opposite of a small victory: I could grudgingly tolerate science cuts in the name of fiscal responsibility and knowing the debt burden would be lower, but knowing that we’re losing both the science and the savings to terrible projects that _I_ would cut makes it that much worse. Also: I think the offsetting is a specific political calculation; my understanding of the standing sequestration is that budget-neutral shifts only need 51 votes to pass the Senate, while actual increases (for military) would need to hit 60. Could be wrong about that. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/171 "2017-03-08T21:06:49Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > But such things might be a small fraction of the overall budget. I can see computers being among those items that would get bought at the end of the FY. It seems the myth is that most of the agency budget is spent that way. I completely and totally agree. Besides, even the most basic fiscal oversight would catch that an agency was expending large amounts in the last few weeks of a fiscal year. Generally obligational data (at least at the Federal level) can be tracked on an ongoing manner throughout the year, not just at the end of the year. If an agency CFO finds that, say, 15% of a bureau’s budget was spent in the last month of a fiscal year, the CFO will be inclined to ask questions, probably leading to that 15% of the bureau’s budget being moved elsewhere in the next year for things more important than stocking up on water and printer paper. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/172 "2017-03-08T22:46:13Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I completely and totally agree. > > Besides, even the most basic fiscal oversight would catch that an agency was expending large amounts in the last few weeks of a fiscal year. Generally obligational data (at least at the Federal level) can be tracked on an ongoing manner throughout the year, not just at the end of the year. If an agency CFO finds that, say, 15% of a bureau’s budget was spent in the last month of a fiscal year, the CFO will be inclined to ask questions, probably leading to that 15% of the bureau’s budget being moved elsewhere in the next year for things more important than stocking up on water and printer paper. Once again, while individual departments like IT or Facilities Management might do something like this from time to time, it’s entirely unlikely that an entire agency like the State Dept would run out and spend millions of dollars on office supplies or redecorating the consulates. The money is almost always fully allocated to the various departments within the agency once the budget is approved for the FY. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/173 "2017-03-09T00:55:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You’re contending that these paragraphs about GEOS-R are not about GEOS-R? My contention was that the portion of the article you quoted in #154 is not talking about GEOS-R or the GEOS constellation at all. That’s why my post said “the portion of the article you quoted”. You appear to have acknowledged I was correct by quoting a different section of the article in #161. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/174 "2017-03-09T01:04:44Z")
> [@squidfood](#): > > Though I am genuinely interested, don’t feel obliged to go through it in detail unless you would enjoy it :), it helps to understand that you’re coming from the general fiscal responsibility angle applied across the government - there are many places I would cut myself, but I’m a strong supporter of expanded science. For me then, it’s opposite of a small victory: I could grudgingly tolerate science cuts in the name of fiscal responsibility and knowing the debt burden would be lower, but knowing that we’re losing both the science and the savings to terrible projects that _I_ would cut makes it that much worse. > > Also: I think the offsetting is a specific political calculation; my understanding of the standing sequestration is that budget-neutral shifts only need 51 votes to pass the Senate, while actual increases (for military) would need to hit 60. Could be wrong about that. Thanks, I’ll probably skip the deep dive on the NOAA budget then, at least for now. And I don’t begrudge anyone having different budgetary priorities than me. There are probably some artists out there that feel like the NEA is a critical expense and should be protected from cuts, and some scientists out there that feel the same about NOAA, and some soldiers that feel the same about the DoD. Same with old folks and Social Security / Medicare and poor folks and Medicaid, etc. Everyone’s got their own priorities. And you are probably right that the offsettings cuts are primarily a result of political calculations and not some deeply-held Trump belief in the importance of fiscal responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/175 "2017-03-09T01:54:12Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I agree that this administration is unlikely to make balancing the budget / fiscal responsibility a major point of emphasis, at least from what I’ve seen from the proposals. If they are at least seeking offsetting cuts, that’s even better than I thought they’d do, so it’s a small victory in my eyes. As for “why NOAA?”, it’s not any particular animus to the NOAA specifically, but a broader desire to see fiscal responsibility from Washington. That would necessitate budget reductions to a whole slew of government programs, including, but not exclusively, the NOAA. I’d like to make a general comment on this, if I may, which I hope can be viewed not as a digression but as placing the issue in an appropriately larger context. The idea of reducing government “waste” sounds very laudable but it’s a lot like the objective of “reducing taxes”. Who wants higher taxes? No one. But in both cases it’s a question of how one allocates spending priorities and their results, and those priorities are dictated by the beliefs and values of any given administration and Congressional balance of power. Here’s an illustrative quote from _The Innovators_, by Walter Isaacson, the author of the acclaimed Steve Jobs biography: President Eisenhower liked scientists. Their culture and their mode of thinking, their ability to be nonideological and rational, appealed to him. “Love of liberty means the guarding of every resource that makes freedom possible—from the sanctity of our families and the wealth of our soil to the genius of our scientists,” he had proclaimed in his first inaugural address. He threw White House dinners for scientists, the way that the Kennedys would do for artists, and gathered many around him in advisory roles. Sputnik gave Eisenhower the opportunity to formalize his embrace. Less than two weeks after it was launched, he gathered fifteen top science advisors who had worked with the Office of Defense Mobilization and asked them, his aide Sherman Adams recalled, “to tell him where scientific research belonged in the structure of the federal government.” He then met for breakfast with James Killian, the president of MIT, and appointed him to be his full-time science advisor. Together with the defense secretary, Killian worked out a plan, announced in January 1958, to put the Advanced Research Projects Agency in the Pentagon. This then appears a few pages later: A network funded and imposed by ARPA could permit research centers to share computing resources, collaborate on projects, and allow Taylor to jettison two of his office terminals. “Great idea,” Herzfeld said. “Get it going. How much money do you need?” Taylor allowed that it might take a million dollars just to get the project organized. “You got it,” Herzfeld said. As he headed back to his office, Taylor looked at his watch. “Jesus Christ,” he murmured to himself. “That only took twenty minutes.” The project they were talking about, of course, was the fledgling ARPAnet. Today we know it as the Internet. The question we all need to ask ourselves is whether any shred of this forward-thinking science culture that we saw in the Eisenhower era (and in the Obama era, which doubled NSF science funding after Bush) exists either in the Trump White House, dominated apparently by xenophobes and white supremacists, or in the Republican Congress, dominated by tax-cutting plutocrats, climate change deniers, and sycophants to the wealthy. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/176 "2017-03-09T03:17:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > My contention was that the portion of the article you quoted in #154 is not talking about GEOS-R or the GEOS constellation at all. That’s why my post said “the portion of the article you quoted”. You appear to have acknowledged I was correct by quoting a different section of the article in #161. I quoted the lede of the article in my first post. Are you now acknowledging I am correct that GAO said that the GOES was in trouble, after you questioned whether anyone at all cared if GOES was in trouble? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/177 "2017-03-09T10:21:55Z")
I’ll kill two birds with one stone. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > FWIW, it looks like the figure being tossed around is actually 17% of NOAA’s budget (at least that’s what WaPo and USA Today said), but I wouldn’t mind a 30% cut. Since I introduced the “30%” figure, I’ll emphasize the context to fight this petty ignorance: > [@septimus](#): > > NOAA is being asked to sell off some of the land where its facilities are housed. Scientists will be laid off. _ **Research associated with climate change** _, already operating with bare-bones post-sequester funding, _ **will be slashed another 30% or so.** _ Many NOAA programs, e.g. Sea Grant, will be eliminated entirely. > > The GOP is trying to do as much damage as it can as quickly as it can. How can Americans not be overwhelmed by gloom and grief? And this is a key point. Bannon and Ryan are _ **telling NOAA which programs to cut.** _ > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Like I said, my preference would be to let the NOAA decide where it can’t afford to cut and where it can. So … you’re not on the same page as other Bannon-Ryanists? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/178 "2017-03-09T15:15:02Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > So … you’re not on the same page as other Bannon-Ryanists? Yes, it’s not the way I’d do it. It’s also not a top concern of mine. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/179 "2017-03-09T17:13:14Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Yes, it’s not the way I’d do it. It’s also not a top concern of mine. 😕 :smack: 😕 The _entire_ NOAA budget is about $5 billion; slashing that 30% is barely enough to buy each American a BigMac. _The whole point_ of slashing NOAA’s budget is for the _anti-science agenda_, specifically to suppress information about climate change. The fact that you want to slash the NOAA budget but _don’t care what’s slashed_ makes me think your thinking is neither here nor there. 😕 The financial savings is insignificant. You aren’t eager to follow the anti-science agenda. Why then are you so eager to cut the NOAA budget? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966/180 "2017-03-09T17:17:04Z")
Because if today you let Big Government take over the weather, tomorrow it might be something important. Like guns. Connect the dot, people! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-donald-trump-is-so-awful-then/780966.md?page=10)