The U.S. needs to increase the amount it spends on R&D.

[Stephanie]

The problem is that the gigantic federal bureaucracy ain't got a freaking clue and there is little accountability for the money bureaucrats spend on anything much less R&D. The best R&D is financed by the private sector.

NO KIDDING, but they have a lot of the people fooled. Especially the Dem. base.
they are going to devoir us . We can't keep paying for this monster that now believes they should control every aspect of our lives. to what your children eat to what size soda they think is the best for us
I don't know where it ends. but it wont be pretty I'm sure

 

[Stephanie]

So, for sure let's give (the monster Government) more of our hard earned monies


SNIP:
Audit: USDA Stimulus Programs ‘Inherently Not Shovel Ready’
Five-year review of Recovery Act finds $5 billion misspent



AP
BY: Elizabeth Harrington
August 29, 2014 12:05 pm

More than five years after the stimulus was signed into law, a new audit reveals the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) spent nearly $5 billion in questionable costs and funded programs that were “inherently not shovel ready.”

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) published a “lessons learned” audit on Wednesday, reviewing how well the USDA oversaw $28 billion in stimulus funds from the Recovery Act. The audit compiled results of over 80 reports conducted by the OIG.
“As a result of these reviews, we also reported monetary exceptions of over $5.1 billion, including $4.9 billion related to questionable or unsupported costs,” the audit said.

“Most programs that received Recovery Act funds were expected to quickly pump money into the economy by immediately executing infrastructure and labor intensive projects,” the OIG said. “These were known as ‘shovel ready’ projects.”
“However, our reviews discovered USDA encountered challenges because several of its programs were inherently not ‘shovel ready,’” they said.

For instance, zero projects from a watershed rehabilitation program that builds dams in local communities turned out to be “shovel ready.” Additionally, none of the projects met the law’s goals.

“Specifically, none of the 27 selected projects expended half of their funding within the first 120 days, 2 did not complete the dam rehabilitation with Recovery Act funds, and 6 were withdrawn prior to rehabilitation construction,” the audit said.

The USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service spent $943,000 on “projects that could not be completed.”

The largest area of mismanagement of stimulus funds came from the Single Family Housing Loans and Grants program, which is meant to secure homeownership for low-income Americans in rural areas.
The stimulus provided loans for 17 borrowers who “had no history of stable and dependable income,” and six loans were for properties that had aboveground swimming pools, which was strictly prohibited under the law.

“From our statistical sample, we project that 1,772 loans, worth $208 million (22 percent of the universe), may have similar noncompliance issues related to ineligible borrowers and properties,” the audit said.

Overall, the Rural Housing Service that oversaw the program provided $4.16 billion from the stimulus to ineligible recipients.

snip from same article:

Of the nearly $5 billion in unsupported costs, the USDA has recovered only $11 million. The OIG still has seven open investigations for fraud and abuse of Recovery Act funds.

all of it here:

 

[Two Thumbs]

I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.

In terms of a black box operation, where a student enters the school is educated by the school and leaves the school, the school system is the US is top notch. I believe it is only Shanghai and Finland which post better results.

you are greatly mistaken

No, I'm not.

Rankings Of Countries In Math And Science - Business Insider

Best Education In The World Finland South Korea Top Country Rankings U.S. Rated Average


yea you are

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You want to improve education and get more bang for your buck in the US?

1. Bring back corporal punishment.
2. Start charging parents with a crime if their kids commit a crime on school grounds
3. Institute school uniforms.
4. Move to a 9-2 5 days a week year round schedule with multiple short breaks around instead of one long summber break
5. Get rid of teacher tenure
6. Split high school into two tracts. One for college bound kids, one for everyone else. And no you don't get to choose which tract little Johnny goes into. Your input will be just one of many factors considered
7. Offer more distance learning classes so that each school has to spend less to hire teachers for some of the more advanced courses.
8. Tighten up standards for kids to pass on to the next grade, but get past the foolish idea that every student who fails is because of a teacher.
9. Mandatory that parents attend at least one school board meeting a quarter.

That would be a good start

 

[Anathema]

And for the record, I do feel like I am getting a little off topic focusing solely on defense. We should be forward thinking as a country, and in order to do that we need to invest in research. We never know what applicability those investments will yield, but it has worked out for us thus far.

Then change the US Constitution. Until then it's not legal or Constitutional and I will not support it.

That R&D should be done by private companies.... Oh that's right we're running them out if the US at an alarming rate with our corporate tax rate.

 

[tosacco]

And for the record, I do feel like I am getting a little off topic focusing solely on defense. We should be forward thinking as a country, and in order to do that we need to invest in research. We never know what applicability those investments will yield, but it has worked out for us thus far.

Then change the US Constitution. Until then it's not legal or Constitutional and I will not support it.

That R&D should be done by private companies.... Oh that's right we're running them out if the US at an alarming rate with our corporate tax rate.

Well, after a very quick google search, the NSF is supported by the Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 8, conjoined with broader goals of the federal government to promote health and prosperity. It's legal after all.

Thanks for helping me learn something new.

 

[Anathema]

Well, after a very quick google search, the NSF is supported by the Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 8, conjoined with broader goals of the federal government to promote health and prosperity. It's legal after all.

I'm pretty familiar with Article I, Section 8 and I can't figure out how you found anything there to support it, unless you're seriously misreading the section related to Patents and Trademarks. Can you point me at what language you're talking about.

 

[tosacco]

"The National Science Foundation was established in 1950 by public law 89-507, which frames the mission of NSF as follows: To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…. Here the argument appears to blend Article 1, Section 8 with broader Constitutional purposes."

 

[Rikurzhen]

I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.

In terms of a black box operation, where a student enters the school is educated by the school and leaves the school, the school system is the US is top notch. I believe it is only Shanghai and Finland which post better results.

you are greatly mistaken

No, I'm not.

Rankings Of Countries In Math And Science - Business Insider

Best Education In The World Finland South Korea Top Country Rankings U.S. Rated Average


yea you are

Those studies are flawed because they measure two factors, population performance and school performance, and claim that the outcomes are a result of only school performance. If you took 300 black ghetto kids and plunked them down into a South Korean school, that school wouldn't change the student performance much.

The proper way to analyze any situation is to isolate the factor under study. We want to know how well our schools perform. This means we need to control for population intelligence differences. We compare white students in America to white students in other nations. We compare Asian students in America to Asians students in other nations. We compare black students in America to black students in other nations. Now we can see how well the SCHOOLING performs in terms of student outcomes.

If you want to see who is the faster sprinter in a track program, you don't throw all the kids, of all ages, races and sexes into one big race because the race results are going to reflect age (older sprinters will have faster times than the 10 year olds) and sex (boys will run faster than girls) and race (blacks will tend to run faster than whites) and that jumbled mess in no way tells you the effects of training. You need to isolate, or control, these confondning factors.

 

[tosacco]

Oh, you mean AP and IB classes?

 

[ScienceRocks]

If America hopes to remain a leader within r&d. This would be a great idea.

China and India are spending a ton on theirs.

Better than spending it on Iraq.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.

The total Federal Budget outlays for R&D amount to 3.4% of the budget. On top of this there are private arrangements between corporations and universities, there is corporate research as well which doesn't intersect with government spending.

To get a handle on this do you have any international statistics which compares total R&D funding from all sources. You claim that what we spend is overwhelmingly low. I ask by what standard are you making this judgment?

I'm also curious how on your position for funding to social sciences. Are you opposed to such funding because it doesn't translate well into innovation and technology or should it be funded, and if so, then how do you justify shortchanging the sciences in order to fund the social sciences?

Well, to cite one publication, in the Gathering Storm Revisited report published in 2010 argues that the standard of living and opportunities in the U.S. will see a steady decline over the next couple of generations if we don't invest more in research, education, and recruitment into STEM. The authors call for some pretty drastic changes, including doubling total R&D funding over the next ten years

There is no coherent policy at work here and there are problems.

1.) Already mentioned above - we're deep into annual deficit funding.
2.) Not only R&D but all government functions are declining as a share of GDP due to crowding out effect from entitlements. To get a better handle on this we need to know how R&D funding is faring against the Forestry Service, against Border Patrol, against the State Department Budget, etc. If the Budget/GDP is increasing because of out of control entitlements, that doesn't tell us much about what's happening with the spending on traditional government functions.
3.) If you want to rebalance the spending priorities then which entitlement programs are you proposing be cut?
4.) We have no recruitment problem with STEM. Employers are importing immigrant talent in order to drive down wages for domestic STEM talent and there is now a surplus of STEM talent in the labor force. It's idiocy to develop plans to increase the talent pipeline when no talent will sign up for the programs because their career prospects in the US are so dim due to both low salaries and the constant threat of being replaced by an imported visa STEM worker.

Ultimately, what we invest should be higher. If you look at the figures for R&D as percentage of GDP, it has been declining. Here is some data looking at 1976-2015. Sure, we are investing more numerically, but the percentage is decreasing.

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/RDGDP_0.jpg

If you click the button to the right of the happy face, you can imbed images.

What this graph illustrates is that the decrease in R&D spending is principally coming from Defense R&D reductions. The non-Defense R&D spending is looking fairly stable. Your concern in this thread seems to be on non-Defense R&D so aren't you undercutting your own argument here? The big reduction in non-Defense R&D happened before 1982 .

As for funding social sciences, I think it is equally as important. We are seeing an increase in diversity, our urban centers have steadily growing population, we are looking at environmental factors that could potentially affect the production of adequate food to sustain our population, etc etc. We would be stupid not to invest money in the social sciences because that would lead to poorly informed policy decisions.

But that spending doesn't spin-off the benefits you highlighted for scientific R&D.

Look, there are always opportunity costs involved with spending decisions, so which programs are you going to shank in order to free up coin to go to social science R&D? What's the payback from social science versus STEM research?

Federal funding has been declining. According to an NSF report published last september, US funding for R&D dropped by 9% in 2011 alone and hasn't recovered (report is titled 'Federal Funding for Research Drops by 9% in FY 2011' by Michael Yamaner). So there is that

We know this phenomenon as "eating the seed corn." Again, it's a crowding out issue - entitlements are sucking up tax dollars. Something has to give. R&D doesn't present immediate benefit and so it goes to the chopping block.

This is less about how our spending is in comparison with the rest of the world and more about the decline in percentage of GDP going towards research signifies that the US government doesn't take it as seriously as it could be. Obviously there are other sources of funding. You point out there are connections between research institutions and industry. While I think these are important, we also need to be suspicious of how industry funding guides research agendas and narrows the focus of what problems are being addressed. While this concern could be raised about any funding (obviously researchers need money so stipulations by funders plays a coercive role in the research process), the federal government has in the past funded a more representative sample of all fields rather than simply funding what could have marketable returns, which is industry's strategy.

As someone familiar with hunting for grants, let me assure you that all sorts of avenues of research are blocked because of political reasons, so your concern about corporate funding also applies to government funding. There are vested interests EVERYWHERE.

There are plenty of things that could be cut in order to increase the funding of R&D. A good way to start would be to increase taxes on coorporations making large profits off of research funded by the U.S. government. I forget the author that put it this way, but the US socializes the risk of investing money in research that may yield no return, but then when that reserach becomes profitable, the US doesn't benefit from that.

Good suggestion but keep in mind that money is fungible. This means that this revenue stream, if enacted, doesn't necessarily go to fund R&D. More likely it will go to fund welfare for teen mothers or to fund some Obama Acorn community group. You need to find a way to force that money to be spent on R&D. Here's a suggestion: Corporate royalty payments for Federal Government funded IP must be dispensed to university research programs chosen by the corporation. This keeps the greedy hands of politicians off the taxes. Every politician has favorite programs and they're always hunting for cash to fund them. R&D cash is easy pickings. Don't let them have the chance to nab it.

We don't have an issue recruiting into STEM. At the same time, our schools underperform, which ultimately impacts the quality of student selecting to go into STEM in the first place.

There is always room for improvement but it's not our schools that are underperforming, it's certain population groups. I know that sociology students don't really believe in DNA, but the school results data speak for themselves.

This suggests that our immigration policy needs reform. We don't need anymore Mexican peasants becoming Americans, we need very intelligent and preferably well educated immigrants, with intelligence being the more significant factor because education can can added onto the immigrant's human capital, and that of their children, but intelligence is not something that we can change. So an IQ benchmark for new immigrants would help solve the problem you highlight.

Better education equals a better crop of people going into the field. While we are not necessarily hurting right now, we need to think about the future.

You will see a more marketable return on investment in "hard" sciences, but that doesn't mean the social sciences aren't equally necessary to the proper functioning of our country.

There are always trade-offs. What hard science will you not fund in order to free out money to fund some social science projects?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Oh, you mean AP and IB classes?

Too cryptic, I don't understand.

 

[whitehall]

Most recent government sponsored adventures into R&D have resulted in bankruptcy, Solyndra being the most notable. The government has it's hands full issuing patents or permits to manufacture drugs that keep legal firms in business. Government just isn't good at distributing money. Leave it to the experts.

 

[Stephanie]

Most recent government sponsored adventures into R&D have resulted in bankruptcy, Solyndra being the most notable. The government has it's hands full issuing patents or permits to manufacture drugs that keep legal firms in business. Government just isn't good at distributing money. Leave it to the experts.

Yes, but Obama's buddies made out like bandits
I'm tired of giving my money to bunch of elected people to do with as they wish.

 

[whitehall]

Most recent government sponsored adventures into R&D have resulted in bankruptcy, Solyndra being the most notable. The government has it's hands full issuing patents or permits to manufacture drugs that keep legal firms in business. Government just isn't good at distributing money. Leave it to the experts.

Yes, but Obama's buddies made out like bandits
I'm tired of giving my money to bunch of elected people to do with as they wish.

It touches on the left's emotional approach to societal problems. The left probably believes that unlimited taxpayer funding can force the private sector to invent gadgets and drugs that would change the environment and social structure within the span of a single (preferably democrat) administration. The short answer is that there is no substitute for fossil fuel in the next hundred years and so far the government's support of drug company R&D has only made law firms rich.

 

[Lakhota]

I am moving this over from my introduction thread. The US needs to increase funding to R&D as well as strengthen our public education system (both k-12 and higher ed) in order to stay competative in the contemporary, globalized world.

The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.

The reality of the situation is our economy is quickly becoming a knowledge economy dependent on things like technological transfer, R&D, knowledge production, etc. The amount we invest in research is actually quite small vis-a-vis other developed nations. In order to stay competative we should be investing more in research, as well as increasing the amount of funding for education to ensure our citizens are knowledgeable about contemporary science and skilled in the state-of-the-art technology our economy is increasingly fueled by.

This is straight copy-pasted from the other thread, sorry if it's a little rigid.

Welcome aboard. You sound like a man with good sense. I'll be watching you...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Matthew is that you? You forgot infrastructure. ....

So you know the word infrastructure but don't know Matthew was just a man telling stories in hopes for a better tomorrow before TV.

Really? Do you have ANY idea who I was referring to? Likely not. Just a typical moron trying to fit in but ultimately clueless

I'm a born and raised "Bigot redneck Christian" I'm fully aware of your perspective. The Bible is the breeding ground for bigotry. The adam and eve so

Matthew is that you? You forgot infrastructure. ....

Your quote attacks many but your responses are always bias and partisan. Perhaps you should learn more about the people you hate before hating them. Watch some Daily Show, I CHALLENGE YOU TO. If you graduate that, I'll let you watch some Colbert.

The Left knows way more about the Right than the Right knows about the Left. The Right thinks the leftists are all a bunch of morons unable to think hoping to be poor. I'm embarrassed for so many people in America today.

I don't watch the comedy channel. That shit is targeted at stupid kids and dumbass adults.
Fitting you find it so "informing"

I'm fully aware you don't watch the Comedy Channel. But you unknowlingly provide so much of their script.

You remain wilfully ignorant & clueless. I don't read nor believe in the bible.

I do however read USMB & the passages have me convinced that you're a basement dwelling loser.

You butted into a post that wasn't ment for you & 3 times now your responses have been a mile off target, stupid & moronic.

Comedy central indeed loser

 

[TooTall]

The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.

The total Federal Budget outlays for R&D amount to 3.4% of the budget. On top of this there are private arrangements between corporations and universities, there is corporate research as well which doesn't intersect with government spending.

To get a handle on this do you have any international statistics which compares total R&D funding from all sources. You claim that what we spend is overwhelmingly low. I ask by what standard are you making this judgment?

I'm also curious how on your position for funding to social sciences. Are you opposed to such funding because it doesn't translate well into innovation and technology or should it be funded, and if so, then how do you justify shortchanging the sciences in order to fund the social sciences?

I wonder how much this R&D cost and if it was really necessary.

The U.S. Forest Service on Friday published a nearly 700-word article on how to safely roast marshmallows, all in preparation for Saturday, which is National Roasted Marshmallow Day.

 

[Stephanie]

The federal government has only spent between 0.3 and 0.4 percent of its GDP on R&D at public institutions in recent years. I cite the public institutions figure because it's overwhelmingly low considering not only does a lot of important, innovative research happen at public institutions, but the research conducted at public institutions is also the primary training mechanism for the future knowledge workers. If we were serious about staying competative we would be investing double the amount of tax dollars in R&D at public institutions.

The total Federal Budget outlays for R&D amount to 3.4% of the budget. On top of this there are private arrangements between corporations and universities, there is corporate research as well which doesn't intersect with government spending.

To get a handle on this do you have any international statistics which compares total R&D funding from all sources. You claim that what we spend is overwhelmingly low. I ask by what standard are you making this judgment?

I'm also curious how on your position for funding to social sciences. Are you opposed to such funding because it doesn't translate well into innovation and technology or should it be funded, and if so, then how do you justify shortchanging the sciences in order to fund the social sciences?

I wonder how much this R&D cost and if it was really necessary.

The U.S. Forest Service on Friday published a nearly 700-word article on how to safely roast marshmallows, all in preparation for Saturday, which is National Roasted Marshmallow Day.

oh yeah crap like that and paying THEM to WAIL over a football teams name
Half of Congress is filled with nitwits, crooks, now belong in the (Corrupted Bastards good ole boys and girls club). They don't go in Government anymore to serve us most it's to serve them while they suck the blood from taxpayers FOR LIFE