US Federal Budget Proposal Cuts Science Funding (washingtonpost.com) 649
hey! writes: The U.S. Office of Management and Budget has released a budget "blueprint" which outlines substantial cuts in both basic research and applied technology funding. The proposal includes a whopping 18% reduction in National Institutes of Health medical research. NIH does get a new $500 million fund to track emerging infectious agents like Zika in the U.S., but loses its funding to monitor those agents overseas. The Department of Energy's research programs also get an 18% cut in research, potentially affecting basic physics research, high energy physics, fusion research, and supercomputing. Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E) gets the ax, as does the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, which enabled Tesla to manufacture its Model S sedan. EPA loses all climate research funding, and about half the research funding targeted at human health impacts of pollution. The Energy Star program is eliminated; Superfund funding is drastically reduced. The Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes cleanup programs are also eliminated, as is all screening of pesticides for endocrine disruption. In the Department of Commerce, Sea Grant is eliminated, along with all coastal zone research funding. Existing weather satellites GOES and JPSS continue funding, but JPSS-3 and -4 appear to be getting the ax. Support for transfer of federally funded research and technology to small and mid-sized manufacturers is eliminated. NASA gets a slight trim, and a new focus on deep space exploration paid for by an elimination of Earth Science programs. You can read more about this "blueprint" in Nature, Science, and the Washington Post, which broke the story. The Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department and Agriculture Department took the hardest hits, while the Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Veterans Affairs have seen their budgets grow.
Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Total, utter morons.
THANKS, Trump voters.
Re:Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Funny)
Total, utter morons.
THANKS, Trump voters.
After all, this, do you STILL have no fucking clue how important email management is to us?!?
(This is so-ooo going to fail the Poe's Law test, but it was worth it.)
Re: Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that calling the people who want to fund science and education "stupid" reflects somewhat poorly on your cognitive faculties?
Re: (Score:3)
And I'm sure a lot of people think that way. But it is unfortunately not something we are capable of handling.
I bet you want to fund successful startup companies too, right? Everyone does. There are thousands upon thousands of incubators and investment funds that spend a lot of time trying to filter out the good startups from the bad startups. And do you know how many startup companies go on to succeed? About 1 in 10. That's *after* filtering.
The same applies to science. You are not alone in wanting good, s
Re:Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
No..
What we have here, other than a failure to communicate, is a budget that simply represents what the average American wants.
Americans love money, and growth, and power. hence the need for a business friendly budget.
Americans are terrified of the rest of the world, hence more insane defense spending.
Americans make a lot of noise about the environment, but don't actually do anything about it, hence cutting spending on such projects.
So Americans, go look in the mirror and consider that this budget, as a nation, reflects you. Maybe not the individual you, but the group.
And not just the right, or the left. Not just Dems or reps. This is how the whole world sees you all, as a nation.
Sad perhaps, but true.
But don't worry, you will all forget it as soon as the next football game kicks off, the next Hollywood personality splashes some opinion piece, or you decide to 'peace keep' another country into the dirt.
It will pass, because really, you don't care.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not saying Islamic terror isn't a threat, but to put it in perspective, it seems we have just as much to fear from substance abusing or mentally ill drivers mowing people down in a crowd as we do from Jihadis executing carefully planned attacks. Both in terms of the numbers of victims and the frequency of incidents.
Re: Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's racist.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus Trump oddly keeps forgetting to put the countries that we know harbor terrorists off his executive orders. (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt). The 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. The French
Re:Morons are running the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Not at all.
What we have here is the budget built by a corporatocratic military industrial complex that uses everything they have learned on Madison Avenue to sell it.
Re:Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Interesting)
In fairness, there are parts that are clearly designed to attract all the protest and anger and then have it evaporate when they drop it. The NIH cuts are part, possibly all of that scheme. Newt Gingrich and a lot of other people in the Trump party are strongly in favor of INCREASING funding the NIH. They likely realize that what the NIH works on will benefit them more than an additional 100 warplanes on top of the fuckload we already have would.
I mean, it could turn out to pass that the NIH does get cut, dumber things have happened with this administration. It might have been a mistake that Trump will just run with.
And not just the right, or the left. Not just Dems or reps. This is how the whole world sees you all, as a nation.
"the average american" didn't and doesn't want for Trump, and didn't vote for him, let's remember that. You're right that the rest of the world, like an unfortunate amount of americans don't care about the important details, they just want to seem above political fights. Americans are, after all, pretty average people. People in general don't like jumping into a political fight because it makes us feel unclean. Makes it harder to pretend we're superior to both sides. But when facing the consequences we're facing now, it's more than just arrogant. People who can't or won't tell a difference between the party of Trump and the party of Obama/HRC are the people responsible for the current administration doing what it is doing right now. Whatever passes will be because of people like you who don't care to call someone right and someone wrong and risk being wrong yourself.
Re:"The average american" didn't want for Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
The word 'average' actually has a meaning. Hint, the Electoral College skew toward low-population states is not part of that meaning.
Re:"The average american" didn't want for Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
The "average American" did vote for Trump.
Only if you consider urban votes not worth counting. Democracy is supposed to be one person-one vote. Not one acre of land-one vote.
Re: Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, you'd have to be crazy to think that it would only cost $21 billion. I know $21 billion is the supposedly realistic number compared to Trumps ridiculous lowball of 8 billion. Supposedly the upper limit is around $40 billion. That means that the actual, real amount, if this actually gets built, will be $80+ billion.
Re: Morons are running the USA (Score:4)
21 just for materials.
theres also labor.
and the logistics of supporting all that labor (food, housing, water), along 1700 miles of inhospitable land, as well as logistic of getting hte materials there (rough, uneven, inaccessible terrain).
theres also the considerations that if made of concrete, depending on rate of consumption (ie how fast its built), it will consume between 80 and 160% of the entire US supply of cement during construction.
even the steel required for the rebar will consume a significant fraction of the nations steel supply, or china's since trump is so fond of sourcing from them.
Re: Morons are running the USA (Score:3, Funny)
The U.S. isn't paying for the wall. Mexico will be covering the cost of it, either directly or indirectly. So it's actually a net win for the U.S., in that they get a value-producing (the wall produces safety and provides border security services) tangible asset without actually paying for it.
Re: (Score:3)
It wont. It's costing billions and it'll require upkeep when it's done. I grew up in Texas. I left the moment I graduated high school and haven't looked back.
I wonder how much is being spent in hospital bills because of Texas' policies on abortion clinics...
Re:Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, funnily enough, of that $20 trillion in debt, $19 trillion is owed directly to the people of the United States. About 1 Trillion is for China, and a few billion here and there for other countries.
So what we should do is file a lien on the Government, and take every bit of military, CIA, FBI, and DARPA technology, gov't housing for those holding office, all of their pay raises (and accounts since they're paid by our tax money) and revoke their ability to collect taxes until their debt to us is settled.
Re: (Score:3)
It's approximately 6 trillion held by foreign nations, not 1.something trillion. You can get at that directly from the Treasury department.
You are correct that most of the debt is owned by us in one way or another, but your figures are way off.
Re:Morons are running the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
We are 20 fucking trillion dollars in debt.
What the fuck so you want?
The US budget isn't like your household budget. First of all, the federal debt is in dollars and not, say, euros. Do you know where dollars come from? The Federal government is the only source of dollars in the world. The dollar is a fiat currency. The Fed can, and does, create billions of dollars with the stroke of a keyboard. So, imagine that, whenever you were short of money, you could put some in your checking account by typing a number in your computer. Then, your budget would be like the Federal budget.
The long and short of it is, the Federal debt isn't really a big deal. The Right likes to harp on it because it's another way to attack "Big Government", one of their bogeymen. Why? Because it's the Federal government which creates the consumer protections big business hates, a.k.a., regulations.
Does the Right really not understand how the economy works? Do they really think giving money to rich people will somehow spur growth, even though we've known for decades that it's quite the opposite? Do they really not understand how a fiat currency works? Are they unable to see that decades of right-wing economics have made the rich richer, and the poor poorer? Or do they just not care as long as they get their way? Clearly the working people voting them in don't get it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Right likes to harp on it because it's another way to attack "Big Government", one of their bogeymen. Why? Because it's the Federal government which creates the consumer protections big business hates, a.k.a., regulations.
Until they get their hands on the checkbook. Then deficits (and the debt) don't matter anymore.
If deficits mattered then they need to be making them smaller (like we did during the Obama years). From what I see about their budget proposals they will do the exact opposite.
Re: Morons are running the USA (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Interesting)
How about you let the states figure out how toxic and polluted they want their state to be, instead of dictating it from Washington?
When the state next to mine pumps toxins into the air they don't magically stop at the state line. Isn't the federal government supposed to handle inter-state matters?
Re: Morons are running the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
Water will stay clean, air will stay fresh, fewer industries will be crushed by pointless over-regulation
Your view is very short sighted, and quite frankly, contraindicated by reality.
The EPA and regulations like the Clean Water Act didn't just spring forth from some left-wing conspiracy. They were developed in response to real problems. Maybe people forget blankets of smog over major cities, trash lining major roads, rivers catching fire. The things we're talking about here are not luxuries, are not options. Air to breathe and water to drink are basic necessities.
Sometimes solutions outlive the problems they are intended to address and should be removed, but there's no reason to expect that to be true here. We continue to see people make short-sided decisions. I'd say "over-regulation" is a statement of opinion, I'm not going to argue your opinion, but "pointless" is a statement of fact, and you have your facts wrong.
As an analogy, it's easy to think vaccines are unnecessary or not worth their risk because, hey, when's the last time you saw someone with polio or small pox? But it's precisely that vaccines are so effective that you don't see those things.
So sure, we have for the most part air we can breath and water we can drink, but it's because of the EPA. And when the EPA goes away, so will those things.
Re: Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Interesting)
Damages. "They did thing X which cost me $Y. Give money pls." That's how civil lawsuits work.
IANAL but wouldn't I have to prove that "thing X" was wrong in some way before I would be entitled to damages. For a civil suit this usually means demonstrating either a civil infraction or a civil injury.
A civil infraction is defined [uslegal.com] as "a non criminal violation of a rule, ordinance, or statue". This does not apply because in this hypothetical scenario the polluter didn't break any law in the area where they were operating.
A civil injury is defined [uslegal.com] as "any physical harm or damage done to person or property by breach of contract, breach of duty, negligence, or by a criminal offense".
There was no contract between me and the polluter so breach of contract does not apply.
The polluter does not have any specific duty that they owe to me so breach of duty does not apply.
The polluter did not break any laws in the jurisdiction in which they operate so criminal offense does not apply.
That just leaves negligence. Negligence is defined [uslegal.com] as "[failure] to act as an ordinarily prudent person would act under the circumstances". I think you'd have a tough time making that argument in reference to a legitimate business that obeyed all the rules and regulations of the jurisdiction in which they were operating.
In reality, most states already regulate themselves pretty well, and cutting EPA funding for more climate change research...will have no effect
That may be. I'm far from an expert on what exactly the EPA is responsible for. If you'll notice I didn't say anything about what the EPA's funding should or shouldn't be. I was specifically responding to your assertion that it should be up to each state to determine what level of pollution they wanted to allow.
Trump will be re-elected, and you will remain eternally assblasted for all time.
Well, I'm Canadian, so that was probably a given in any event.
Re:Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Interesting)
There is some moronic stuff studied with federal funds. For example:
I'm sure the Senator means well. But the full list would only represents about .1% of the NIH annual budget altogether. I say would because it's actually less since the dates of these are going to range around and because they're also not all actually funded by the NIH. Also, you merged the NIH and NSF/DOD lists, obscuring things somewhat. Also, I note that you took away the footnote explaining that none of these actually cost that much. Every one of these is just one study out of a set paid for by the same grant. For example, the bee sting study was a graduate thesis paid for by a graduate fellowship grant supporting studies by many graduate students. It didn't actually cost anywhere near $1 million. Let's take a look at the headliners of this list.
Why some people see Jesus’ face on toast ($3.5 million)
Actually a neurological study on pareidolia. The Jesus' face on toast thing was just an easy example to put in the title to explain what pareidolia is.
Do drunk birds slur when they sing?
This study is about finding an animal model for studies on how alcohol affects humans. Notably on how inebriation affects speech. Basically another neurological study designed to explore how our brains actually work
Does cocaine make honey bees dance? ($243,000)
Basically another animal study of the effects of drugs.
What type of music do monkeys and chimpanzees prefer to listen to?
More neurology research applicable to humans
Why is yawning contagious?
Seriously? They don't think that's worth researching?
The rest of this list is actually funded by NSF/DOD grants.
Where does it hurt most to be stung by a bee? ($1 million)
Graduate study. Probably angling for an Ig Nobel prize. Potentially useful as a study in baseline pain levels on different parts of the body. Mostly though, just an academic exercise. Boo hoo. Public money used towards education. The tragedy!
Why does walking with coffee cause it to spill? ($172,000)
This study obviously barely cost anything. Reading the description in the report seems to pretty clearly indicate that, aside from this being a graduate student again, this was pretty clearly done to gain experience with some of the equipment they were using. The actual equipment was already paid for for other purposes. The only cost was the time it took to do the study and write it up and frankly, if someone probably already working 50 to 60 hours a week wants to spend a couple of extra hours on a little bit of fun, I'm absolutely fine with that.
You know, I'm sick of going through these. Most of these are just little studies with real merit or graduate studies and the price figures next to them are all ridiculous exaggerations. I'm only shelling out what? 30 cents a day for the entire NIH budget. Even if these studies did cost $35 million (which they didn't) I'm perfectly happy to pay my 12 cents a year share for these experiments. I'm not happy to pay for ridiculous, useless trophy walls, overpriced boondoggle jets, or the president's weekly golf trip.
Re:Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Interesting)
There is some moronic stuff studied with federal funds. For example: Why some people see Jesus’ face on toast ($3.5 million) Do drunk birds slur when they sing? ($5 million) Does cocaine make honey bees dance? ($243,000) What type of music do monkeys and chimpanzees prefer to listen to? ($1 million) Why is yawning contagious? ($1 million) Where does it hurt most to be stung by a bee? ($1 million) Why does walking with coffee cause it to spill? ($172,000) Are cheerleaders more attractive in a squad? ($1.1 million). Who will be America’s next top model? ($2.9 million) What makes goldfish feel sexy? ($3.9 million)
http://www.flake.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=AB366D8A-118F-4A01-B20E-47A0EC459A9F
With trillions in debt, uncertain future for entitlement programs, diseases we cannot treat, and financial gridlock, this seems like low hanging fruit to cut to save money.
Just because Senator Flake thinks his constituents are stupid enough to fall for the flaky misrepresentations does not mean the research described is "moronic". Unless you think understanding the effect of a drugs on organisms is not important (numbers 2, 3), or the operation of the image processing system is all understood and/or irrelevant, of course (number 1), or how pain reception works, or how resonances affect fluids (maybe coffee in a cup, but maybe water in a reservoir during an earthquake).
Re:Morons are running the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
Would it surprise you to learn that this guy regularly misrepresents the purpose of studies to make his political point?
Re: Morons are running the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Right's ideal system:
Company A spends millions on research to discover fact X. Then spends another half million to file hundreds of patents covering all uses of fact X. Then 100 companies who could use fact X, don't, because of their egregious patent terms. So we only get to use fact X for Company X's improvement to geriatric cosmetic products, but not for tens of other uses.
Company B thinks about researching fact Y. They decide not to because by the time it would be applicable to patents covering marketable products, the patent would be too old, and besides, they need to make next quarter's earnings look good for their stock holders.
Or, Left's ideal system:
Publicly funded research discovers fact X, 100s of companies use fact X.
Or, (what we have now)
Publicl+private funded research discovers fact X. Part of the time, Company A is allowed to file patents on uses of fact X despite the free public funding contribution because some congresscritter's hand got greased.
Seems like the Right's ideal system is the worst of all alternatives.
Re:Morons are running the USA (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You can thank hillary for that pretty much.
She put trump as her opponent and still lost to him.
Re: (Score:3)
They proved that Democrats can't count. The number you are looking for is 306, which proves you are a partisan tool.
A budget that actually has to budget something (Score:5, Insightful)
While everyone will bitch about (with merit) or rave about (maybe with merit) the actual details of the budget, the big requirement this time, MIGHT be, it actually be a budget.
Or at least, soon.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view... [bloomberg.com]
I'm not sure if the current proposed budget seriously expects the debt ceiling to remain in effect. What is sure is that the debt ceiling has been punted in the past: hence it being suspended until yesterday. Talking about the budget without any decision on the debt ceiling is pretty stupid, but we will do it anyway. If the debt ceiling is real, we probably need to cut more than 18% off of a few things, and eliminate more than just a few programs- we probably need to axe at least one department over the next few years. If instead it is just another punt to younger people to pay off our national credit card, then you can go ahead and parse the proposed budget through a petty and partisan lens.
Re:A budget that actually has to budget something (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A budget that actually has to budget something (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution isn't in the debt ceiling. We need to tell Congress "NO! You cannot spend more money without paying off your existing debt! Fuckwits".
That will never happen. sad. Hoping I'll be dead before the cows come home to roost, it'll be close (10 years).
The elephant in the room (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a significant number of Republicans who support fiscal restraint.
Bullshit. There isn't a single republican seriously asking for cutting the military budget or medicare which are by far the two biggest line items on the federal budget along with social security. Any discussion about "fiscal restraint" that does not involve cutting the military or medicare is a bogus argument. The republican's don't give a shit about fiscal restraint. They care about getting elected and promising to cut people's taxes (while ignoring the consequences of doing so) is a good way to do that. In reality we need to RAISE taxes to cover the entitlements we so clearly are unwilling to do without.
I have no problem cutting programs which are peripheral to core government. But I want that to be accompanied with tax cuts, which allows those who wish to support specific programs to "vote with their dollars."
Again, you are studiously ignoring the elephant in the room. Tax cuts? We aren't even paying for the government services we use. The federal deficit last year was right around $600B. You would have to cut basically every single program in the government except for the military, social security, medicare/medicaid, and interest on the debt to make up for the missing taxes. We basically fund almost the entire budget of our military (coincidentally around $600B) by borrowing it. Tax cuts? Taxes have to go up to pay for the stuff we already refuse to cut. Pay for what we buy before you talk to me about tax cuts. Otherwise you are just loading up your children and grandchildren with debt.
Re:A budget that actually has to budget something (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask any credible economist about balancing the budget and they'll tell you it's not a huge priority.
They will pretty much flat out tell you to drop all tarrifs, engage in free trade, and issue tax credits to those affected by jobs shifts associated by free trade. That will raise productivity and that will in turn bring in revenue and the debt issue will correct itself. No amount of jiggling and shuffling spending around will amount to shit.
Re:A budget that actually has to budget something (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask any credible economist about balancing the budget and they'll tell you it's not a huge priority.
They will pretty much flat out tell you to drop all tarrifs, engage in free trade, and issue tax credits to those affected by jobs shifts associated by free trade. That will raise productivity and that will in turn bring in revenue and the debt issue will correct itself. No amount of jiggling and shuffling spending around will amount to shit.
I think economists support free trade the same way a Marxist supports communism. It will solve all ills if only it were implemented just right. And if the people play along perfectly. And while implementations of it have caused lots of problems, if only it were done right then everything would be perfect. It just isn't so. The middle class declines ever more, inequality swells regardless of D or R being in charge, and now it's gotten bad enough that it's causing instability. Trump is a warning. If things decline even more then expect the person or two after him to make him look mild. I don't expect good things for my kids based on where we're currently headed. Not that I think Hillary would have been much different, though Bernie might have been.
Re:A budget that actually has to budget something (Score:5, Insightful)
credible economist
The problem of course is macro-economics isn't actually much of a science. Unlike micro-economics you mostly can't test anything because you don't have a control. Credible is defined as a bunch of people who went to the same schools agree with you, well no surprise there, its how indoctrination works. I am not even saying its deliberate. People embrace ideas offered to them by people they respect. I have plenty of opinions about computer science I know I inherited from who I considered to be my better professors while in school. Its far more difficult for me to evaluate challenges to those ideas in an unbiased way. However at least those things are somewhat testable in the real world.
I used to believe in free trade but the reality is that its a race to the bottom. Until every trade partner has essentially the same cost structure in terms of worker protections, environmental protections, entitlements, etc capital flees to where it will be most productive for its owner. Specialization isn't really a thing outside situations where one nation is geographically sitting on a large amount of some required natural resource as an input to some process. What free trade will do is probably spread the wealth around the world. Well as an American I am actually pretty happy with wealth being highly concentrated right here, thank you very much. Maybe that is a moral failure on my part, I don't know. Its hard to really feel guilty about wanting the best for my family and friends though. I suspect in those other places if the shoe was on the other foot many of the people there would feel and act the same way I do.
Re:A budget that actually has to budget something (Score:5, Insightful)
The debt ceiling is misnamed. There is no ceiling on incurring debt -- that happens whenever you spend more than you take in. It's a limit on turning that debt into financial instruments to sell to investors. That act doesn't increase debt per se; it merely means we owe money to bond holders rather than short term creditors.
This is a normal treasury function -- even large businesses operate this way. When Proctor and Gamble decides it could use a billion dollars for something, it doesn't always raid the piggy bank (cash reserves) or sell off assets -- although that's an option. It issues a corporate bond. It's absolutely routine.
The US Government has been doing this ever since 1917, all through the glory days of Eisenhower prosperity, and all that time there has been a debt ceiling that nobody except for Congressional and Treasury functionaries have ever heard of. The only reason we know this term now is that (a) the US Constitution (unusually) puts this treasury function in the hands of Congress and (b) Congress has been grotesquely dysfunctional for a decade.
As for what we "need" -- we need to decide on the mix of revenue, spending and borrowing makes sense, not monkey with an arcane implementation mechanisms.
Re:A budget that actually has to budget something (Score:5, Informative)
He just could not get Republicans to vote for any of them.
Re:A budget that actually has to budget something (Score:5, Interesting)
Cost of security for Trump Tower: $183 million/year
Budget for National Endowment Arts/Humanities: $148 million/year
Re:A budget that actually has to budget something (Score:4, Insightful)
And you can spend $183 million taxpayer dollars a year keeping Melania in Trump Tower because she doesn't want to be anywhere near her husband...IF...it's funded with money we actually have. Otherwise you are a debt spending cunt.
Re:A budget that actually has to budget something (Score:4, Insightful)
cause the purpose of existence is work....
I know it's trendy (Score:3, Insightful)
I know every budget has to be criticized by 'the opposing party' with a list of all the wonderful things that are going to be cut, but you all DO realize that the US government is nearly $19 TRILLION in debt - or more than $50k per person in the country?
Every single program that we're paying for, essentially we're living off credit cards. We are the wealthiest nation in human history, and we still cannot afford all the crap we want.
At some point, someone has to be the grownup in the room and say "you know, that would be really nice, but we simply can't afford it".
Re:I know it's trendy (Score:5, Insightful)
I might agree with you except the budget increases spending in total. Basically everything is moved to defense, and a little more added to defense after that.
Re: I know it's trendy (Score:5, Insightful)
Explain how the national debt cripples the economy. No seriously, explain it. The debt carried by the fed, debt that domestic and international banks spend money to acquire and get consistent returns on, halts growth because....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I know it's trendy (Score:5, Insightful)
There is this thing called interest, and we'll have to pay it, see...
1. We just went through a time where the fed rate was 0%. Literally no interest and people still bought in.
2. So long as inflation matches or is slightly higher than the interest rate, we make money on our own debt. Why did you think economists obsess over the relationship between the fed rate and inflation?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yet it adds $54 billion to defense spending, while cutting out the entire NEA and NEH for a yuge $300M savings. Clearly addressing the deficit is not uppermost in Trump's mind.
Re:I know it's trendy (Score:5, Informative)
I know every budget has to be criticized by 'the opposing party' with a list of all the wonderful things that are going to be cut, but you all DO realize that the US government is nearly $19 TRILLION in debt - or more than $50k per person in the country?
Every single program that we're paying for, essentially we're living off credit cards. We are the wealthiest nation in human history, and we still cannot afford all the crap we want.
At some point, someone has to be the grownup in the room and say "you know, that would be really nice, but we simply can't afford it".
I would agree with you if the Trump government was actually proposing to reduce the budget, but that is not the case. The cuts in those agencies will mostly be used to fund a $54B increase in defense spending (which, in 2015, already accounted for more than half of the federal discretionary spending.
You can read the full WP article for more details...The link is in the summary
Re: (Score:2)
He's just restoring half of the cuts that Obama made to defense spending.
Re: (Score:3)
He's just restoring half of the cuts that Obama made to defense spending.
Cuts that were made as the country was going out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so one could argue that it was not actually a "cut" in the military power of America. Shall I also remind you that Trump promised to make our allies pay to finance our military? I don't see this happening
Plus, that's not answering the concerns of reducing the deficit.
Re:I know it's trendy (Score:5, Insightful)
To be far more realistically clear. They are increasing the military budget by pretty much the equivalent of the entire Russian military budget, whilst Russia is cutting it's military budget by 30% to spend more on infrastructure, yet according to the ever bullshitting North American Territorial Occupation farce (NATO), Russia is the big threat. I know it is a plot by the Russian government to hack US elections by Russia cutting it's military budget whilst the US is increasing theirs. Oh my God what would happen if Russian halved its defence spending would the US need to double theirs. If you people think US defence spending needs to be where it is, you are just plain gullible idiots or just military industrial complex propagandists, death eaters.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the alt-right again. They think that since women got the vote and became a major factor in deciding who leads the country, the US has gotten soft. Women want to waste money on things like healthcare, tackling poverty and "arts". And this at a time when America's enemies are cutting their defence spending and the alleged warmonger just lost the election...
Re:I know it's trendy (Score:5, Insightful)
Please explain why this proposed budget gives a huge bung to the richest Americans if the intent is to do something about the deficit? And while you are at it, explain how a huge increase in military spending helps with the deficit?
These proposals won't reduce the deficit. (Score:3)
The president is proposing a increase in defense spending of 54 billion dollars. The total annual spending on non-defense research is 69 billion, so you'd have to cut science funding by about 80% to pay for that. And then there are no doubt tax cuts for the wealthy coming too.
Alternatives (Score:3)
At some point, someone has to be the grownup in the room and say "you know, that would be really nice, but we simply can't afford it".
There is another alternative so solve that if what you are going to cut is really important: you can raise taxes. However I understand that Trump wants to lower taxes and apparently by cutting basic science. That's a very short term strategy. It may take a decade or two but if you fall behind the rest of the world in science you are handing us a huge economic advantage....errr...so forget I said anything, this sounds like a great plan!
Re:Alternatives (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me give you a primer.... Supply side economics = stupider than shit.
Re:I know it's trendy (Score:5, Insightful)
I totally agree with you. However, even as a very conservative guy, I'm disappointed in this budget. Maybe it's just because I also happen to be a geek and don't mind the investment into science research.
Anyway, the main reason I'm disappointed is that cutting these things is like straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. They don't actually change the financial health of the nation, fundamentally, though they are devastating to the agencies who are impacted by the cuts.
We need to make real changes. That means cutting defense by a ton. We can spend half of what we spend now and still outclass every military on the planet. We need to majorly reform the entitlement programs. Social security, medicare and medicaid are going to blow us up. I'm a younger guy, and even from the start of my career I could see that SS was not really going to be there for me by the time I get there. I would be so happy if they did something like push back the SS "retirement" age to something like 72 (for anyone under 50) and made the thing solvent at least. These are the kinds of changes that grown-ups need to make.
Cutting NASA's budget is like telling your kids that you have to reduce their allowance by half because you have $100,000 in credit card debt.
I should have added NASA's cut (Score:2)
.08% Not much of a cut, and it does not pertain to any of the space programs. I would strongly recommend people read or listen to Directory Mulvaney's Q&A session for answers, as apposed to reading some propagandist's opinion of the briefing.
Re:Cutting who? The massively inflated? (Score:5, Informative)
Fuck you.
"From 1972 to today, the EPA has grown by 115%"
From https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget:
1972: $2,447,565,000
2016: $8,139,887,000
So, first up, you pulled numbers from your ass. Good job. It's actually increased by a factor of 3.3. Before your stupid ass starts gloating, let's look at what inflation has done since then.
From: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1&year1=1972&year2=2017
A 1972 dollar is worth $5.83 now. So in constant inflation adjusted dollars, the EPA budget only has 57% of the purchasing power it did in 1972.
Learn to do actual research, with actual sources, and don't quote some fucking "conservative premiere media watchdog." I mean, for fuck's sake, they can't even capitalize shit correctly. Why do you think they can do math?
Typical lying Leftie (Score:2)
The citation claims that Rep. Morgan's numbers are correct. The only differential would be the 1 time drop of employees at the EPA due to retirements, which if you read today's numbers (as I reported) the numbers went up and beyond.
Maybe if you spent more time at school instead of trolling you would be educated. Then again, Leftism hates facts. Namely the summary paragraph which you intentionally ignored.
There are a few minor issues with Griffith’s choice of dates and numbers, but we won’t quibble. The EPA increase would have dipped below 100 percent if Griffith had used the most current employment figures from 2013. On the other had, Griffith could have made the growth sound more dramatic if he had started his comparison in 1970, when the EPA was born.
Yeah, but those people with facts are "dildo"s, not the people who ignore them.
Re:I know it's trendy (Score:5, Informative)
At some point, someone has to be the grownup in the room and say "you know, that would be really nice, but we simply can't afford it".
One if we apply this logically we would go, "do we really have to spend more on military than the next 10 nations combined, 8 of them are allies and all of them are trading partners?
We pay abysmal interest rates for our T-bills and the world still thinks it is a safer investment than anything else. World trade is dollar denominated and foreign exchange of all the countries are in dollars.
In fact it is criminal not not to borrow to the hilt and invest in infrastructure, at this low interest rates. Not merely bridges and roads, universities, research labs, data collection and archiving, everything we can think of, and then a few we can not think of too.
Re:I know it's trendy (Score:5, Insightful)
Except of course, you don't understand what the debt is. This allows Republicans to con you into thinking cutting useful things is good for you.
The debt is actually predominantly Americans investing in America. Its like investing in companies but safer (and hence provides an important part of our economic system). You don't tell companies to stop investing in things that make them more profitable, but somehow when it comes to making America better suddenly people don't think its a good idea. If you have almost any kind of retirement savings its a good bet it has some government bonds.
In almost every way science and education increase the value and GDP long term, and so borrowing for them is a good idea. Not being able to track climate change puts us at a disadvantage. Reducing health care coverage massively increases inefficiencies and costs everyone more money. Deregulating companies allows them to externalize costs which are imposed on everyone else - aside from being grossly unfair it more inefficient than doing things correctly in the first place.
Cutting all these things makes things less efficient, less productive, and more expensive as a whole - which in the long run reduces what the government takes in as taxes. In many cases this can make the debt worse.
Please stop falling for and spreading this con. This is all here to make a few people (not you) richer.
Well ok there Trumpet (Score:4, Informative)
You are either a complete Trump fanboy, or just hopelessly naive because this budget IN NO WAY reduces the debt. Never mind you silly argument of "living off a credit card" (if you don't know how public debt different from revolving debt, go spend some time reading or take ECON 200) let's just focus on the budget:
It includes a massive increase of $54 Billion to the military. This is the military that is already funded 3x the next highest military (in fact if you add #2-8 in spending together you don't equal it), that has spending more than transportation, education, housing, international affairs, science, labour, and agriculture COMBINED. We really need this? We need that much more money for the military?
On top of that they are also set to propose sweeping tax cuts, particularly for the rich.
This is NOT something that'll reduce the debt, not even reduce the rate of increase.
If you want to compare it to a family (which as I said, it doesn't really work like personal finances) this is a parent saying "No I'm sorry kids, we can't afford to get a new water heater even though ours isn't working well, and I can't get you new clothes, we have too much debt. In other news I'm buying myself another new car and cutting my hours to 35 per week!"
You show me a budget that cuts the military like everything else, that at the very least keeps taxes where they are if not increases them, I'll give the "we have to cut the debt" argument credit. However so long as it is "less taxes, more defense spending" you can GTFO with that crap.
Re: (Score:2)
By saying we can afford it you imply that the money is already ours, It's not. It's theirs. You can't spend something that you never take in the first place.
Well, I can see one reason why... (Score:2)
Endocrine disruptors [wikipedia.org] may be associated with the development of learning disabilities, severe attention deficit disorder, cognitive and brain development problems...
Gee. I wonder why the Big Cheerio wants more of them running around in your water supply?
How much from cut programs total? (Score:2)
Mission Accomplished (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope he leaves in enough money so we can bomb children in Yemen, because that makes America great.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope he leaves in enough money so we can bomb children in Yemen, because that makes America great.
Bombing civilians in Yemen was Obama's and Clinton's policy, driven by misplaced loyalty to Saudi Arabia. I hope this doesn't continue, the WH's past alignment with Sunni supremacy causes was disgusting, and maybe Trump will end it (judging by his dislike of ISIS and appreciation of Russian destruction of the same). Who knows, one can only hope.
Re:Mission Accomplished (Score:4, Informative)
Trump's attack on Yemen in his first few weeks in office, which cost civilian and American military lives, is not a good indication he will discontinue the Obama policy. Trump is too worried about "looking weak".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the new budget cuts federal funding for Meals on Wheels, which brings meals to seniors (and over 100,000 veterans).
If Melania Trump moved to the White House for ten fucking days, it would provide the federal funding for Meals on Wheels for a year.
Kneejerk budget (Score:4, Insightful)
an axe with no nuance (Score:5, Insightful)
(first my disclaimers...) I'm a research scientist. I've worked in academia, for a government lab managing grants, and in private industry.
There are many good reasons to change the way science funding is done in the USA.
First, we all know here that there is a surplus of certain STEM labor, including a large number of the researchers (postdocs, grad students, etc.) funded by the government.
Second, there is a serious and long running lack of practical progress being made in science. By some metrics (# of degrees, # of papers), we are doing great, but by others (# of companies founded, return on investment, research efficiency) we are at a generational low-point.
Third, some practical STEM fields (i.e. medicine, manufacturing engineering) DO exhibit a labor shortage, and also rely on training programs largely outside the research grant driven model.
The budgets we're looking at in the government grant space are enormous. It doesn't seem that way to many researchers, but the annual NIH budget alone is about equal to all of the funding provided to all startup companies annually. There's a lot we can do with that, provided the right direction. NIH, for example, could be re-focused on grants for training medical doctors, PAs, nurses, etc., instead of researchers. Yes, that would slow research down, but it would also contribute significantly to lowering the cost of medical care, and it would be appropriate for the mission and people at the NIH. A mature approach to climate change might cut some climate research funding, but increase funding for faster roll-out of a power and transportation infrastructure free of fossil fuels. Surely such an infrastructure could be an obvious point of agreement between the right and the left; start the construction in coal country.
A thoughtful approach to science funding would encourage researchers to look beyond their next federal grant to other (private) funding sources, and would encourage (force) private funding sources to invest in transitional research. The UC pension system has been instrumental in fueling the startup economy for a long time by devoting 1% of it's money to funds investing in startup companies. If other groups did the same (... were forced to do the same...), we would increase the total amount of science funding by several orders of magnitude more than the total federal R&D budget. Prior to the 1990s, all large DoD contractors were required to spend 15% of their budget on R&D projects that were reviewed by government scientists to ensure they were actual R&D projects. Removing that requirement shut down a lot of very good industrial research programs. We learned then that most companies performing internal R&D can't compete with companies using subsidized academic R&D. That's an important lesson that the pharmaceutical industry is just now discovering, and it's an economic fact we need to fight. Reinstating requirements like minimum and audited internal R&D budgets for government contractors would also increase private spending on real research.
Not all research can use a "transition to private funding" model, so there is a need for continued blue sky research funding from the government. However, right now, we are saturated with the results of blue sky research and in serious need of support for transitional and applied research. As a nation, we are paying for this basic research, but we are not seeing the benefits of it. Some small amount is commercialized here, some is commercialized elsewhere, but a whole lot just gets forgotten. That's a waste, and it's stupid.
So basic research could be de-emphasized for a while, and non-government resources could be directed to lead to an overall increase in work and funding for researchers (while also delivering a profit... usually). That's another way of saying that a decrease in federal research funding could be done in a constructive way. We could even look at the labor market for cues as to whose graduate education we should be subsidizing. However, this is not what Trump is suggesting here... but it's nice to daydream about what an intelligent jobs-and-commerce science budget would actually look like.
Your attitude is why Trump won the election. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your comment, and the attitude it exhibits, is a perfect example of the reasons why so many Americans chose to vote for President Trump.
Republicans aren't "anti-science". In fact, many Republicans work as scientists, engineers, medical professionals, and as executives in businesses that depend very heavily on technology and science. They aren't dumb, contrary to how you mistakenly portray them.
What they are upset about is poorly done science that's driven by biased politics and ideology instead of the objective and impartial scientific method. Climate "science" is a good example of this, with data that's "corrected"/"massaged" and predictions that prove to be wildly inaccurate, decade after decade. Republicans don't like "science" like that. They have much higher standards than what we've seen from leftist scientists. They demand fact-based science, not politically driven "science".
They're also against pointless regulation, especially when it's regulation that causes more harm than benefit. But they aren't against sensible regulation that provides a social and economic benefit. They want the nation's water supplies protected. They want the air clean. They want immigration controlled so that criminals can't enter easily. But what they don't want are useless regulations like carbon taxes, or worse, like absurd vehicle emission standards that can't be economically obtained.
As for religion, many Republicans aren't religious at all. Yes, there are some Republicans who are Christians. But there are many who aren't. In fact, there are Republicans who practice Islam. There are Republicans who practice Hinduism. There are Republicans who practice Buddhism. It's absurd for you to label all Republicans as Bible-thumping idiots, when that just isn't the case.
Leftists such as yourself have been shitting all over Republicans for decades now, without any justification. Just look at your comment. It's hyperbole and one unsubstantiated ad hominem attack after another. You attack and attack and attack people who have done absolutely nothing to you other than have higher standards and maybe have slightly different religious beliefs (which ends up being irrelevant in practice).
Yes, when people like you unjustifiably ridicule and insult and harass and demean millions upon millions of Americans who are actually decent, hard-working, industrious people, of course they'll turn against you politically. It's unbelievable how badly we've seen leftists treat their fellow Americans, especially when these other Americans really haven't done anything to the leftists.
And before you start claiming I'm a Republican, or that I'm one of these other Americans, or that I'm a Trump supporter, let me inform you that I'm not. I'm just an impartial observer who has seen what has gone on for many years now, and it's quite clear who the aggressors are (leftists) and who the victims are (centrist and rightists who generally just want to be left alone).
Re:Your attitude is why Trump won the election. (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans aren't "anti-science". In fact, many Republicans work as scientists, engineers, medical professionals, and as executives in businesses that depend very heavily on technology and science.
You may be claiming this, but many creationists have actually been recruited from the ranks of engineers and physicians. It turns out that slight intelligence and a little learning don't prevent broader antiscientific views sufficiently.
Re: (Score:3)
There just aren't that many creationists.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Leftists such as yourself have been shitting all over Republicans for decades now, without any justification. Just look at your comment. It's hyperbole and one unsubstantiated ad hominem attack after another. You attack and attack and attack people who have done absolutely nothing to you other than have higher standards and maybe have slightly different religious beliefs (which ends up being irrelevant in practice).
Yes, when people like you unjustifiably ridicule and insult and harass and demean millions upon millions of Americans who are actually decent, hard-working, industrious people, of course they'll turn against you politically. It's unbelievable how badly we've seen leftists treat their fellow Americans, especially when these other Americans really haven't done anything to the leftists.
And before you start claiming I'm a Republican, or that I'm one of these other Americans, or that I'm a Trump supporter, let me inform you that I'm not. I'm just an impartial observer who has seen what has gone on for many years now, and it's quite clear who the aggressors are (leftists) and who the victims are (centrist and rightists who generally just want to be left alone).
Well said - sadly, I have no mod points.
I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal - I don't splurge pointlessly, but I find homeless people and take them out to eat, or to get groceries. Government needs a 90% shrinkage and to stop micromanaging our lives. I voted for Trump - despite hating everything about him - because I saw Hilary as the paragon of corruption and evil. I voted for Trump well-aware that I was voting to put a long-standing Democrat (claiming that he's suddenly Republican) in the wh
Re:Your attitude is why Trump won the election. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal - I don't splurge pointlessly, but I find homeless people and take them out to eat, or to get groceries. Government needs a 90% shrinkage and to stop micromanaging our lives. I voted for Trump - despite hating everything about him - because I saw Hilary as the paragon of corruption and evil.
I don't even...
Examples of Trump's corruption and evil abound. So why give him a free pass on that but not Hillary. At least she's competent and not hateful in every other way too. And you know, the Republicans have been gunning for Hillary for 3 decades and have been unable to make stuff stick. Every action has been raked over with a fine toothed comb and nothing of substance has resulted.
Do you really, honestly believe that Trump, or frankly most other politicians would look as good as Hillary with that much scrutiny?
I figured I'd give Trump the chance to show the country that he isn't as morally deficient as Hilary.
He's shown many, many times he has absolutely no morals. Stories abound of him screwing people of money just because he can. There are actually onging lawsuits now about that and very many historical ones. In other words he's well known to have no morals but for Trump but not Hillary, you decided to give him a clean slate. Why?
No, to me it sounds like you wanted to vote Trump (or didn't want to vote Hillary) and have used every trick in the book to justify your decisions to yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't say that I give Trump a free pass. I said that given a choice between putting my dick in a blender, and walking through door #2 - which has a picture of evil clowns on it...I choose door #2.
You're doing it again. You're pretending that Trump is some unknown so you'll give him a chance. He is not an unknown. You're walking through a door with evil clowns on it in orer to put your dick in a blender. But you're pretending you don't know that blender isn't there.
Re:Your attitude is why Trump won the election. (Score:4, Insightful)
His advisors are even less grounded in reality that he is. There is no Powell, Bush Snr or any of the many others that kept Bush under adult supervision.
Pretending republicans aren't what they vote for (Score:3)
Your comment, and the attitude it exhibits, is a perfect example of the reasons why so many Americans chose to vote for President Trump.
Almost all of those people would have voted for Trump or whatever the republican candidate was if he was running against Hitler reincarnated. Hillary lost because of two reasons - 1) gerrymandering and 2) the fact that she wasn't especially charismatic so not enough of her base turned out. She actually won the popular vote but that didn't matter because of gerrymandering.
Republicans aren't "anti-science".
How many democrats do you see trying to teach creationism in the science classroom? It's true that not all republicans are anti-science
Re: Republicans are anti-science (Score:3)
Yeah, because the American war machine needs more money, otherwise you'll be stuck at spending only the same amount as the next 7 countries combined, rather than the next 8! For shame!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If anyone was paying attention he is looking at everything. He is renegotiating everything. Hell before he even set foot in the office he renegotiated several billion out of the military budget.
It is all up for grabs. Basically since Nixon we have kicked the can down the road. Regan amped it up. Clinton 'paid it off' by swiping the money from SS. Obama put the crown on it. We are in serious financial trouble.
This is exactly what we need. Cuts across the board. This is going to impact everything. W
Re: (Score:2)
Look at me caught with out mod points but you are spot on in everything you said. The bill is coming due, time to see what is in our pockets.
Re: (Score:3)
Federal debt in one's own currency is only a problem when the interest being paid is large enough to drive inflation.
Wrong. It is also a problem when the rest of the world stops using your currency as the standard international currency. Which is what the world is doing.
What country controlled the world reserve currency before the US did?
Is it?
Remember, we can pay off all those trillion by just printing money, but that would create huge inflation...So the size of the debt is only important in how much payments drive inflation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. The only stats given in that entire op-ed to support its claim are the following:
The left's war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book.
Yeah sure, a 2011 survey says 19% of Democrats disagree with scientists that the Earth is warming, and that makes Democrats "just as anti-science" as Republicans at 49%. These days, merely 13% of Democrats disagree with scientists compared to 46% of Republicans, but do keep telling yourself they're "just as anti-science" as you are if it makes you feel better.
Re:Republicans are anti-science (Score:4, Funny)
What you say about GMOs is incorrect. There is no kill switch; you are either thinking of terminator seeds, which were never implemented, or the nature of hybrid biology, which a more of a fact of genetics than any corporate money making plot. Your lawsuit your linked is about actuallyl says the exact opposite of what you claim. The judge asked the prosecuting organic group to prove their claim that farmers are sued for unintended cross pollination; they could not. Sure, farmers have been sued by Monsanto for knowingly and intentionally selecting for and mass propagating transgenic seed which were the result of cross pollination, but at that is very different from the anti-GMO narrative (which is ironic since the farmers who were sued were trying to get GMOs without paying for them). To use an analogy, if I throw a DVD on your lawn, you cannot be sued for that, but if you take that DVD, mass copy it, and use it in a for profit manner, you can be. Simple as that. Rule of thumb: if an article portrays genetic engineering as injecting an ear of corn with blue stuff, it's probably sensationalist nonsense.
If there's evidence that radio waves are damaging, it certainty hasn't made much in the way of a splash in any scientific circles I'm familiar with.
If you want to claim a scientific high ground, you've chosen some bad examples.
Re:Republicans are anti-science (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. The problem with GMOs isn't the GMOs, it's the business model behind them.
Re:The United States of America is already bankrup (Score:5, Insightful)
Starting with the biggest area of discretionary spending:: the military.
Also, spending isn't the only way to affect the problem. Taxes on the wealthiest Americans could be increased.
Americans spare no expense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Americans spare no expense (Score:5, Funny)
Americans will be damned if we'll pay for some lazy foreigner to sit around eating their food but they'll gladly pump 'em full of lead that costs 5x as much.
Feed a man a fish and he won't be hungry for a day. Feed a man lead and he'll never be hungry again.
That's fine but you can't cheer this budget on (Score:5, Informative)
Because it not only doesn't cut the military, ti increases it by $54 billion. That offsets any other cuts. Combined with them wanting big tax cuts for the wealthy (who have the most to tax) that means a higher deficit. If you thing is cutting the debt, these guys are not interested in it. This proposal does nothing in that regard.
Also cutting spending isn't the only way to balance the budget. Increasing income works too, either via raising taxes or increasing the overall economy. Well guess what? Many of the programs being cut are the kind of things that help economic growth. Science is that way. The US is rich and prosperous in no small part because of science and development. When you are on the forefront of new things, you make a lot of money. Cut that, and it cuts future growth.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this can be hidden for more than 4-5 years before the bottom falls out. Then the drastic spending spending cuts will get made.
Because the Federal level politicians and bureaucrats will need to really start making big cuts in the entitlement programs just to save their own pay checks and retirements.
One last item, this is a bi partisan problem (Dems and Repubs) they have diverted the funds paid in for 50+ year to spend on other stuff!
But it is going to happen if we don't start cutting big time now!!
Seconded.
All of us are expected to make prudent financial decisions, balance our checkbooks, figure out monthly expenses and income, and dole out money such that we can pay our mortgages, bills, food, tuck away an emergency fund - all the little pieces that make up the job of adulting.
It's ridiculous that the only thing our elected officials can agree on is that they're going to spend more money than we have - so much more money than we have that it's a hopeless spiral that no one has to take responsibility
Insightful? Bullshit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Social Security is NOT a liability it is self funded. It is separate and NOT hidden and not budgeted. You risk harm to it by misleading people to think it is a budget item. Medicare and Medicad are knock off programs which are not as well designed or protected but still are not normal budget items.
Separate taxes fund those programs and they go up or down based upon what the public puts into them. Not borrowed money. Social Security can never go bankrupt by design, it simply has less money to work with and goes down. If morons like the parent poster believe the lies they'll let crazy schemes to borrow against such programs or schemes to STEAL from them. Medicare and Medicad have suffered instead of improved to be more like social security and they should never be allowed to be morphed into anything like the failed spending process the rest of the government uses.
The whole monetary system we have as a big ponzi scheme; the debt isn't that big of a deal when the whole world system is huuuge a mess. Limiting factors on endless growth are beginning to impact our systems and fundamental changes will have to be made to any kind of system to adapt.
If you want to help medicad and medicare, you'd be addressing problems OUTSIDE of those programs because they are not the cause of the problems. Problems which impact our EXPENSIVE private health insurance too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess the Democrats are the party of science in your view. What does that make Republicans?