Trump budget aims to defund science - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14787192
Trump’s Budget A First Step Toward De-Politicizing Science

The Trump administration has released its proposed 2018 budget, and within it are some things worth cheering. Trump’s “America First budget” includes needed cuts to the regulatory state, defunds efforts to purchase more Federal land, eliminates funding for 19 minor government agencies, and makes significant cuts to a number of more significant ones — including the State Department, HUD, and Commerce. Unfortunately, the proposal also reflects the myth that America’s military is underfunded, calling for a $52 billion increase for the Pentagon and another $2.8 billion increase for Homeland Security. The budget also ignores America’s web of entitlement programs, the larger driver of the nation’s fiscal woes.
#14787195
I'm hearing reports about possible republican backbencher defections over this budget, and needless to say, it hasn't been popular with pretty much anyone in the academic or humanities sectors. The long term implications of this, if implemented, could be devestin so far as scientific research into fields related to National defence and security will also be hurt, such as earth and ocean sciences.

I also suspect a large amount of this money is being redirected towards military black projects, no doubt DARPA will be getting full funding even as public endowments are being cut.
#14787200
TheLateHarambe wrote:Trump’s Budget A First Step Toward De-Politicizing Science


The GOP talent for Orwellian nomenclature is striking. De-politicizing, indeed. But let's ignore that and look at that 800 lb gorilla. You know the one I'm talking about, right? The purple polka-dot invisible gorilla that scares the bejesus out of the rubes:

"The budget also ignores America’s web of entitlement programs, the larger driver of the nation’s fiscal woes."


The 'fiscal woes' of the US are entirely imaginary and a self-inflicted response to a non-existent problem. Let's examine some of the salient features of a sovereign non-pegged currency that issues debt denominated in that currency:

1) The budget 'deficit' is an artificial construct. The government spends money into existence ex nihilo. There are no unfunded mandates, deficits, or anything of the sort. Taxes do not go into a kitty, from which the government spends - this is not how monetary operations are handled.

2) The taxing and spending functions of government are operationally independent, and the second does not depend on the first. When you pay your taxes, that money is simply annihilated (it is literally burned if you pay in cash). Your taxes contribute to decimals in an accounting function, but there is no actual fund in which they are placed.

3) Taxes do serve a number of functions, but funding of government spending is not one of them.

4) Likewise, 'deficits' do not exist. You cannot subtract apples from oranges. By tradition and current legal arrangements, the US issues debt to "offset" spending in excess of it tax revenues. This is a totally artificial arrangement. There is no operational requirement to issue this debt.

So at this point, somebody will say "I suppose you can just spend all you want, then?" Well, actually, no you can't. There are constraints on spending; they are just not the constraints you believe them to be.

Here's how it would work, if both Republicans and Democrats had a rational understanding of the money system.

Keep spending without limit, as long as there is unemployment and industrial overcapacity. As soon as employment picks up, people will start buying. Inventories will shrink. The pool of unemployed will shrink. Businesses will have to raise wages, and eventually prices.

When price inflation reaches x percent, reduce spending and/or raise taxes. The Fed will raise the cost of money. Economic activity slows down.

The key is balance, but budgets are not what needs to be balanced. You are balancing flows: flows of money.

The debt 'problem' is absurdly simple to solve. We need to issue only the amount of debt required to satisfy private demand for saving and investment, irrespective of imaginary measures of budget deficit. Government spending is then rationally balanced with economic requirements, not artificial budget constraints.

There are questions about what you spend money on, as well. Certain types of spending are more effective than others in circulating into the economy quickly. But that's another question.

EDIT: The persistence of the budget deficit hysteria is a phenomenon that should be examined. There are 2 components of this. The first are people who are genuinely (if mistakenly) concerned about the economics effects of too much debt. The second group are deliberately using deficit hype to achieve unrelated goals.

The people who are so damned insistent about the necessity to cut Medicare and Social Security are not pursuing an economic agenda. They are pursuing a social and political agenda. These cuts are their actual desired ends, not the unfortunate byproduct of economic necessity. They would not be proposing a $45B increase in defense spending if that were truly the case.
Last edited by quetzalcoatl on 18 Mar 2017 16:47, edited 2 times in total.
#14787206
This corporate administration is proposing to cut back on education and science and invest more in corporate war and privatization of infrastructure... for corporations.

It's the most honest administration in my lifetime. No more pretending to believe in reality, progress, science or the common good. Just giant amounts of money for insiders, and the erosion of all the social programs that the past generations protested and died in demos for.

But it was bound to happen. America's corporate and bankster dictators have been exposed as being toxic for both the world and for Americans. So... they have grabbed the reigns of power more tightly and are making "the truth" (science, the enivornment) either illegal of extremely weak... in order to help GM, Exxon, the war machine and all the other forces that have been governing America for the last century of wars and media-veiled colonialism.

If America wants to maintain its empire, it needs to forget about democracy, human rights, and the environment. These things take too many resources away from the military. And the bankster-corporate allies need the military to thrive.
#14787214
The United States is financially bankrupted where anything else is just silly.
#14787220
Joka wrote:The United States is financially bankrupted where anything else is just silly.

This is meaning what, specifically? Are you making a statement about economics? If you are propounding a metaphor, beware: those who live by the metaphor die by the metaphor.
#14787229
quetzalcoatl wrote:This is meaning what, specifically? Are you making a statement about economics? If you are propounding a metaphor, beware: those who live by the metaphor die by the metaphor.


I'm saying the United States government doesn't have much money to fund anything. We're already reaching a federal debt ceiling by the first of June. We're a nation of unsustainable debt, a debtor nation.
#14787397
By defunding science, Trump aims to defund progress. The US will be backing up and going into the dark ages, again. It looks pretty bleak.

World economies depend on science. He really has no idea what he is doing. This is like civilization suicide.

He can try to raise taxes, but if states like CA do not want to pay, how is he going to enforce it? A small state like NH will balk at the idea too. NH has significantly less in funds, depending on how tourism seasons fare and how many people buy NH sold liquor. A lot of our roads are crappy and businesses come here to build offices because rent and taxes are considerably lower than in other states.
#14787413
MistyTiger wrote:By defunding science, Trump aims to defund progress. The US will be backing up and going into the dark ages, again. It looks pretty bleak.

World economies depend on science. He really has no idea what he is doing. This is like civilization suicide.


Science does not need to be funded by the government. Private industry does a better job for less money.
Was Bell or Edison or AT&T or Microsoft, or IBM funded by the government?
#14787430
Hindsite wrote:Science does not need to be funded by the government. Private industry does a better job for less money.
Was Bell or Edison or AT&T or Microsoft, or IBM funded by the government?


Can I help?

Con Ed wanted to figure out what the effect electromagnetic radiation had on epilepsy. They farmed out a generalised mandate to 50 universities, leaving the particular variables up to the researchers at each Institute. They funded the project, but in return, they had 50 studies by 50 independent pro researchers, at 50 top universities, mostly funded by Jon Q. Taxpayer, in less then 6 months.

Edit

I think we actually finished a second study, so it was probably nearer 2 - 2.5 months per study. I remember they flew up to meet with us in between studies.
#14787460
Stormsmith wrote:Can I help?

Con Ed wanted to figure out what the effect electromagnetic radiation had on epilepsy. They farmed out a generalised mandate to 50 universities, leaving the particular variables up to the researchers at each Institute. They funded the project, but in return, they had 50 studies by 50 independent pro researchers, at 50 top universities, mostly funded by Jon Q. Taxpayer, in less then 6 months.

Edit

I think we actually finished a second study, so it was probably nearer 2 - 2.5 months per study. I remember they flew up to meet with us in between studies.


I suppose by "Con Ed" you mean Consolidated Edison, the energy company. You said they funded the project. So what are you saying was mostly funded by the taxpayer and how do you know this?
#14787515
Hindsite wrote:
Science does not need to be funded by the government. Private industry does a better job for less money.
Was Bell or Edison or AT&T or Microsoft, or IBM funded by the government?


Yes it does.

Government-funded Medical Research grants can either be carried out by the government itself, or through grants to academic and other researchers outside the government. An advantage to government sponsored research is that the results are publicly shared, within privately funded research the ideas are controlled by a single group. Thus your research will reach those who can take your research and put it into play or further help you expand your research in the medical field.

https://www.abcbizloans.com/medical-fin ... -research/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science

Research funding is a term generally covering any funding for scientific research, in the areas of both “hard” science and technology and social science. The term often connotes funding obtained through a competitive process, in which potential research projects are evaluated and only the most promising receive funding. Such processes, which are run by government, corporations or foundations, allocate scarce funds.

Most research funding comes from two major sources: corporations (through research and development departments) and government (primarily carried out through universities and specialised government agencies). Some small amounts of scientific research are carried out or funded by charitable foundations, especially in relation to developing cures for diseases such as cancer, malaria and AIDS.

http://www.gofreegovernmentmoney.com/re ... 1277676043
#14787603
Hindsite wrote:I suppose by "Con Ed" you mean Consolidated Edison, the energy company. You said they funded the project. So what are you saying was mostly funded by the taxpayer and how do you know this?


Yes. Con Ed covered our wages, bought the equipment and rats and drugs etc., and probably gave a grant to the university.
The taxpayers paid for the University, the utilities, books, insurance etc. All the other gear. I've seen my tax bill.
#14787828
Donald wrote:Excellent development. Most of the sciences are borderline black magic.
:roll: :lol: Pathetic. How the fuck did you manage to turn on your computer today?

Science isn't "black magic", unless you're a totally uneducated twit, and then it might be seen as such.

#14787836
Godstud wrote::roll: :lol: Pathetic. How the fuck did you manage to turn on your computer today?

Science isn't "black magic", unless you're a totally uneducated twit, and then it might be seen as such.



Only a complete fucking moron would believe that computer tech isn't sorcery :lol:
#14787837
Stormsmith wrote:Yes. Con Ed covered our wages, bought the equipment and rats and drugs etc., and probably gave a grant to the university.
The taxpayers paid for the University, the utilities, books, insurance etc. All the other gear. I've seen my tax bill.


What university is this that the tax payers has to pay for all this? Most colleges and universities require the students to pay for their own books and tuition and dorm room, even if it is given support from the state.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
Is It Okay To Be White?

Man never had choice, since God is omniscient and[…]

Is It Okay To Be Stupid

I eat fish all night and day because I want them t[…]

Pope Francis and His Lies

So the 10 Commandments don't count because he did[…]

That doesn't mean he didn't do it, and that it's […]