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."
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.
Didn't Bill Clinton in fact cut the deficit instead of tripling it like Reagan and Bush II? You must only be counting Republican presidents.
Describing the distinction between microeconomics and macroeconomics, which you also seem to be confused about, I will leave for others better-qualified than I.
Incidentally, use of a sig about Orwell when consigning whole Administrations to the Memory Hole is pretty darn gutsy, if foolish.
It's not that I'm against scientific funding. But is he talking about private funding or public funding. It's seems that it's public funding. Ok, what is he willing to cut? Or will there be a science tax? Why didn't he spend the stimulus money on this? It doesn't just fund scientists, but engineers, technicians and the staff to support them. Obama seems to be full of fancy ill-formed ideas that go absolutely nowhere. I also think that George W. Bush's "Let's go to Mars" plan was ill-conceived.
Now if there is to be research done, I want fusion fully funded. There is too much of a drain on Western civilization's resources sending money to Saudi kleptocrats (who only remain in power by backing terrorists). It will also solve the energy to mass problem (enormous amounts of rocket fuel to put something in orbit) preventing a viable space program. I would rather money be spent on regenerating lost limbs with adult stem cells than focus on prosthetic replacements. I can guarantee that there are companies putting a lot of effort into reducing the cost of solar cells (think, a laptop which recharges by leaving it out in the sun because it has a cheap solar cover) and into educational software (or any software which has a market). These are all engineering projects as opposed to science projects.
Any bets on which way the research comes out on any politically charged subject?
Like, say, "global warming"? (Or is that "climate change" this week?) Or how sonar affects sea lions? Or the risks for the endangered North American Wombat? Or how many birds are chopped up by windmills - especially when they're visible from the Kennedy compound?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You'll never get a flying car. At least not in our lifetimes.
It's not for technical reasons - the technology is there. You could, assuming enough capital, get a flying car (or, if you prefer, a drivable airplane).
The problem is with meatbag incompetence. Most people have trouble driving in two dimensions; tens of thousands of Americans die in car accidents. (I'm not looking this up; I think it's 85k, but it's late and I'm tired.) 3D would be beyond the abilities of most drivers.
Cheap, readily available airborne vehicles would be carnage. That's why we won't see it happen.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.