Obama Says 3% of GDP Should Fund Science Research And Development 753
tritonman writes "Obama wants to set a goal that the US spend 3% of its GDP on scientific research and development. 'I believe it is not in our character, American character, to follow — but to lead. And it is time for us to lead once again. I am here today to set this goal: we will devote more than 3 percent of our GDP to research and development,' Obama said in a speech at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences."
Administration (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me be the first to say... WTF?
How about we stop runnaway spending and reduce the national debt. All five of the last presidents have had this idea that we can just spend to our hearts content. We are dangerously close to the point that the rest of the world will say enough is enough and stop buying our debt. When this happens, we as Americans will be in a world of Sh!t. I know that people are going to say this is one of Obama's greatest plans, however, we allready spend billions on R&D through D
Re:Administration (Score:4, Insightful)
all five?
clinton had the budget balanced and in a yearly surplus by the end of his two terms
also to everyone: nowhere in that entire article did he propose that it be a government taxing to spend that money - sounds like he means "the government and private entities combined should".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Clinton had a "balanced budget" but a Republican congress.
Guess which drafts the budget?
Also notice how little difference party allegiance makes - Republicans were in congress during the Bush years as well.
More on topic... "the government and private entities combined should" as opposed to "a government taxing to spend that money" - the implications of that are absolutely scary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it should, if you go by what the Parties say. Democrats have long been known as "tax and spend"; they're famous for wanting big government programs. Of course, it's still possible to have a balanced budget by simply raising taxes to pay for this.
But the Republicans have long painted themselves as "fiscally responsible", "small government", "low taxes", etc. However, the 8 years of Bush have shown us that that's a lie: when the Republicans were in control, we got BIGGER government, and ridiculous deficit spending (not fiscally responsible).
So what it boils down to is that the Republicans, by their actions, have proven that they firmly believe in deficit spending, that we can borrow an endless amount of money for whatever our government wants to do. So yes, party allegiance makes a difference: if they're Republicans, they simply don't believe in following a budget.
Re:Administration (Score:5, Interesting)
Oddly enough, the National Debt increased every year of Clinton's terms of office.
Strange that he could manage a "balanced budget" while the National Debt increased, isn't it?
Note, for the record, that the National Debt increased by over 28% during Clinton's terms. And by about $150 billion during the two years he supposedly had a "balanced budget".
Note further that Obama's planned 2010 budget has a deficit larger than the increase in national debt during Clinton's two terms. And that this doesn't include the stimulus spending, which is a whole 'nuther pile of money.
Re:Administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Mostly, what the wiki chart shows is that the lads who wrote it favour the Dems. They picked an interpretation of the raw data that made the Dems look good, rather than providing the raw numbers, plus interpretation as needed.
Note, by the way, that even saying the data as presented favours the Dems is misleading. It favours Democratic Presidents. While the President has some input into the budget process, he doesn't have nearly so much control as most people like to give them credit for. Remember the days of "the President's budget is DOA" during the Reagan years?
Fact of the matter is that the Congress has pretty much absolute control of the budget. All the President can do is veto something he doesn't like. He can't make them write something he DOES like. And while a Republican Congress spent money like drunken sailors for six of the last eight years, a Republican Congress was relatively restrained the six years before that.
Unfortunately for those of us who like to pay attention to the nuts and bolts, Congress doesn't have the advantage of being a single person. Or even two people. So the budget process is a lot messier than most people are ready to believe, and people on both sides of the aisle deserve a heaping share of the blame for the national debt that our grandchildren will be paying for.
Note, for reference, that I'm not going to be blaming Obama for the debt in four or eight years. I'm going to be blaming Congress. Whichever Party is controlling it....
Of course, Obama does get blame whenever he calls for new spending. We can't afford the spending we have now - finding new things to spend public money on is insane unless your revenues are higher than your spending. And that hasn't been true since 1957 or so.
Re:Administration (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a lie. In the 1990s, there was a huge surplus in social security, which politicians took out and replaced with an IOU, and used that to cover other programs. It was never truly balanced.
Clinton is the least worst. But lets not play shell games and kid ourselves.
As to the subject at hand, during WW2, the US government voided all patents dealing with radio in order to boost innovation in that area and it really did.
At a minimum cost to taxpayers, they could reform and simplify copyright and patent law for the people and to help small businesses.
But they won't. They'll probably have guns and butter instead.
Re:Administration (Score:5, Funny)
Clinton, though, was helped by the dot-com boom, which was entirely NOT his doing (it's one of those things that just evolved, IMO, and Clinton was in office at the right time)
Yeah, it was really more his vice-president's doing, back in the 1980s.
Re:Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing as the government does not make a damn thing, the only way they're getting that money is from taxes. Either by increasing our taxes now, or by increasing taxes on future generations.
I see idiocy like this is rampant in the USA.
They don't make a damn thing? You mean, like the roads that you drove on the way to work? Or the legal system that protects you? Or the police that jail the bad guy who didn't carjack you today on the way to work? Or the licensing policies for the radio station that you listened to on the way to work? What about the 13 years of education that you got so that you could LAND the job that you went to this morning? Or the excellent college system that you went to if you are a "white collar" worker?
In the United States, government is so pervasive and so good at enabling the creation of wealth that many members of the population don't bother to think about it, and rail on it like it's some parasite. "I don't need no damned gubbmint!" But the truth is that every single American benefits from almost half a MILLION dollars in embedded infrastructure: roads, schools, libraries, jails, courthouses, telephone/telecommunications, power etc.
Is it just ignorance that makes people treat their gift of such incredible wealth so poorly? It's really sad, too, because if we don't properly understand and support the true role of our government, we'll fail to keep it and then we all lose. And we *ARE* losing: education is chronically underfunded and new student test scores are abysmal, with the result being that we jail a higher percentage of our population than any other "first world" country.
Rather than develop a sane approach to the Internet as public infrastructure, we've instead relied on private enterprise to elevate our status from first to near last among industrialized nations in broadband penetration.
Welcome to life without effective govt!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All five of the last presidents have had this idea that we can just spend to our hearts content.
Does this include that one guy who balanced the budget?
(I'm not saying you don't make good points; I agree we need to get things under control.)
Re:Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we stop runnaway spending and reduce the national debt. All five of the last presidents have had this idea that we can just spend to our hearts content. We are dangerously close to the point that the rest of the world will say enough is enough and stop buying our debt. When this happens, we as Americans will be in a world of Sh!t.
Agreed. Let's start with the biggest tax drain of all: military budget.
Re:Administration (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Going against popular perception, defense spending "only" makes up 21% of the national budget (in 2008). 21% was spent on social security and 23% was spent on medicare/medicaid. That is, 45% is going towards the elderly and those in medical need. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget)
With the baby boomers starting to retire, it is inevitable that taxes will be raised to cover them. In my opinion, social security reform is more important that defense spending reform.
Of course many wil
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We are dangerously close to the point that the rest of the world will say enough is enough and stop buying our debt.
[citation needed]
Re:Administration (Score:5, Informative)
We are dangerously close to the point that the rest of the world will say enough is enough and stop buying our debt.
[citation needed]
Speaking on the sidelines of an Asian central bankers' meeting in February, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China's central bank, asked: "is it time for China to consider using the reserves somewhere else, instead of concentrating too much on the United States?"
China Daily article here [chinadaily.com.cn].
Re:Administration (Score:5, Informative)
China worried about safety of U.S. debt [cnn.com]. As of January 2009, China is the owner [wikipedia.org] of the largest share of our debt, if Wikipedia is to be believed. I didn't look for articles on other countries; I'm sure you can find some on your own.
Re:Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
DARPA isn't enough. If we had a broader mission for R&D than "defense" initiatives, we would be in a position to licence government owned IP to the corporate world without having to wait out our licenses in the name of national security. Having such a commodity reduces the tax burden on on the citizen (from license fees), reduces the corporate need for an R&D dept (lower cost to consumer) and increases quality of publicly available tech (from not being forced to design for maximum profit).
Unfortunately, I don't think this is what anyone has in mind, so get ready for more suck.
Re:Administration (Score:4, Insightful)
How about we stop runnaway spending and reduce the national debt.
Spending on R&D should be expected to have a substantial return on investment. That is, it makes money. This is about reinvesting in ourselves in a way that maintains and enhances US technical and scientific leadership, which has both economic and political implications and benefits. Industry, by design, doesn't have the attention span for basic research or even for a lot of really useful applied work.
Re:Administration (Score:5, Interesting)
US R&D only seems to make money for China these days
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One doesnt' exclude the other at all. First off, tech creates new jobs, that's a pretty well-known fact.
Second, government spending is only part of it, the % of GDP figure includes business spending on R&D.
Last but not least, you don't actually have a choice. Other countries are spending more, and increasingly so. Sweden already spends nearly 5% of their GDP on R&D. Do you want to be a leader or a follower? The USA is increasingly
Re:Administration (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
removing money from the economy that would be invested by the people who earned it in things that are productive and worth investment
So you think science R&D is unproductive and not worth investment? We've got weather satellites and star trek tech, no thanks to your kind.
Re:Administration (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't science R&D, it's taking money from other worthwhile and productive investments in order to create an appearance. If the money was new and not from something already productive, it would be a benefit completely. Even if it was from something less productive then it would be worth while. But as it seems in reality, it would be like pulling money from social security and medicare payments to fund welfare and Medicaid as in both serve the same goals within the segments they are targeted at. It's either a net loss or a symbolic gesture with no benefit.
Re:Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't science R&D, it's taking money from other worthwhile and productive investments in order to create an appearance
you mean like the manattan project? the apollo project? Nasa?
practically everything that makes our modern life modern stemmed from research in government labs, and at least 50%+ from the space program.
Are you going to tell me "girls gone wild" is worthwhile and productive? because a lot of money goes into making those vids and the commercials for them. How about all the R&D being put into more efficiently off-shoring exceedingly higher skilled jobs?
Economics does not have a "goal" of efficiency any more than nuclear physics has a "goal" of producing the biggest, most powerful bomb possible. It needs to be leveraged to the benefit of humanity.
Re:Administration (Score:5, Funny)
Are you going to tell me "girls gone wild" is worthwhile and productive?
Only the first few minutes, then it gets boring and annoying, plus you question whether it's normal to become bored with boobs so quickly.
Re:Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, the Internet, many of medical technologies, satellite communication, etc etc etc. Would not exist had it not been for initial government research. Yet trillions of dollars are made each year do to these technologies. Name me one US tech boom that did not have its start due to government provided research or infrastructure (and yes the industrial revolution was dependent upon the railroads, which were dependent upon government land and protection.)
Even I disagree if the government should have provided these levels of protection, maybe things would be better if they had developed naturally, maybe not... But government has had a HUGE impact.
Re:You forgot another solution (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that a good portion of defense spending is science related right?
Your trying to overly simplify something more complex then your allowing for. Currently, we spend about 26 billion on science and technology specifically but when you take the NASA budget, the Science related defense spending, the educational grants and spending, DOE, NOAA, and several other department spending, that number grows significantly. IF you add private research to the mix, we out spend every other country in the world by at least twice as much [battelle.org] on Science R&D with a projected total for 2009 of $383,477,000,000 or about $383.5 billion.
My guess is that the Obama is talking about small increases in federal budget expenditures and increases (most likely through tax manipulation) of private expenditures.
Re:Administration (Score:4, Insightful)
This may not apply to you, but I really dislike it when people bring up Bush when complaining about Obama's spending.
First, a lot of conservatives and libertarians didn't like Bush's spending, even at the time.
But even if they did, I found the following analogy useful: if my wife overspent consistently while shopping, does she lose the right to be upset if I lose the house and our retirement nestegg in a drunken weekend in Vegas?
Re:Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why did they reelect him in 2004?
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
2.6% [bbc.co.uk] The EU's goal is 3%, too.
But wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
We already spend more than 3% of GDP on Science R&D....
Oh, he means the government should spend 3% of GDP on R&D. Of course. Can't trust that shifty-eyed private industry. You know... The ones generating the GDP.
Re:But wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gov can do R&D into things like cheap medicine made from easily found natural ingredients and things like that. Stuff that has tremendous use but little in the way of profit margin.
Even if a company like Merck were 100% ethically run they wouldn't do this sort of stuff because there is no profit margin.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do know. However there is a clear implication here that this R&D won't happen unless the government funds it. There is also no evidence (especially without a list of exactly what the money is going to be spent on) that the things the government would fund research into wouldn't get funding without government involvement.
Apparently, according to the moderators, pointing that out is trolling.
Re:But wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's pretty clear that some funding will not occur without government backing.
For instance, projects where the potential payoff is greater than 5-10 years out (fusion?). Drugs that wouldn't be terribly profitable. Drugs that might be profitable, but no more so than existing inferior products (influenza vaccine?). Space exploration. Fundamental physics research requiring facilities costing billions of dollars.
I think you definitely need to be careful not to tread on the generally more-efficient private sector, but there are plenty of areas not being funded sufficiently right now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're neglecting half of what I said.
If you know in advance, there can be public debate. Knowledgeable people can make a case one way or the other. Then you can trust that you're spending money on the right things.
Do want (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do want (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you stopped to consider how many of the innovations America has given the world came from.. dare I say this... researching "war toys"?
Computers as we know them today? The Atomic Age?
The need to find newer, faster, and more efficient ways to kill people has always been a phenomenal "mother of invention"
Easiest way to get the country developing alternate energy technology? Declare that starting 2-4 years from now the US government won't buy any ground vehicles for the government or military that don't run on renewable fuels.
And that we won't build any new bases or government facilities that aren't solar or powered by renewable energy sources.
Re:Do want (Score:5, Insightful)
The need to find newer, faster, and more efficient ways to kill people has always been a phenomenal "mother of invention"
All very true, largely because the military has always had an extremely large budget with which to fund research related to its goals.
Now, imagine what our scientists and engineers could do with that same budget, but also with a directive to use it in the areas that will best help our country. I think we would likely get an even better return on our investment if we were actually trying for those benefits, as opposed to just developing weapons and occasionally finding that the same research happens to have constructive uses as well.
Re:Do want (Score:4, Informative)
If there was an appropriate return on the investment, the project would be taken up by private industry.
Except they aren't the same kinds of ROI. You're talking profit, GP was talking benefit. As in benefit to society. Things that are of benefit to society are not necessarily profitable to private industry.
sincerely hope.. (Score:5, Interesting)
In recent years, he said, "scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas." He then drew chuckles, commenting: "I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions, not the other way around," Obama said.
hope none of the 420$ billion makes it's way towards the discovery institute.
Sez who? (Score:3, Interesting)
How about we let individuals and businesses decide where they're going to put their R&D money, not some ivory-tower bureaucrats who are firmly removed from reality?
Really: when it comes to deciding what to do with 3% of your income, don't you want YOU making that decision, instead of total strangers you don't know and who know you less and who are operating on non-sequitor ulterior motives?
Re:Sez who? (Score:5, Insightful)
no.
Corporations only research things that will potentially make them money. Therefore, some things, like rare diseases, will never be researched. Individuals in academics will research it, but they need grant money in order to do so.
Re:Sez who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I wish we could write the whole profit motive out of research and development. We might actually get somewhere without having to come up with profit to justify it's existence.
Re: (Score:3)
Common diseases don't need extra funding. There's lots of research into cancer and AIDS. Things with obvious applications generally don't need extra funding to get researched, there's already plenty motivation available. There's lots of money in making medicines
Re:Sez who? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we let individuals and businesses decide where they're going to put their R&D money, not some ivory-tower bureaucrats who are firmly removed from reality?
Because individuals and business don't really have any reason (or the means) to do a lot of basic research. Think of CERN or the Manhattan Project. Do you think those kind of research would be done if it wasn't paid for by the government?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because microwave ovens, lasers, LEDs, solar cells, and satellites wouldn't be around if it weren't for pure research in the fields of physics, chemistry, and material science. Businesses will decide what research is profitable once theren't enough solid knowledge and know how to make the efficient and effective. Businesses don't invent things from scratch, they rework what's already known into a commercial product.
Re:Sez who? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about we let individuals and businesses decide where they're going to put their R&D money, not some ivory-tower bureaucrats who are firmly removed from reality?
?
Well, "individuals and business" seem to think that Baconnaise and Chocolate Chip Pancakes & Sausage on a Stick are the best way to spend R&D money, so . . . no.
Why pctg of GDP rather than federal budget? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rand Simberg asks why express it in terms of percentage of GDP rather than in terms of percentage of federal budget? [transterrestrial.com]. The budget is something that the president has some control over...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because he doesn't want the federal government to be the only entity funding R&D.
This isn't a matter of the national budget. It's a matter of getting the entire country to start thinking of R&D as something important.
In 2007, research spending was $324 billion, out of a total GDP of $14 trillion, or 2.3%. Obama's calling for everybody (mostly big corporations) to spend 50% more on it, because it's research that grows the GDP as a whole. And if we're ever going to get out of the deeeeep economic h
What a way to flush 3% of GDP ... (Score:5, Interesting)
While this sounds like a good idea, I worked for a while at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. It was the poster child of government waste. Most of the funding we received was from the DOE and the DOD. Back in its hay-day the INEL was a front runner in nuclear research. Now its a money-pit. 2/3rds of all grant money is skimmed off the top for "overhead" (pays for buildings, security, office space, etc). To make matters worse, each engineer/scientist has a billable rate. This billable rate is again 2/3rds overhead. Half of your time goes to writing grants to get more money. Very few people there were doing actual science. It was very sad for me to experience directly after getting my degree.
The INEL is not alone in its current state. People I worked with from other labs have similar or worse horror stories.
I understand the desire, I just don't have enough confidence in our government to not botch it up.
That's no way to run a Civilzation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's no way to run a Civilzation (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, we already have infantry and artillery. Obama just wants to dump a bunch of money into researching Future Tech to run up the score. So boring... just build the damn ship to Alpha Centauri already so you can win and start a new game.
Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Eliminate income tax and replace it with voluntary program where people can donate a share of their income to be used for purposes of their choice and if they want to fund science fine, if they don't then they accept the risk that they and their children will be living in a country that is lagging behind in science. What is wrong with that?
If I pay for this research, then everyone gets the benefits. If someone else pays for it, then everyone still gets the benefits. But what if everyone waits for someone else to pay for it?
If he wants to do some good for research (Score:5, Interesting)
Private Industry Research- Bell Labs (Score:4, Interesting)
I am a scientist who believes strongly that government funding of R&D needs to be increased. Often times, I hear the argument that it is not the government's role to do this. Most of our basic R&D now occurs in the universities and the national labs. But it wasn't always so.
Several years ago, I was an intern at Bell Labs, in Murray Hil, NJ, the main research engine of AT&T before the 1984 breakup. Some of the greatest inventions of the 20th century were created there, including the transistor and the laser. The cosmic microwave background was discovered at Murray Hill as well, an example of a pure scientific discovery, serendipitous but yet made more likely by the concentration and dynamic of the brilliant minds working there. As time went on, the research became more and more applied, less basic, less fundamental.
By the time I got there, Bell Labs was part of Lucent, which was a slave to its stock price. All kinds of financial shenanigans were going on in the background, and the business had become focused almost solely on fiber optics and other communications media/equipment. Some of the leftovers from the glory days of basic R&D were retiring, but there were still quite a few more recent hires. These people were let go during my summer. It was sad. It was the death of Bell Labs. All that were left were the old fogies and the people doing work related to the core business. Lucent's stock tanked, and the whole company became a shell of what it once was, and Bell Labs became special only in the history books.
Bell Labs was the greatest death of the old industrial research powerhouses. Few are left, most notably IBM. But even these are more application-oriented than in the past. They depend on the government to fund basic R&D in its labs and universities to keep the technology engine revving. Should that process stop, perhaps industry will revert to its old way, but that will not be a quick process. For almost a generation, we would be left with our pants down while our global competitors assert the lead in the technology race. This will put us at not just an economic disadvantage, but in poor strategic positioning politically. It is paramount that we fund basic R&D via government funds now. If we desire a different system where private industry does the brunt of basic R&D, then we must redesign the system via proper incentives to allow for a smooth transition to such a paradigm. Maintaining science funding at the levels they are at right now is not sustainable in the short term- the quicker we enhance funding, the better off we will be.
Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana? (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise, I just dunno how we're gonna pay for everything here in the very recent past.
Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to think they are making this decision because someone finally realized that money doesn't actually grow on trees.
Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana? (Score:5, Funny)
I would like to think they are making this decision because someone finally realized that money doesn't actually grow on trees.
And that's what the research is for: Money Trees.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Gold farming is more lucrative than money trees.
Science makes us great. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't usually agree with Obama but I'm glad he can see that science is one of the pillars that has made America strong. I was thinking last night that my grandmother saw in just a few decades us go from riding around in horse drawn wagons to going to the moon. That is just amazing. Science did that.
Re:Science makes us great. (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, the other 3 pillars were the Banking, Insurance and Automobile industries.
Re:Science makes us great. (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only person that's noticed that every one of these struggling brands makes suck ass cars? I've bought them and had constant maintenance issues. On the other hand the Honda and Toyota's I've bought have done much better. Even Ford came out about two years ago and announced that they were going to try to stop sucking - to little to late maybe?
If you make a crappy product then maybe it's good for you to go out of business. Why should I pay $30000 for a vehicle that won't last 10 years of normal use before it starts to have major issues?
Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana? (Score:4, Interesting)
If a man with free healthcare breaks his leg in the forest and there's no doctor to treat it, does he still have free healthcare?
The New York Times [nytimes.com] recently reported:
The experience of Massachusetts is instructive. Under a far-reaching 2006 law, the state succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured. But many who gained coverage have been struggling to find primary care doctors, and the average waiting time for routine office visits has increased.
Some of the newly insured patients still rely on hospital emergency rooms for nonemergency care,. said Erica L. Drazen, a health policy analyst at Computer Sciences Corporation.
Also, Taxation isn't the only way to pay. There is also inflation.
No more small businesses? Don't think so. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No more small businesses? Don't think so. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No more small businesses? Don't think so. (Score:5, Interesting)
Which makes sense.
If you're free from your employer supplied healthcare plan capitalism can flourish. Suddenly everybody becomes a free agent able to start their own competitive business.
The risk of creating your own business and going it alone is dramatically reduced. You don't have to literally wory about dieing and or going completely bankrupt for life because you quit your job.
Large projects still need large groups of people. But many tasks can be accomplished by smaller businesses which aren't able to compete with the insurance pool of a larger company. Universal healthcare is a boon for capitalism. Calling it socialist is incredibly short sighted by unimaginative people looking for political gain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I was bitching about govt. spending then too.
Still, that is no reason not get get excited now, when after only a few months, the new administration has spent near DOUBLE what the previous admin spent.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't for a minute think the new administration would spend less than the previous one (which did spend like a drunken sailor), but, I had no clue they'd spend so much, so fast, on so
Re:Tax Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tax Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where were you complaining the last 8 years as the government ran up $TRILLIONS in debt, like on an unnecessary and neverending war? Or on unleashing free credit money while wages stayed the same?
From where are you pulling "75% taxes"? What else can we do to work our way out of the hole "we" dug ourselves into?
A tripling of debt is hardly digging yourself out. To me, it's more like digging deeper.
You were complaining about the trillions in debt from the last administration. This administration wants to more than triple that debt.
So allow me to turn the question around on you:
Why are you not complaining now that the current administration is putting us further and faster in debt than the last administration?
Or to put it another way:
Which tea party were you at?
Re:Tax Nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
So allow me to turn the question around on you:
Why are you not complaining now that the current administration is putting us further and faster in debt than the last administration?
I recognize that our current economic situation requires actions against my - and Obama's - long term goals. Sometimes spending money is necessary, even when the overall goal is to reduce spending. And Obama has pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. That's further in debt, yeah, but it's certainly not faster in debt as you claim.
Or to put it another way:
Which tea party were you at?
Personally I think my taxes are reasonable given the benefits I receive from my government. If anything, they could probably be raised a bit so the government wasn't needing to borrow to support me.
Re:Tax Nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
Well - Joe Dumbass will object (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't understand the future value of sending someone to the moon, or studying basic science of bird mating habits, or increasing blue laser efficiency 10% and how it eventually becomes useful. He just wants a job he can report to, and won't think about the future. Nevermind that his job might become outdated in 5 years...
It would be nice if the media would stop glorifying athletes, and stop portraying scientists/engineers/academics as nerds or evil.
Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object (Score:5, Funny)
stop portraying scientists/engineers/academics as nerds or evil.
You mean lie? :)
Seriously, we are pretty nerdy.
Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object (Score:5, Insightful)
We despise intellectuals. We kiss the feet of 'smart, successful people' like captains of industry and Wall street bankers. And we see ourselves as slaves to their interests,thus all of the 'tea-party' fools who will be getting tax cuts protesting on behalf of the poor beleaguered CEOs who will see their taxes increase.
No, it is the scientist, who does NOT generally benefit much from their own ingenuity, that we distrust.
The problem with basic scientific research is that, more often than not, it will be worthless for decades. No one wants to fund a gamble that might, if we are lucky, pay off in 30-40 years. Thus, basic scientific research is a kind of externality, a public good, and the free market is incapable of allotting the optimal amount of funding for public goods such as transportation, public education, and public health. That is econ 101.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's actually a bit of a catch-22. You see, when scientists publish this
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Science shows lemmings don't actually dive off cliffs to their deaths. ;)
Of course, the sheep I've seen were all pretty stupid -- and (domesticated) turkeys seem too dumb to live.
Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object (Score:4, Insightful)
The proper solution is to get the government - or any entity with a monopoly on force - out of the market. Then economic power will cease to have its political connotation.
No, then economic power will be the only power worth having. That would quickly precipitate a revolution because the only option for the "Average Joe", who just wants to turn up to work and do a basic days work (lets be clear: There's nothing wrong with that, without such people society would fall apart and they deserve decent pay & conditions), would be to organise in revolutionary parties based on the ideas of armed revolution. That basic understanding is one of the foundations of modern capitalist democracy.
Those in power accept the basic logic of Marxism hence such patently ludicrous ideas like the "natural rate of unemployment", aka "the reserve army of labour".
Capitalist plus democracy naturally tends towards the UKUSA model. The capitalist elite works to erode any lawful protection for workers that may exist due to previous historical factors, hence the emergence of people like Sarkozy in France.
Also, capitalism tends towards monopoly. Unabridged free market capitalism would naturally produce massive private {mono,oligo}polies, in the latter case there would be strong incentive to operate as a cartel. In such a situation revolution would be the only option for people to regain control of their lives.
As I pointed out, people in power understand this. That's why you see the current mish-mash of not quite capitalism, not quite socialism, not quite democracy. It's a compromise to keep society stable and the people in power, in power.
The same people who I see make this mistake also equivocate on the word "power" - economic power (success) is seen as equivalent to political power
That's because it is. Thus it has always been and thus it will always be; there's a reason this topic has historically been labelled "Political Economy". You can try to deny basic human nature but the fact is that economic power == political power and when someone has unchecked political power they will abuse it to feather their own nest at the expense of others, often at the expense of other peoples' lives. The market has no capacity to regulate that.
Re:Tea parties? Are you kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd really get along with John Galt [wikipedia.org], I think.
In all seriousness though, part of this is over compensation on the part of Joe Six Pack. Smart people are threatening because they are smart; therefore, make them seem less so by over emphasizing parts of them that aren't as attractive as others.
It's not as if the 'nerdy' qualities of most of us are actually qualities unique to anyone. We may as a group normally indulges in different flavors of these things, but they aren't that different from anyone else.
Our obsessions are just as rational (or irrational) as the next person, our quirks just as endearing (or annoying) as those of anyone else. It's simply that we have someone pointing at them and going "Oh! Look at him, isn't he goofy because of that."
Think Trekkies are scary? Try people who run fantasy sport leagues.
Think LARPers are dorks? Take a look at the more extreme sports fans out there and their attire (or lack of it).
Think computer geeks are weird for wasting weekends playing with Linux or building their own computers? Who would spend a perfectly good weekend fiddling with a car that already works for performance you'll never realistically use?
Anime freaks got you shaking your head? Next time American Idol has tryouts in your area take a look at who shows up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object (Score:5, Funny)
That's it. The next time somebody calls me evil, I'm going to destroy their house with my weather machine and send my droid army after their loved ones. That'll teach then to describe engineers as evil nerds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if other personal interests were run that way. "FOSS is good, therefore everyone should be required to fund it!"
Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object (Score:5, Insightful)
Right on, libertarian brother! We should do the same for roads, sewer systems, public schools, police, fire departments, and the armed forces. Enough with this damned socialism!
Right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would think that the poor probably wouldn't want to fund such an effort. The police and courts have, historically, not been all that kind to them, and in many cases they view the police and courts as an aggressor rather than a defender. The poor don't exactly have a lot of property worth protecting, and from their point of view probably wouldn't be any worse off under many other countries' rule.
The value of police, courts, and military protection are heavily skewed towards the rich.
Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object (Score:4, Insightful)
but your on your own when it comes to healthcare
EPIC FAIL.
A) Our private sector is getting its butt whipped trying to compete against the private sectors of the rest of the industrialized world because they don't have a healthcare burden on them.
B) "on your own" sounds a lot like what we got now. Hmm, 25% uninsured, another ~20% under-insured, double digit healthcare cost inflation, and America's dirty little sekrit: "The Uninsurables".
And no, 50 states trying 50 different patchwork solutions, and in some cases of course, deliberate non-solutions, will never solve the problem. Never mind the poorest states, who no one seriously believes will be able to do *anything* meaningful for their populations. This wouldn't work first because a large part of the industry is multi-state, and second because the only way to control the costs is to get as many people as possible into large insurance pools so you can offset the cost of the sick people by having lots of healthy people in the system at the same time (everyone else in the world has grokked this fact but us, for some reason). The only way to achieve very large pools, is to go nation-wide.
So basically we've got the most expensive health care system in the world, providing the least amount of the most important kind of care (basic primary care), and it doesn't even cover our entire population. You do realize we are the fscking laughing stock of the entire industrialized world because of this (and because they're taking financial advantage of us due to 'A' above), right?
Between the rising masses of uninsured (whose existance exerts an increasing stress upon whats left of the system) and the cost inflation (which in turn accelerates the number of people entering the ranks of the uninsured - notice the feedback loop here?), our health care system's outlook makes Social Security's future look positively rosy.
Oh, lets not even get into the billions of dollars in damage to our economy thats happening every year because for an increasing number of people, a single incident of major illness or major surgery means bankruptcy. And if you can't see how that is hurting all of us, then just think of this, the uninsured, and the cost inflation, as hidden taxes, that we all end up paying whether we know it or not.
We also pay in other ways: has your local hospital shut its ER because it can't afford to run it anymore? If you get sick, how far will you have to be driven to get to a hospital? Does your community have a scarcity of primary care physicians willing/able to take new patients? If a large number of people can't find a doctor, even if they have insurance, then you might as well consider them to be "uninsured" as well, and adding to that stress on the system.
So in the end, one way or the other, we *will* be forced to change, since no amount of hand waving about "personal liberties and freedoms" can change the fact that our health care (non-)system is headed for a financial meltdown if it doesn't change course.
The combination of increasing uninsured and runaway costs, is a slow acting, but inevitably lethal, poison. Its a train wreck looking for a place to happen. Its not if, its when, and yes, its just that simple.
The only question is how long do we put off the inevitable, where the longer we wait the more painful and *expensive* the final reckoning becomes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the single biggest threat to America is for us to try to be something we're not. We are NOT the USSR. We are not Israel. We are not China. We are not France.
Those countries have many things that define them from the source of culture to the method of content selection, to the sorts of business partnerships and types and quantity of advertising, each has a sort of place, and we aren't exactly any of those things.
The future success of America depends on us understanding what we stood for the last 10 y
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nevermind that his job might become outdated in 5 years...
Joe Dumbass? I assume you mean Joe Wurzelbacher?
His job has already been outdated for over 5 months; it just hasn't penetrated his thick skull.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, our children and grandchildren should pay for technological advances that make our lives easier.
More like their lives easier. Research is slow process - it takes years, maybe decades for an idea to progress from the sketching board to store shelves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More like their lives easier. Research is slow process - it takes years, maybe decades for an idea to progress from the sketching board to store shelves.
For you to have any argument, you'll have to show two things:
1. Show that such endeavors could not be done through private enterprise alone.
2. More importantly, show that the ends justify the means - that the various violations of individual rights that are inherent in government interventions into the economy are justified by your good intentions.
Re:3% if GDP for 480,000 people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the public get any payback if research develops the Next Big Thing? Nope, the scientist goes off, gets a patent and gets wildly personally wealthy.
That would explain why all the kids these days want to grow up to be a wealthy scientist, rather than a pro athlete, rapper, or movie star. Stupid science, stealing our best minds!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What utter bullshit.
No.
Or what, would you take pride in America limply following other nations achievements? Or do you want America to strive to be the best?
I know which one I'd perfer.