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."
I hope those get funded. In all seriousness, I've thought we have been lagging. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. But then again.
on how to create money out of thin air. stop spending, mister president. the national debt is at an obscene level.
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
I went to two of those tea parties. I protested on behalf of the fools and of the successful. Neither extreme, nor anyone in between, should be forced to give up their property against their will.
Hah! Ever hear of the IRS? They do it every day for over a century and a half. The roads aren't going to build themselves you know. Everybody pays taxes. And everyone benefits from having roads, too.
This whole tea party thing is just a gigantic public jackoff orchestrated by Fox news. Primarily because their guiding philosophy is "if their side does it, it's automatically bad." How about all those taxes you paid while Bush II held the reins? Why didn't those chap your ass? He did bailouts too you know, 700B worth as he walked out the door. And oh yeah, also got us into a seriously expensive war or two.
Where's your outrage over that? Oh yeah, there isn't any. Because the asshole who did all that has a (R) after his name, and not a (D), so it's okay.
It's like listening to a bunch of 5 year olds argue for chrissakes. Grow the fuck up already.
Why should the government be spending more money.. This is the problem they think they have have their hands in everything.. Government is getting bigger and bigger when it should get smaller. Unless they spend 3% of how to fix the US government its crap spending and will be filled with millions of earmarks from senators like Dem Martha for his silly useless airport that gets maybe 50 passengers and 2 flights a day.. Thats how this government and country got f*&$ed by them thinking they need to hold our hand everywhere they just need to focus on making laws providing defense for the country
Sure thing... we'll start by removing our troops from Europe and Japan, letting our western allies see what it is like to fend for themselves (not to mention the billions of dollars in economic boost they get from the hundreds of thousands of troops stationed at bases there). I'd also like Europe to cut a check for all the money we spent cleaning up the Balkans for them since they weren't able to do it themselves (and in fact, relied on a defensive pact to act offensively to get us to do it).
I'd love the US to be able to cut back from foreign spending, especially military spending. But to do that, Europe and the like will have to step up and start funding actual capable militaries of their own. Foreigners want the US to go home until they want to use the US's power themselves... then it's a whole different story. We just can't win with the internationalists since no matter what we do, we're wrong. "Go home and mind your own business, but save Darfur!"
So why did we have to do the heavy lifting in the Balkans, which are in Europe, for you again? And let me guess, you were born sometime in the 80s, so you don't remember the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain. On the western side of that was the US holding back the Soviets from expansion. The Europeans used to be a little more grateful for the US when it was their ass on the line, but it's become fashionable to blame the US for everything since, which I believe is deeply rooted in the idea that the European empires of old no longer reign the world (speaking of which, it was European colonialism that screwed up most of the world before the US became involved in global affairs)
And yeah, Darfur isn't in Europe. How about a little reading comprehension? I said Europeans are always parading about the big bad US interfering in politics around the world, but they also demand that the US get involved in politics around the world, so long as its the politics Europeans want to get involved with (but don't want to fund themselves). That whole Vietnam thing started with France begging for help because they had screwed up. Once they got us involved, the French promptly turned tail and ran, leaving us with their mess.