U.S. Science Agencies Get Some Relief In 2014 Budget

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Science Agencies Get Some Relief In 2014 Budget

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday January 15, 2014 @06:17AM from the make-science-not-war dept.

sciencehabit writes "The ghost of former President George W. Bush permeates the 2014 budget that Congress released this week. His presence is good news for physical scientists, but less cheery for biomedical researchers, as Congress reserved some of the biggest spending increases for NASA and the Department of Energy. The National Institutes of Health, meanwhile, got a $1 billion increase that is drawing mixed reviews from research advocates."

83 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 06:18 · Score: 0

NASA needs it more than you, they've received year-on-year budget cuts since the 80s.
1. Re:Suck it NIH by neoritter · 2014-01-15 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, agree. I may be wrong, but I feel like NASA has a much better ROI than the NIH.
2. Re:Suck it NIH by i+kan+reed · 2014-01-15 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Only if you're willing to put 0% of increases in disease treat-ability down to NIH research. It's hard to look at a person who survived cancer due to an experimental treatment and say "if we let 20 people like you die, we could have gotten an extra satellite in orbit." That's not to say I think NASA doesn't need funding, it does! It's just that NIH as useless is staggeringly unreasonable.
3. Re:Suck it NIH by MBGMorden · 2014-01-15 06:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't think anybody called it "useless". They simply stated that NASA has a better ROI and deserved more of a budget increase.
  They didn't DEFUND the NIH. They just gave them less of an increase. The real world isn't binary where it's all or nothing.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
4. Re:Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Stack all the private industry pharmaceutical research industry alongside the NIH funding.
  Now stack all the private industry space research alongside NASA's budget.
  I'm sure the first stack is by far larger than the second.
  One must remember in these discussions "research advocates" == "people wanting to spend those dollars the government took from you and me".
5. Re:Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  No doubt that increase in NASA budget is due to China's trip to the moon.
6. Re:Suck it NIH by gtall · 2014-01-15 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it makes sense to talk about ROI when comparing NASA and NiH. The GP had it correct, how do you balance lives saved over space exploration. It is comparing apples and oranges. One might choose one or the other based on other criteria, but there's no way the units on ROI between NASA and NiH match. Think of it in terms of data types, you couldn't compare an integer and a character unless you coerced one to the other, and you would only do that if one was masquerading as the other.
7. Re:Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  NIH budget was doubled in the past 7 years or so. Further it got over $10B in the "stimulus" pork barrel deal. This is a moderation of the overspending of the recent past. It could be cut by an actual 10% and be fine. So could NASA, which has lost its discovery gene and become a military-industrial complex jobs program.
  NASA should put a tiny $5B into the smaller rocket and related companies if they wanted to do something useful. Bring about the private sector to replace the government sector. But then they would see that as self-defeating, wouldn't they?
  JJ
8. Re: Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  That works until you consider that pharma spends money where it can make a profit. Got a kid with cancer? Pharma doesn't care unless the drug is an already in use adult treatment and selling for pediatric use is additional profit.
9. Re:Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  NIH's budget has gone up dramatically in both real and adjusted dollars in the past decade. They do some good work, but they also have way more bureaucrats then they need to do their job.
  A modest increase is plenty. A modest cut wouldn't hurt but Obama wouldn't accept that because he's using NIH, CDC, and other agencies to hide the true cost of "Affordable" healthcare.
10. Re:Suck it NIH by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-15 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  So, you like getting dementia in your 60s then?
  Considering we live to our late 80s now, that's going to be fun for you!
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
11. Re:Suck it NIH by neoritter · 2014-01-15 07:51 · Score: 2
  
  How do you compare survival of the species (NASA) over increased survival of more people (NIH)? In my mind NASA funding is long term benefits while NIH is more about short term benefits. To put is simplistically, nothing the NIH is doing is going to save us from the inevitable death of this planet. But NASA research will. I'm digressing though. We can play a subjective cost/benefit comparison game all day. But that wasn't what I meant by ROI. I meant it in the strict economical sense. For every $1 of investment I get $X of profit. I'm essentially saying I feel like the advances found by NASA produce more economic growth and capital, and by extension more tax revenue for the government, than advances from the NIH does.
  I fully recognize that this is a complex answer with varying perspectives. Which is why I qualified my statement as purely opinionated and even explicitly stated I may be wrong. And like others pointed out, I did not mean to say the NIH is useless or more specifically that it doesn't deserve funding. I was merely implying that NASA deserves more funding than the NIH.
12. Re:Suck it NIH by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-15 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, they did defund NIH. Our rents and other costs went up, so this is below sustaining level.
  But that's in the real world, where cybersecurity gets Trillions that goes unremarked while real science gets fractions of pennies on the dollar.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
13. Re:Suck it NIH by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-15 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Get back to me after a disease kills off or renders ineffective half of your population.
  A lot what we do keeps people from dying from non-rare diseases. The exotic diseases just get more press.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
14. Re:Suck it NIH by HornWumpus · 2014-01-15 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  No, I loved dementia in my teens. But the doctor is old and tired now.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
15. Re: Suck it NIH by danbert8 · 2014-01-15 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because no one will spend money to save a kid from cancer...
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
16. Re:Suck it NIH by Virtucon · 2014-01-15 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Hey they had to come up with the Sebelius Sneeze didn't they?
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
17. Re:Suck it NIH by neoritter · 2014-01-15 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah that hurts if 100% of your population is living together. But if the population is segmented into 10-20% semi-isolated groups, that would help mitigate the effects of a pandemic wouldn't it?
  The black plague killed something like 30-60% of Europe's population. But the world only lost an estimated 15-25% of the population. If early man had not explorer for new land and places to live the world population might've looked closer to Europe's loss wouldn't it?
18. Re:Suck it NIH by neoritter · 2014-01-15 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Retirement is between 62-67 in the US and 55-70 worldwide. Society has already decided it's probably best to throw in the towel at that point. So it's not a huge deal if my brain decides to. By then my kids would probably be grown up, I won't be having anymore, entertainment activities will probably start to diminish at that point as well. Most everything past 60 is gravy in my mind, heck if I die at 60, my kids will get more of my retirement. Not saying I'd kill myself or advocate for someone killing me when I retire, or to go out and do that to others. Let's be honest after retirement you're just chilling in the waiting room while you wait for death to call your number.
19. Re:Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  The other costs being raises, right? Because even though the rest of the country has to forgo raises, heaven forbid a government agent suffer the same.
20. Re:Suck it NIH by rossdee · 2014-01-15 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Taking the really long view, if we don't spread out into space we will become extinct the next time there is a planet wide catastrophe, whether of our own making(climate change, nuclear war) or some natural event (supervolcano, giant asteroid, gamma ray burst etc
  And any other research is just equivalent to deckchairs on the Titanic
  I am not sure what the NIH does. I thought it stood for Not Invented Here
21. Re:Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  Will is clearly a shrill for the NIH. He works there and will throw out random disease threat at anyone who suggests that NIH should not get any more money?
  You afraid you won't get the raise you wanted? Don't worry, it's government. They will still give you that money.
22. Re: Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  Bald kids do make fundraising earlier, but there is a limit to what fundraising can do. Just pointing out that cutting NIH funding disproportionately affects certain areas.
23. Re:Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  I can't speak for other labs, but the ones my friends and I work in don't have automatic raises for many of the positions, and in the last couple years wages were flat or in one case reduced so that someone didn't have to be laid off.
24. Re:Suck it NIH by OneAhead · 2014-01-15 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how a majority of people on this site wants to believe we're going to cure aging and live forever, but doesn't want to pay for the fundamental research that would help us move in that direction. (Although the goal is unattainable, NIH research directly contributes to increases in life expectancy.)
  Not taking sides here, just making an observation. My opinion is that, while fighting for immortality is a futile endeavor, the NIH should be funded nevertheless because the fundamental research they perform also has application in fighting multiresistant bacteria and potentially pandemic viruses, which might start causing trouble sooner than a giant asteroid or gamma ray burst. To a lesser extent, the NIH should also be funded just to avoid the inconsistency of nobody wanting to get heart disease or cancer but nobody wanting to fund the quest for better cures, not to mention the inconsistency of everyone whining about America losing economic competitiveness while at the same time snubbing its one strong source of economic competitiveness: fundamental research. That said, NASA should also be funded for the reasons parent cited. And don't forget to give those fusion researchers something too; they're working on a potential solution to a lot of huge problems, on a shoe-string budget. Where to get the money? The military and the pointless-wars-fund can do with a few % less. And those oil industry subsidies should be consigned to history, where they belong.
25. Re:Suck it NIH by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-15 12:51 · Score: 2
  
  Let's be honest after retirement you're just chilling in the waiting room while you wait for death to call your number.
  I'll tell that to my dad who became a professor in his 60s
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
26. Re:Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 13:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  2013 NIH budget: $31.3 billion
  2007 NIH budget: $30.3 billion
  
  Far from doubling the NIH budget hasn't kept pace with inflation and has been declining in real dollars since 2003. The $8.2 billion (not 10) stimulus largely went to fund existing projects that the previous decade of NIH budgets were too miserly to properly fund. Scientists have become accustomed to having the NIH whack 10% (or more) off of a successful grant application, and when only 18% (officially, though I know of no field getting anywhere near that high) of grant applications get funded there's no end of worthy research that isn't being properly funded.
27. Re:Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  During the depression I got a 3% pay cut when I was supposed to get a 1% (my first in five years) raise. Then due to lack of funding I lost my job. I got a job in industry that's approximately a half a grade up from what I previously did as a government researcher. My salary more than doubled and I have vastly superior benefits compared to my life as a "government agent." No one I know who went from government to industry got less than a 50% pay raise.
28. Re:Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 13:39 · Score: 0
  
  That linked page does not say what you think it says. It shows that in constant dollars the NIH budget peaked ten years ago. The page is even titled "The NIH budget never actually doubled." Reality's well known liberal bias strikes again.
29. Re:Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 14:22 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, the big increases came during Bush's first term. But I wonder about the adjustment they used.
  In both 2002 and 2007 the Constant Dollar budget was around $7B, but the Current Dollar budget went form $21B to $28B. Inflation wasn't that high during those years, something doesn't add up.
30. Re:Suck it NIH by neoritter · 2014-01-15 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  He's not retired now is he?
31. Re:Suck it NIH by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 17:10 · Score: 0
  
  Slapping 21 billion into a spreadsheet with a couple estimates of yearly inflation rates only accounts for about 75%, according to my two minutes effort. However anybody past their first year of grad school could tell you that scientific supplies and instruments vastly exceed inflation, which could easily account for the remainder and then some.
32. Re:Suck it NIH by davester666 · 2014-01-15 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  course, those 20 people are all over 80 years old and have numerous other problems besides cancer....
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Yup. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 06:19 · Score: 0

Election year. Can't look too much like luddites.
Flat is the new up by Geoffrey.landis · 2014-01-15 06:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

Calling it a "spending increase" for NASA is a bit strongly worded. What it is, is that the 2013 sequester is not repeated in the 2014 budget-- it's still a cut from the funding from before the 2013 sequester.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
1. Re:Flat is the new up by ganjadude · 2014-01-15 07:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  we are still spending more than the previous year. so yes it is a spending increase
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
2. Re:Flat is the new up by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  Since when is the inverse of a spending cut not a spending increase? The politicians are bad enough with decrying a smaller than desired spending increase as a spending cut, we don't need regular people follow suit.
inflation by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 06:37 · Score: 0

it's too bad that higher prices due to inflation will offset these spending increases
1. Re:inflation by danbert8 · 2014-01-15 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's too bad that the government printing money to pay for science programs creates inflation that reduces the net spending on science programs.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Raise Taxes! by TemperedAlchemist · 2014-01-15 06:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

And give it all to NASA, pls.
1. Re:Raise Taxes! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran will hold a press conference call on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. (PDT) to discuss the release of the final Bristol Bay Assessment.
  WHO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Administrator, Dennis McLerran
  WHAT: Press conference call to discuss final Bristol Bay Assessment
  WHEN: Wednesday, January 15, 2014, 11:00 a.m. (PST)
  HOW: Members of the media interested in participating should dial in 10 minutes prior to the beginning of the call at: (877) 317-0679 and give the call ID number 35434746. The name of the call is the Bristol Bay Update.
  ***THIS CALL IS FOR CREDENTIALED NEWS MEDIA ONLY***
  For more information go to: www.epa.gov/bristolbay
  Follow @EPAnorthwest on Twitter https://twitter.com/EPAnorthwest
2. Re:Raise Taxes! by ganjadude · 2014-01-15 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  cut taxes, and a shit ton of redundancy from the government, and give that to NASA. NASA gets a net gain and we get to spend less
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
3. Re:Raise Taxes! by Sez+Zero · 2014-01-15 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  At first I thought you wrote "Raze Texas" and was thinking, Republic of NASA?
4. Re:Raise Taxes! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  fu
5. Re:Raise Taxes! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  Or just lower my taxes and increase ganjadude's taxes. Same difference, right?
6. Re:Raise Taxes! by master5o1 · 2014-01-15 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  I get the feeling that Texas doesn't like their anagram.
  Is a person who pays tax a taxen?
  
  --
  signature is pants
7. Re:Raise Taxes! by dj245 · 2014-01-15 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  And give it all to NASA, pls.
  Pork isn't pork when it is your pork.
  
  --
  Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
8. Re:Raise Taxes! by operagost · 2014-01-15 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Raise everyone else's Taxes!
  
  FTFY
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Maybe good news by Akratist · 2014-01-15 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Without getting political, if we're going to spend public money on research, energy and space exploration probably make more sense than anything else right now. Oil is eventually going to run out and we will eventually face an extinction threat to the species at some point (yes, true, research into disease might help with the next plague, but there are asteroids, global war, and many other things to consider). A long-term survival strategy is not keeping all of us on this single planet, but rather, spreading out to the stars, and the continuing discovery of earthlike planets is eventually going to lead us to one that is habitable.
1. Re:Maybe good news by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  ...A long-term survival strategy is not keeping all of us on this single planet, but rather, spreading out to the stars, and the continuing discovery of earthlike planets is eventually going to lead us to one that is habitable.
  That's not the long-term strategy.
  The strategic strategy is figuring out how we get there.
  The true long-term strategy is figuring out how to not fuck up the new planet as bad as we did this one. That won't be easy, but perhaps after traveling several years to get there, a more enlightened man(kind) will emerge.
2. Re:Maybe good news by mythosaz · 2014-01-15 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  As long as the number of planets available to colonize, divided by the years it takes to suck them dry is less than the amount of time it takes for planets to either reset or be created/discovered, then we can just become nomads.
  Sucking planets dry in a great circle of abandon/respawn isn't much different than crop rotation on a galactic scale.
3. Re:Maybe good news by TheNastyInThePasty · 2014-01-15 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  Sounds like the strategy being used in West Virgina.
  
  --
  The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
4. Re:Maybe good news by neoritter · 2014-01-15 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like the aliens from Independence Day and Oblivion.
5. Re:Maybe good news by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-16 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  I support space exploration and colonization also. But not because of bogus reasons. (A: Oil does *not* run out. We simply consume more than is produced and then must wait x million years for replenishment. And things like Biodiesel ameliorate that. B: We are something like +50 years in being able to wipe the human species from the planet. May yet happen. But knee-jerk OMG WE MIGHT DIE is not the proper attitude to have to survive.)
  
  *snip* Oil is eventually going to run out and we will eventually face an extinction threat to the species at some point (yes, true, research into disease might help with the next plague, but there are asteroids, global war, and many other things to consider). A long-term survival strategy is not keeping all of us on this single planet, but rather, spreading out to the stars, and the continuing discovery of earthlike planets is eventually going to lead us to one that is habitable.
Ghost of GWB by jarich · 2014-01-15 07:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ghost of GWB?
How many years has Obama been in office? Eventually you've got to give him some credit... you know, what with the 2nd term and all....

--
Agile Artisans
1. Re:Ghost of GWB by Nimey · 2014-01-15 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's nonsensical anyway, it's Congress that sets spending.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
2. Re:Ghost of GWB by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-01-15 08:00 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  People always rebut "But the President sends a proposed budget to Congress". Yes, and it's a complete waste of time. Congress takes that proposal, throws it directly in the garbage, and then creates a budget- as is their constitutional power. It has always worked like that and always will.
3. Re:Ghost of GWB by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  I think it's a reference to Bush being kinder to NASA than he was to biotech science...
  
  Not that hard of a concept to grasp or are you new to the who science funding thing? Or maybe you just need a reason to mention Obama?
4. Re:Ghost of GWB by Solandri · 2014-01-15 08:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The biggest increase (in raw dollars) in R&D spending in recent years (both defense and non-defense) happened under Bush's administration. Obama has more or less been holding non-defense R&D spending steady until it spiked last year, while cutting defense R&D.
  
  In my book, holding a past increase steady warrants credit too (Obama resisted the urge to cut it back down to save money). But credit for bringing us up to current levels has to go to Bush. (Lots more pretty graphs to look at.)
5. Re:Ghost of GWB by Solandri · 2014-01-15 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  The President sends a proposal, Congress works out the details (with negotiation and ultimatums with the President), and the President signs it. So both are responsible.
  
  What usually happens is when something unpopular happens with the budget, people blame Congress OR the President depending on which one is controlled by the party they dislike. Likewise when something popular happens with the budget, people give credit to Congress OR the President depending on which is controlled by the party they like.
  
  That's why it's common to see self-contradictory opinions like giving Clinton credit for balancing the budget in 1998, but blaming the Republicans in Congress for cutting science funding that year. The truth is both were responsible for balancing the budget, and one of the things they did to achieve that was to cut science funding.
6. Re:Ghost of GWB by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Obama resisted the urge to cut it back down to save money
  
  A politician having to resist the urge to save money is the like a vegetarian having to resist the urge to eat haggus.
7. Re:Ghost of GWB by neoritter · 2014-01-15 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm confused, is this supposed to mean that it's easy or hard? I feel like it's the former, but the latter makes more sense. Because haggus is pretty good.
8. Re:Ghost of GWB by JackieBrown · 2014-01-15 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  That only works when he accepts credit for the shape the country is in since his election - and not since when he was swore the oath, but since the time he won the election.
  People like to look at the months before Obama was sworn in and as an entire picture of Bush's presidency when in reality, it was businesses reacting to Obama winning
9. Re:Ghost of GWB by cyn1c77 · 2014-01-15 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  Ghost of GWB?
  How many years has Obama been in office? Eventually you've got to give him some credit... you know, what with the 2nd term and all....
  What, specifically, should he be given credit for?
  He already got the Nobel Peace Prize before he did anything related to peace.
  I would say that he is in the credit hole at this point and still trying to dig his way out.
Technology by the+eric+conspiracy · 2014-01-15 07:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

Economics tells us that there are only two real things that cause economic growth.
1. Population growth.
2. Technological progress.
We need as much of the latter as possible, and should address that goal with the full intent of the nation starting with generous public support of math and science education as early as possible in the life of our children.
Furthermore any public constraint or impediment towards that end should be uprooted and eradicated with extreme vigor and prejudice.
The motivation is nothing short of the survival of the human species.
1. Re:Technology by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  This is wrong. The only thing that causes economic growth is increased production efficiency. That can be because of technology or improved methods, investments in capital equipment, etc. Technological progress that does not directly improve production efficiency does not grow the economy.
2. Re:Technology by neoritter · 2014-01-15 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Proof of point. Pre-industrial France to pre-industrial Britain. France was technologically superior, but they used that technology for artistic ventures like marionettes. Britain used it to increase its production.
3. Re:Technology by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  Proof of point. Pre-industrial France to pre-industrial Britain. France was technologically superior, but they used that technology for artistic ventures like marionettes. Britain used it to increase its production.
  And most American exports and all our growth in exports is in the entertainment industry. Something to think about before mocking the French.
4. Re:Technology by the+eric+conspiracy · 2014-01-15 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  You have the cart before the horse.
  Without technology Britain would not have been able to improve production. Technology pulls production efficiency along behind it.
  Also the idea that improving production efficiency is the only thing that counts is missing the point that having new high value things to make, say like modern pharmaceuticals and CPUs and jetliners increases the value of manufacturing processes tremendously.
  It isn't just making stuff that more efficiently, it's also about making stuff that has a higher value.
5. Re:Technology by cheesybagel · 2014-01-16 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, population growth increases economic growth as well. As production is defined by the number of workers x tool efficiency.
6. Re:Technology by cheesybagel · 2014-01-16 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  I think France did ok. They had a lot of social and economic issues and experienced a lot of revolts from the XVIIIth to the XIXth century. Plus they had the continental powers to deal with. Unlike the UK they couldn't just hunker down and rely on the Navy to defend their nation. They have always had to split their resources more towards land armies than the UK.
  I mean Ampére? French. Sabatier? French. Pasteur? French. They didn't do THAT bad in technological development.
7. Re:Technology by neoritter · 2014-01-16 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying they didn't do well. In fact I'm kind of stating the opposite, they did better. The problem was, most of their advances and efforts weren't about increasing production and efficiency and by that token economic growth. France stagnated economically during the late 18th and early 19th centuries as a result. It's a common question in European history classes, why Britain and not France for the industrial revolution? And pretty much every answer boils down to, their priorities were elsewhere.
8. Re:Technology by cheesybagel · 2014-01-16 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Napoleon III remodeled Paris at vast expense to stop the constant worker rebellions. Then his incessant infatuation with warfare ignited the Franco-Prussian war when he decided to invade Belgium. France had to pay heavy war reparations after it lost that war with Germany. So it comes as little surprise their economy stagnated then.
Most of the money is for cybersecurity and related by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-15 07:42 · Score: 1

Trillions.
There's your budget hole.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re me no worry about diseases by WillAffleckUW · 2014-01-15 08:41 · Score: 1

Technically, you can't have dementia in your teens.
Early onset is usually in the 40s.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:Unconstitutional by agm · 2014-01-15 09:18 · Score: 1

And no moral authority to confiscate wealth from hard working Americans to fund it.
you can't have dementia in your teens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 09:23 · Score: 0

He was referring to Barret Eugene Hansen
Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 09:27 · Score: 0

If ancaps were running the world, Columbus would never have landed in the western hemisphere and Armstrong would never have landed on the moon.
First, let's re-direct the penis pump money by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 09:42 · Score: 0

We spent well over $100 million federal tax dollars on penis pumps for old guys... re-direct THAT to NASA's commercial crew program.
Under Obama, food stamps have doubled from approx $20 bilion PER YEAR to about $40 billion PER YEAR. If the guy had done more to get middle-class Americans back to work and less to encourage everybody to sign-up for hand-outs, NASA's Budget could have more than doubled (and not just as a one year blip but every year) and we could have a fully-funded permanent moon base with work underway on a Mars program (all WITH a massive Bush admin-sized food stamp program which at about $20 billion per year was already record-breaking). All it takes is a competent president (and, no, I'm not being partisan here.... JFK was a comptetent Democrat, Romney was an incompetent Republican)
Re:Unconstitutional by neoritter · 2014-01-15 10:12 · Score: 1

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
In providing for the common defence you may need to establish R&D operations to find better versions of guns and other arms. In promoting the general welfare the government may need establish R&D to operations to find better cures for diseases, find better ways to facilitate transportation of goods and materials.
I guess you're also against the Louisiana Purchase.
spectre by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-15 15:47 · Score: 0

fucking bush!