The stock markets aren't happy with the election results.

Right. Nothing will change between now and then. The government doesn't budget money anymore, it only passes continuing resolutions and emergency stimulus spending bills.

Look at the bolded text in what you quoted:

In 2027 Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt will consume all tax revenue, according to the GAO.


Silly barfo, there won't be any money to spend even $.01 on military. Or roads. Or the NIH. Or the FBI. Or the Courts. Or the Post Office. Or on Welfare.

Silly barfo. Still it's good to see you.

 

And? You offer nothing but "what if?" scenarios that do not square with reality. Just like the lemon drops and gum drops don't.

Here's a short list of scientists. Do tell me how you think they paid their rent and could afford the tools to do their research:

Archimedes, Aristotle, Niels Bohr, Copernicus, Curie, Darwin, Da Vinci, Descartes, Edison, Einstein, Ben Franklin, Galileo, Newton, Planck, Rontgen, Tesla.

No, baffo. I don't think scientific progress would be any different or sooner or whatever had there been government funding.

What a silly question. What is greater, the number of dollars or the number of insects?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/05/the-dow-joness-new-high-is-fake/

The Dow Jones industrial average passed 14,164.53 today. That’s its highest reading ever. Huzzah!

Or not. That number doesn’t adjust for inflation. As CNBC’s Jeff Cox writes, “in inflation-adjusted dollars, the Dow would need to hit 15,731.54 to break the record.” In fact, in inflation-adjusted terms, the Dow is still well below it’s 2000 high.

Oh, and the Dow Jones industrial average, which measures the performance of 30 companies, is a useless market indicator, and you should follow the S&P 500 instead.

 

With advanced metrics?

I just said they do a pretty good job of delivering that cheap mail. I didn't say I liked it, I said they should shut it down. There's a big gap between what I said and what you wish I'd said.

Yes, that is a disgusting. But since I've never done that, especially to a postman, I'm not sure what you are on about.

Bumper sticker slogans and random non-sequiturs are an uneducated economic philosophy.

I support it in the sense that I pay taxes, I guess. I don't support it in the sense you mean.

I don't approve of your lifestyle of raping babies and eating rat testicles, either.

Uhm, no. USPS does not make law.

Exciting news.

barfo

 

The answers vary. To pick out one from your list, the Curies were dramatically underfunded most of the time. Their lab was substandard for the times. They never had a lab assistant until after the Nobel prize. Yeah, I think they could have done it faster/better with more funding.

barfo

 

That was my point.

Likewise!

barfo

 

What makes you think there was more funding to be had then? Or even now? She was a nobody until her discoveries.

Yet she did have funding.

 

?? I'm not sure what you mean. Of course there was money that could have been spent on Curie's research instead of something else.

So? The argument was over whether additional funding would advance science, not over whether Marie Curie was a nobody.

And guess what: everybody is a nobody until their discoveries.

Yes she did. I'm saying if she'd had more she'd have been more productive. There are no doubt others we've never heard of who could have made interesting discoveries but they didn't have money to do the work.

barfo

 

Something else, like farming for food?

I'd love me some of this funding. Maybe one day, I'll discover something. In the mean time, I can live large at everyone else's expense!

Sign me up.

 

That's rather non-libertarian of you. Aren't you supposed to stand on your own two feet, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.? Why are you always looking for a handout?

Anyway, the point we were arguing was not whether there should be government funding for scientists, but whether additional funding would increase the rate of scientific discovery. I said yes in some cases, you said never in any case.

barfo.

 

Fedex and UPS workers?

Sorry, don't know what you are talking about and am not sufficiently interested to go back and look.

barfo

 

Green font required? Seriously?

The question is whether government should pick and choose what gets funded and whether to tax and spend enormous sums of money for the sake of it? You know, should we spend govt. money studying the decline of pheromone production in fruit flies as they age (for a $940,000 grant).