I don't understand this argument that cutting science funding is good, but raising taxes on "job-creators" is bad.

I'll accept that raising taxes on millionaires might (MIGHT) result in less jobs being created through new investment.

Now you need to accept the obvious fact that cutting science funding WILL result in less jobs. You know, those jobs you're cutting. Jobs that were doing the best possible thing they could be in terms of real economic growth - research which will lead to new technology for the future.

Now you have thousands of unemployed scientists. You've squandered one of your most important resources, the intellectual capital of your country.

Good thing those rich guys still have so much money so that they can POSSIBLY invest it in generating jobs. Hopefully they don't decide to invest it in things like financial derivatives or foreign economies.

Then we have less revenue from the scientists paying taxes AND we don't have as many jobs. Sweet plan, dude.

If we didn't get scientific gain (which we did) or prestige (which we did) out of the Apollo Program, you're acting like the money spent was lost. It wasn't... it was spent on building a massive American aerospace industry. It was spent on salaries for hundreds of thousands of workers.

The Apollo program had all the benefits of the Military-Industrial complex without the downside of having to kill people or conduct atomic tests to avoid looking like you're wasting money.

It works in Germany anyways, so clearly you can have parallel systems. The public medical care is great here, but there are also private hospitals you can go to if you want to spend more money on more expensive insurance.

Here's a thought, maybe doctors have other considerations than salary when considering where to practice?

Also, the path to becoming an MD in the US is ridiculous, and is a big part in why doctors favor going into private practice in the USA. If MDs didn't leave school with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, maybe they could afford to work for a smaller salary.

But then we would need to have the government pay for higher education... which would be terrible, right?

That's why you have the government set a maximum price that can be charged for a procedure.

What, the state can't build hospitals, pay doctors, and charge reasonable prices for services? The state can't set maximum prices for procedures? Why exactly do you think that private individuals would stop going into the medical professions if the government was setting, or even paying their salary? Maybe the people who become doctors to become rich would go to Wall-Street instead (and maybe not, since nothing about socialized medicine precludes the existence of private doctors), but either way, fuck those assholes. If you only become a doctor to get rich off of the sickness of others, fuck you.

Socialized medicine can easily co-exist with private medicine (and it does in many countries). There is no reason that it can't; the poor and middle-class get healed in public hospitals, and the rich pay whatever they want to get healed in 5 star private hospitals. The only thing the existence of socialized medicine prevents is the ability of private practices to price-gouge their customers, since their customers always have a cheap alternative.

Right, because a few rich white aristocrats 250 years ago should have the last say as to what government should do. Even the founders knew they wouldn't be right about everything, nor could they include everything in a document as short as the Constitution (that's why we can amend it). Besides, "health-care costs" as we know them did not exist when the Constitution was written.

Nobody is stealing anything from anyone, unless it is the rich stealing the lives and pursuit of happiness of the poor by using their labor while they are healthy, then casting them aside when they become ill.

The Government is not a for-profit entity. The goal of a government run health service is not to make money, it is to keep people healthy. If you want examples of this working, look to the health-care systems of Northern and Western Europe, or indeed almost any other country that one wouldn't consider an emerging economy. Private health-care is a recipe for ever increasing costs, there can be no doubt about it...

You need to think, not me my friend. Nobody is saying that you MUST use government health-care. If you have the money and want to go to a private doctor/hospital, nothing prevents you from doing so under socialized medicine. Again, look at Western Europe, Germany for instance. There is fantastic socialized medicine which is basically free, but if you want to pay for things like a private room, better food, more expensive doctors, you can! You just go to a private hospital instead of a public one.

I don't know where people get this idea that socialized medicine means private doctors will go away... it's just ridiculous. Do private automobiles disappear when public transportation is built? No? I'm done responding to you. You're obviously just regurgitating what right wing pundits have told you, and are unable to think any of your "ideas" through to their logical conclusions.

That's the best you can do? "Mexican cops can be assholes too"?

What do I have against it?

I believe everyone should be provided healthcare by the state, because I don't think we can trust private entities to resist the temptation to charge more and more for healthcare services (because they know we HAVE to pay it...).

I believe the government should regulate what pollutants industry is allowed to dump into the earth/water.

I believe the government should provide free education to all of its citizens.

I believe the government should regulate financial industries and banks.

Frankly, I believe there are MANY things the government should do, because either they are the only ones who can do it, or because the sector should not be trying to make a profit.

If you want to reduce government, set your sights on the massive "defense" budget. Leave what (limited) social services the USA has alone.

Next you're going to tell us we can't spell color either... or civilization.

It's not really a double standard, it's just that the US treats all foreigners as potential enemies, and thus undeserving of privacy. This may be an antiquated way of thinking, but the US is certainly not the only country guilty of it, and it's somewhat reasonable given the scar that 9/11 left on the American psyche.

Anyways, I agree that the US needs to move past its mentality that treats all foreigners as sub-humans who don't deserve all the rights that American citizens have. It's one of the more disgusting elements of US law and foreign policy.

1. Fund some "climate research" that "proves man-made global warming" by making up data (bonus - this is cheaper than funding real research)

2. Anonymously leak memos that show "scientists" you funded were making up data

3. Have FoxNews report "Scientists make up data, Global Warming a Fraud!" without reporting who paid the scientists.

4. Completely discredit all global warming research by association.

5. Profit!!

6. ??????

No kidding rights, property, and law are all just concepts we have invented to maintain order in society.

No kidding rights, property, and rule of law can all go away quickly and things can dissolve into disorder. That's called a revolution, civil war, or state of anarchy.

You think you're some kind of genius for figuring that out? Everybody knows that without enforcement (and therefore, someone to enforce them) laws are nothing more then words.

People don't down-mod you for saying things like that, these are well known truths. They probably mod you down because you take those facts and extend them, elaborate on them, and use them to reach idiotic conclusions about how the world is on the verge of descending into chaos and the "law of the jungle".

I'm pretty sure the location of AF1 isn't some big secret... It's not like it's some anonymous little private jet. It's a big ass 747 with the seal of the President on it. Hard to hide. If the President is trying to fly around in secret, they won't use the call sign "Air Force One" for the plane he's on anyways.

Most REAL miners use dynamite, pickaxes, shovels, and heavy machinery.

No, there aren't, and that's exactly my point. The far right is alive and well in the US (how many Tea Party members are there in Congress?), but the far left, or even the moderate left, is basically non-existent. What's considered left in the US would barely pass for centrist in Europe.