Some disturbing debt statistics.

[Skizor]

I'm subscribed to Science magazine, great informative weekly magazine, but high costed. (I get it for the cheapest price - seventy five dollars - because I technically count as a student) Lots of interesting articles, and a lot of articles on funding and budget, which is often a big issue in the Scientific world. Recently, I read this article, and well, what I learned was a little disturbing... Either read the whole article, or just read the last few paragraphs, the last paragraph especially.

------------------------------------------------------------------

SCIENCE AND POLICY
Deep Concerns Aired at AAAS's 30th S&T Policy Forum

When U.S. Representative Rush Holt took the stage at the AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy, he offered a critical view of the state of the union between science and policy-makers: The federal government is underinvesting in "almost every sector" of S&T research. Energy policy remains focused on oil, despite high prices and the impact of global warming. Young students enter school open to the excitement of science, he said, but "we beat it out of them over the years."

White House science adviser John H. Marburger III
White House science adviser John H. Marburger III offered a firm defense of federal research and development spending.

Holt's view was sobering, but it captured the prevailing mood among scientists and science policy experts during the 2-day gathering in Washington, D.C. Despite the broad contributions of science to American well-being, many speakers said, it is finding diminished support from policy-makers and from much of the public on issues ranging from climate change to development of the S&T workforce.

The AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy annually features some of the nation's most influential policy-makers and experts. More than 550 people attended the 30th annual Forum, held 21 to 22 April.

This year, no issue attracted more scrutiny than the federal budget.

John H. Marburger III, the White House science adviser, opened the Forum with a firm defense of President George W. Bush's record. The administration has proposed $132.3 billion for R&D spending in fiscal 2006, up 45% from 2001. That "very clearly shows a strong commitment to science and technology," Marburger concluded.

But Kei Koizumi, director of the AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program, said the 2006 plan would raise R&D spending only 0.1% over 2005; while many agencies will see their budgets cut, most will lose ground to inflation.

Paul Posner, managing director of federal budget issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office, said budget deficits, outstanding debt, and other liabilities total $150,000 for every U.S. resident. Without reforms in Social Security and health care or major increases in federal revenues, Posner said, federal deficits and debt will grow to levels unsustainable for the U.S. economy. Under one scenario where the administration's tax cuts are made permanent and discretionary spending grows with the economy, the deficit by 2040 would be so severe that the government would have only enough income to cover interest payments--but nothing for ongoing government programs.

------------------------------------------------------------

Did you get that? Did you read that? Here, lemme just repeat one sentence in case you didn't pick it up.

Paul Posner, managing director of federal budget issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office, said budget deficits, outstanding debt, and other liabilities total $150,000 for every U.S. resident.

That's one hundred and fifty thousand dollars at most which each of us will have to pay in our life time (assuming we're all less than 30 and will live another) if the national debt is going to be erased. Granted, Bush didn't cause all of the national debt, nor did he even cause that much of it, only 1/6th or so as of 2005, now that the debt is 7.8 trillion. Reagan caused 2/7th of it, which is more, go to http://www.usfacetoface.org/files/economy_files/image001.gif for a few-years-out-of-date graph of the progression of the national debt) but just for a second, step back from just the Bush administration, and look at just the national debt. Just for a second. Think about it. Throughout the last 38 years (okay, longer than that, but mainly the last 38 years), the reckless spending of presidential administrations has amounted to $150,000 per citizen.

That's pretty damn large. I just want you all to think about how because these politicians don't know how to control their spending, you're going to have to spend an extra $150,000 in taxes during your lifetime. That money could get you this house and still leave you with $22,000 to spend on furniture and hookers. That money could feed 600,000 people in third world countries for one day. That money could get you three mercedes benz cars.

But what is it being used for? It's being used to pay back the debt, liabilities, and interest on the debt of the US Government because the presidents can't learn to manage their money right and instead wastes it on things like building an unnecessary amount of nuclear bombs, funding violent rightist political parties in Latin America and the Middle East, and on unnecessary wars based on paranoia, kneejerk reaction, and the oil market. It goes to compensating for things like giving the rich heavy tax cuts, it goes to compensating for years of "trickle down" economics, and it goes to compensating for things like Bush Sr. and Bush Jr's raping of the Middle East.

Isn't that disgusting? Why is our money even being used for that type of shit? Can anyone here please answer this for me, because this is goddamn confusing for me. Either there's something I'm not getting here, and it's too complicated for some normal plebeian like me to understand; either that or these Republican politicians are full of shit and like to throw away money like it was trash. I certainly can't see how it'd be anything else, because the debt we have here is just disgusting.

That lovely graph of the progressing debt, once again:
http://www.usfacetoface.org/files/economy_files/image001.gif

[Elfer]

Fun fact: There was a budget surplus in the last year of Clinton's administration being in power.

Looks like the ball got dropped on that one.

[totalwar]

Another fun fact: Governments should spend to a deficit in years of recession/depression, it helps to shorten and moderate the effects.

That said not to the levels Bush has done so.

[Ravens-Grin]

At 6/4/05 10:29 PM, totalwar wrote: Another fun fact: Governments should spend to a deficit in years of recession/depression, it helps to shorten and moderate the effects.

That said not to the levels Bush has done so.

The philosophy of that is that after the recession, you will cut back on expenditure. Saying that the current revenue is vastly outmasked by the expenditures, the amount to be cut back in order to return to a positive cash flow would not be prudent with the federal agencies today.