<p>Furthermore, the fool Republicans had blocked stem cell research which will be the biggest driver in healthcare innovation. Have you noticed the migration of the best US stem cell scientists to singapore lately? </p>
<p>No, we are not behind in our math and science teaching in HS or college. It just happens that a majority of our brightest math students goes into Wall Street, a majority of our bright science students goes into Medicine, Computer Science and so forth. It is because pure basic science is totally unrewarding. Govenrment funding goes into cycles, dips whenever Republicans step in. Everytime a Republican administration comes in, the young Postdocs know well that their job chance will be dismal.</p>
<p>I don’t tell my students to go into basic science. They invariably thank me for it.</p>
<p>“I would actually argue that foundations are less influential, since by and large they carry out their objectives by directly applying their money, rather than attempting to change government policy, as religions actively (and on a far huger scale than foundations) strive to do.”</p>
<p>Actually that is not true, but believe what you want.</p>
<p>“Tax exemption of charitable gifts is a long-standing policy; why should it be changed? If you want it to be changed, though, it must be applied to all organizations that benefit from tax-exempt giving, not just the foundations whose tax freedom you deplore.”</p>
<p>And of course that is not true either. We can tax or not tax legal persons any way we want or allow or disallow their creation for wahtever reasons we want.</p>
<p>Padad said: “pure basic science is totally unrewarding…I don’t tell my students to go into basic science.”</p>
<p>What if everybody took your advice and stayed away from basic science ? Where do we get our teachers from ? Who works in labs and industries that’s not on your glamour list ? </p>
<p>America can’t be all about just a handful of top jobs.
You are the one with blinders on. </p>
<p>If I want to be a high school chemistry teacher and get my reward teaching the young, maybe tudor a budding chemist, who are you to decide for me what’s rewarding and what is not.</p>
<p>higherlead: Of course I don’t mean that there is some kind of universal law that we must tax similar organizations the same way. My point was that there is a moral/rational requirement to present a relevant difference if you want to tax organizations differently. You even agree with that (“We can tax or not tax legal persons any way we want or allow or disallow their creation for wahtever reasons we want.”)! Unfortunately, simply being a religion is not a reason in my books.</p>
<p>As for relative influences, prove that foundations are more influential. In America right now, religious affiliation is one of a candidate’s most important credentials, and there’s religious organizations running left and right trying to influence policy - even going as far as to say that a religion-backed candidate will be put forward if a social liberal (i.e. Giuliani) wins the Republican nomination. Even if we assume that foundations have political goals, at least they go about them in a non-invasive way, simply by applying their money, which is their right.</p>
<p>Higherlead, if you’ll put a hammerlock on the overt right wing propaganda mill support of the Bradley, Koch, and Scaife/Mellon foundations I just might join your crusade.</p>
<p>Three Americans had just won the Nobel in Economics. I can’t recall anymore when was the last time this prize was awarded to non-Americans. To the issue of whether we are behind in math, I would only say that some of the best mathmatical minds in this country are studying Economics rather than traditional “hard science”.</p>
Wow, quite a lot of "fool"ish allegations here, don’t you think? The trouble with such bravado is that someone may actually take you up on your challenge.</p>
<p>Federal NSF funding in 2000: $17.5B
Federal NSF funding in 2005: $29.1B</p>
<p>Yup, that 66% increase in 5 years sure is quite a remarkable downturn in spending. </p>
<p>Oh, there’s even more interesting data for us fools to mull over. Certainly the first “black” president funded historically black colleges better than the racist republican presidents:</p>
<p>federally funded historically black colleges in:
1998: $293M (first year broken out)
2000: $263M (drop of 30M)
2005: $434M (increase of 171M, or 65%)</p>
<p>BTW Aumann is actually a mathematician not an economist by training.</p>
<p>padad must not have gotten his NSF grant renewed. If there is one thing the Bush administration has proven it is not afraid to do it is spend money.</p>
<p>How do you like it if we have a government (US) that governs from the center? Not extreme right or extreme left but practices and preachs a policy of moderation. What changes will it make on: healthcare, war on terror, education, immigration policy, legal reform…just to name a few.</p>
<p>I have been peaced out lately. Can’t seem to find what’s wrong with me.</p>
<p>With all this spending on NSF, for the last 5 years has gotten us, what? I voted for this guy and party to control spending and taxes, and he and they delivered on neither. </p>
<p>Further his rhetoric on science spending went to faith based, pseudo science, rather than independent research.</p>
<p>“Further his rhetoric on science spending went to faith based, pseudo science, rather than independent research.”</p>
<p>You don’t give up do you? First you are proven wrong on NSF funding and then you come out with this whopper. The sad thing is that based on one of your previous posts you appear to be a teacher of some sort who is in a position to advise students. For your advice to be based on political hatred rather then sound facts and logic in any other profession would be a basis for a malpractice suit. Fortunately for you, teachers are immune from such things and are free to fill our students heads with such garbage.</p>
<p>fundingfather: Wrong maybe, but come on. Don’t be absurd. In no profession would political opinions, expressed in a non-professional forum as personal opinions, be grounds for any kind of lawsuit or sanction. Saying so is patently absurd.</p>
<p>^^^ The absurd thing is to reply without knowing the facts. Thisoldman was giving career/educational advise to his students based on patently false information.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but you can provide evidence for that fact? You know thisoldman in real life, and have witnessed him firsthand giving bad advice? Or are you just assuming?</p>
<p>“I’m sorry, but you can provide evidence for that fact? You know thisoldman in real life, and have witnessed him firsthand giving bad advice? Or are you just assuming?”</p>
<p>Well, when he says it a few posts up, I tend to believe him.</p>