The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[vbnautilus 48]

But the problem is the fact that government is so inefficient and poorly run that the notion that they are in charge of handing money over to people just reeks of a bad idea, even if on occasion, and by accident, the money they hand over has a positive result.

The alternative is that we allow market forces and potential for financial earnings to choose the ways in which human knowledge grows. This strategy has surely produced many things of value, but its not really the optimal way for us to advance ourselves. There are other forces which we should allow to drive us in our pursuit of knowledge, namely curiosity and wonder. When curiosity chooses which path to take, you get an entirely different outcome from when greed chooses the path. Essentially, when you are driven by profitability, what you achieve is profit. When you are driven by curiosity what you achieve is a totally different kind of value. It's this other kind of value that government is a perfect tool for pursuing. In my opinion, if government does anything beyond a bare bones hblaskian libertarian skeleteon, it should be to fund humanistic pursuits like art and science -- not for financial profit, but for human value.

Let's say Little Jimmy becomes an engineering student at MIT, and is on a program that takes my tax dollars to research Lasers.After 2 years of studies, they make advancements and the funding grant ends.Jimmy then goes to Halliburton and says: "Hey I have transformed $50 million in tax dollars into a big jump forward of my understanding of lasers and if you hire me at a much inflated rate for my knowledge, I will figure out a really good laser that can kill someone from a long way away.Halliburton hires Jimmy and 3 times the normal rate, and Jimmy figures out the laser thing and receives a huge bonus. Hallibruton then markets this new laser to the Navy and sells them for a $trillion profit over the next 10 years.So my tax dollars made Jimmy and Halliburton rich, and except for having a Navy that can shoot Somalia pirates from 2 miles with a tiny risk of collateral damage, I got nothing.Why shouldn't Jimmy and Halliburton have to pony up the original $50 million if they are the ones that end up reaping the rewards?

1. Those advancements belong to the public, not to haliburton if they were discovered while on a government grant. 2. You again have the hidden assumption that all value reduces to financial wealth. The government paid 50 million, and they got in return: "a big jump forward in the understanding of lasers". This knowledge is intrinsically valuable, and I might add, has value even if we can't find out how it converts back to a dollar at some point. The point of money is to gather other kinds of value, and not vice-versa.3. You included several positive results of the research in your own example.

[Balloon guy 158]

Don't get me wrong, I love finding more efficient ways to kill those people as the next guy, I just don't trust government to fall into the positive side of the ledger often enough to justify them playing this game to begin with.

[Balloon guy 158]

Also in that scenario the world would be a little more safe as America's military superiority would be strengthened. Way to come up with a scenario that is full of win for everyone and call it bad BG.

We already have enough superiority over Somalia pirates that no new technology is needed for a few centuries.The real purpose for using this example was to somehow bring up this picture, as a response to someone saying something about positive outcomes of government weapons technology.But the whole set up / conclusion didn't flow properly for this joke.Time to find a new obscure picture referencing an 80s movie and build an entire theme off of it. I'm leaning towards Carbon Copy.

[dapokerbum 0]

Strangely I am not okay with my taxes being used for this.But I understand the argument.When you coming to the desert to go golfing?

I have been trying to plan a climbing/camping trip to Joshua Tree. If I do this I will let you know and we can try to get a round in BEFORE the camping.

[Balloon guy 158]

I have been trying to plan a climbing/camping trip to Joshua Tree. If I do this I will let you know and we can try to get a round in BEFORE the camping.

Joshua Tree has some pretty places.I used to fly a buddy over the park so he could scout out rocks to climb from the air.

[vbnautilus 48]

Time to find a new obscure picture referencing an 80s movie and build an entire theme off of it. I'm leaning towards Carbon Copy.

obscure!? that is one of my favorite movies.

[dapokerbum 0]

Joshua Tree has some pretty places.I used to fly a buddy over the park so he could scout out rocks to climb from the air.

I've heard nothing but good about Joshua Tree. I was waiting till it cooled down before we headed out there though.

[Balloon guy 158]

obscure!? that is one of my favorite movies.

Is it me, or did Denzel have much larger lips in that movie than in any of his later works?

[AmScray 355]

The problem with government-funded anything is that so rarely is due consideration given to whether the government should be funding it or not.The discussion eventually decays into the same, tired old dogmas, inevitably boiling down to school music programs versus $500 toilet seats and addressing the issue at hand becomes paralyzed in a war of competing ideologies.The whole point of a 'budget' is that we're supposed to go over this shit point-for-point and make a considerate decision as to the merits and necessity of government funding, relative to what is otherwise offered in a free market system, but our spending philosophies are so ****ed up that that the process has become totally dislocated from the base concept of 'necessity'. It's now just a bullshit game where politicians jockey to shovel as much lagresse towards those that vote them into power, or who can give them the most favor. This *must* stop. The lobbies have got to go, the profligate waste must end. We need to start putting back into the treasury and saving for a rainy day. If we take out of the treasury, we must be sure that we're receiving more in return. I have a simple, seven point plan that solves all of our budget problems. 1) Forbid Jews from involvement in all finance. 2) Jettison the following states: Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and West Virginia. 3) Invade Canada, take possession of all natural resources, Canadians become our ".05 cents an hour" labor option instead of the Chinese. 4) No more social safety net, free transportation to any country where the locals suggest this is 'cruel' and are willing to take the parasites in. 5) Line item veto6) Death penalty for dereliction of fiduciary duty in any interest, public or private7) Stock/Commodities market pricing controlled by joystick in the oval office. By implementing these simple, seven criteria, we can save this country from meltdown.

[Balloon guy 158]

I cannot support a country that keeps Massachusetts.

[akoff 0]

The problem with government-funded anything is that so rarely is due consideration given to whether the government should be funding it or not.The discussion eventually decays into the same, tired old dogmas, inevitably boiling down to school music programs versus $500 toilet seats and addressing the issue at hand becomes paralyzed in a war of competing ideologies.The whole point of a 'budget' is that we're supposed to go over this shit point-for-point and make a considerate decision as to the merits and necessity of government funding, relative to what is otherwise offered in a free market system, but our spending philosophies are so ****ed up that that the process has become totally dislocated from the base concept of 'necessity'. It's now just a bullshit game where politicians jockey to shovel as much lagresse towards those that vote them into power, or who can give them the most favor. This *must* stop. The lobbies have got to go, the profligate waste must end. We need to start putting back into the treasury and saving for a rainy day. If we take out of the treasury, we must be sure that we're receiving more in return. I have a simple, seven point plan that solves all of our budget problems. 1) Forbid Jews from involvement in all finance. 2) Jettison the following states: Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and West Virginia. 3) Invade Canada, take possession of all natural resources, Canadians become our ".05 cents an hour" labor option instead of the Chinese. 4) No more social safety net, free transportation to any country where the locals suggest this is 'cruel' and are willing to take the parasites in. 5) Line item veto6) Death penalty for dereliction of fiduciary duty in any interest, public or private7) Stock/Commodities market pricing controlled by joystick in the oval office. By implementing these simple, seven criteria, we can save this country from meltdown.

I cannot support a country that keeps Massachusetts.

LOL

[mk 11]

Most of mk's posts in here are easily dismissible as super duper left wing crazy

Yes yes, and to the rest of the Western world I'd be well to the right of average.I am, and always have been, a pragmatic centrist. Most of you dudes who post in here are off the charts anarcho-capitalist/imperialist.

[FCP Bob 1,321]

Yes yes, and to the rest of the Western world I'd be well to the right of average.I am, and always have been, a pragmatic centrist. Most of you dudes who post in here are off the charts anarcho-capitalist/imperialist.

Most of the Amerian right wingers think that I'm some far lefty based on my posts I bet. Here in Canada I vote Conservative.

[akoff 0]

Most of the Amerian right wingers think that I'm some far lefty based on my posts I bet. Here in Canada I vote Conservative.

that sounds correct. Social issues you are fairly left, fiscal ones you are much closer to center.

[Balloon guy 158]

Most of the Amerian right wingers think that I'm some far lefty based on my posts I bet. Here in Canada I vote Conservative.

Canadian conservative is a far lefty.

[CaneBrain 95]

Canadian conservative is a far lefty.

That's really the problem with your worldview though. If, in your view, 87% of the Western World is far lefty......are they REALLY far lefty? Or are you just FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Righty and we are in the center.....and All In represents an actual far lefty.Boom.

[hblask 1]

Most of mk's posts in here are easily dismissible as super duper left wing crazy, but this point is extremely fair, and I don't have any idea why you covservatards are arguing about this. There is a ton of government waste, but science funding reform is pretty low of my list.

I agree, it's very low on the list.I just love to tweak all the science-heads here (who, as a science-head myself, I consider myself one of) about their religious-like belief in the miracle power of federal funding of basic research.To me, based on the vast historical data, the notion that the government does something better than the private sector seems like an extraordinary claim, and we all know what that means.So, to prove it, you don't say "look, here are three things that succeeded."You have to take into account that the money is coming from somewhere; that when businesses face additional taxes, basic research is one of the first areas to go; that businesses need to stay on the cutting edge to succeed, and therefore need a certain amount of basic research; that if someone else is going to do it for you for free, you will tend to reduce your own expenditures; that the federal government is exceptionally inefficient in basically everything they do; that politics influences where federal research dollars go; that large companies can influence where the money goes through lobbyists, into areas that help them rather than "the public interest"; and much much more.Until a study is done taking into account all those things, this belief in the net benefit of federal funding of science is pure religious faith of the type that, in another forum, is regularly mocked by these same people.But yeah, it's one of the federal government's tiniest problems. Oh, and supporters: don't forget to pray to the federal science gods tonight and thank them for their wonderful improvements to society.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

You have to take into account that the money is coming from somewhere; that when businesses face additional taxes, basic research is one of the first areas to go; that businesses need to stay on the cutting edge to succeed, and therefore need a certain amount of basic research; that if someone else is going to do it for you for free, you will tend to reduce your own expenditures; that the federal government is exceptionally inefficient in basically everything they do; that politics influences where federal research dollars go; that large companies can influence where the money goes through lobbyists, into areas that help them rather than "the public interest"; and much much more.

If: businesses need to stay on the cutting edge to succeed,Then: why is basic research the first area to go?

[hblask 1]

The alternative is that we allow market forces and potential for financial earnings to choose the ways in which human knowledge grows. This strategy has surely produced many things of value, but its not really the optimal way for us to advance ourselves.

Evidence? Perhaps a nice centrally planned economy that is a world leader in research?

[hblask 1]

If: businesses need to stay on the cutting edge to succeed,Then: why is basic research the first area to go?

Because there is not always a direct 1-1 relationship, and they know the government will do much of it for them anyway. If they couldn't count on this backdoor corporate welfare, they'd have to do it themselves. Also, not all businesses need cutting edge stuff, but optionally fund some of it if they have extra money. Intel will probably always be funding basic research into fundamental physics. Lego, probably not so much. It's a continuum, and federal funding of basic research moves businesses away from it by doing it for them and increasing the tax burden on business.I'm waiting for the study that shows that the gain from federally funded research offsets the loss from private research. Or do I have to invoke the FSM?

[hblask 1]

Essentially, when you are driven by profitability, what you achieve is profit.

And what does profit represent other than the ability to successfully improve the lives of others?

[Balloon guy 158]

That's really the problem with your worldview though. If, in your view, 87% of the Western World is far lefty......are they REALLY far lefty? Or are you just FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Righty and we are in the center.....and All In represents an actual far lefty.Boom.

The problem with my worldview is that the rest of you are not willing to admit that I am right.Let me run everything for one decade, then you can pretend that it was lefty ideas that brought about world peace and economic security.

[CaneBrain 95]

The problem with my worldview is that the rest of you are not willing to admit that I am right.Let me run everything for one decade

We did. We called it 2000-2008. It went....poorly.

[brvheart 1,757]

Muslims.

[Balloon guy 158]

We did. We called it 2000-2008. It went....poorly.

He didn't go far enough in some areas, and too far in others.