Should scientific research be solely funded by the private sector?

[SixNein]

I dispute this statement. I agree that assisting the poor does benefit the general economy and thus country but only if carried out through voluntary donations within the private sector. Enforced charity fails on three fronts.

Why don't we end all government welfare for physicists, engineers, biologists, chemist, and other scientific disciplines? We could save plenty of money by shutting down NASA, NOAA, cutting the NSF, and other government facilities.

Why not let the private market fund all research?

 

[daveb]

Good, point, instead of getting rid of the grants altogether, could they be restructured, perhaps renamed to something other than grants, that would require a time limit, and a certain GPA to qualify and continue to get them ?

I could support this idea, with the caveat that those who don't yet have a gpa (i.e., first time students) get a 1 or 2 term pass on the gpa requirement.

BTW, I'm pretty sure in California Pell grants when I was there had a maximum number of terms you could get them for. Not sure if that's changed.

 

[daveb]

Why don't we end all government welfare for physicists, engineers, biologists, chemist, and other scientific disciplines? We could save plenty of money by shutting down NASA, NOAA, cutting the NSF, and other government facilities.

Why not let the private market fund all research?

There are those who would support these efforts. The Constitution Party's official platform for one.

"[URL Federal Aid"]Constitution Party Platform[/URL]

Under "Cost of Big Government"

Only those duties, functions, and programs specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution should be funded.

 

[SixNein]

There are those who would support these efforts. The Constitution Party's official platform for one.

"[URL Federal Aid"]Constitution Party Platform[/URL]

Under "Cost of Big Government"

I was just making a point by applying some of this logic to other topics.

If charity is so good at solving problems, why don't we allow charity to fund our military?

I bet a charity organization can raise a fine military without spending like the US government.

 

[Dickfore]

The Constitution Party

How many seats does it hold in the Congress, how many governors or state representatives does it have?

 

[BobG]

Like this? http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009156
"This report describes characteristics of college graduates who received Pell Grants and compares them to graduates who were not Pell Grant recipients."

This site summarizes the report: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/22/pell

In terms of specific risk factors that make it less likely a student will complete college, several are evident among Pell Grant recipients. More than 11 percent of them are single parents, compared to 4 percent of non-Pell recipients. Just under 60 percent are financially independent of their parents, compared to about one-third of other students. And more than 33 percent delayed enrolling in college after finishing high school, compared to 23 percent of other students.

Despite those risk factors, academic achievement, as measured by grades in the major, was only slightly lower for Pell Grant recipients.

Of course Pell grants are welfare. Only an idiot would dispute that. The real question is, is it a worthwhile welfare program?

Pell Grant recipients are more likely to have the risk factors that make it less likely to complete college - and the risk factors that make it more likely to receive other forms of welfare, such as Aid to Dependent Children, Food Stamps, WIC, Earned Income Credit, etc.

So, an analysis of their value has to factor in how Pell Grants affect other welfare programs, as well as compare the success rate of Pell Grant recipients to non-recipients.

That said, there should be some restrictions on what types of degrees Pell Grants can be used for. Handing out Pell Grants to students pursuing degrees that will be virtually worthless is as much a disservice to the student as to the taxpayers.

As a few others have mentioned, the colleges may not be as excited by their students' future job prospects as they are about receiving their students' tuition money, so they may not find it in their best interests to funnel students into degree programs where the demand already exceeds supply (simply expanding high demand degree programs isn't always a solution if the pay working in the field is better than the pay teaching college classes).

 

[daveb]

How many seats does it hold in the Congress, how many governors or state representatives does it have?

No idea, but that's not relevant. I was pointing out that there are a number of folks who would advocate stopping federal support for scientific research. I would guess a number of Tea Party folks are members of the Constitution Party, others are republican, and I'm sure there are even some democrats (I can pretty much be 100% positive there aren't any members in the Democratic Socialist Party, though). But SixNein's point, that there are programs not normally called welfare that by their very nature of being funded by the government should be called welfare, is still valid - that there are those who don't support welfare in the form of Pell Grants (as well as normal welfare, food stamps, etc.) but who would still say that scientific research should be funded.

 

[daveb]

That said, there should be some restrictions on what types of degrees Pell Grants can be used for. Handing out Pell Grants to students pursuing degrees that will be virtually worthless is as much a disservice to the student as to the taxpayers.

While I at first think this is a good idea, I hesitate telling an art student that they can't go to school (or rather, they won't be funded in school) because it isn't a valuable degree. How do we decide as a nation which degrees are valuable?

 

[SixNein]

Pell Grant recipients are more likely to have the risk factors that make it less likely to complete college - and the risk factors that make it more likely to receive other forms of welfare, such as Aid to Dependent Children, Food Stamps, WIC, Earned Income Credit, etc.

Well even that is a small minority of the pell grant recipients. Obviously, most are paying for their own room and board by looking at the student loan rates. Almost 87 percent take out student loans and have more accumulated debt after graduation than students who do not qualify for pell grants. Almost all of them are working either full time or part time. So I don't think these characteristics indicate people who are living in public housing, on food stamps, etc.

That said, there should be some restrictions on what types of degrees Pell Grants can be used for. Handing out Pell Grants to students pursuing degrees that will be virtually worthless is as much a disservice to the student as to the taxpayers.

As a few others have mentioned, the colleges may not be as excited by their students' future job prospects as they are about receiving their students' tuition money, so they may not find it in their best interests to funnel students into degree programs where the demand already exceeds supply (simply expanding high demand degree programs isn't always a solution if the pay working in the field is better than the pay teaching college classes).

I'm don't think the type of degree is as much of a problem as accreditation. These for profit degree mills are absolutely worthless, and we should require accreditation for schools before handing out any type of federal money.

 

[SixNein]

While I at first think this is a good idea, I hesitate telling an art student that they can't go to school (or rather, they won't be funded in school) because it isn't a valuable degree. How do we decide as a nation which degrees are valuable?

I agree

 

[mheslep]

I don't think that anything I did was wrong. Granted, I am extremely surprised that there were no stipulations on what I can use it on. At least, no checkable stipulations, the school simply forwarded the money along to me. I know for certain that many people are completely wasting this money.

There is nothing wrong with taking a gift someone offers you. Any fault for flaws lies in the person/entity giving the gift.

And it is not clear this is completely a gift in the real sense, since the recipient of their family may already have paid taxes going to the gift or may do so in the future.

 

[mheslep]

The bill did cut spending by almost a trillion dollars with locks in place to cut trillions more. So perhaps I fail to see the point.

There is no past or even present tense applicable to the law on the table. The law would require cuts in the future.

 

[SixNein]

There is no past or even present tense applicable to the law on the table. The law would require cuts in the future.

"would reduce budget deficits by about $915 billion between 2012 and 2021"
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12341

Do you think the bill should cut the 915 billion at once?

-edit-
I suppose I should start linking to the current CBO estimates for the latest round of agreements:
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12357&type=1

 

[Evo]

Back to the OP - if financial aid for college isn't welfare - what is it?

Funny, in the US, we consider financial aid to students to be welfare, while in countries like the UK, it's considered an obligation of the government to subsidize higher education.

 

[lisab]

Funny, in the US, we consider financial aid to students to be welfare, while in countries like the UK, it's considered an obligation of the government to subsidize higher education.

IMO, we should consider it an investment. We're creating higher wage earners, who will in turn pay higher taxes.

 

[drankin]

IMO, we should consider it an investment. We're creating higher wage earners, who will in turn pay higher taxes.

The federal government does not have a good track record when it comes to any type of financial investments. IMO.

 

[mheslep]

"would reduce budget deficits by about $915 billion between 2012 and 2021"
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12341

Do you think the bill should cut the 915 billion at once?

-edit-
I suppose I should start linking to the current CBO estimates for the latest round of agreements:
http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12357&type=1

I think several hundred billion should have been cut on the front end, say at least a fifth of the current $1600B deficit.

 

[drankin]

While I at first think this is a good idea, I hesitate telling an art student that they can't go to school (or rather, they won't be funded in school) because it isn't a valuable degree. How do we decide as a nation which degrees are valuable?

As far as the government should be concerned, a degree has value when it equates to earning an income. Just happens to be my personal opinion too.

 

[ThomasT]

The OP - a liberal - wanted to know why conservatives don't like this provision, though asked a pointed question not necessarily related. You can't seek to understand why someone thinks what they think if you won't even examine the actual reasons for their opinions!

In post #14 you wrote:

Conservatives believe that people should do for themselves because it promotes the comptetitiveness required for a functional capitalist economy. More to the point, even if the cause is good, this is not one of the traditional functions of our government and good causes still cost money at a time when we don't have extra money to spend.

Ok, so assuming that conservatives find welfare to the poor objectionable, and insofar as Pell grants are welfare to the poor, then this would seem to be a fundamental reason why conservatives don't like the provision. Further, as you point out, the aim is to cut spending waste, not add to it. So, insofar as Pell grants are considered as such by conservatives, then it's logical for them to oppose the provision.

I, while agreeing that Pell grants are welfare to the poor, am disagreeing that they are money wasted, because they, as with welfare to the poor in general, help the general economy.

Along with the OP I think, there are many significant ways to cut spending waste. Even if one considers Pell grants to be waste, they are such a tiny portion of the total spending picture that one might wonder why such a big deal is being made about the Pell grant provision.

But as you noted 'a billion here, a billion there' ... and it accumulates rather quickly when dealing with something as large and complex as the US federal budget. And we have to start somewhere. So, I think I essentially understand the objections to the provision. I just disagree with them for the reasons I've stated.

I believe that people should do for themselves. The problem is that there are an increasing number of people who, for various reasons, can't. So, whether we consider it a traditional function of our government or not, and even though the various welfare systems are abused to a certain extent, the upside to aid to the poor, including Pell grants, is that it benefits the general economy and therefore the country as a whole. From my own experience, it (that is, aid to people who then bought or rented things with that aid) certainly helped a couple of businesses that I was involved in.

We're going to be spending borrowed money for a long time. This is primarily due to monetary waste due to inordinately grossly inflated costs of things that the government pays for. It has little to do with welfare to the poor such as Pell grants.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that, but it sounds wrong: most of what we spend (besides interest on the debt) isn't for $90 mops, it's for social programs.

I was thinking of the billions of dollars in cost overruns wrt various government contracts and contractors. But that's not the primary waste. It's just one of many, relatively smaller, ways in which federal money is wasted.

I agree that the overriding problems are the social programs: medicare, medicaid and social security retirement. I don't know enough about medicare/caid to propose how their costs might be effectively reduced. But wrt SS, there's a relatively simple fix. Just treat SS retirement as welfare for the elderly poor, and do means testing for inclusion. I'll bet this would cut SS retirement payments by a very significant amount (ie., upwards of $100B). In addition, the SS payroll tax can be increased by a point, and the $106K cap can be removed. Big turnaround. And I'm off topic.

 

[FlexGunship]

Funny, in the US, we consider financial aid to students to be welfare, while in countries like the UK, it's considered an obligation of the government to subsidize higher education.

A subsidy is kind of welfare, though. Right? It's the government using your money to make something cheaper to help you pay for it when you normally wouldn't. Subsidy money comes from your pockets anyway. Fundamentally there isn't a difference, except that higher education isn't a staple of existence (like food or shelter).

Financial aid for higher education is like a kind of frivolous welfare. A luxurious welfare. If there were no subsidies, and no one could afford to attend colleges and universities, you'd better believe that would drive prices down.

IMO, we should consider it an investment. We're creating higher wage earners, who will in turn pay higher taxes.

The problem is that we're creating those higher wage earners at the expense of the higher wage payers.

 

[Evo]

A subsidy is kind of welfare, though. Right? It's the government using your money to make something cheaper to help you pay for it when you normally wouldn't. Subsidy money comes from your pockets anyway. Fundamentally there isn't a difference, except that higher education isn't a staple of existence (like food or shelter).

Financial aid for higher education is like a kind of frivolous welfare. A luxurious welfare. If there were no subsidies, and no one could afford to attend colleges and universities, you'd better believe that would drive prices down.

The problem is that we're creating those higher wage earners at the expense of the higher wage payers.

The answer, IMO, is not to stop the grants, but put stricter limits on them. For example, if the student doesn't get a degree within a set timeframe, the grants must be repaid. That might discourage a number of applicants upfront if they're not serious.

 

[Andre]

The answer, IMO, is not to stop the grants, but put stricter limits on them. For example, if the student doesn't get a degree within a set timeframe, the grants must be repaid. That might discourage a number of applicants upfront if they're not serious.

That's exactly our system, also with a limit of 4 years and then get a degree or pay back.

 

[FlexGunship]

The answer, IMO, is not to stop the grants, but put stricter limits on them. For example, if the student doesn't get a degree within a set timeframe, the grants must be repaid. That might discourage a number of applicants upfront if they're not serious.

Sure, that's a decent system. I think it should address the other side, though. If you flood the market with degree holders all fighting for the same pool of jobs, you're going to drive the value of a degree down. So there should be an equal effort put on the other side to give new and existing businesses funds to grow and create new positions for these individuals to occupy.

 

[ThomasT]

Certainly, and it may go far afield of the OP so we should consider forming a new thread.

Ok, I started a new thread:
A reply to an argument against government aid to the poor

 

[Evo]

Sure, that's a decent system. I think it should address the other side, though. If you flood the market with degree holders all fighting for the same pool of jobs, you're going to drive the value of a degree down. So there should be an equal effort put on the other side to give new and existing businesses funds to grow and create new positions for these individuals to occupy.

Indirectly, the federal government does fund states, which can go to state small business grants, and the SBA subsidizes small business loans.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/smallbusiness/a/stategrants.htm

I don't think it's smart to encourage people to start their own business when they are doomed to fail either.

Off topic, but this all goes back to my personal belief that we have more people than we can realistically support economically. If we are in fear of too many people getting degrees, we have a problem, IMO.

 

[FlexGunship]

Indirectly, the federal government does fund states, which can go to state small business grants, and the SBA subsidizes small business loans.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/smallbusiness/a/stategrants.htm

I don't think it's smart to encourage people to start their own business when they are doomed to fail either.

Absolutely, Evo! I didn't mean to imply it wasn't already happening. I guess I was introducing the topic in the same way that others were creating a narrative that described Pell grants.

We should give money to help people pay for...
We should also give money to help business pay for...

I happen to think that encouraging entrepreneurs is a large part of what is missing in the U.S. and causing it to stagnate. We were once a country of risk-takers, up-all-nighters, hard-workers, and make-it-happeners. Now, because of how dangerous it is to fail, people tend to find stable jobs and just... survive...

 

[rhody]

The answer, IMO, is not to stop the grants, but put stricter limits on them. For example, if the student doesn't get a degree within a set timeframe, the grants must be repaid. That might discourage a number of applicants upfront if they're not serious.

Evo,

We are in agreement here. Your ideas are valid as are https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3430820&postcount=69". too bad too many following this thread resort to politics versus practical common sense. I am done here, so any rebuttals will go unanswered.

Rhody...

 

[Evo]

I happen to think that encouraging entrepreneurs is a large part of what is missing in the U.S. and causing it to stagnate. We were once a country of risk-takers, up-all-nighters, hard-workers, and make-it-happeners. Now, because of how dangerous it is to fail, people tend to find stable jobs and just... survive...

The problem is that the economy simply can't support everyone that wants to own their own business. If 10 businesses offering the same thing are struggling, giving money to someone (perhaps the same people that would have gone to school with a Pell Grant)to open yet another business in the same area is only going to cause more businesses to potentially fail. People can't just keep opening businesses, there has to be a demand, there has to be something that can assure they won't be out of business within a year, or less.

 

[SixNein]

Absolutely, Evo! I didn't mean to imply it wasn't already happening. I guess I was introducing the topic in the same way that others were creating a narrative that described Pell grants.

We should give money to help people pay for...
We should also give money to help business pay for...

I happen to think that encouraging entrepreneurs is a large part of what is missing in the U.S. and causing it to stagnate. We were once a country of risk-takers, up-all-nighters, hard-workers, and make-it-happeners. Now, because of how dangerous it is to fail, people tend to find stable jobs and just... survive...

The global structure of our economy really complicates the picture in regards to business.

 

[mege]

Pell Grant recipients are more likely to have the risk factors that make it less likely to complete college - and the risk factors that make it more likely to receive other forms of welfare, such as Aid to Dependent Children, Food Stamps, WIC, Earned Income Credit, etc.

So, an analysis of their value has to factor in how Pell Grants affect other welfare programs, as well as compare the success rate of Pell Grant recipients to non-recipients.

That said, there should be some restrictions on what types of degrees Pell Grants can be used for. Handing out Pell Grants to students pursuing degrees that will be virtually worthless is as much a disservice to the student as to the taxpayers.

As a few others have mentioned, the colleges may not be as excited by their students' future job prospects as they are about receiving their students' tuition money, so they may not find it in their best interests to funnel students into degree programs where the demand already exceeds supply (simply expanding high demand degree programs isn't always a solution if the pay working in the field is better than the pay teaching college classes).

This is a good idea - but it's implementation is rough. Encouraging 'good' degress is hard because of the long term impact - right now, in general, English degrees aren't worth the investment, but what about 15 years from now? It seems common conversation for some folks now to complain about the amount of old-established scientists because of the space race push for science, if the government does any more encouragement towards a particular field you'll just have these waves of individuals.

I have a few different friends whom have 'success' stories due to pell grants, and a few that... well.. I want my money back. A stricter academic requirement for university level courses may be in order, but can't pell grants also be used for certifications and technical programs (which will draw non-academically rigourous individuals to start)?

 

[jambaugh]

Why don't we end all government welfare for physicists, engineers, biologists, chemist, and other scientific disciplines? We could save plenty of money by shutting down NASA, NOAA, cutting the NSF, and other government facilities.

Why not let the private market fund all research?

I agree,... excepting two specifics. Scientific research for the DOD, i.e. research into weapons and other militarily relevant technology (such as GPS) and scientific research important for policy decisions, e.g. sociology, economics, and such...
are justified as supporting the primary role of government.

But by all means, defund NASA and NSF (and NEA and Public Media and ...). NOAA has important policy supporting research as well as data gathering important for Emergency Management so I'd say keep it funded. Move the rest to the private sector.

But everything in order of priority. Defund first social engineering programs and wealth redistribution which aside from the waste of tax dollars are actively detrimental to our society and economy. Then begin cutting productive programs which can be transitioned to the private sector and are not essential for defense, law enforcement, emergency management, and foreign relations.