Comments on: Pocket Change

By: É tudo uma questão de prioridades «

É tudo uma questão de prioridades « — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:51:21 +0000

[...] Sean Carrol do Cosmic Variance fez um gráfico comparando os orçamentos de pesquisa do Departamento de Energia dos EUA, da Nasa e da National [...]

By: Robbie Preston

Robbie Preston — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:20:08 +0000

Something that many of us forget is that a significant amount of basic research that is eventually used for military-related applications is paid for by DOE, NASA, and the NSF.

So while it doesn’t qualify as ‘lost’ in the Iraq misadventure, some of the money we spend on DOE, NASA, and NSF does seed some of the products we use to conduct our military misadventures.

By: Garrett Connelly

Garrett Connelly — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:21:24 +0000

Military spending is about 60% of discretionary spending – now that’s something.

It is often pointed out that the U.S. spends about as much as the rest of the world combined for war department budgets.

As a young graduate student in the late 1960’s my thesis covered the impending collapse of the USSR due to excessive military spending, pollution and spiraling costs of surveillance.

Remember when the USSR disappeared from the news? It was quick.

By: The Editors

The Editors — Fri, 30 May 2008 18:56:17 +0000

Labels are so confining.

The word you are searching for is ‘liberated’. Use of other words implies that you would be happier if Saddam Hussein was still in power and swan-diving into the $14.9 billion like Scrooge McDuck.

By: puzzled

puzzled — Wed, 28 May 2008 19:21:14 +0000

“In fact, total military spending by the US is only around 1/5th of the total federal budget, Iraq and Afghanistan appropriations included.”

About 60% of the federal budget is mandatory spending – legal obligations of the government such as interest on the debt, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Military spending is about 60% of discretionary spending – now that’s something.

By: Elliot

Elliot — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:09:11 +0000

LL,

No need for new technology, just MIRVs and infrared decoys on rockets. No new research. Just more weapons, uncertainty, and risk of terrorist theft and proliferation.

Not a mature or fruitful policy for the world’s leading superpower.

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Wed, 28 May 2008 12:07:35 +0000

Elliot,
A new arms race means more $$ for nuclear engineers, rocket scientists, metallurgists, geologists, etc.

Just ’cause it is good for a flavor of science that you don’t like doesn’t mean that it is bad for science.

After all, the arms race with the Russians is what got us to the moon and our robots all over the solar system.

From the net SciTech funding point of view, building bombs is far preferable to food stamps.

By: Dylan Thurston

Dylan Thurston — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:35:54 +0000

To be fair to the embezzlers, the $15B is an aggregate amount while the budgets for NASA, etc. are yearly. To get a fair comparison, you should divide by the length of time involved, approx. 5 years. So rest assured: less money is being lost to graft in Iraq than goes to your favorite funding agency!

By: Elliot

Elliot — Wed, 28 May 2008 01:30:22 +0000

How about a bar for money “wasted” on NMD. I think the running tab is about 60 billion since 1983 but that could be short. For those who don’t know NMD is Nuclear Missile Defense (formerly known as Star Wars) that has been completely debunked by reputable scientists but “duck and cover cold war paranoia” has prevailed and we keep spending on a system that not only will not work but encourages a new arms race with Russia.

By: Costanza

Costanza — Tue, 27 May 2008 22:36:57 +0000

Re #8
Moshe, I’m glad you included the qualifier. My reaction was along the lines of, “WHAT??!!? Have you even PERUSED the history of the American presidency?”

Unfortunately, it often happens that the President can get away w/ a great deal and do a great deal of damage even when opposed by an (ostensibly) “hostile” Congress. This is a direct consequence of the development of the “professional politician” (something not foreseen by Madison et al in the 18th century).