Slashdot Mirror
Obama Says 3% of GDP Should Fund Science Research And Development
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."
...how much were we spending before? This doesn't seem like a tremendously large number.
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.
I am a big supporter of getting back into a R&D based funding operation. And I don't mean we should be R&Ding war tools, we should be developing better telecommunications tools, better healthcare tools, better computers for both business and consumer, better cars, better planes, better boats, better shipping technology... everything. There is no reason that America shouldn't be the world leader in all of these things.
Crackin' Wise - Blogging about whatever we want
Otherwise, I just dunno how we're gonna pay for everything here in the very recent past.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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 DARPA. That technology does make it to the civilian sector, so we don't need this extra 3% tax on America.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
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 Nevermind that his job might become outdated in 5 years...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.
..........FULL STOP.
I would like to think they are making this decision because someone finally realized that money doesn't actually grow on trees.
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".
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
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.
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.
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]
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.
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?
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.
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
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?
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
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.
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.
Seeing you partially brought this up, let's take the drug companies. Currently, their strategy is to create the same drug which is coming out of patent protection and can start being made by generics, tweak the formula slightly, whip up an ad campaign and start pushing the drug on doctors to prescribe this so-called "new and better" drug over the generic drug you can get for 1/10th the cost. Rinse and repeat. They already have their money tree and it's not doing us a fat-lot of good.
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.
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.
3% of GDP on "scientific R&D" doesn't mean 3% of GDP on grant funded projects, it means getting corporations and the private sector to get back to the kind of investments they made in the early days of Bell labs...
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!
I am not a crackpot.
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.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
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 will argue that defense spending gives us products of little worth. However, a good chunk of defense spending goes towards military research and development (science!) which is done by defense contractors, government organizations, and universities. I wonder if Obama plans to include this money in his 3%.
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
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.
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.
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 much worthless stuff (not directly really aiming funds to fix the economy).
So, yes, a money tree would be a nice project.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
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.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Then why did they reelect him in 2004?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
While I agree spending is still out of control how do you figure that this administration spent double what the previous administration spent? Are you under the impression the 700 billion in bail-out money passed under Bush is somehow spent by the current administration? Besides that the rest only seems to be small increases in spending in a lot of areas that would make sense if we could actually afford it.
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!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
If you think that's bad, wait until you join the commercial world. You'll find out how much money is skimmed off for CEO bonuses, marketing (which is really quite similar to the grant writing you are talking about), legal department, etc. Very little of the work involved in the commercial world is related to production or research. Very little.
Fox News anchors *hosted* some of the larger ones. They also helped find and setup others. To say that doesn't qualify as orchestrating anything is downright ridiculous.
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.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I don't know where you are getting 2 trillion dollars from. The stimulus bill was $787 billion and the omnibus bill for 2009 was $410 billion. That's around $1.2 trillion, which is less than the $555 billion omnibus bill + $700 billion bank bailout under Bush last year.
Time makes more converts than reason