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."

11 of 753 comments (clear)

  1. Administration by jgtg32a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm for this if they can keep administration costs below 1 billion.

    1. Re:Administration by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      clinton had the budget balanced and in a yearly surplus by the end of his two terms

      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.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Administration by daveime · · Score: 5, Interesting

      US R&D only seems to make money for China these days

    3. Re:Administration by brkello · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The spending is to avoid going in to a depression. Both liberal and conservative economists agree that spending is how to avoid that. But I understand how that would scare the living crap out of Libertarian. Is it the right thing to do? I'm not sure, but I am willing to give the economists the benefit of the doubt for a few years. Besides, it isn't like we are blowing money on an illegal war. We are spending money on our own country. So yeah, we are spending a lot, but we are spending it on us, not the middle east.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  2. sincerely hope.. by EvilToiletPaper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FTA:
    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.

  3. What a way to flush 3% of GDP ... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. If he wants to do some good for research by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... he would get Congress to repeal the Bayh-Dole Act, and give the fruits of publicly-funded research back to the real researchers and the public, instead of allowing it to be monopolized by department heads and multinational corporations.

  5. Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You'd really get along with John Galt, 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.

  6. Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana? by larry+bagina · · 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 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.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  7. No more small businesses? Don't think so. by slashbart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm from the Netherlands where we're taxed somewhat more than you US-ians. I must say we have plenty of small businesses; from my many visits to the US, I guess we might have relatively more small businesses that are not part of some chain than in the US actually. This is just from looking around though, I have no data.

    1. Re:No more small businesses? Don't think so. by im_thatoneguy · · 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.