Spending programs for scientific research: what is the fiscal conservative's viewpoint?
955335
How about this, private funding first until findings prove that there is actual progress that can be made with that form of research.
1054823
The issue isn't one of paying more taxes. The issue is the allocation of tax dollars. The government is spending hundreds of billions more than it takes in, which isn't a matter of tax revenue per se, but one of expenditures. Frankly, I think George W. Bush is the most unusual Republican we've ever had in the White House--he makes Ronald Reagan look fiscally responsible, and he makes FDR look like a fan of small government. But to answer your question, I'd gladly pay more taxes if I knew the money would be spent wisely. I just don't have the confidence that it will be spent wisely.
1021733
Your question is pretty broad, so forgive me if the answer is equally so. First, I'm assuming you mean the US government and US politics. Government spending is enormously influenced by political values. Keep in mind some general (and not always true) precepts: that it is a traditionally Democratic value to have a big federal government that is heavily involved in lives. It is a typically Republican stance to have a small federal government, with minimal involvement in citizen's affairs. \n\nNow, let's take the issues you mentioned:\n\nHealth care: liberal politicians tend to believe that increased spending in this area is a good idea (recall Clinton's government funded universal health care plan that died in congress). Conservatives tend to think private industry is the best way to give health care to citizens, by giving big businesses tax breaks for providing health plans. Note that each supports public funds for this issue, but have different ways of providing that money. Democrats counter that the Republican's idea only benefits more affluent workers who's employers provide health care. Republican's criticize Democrats for turing the government into an HMO.\n\nDefense: Both Democrats and Republicans LOVE spending on defense. Defense contractors are huge lobby groups that get to engage in business ventures with almost unlimited budgets.  There's no secret that the US spends about half its entire budget on new military toys (hundreds of billions). The radical left believes that if we spent less on defense and more on international community-building, the need for a strong military would disappear.\n\nEducation: Both parties say they favor education spending, but neither really does much about it. This is mostly because schools aren't big lobby groups, so unless congress can make a PR issue out of an education bill, there's little incentive to make one. To the extent that the parties do favor education spending, again, keep in mind the fundamental party differences. Dems would prefer to invest directly in school programs, whil Reps don't want to be in the business of running state public schools. They would prefer to offer things like vouchers and tax breaks to encourage schools and families to find their own solutions to education issues.\n\nScarcity: I'm not sure what you're asking for here; if you mean how does the concept of scarcity (of money) AFFECT this, then I think I've already answered your question, at least partially. The government has limited money to spend and it spends it according who lobbies it to be spent a certain way and the ideological differences of the parties. \n\nThe basic diffence is this. Republicans would prefer to keep money in the hands of individuals, because they believe individuals know the best way to keep their commuties running. Democrats believe that the best way to make sure everyone has a share of the pie is to expand government programs that allocate the slices. Who's right? I guess that's for you to decide.
174039
I think "writer" was on the right track...\n\nToo many people drawing social security, too few paying in.\n\nToo many people with a lower tax base, therefore, less income tax being paid into our system.\n\nToo many people using community "help" centers, ie, food banks, energy assistance, etc, with again, too few people donating to these centers.\n\nShortages in immunizations, like the flu shot shortage we just went through...(usually recommended for the very young & the elderly)\n\n(Yeah, most of these I think are financial burdens, it does seem that most of these could have been planned ahead for if we had only done it...)
1045110
My econmics professor at USC was both; he is a socially moderate democrat who is also a fiscal conservative.\n\nCombining social values with economic realities is a sound, pragmatic approach. Times change, and flexibility is nothing less than having the ability to react to change.
759096
Hey!\n\n\nI'm sorry but i think that we drowned in our stupid wars instead of pouring the money wasted in it in the science field.\n\nalso some of the governments hold their money instead of investing it in some science projects.\n\nThat was my opinion, and thanks for the question btw at least i knew that there's some ppl who care
226391
Well first, there is an enourmous amount of data to interpret. Then, there's the inter-relationships between the data to correlate (e.g Consumer Price Index, Producer Price Index to other inflationary indicators). All of this analysis is likely done by scientists- and there is some esoteric stuff as well- then the policy advisor takes all this vast information from the scientist and considers economic policy. There are two basic types of policies: monetary and fiscal and usually they try to work in conjunction with one another. \nOverall the economy is comprised of C=Consumer Spending G=Government Spending I=Industry spending X-M (Imports-Exports which is trade).\nSO, economic policites would look at all of the above and set interest rates, or determine whether to advise an increase in government spending, or in some cases, create trade tariffs...\nBut underlying all this policy is obviously intense political pressure.
1052270
I'm a conservative who is for stem cell research.  There is a big distinction between the "smaller government, more personal responsibility" right wing, and the "Religious" right wing.
198955
The social conservative is reluctant to spend public money on social issues.  The fiscal liberal is ready to spend public money on nearly anything, including social issues.  The two stances are mutually exclusive.\n\nAnd then there are the social liberals/fiscal conservatives that want social issues addressed but just don't want to pay for it.  After all, the public purse is everybody's pocket.
840187
You really should check just how much money is spent on entitlement programs in this country... it could open your eyes.\n\nReading the responses, I see that you aren't the only one that doesn't have a clue to how this government spends money.
173059
I am opposed.\n\nWhen socialized medicine is enacted a single huge infusion of money is provided.  Then all growth stops.  When the profit incentive is removed how many people will be doing research on newer and better diagnostic tools and procedures.  Okay, that would be the government and we all know how efficient the government is.  \n\nIf you want to do some research, check out the number of MRI machines, or CT scans, or any other sophisticated diagnostic tool per person in England or Canada or any other country with socialized medicine.  \n\nMy uncle had open heart surgery 5 days after his doctor said he needed it.  A co-worker was under the knife in 4 days and a former boss had his surgery 3 days after the decision was made.  All three of these men were very ill and wouldn't have lasted long untreated.  I have read where 2 and 3 year waits are not uncommon in Canada.  Haven't heard how well England does getting things done.\n\nTo be fair I worked with a German for many years and we discussed the issue on several occasions.  He said that under the German system everyone had an annual physical.  I would never say that is "a bad thing".  On the contrary it would almost certainly make for a healthier populace.\n\nStill, with all things being equal, I'll stay with my current system.\n\nI heard someone say that if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.
940014
Excellent statement, and I do believe most caring Americans do not mind paying taxes, it is as you said how they are spent is the issue.\nThe FY 2006  Defense portion is as below:\nTotal Funding                   $441.6 Billion.\nOperations and maintenance $124.3 Bil.\nMilitary Personnel                $108.8 Bil.\nProcurement                     $79.1 Bil.\nResearch, Development, Testing & Evaluation $69.5 Bil.\nMilitary Construction           $12.2 Bil.\nDepartment of Energy Defense Activities $17.0 Bil.\n\nWhat bothers me is the almost 70 billion dollars for research,testing and development, That would pretty well take care of hunger and medical needs in this country. \n\nHaving worked for the Government a number of years I don't want to get started on the amount of waste that goes on, as no one would want to pay their taxes.
50409
Research is funded mostly by private funding.  If it weren't competetive, the scientists wouldn't be pressured to produce.  The publish or perish serves as an important incentive to produce.  Unfortunately for the Korean scientist, it bit him where it counts.  His team tried to lie about their findings, probably to retain their funding.  Deadlines cause drastic actions sometimes.  Unfortunate, but necessary.
211536
Because it's a short-term goal that might compromise the spending in areas like research and development.
414585
Yes because many researches are government funded and politicians are the people we elect to run the government. This means we give them the power to decide what our money (i.e. tax dollars) is spent on. If politicians didn't have a say then scientists could come up with any and every thing to research and possibly waste many tax dollars.
952457
The idea is a good one, and tries to tackle a real problem. Unfortunately, pragmatically speaking, a cap on election spending is pretty unworkable. There are so many ways around it that money will always manage to work its way through such rules.\n\nConsider the fact that there are ALREADY limits on how much you can spend if you want matched federal funding. Candidates simply ditch federal funding because they can raise more on their own. There are limits on how much individual donors can give, but donations routinely pass these limits.\n\nA more plausible solution is federally funded voter education campaigns. The government supplies campaign money to candidates, and all other campaign spending is done away with. This institutes a spending cap in a much more reliable way. There is no grey area for campaign finance to slip through the cracks, it's simply all gone except for federal money. Federal supervision might also clean up campaigns a little, focus on issues. A nice fringe benefit.
839458
No. I want the government to spend less in other areas in order to pay for these projects. Too much money is spent on meaningless pork. Too much money is wasted in fraud, waste and abuse. The government needs to do what most families have to do, namely tighten its belt and live within its budget.