Discussion on:

What happens to science if Romney wins

I have a deep concern about curing disease

Is this "churnalism" or an editorial? Hard to tell.

If you have facts that contradict this article, please share them with us, including links so that we can review them.

"Perhaps you should collect your facts (and news) from somewhere (anywhere) other than Fox."

You mean like CBS, PBS, CNN, ABC, or MSNBC, which reported that the attacks in Bengazi were just peaceful demonstrations that got out of control, when they are now known to have observed the live State Department videos of the attacks while they happened, along with the White House, but felt that the latest drunken orgies by 'Snookie" were more important, and faithfully followed the White House trail of lies for two weeks, until the facts came out, while ignoring the emails and Facebook posts from Al Quida?

Or are you referring to the New York Times, which has four times in the last two years been found to have covered news stories about Romney with articles written before the events even happened, which didn't align with the actual events. You know, like their coverage of Obama's 'brilliant' performance in the first debate?

Sadly, this Author in this Article is just as fake in her 'Journalism'.

If you are a Native in the United States, and you remember ANY of your High School Civics, then you know that the president doesn't do more than ask for the Budget. It is Congress that sets the Budget.

Neither Obama nor Romney will be able to set the amount that Congress allots for Science. Real Science Spending will not be changed from what happened this year.

This year is a drop of about 15% in total Science research. Expect the same treatment next year. There will be mostly the same faces in Congress. Probably a few more Republicans in both the House and the Senate, but, mostly the same folks. Those are the folks that are really responsible for Federal Spending. It's always been that way. Too bad, as most of them can't balance a checkbook, let alone the Federal Budget.

Remember, The President Proposes, Congress Disposes.

...and Congress can act upon it. Unfortunately for Obama, his last attempt got zero votes, even from Democrats.

Your comments read much like the script from your party of NO.

The problem is the budget process is broken. Largely because of Harry Reid in the democrat led Senate.

I will keep it simple for you, but In a normal year, after the presidents proposed budget is voted on, the House and Senate budget committees would meet separately and put together their own budget plans. If the majority party in either the House or the Senate matches the president the proposal is usually coordinated with the White House to address Congressional concerns while addressing the presidents plans.

Once those committees are done their separate bills go up for votes in their respective chambers. After the House and Senate each pass their budget bill the 2 bills go to a joint House/Senate budget committee to hash out a final bill that both Houses will pass. Usually this is done in conjunction with input from the White House so that they will pass a bill knowing that the president will sign it.

During the first 2 years of the Obama Administration this should have been an easy process as democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. With a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. So why was no budget passed those first 2 years? Because a power struggle in the democrat party had Obama, Pelosi and Reid at each others throats. It has been so bad that Reid refused to even hold budget votes some years.

Once the Republicans took over the House the budget process was attempted there, but democrats on the budget committee rarely showed up for meetings.

The Senate budget committee has not done anything productive in years. Most of their meetings the last 4 years are filled with the endless rhetoric filled ramblings of people like John Kerry. As he did during his time on the useless budget super committee.

Two final notes.

1. Did you ever notice Obama stopped directly blaming republicans in Congress in late 2009? Even he started using the generic 'Congress does nothing' remarks because it lumps in his own party members. To this day he still uses the generic term Congress when complaining about nothing getting done.

2. Did you notice in Bob Woodwards new book, the democrat reporter who helped take down Nixon, that he recounts an incident several sources recounted to him where Pelosi put the President on mute during a budget conference call because he rambling on and she wanted to get some work done. He was ignored for over an hour while he talked to thin air.

The bottom line is there has been no cooperation, no team work, from the democrats starting with Obama, Pelosi and Reid at the top.

A fillibuster proof majority is irrelevent in this situation. Budget bills cannot be fillibustered. This also makes Harry Reid's inaction all the more intollerable. He has chosen for over 3 years to procede with continuing resolutions rather than to allow a vote on an actual budget. This allows the senate to not be accountable for a possibly unpopular vote.

The government is so huge and out-of-control, (spending over $10-billion per day, and committing to even more in liabilities) and everyone knows that government accounting is mostly fiction anyway, so why bother with the pretense of creating budgets which are highly controversial and just piss off people anyway? It's so much easier just to do as they've been doing and approve spending piecemeal where they get brownie points for bringing home the bacon without the un-fun part of being held accountable for any of it.

Budgets are actually written statements of priorities. A budget says "These are the things that are our highest priorities" and voting for one is a statement of responsibility, just as you are signing to take responsibility every time you use a credit card or write a check.

The problem is that much of what our legislative and executive branches really want to spend money on (crony capitalism, corporate bailouts, pork barrel nonsense, out of control entitlements, etc) are not politically popular at home, especially with the rise of the Tea Party movement. Signing a budget filled with such fiscal malfeasance now means very uncomfortable "town hall" meetings when you get home. So why sign onto that if you don't have to?

Of course, this isn't just the work of Democrats. The post budget age is the logical progression from the post deficit matters age; the Keynesian splurge that started after the 2000 dot-com crash and 9-11 by Bush and the GOP congress. Consciously or not, they jointly concluded that in light of the market crash, economic slowdown, the wreckage of 9-11, and impending wars that the deficit didn't matter anymore, or at least could be left to be dealt with at a later date. Of course, after the relative austerity of the latter Clinton years, the Democrats were more than happy to go along with that. By the time they took back Congress in 2006, nobody was even talking about the deficit anymore, and they were poised for Keynesianism in steroids.

And as long as China is willing to keep lending and the Fed is willing to keep printing money, there's little reason to stop now.

So well said, the party of No seems to have its hands on everything stupid.

...to the facts.

...we would not be in the mess we are currently in.

And your comment does not change the fact that Obama's budget was a joke, even among 100% of House Democrats. And at least they voted. Senate Democrats haven't passed a budget in how many years now? I've lost track.

But we both know your talking points script doesn't cover that, does it now.

No links or solid references.

BZZT!

Thanks for playing.

You are so right about the roles of these 2 federal government branches. Thomas Jefferson distrusted the idea of the Presidency and showed outright disdain for the Judicial branch. He always pointed out that the "closest" representation of the people was ensconced in the House of Representatives.
Look to Congress for the future. The President can only get things done by working WITH Congress, not by standing against them.

I'm not sure what the situation in Libya has to do with this article... but I guess your idea of science is that any thing posted on Face Book is "hard evidence" and we should take as gospel anything posted by any nut job as "fact". In fact we could save America a lot of money, lets just do away with the CIA and NSA and just gather our "intelligence" from the internet. Sounds reasonable.

Obama allocated $10.4 billion in economic stimulus funds to the National Institutes of Health. Just pissed away another 10.4 billion. These people cure NOTHING! Just more money for the pharmaceutical companies! Global warming is a hoax also. Started by big business to sham more billions out of the people. And who pockets this, just follow the money. Most of the politicians have their hands in these businesses and are reaping huge profits from this either themselves or through their famillies. Obummer will probably get in because most of you can't see past the sand around your heads. So you better figure out right now which job you want. Do you want to push the stones or do you want to be an oiler? This is your future fate!

I replied to a post above yours.

While you are correct that there have been Billions given to big Pharmaceutical Companies that have effective monopolies granted by the Federal Government, you are incorrect that Obama put this in the Budget. Presidents do not set the Federal Budget. The House of Representatives and the Senate set the Federal Budget. The President can only request funds.

The House and Senate then blame the President for whatever Congress did.

That was true with the 'terrible' 'Bush Deficits' which were actually Pelosi-Reid deficits, and it is true with Obama, which are still the Pelosi-Reid deficits, as there has not been a budget passed since Obama's first year in office. That's the real reason for the six Trillion Dollar deficit during Obama's tenure, and half of the 4 Trillion Dollar deficit during Bush's eight year tenure.

So, it really makes no difference who wins in two weeks. Neither science nor Science will see any difference.

If you want something better, then change the Congress. From the record of the last six years, Democrats will mostly cause harm, while blaming others. Republicans will do less harm. Greens and Libertarians will just wreck everything, deliberately, though for different reasons.

I wish there was a good choice.

It should be pointed out that one of the reasons for a large part of the deficit since 2007 is the drop in income tax receipts due to the Great Recession.

Also I'd like to say that if you look at history the federal debt has generally risen more under Republican administrations than Democratic administrations. The D's may be "tax and spend" but the R's do "borrow and spend" and say to quote Dick Cheney "Deficits don't matter." (unless it's a Democratic administration).

Let me start by saying that your second point is largely valid (unfortunately) and represents the single most important failing of our system right now.

Having said that, I can't buy the Great Recession as a factor in the deficits. According to the Tax Policy Center, income tax revenues were higher in 2009 than they were in 2001-2005 (as an example period). The difference is the deficit number as a percentage of GDP was -10.1 in 2009.

The fact is, no matter how much revenue is received, the government insists on spending more than we have. Lately, they have spent a LOT more than we have....

If the purse strings tighten, so must the spending.

Dear Fool Me Once, can you say more about the statement towards the end of your post: "Democrats will mostly cause harm....Republicans will do less harm."? I firmly support President Obama's re-election for a number of ideological reasons: 1. As a member of the military I support a strong military as an instrument of peace and believe that war should only be a last option; 2. I am anti-abortion (as I believe most people are), but I firmly support a woman's right to make this difficult choice herself with the council of family, friends, medical providers, and their God if they are so inclined; 3. I believe this country has a fundamental duty to assist those in this country who could benefit the most from the assistance (those with low econonmic resouces, those who have experienced arbitrary discrimination, those with special needs, etc.). I believe President Obama is the better choice in this election. If you believe that too, you better vote, because this one is going to be close. There are serious implications if Governor Romney is elected. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act will adversely effect many, and it is a real possibility that Roe v.Wade could be overturned. Much of the cutting edge science that now exists has come from federal government research. Many of these advances have cost huge sums of money, and have come only after a large number of failures. It is this combination that drives far reaching innovation. Investment capital firms that drive private sector innovation are not going to take the risk of that real far reaching science requires. PLEASE VOTE!

A voice of reason and facts. Unlike most of the prior comments which were full of vitriol, distortions, ignorance ...
Who are these angry people writing these multi-multi paragraph rants with what they think are facts.
Are these the people who listen to and call in to AM hate radio?
How about offering positive comments and suggestions?
How about find a way to be a positive for society instead of angry noise.

My son served in the Army from 2000 to 2006, He was disappointing that he missed going to Iraq by about 2 weeks. It's good that he didn't, though, because the tank that broke a bridge in Baghdad and landed in the Euphrates river, upside down was the one he would have been driving had he gone.

My son in Law just got out of the Army, after serving two years in Korea. They both note that in the Army, over 95% vote Republican, because Democrats cut the Army pay, and cancel purchases of weapons and ammunition that are needed to keep the troops alive.

Here you are now saying that President Obama supports a strong military, after recently cutting the Army close to in half, and now ordering the Navy to shut down around 1/3 of its ships.

You also seem to think that President Obama is anti-abortion. Tell that to the Catholic Church. They don't seem to believe you.

Your third point, that you believe that the Government should provide whatever the 'poor' want is valid with respect to President Obama, but, if you think it will EVER be handled well, then you are going to be disappointed.

As any organization gets larger, more of the total manpower is required for supervision, relative to the total manpower of the organization. This is an inescapable consequence of size. that is why super large corporations can only exist with Government support. It is also why the Soviet Union failed. Overhead had grown enough that the system was no longer able to provide an adequate level of support for its' people. That's also why the "Too Big to Fail" corporations were really "Too Big To Succeed."

Oh, and from your last false point, Venture capitol firms don't do science (Research), nor do they do Science (Promoting political sponsors programs). What they do is fund manufacturing and sales.

It's all about profit. There is no profit in science, only in the application of science through engineering. Venture capitol firms also do not fund start-ups. They fund small corporations that were recently start-ups, and try to encourage them to grow into mid size corporations, which is where the money is. It's all about the money.

Oh, and your reference to the quote 'by' FoolMeOnce, wasn't. That was from my previous post on this thread. See, you were even wrong about that. that makes it five for five. Just like President Obama, Perfect Fail. Congratulations.

So, I guess that yes, you are an Obama supporter. Completely wrong on all facts, but with a firm emotional grasp of what you wish the facts were.

Science will do just fine if Romney is elected. R&D is alive and well in the commercial field and the Federal Government should have a limited role in this area, especially as we churn our way toward bankruptcy as a nation. Romney's plan for science at the Federal level is to wisely pick those projects that only make sense for the government to undertake when private industry is incapable of or unwilling to do such research. Romney himself will certainly not cherry pick individual programs to support, but instead will have staff at much lower levels of government making those types of decisions. That is what a good manager does. Micromanaging individual programs is not his style and will not be a feature of a Romney administration. To suggest otherwise is just another measure of the misinformation program that is awash in this campaign. Scare tactics often work on people who are too lazy to educate themselves about the real character of our government leaders. I doubt very seriously that science will suffer any ill effects from a Romney administration, certainly no more nor any less as a result of the past four years of an Obama administration.

Ha.

Ha ha

Ha ha haaahhh.

So well stated

Delusional

Writer Janet Fang's bio says that she is currently a lab technician at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University. They receive federal grants, so suck off the teat of us taxpayers, and of course are concerned that they may lose their "Obama Phones".

But hey, what the hell, insult her and cast aspersions on her and by doing so cast aspersions on facts, way to go religious zealots.

She left out President Obama's deep cuts in space science, for example. Even JPL facing cuts to the point that it may not be able to land any more rovers like Curiosity on Mars. She also left out that under President Obama, Fermilab is also facing deep cuts in staffing for elementary particle research. Many important telescopes are being shut down, such as the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) and the Green Bank Radio Telescope, as well as four different telescopes at the Kitt Peak Observatory (see http://www.universetoday.com/96853/us-astronomy-facing-severe-budget-cuts-and-facility-closures ).

The truth is that outside of green tech and some biological issues, the President has not been very supportive of science in general. He has a very narrow view of science which is actually not very conducive to basic research.

However, I don't expect a President Romney would be much more open to basic R&D either. The truth is that neither person has a very solid background in science and technology.

The truth is we are broke and every program, whether it's solid R&D Science or any of the "entitlements", needs to be reconsidered based on its merits and return on investment. We can't borrow our way to prosperity!

they'd be hanging banners from blimps

by the government, or with government help. So, go and prove those two points.

Also, the government must've invented the automobile, and computers, according to you. Oh, by the way, how much money did the government contribute to creating one of the most, if not the most important inventions of the last few centuries, namely, the typewriter. Oh, and how much money did the government contribute to Ben Franklin, when he decided to go experiment with kites and electricity.

No doubt that, government assistance for research and science can help make new discoveries and usher in new innovations/projects, but, most of what science and research is about, comes out of the innovative spirit and incentives which people already have. People might need help to conduct research on certain ideas, but first came the idea, which means that, government came second.

Space research had been done way before government got involved, and, the U.S. only became heavily involved in it, after the Soviet Union beat the U.S. to space while putting a satellite into orbit. At that point, we had no choice but to take the pooling of resources, which is what government really is about, in order to try to overtake the Soviet Union. Lacking that motive to go into space, we probably would still have gone into space, but at a slower pace.

Government can partake in R&D, but, it's participation is overrated, and, in many cases, unneeded, and, oftentimes, intrusive.

or do all the Obama haters sound like Henny Penny?

n/t

It's just you ... and all of the others who "drank the Cool-Aid"

Who has spent the last 3.5 years gutting NASA? So much for rocket science being important. Thanks a lot Obama.

NASA's "Muslim outreach" mandate. What a joke.

... people like you who try to turn a molehill into a mountain.

Why the assumption that science and research will be hurt? They weren't hurt before Obama, and there is no evidence that he has helped, only that the government has taken a larger role with our tax dollars. What if I don't want my tax dollars to go to harmful government research that exploits animals? What if a private group can do a better and safer job? What if Romney can use his influence to increase private research that is better, cheaper, safer, and creates more jobs than the government can? For example, Fedex and UPS still do a better job than the post office!

It isn't an assumption that science will be hurt, most especially any bio research using embryonic stem cells if Romney gets elected. All of the advances in this research will be reversed if Romney gets elected. He is a Mormon, but has fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

The current congress has the highest percentage of science illiterate members than previous years. There is one on the science and technology committee that has stated that he believes the world to be 9000 years old, that evolution and the big bang theories are straight from hell.

As YetAnotherBob stated, congress controls the budget while the president can suggest and negotiate budget proposals. The only other control the president has is veto over a bill and send it back to congress to rework or pass with veto proof support.

Science funding for NASA the US Weather Service NOAA and other beneficial agencies will probably be cut regardless who wins the presidency. Neither party is capable of leading the US into the future while they bicker over the past and are cavalier about the present.

Even your question is tilted toward Obama. Science and Research will continue as usual under Mitt Romney. We are now going into space with private venture capital, imagine that. Things can and do happen without the Government sticking there big nose into everything. From what I've seen of Obama in the last 2 weeks, if it doesn't help him in the near term then he's not real interested.

If SmartPlanet continues to present biased, political arguments like this, I will cease to be a subscriber. I'm trying to read SMART planet, not POLITICALplanet.

(For the record, I support neither - and both - Obama and Romney. Neither of them - just like any politician I've seen yet - has it all "right".)

From the simple standpoint, that ultimately publicly funded science doesn't matter to most Americans. Yes, it might matter to many on this site, but what really matters is who will make their lives better?

The answer is we know where we have gone (well, not gone) with Obama, his presidency has been a miserable failure and based on his own comments, he should not be running again as a result.

So, it's not if Romney wins, but when he wins. Also, remember the president doesn't actually have all that much control over what gets funded and what doesn't. Yes, he can veto a budget, but he will likely have to make compromises to get some of what he wants in it.

All on this site should recognize the marketing elements of running for the Presidency - but do you actually beleive that Romney will deal with China and deliver 12 million high paying jobs (with nothing on what industry they come from) - all in the first day of his presidency with a stroke of a pen?

He is obviously counting on the ignorance of Americans for their own governmental process - but as a former Governor he is well aware that as President he can only propose, not pass any legislation. It still takes a 60 vote majority in the Senate to get anything done - and like Obama before him - his efforts to deliver legislative direction will fail.

Personally - when I see the loons on Romney's coattails - Akin, Mourdock, Walsh, Broun and others he has endorsed then quickly disavowed as soon as they open their mouths - I am not ready for the kind of schizophrenia Romney will introduce to government and foreign policy. His behavior may be fine for business - say one thing - get your opponent to beleive you will go in one direction then quickly pivot and leave them holding the bag. While George Bush appeared earnest in his efforts, Romney's cold calculations and willingness to say anything to get elected are a shameful reflection of his low expectations of the American electorate.

So you're happy with the "loons" associated with Obama and the results of their efforts over the last 4 years!?

The nature of scientific research (which is really quite a simple process, though any particular subject may be horrendously complex) is such that there are several levels of research.

(DAR) Direct applications research: Searching for a solution to an existing problem.
(IR) Investigative research: Looking for the cause & effect relationship in a particular condition (which often assumes some such relationship exists, which is not always the case, and when it does, there may be many different causes.)
(PR) Pure research: Basically mucking around examining the world to see if you can figure out how it works.
(MR) Mathematical research: Playing games with numbers and looking for correlations in the real world. (Games in this sense do not mean 'toys' or 'trivial
amusements.')
(TR) Theoretical research: Research into how to test theories of why and how things work as they do.

ALL of these directly affect your life, though not on the same time scale.

Mathematical research (MR) often takes very long times between a mathematical curiosity and something practical--typically decades to centuries. This sort of research is seldom financed by for-profit concerns, since payback is delayed long past the point of easy profit. Traditionally, this is done by learning institutions, people with intense interest in the subject supported by patrons or society because it eventually proves valuable to society. It seldom pays either researcher or patron a return.

Theoretical research (TR) also often has a long delay between the research and any direct payoff...often the initial stage (in things like high-energy physics, cosmology, astronomy) results in the design of hugely expensive equipment to test the results. This sort of research finds capabilities that we never thought of before the research was done. Again, done primarily by 'Good Samaritans' and those with intense interest and society as a whole. Often no direct financial return, often substantially delayed returns.

Pure research (PR) is exploration. You don't know what you might find, you're not looking for anything in particular except information. It is the basis for much theoretical work, and often finds that we don't understand something as well as we thought we did. Very often, we discover something we already knew, and the exercise generates lots of information in the form of 'thought so.' There is often no direct or immediate payback for (PR.) But occasionally it pays big. seldom financed by for-profit entities.

Direct applications research (DAR) aimed at solving a articular and usually immediate problem, this is about the only form of research routinely financed by for-profit enterprises, often there is an expectation of a very large payback for the expense, and lack of results will often terminate the program. This is commonly financed by military and commercial ventures as well as society as a whole. Much of this financed by public funding finds immediate for-profit use, often with insignificant costs to the for-profit venture, since it was 'publicly funded.' For commercial ventures like drug research, aircraft design and a slew of others, public funding of this research generates immediate profits for industry since they are seldom required to pay the actual costs of the research.

Then there's 'innovation' which, despite popular usage, is not the same as 'invention.' Innovation is basically design tweaking, adding or removing features, making slight changes to improve a particular product. This is incredibly popular commercially because it has low costs, immediate payback and utilizes an exiting market (a new invention needs to have the market educated as to why they would want or need the invention...something seldom readily apparent to people who are already managing without it.)

Of course, these categories are not distinct, and there may be others I've not considered, and most research has elements of all of these.

Innovation won't take your from walking to rockets. Invention will.
Pure research provides the information needed to do applied research...without it, overall advancement slows and stops...though that always takes time.

Mathematical, pure, and theoretical research are the laying of foundations, necessary, but insufficient to directly affect you. E=MC^2 is pure math, and as such, has no direct effect upon your life...the applied results have massive effects on you and society.

Applied research, a better battery, a safer vehicle better understanding of why people do what they do...all are capable of providing immediate and directly observable results (lighter less flammable less explosive batteries, fewer traffic deaths, faster learning, fewer interpersonal conflicts.) Few people have trouble seeing the practical reasons for such research, but its success rests upon the less visible foundations.

The long delays involved make this similar to delaying maintenance on your house or car--you can avoid repainting the house for a couple years at little expense, but eventually, you will find that the repair cost rapidly increases. You can skip an oil change, or prolong it by a thousand or so miles and no noticable problems are likely, but failing to do it at all, will destroy the engine sometime don the road.

Science is a way of investigating the world. As such, it has as it's direct purpose, understanding, rather than creation of functional objects and procedures. Such creation is called engineering, and results in actual deliverable devices and processes on which cost-benefit analysis can usually be easily performed.

Science is like learning to read or write or do mathematics...the advantages are not directly obvious, the advantages come in the secondary effects, the ease with which reading and writing permits you to record and transfer information, to do new things, the ability to calculate your finances so you know not only if you are running our of funds, but why.

Babies are useless on the surface, they do nothing except consume resources--the ultimate example of Mr. Romney's 47% 'non-contributors' but without them, civilization and our species fails.

We publicly fund science because since we developed the technique, it has time and again proven it's overall worth to humanity as a whole, and to a significant number of individuals. We have managed to do more with less resources each year since the scientific age began than in most centuries before that time.

If you were not born into wealth in a perfect body, you owe much of the quality and longevity of your life to the scientific method, even if you were, your life would be significantly less comfortable, entertaining, shorter and more boring without it.

No even truly wealthy king or emperor pre-science had a life that compares favorably with that of a middle-class American.

Science is a process, a way of doing things. That's all. But it is extremely powerful compared with previous ways of doing things. Where it fails, it is not usually the process which has failed, but those using it--people being as they are, they frequently intentionally or otherwise fail to follow the process, usually because the process is not giving them the personally desirable result, usually financially or socially. This is because science done right requires you to be able to take what you thought you knew and discard it in favor of new information, and socially and/or financially scientists often have a vested interest in their current beliefs. Just as day traders have a vested belief in whichever way they are betting the market will move, and nearly everyone has a vested emotional interest in their belief that they are making good decisions.

Belief is valuable and useful, but the facts will, eventually slam into you and hurt if your belief is not in line with them.