Want to understand what changed in America leading to Trump? Here you go. Start with Concrete Economics & go clockwise.

@bita137 That is why cutting indirect is big. Frees up billions of dollars for more actual grants.

@allisonoconn Cutting bureaucracy is not anti science.

@chorye @UnimpressedTX @MDAndersonNews Direct patient care is totally separate. They get paid for that.

How do we deal with this when many Chinese exports enter indirectly via other countries? Also I think EU runs big deficit with China but then runs big surplus to US. So EU transfers Chinese trade deficit to US. I would think US has to put tariffs on China and then insist all others put same tariffs on China or we will also put those tariffs on them. Basically, we have to make an anti. China trade block.

Really good to see Robin Brooks being supportive of solving these very real problems.

@UnimpressedTX @chorye @MDAndersonNews Not a deflection. A clear explanation. You are trying to defend the indefensible: that rather than fund actual research U.S. taxpayer money should fund bureaucratic waste.

@scottlincicome Korea, Japan and Canada aren’t developing countries.

@doristsao But research didn’t get cut. They cut indirect. So they are doing exactly what you propose, cutting administration.

I read that. It is a person at Yale saying that reducing their indirect rate will somehow hut them. Let me give you some facts. Yale has a $40 BILLION endowment. They got that money b/c rich people can give them money TAX FREE. $40 billion would generate at 5% rate of return about $2 billion a year just from endowment. They are to use that endowment to help further societal aims - that is why they don't get taxed. They also get $600 million in NIH funding. Lets say $200 million is indirect and that gets cut by $150 billion. Why can't Yale use some of their $2 billion in profit from their endowment to support that research. If they won't use it for the public good, they should pay taxes on it. These people just have a good ride on the taxpayer dime and don't want to give it up.

@NickKristof Yet I bet Kristoff thinks the creation of DACA didn’t break any laws….

@charlesjkenny Yet the creation of DACA didn’t break any laws, right?

@catgyoung They used what private foundations accept as max indirect. They all accept a max of 15%. If you can do research for Gates foundation for 15% why can’t you do it for federal government for 15%?

RT @elonmusk: @mazemoore @DOGE @USTreasury The best way to understand the system is that it is designed for complaint minimization: people…

@mbeisen Because they are supposed to be doing work for the public good. Hence they should fund the indirect for research. They get huge endowments because they are tax exempt and their donations untaxed. If they don’t support research what are they getting their tax exemption for?

@florian_krammer 0%. And they are the low bidder by far. Usually by an order of magnitude.

@SashaGusevPosts Cutting the indirect rates increases funding for research. Fund scientists, not bureaucrats and fancy buildings.

@UnimpressedTX @chorye @MDAndersonNews They get paid for their cancer care. They get paid for their research. No reason to over their administrators and bureaucrats. So no, as a taxpayer and a cancer victim I won’t “pound sand”.

@BenNollWeather Interesting. Not much snow in western Catskills.

@RBReich They didn’t stop it. They just wrote reports about it they no one ever did anything about.

@GaryWinslett @PatrickRuffini Yeah. I think he is hitting the people in the not for profit sector - government, NGOs, and universities - very hard.