PDA

View Full Version : Science Debate, who wins between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?




RonRules
09-05-2012, 09:03 AM
Here is a series of questions that were asked to both candidates. Who provided the best answers?

1. Innovation and the Economy. Science and technology have been responsible for over half of the growth of the U.S. economy since WWII, when the federal government first prioritized peacetime science mobilization. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will best ensure that America remains a world leader in innovation?

Barack Obama:
I believe that in order to be globally competitive in the 21st century and to create an American economy that is built to last, we must create an environment where invention, innovation, and industry can flourish. We can work together to create an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, and skills for American workers.
I am committed to doubling funding for key research agencies to support scientists and entrepreneurs, so that we can preserve America’s place as the world leader in innovation, and strengthen U.S. leadership in the 21st century’s high-tech knowledge-based economy. To prepare American children for a future in which they can be the highly skilled American workers and innovators of tomorrow, I have set the goal of preparing 100,000 science and math teachers over the next decade. These teachers will meet the urgent need to train one million additional science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) graduates over the next decade.

Mitt Romney:
Innovation is the key to economic growth and job creation, and increasingly important to American competitiveness in the global economy. Three-quarters of all U.S. economic growth, and three-quarters of the U.S. productivity advantage over other OECD nations, is directly attributable to innovation, and wages in innovation-intensive industries have grown more than twice as fast as other wages in recent decades.
My plan for a stronger middle class will rebuild the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation. The promotion of innovation will begin on Day One, with efforts to simplify the corporate tax code, reform job retraining programs, reduce regulatory burdens, and protect American intellectual property around the world.
A Growth Agenda
Over the course of my campaign, I have laid out a detailed economic plan that seeks to strengthen the American economy by empowering entrepreneurs and workers and rewarding innovation. This plan emphasizes critical structural adjustments to promote growth rather than short-term fixes.
Human Capital. We must reform America’s legal immigration system to attract and retain the best and the brightest, and equip more Americans with the skills to succeed. I will raise visa caps for highly skilled foreign workers, offer permanent residence to foreign students graduating with advanced degrees in relevant fields, and restructure government retraining programs to empower individual workers and welcome private sector participation.
Taxes. We must pursue fundamental tax reform that simplifies the tax code, broadens the tax base, and lowers tax rates. I will lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit, and transition to a territorial tax system. I will cut individual income tax rates across the board, and maintain today’s low tax rates on investment. And I will ensure that these changes are made permanent, so that investors and entrepreneurs are not confronted with a constantly shifting set of rules.
Regulation. We must reduce the power of unaccountable regulators by requiring that all major regulations receive congressional approval and by imposing a regulatory cap that prevents the addition of new regulatory costs. In a Romney Administration, agencies will have to limit the costs they are imposing on society and recognize that their job is to streamline and reduce burdens, not to add new ones.
Trade. We must open new markets for American businesses and workers. I will create a Reagan Economic Zone encompassing nations committed to the principles of free enterprise. At the same time, I will confront nations like China that steal intellectual property from American innovators while closing off American access to their markets.
A Foundation for Innovation
The private sector is far more effective at pursuing and applying innovation than government could ever be. However, there are key areas in which government policy must strengthen the ability of the private sector to innovate effectively.
Education. America’s K-12 education system lags behind other developed nations, and while our higher education system remains the envy of the world its costs are spiraling out of control. We must pursue genuine education reform that puts the interests of parents and students ahead of special interests and provides a chance for every child. I will take the unprecedented step of tying federal funds directly to dramatic reforms that expand parental choice, invest in innovation, and reward teachers for their results instead of their tenure. I will also ensure that students have diverse and affordable options for higher education to give them the skills they need to succeed after graduation.
Basic Research. President Obama’s misguided attempts to play the role of venture capitalist, pick winners and losers, and spend tens of billions of dollars on politically-prioritized investments have been a disaster for the American taxpayer. Yet at the same time, we must never forget that the United States has moved forward in astonishing ways thanks to national investment in basic research and advanced technology. As president, I will focus government resources on research programs that advance the development of knowledge, and on technologies with widespread application and potential to serve as the foundation for private sector innovation and commercialization.

The rest of the questions are here:
http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/

Suzu
09-05-2012, 09:11 AM
Why did you put this post in GRC?

RonRules
09-05-2012, 09:37 AM
There is no "Science" section on this forum and I actually think that good science policy is one of the most important topics to discuss.

erowe1
09-05-2012, 10:04 AM
Before I read any of this, I want to predict that Romney's answers include a call to better enforce global treaties that make other countries respect America's intellectual property laws.

Edit: Called it.

protect American intellectual property around the world.

donnay
09-05-2012, 10:15 AM
Their answers are both jokes. These guys don't do a thing, but look good, sound good and read off a script handed to them. The only science in this scenario is how well ones words can manipulate your mind the best.

Sola_Fide
09-05-2012, 10:18 AM
Basic Research. President Obama’s misguided attempts to play the role of venture capitalist, pick winners and losers, and spend tens of billions of dollars on politically-prioritized investments have been a disaster for the American taxpayer. Yet at the same time, we must never forget that the United States has moved forward in astonishing ways thanks to national investment in basic research and advanced technology. As president, I will focus government resources on research programs that advance the development of knowledge, and on technologies with widespread application and potential to serve as the foundation for private sector innovation and commercialization.

What a bunch of Keynesian garbage.

tttppp
09-05-2012, 10:20 AM
Obama's answer was complete bullshit. No need to read the rest.

Natural Citizen
09-05-2012, 11:31 AM
Here is a series of questions that were asked to both candidates. Who provided the best answers?


I'd call it a split. Between the two of them it's a win...later.

Parties don't dictate science though. Never will. Traditionally they may have thought that they could do that by way of militarizing it first but even that is transparent as young minds develop in the age of change. Sure they can seek application in return for revenue wherever or delegate introduction relevant to future application to infrastructure but the genuine science of the matter is a separate discussion that is best removed from government representation speak itself. Not to be confused with the notion that we must consider the science position of candidates because we should do that. They only know what they know though. They're politicians. Not scientists.

Was saying some place else that it's a very delicate merge. It is. As we move closer to October folks should expect an explosion of science speak from both candidates. Especially President Obama.

Anyhow, the thread is definately worth a +rep to the op for stating the obvious.

KEEF
09-05-2012, 11:52 AM
As a scientist, I see it as this, to stay on top the federal gov. dictates the curriculum (example being the increase of math and science curriculum after Kennedy's to the moon speech). As a libertarian, let the states deal with their curriculum and if that state gets sick of lagging behind, they have the choice to pick up their standards.

erowe1
09-05-2012, 11:56 AM
I'd call it a split. Between the two of them it's a win...later.

Parties don't dictate science though. Never will. Traditionally they may have thought that they could do that by way of militarizing it first but even that is transparent as young minds develop in the age of change. Sure they can seek application in return for revenue wherever or delegate introduction relevant to future application to infrastructure but the genuine science of the matter is a separate discussion that is best removed from government representation speak itself. Not to be confused with the notion that we must consider the science position of candidates because we should do that. They only know what they know though. They're politicians. Not scientists.

Was saying some place else that it's a very delicate merge. It is. As we move closer to October folks should expect an explosion of science speak from both candidates. Especially President Obama.

Anyhow, the thread is definately worth a +rep to the op for stating the obvious.

Science and technology can and will proceed without the government's help. But the government can manipulate them and cause them to proceed differently than they would in a free market. Nuclear weapons would not exist if it weren't for governments pursuing them.

erowe1
09-05-2012, 11:56 AM
As a scientist, I see it as this, to stay on top the federal gov. dictates the curriculum (example being the increase of math and science curriculum after Kennedy's to the moon speech). As a libertarian, let the states deal with their curriculum and if that state gets sick of lagging behind, they have the choice to pick up their standards.

So, as a libertarian, you still believe in public education?

Natural Citizen
09-05-2012, 12:03 PM
Science and technology can and will proceed without the government's help. But the government can manipulate them and cause them to proceed differently than they would in a free market. Nuclear weapons would not exist if it weren't for governments pursuing them.

Can't disagree with any of that. The thing is though that they know that we know that they know now.:rolleyes:

My personal bias lays in the idea that change will come from the space program. I think that we'll find that to be the most bipartisan area among both political parties.

As far as "governments" help. Well. many aspects of the space program are already corporatized. And we all know that corporations are people too. Right? The old of, by and for speak? In that regard government is whomever has the most marbles. Is what it is for now. Is my opinion that this alone removes relevance from any theoretical differences in science from either of the two candidates.

LibertyRevolution
09-05-2012, 12:04 PM
So, as a libertarian, you still believe in public education?

If a state wants to offer public schools, that's its prerogative.
If the federal government wants to tell the states what and when to teach.. that's crossing the line.

Brian4Liberty
09-05-2012, 12:07 PM
Before I read any of this, I want to predict that Romney's answers include a call to better enforce global treaties that make other countries respect America's intellectual property laws.

Edit: Called it.

And I would like to bet that both call for more immigration of cheaper labor.

Edit: Half right based on that specific article. Of course it's Mitt Romney who will outright call for cheaper labor. Barrack is more subtle, and will use the race card when it comes to immigration. Both have the same masters, with the same objectives. (And with Mitt's background, he is arguably one of those "masters").


Human Capital. We must reform America’s legal immigration system to attract and retain the best and the brightest, and equip more Americans with the skills to succeed. I will raise visa caps for highly skilled foreign workers, offer permanent residence to foreign students graduating with advanced degrees in relevant fields, and restructure government retraining programs to empower individual workers and welcome private sector participation.

Natural Citizen
09-05-2012, 12:09 PM
As a scientist, I see it as this, to stay on top the federal gov. dictates the curriculum (example being the increase of math and science curriculum after Kennedy's to the moon speech). As a libertarian, let the states deal with their curriculum and if that state gets sick of lagging behind, they have the choice to pick up their standards.

Funny you mention JFK. Was just reading a paper where someone referenced him to Obama. There have been a few actually. Some legit and some amounting to a screed depending uopn the depth of history of the author.

http://coldfusionnow.org/president-obama-and-cold-fusion-lenr-is-an-october-surprise-immanent-eminent-and-imminent-part-2/

tttppp
09-05-2012, 12:11 PM
If a state wants to offer public schools, that's its prerogative.
If the federal government wants to tell the states what and when to teach.. that's crossing the line.

Why is it acceptable for states to scam people on public education but not the federal government? States shouldn't have any more of a right to screw over their people than the federal government. No government should be running their own monopolies. They should be doing just enough to get the most out of the market. Nothing more.

Sola_Fide
09-05-2012, 12:15 PM
If a state wants to offer public schools, that's its prerogative.
If the federal government wants to tell the states what and when to teach.. that's crossing the line.

In a federalist outlook, a state could have various kinds of collectivist entities. But why have them?

LibertyRevolution
09-07-2012, 10:23 PM
Why is it acceptable for states to scam people on public education but not the federal government? States shouldn't have any more of a right to screw over their people than the federal government. No government should be running their own monopolies. They should be doing just enough to get the most out of the market. Nothing more.

I don't like the idea of public schools, I just think a states have every right to offer public education.

The federal government only has the powers granted to it by the constitution.
States have to power to enact whatever laws/programs the people (representatives) choose.


I am a firm believer in the idea of "Unschooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling)".
"educational philosophies and practices centered on allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences, including play, game play, household responsibilities, work experience, and social interaction, rather than through a more traditional school curriculum."

Really.. Think of how many useful skills you can have by just learning to play Yahtzee, Monopoly, and Scrabble.

NIU Students for Liberty
09-07-2012, 10:33 PM
Why is it acceptable for states to scam people on public education but not the federal government? States shouldn't have any more of a right to screw over their people than the federal government. No government should be running their own monopolies. They should be doing just enough to get the most out of the market. Nothing more.

This is the reason why I hate the "states' rights" argument. The state is the state.

tttppp
09-07-2012, 10:54 PM
I don't like the idea of public schools, I just think a states have every right to offer public education.

The federal government only has the powers granted to it by the constitution.
States have to power to enact whatever laws/programs the people (representatives) choose.


I am a firm believer in the idea of "Unschooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling)".
"educational philosophies and practices centered on allowing children to learn through their natural life experiences, including play, game play, household responsibilities, work experience, and social interaction, rather than through a more traditional school curriculum."

Really.. Think of how many useful skills you can have by just learning to play Yahtzee, Monopoly, and Scrabble.

If the states want to provide a public education and charge the attendees, not the entire population, I'm fine with that. But when you scam everyone and force them to pay for public education, whether they attend or not, they don't have money left over to go to private school. The main point to private education is that it would be cheaper. Public schools essentially fuck the entire industry and the people who want more affordable school.

I'm not a proponent of states in the first place. But I don't see why we can't force states to justify their decisions to operate government run monopolies. If it doesn't make economic sense, it shouldn't be allowed.

madengr
09-07-2012, 11:04 PM
Want more STEM workers? Pay them more and stop outsouring the jobs to China and India. There are plenty of STEM workers, just not cheap enough for TPTB. Oh yeah, I forgot, the half life of an engineer is late 30's anyway.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/12/03/1435217/half-life-of-a-tech-worker-15-years

ZenBowman
09-08-2012, 10:28 AM
Want more STEM workers? Pay them more and stop outsouring the jobs to China and India. There are plenty of STEM workers, just not cheap enough for TPTB. Oh yeah, I forgot, the half life of an engineer is late 30's anyway.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/12/03/1435217/half-life-of-a-tech-worker-15-years

Why should a company pay more when they can hire someone equally proficient across the world for less?

Doesn't make any sense to me, slashdotters display the typical entitlement mentality on this issue.

erowe1
09-08-2012, 10:34 AM
I don't like the idea of public schools, I just think a states have every right to offer public education.

What gives them that right?

I agree that the federal government has no right to interfere with states that do that, just like it has no right to interfere with other countries that do. But that doesn't mean they have the right to do it. To say they do is to say that some individuals have a right to take money from people without their consent to provide a product they didn't want to purchase. If I did that to you, wouldn't you call it theft?

LibertyRevolution
09-11-2012, 03:51 PM
What gives them that right?

I agree that the federal government has no right to interfere with states that do that, just like it has no right to interfere with other countries that do. But that doesn't mean they have the right to do it. To say they do is to say that some individuals have a right to take money from people without their consent to provide a product they didn't want to purchase. If I did that to you, wouldn't you call it theft?

It is theft.. but if you don't like the laws in your state, you can move.
If you don't like the federal taxes, so you move out the country, you still have to pay the federal government for YEARS.

The idea was that the states would be competing for citizens. that the free market would keep them in check.
If a state passed laws the people didn't like, the people would move to a better state.
The problem is people are willing to just take the shaft instead of telling the state to go fuck it self and move.

I am sick of my state, and I am moving. I pay $6,000 a year in property tax, and another $2,000 in state income tax.
The house I'm going to look at, no state income tax and the property tax is $706 on a $209,000 house...
Saving me $7,294 a year, that is $600 month more money in my pocket, and the cost of living is 27% lower!