Uncomfortable FACT about Mayor de Blasio for conservatives...

[Iceweasel]

You don't even know how to spell crony capitalism much less understand what it is and isn't. Government investment in new technology like solar energy and companies like Solyndra is NOT crony capitalism. It is necessary risk to create innovations and technologies that private investors are unwilling to take on or spearhead. The cost of experimentation and innovation that private investors will not risk.

Without government investment, there would have never been a space program and the HUGE benefits that spin off it. As a matter of fact, we wouldn't be having this conversation because without government investment there would be no internet.

The Republican party is the party of crony capitalism going back to the Gilded Age.

It's a necessary risk? LOL. You, like all libs enjoy government involvement in business when it suits you. You're a fascist in the making, all you need is total government control over business and you'll be happy. Solyndra IS crony capitalism by defintion, asshole. Let us know which words are too big for you:

crony capitalism definition of crony capitalism in Oxford dictionary British World English
An economic system characterized by close, mutually advantageous relationships between business leaders and government officials

Unlike yourself, I am not a party hack. I don't support cronyism by Republicans or Democrats. Conservatives are for free market/small government regardless of which political party they affiliate themselves with.

You believe all goodness comes from government, we get it. You don't think the internet would have existed without government? We'd still be using dial phones I suppose. Just because you don't mind flushing my money down your big government crony wet dreams doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't cronyism. There's a reason government farms out a lot of government projects to the private sector. If government was so good at everything why would they?

Idiot.

 

[Iceweasel]

No. Although sadly, that happens quite often in New York...usually black on black crime....but it is what it is.
But no, I don't support a gang of thugs mauling an unarmed man and choking him to death.

But I do support police officers using control holds to take down a man who is resisting arrest...as was the case in the Garner incident.

You folks have NOTHING that could be mistaken for human traits, Christian morals or human decency. You are authoritarian followers. You are the very same people who could carry out genocide

what are you.....like 3?
Do you see what you wrote?
You are not worth my time. I debate with those that think like adults. Cya. <S>

I know exactly what I wrote. Why do you right wing turds lack self awareness? The first step for any society to carry out genocide is the group of people who are the target need to be dehumanized.

We witness that dehumanization every single day on this board from the right. Prime examples like Eric Garner. A man who was swarmed, choked and executed by government Gestapo...

Wake the fuck up!

I haven't noticed any right-wingers in this forum gloating about the death of Eric Garner. How you blame the right wing for his death escapes me. This officer who killed him was enforcing a law passed by a bunch of left-wingers.

WHAT? Are you able to READ?

We can't read your small mind but we can see the stupidity that spills off your keyboard just fine.

 

[Bfgrn]

You don't even know how to spell crony capitalism much less understand what it is and isn't. Government investment in new technology like solar energy and companies like Solyndra is NOT crony capitalism. It is necessary risk to create innovations and technologies that private investors are unwilling to take on or spearhead. The cost of experimentation and innovation that private investors will not risk.

Without government investment, there would have never been a space program and the HUGE benefits that spin off it. As a matter of fact, we wouldn't be having this conversation because without government investment there would be no internet.

The Republican party is the party of crony capitalism going back to the Gilded Age.

It's a necessary risk? LOL. You, like all libs enjoy government involvement in business when it suits you. You're a fascist in the making, all you need is total government control over business and you'll be happy. Solyndra IS crony capitalism by defintion, asshole. Let us know which words are too big for you:

crony capitalism definition of crony capitalism in Oxford dictionary British World English
An economic system characterized by close, mutually advantageous relationships between business leaders and government officials

Unlike yourself, I am not a party hack. I don't support cronyism by Republicans or Democrats. Conservatives are for free market/small government regardless of which political party they affiliate themselves with.

You believe all goodness comes from government, we get it. You don't think the internet would have existed without government? We'd still be using dial phones I suppose. Just because you don't mind flushing my money down your big government crony wet dreams doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't cronyism. There's a reason government farms out a lot of government projects to the private sector. If government was so good at everything why would they?

Idiot.

So your argument is that I MUST believe in total government control. How tiny of you.

Government plays a critical role in our nation's entrepreneurial ecosystem. We are often presented with a false dichotomy between public vs. private, when in fact our most successful startups likely wouldn't exist without a stable, proactive federal government. For example:

• Almost all research into the fundamental sciences is government funded. With few exceptions, the private sector only becomes engaged after the potential for commercialization is clear. The internet itself only exists because of government funding, and the most revolutionary changes in our lifetimes, from gene therapy to quantum computation, will depend on government.
• Startups routinely rely on government small business grants. Angel investors and VCs rarely invest in companies without traction, and many of our most intelligent entrepreneurs can't build prototypes of their innovations on their own.
• Government is often the first customer for technology companies. We have been able to demonstrate the value of WegoWise much more clearly to the private sector because of our success with Massachusetts' affordable housing sector.
• The government often allows entire markets to exist by providing consumers with better information. The efficiency sector is a great example of how this can work. Consider energy star certification for appliances or MPG ratings for cars: government action resulted in consumers demanding more efficient products, leading to increased market activity. We believe the local benchmarking ordinances being passed across the country are another example of government's role as a market enabler through information.
• Even those companies that don't rely at all on the public sector for incubating and growing their ideas often do depend on other companies whose existence is predicated on a supportive public sector. Thus, an effect on one company in the chain affects many more who depend upon it.

WegoWise testifies to the US Senate Government s unique role in fostering entrepreneurial success - WegoWise Blog

 

[thereisnospoon]

Just so we get this fact clear going forward...

YOU folks on the right are supporting a UNION. And not just any union, a PUBLIC sector union.

However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...


"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Is it possible for you lefties to spew more bullshit?

 

[Bfgrn]

Just so we get this fact clear going forward...

YOU folks on the right are supporting a UNION. And not just any union, a PUBLIC sector union.

However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...


"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Is it possible for you lefties to spew more bullshit?

Is it possible for you righties to be any more obtuse to who and what you really are? You folks LOVE government thugs.

 

[ninja007]

I'm supporting police that happen to be in a union. Then nypd would be pissed at Mayor de Blasio even if there were no Union.

SO, you support a gang of thugs mauling an unarmed man, and choking him to death?

your premise is a lie.

 

[ninja007]

Just so we get this fact clear going forward...

YOU folks on the right are supporting a UNION. And not just any union, a PUBLIC sector union.

However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...


"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

And...based on your premise....when you buy gasoline for your car you are supporting the oil companies.

What a childish argument you started here. LMAO...and you told US to spin it any way we want?

Really?

False equivalency. We are always hearing about "union thugs" from the right. Now, when we see REAL union thugs who swarm and choke a man to death, they are just doing their jobs, or some right wing turds blame Eric Garner. You folks are SCUM.

you know who is scum? liberals who kill millions of babies a year and count dead bodies of soldiers until their man is in the WH. You know who is scum? Libs who wants criminals to have more rights than law abiding citizens.

 

[Iceweasel]

So your argument is that I MUST believe in total government control. How tiny of you.

Government plays a critical role in our nation's entrepreneurial ecosystem. We are often presented with a false dichotomy between public vs. private, when in fact our most successful startups likely wouldn't exist without a stable, proactive federal government. For example:

• Almost all research into the fundamental sciences is government funded. With few exceptions, the private sector only becomes engaged after the potential for commercialization is clear. The internet itself only exists because of government funding, and the most revolutionary changes in our lifetimes, from gene therapy to quantum computation, will depend on government.

• Complete horseshit. Every company engaged in the manufacture of scientific products, from medical equipment to electronics to pharmaceutical, automotive, industrial and on and on and on is constantly researching, developing and pushing technology forwards. They are not doing it for government, some may, where hired to do so but most companies are not engaged in government contracts.

• Startups routinely rely on government small business grants. Angel investors and VCs rarely invest in companies without traction, and many of our most intelligent entrepreneurs can't build prototypes of their innovations on their own.

  You forgot to support the assertion. I have 28 years experience in working for small business, many thousands over the years. None of them relied on any government involvement. Grants only come into play for politically correct startups like in the "green energy" field.
  

• [*]Government is often the first customer for technology companies. We have been able to demonstrate the value of WegoWise much more clearly to the private sector because of our success with Massachusetts' affordable housing sector.

  LOL. Give me a break. Some company is in bed with a state government and that's proof to you that government is first in line for technology.
  

• [*]The government often allows entire markets to exist by providing consumers with better information. The efficiency sector is a great example of how this can work. Consider energy star certification for appliances or MPG ratings for cars: government action resulted in consumers demanding more efficient products, leading to increased market activity. We believe the local benchmarking ordinances being passed across the country are another example of government's role as a market enabler through information.

  Companies wouldn't be competing with more efficient appliances with government star ratings? Let's look at the CAFE standards, the government leans on companies to put higher mpg cars on the road with regulation independent of technological advancements so the companies are forced to comply with autos with undersized motors and/or bodies that are so light that more people die in crashes. The smug liberal doesn't give a shit, that much is clear. I got off easy by only losing a motor on a GM SUV, every mechanic said they all failed the same way, motor too small for the body. GM did it to meet the artificial stands big government set down.

• Even those companies that don't rely at all on the public sector for incubating and growing their ideas often do depend on other companies whose existence is predicated on a supportive public sector. Thus, an effect on one company in the chain affects many more who depend upon it.

• Government incubating and growing ideas for the private sector? That's a religious belief, you have more faith than I do. I've worked for many government agencies, federal, state and local and encountered a disproportionate amout of dead weight, sloths and people that are unemployable in the private sector.

You have it all bass ackwards. The government needs business to function, business only needs government to take care of the basics, infrastructure, security, emergency. Business started and grew long before government developed into the monster it is today. Less government is the best thing that could possibly happen to the private sector. AND thereby, the economy.

 

[Bfgrn]

So your argument is that I MUST believe in total government control. How tiny of you.

Government plays a critical role in our nation's entrepreneurial ecosystem. We are often presented with a false dichotomy between public vs. private, when in fact our most successful startups likely wouldn't exist without a stable, proactive federal government. For example:

• Almost all research into the fundamental sciences is government funded. With few exceptions, the private sector only becomes engaged after the potential for commercialization is clear. The internet itself only exists because of government funding, and the most revolutionary changes in our lifetimes, from gene therapy to quantum computation, will depend on government.

• Complete horseshit. Every company engaged in the manufacture of scientific products, from medical equipment to electronics to pharmaceutical, automotive, industrial and on and on and on is constantly researching, developing and pushing technology forwards. They are not doing it for government, some may, where hired to do so but most companies are not engaged in government contracts.

• Startups routinely rely on government small business grants. Angel investors and VCs rarely invest in companies without traction, and many of our most intelligent entrepreneurs can't build prototypes of their innovations on their own.

  You forgot to support the assertion. I have 28 years experience in working for small business, many thousands over the years. None of them relied on any government involvement. Grants only come into play for politically correct startups like in the "green energy" field.
  

• [*]Government is often the first customer for technology companies. We have been able to demonstrate the value of WegoWise much more clearly to the private sector because of our success with Massachusetts' affordable housing sector.

  LOL. Give me a break. Some company is in bed with a state government and that's proof to you that government is first in line for technology.
  

• [*]The government often allows entire markets to exist by providing consumers with better information. The efficiency sector is a great example of how this can work. Consider energy star certification for appliances or MPG ratings for cars: government action resulted in consumers demanding more efficient products, leading to increased market activity. We believe the local benchmarking ordinances being passed across the country are another example of government's role as a market enabler through information.

  Companies wouldn't be competing with more efficient appliances with government star ratings? Let's look at the CAFE standards, the government leans on companies to put higher mpg cars on the road with regulation independent of technological advancements so the companies are forced to comply with autos with undersized motors and/or bodies that are so light that more people die in crashes. The smug liberal doesn't give a shit, that much is clear. I got off easy by only losing a motor on a GM SUV, every mechanic said they all failed the same way, motor too small for the body. GM did it to meet the artificial stands big government set down.

• Even those companies that don't rely at all on the public sector for incubating and growing their ideas often do depend on other companies whose existence is predicated on a supportive public sector. Thus, an effect on one company in the chain affects many more who depend upon it.

• Government incubating and growing ideas for the private sector? That's a religious belief, you have more faith than I do. I've worked for many government agencies, federal, state and local and encountered a disproportionate amout of dead weight, sloths and people that are unemployable in the private sector.

You have it all bass ackwards. The government needs business to function, business only needs government to take care of the basics, infrastructure, security, emergency. Business started and grew long before government developed into the monster it is today. Less government is the best thing that could possibly happen to the private sector. AND thereby, the economy.

Well we are about to find out, and it will prove you are regressive pea brain. You have the business awareness and acumen of a gnat.

The coming R&D crash
Washington Post

One of the few things Republicans and Democrats have been able to agree on in recent years is that the government should be spending more on basic scientific research — the sort of research that, in the past, has played a role in everything from mapping the human genome to laying the groundwork for the Internet.

"Government funding for basic science has been declining for years,” Mitt Romney wrote in his 2010 book No Apology. "It needs to grow instead." In his most recent State of the Union address, President Obama sounded a similar note: "Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the space race."

So it's notable that the exact opposite is, in fact, about to occur. Thanks to budget pressures and the looming sequester cuts, federal R&D spending is set to stagnate in the coming decade. The National Institutes of Health's budget is scheduled to drop 7.6 percent in the next five years. Research programs in energy, agriculture and defense will decline by similar amounts. NASA's research budget is on pace to drop to its lowest level since 1988.

As a result, scientists and other technology analysts are warning that the United States could soon lose its edge in scientific research — and that the private sector won't necessarily be able to pick up the slack.

"If you look at total R&D growth, including the corporate and government side, the U.S. is now at the low end," says Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). "We're seeing other countries, from Germany to Korea to China, make much bigger bets. And if that persists for long enough, it's going to have an impact."

At its peak in 2009, the federal government funded some 31 percent of all R&D in the country, with private firms and universities financing the rest. The array of federal programs is staggering, from semiconductor work at the Pentagon to climate-change research at NOAA to clinical trials for cancer at the National Institutes for Health. About half of the spending here is "basic" research and half "applied" research.

Yet as a recent report from ITIF explains, this landscape is set to shift now that Congress is putting strict limits on discretionary spending. If the sequester spending cuts take effect on Mar. 1, total spending on research and development will drop to 2007 levels and grow only slowly thereafter (below, black line). Federal R&D spending will decline sharply as a share of GDP:



You ignorant right wing turds are the embodiment of Robert Frost's hired man...inviting the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

 

[Iceweasel]

Well we are about to find out, and it will prove you are regressive pea brain. You have the business awareness and acumen of a gnat.

The coming R&D crash
Washington Post

One of the few things Republicans and Democrats have been able to agree on in recent years is that the government should be spending more on basic scientific research — the sort of research that, in the past, has played a role in everything from mapping the human genome to laying the groundwork for the Internet.

"Government funding for basic science has been declining for years,” Mitt Romney wrote in his 2010 book No Apology. "It needs to grow instead." In his most recent State of the Union address, President Obama sounded a similar note: "Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the space race."

So it's notable that the exact opposite is, in fact, about to occur. Thanks to budget pressures and the looming sequester cuts, federal R&D spending is set to stagnate in the coming decade. The National Institutes of Health's budget is scheduled to drop 7.6 percent in the next five years. Research programs in energy, agriculture and defense will decline by similar amounts. NASA's research budget is on pace to drop to its lowest level since 1988.

You ignorant right wing turds are the embodiment of Robert Frost's hired man...inviting the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

I have no business acumen after 28 years of business because of the opinion of more government spending by a big government Republican? That's supposed to make sense?

There is nothing government can do, with the exception of police and military, that the private sector can't do better. Government isn't accountable to its' customers and doesn't need to demonstrate productivity.

In the real world, technology has been advancing at a breakneck speed, and with the reductions in government spending you mentioned. To people with functioning brains that has a message.

 

[Star]

Well we are about to find out, and it will prove you are regressive pea brain. You have the business awareness and acumen of a gnat.

The coming R&D crash
Washington Post

One of the few things Republicans and Democrats have been able to agree on in recent years is that the government should be spending more on basic scientific research — the sort of research that, in the past, has played a role in everything from mapping the human genome to laying the groundwork for the Internet.

"Government funding for basic science has been declining for years,” Mitt Romney wrote in his 2010 book No Apology. "It needs to grow instead." In his most recent State of the Union address, President Obama sounded a similar note: "Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the space race."

So it's notable that the exact opposite is, in fact, about to occur. Thanks to budget pressures and the looming sequester cuts, federal R&D spending is set to stagnate in the coming decade. The National Institutes of Health's budget is scheduled to drop 7.6 percent in the next five years. Research programs in energy, agriculture and defense will decline by similar amounts. NASA's research budget is on pace to drop to its lowest level since 1988.

You ignorant right wing turds are the embodiment of Robert Frost's hired man...inviting the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

I have no business acumen after 28 years of business because of the opinion of more government spending by a big government Republican? That's supposed to make sense?

There is nothing government can do, with the exception of police and military, that the private sector can't do better. Government isn't accountable to its' customers and doesn't need to demonstrate productivity.

In the real world, technology has been advancing at a breakneck speed, and with the reductions in government spending you mentioned. To people with functioning brains that has a message.

Iceweasel: There is nothing government can do, with the exception of police and military, that the private sector can't do better. Government isn't accountable to it's c̶u̶s̶t̶o̶m̶e̶r̶s̶ [voters] and doesn't need to demonstrate productivity.

Yer kidding, right?
.

 

[Iceweasel]

Iceweasel: There is nothing government can do, with the exception of police and military, that the private sector can't do better. Government isn't accountable to it's c̶u̶s̶t̶o̶m̶e̶r̶s̶ [voters] and doesn't need to demonstrate productivity.

Yer kidding, right?
.

You must be. We end up getting the same shit from different assholes. We can't shop elsewhere.

 

[JoeNormal]

• Complete horseshit. Every company engaged in the manufacture of scientific products, from medical equipment to electronics to pharmaceutical, automotive, industrial and on and on and on is constantly researching, developing and pushing technology forwards. They are not doing it for government, some may, where hired to do so but most companies are not engaged in government contracts.

Oh, you're speaking from experience? That's funny, you don't sound smart enough to be in R&D. Yes, companies do engage in R&D. I work for a company in an R&D department and the farthest out we look is about 5 years. If what we're working on won't pay off in that amount of time, forget it. Government sponsored R&D works on something closer to a 30 to 50 year cycle. This country would be lost without it and people like you are too stupid to see it.

 

[Iceweasel]

• Complete horseshit. Every company engaged in the manufacture of scientific products, from medical equipment to electronics to pharmaceutical, automotive, industrial and on and on and on is constantly researching, developing and pushing technology forwards. They are not doing it for government, some may, where hired to do so but most companies are not engaged in government contracts.

Oh, you're speaking from experience? That's funny, you don't sound smart enough to be in R&D. Yes, companies do engage in R&D. I work for a company in an R&D department and the farthest out we look is about 5 years. If what we're working on won't pay off in that amount of time, forget it. Government sponsored R&D works on something closer to a 30 to 50 year cycle. This country would be lost without it and people like you are too stupid to see it.

If you worked in a R&D department you were sweeping floors and had no idea what their long term targets were. What I said above is true, you obviously can't dispute it (how could you?) and give us your best example of government working on a project that expected a 50 year return of investment. This should be good since government doesn't make a profit. I'll wait.

 

[JoeNormal]

• Complete horseshit. Every company engaged in the manufacture of scientific products, from medical equipment to electronics to pharmaceutical, automotive, industrial and on and on and on is constantly researching, developing and pushing technology forwards. They are not doing it for government, some may, where hired to do so but most companies are not engaged in government contracts.

Oh, you're speaking from experience? That's funny, you don't sound smart enough to be in R&D. Yes, companies do engage in R&D. I work for a company in an R&D department and the farthest out we look is about 5 years. If what we're working on won't pay off in that amount of time, forget it. Government sponsored R&D works on something closer to a 30 to 50 year cycle. This country would be lost without it and people like you are too stupid to see it.

If you worked in a R&D department you were sweeping floors and had no idea what their long term targets were. What I said above is true, you obviously can't dispute it (how could you?) and give us your best example of government working on a project that expected a 50 year return of investment. This should be good since government doesn't make a profit. I'll wait.

I know it's hard to believe that a real-life researcher like me would give you the time of day but you are a great proponent of the right-wing belief that private enterprise always beats anything to do with the government. I'd like to address this.

Look at any or all of these links. Especially, AI research or nano technology. They're like science fiction and I'm certain that they will pay off but the timeframe is indeterminant so private industry is reticent to delve too deep.

Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory QuAIL
nsf.gov - Funding - Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science - US National Science Foundation NSF
Sandia National Laboratories Exceptional Service in the National Interest
Los Alamos National Lab National Security Science

 

[Iceweasel]

• Complete horseshit. Every company engaged in the manufacture of scientific products, from medical equipment to electronics to pharmaceutical, automotive, industrial and on and on and on is constantly researching, developing and pushing technology forwards. They are not doing it for government, some may, where hired to do so but most companies are not engaged in government contracts.

Oh, you're speaking from experience? That's funny, you don't sound smart enough to be in R&D. Yes, companies do engage in R&D. I work for a company in an R&D department and the farthest out we look is about 5 years. If what we're working on won't pay off in that amount of time, forget it. Government sponsored R&D works on something closer to a 30 to 50 year cycle. This country would be lost without it and people like you are too stupid to see it.

If you worked in a R&D department you were sweeping floors and had no idea what their long term targets were. What I said above is true, you obviously can't dispute it (how could you?) and give us your best example of government working on a project that expected a 50 year return of investment. This should be good since government doesn't make a profit. I'll wait.

I know it's hard to believe that a real-life researcher like me would give you the time of day but you are a great proponent of the right-wing belief that private enterprise always beats anything to do with the government. I'd like to address this.

Look at any or all of these links. Especially, AI research or nano technology. They're like science fiction and I'm certain that they will pay off but the timeframe is indeterminant so private industry is reticent to delve too deep.

Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory QuAIL
nsf.gov - Funding - Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science - US National Science Foundation NSF
Sandia National Laboratories Exceptional Service in the National Interest
Los Alamos National Lab National Security Science

I didn't ask for a smokescreen, I asked for your best example. Throwing links out there doesn't make your case. A real life researcher would know that since every high school boy does.

You claimed that the government is looking at a 30 to 50 year return on investment and now you're saying it's indeterminate. In other words, it could be anything, if ever. Here's a list of the top nano technology companies that prove you're full of shit.

2015 Top Nanotechnology Companies

• Nano Fabrics (57)
• Nano Fibers (5)
• Nano Film (30)
• Nano Lithography (20)

• Nanofibers (24)
• Nanomanufacturing (5)
• Nanoparticles (48)
• Nanopen (4)
• Nanotubes (32)

 

[JoeNormal]

• Complete horseshit. Every company engaged in the manufacture of scientific products, from medical equipment to electronics to pharmaceutical, automotive, industrial and on and on and on is constantly researching, developing and pushing technology forwards. They are not doing it for government, some may, where hired to do so but most companies are not engaged in government contracts.

Oh, you're speaking from experience? That's funny, you don't sound smart enough to be in R&D. Yes, companies do engage in R&D. I work for a company in an R&D department and the farthest out we look is about 5 years. If what we're working on won't pay off in that amount of time, forget it. Government sponsored R&D works on something closer to a 30 to 50 year cycle. This country would be lost without it and people like you are too stupid to see it.

If you worked in a R&D department you were sweeping floors and had no idea what their long term targets were. What I said above is true, you obviously can't dispute it (how could you?) and give us your best example of government working on a project that expected a 50 year return of investment. This should be good since government doesn't make a profit. I'll wait.

I know it's hard to believe that a real-life researcher like me would give you the time of day but you are a great proponent of the right-wing belief that private enterprise always beats anything to do with the government. I'd like to address this.

Look at any or all of these links. Especially, AI research or nano technology. They're like science fiction and I'm certain that they will pay off but the timeframe is indeterminant so private industry is reticent to delve too deep.

Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory QuAIL
nsf.gov - Funding - Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science - US National Science Foundation NSF
Sandia National Laboratories Exceptional Service in the National Interest
Los Alamos National Lab National Security Science

I didn't ask for a smokescreen, I asked for your best example. Throwing links out there doesn't make your case. A real life researcher would know that since every high school boy does.

You claimed that the government is looking at a 30 to 50 year return on investment and now you're saying it's indeterminate. In other words, it could be anything, if ever. Here's a list of the top nano technology companies that prove you're full of shit.

2015 Top Nanotechnology Companies

• Nano Fabrics (57)
• Nano Fibers (5)
• Nano Film (30)
• Nano Lithography (20)

• Nanofibers (24)
• Nanomanufacturing (5)
• Nanoparticles (48)
• Nanopen (4)
• Nanotubes (32)

Government labs been working on Fusion since the 50's. Now a jointly run international project in France will probably reach a level that could be commercialized within 10 or 15 years. That's a lot more than 50 years. Artificial intelligence research also began in the 50's and now we're at the point where the prediction for surpassing human level intelligence is 2045. Show me a company that would keep things rolling for that long.

And BTW, where do you think those nano companies got the basic research to start with? They certainly didn't invent it.

 

[Star]

• Complete horseshit. Every company engaged in the manufacture of scientific products, from medical equipment to electronics to pharmaceutical, automotive, industrial and on and on and on is constantly researching, developing and pushing technology forwards. They are not doing it for government, some may, where hired to do so but most companies are not engaged in government contracts.

Oh, you're speaking from experience? That's funny, you don't sound smart enough to be in R&D. Yes, companies do engage in R&D. I work for a company in an R&D department and the farthest out we look is about 5 years. If what we're working on won't pay off in that amount of time, forget it. Government sponsored R&D works on something closer to a 30 to 50 year cycle. This country would be lost without it and people like you are too stupid to see it.

If you worked in a R&D department you were sweeping floors and had no idea what their long term targets were. What I said above is true, you obviously can't dispute it (how could you?) and give us your best example of government working on a project that expected a 50 year return of investment. This should be good since government doesn't make a profit. I'll wait.

I know it's hard to believe that a real-life researcher like me would give you the time of day but you are a great proponent of the right-wing belief that private enterprise always beats anything to do with the government. I'd like to address this.

Look at any or all of these links. Especially, AI research or nano technology. They're like science fiction and I'm certain that they will pay off but the timeframe is indeterminant so private industry is reticent to delve too deep.

Quantum Artificial Intelligence Laboratory QuAIL
nsf.gov - Funding - Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science - US National Science Foundation NSF
Sandia National Laboratories Exceptional Service in the National Interest
Los Alamos National Lab National Security Science

I didn't ask for a smokescreen, I asked for your best example. Throwing links out there doesn't make your case. A real life researcher would know that since every high school boy does.

You claimed that the government is looking at a 30 to 50 year return on investment and now you're saying it's indeterminate. In other words, it could be anything, if ever. Here's a list of the top nano technology companies that prove you're full of shit.

2015 Top Nanotechnology Companies

• Nano Fabrics (57)
• Nano Fibers (5)
• Nano Film (30)
• Nano Lithography (20)

• Nanofibers (24)
• Nanomanufacturing (5)
• Nanoparticles (48)
• Nanopen (4)
• Nanotubes (32)

The US Government is not itself in the business of making a profit, one ROI for the US government is to ensure it's citizens life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but-----but, that said, to name just a few long term projects like REA and TVA's ROI is a better life/lifestyle/income to many of our citizens and in the process create jobs and increase the tax base, not only building power sources and laying out an electrical grid, but also making it sensical for people on the grid to buy household manufactured goods such a washing machines and electric stoves but also milking machines and many other innovations that make rural folks profitable, informed, and so on and so on and...

Investing federal dollars in bringing the benefits of high-speed wireless to rural America is not unlike the efforts Franklin Roosevelt launched more than 75 years ago to bring electricity to America’s family farms. In Roosevelt’s day, it is estimated that roughly nine out of ten farms in America lacked electricity. As such, most farm families still lived a life that was more reminiscent of the 19th century. With no electricity, there was no running water, and hence no indoor plumbing or bathrooms. Water had to be brought into the house from wells or a nearby stream and heat was provided by indoor stoves. No electricity also meant that most farms lacked the convenience of modern appliances and had no way to obtain entertainment or information over the radio.

Prior to FDR’s administration, advocates of rural power had found private companies disinterested due to the high costs of extending lines into the countryside, so they turned to the federal government. But even though many of the ideas being floated at the time involved the development of rural access to electricity through public-private cooperation, such plans fell on deaf ears.

All of this changed, however, with FDR’s election to the White House. A strong believer in the need for the federal government to take the lead in the development of public power, FDR launched the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in 1933 (which remains America’s largest public utility) and in 1935 established the Rural Electrification Administration, or REA. The REA was a new federal agency whose sole purpose was to bring the benefits of electricity to rural America.

In its initial efforts, the REA tried to extend electricity to rural areas by providing low-cost government loans to private utility companies who would then be tasked with the job of building a full-scale rural electrical grid. But the agency soon found that most private companies were still not willing to participate in the program. As an alternative, and with the strong support of progressive Republicans like Senator George Norris of Nebraska, the REA then turned to the farmers themselves, urging them to form themselves into electricity cooperatives. These cooperatives would then receive low-interest REA loans, which would be used to finance the construction of local generating and distributing facilities and the lines needed to take the power to individual farms. The rural electrification program flourished under this formula, and by the time FDR died in 1945, it is estimated that nine out of ten farms in the country had electricity — the exact reverse of the situation when he assumed office.

But back to the subject of this thread - did you notice the NYPD is proving themselves to be mostly unnecessary - what do you think of crime dropping in NYC while the cops are on slowdown? And as a businessman for 28 years, would your employer and/or customers tolerate a slowdown from you or would they kick you to the curb and/or fire you?
.