zlacker

>>karako+(OP)
As a taxpayer I'm tired of funding everyone's project. Especially in private institutions which have billions under management and are ran like hedge funds, and not increasing their intake. Time to fix the deficit and kill off our debt.

If the rebuttal is "yeah but advancements improve the economy" -- The private sector can fund projects which are opportunities with an economic basis, they can take the risk and they can see if it is profitable in the market (ie beneficial)

If the rebuttal is "How will America stay competitive?" We cant seem to keep trade secrets anyways. [1]

[1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950

Edit: Also the 4 years at a time thing is probably a better choice too, because it makes them less twitchy politically. You get your 4 years, regardless of who's team is in office. This should be a win regardless of your affiliation.

>>maerF0+ym
So only opportunities with a path to economic profitability should be researched?

That is a very narrow view of advancing society

>>jswny+7n
Research anything and everything on your own dime. if it's taxpayer's money, then yes, it has to have at least a probability of profitability.

>>tw6000+yo
If it could be profitable, the private sector would fund it.

Government funding can help with things that we decide are good for society, but not quite profitable financially.

Examples: CDC lead exposure research, Earthquake Early Warning System… even the tech we use today came out of non-commercialized funding (NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography and ARPANET).