Is NASA's science budget heading for a black hole? NASA could be in line for severe cuts to its science budget, with a 50 percent reduction floated by folk in the space industry. The consequences would, according to observers, be nothing less than catastrophic. This comes shortly after the American space agency was told to get ready to lay off 1,000 employees. That threat was …
"Dare mighty things ... as long as we can afford it"
That is a fantastic subheading that makes the serious point for all of government spending. At some point I hope our government realises this too but there are things we need, things we want and the real world limitation of resources (often manpower) to put into these things. We cant do everything it just stretches us too thin and leaves us vulnerable.
Note this isnt a comment about NASA funding specifically. If people dont want the cut I get it. They could offer up their own money instead of expecting tax to do everything, or they can accept that tax money cant go to other frivolities so it can be redirected to NASA (for example).
I think financial education is schools should be a mandatory thing as so few seem to understand such limits.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler Woodhouselee
"to be followed by a dictatorship"
Sadly people mistake the identity of the true dictator. Those constantly bleating on about 'our democracy', funding anti-government actors in other countries, funding the activists and rent-a-mob who are currently smashing up private property... AGAIN....
In the US (and other countries whose debts are denominated in their own sovereign fiat currency, e.g. the UK, Japan etc.), (federal) taxes don't pay for anything, they serve only to remove excess money from the economy. Politicians like to pretend that a government is like a household, but households can't print their own money. The US literally cannot run out of money, spending is a purely political choice. it's only when it exceeds the productive capacity of the economy that you get inflation. Read up on Modern Monetary Theory.
@Uncle Slacky
"taxes don't pay for anything, they serve only to remove excess money from the economy."
Something governments are not very good at hence the inflation. People like freebee but dont like having it confiscated. So the spaffing of cash happens but the taxing is difficult. The deficit being the difference between how much government we want and how much we are willing to pay for.
"The US literally cannot run out of money, spending is a purely political choice. it's only when it exceeds the productive capacity of the economy that you get inflation."
This is where people get confused with money having the value instead of the value money represents. You can run out of money, Zimbabwe managed to print a large denomination note that cost more to print than its value. The UK is struggling as it hits borrowing limits. The US can do the same. The idea it isnt like a household but instead a magic money tree has been the downfall of currencies and economies around the world and we should learn a lesson from that.
The US is running on continuing resolutions instead of actual budgets just to function.
"The idea it isnt like a household but instead a magic money tree has been the downfall of currencies and economies around the world and we should learn a lesson from that."
Some household.
The fun thing is that the USA has run a deficit since 1970
Since 1970, the federal government has run deficits during every fiscal year for all but four years, from 1998 to 2001. Political analysts and economists debate the effect of these cumulative budget shortfalls, but their origins are much less controversial.
How Long Has the U.S. Run Fiscal Deficits?
Moreover, the US saves too little to cover the costs of the trade deficit, government deficits, and investments. That shortage is made up for by foreign investments. The world kends the US the money needed to buy their stuff, run their government, and build their factories. And they lend it in US dollars, which means they will never be repaid as the US will simply print the dollars needed to pay off their debts.
Some household, indeed.
Moreover, the US saves too little to cover the costs of the trade deficit, government deficits, and investments. That shortage is made up for by foreign investments. The world kends the US the money needed to buy their stuff, run their government, and build their factories. And they lend it in US dollars, which means they will never be repaid as the US will simply print the dollars needed to pay off their debts.
That's only the case as long as a country doesn't spook the investors who support the balance of payments deficit, and the lenders who support the government's profligate under-taxing and over-spending. Given the wildly erratic nature of Trumponomics the confidence of those two groups is being rapidly tested. The usual response here would be "ahhh...but, as the dollar is the global reserve currency people will keep pumping money into the US." That sort of thinking led to the British economy having to be bailed out by the IMF in 1976, which I'm just old enough to remember, so this can and does happen to governments of democratic countries if they forget that financial gravity can't be evaded. The next "ahhh...but" is the idea that if nobody will lend to you, then you can print your own currency. That has been tried and failed so many times that hopefully I don't have to provide examples. As a rule it's tinpot regimes that try this - and the US is rapidly becoming a hallmarked grade of tinpot. Maybe the IMF can bail out the world's largest economy? No, if anything Trump's going to pull the plug on US involvement in the IMF.
This leads to the question of who holds the power over US government borrowing costs? That is the people who currently hold US bonds, because if they sell off bonds then US borrowing costs increase. Who holds those bonds? Japan and China are the two biggest holders, and they're already dumping US treasury bills. So long as money launderers hiding money in tax havens continue to buy then that doesn't have a dramatic impact, but that's not a reliable hope. Worth noting that Canada holds a sizeable chunk as well.
Of course, if there is a bond rout and US borrowing costs go up, then what will an unstable orange despot do? He won't just print money, he'll try and raid big corporate cash reserves being held outside the US, perhaps institute exchange controls. All this might seem highly improbable, but any government that's tried to beat wholesale money markets has failed, spectacularly. The British government didn't learn from it's 1976 beating at the hands of the market, and ended up being savaged again in 1992 with losses of over £3bn, albeit trying to defend a chosen exchange rate against market sentiment as part of John Major's dream of joining the Euro.
@AC
"Some household.
The fun thing is that the USA has run a deficit since 1970"
It is also bigger than most households in terms of assets and earning potential but it is still restricted by lenders having confidence it it. Without such confidence the interest repayments rise and as various countries have done throughout history can default. The hope that the government can just print money and get whatever it wants falls over at experience when money becomes worth nothing as it is in huge supply but of little value (or even negative value).
@Uncle Slacky
"Just leaving this here for the downvoters: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/03/18/musk-has-discovered-modern-monetary-theory/"
Is that the place set up with Richard Murphy? That guy Tim Worstall continually mocks for his 'economic ability'? The MMT idea only working if tax was to shoot up to compensate for the vast printing otherwise the value of money tanks just like Zimbabwe, Weimar Republic and anyone else who tried printing their way to prosperity?
The fact is that NASA is one of the most highly respected institutions in the world. Despite the Challenger disaster NASA is still one of the most recognisably trustworthy organisations for science research and space exploration. Let us just hope that whatever budget remains is sufficient to maintain that enviable reputation.
"The fact is that NASA is one of the most highly respected institutions in the world."
But a highly respected federal institution is squarely against the religious dogma of the Republican Party.
That is even worse than affordable health care insurance with universal coverage (I know that is an exaggeration).
"But a highly respected federal institution is squarely against the religious dogma of the Republican Party."
There is no Republican Party any more, other than in name and amongst the addled imaginations of habitual vote-without-thinkers. It is merely a husk that acts as a vehicle for the Orange Felon. Where are GOP's elder statesmen? Where are the competent secretaries of state? Why has nobody been appointed to power unless they are a lightweight selected purely on their servility to Trump.
Much in the same way the British Conservative party was hollowed out by Boris Johnson.
No chance, if the economy is an engine then the military industrial complex is the crankshaft.
The US was dominant on the world tech stage because of it, NASA exists because of it, most of the tech industry too.
If Trump really is on a mission to dismantle it then he's asset stripping the entire US like Gordon Gekko but without the style.
>NASA's budget results in a (last I checked) $13 dollar return to the American economy for every ONE dollar spent.
IIRC the National Parks service in 2023 cost $3.8bn and brought in over $55bn supporting over 400,000 jobs. But that isn't stopping the cuts there either.
(And you can't argue about the money going to the Military Industry Complex either).
"They could offer up their own money instead of expecting tax to do everything"
That way, in a nation ever more impoverished by late-stage capitalism, you get the economy of scale from about 10,000 private donations that is necessary for running a space program. So looking forward to reading your next insight on the economy.
@AC
"That way, in a nation ever more impoverished by late-stage capitalism, you get the economy of scale from about 10,000 private donations that is necessary for running a space program"
The late stage capitalism where more and more government interference increases the damage to the economy? The problem being that the government is bigger than people are willing to pay for (deficit) and owe on the goodies already enjoyed (debt) and we now hear the squeals as government spending is trying to be brought under control.
The joy of people funding instead of tax being confiscated and government spending it is you see what people actually care about and prioritise. NASA could really be one of those things. Funding the covid labs could be one of those things. Funding help for migrants trying to illegally cross the border could be one of those things. But to government that and more must be spent upon and in increasing budgets.
“At some point I hope our government realises this too but there are things we need, things we want and the real world limitation of resources (often manpower) to put into these things. We cant do everything it just stretches us too thin and leaves us vulnerable.”
USD$4.7tn of Trumps tax cuts in proposed budget *for the rich and corporation* seems to hit the *vulnerable* threshold and should be struck down.
Esp. As they are raising - Yes RAISING the Debt ceiling - by $4tn whilst pontificating about balancing the budget for the first time in 30 years.
It’s just horseshit.
@UnknownUnknown
"USD$4.7tn of Trumps tax cuts in proposed budget *for the rich and corporation* seems to hit the *vulnerable* threshold and should be struck down."
Why? Do you realise who pays for the niceties of the economy AND government largess? The economy is the goose laying the golden eggs. That is what funds all the lovely spending and gives the US a nice credit limit. The harder you squeeze the economy the less it can provide in future which restricts the growing budget.
"Esp. As they are raising - Yes RAISING the Debt ceiling - by $4tn whilst pontificating about balancing the budget for the first time in 30 years."
This is the actual problem. Why do they need to raise the debt ceiling if the government isnt blowing it all and more? They raised it not too long ago under Biden, Trump has barely started his term in office and already the government has blown all the money and needs more just to function. What you say there is the problem and why the cuts are needed.
I’m not talking remotely about largesse.
I’m talking about an almost 1:1 swap of $4tn of debt ceiling rise for $4.7tn Tax Cuts. It’s that simple.
Debt ceiling rise will lead to additional fiscal drag as needing serviced interest for tax cuts to the already rich. It’s wilful misconduct to be raising this whilst boasting about going to balance the budget for the first time in decades. Balance the budget, and then when you are sure on the numbers … (fairly) disperse some of the returns and put a portion of it away in a Sovereign Wealth Fund for the Future (like Norway).
Gleeful Slash and burn of essential services for every day Americans, Veterans and indiscriminate destruction of budgets where every dollar spent returned more back to the economy - NASA, Science Research, Environmental protections for US Forestry - cancelling Fire Fighter training or wood chipping the entire CFPB is intentional misconduct
@UnknownUnknown
"I’m not talking remotely about largesse."
Then what is it spent on? Trump has only just got into the whitehouse so why has the government already run out of money?
"I’m talking about an almost 1:1 swap of $4tn of debt ceiling rise for $4.7tn Tax Cuts. It’s that simple."
Fair enough. So from what I read Trump left the debt ceiling about $22 trillion and inherited it at $31.4 trillion assuming I am reading this correctly-
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/debt-limit-through-the-years/
And yet to keep government functioning a mere 2nd/3rd month of Trump in the whitehouse the government is hitting its limit again. So while you may look at the correlation between the two figures and yet Trump is making these cuts and pushing for longer term cuts it does not seem to meet causation.
"It’s wilful misconduct to be raising this whilst boasting about going to balance the budget for the first time in decades."
I guess he could cut harder and faster at government but I am certain it would be legally challenged more than it is currently. After only just really taking over the government. But yes Trump should be measured against being able to cut the spending and improving the balance of the budget.
"Balance the budget, and then when you are sure on the numbers … (fairly) disperse some of the returns and put a portion of it away in a Sovereign Wealth Fund for the Future (like Norway)."
I kinda like this idea. The UK claimed to be trying to do the same thing (making the fund not balancing the budget) but its turned into another government spend excuse.
"Gleeful Slash and burn of essential services for every day Americans, Veterans and indiscriminate destruction of budgets where every dollar spent returned more back to the economy - NASA, Science Research, Environmental protections for US Forestry - cancelling Fire Fighter training or wood chipping the entire CFPB is intentional misconduct"
So you must be ok with the ever rising debt ceiling and deficit. That is where the spending is going but the only way to service the debt is growth, which means not killing the golden goose that is the economy.
Congress passed the legislation… we have all been bored to tears with Rep v Dem cock waving and threatened Government shutdowns.
Covid, Chips Act, the Inflation Reduction Act (medicine for the impacts of the Ukraine War and Xovid impacts on supply chain)… immediately along to mind.
Don’t forget Trump last time +$4tn debt ceiling’d it to pay for the last tranche of (just expiring) stupid tax cuts for the rich/corporations.
Do you agree/disagree with the indiscriminate shuttering of the CFPB that since was created has returned $20bn fleeced unlawfully from American consumers.
@UnknownUnknown
"Congress passed the legislation… we have all been bored to tears with Rep v Dem cock waving and threatened Government shutdowns."
Agreed. I hope the government can at some point get under control and remove this issue instead of it keep coming up and being a political game of chicken.
"Covid, Chips Act, the Inflation Reduction Act (medicine for the impacts of the Ukraine War and Xovid impacts on supply chain)… immediately along to mind."
Fair. Covid which was also funded by the government. USAID actually funded the labs to make covid viruses. The Chips act to give money to big companies to do something uneconomical in the US. And the inflation reduction act which was anything but an inflation reduction act. And yes support for Ukraine which Trump is trying to resolve as well.
"Don’t forget Trump last time +$4tn debt ceiling’d it to pay for the last tranche of (just expiring) stupid tax cuts for the rich/corporations."
Tax cuts and government spending. You mentioned covid but before that the economy was so good Obama wanted to take credit (disregarding his 'new normal' claims during the election). Again killing the golden goose wont improve the situation, growth is necessary to dig out of the debt.
"Do you agree/disagree with the indiscriminate shuttering of the CFPB that since was created has returned $20bn fleeced unlawfully from American consumers."
No idea I havnt looked into it.
> USAID and the DOD funded Ecohealth alliance, they in turn funded gain of function research at the wuhan lab
True. They funded - well, part-funded - research into how viruses work.
That is a long, long way from the conspiratorial claim that the lab "made Covid-19".
You might as well say that, because the CDC researched[1] into the annual variation of influenza strains that they were responsible for creating all the new varieties with which to infect the US population, and then applaud cutting back the CDC and redirecting what is left into lunatic fringe work.
@that one in the corner
"That is a long, long way from the conspiratorial claim that the lab "made Covid-19"."
You may still believe the old line that it was a conspiracy. That has changed since Biden became president. Now its almost certainty that is came from the lab, the only thing keeping from absolute certainty is China blocking outsiders and destroying evidence. Yet the virus itself has a feature not seen in nature but the very feature introduced and used for the gain of function research. No cross over animal has been found. THE virus that travelled a huge distance (to be worked on in the lab) somehow is in a bat on the wet market so far away from origin.
You are ok to your beliefs but the probability that your belief is correct diminishes with every revelation and wasnt so credible for long.
So lets imagine you are right. So these bio labs that have been found to be very deficient in their handling in what we are now certain to be world wide pandemic dangers, doing gain of function research that Obama banned the doing or funding of in an obviously unreliable country (blocked WHO access). So the funding was not only against the rules set out by Obama but also a stupid idea. Can we at least agree that far?
>> That is a long, long way from the conspiratorial claim that the lab "made Covid-19".
> That has changed since Biden became president
The claim about the source of the virus is one of science - Biden or any other politician is irrelevant. Unless you are just using presidential terms as your measure of time, when others would usually years in the Common Era measure (or even BC/AD, as BCE/CE still rings strange to older ears).
> Now its almost certainty that is came from the lab
Citation?
(Also, note, that "came out of a lab" is very different to "made in that lab" - and that is different to "made deliberately - i.e. the intent was to make that specific virus" and different from "made with the intent to release", just in case anyone reading is wondering just how deep the rabbit hole goes).
> only thing keeping from absolute certainty is China blocking outsiders and destroying evidence
Citation? Ok, I believe that one has a stronger probability of accuracy, but - any such personal belief is irrelevant
> Yet the virus itself has a feature not seen in nature
Citation?
> but the very feature introduced and used for the gain of function research
Citation?
> No cross over animal has been found
Do you mean *THE* specific animal (which would be an amazingly lucky find) or, at the other end of the spectrum, the discussion about which species that particular animal was
> THE virus that travelled a huge distance (to be worked on in the lab) somehow...
The wet market in Wuhan in about 12km from the lab, according to Google Earth. Hardly a "huge distance". The "somehow" is going to be a combination of walking and driving, split between the unfortunate(s) who picked it up at the market and the various medics and then researchers who collected and delivered samples. However, even if we were to suppose that it was carried by one bat from the market to the lab - well, bats can fly much further than that in one night.
> ... is in a bat on the wet market so far away from origin
The origin point was the wet market. As we don't have "THE bat" in hand it is impossible to say how far its roost was from the market, but it could well have been as distant as "under the roof immediately above the market".
> the probability that your belief is correct diminishes with every revelation
Perhaps the confusion is that I'm holding out for evidence and citations of such, rather than Belief and Revelations?
> gain of function research that Obama banned the doing or funding of
The White House today stepped into an ongoing debate about controversial virus experiments with a startling announcement: It is halting all federal funding for so-called gain-of-function (GOF) studies that alter a pathogen to make it more transmissible or deadly so that experts can work out a U.S. government-wide policy for weighing the risks. October, 2014 - a pause, a moratium, NOT a ban. Today, the National Institutes of Health announced that it is lifting a funding pause dating back to October 2014 on gain-of-function (GOF) experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. December 2017. As it says. A moratorium, in the US only, of a bit over 3 years, after which work continued as normal.
> So the funding was not only against the rules set out by Obama
Citation? For funds that were approved of within the moratorium period and *specifically* handed over for GoF research?
> So the funding was ... also a stupid idea
What? Agree that GoF research is a stupid idea? Absolutely not (from the second citation, above): GOF research is important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health.
PS
Possibly a cheap shot, but:
> obviously unreliable country (blocked WHO access)
Nowadays, that would mean the USA, no longer a member of WHO.
@that one in the corner
"The claim about the source of the virus is one of science - Biden or any other politician is irrelevant"
You must have slept through it. During the election Trump was branded racist and the only acceptable theory (see social media being involved under government direction) UNTIL Biden won. Then Biden suddenly changed his opinion of definitely natural to announcing it could have come from the lab. Since then the cover-up by social media (admitted by Zuck even) and other exposures have shown that science was covered up to promote the 'natural' theory.
For a scientific certainty the Chinese would have to have cooperated with the WHO but as we know they didnt, and they even prosecuted Chinese scientists who released information about the genetic make up. So based on what we actually know from what we actually can analyse, there was no identified animal that it jumped from. This version of coronavirus was a hell of a long way away to end up at the wet market, but was collected for lab tests we know were being conducted. We know they were doing gain of function research on covid, using the same techniques identified in the virus. So almost certainly it came from the lab.
The political answer on the other hand was Fauci covering his ass for funding gain of function research (against Obamas orders) and EcoHealth Aliance who were also funded by other government sources (USAID who are currently shredding and burn-bagging their documents before anyone can look). Biden used it to attack Trump during the election and there is no real evidence it came about naturally.
"(Also, note, that "came out of a lab" is very different to "made in that lab" - and that is different to "made deliberately - i.e. the intent was to make that specific virus" and different from "made with the intent to release", just in case anyone reading is wondering just how deep the rabbit hole goes)."
Holy hell with the caveats. Came from the lab making covid strains to be more lethal and more infectious. Thats what we KNOW. That is what they were proud of achieving. Stuff your caveats it doesnt matter if it was intentional (I dont claim) or accident, Read my comment- It was stupid and dangerous! Can we agree?
"Citation?"
This is old news but the furin cleavage site on the covid virus has never been seen in nature. However this was a feature the labs were using to make the virus more dangerous.
"Do you mean *THE* specific animal (which would be an amazingly lucky find) or, at the other end of the spectrum, the discussion about which species that particular animal was"
The intermediate host species which it crossed over from. Without it (and it was really looked for) the natural theory doesnt hold up very well when the much more likely explanation exists near by. Even the infectious species (the bat) lives hundreds of miles away.
"The wet market in Wuhan in about 12km from the lab, according to Google Earth. Hardly a "huge distance"."
I never said the lab was far from the market. The bats with that specific virus are hundreds of miles away from Wuhan. The labs were messing with samples from all over China and possibly beyond.
"The origin point was the wet market. As we don't have "THE bat" in hand it is impossible to say how far its roost was from the market"
Again the answer is hundreds of miles. A long way away. This is the key problem with how the virus from hundreds of miles away made its way to Wuhan? To a wet market by chance or to the lab actually working on these viruses and collecting them to work on. This is one of the huge problems of the natural theory vs the more likely lab theory.
"Perhaps the confusion is that I'm holding out for evidence and citations of such, rather than Belief and Revelations?"
Understandable. But this is old news which is why I am so surprised you dont know. That isnt criticism but actual surprise and I am aware there isnt just you (I have spoke to others) who didnt realise this either. Almost as though people heard the initial messaging during the election but didnt hear about the continued exposure of the lies and covering up. Watching Fauci get that pardon was irritating considering he seems to have been involved fairly deeply.
"October, 2014 - a pause, a moratium, NOT a ban."
And the funding resumed in 2015, before the moratorium- https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-growing-scrutiny-of-peter-daszaks-chinese-research-collaboration/
"What? Agree that GoF research is a stupid idea? Absolutely not (from the second citation, above): GOF research is important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health."
You also missed out in labs that were deficient in their handling of the viruses. Even if you think it was a natural occurrence of covid you surely want such research done safely? The research was paused by Obama for safety failures. The research migrating to China.
"Possibly a cheap shot, but:
> obviously unreliable country (blocked WHO access)
Nowadays, that would mean the USA, no longer a member of WHO."
When the WHO feared being racist over finding the source of the virus and turning up a year late to investigate (due to the Chinese) I can see why Trump pulled out. At the beginning of your comment you say its science but the WHO played politics instead.
>> Now its almost certainty that is came from the lab
>Citation?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7vypq31z7o
https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-65708746
Even the CIA are slowly moving towards a leak of a lab made virus
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/cia-shifts-assessment-covid-origins-saying-lab-leak-likely-caused-outb-rcna189284
The wet market theory does a good job covering up the fact that the lab had a pretty awful safety record and that the US was funding gain of function research into seriously nasty viruses there.
The WHO is bought and paid for by the Chinese.
"The origin point was the wet market. As we don't have "THE bat" in hand it is impossible to say how far its roost was from the market"
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/wet-market-sources-covid-19-bats-and-pangolins-have-alibi
The other issue is that the bats that supposedly had the virus came from a cave some 1000 miles from Wuhan. I'm not sure that bats are migratory.
Did one read one's own citation, Anonymous Coward person ?
If you read any of the NASA-tracking sites here in the US, it's not at all clear that Mr, Isaacman will ever lead the agency. Evidently, he has committed the mortal sin of starting several companies that offer diversity training, as well as other sins against the fascist, er, Republican core beliefs.
that each off-planet mission will, somehow, attempt to image Trump's ego from space. He will readily approve all of them.
However: given the size of his ego it will not be hard to find, I just hope that it will not crack some of the expensive optics.
chromodynamics? That'd be Genesis 37:3 - and the quantum stuff is clearly the explanation for Genesis 37:5 to 7 and 37:9, whilst Genesis 37:29 illustrates tunneling.
We need NASA because all the muck we've been putting into the air is causing The Bowl Of The Firmament to become soiled - you can see the proof of this by looking at any so-called "Deep Sky" photograph. All those fuzzy things are obviously just muck (from chimneys of factories making the implants that go into vaccines), and smudges caused by all the rockets bouncing off (you can clearly see that rockets go up, then sideways as they hit, and finally down to the horizon, where they are dumped into the sea).
NASA must be repurposed to create a giant mop-on-an-extensible-pole that can be used to squeegee the Firmament and restore it to its pristine Glory.
After that, any leftover NASA rovers can be used to probe the Antartic Ice Wall. No, hang one, that would be silly. The rovers would only rust.
Hey! Watch out for heresy -- many people are saying that only a special type of bible has the whole, biggest truth. Trust me on that! The greatest bible ever.
Forward to the Bible by Donald J. Trump
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s an honor to be here today, introducing one of the greatest, most powerful books ever written—the Bible. A book that has shaped civilizations, built nations, and inspired millions across the world. It’s a tremendous book, and believe me, I know tremendous books. This one is truly special, and I want to talk about why it’s such an incredible work.
The Bible is full of winning. It’s about success, it’s about strength, it’s about making things great again, both in your life and in the world. It’s a book for winners. Look at the stories inside it—the people who achieved greatness, the leaders who rose to power, the warriors who fought for what was right. That’s what we’re talking about here. The Bible is for those who believe in the American Dream, for those who know that success comes from hard work, faith, and a little bit of luck.
There’s no book like it—none. You won’t find anything like this anywhere in the world. It’s been around for thousands of years, and it still stands strong. People have been reading it for centuries, and look at the results—tremendous, incredible results. It has inspired millions, and it will continue to inspire. And let me tell you, I’ve seen the power of faith—there’s nothing like it. Nothing even comes close. It’s what makes this country great.
The Bible speaks to you, to your heart, to your soul. It has wisdom that has stood the test of time. It teaches about leadership, morality, respect, and, most importantly, it teaches about winning. You can’t go wrong with this book. It’ll guide you, it’ll teach you, and it’ll help you succeed in ways you never thought possible.
So take it in, read it, live by it. It’s a beautiful thing. And remember, no matter where you are in life, this book will always show you the way to the top. You’ll be amazed by what you can accomplish when you have the wisdom of the Bible with you. Believe me.
Thank you. Enjoy this incredible, amazing book. It’s truly something special.
> What did the bible write about the Americas?
Amazing what you can find out there. Shudder.
Of course, once you've learnt how to type into Google[1] the trick is to cross-check against other hits and verify the likelihood that the source is a total pile of pants (e.g., even Liberty University manages not to drop that far down the well so we can just quietly ignore "Amazing facts" now[2]).
> Do these really exist?
The Americas are the fabled place where the unicorns went to live.
[1] other search engines are available, eg DDG. Except Bing; never Bing. Bing does not exist.
[2] bugger; I bet at least two of you have clicked on that URL by now and have sent their Alexa rating skyrocketing!
There are different plans. Trump's plan is to replace the top level of military officers with toadies and have the armed forces shoot anyone who objects. Musk's plan is to have complete control of money and payments systems. Soldiers will have to choose between obeying orders and getting paid. Which ever way that turns out it will not involve SpaceX getting payed for government contracts. No taxes, no government so no contracts. Instead all payments will go through X. Americans' bank balances will be what Musk decides they can keep and he will take the rest.
@AC
"Didn't Billy Clinton and Obama both promise to cut government waste and then do absolutely nothing?"
I dont know if they did try anything or not, but they dont seem to have succeeded. This is why when people complain Trump is cutting too hard too fast instead of slowly picking through the agencies for what should be on the books or not which in a bureaucratic monster is a practical impossibility (certainly within the 4 years).
If people truly care about certain spending that is ok and makes sense. But when they must weigh up its importance against other spending (education vs NASA as an example) people start to think about priorities.
Enjoy one of these ----->
Beginning to wonder how many people actually read the references they post as links:
>>>> Didn't Billy Clinton and Obama both promise to cut government waste ...?
>>> Nope
>> You sure?
>> National Partnership for Reinventing Government
Well, it does look like Clinton promised to cut government waste and set up an office to do that; the result was something of a curate's egg:
> Clinton assigned the project to Gore with a six-month deadline to develop the plan.
Far better than the (at best) six minutes that the current "plan" took to dream up.
> In 1993, Congress rejected many NPR proposed departmental cuts, demonstrating that NPR could not achieve its goals without congressional support.
Oopsie. However, all was not lost:
> Procurement reform bills were enacted
In the end though
> NPR is recognized as a success and had a lasting impact
>>> and then do absolutely nothing?
That would appear to be an inaccurate assessment of Clinton's results.
On the other hand:
> During its five years, it catalyzed significant changes in the way the federal government operates, including ... the transfer of institutional knowledge to contractors.
That can never go wrong!
It's because they don't want their solders to get sick when they are needed on the battlefield, DA. And every continent has it's own set of "special" diseases. During WWII a significant number of solders in the Pacific campaign were made unable to fight by various pathogens in the tropic environment and the Pentagon eventually took action to reduce that number.
@Gary Stewart
"It's because they don't want their solders to get sick"
Aka your body now belong to us. But focussing on forcing soldiers to guinea pig the vaccine is only a portion of the authoritarian nut job mandate attempt-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59989476
"But focussing on forcing soldiers to guinea pig"
@Wang Cores
"Fascinating. Fighting and dying = not woke, vaccination to ensure readiness TO fight and die = woke."
Fascinating, you say woke. Why do you bring woke into this? I didnt say it and I am not sure anyone before me did either so why do you?
"What a pathetic mess we are that we can't actually bowl over illogical people like this."
Considering you seem to have ignored my comment you are replying to but gone on a nutty rant about woke, I wonder if you say that in the mirror or lack the self awareness
When you sign up for the US military you essentially give up all your rights as a US citizen and come under the jurisdiction of the military code of justice. Don't want to do that, don't sign up, it's voluntary for now at least (looking at you Greenland and Canada /s).
Also, I don't understand why you think have the right to make other people sick, maybe even kill them. This is a common theme among anti-vaxxers and it makes no sense. What ever happened to community responsibility? Did you flush it down the toilet along with your sense of decency? Just to make it clearer since you haven't figured it out by now, nobody is free in any society. There are laws which govern our behavior to at least try to keep us civil. The only remedy to this, other than complete chaos (aka libertarian heaven) in the society you currently live in is to move to somewhere that works the way you want it to. I would suggest Somalia or Haiti as they seem to fit the bill perfectly. Haiti is especially free/chaotic now, so just right. If you don't like those choices feel free (oh look, you do have some freedoms left) to find somewhere else.
I would like to also suggest you brush up on your social studies as you seemed to have slept through the subject at school.
@Gary Stewart
"When you sign up for the US military"
You failed to read the link. The interesting focus is on US military (which it was wrong to enforce even on soldiers, hence congress reversed it). However trying to force private businesses to force private individuals to take the covid vaccine is worse than that. Basically the authoritarian nutjob stuff coming from Biden when it was claimed Trump was gonna be the one to behave badly.
"Also, I don't understand why you think have the right to make other people sick, maybe even kill them."
Actually you seem to have this backwards, YOU are the one arguing for such a right. If you note what happened under Trump, he helped get the vaccine developed, produced and delivered so those who wanted to take it could. That is good. What is bad is then enforcing that people must take this thing that had to be rushed with no time for the usual processes. No vaccine has been produced in such record time and that is impressive but also leaves valid concerns.
"What ever happened to community responsibility? Did you flush it down the toilet along with your sense of decency? Just to make it clearer since you haven't figured it out by now, nobody is free in any society."
And so you support oppressive control over your personal being. At what point should it stop? N.Korea will tell you what hair style you are allowed. Have you no sense of community responsibility or sense of decency? Its a very slippery slope to try those emotive arguments to take away peoples freedom.
"I would like to also suggest you brush up on your social studies as you seemed to have slept through the subject at school."
Thankfully I didnt have to suffer through such arse wank. The classes I went to didnt have many of the coloured hair Mc Degree students in it. I appreciate the laugh though
@Gary Stewart
"Yep, I'm sure now, you should change your name to trolljunky."
I am guessing this means you have run out of poor arguments and emotive defence to respond. So ditching your claims of any "sense of decency" you fall back on the tried and true failure- attacking me. Come back if you think up a reasoned comment.
>Soldiers will have to choose between obeying orders and getting paid.
Paid ?
Surely soldiers should be a revenue source.
Thank you for your call for air support. If you are an existing subscriber press #1, to sign up for air-support-as-a-service press #2 and have your credit card ready
The Mad Kings just fired NASA's long-time Chief Scientist and much of her staff. Of course she was by expertise a climate scientist, and the Mad Kings do not believe in climate science, except perhaps to the extent that it helps one of them sell electric cars. They do not believe much in science at all, including medical science, witness their brain worm in charge. NASA is pointy-headed academics, not the kind of Creation Science whose acolytes solidly vote for the Mad King and his minions,
In 1972 the Apollo program, one of humanity's greatest endeavors that could have been the start of something even better, was ended prematurely to save cost, because over the course of ten years a scandalous $25 billion of taxpayers' money had been wasted on a frivolous enterprise that produced nothing more than few rocks. I kid you not, that was the sentiment in Congress at that time.
Meanwhile the US spent over $80 billion in that year alone (1972) of that same taxpayers' money on military expenditures. Nobody in Congress complained.
US politics have been anti-science, anti-intellectual and anti-progress for most of recent history, and there is no sign whatsoever that that will ever change.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
