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
This logic is funny.

Because majority of the tax payers who might agree with the non-funding of "everyone's project" have another problem. They are also afraid of the unknown "They" and big industries - like Big Pharma. Private institutions research can be easily dismissed as biased. But given that like you they believe even public research is politically motivated - might as well not do any research at all.

Full charge towards third world country standards.

(PS: While I see you asking for proofs from others, you haven't provided any of your own. Do you have proof to show how this is going to fix the deficit and kill the debt?)

>>thisis+WY1
I dont think it's a leap too far to suggest that spending less on any line item is a step towards a balanced budget ie eliminating the deficit. And once a deficit is eliminated we can begin to work on the debt. What proof is required when it's very simple maths.

Here's a reference if you need one - "“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six , result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/90487-annual-income-twenty-...

>>maerF0+vB3
There’s also good expense and bad expense. You just don’t say employees taking too much money, cut it and all good. You find what is needed and what needs to be cut. Where’s the proof that this doesn’t throw good research along with biased research?

You choosing to debate the last point and not address the issue I pointed about “let private enterprise fund research” tells me enough.