I support scientific research of course but to play devils advocate, how can the USA afford this? They run a deficit and have an enormous debt. I dont understand how this can continously be ignored. Of course nobody wants cuts but how can it go on? Same with the foreign aid, isnt that something a country running a surplus should be worried about?
Go read the article. All of this is a few drops in the bucket. There are some absolutely enormous line items that, by themselves, put us well into deficit territory.
On top of that, these things make the US money. We have, by far, the strongest pharmaceutical and medical technology industry anywhere. Those companies pay taxes.
(Those companies also screw us and the government over in myriad ways, and that should be addressed, but cutting off the research system that supports the entire industry in like throwing out the baby without even draining the bathwater.)
the "drops in the bucket" mindset is the problem, the federal government absurdly overspends and we've not had any serious politicians to address the issue. the interest on our debt is going to bankrupt us and there will be nothing left afterwards if these things aren't reeled in and examined.
political opponents of the newly elected administration are obviously going to go fully hysterical over any change, they already did last time. the science industries in the US aren't going anywhere, neither is research at the universities.
the ideological discrimination and money laundering coming out of these departments are going to end. and did we all forget about COVID? The fact that the NIH funded the research that happened in china ILLEGALLY, because this was a really stupid idea and we found that out the hard way, and it was covered up, and we were lied to, it killed millions, destroyed economies on a global scale.... do we really not want to see this agency dissected under a microscope? They need to be investigated.
I feel like were on the same side but youre gonna need a (credible!) source that US govt money was funding virus research in China, that doesnt seem to pass the sniff test
No its not sarcasm, thanks for the reference. However since you were rude Im gonna ignore this evidence (this attitude can work for or against Republicans I guess)
I'll be less rude: the US funded virus research in China. Some people argue this was wise because it gave us insight into China's bioweapons plans, or be prepared for world disasters, or whatever. It's still not entirely clear why NIH leadership thought this was a good idea, given our understanding of China's relative immaturity in working with dangerous viruses, as well as preventing that funding from going to US researchers.
I had sorta thought this was a right wing conspiracy, as it seemed so unlikely to be true. I can very clearly understand why the new administration is being ruthless with them now, especially given Trumps experience with Covid (a more enlightened leader might say the buck stopped with him instead of blaming underlings, but I digress). Thanks for replying.
I'm not sure how to interpret what you're saying. NIAID has worked with China for decades, https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/niaid-research-china which spans multiple partisan administrations. I think (but can't find at the moment) that there was a law mandating NIAID work with China to keep up-to-date on evolving biodefense. The complaint is really about the establishment, not decisions from a specific president or party.
> the "drops in the bucket" mindset is the problem, the federal government absurdly overspends
The federal government almost certainly does absurdly overspend, but you’re missing the point: all of these drops in the bucket add up to far less than the deficit.
Also, for better or for worse, operating departments efficiently may well be the executive branch’s job, but setting all these budgets is Congress’s job, not the executive branch’s. In fact, Congress tried, not all that long ago, to allow the President to veto specific line items, and the Supreme Court struck it down:
?? healthy people stay alive, sick people will die. Of course this is terrible but "we will all die without publically funded research" doesnt hold water. Again Im not in favour of the cuts I just cant understand how the USA continues to borrow/print money and it doesnt all come crashing down. I dont think even Trump is anti-medicine, just pro fiscal responsibility.
"healthy people stay alive, sick people will die" that's a tautology. I do not know you, but I am willing to bet that there are some people who you know who'd have a far worse life if it was not for modern publicly funded research
I dont dispute this at all - I want the research, I would pay higher taxes to support it, but it baffles me how the government can continually lose money and people handwave away the entire issue
I can't tell if you're intentionally misunderstanding, or not. So I'll spell it out: public non-biased research is a public good.
Oil companies weren't going to publish research saying leaded gas was bad. Tobacco companies weren't going to publish research saying cigarettes were bad. Have fun being healthy when you inhale leaded gasoline every day.
Forget about things like, you know, the internet. Or any medicine.
BTW, private companies are not paying for basic biological research. Good luck making a drug when no one knows what target to drug. VC firms will park their money in the bank instead. The value from biotechs is already marginal - investment basically vanished when interest rates went above 4.
I feel the same way back haha, are you intentionally misunderstanding me? Nobody is claiming research is bad! I dont want to see it cut either. I want the government to be running a surplus though. You can argue we should cut other places like military or whatever, I agree thats probably wiser, but what Im asking is, surely we can only prioritise what to spend once we are back to surplus
Ive also been told in the past that its somehow ok that the government never breaks even, I can handle that maybe Im too stupid/uneducated to get it... but nobody ever even tries. Use little words, Im sure we will make progress. How can the government continue to exist and not go broke if it continually spends more than it brings in?
I'm trying to say that having a society of people breathing in leaded gas would be insanely expensive. Both in terms of lost productivity from stunted brain development, and actual acute symptoms. Public money was crucial to unbiased understanding of that, and lead to prevention. How much money do you think that saved/grew the economy? For like 0.5% of the Federal budget.
That's just one (big and easy to recall) example. There are countless.
Spending public money on public research grows the economy. Cutting it is penny wise and pound foolish.
I work at a biotech. We have $150 million in private funding. My biotech wouldn't exist, and I wouldn't have a job if it weren't for decades of public research doing the foundational work that allows us to target a protein to make a drug to help people. None of that would exist if not for NIH, NSF etc
This was a good reply, thanks for taking the time. I could be convinced that this is a money making investment and therefore foolish to cut. If you have no money though, you cant afford to make any kind of investment, and from the outside looking in (to govt I mean, I live in the USA) it seems the US is going broke. Like I said though, I hve come around and maybe it really is super dumb to cut this - if you want to see it continue for the next 50 years, I would urge you consider how thats possible if the USA continues to lose money though.
While the Unabomber, Luigi Mangione, and Communism may have correctly diagnosed socioeconomic pathologies their prescriptions were largely counterproductive. It is magical or superficial thinking to believe that aggressive chaos is somehow curative or better than following a more consultative and cooperative process like first assessing and auditing an organization thoroughly by eliciting input from all parties at all levels and gathering data before proposing recommendations, implementing those recommendations, and following up to adjust them.
Sorry do you really think Musk and Trump are eliciting input from all parties and carefully gathering data before giving recommendations? Because given how frequently they talk about the “radical left” and “marxists” I really don’t think they are considering dissenting opinions in good faith. They invariably insult people who have the slightest disagreements with them, even when those people have facts and data on their side.
And Musk has stumbled into several known right-wing conspiracy theories based on knee-jerk reactions, so I find it far more likely that he’s just fishing to validate his pre-held knee-jerk opinions rather than doing a careful investigation.
Approximately what proportion of the US federal budget is spent on scientific research? What proportion is spent on foreign aid? Looking up these values is a useful exercise.
A billion here, a billion there, before you know it you're talking about some real money.
If I were president I would probably cut from military spending - but at some point that becomes painful to cut aswell.
A lot of people have misunderstood me in this thread, at no point do I want to see public research cut. Its just that the same people who are worried about what climate change will bring over next 50 years (and I am too!) dont seen to feel any sense of alarm at the federal government living outside its means for the next 50 years, and I can not understand why
Because the federal government is not in any sense living outside its means.
I’m not sure how to explain this to you, really - you’re fundamentally stuck, I think, on the idea that the gov is like a business or a household, and needs to budget the same way. It really doesn’t.
Maybe think of it this way, to start to get your head around it: current debt is just over 100% of GDP - so in some sense the US has borrowed about a years worth of production. 100% sounds scary, but does 12 months sound so scary? Would you consider yourself in catastrophic debt if you owed a year of your salary?
Personally I wish my mortgage was only a year of my salary!
You can call it stuck if you want, I guess I am - how can this not be a bad thing? It feels like its not a bad thing until suddenly it is. Countries can & do go broke. You can sell your house and break even, thr govt cant sell the NIH
Consider the idea that without decades of money printing, your house might only cost 1 year of salary in the first place
Or maybe let me ask it a other way - if the govt really doesnt need to balance the budget, why dont we have 50 aircraft carriers and free healthcare for all? Such huge sums of money go beyond merely number balancing, at some piint theyre forcefully managing the real resources of the nation
Debt can’t increase to infinity, true - but that does not mean it can’t be a finite number indefinitely.
And the current finite number is nowhere close to causing a crisis for the US (Japan had two and a half times GDP in debt and did not collapse into hyperinflation or some other catastrophic fate, for example).
How can we afford it? because scientific discovery turbocharges our economy. Why do we have such a huge biotech industry? Why was the internet mostly built in the US? Why are we the only country that has placed somebody on the moon, and have huge launch capacities?
Because we invested in those technologies and they paid off handsomely. What you are seeing is the result of "profit externalization"- laws like Bayh Dole allow universities to profit from the research they carry out under contract with the government.
Everything we did, we did because the alternatives were worse.
The US could pay its debt tomorrow, in full. We'd like to avoid that shock, if possible, but there's nothing uncreditworthy about running a fiscal deficit.
USG revenue/spending should be reasoned about in terms of the resources it directs, and the resulting effects on US and world GDP. Everything else is just accounting.
