6 ms·

I don't know, can you think for yourself and decide whether the issue is important to you or not?

by wavefunction 9y ago

koolba 9y ago
The issue of reducing wasteful spending across the government, at all levels, is near and dear to many of us.
- parzivalm 9y ago
  I'm still waiting for us to actually cut wasteful spending in areas like defense. Too bad that will never happen. The Gov can just keep cutting science spending.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Fun fact: even when you exclude defense spending, total government expenditures per capita (federal, state, and local) are $1,500 per year higher in the US than in Canada.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      Sure, but it seems somewhat disingenous to mention this in the same topic as public health, safety , ecological and science research. The US spends more for worse outcomes on entitlements like health care, because we refuse to optimize it.
    - justin66 9y ago
      Per capita GDP is quite a bit higher in the US, so that's not unexpected.
  - tanilama 9y ago
    But defense create jobs!
    - crocal 9y ago
      This is very true. However it also creates weapons that are sitting around waiting for justifying their existence. Unless you really need these weapons (and I absolutely recognize it can be the case), shouldn't we use the money on other pursuits that will not have this nasty side effect?
- KirinDave 9y ago
  And as such these tiny tiny cuts are a good idea? It's very dangerous to call defunding of sciences and regulatory oversight to be "wasteful" spending. They are both inexpensive and tend to be valable for decades to come. Maybe Trump, his team, and the Republican majority in every branch of government could do something positive about entitlement spending? It'd be great to get back to a US where we actually spend non-trivial money on core science.
  - koolba 9y ago
    There's nothing sacred about science that makes it untouchable or puts it above all other spending. It's talk like that which leads to bloated budgets that never get resolved because everything falls in that category to someone.
    - nine_k 9y ago
      Likely science is not among top 10 greatest sinks of government funds, and the amount of waste in it is not atypically high. It's just a wrong target for financial optimization maybe.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      > There's nothing sacred about science that makes it untouchable or puts it above all other spending. Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted. Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public. Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech". When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort.
      - koolba 9y ago
        > Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted. The weasel words in that are "almost never". If something has merit then let it stand on its merit. > Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public. Sure and I'm not saying to block them all. I'm saying it's fine to take a look at them individually, there are no sacred cows, and labeling something "____ Science" doesn't make it beyond reproach. > Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech". That was quick. Usually it takes more than one reply before the Nazi references come out. > When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort. Everything about how the Federal government operates is a form of cherry picking. It's a side effect of having limited time and funds. The executive branch decides what they're going to follow up on. If you're upset that your particular cherries aren't the ones being picked, and it really seems like that's the root of your dissent, then so be it. That's hardly scientific though. That's just being a sore loser.

I don't know, can you think for yourself and decide whether the issue is important to you or not?

koolba 9y ago

The issue of reducing wasteful spending across the government, at all levels, is near and dear to many of us.

parzivalm 9y ago
I'm still waiting for us to actually cut wasteful spending in areas like defense. Too bad that will never happen. The Gov can just keep cutting science spending.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Fun fact: even when you exclude defense spending, total government expenditures per capita (federal, state, and local) are $1,500 per year higher in the US than in Canada.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Sure, but it seems somewhat disingenous to mention this in the same topic as public health, safety , ecological and science research. The US spends more for worse outcomes on entitlements like health care, because we refuse to optimize it.
  - justin66 9y ago
    Per capita GDP is quite a bit higher in the US, so that's not unexpected.
- tanilama 9y ago
  But defense create jobs!
  - crocal 9y ago
    This is very true. However it also creates weapons that are sitting around waiting for justifying their existence. Unless you really need these weapons (and I absolutely recognize it can be the case), shouldn't we use the money on other pursuits that will not have this nasty side effect?
KirinDave 9y ago
And as such these tiny tiny cuts are a good idea? It's very dangerous to call defunding of sciences and regulatory oversight to be "wasteful" spending. They are both inexpensive and tend to be valable for decades to come. Maybe Trump, his team, and the Republican majority in every branch of government could do something positive about entitlement spending? It'd be great to get back to a US where we actually spend non-trivial money on core science.
- koolba 9y ago
  There's nothing sacred about science that makes it untouchable or puts it above all other spending. It's talk like that which leads to bloated budgets that never get resolved because everything falls in that category to someone.
  - nine_k 9y ago
    Likely science is not among top 10 greatest sinks of government funds, and the amount of waste in it is not atypically high. It's just a wrong target for financial optimization maybe.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    > There's nothing sacred about science that makes it untouchable or puts it above all other spending. Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted. Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public. Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech". When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort.
    - koolba 9y ago
      > Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted. The weasel words in that are "almost never". If something has merit then let it stand on its merit. > Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public. Sure and I'm not saying to block them all. I'm saying it's fine to take a look at them individually, there are no sacred cows, and labeling something "____ Science" doesn't make it beyond reproach. > Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech". That was quick. Usually it takes more than one reply before the Nazi references come out. > When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort. Everything about how the Federal government operates is a form of cherry picking. It's a side effect of having limited time and funds. The executive branch decides what they're going to follow up on. If you're upset that your particular cherries aren't the ones being picked, and it really seems like that's the root of your dissent, then so be it. That's hardly scientific though. That's just being a sore loser.