Who Drives Innovation?

The drive to solve, the attitude to bring in alternates, the pains faced of the current disabilities, the seriousness, the commitment, the responsibility, the leadership, the empathy, the shrewdness of idea generation, verification,the cost considerations, the scientific attitude, the multi disciplinary collaboration, spotting the key issues involved in the solution, perseverance, dedication, great deal of self motivation, openness to criticism and working out alternates, broad mindedness, understanding the wholesome of the problem and working out the right directives, estimation and justification of all pros and cons, long term vision and lot more- are key qualities meant for researchers of high profile and quality. It need not be bound to a particular country and benefits should be for global adaptation. Universality of inventions are more critical than expecting it to happen it within a country. Potentials are wide spread in all soils of the planet and history is the best resource proof before us that humans from all parts of the planet contributed for global development, right from the naked primitive men/ women with out any formal education. So, it becomes clear, the responsibility, the serious commitment and a zealous visions are real drivers for innovation, the shear aptitude. Mere allocations of funds to programs , universities and schlolarary paper works and conclusionless conferences- can never make our burning problems run away. Whereas result oriented efforts with a promising viability scope even if originates from resourceful individual minds irrespective of back ground and education are of reality potential value. what rest of the world including governments is to accept, nurture and adapt such values and provide all possible support. Closed mindedness is the other blunder in the formal world. Acceptance, appreciation and exactly helping in line of the innovator is the best thing the rest of the world can do, where money/ funds are just secondary. Money can never get inventions whereas a responsible vision can result in innovation. So best thing is to listen to the genuine voices of innovators, the motivating drive.

The drive to solve, the attitude to bring in alternates, the pains faced of the current disabilities, the seriousness, the commitment, the responsibility, the leadership, the empathy, the shrewdness of idea generation, verification,the cost considerations, the scientific attitude, the multi disciplinary collaboration, spotting the key issues involved in the solution, perseverance, dedication, great deal of self motivation, openness to criticism and working out alternates, broad mindedness, understanding the wholesome of the problem and working out the right directives, estimation and justification of all pros and cons, long term vision and lot more- are key qualities meant for researchers of high profile and quality.

It need not be bound to a particular country and benefits should be for global adaptation. Universality of inventions are more critical than expecting it to happen it within a country.

Potentials are wide spread in all soils of the planet and history is the best resource proof before us that humans from all parts of the planet contributed for global development, right from the naked primitive men/ women with out any formal education.

So, it becomes clear, the responsibility, the serious commitment and a zealous visions are real drivers for innovation, the shear aptitude.

Mere allocations of funds to programs , universities and schlolarary paper works and conclusionless conferences- can never make our burning problems run away. Whereas result oriented efforts with a promising viability scope even if originates from resourceful individual minds irrespective of back ground and education are of reality potential value.

what rest of the world including governments is to accept, nurture and adapt such values and provide all possible support. Closed mindedness is the other blunder in the formal world.

Acceptance, appreciation and exactly helping in line of the innovator is the best thing the rest of the world can do, where money/ funds are just secondary.

Money can never get inventions whereas a responsible vision can result in innovation

So best thing is to listen to the genuine voices of innovators, the motivating drive.

______________

Necessity is the mother of invention.

The author is unknown, but sometimes accredited to Plato.

I don't think governments can really drive innovation. The best they can hope for is perhaps creating a fertile soil for which such things to gain purchase.

America's space race hay days in the 1960s were not driven by government, even though NASA played the starring role. It was the threat of Communism and the Cold War that was the necessity. This was initiated by the real Sputnik moment.

The 2011 Sputnik Moment as was coined was/is not the same. There are no external forces driving this country to be its best.

In 1957 the launch of Sputnik created a unifying wave of fear in the US. It galvanized the country to move as one toward a goal that was perceived as one driven by necessity - survival.

Today the country is as bipolar as it has ever been in the last 100 years. This is a completely different situation and even though there are external forces at work upon the US, there is in no way a consensus as to what to do and no leadership to unify the country. So the idea of a Sputnik Moment is not true in this case.

I believe that external or internal events will sow the seeds of innovation. Government's role will be playing the part of a leadership that unifies its citizens and then tends those seeds so that they may take root and grow.

Unfortunately, I do not see much of that happening in Washington.

"I don't think governments can really drive innovation. The best they can hope for is perhaps creating a fertile soil for which such things to gain purchase."

I beg to differ. Research for the helicopter, jet engine, the atomic bomb, and some other strong innovations in medicine were all driven by a certain country.

Other than that, I agree with you.

Maybe I was too subtle with my list. I was talking about innovations from Germany during WWII. I don't know if any of that was finished during the war (I don't think most of it was) but the original ideas were driven by the German government.

Or was the idea for DARPA originally from Germany?

Sorry, missed your point about Germany. We must also bear in mind that the Germany we know and love did not exist prior to Bismarck. Before Bismarck, Germany consisted of Prussia, the Austro-Hungarian empire, and a bunch of petty little kingdoms, duchies, etc. The advance of German industry, science, and social reform can mostly be attributed to the foundations laid by Bismarck. Unfortunately, he was mostly motivated by military concerns and a desire for empire (i.e., expanding the wealth by stealing from others).

We see a very similar spurt in the History of Japan. Prior to 1865, when Commodore Perry issued the wake-up call in Tokyo harbor by firing off a few cannon rounds, Japan was pretty much a feudal society still fighting their battles with bows and arrows and swords. The Meiji Restoration took this primitive society and turned it into a significant power that was able to defeat one of the then-major world military powers (Russia) in less than 40 years. Government driven, for sure. Again, most unfortunate that the motivation was perverted into a desire to increase internal wealth through stealing resources from others...

If one is referring to the Third Reich as the "certain country" that pioneered the first effective jet engines, which were further developed by many of the same engineers later in the US for private industry, which had the US government as one if it's clients, then that is correct.

Defense is the responsibility of soveriegn nations in the rough sand lot that is the world. Weapons innovation is a particular niche that tends to be funded by governments, so that is not a persuasive argument that governments are generally effective innovators, nor the drivers of most important innovation.

The infamous hammer costing many hundreds of dollars is an example of the resources allocated to the military for better ways to destroy things that typically far outstrip the resources spent on very expensive things like curing cancer. Comparing the defense budgets of nations to the private sector budgets to fight all disease demonstrates that dramatically.

Innovation arguably of more value to humankind, and of wider range, invariably originates from commerce, and most efficiently in the private sector without interference from the government.

Government is the biggest institution. Providing quality education including encouraging innovation and creation among its citizen is one of the prime responsibilities of the government. It can be a facilitator to promote collaborative creative and innovative research among the various stake holders of the society.

The US Government is doing everything in it's power to drive innovation. As noted above, "Necessity is the mother of invention". When the US Government has finally driven all value from the dollar and totally destroyed any remaining semblance of free enterprise, we will all be forced to innovate- or die.

Out innovate anything? I like and support President Obama; but sometimes he dabbles in a dream worlds.

The only people allowed to innovate anything in this country are CEO's and Wall street bond traders. Everyone else is required to toe the lines of a million laws and regulations, most designed to protect vested interests. This works all the way down to the backyard mechanic boxed in by zoning laws, building codes, pollution police, DMV's, insurance companies, and, and ,and .......Oh, Arrrrrgh..... The list is endless.

Our kids are forced to go to schools that are only concerned with teaching them algebra, that fully half of them are totally incapable of comprehending, so no "child will be left behind". Behind what? Half of the 50% that do get ialgebra will make it to college where 50% of those will graduate and 50% of the graduates will get jobs and only 10% of the ones who get jobs will ever use algebra again in their entire lives. But wow!! The CEO's of the multinational corporations who stash 25% of their profits in overseas banks and invest another 25% in foreign countries love the way our horribly expensive educational system sorts out the best and brightest so they have to barely lift a finger to find them.

So the 87% of the youth of America get the finger from the "system" and only then they realize they were the ones that were actually "left behind". But that's OK. We'll keep them happy with easy credit, electronic gadgets, parties, video games, sex games, movies, sports TV, booze and quasi legal drugs. Plenty of food, too. And pump their heads full of propaganda to keep them pointed in the direction most profitable to the establishment.

We expect people like this to be innovative? We have a lot to change to get where President Obama wants to go. Our people have been largely brainwashed to believe the government is too evil to be allowed to drive anything. Our industry is now multinational industry. Their owners care only for profits. Any loyalty to the USA is a completely separate issue. Their executives will go anywhere they can get their innovation for the cheapest price. Our Acedemia only care about maximizing their income and security for the tenured staff.

They care little about the future of America as long as it provides a safe place for them to live.

Good luck Mr. President.

Oh, BTW, they'll love the cheap research and will cheerfully give or sell it to their business prospects in other nations to use in taking ever more jobs away from those pricey, spoiled and overfed Americans.

Ed Weldon

"We have a lot to change to get where President Obama wants to go..."

Let's hope we never get to where Mr. Obama would like to take us...We can't afford what his predecessors tried to stuff down our throats- how are we going to be able to afford the new socialist nanny state?

Oh, yeah. We'll "innovate". Bernacke can just print more money...

cwarner -- I know you're a rational and logical guy. How about flushing out for us some of the details in this new socialist nanny state you say is planned for us? Seems to me the worst of the nanny state provisions in the recent Health Care Law, namely the mandatory insurance thing, were muscled in by the "loyal" Republican opposition.

I note that the nanny state actions taken to save our economy from the effects of the October 2008 crash were largely effective. And I think almost all responsible economists as well as a huge number of Americans think that we need to make American bankers a little less innovative. If that's a symptom of a nanny state than you and I are speaking a different language.

As to what Bernanke is doing, he's trying to keep us from going down the road that the Hoover administration and the Congress followed in 1930 while at the same time doing at least something to help hold down unemployment. If anything will debase our currency it will be the failure to balance our national books. And it's not going to happen by cutting only 25% of the government and leaving the SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense as well as leaving tax revenues untouched.

The American public is in a dream world and their elected representatives are simply mouthing what the majority of the country is still thinking. "Keep the party going".

As far as the real people in charge, the business, union and other special interests represented by their lobbyists are concerned the only important thing is that their pawns in the government keep filling their coffers with very legal money. Anyone who thinks the rest of the government workers outside the top leaders of each of the three branchs of government have any influence on where this country is heading is just kidding himself.

Ed Weldon

Senor Warner, Sir..Three thumbs up!! Let us take for example, the Department of Energy. I believe it was started, in 1976, (Correct me if I am wrong on the date) under one Jimmy Carter. (Remember the Oil Embargo, Iran etc??). The goal at the time (Stated mission), was to make America independent of external energy supply sources that could be used to suppress our security, and economy. Now, here we are, in 2011, say about 35 years later, and where exactly are we? Looks like the same place, PLUS inflation. Now--How many trillions of dollars have been wasted? (Or votes bought, if you count it that way). If that money went into PRIVATE enterprise through incentives, I'll bet we would be looking at a whole different situation in regards to energy. Innovation has been , for the most part, a result of hands on, sleeves up, work, out of garages and living rooms and in the minds of those with many long sleepless nights, working out the details--Look at Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, Ford, Chrysler, many of the Oil companies, railways, etc.Airlines, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Microsoft, WD-40, Google, Facebook on and on and on--And, another thing, I do not believe that any of the above groups are Unionized either, excepting for those (Like Airlines, ) that are Government regulated..

C-Mac:

The AD HOC Panel on Liquefaction of Coal submitted its recommendation in 1977 to create an entire industry in the USA making synthetic fuels from coal, our domestic largest available proven energy resource. It's study was largely a review of DOE sponsored research and the commercialization program, if implemented would be DOE driven. If their recommendation was allowed to go forward, today the USA would be energy independent from foreign imported crude. Not just that, but billions of other dollars spent on alternative engergy options that have less chance to solve our problem would never have been spent.

The recommendations were blocked by environmentalists i.e. "concerned private citizens" and the petroleum industry, i.e. "private industry" putting its self-serving profit motivated interests before an important national strategic interest. They feared a government endorsed new industry would become a potential competitor to strong for them to crush. The government was thwarted, and today we all face outlandish costs for energy and subservient relationships to mid-east oil barons.

joconco -- Do you know how the coal liquefaction numbers crunch today in light of our present knowledge? Can you comment on the difference in the intangible effects of emissions between now and 34 years ago?

IMHO had this been done back then the effects on our foreign policy would have been profound during the intervening period. I'm not so sure the effect on fuel costs would have been so. But perhaps the effect on our overall economic performance would have more than made up the difference.

One should never underestimate the power of commercial interests to influence government actions regardless of the form of that government. Money buys a lot of influence in both democracies and autocracies. This factor will put our Bill of Rights to a substantial test in this century.

Ed Weldon

Ed: your question,

"Do you know how the coal liquefaction numbers crunch today in light of our present knowledge? Can you comment on the difference in the intangible effects of emissions between now and 34 years ago?"

These are difficult questions to answer with much certainty but the physics of the process did not change in the past 34 years. With coal available for relatively small change $/ton at the mine, a usable liquid yield of more than 2-bbls/ton via liquifaction, and crude from Kuwait over $105 per barrel we have a nice spread to work with. The spread will only get greater in the future. On the question of emmissions that is actually more a smoke screen than serious impediment. In final analysis, environmental issues are really just a component of cost. Spend more money on plant and equipment, operational controls, and land management and a serious environmental threat disappears. Environmentalists, and others, need to aknowledge that there are negative and positive consequences in everything in life. It is the relative degree of each that is important. There can be no such thing as zero risk to the environment, as there is also no such thing as 100% certainty for a perfect solution to this question of energy supply by tapping our coal resource. It is more important to take action on our best evaluation at this time rather than debate the risk factors for ever.

There can be more consequences to the environment than just the technology of obtaining fuel have admitted. Sometimes the problems are not regulated near enough to allow safe extraction and I seem to suspect that the influences of the industry on the regulators can bend the rules is very powerful. If we are located remote from such aspects and do perceive ourselves to be affected, then it is easy to become ostriches. However, if you live in the path of such problems and become personally affected, then these problems that others can slough off as just a side affect of a resource that can provide greater benefit to all, are enormous. It is how the benefit vs consequence is measured and by whom that makes the difference. Fairness is not always obvious and often not presented. Neither is the future environment that is currently in the stewardship of this generation.

I watched a documentary called Gasland and was able to locate a small excerpt from a Youtube site. The excerpt can be viewed here. It seems that the large amount of natural gas potential may put coal liquefaction on hold unless we keep seeing gas at the pumps rise. I am one that would advocate coal liquefaction as I think it is a better alternative than that presented by "fracking" gas wells. it is debatably cleaner, cheaper, and plentiful as you point out.

kevinm:

Thank you for the link. The Youtube video story is mind boggling, frightening, and clearly shows how serious environmental disasters really do happen. I get your point about one's opinion of these things is formed by whether the disaster is happening to you, or to someone else. My original post that prompted your comment may have read too cavalier on the issue of environmental consequence. That is not my intent, I certainly believe there must be thorough evaluation, and specific protective action and measures to minimize risk. However, if only a "risk free" alternative is demanded, we will never undertake anything.

Nice to hear that you expressed positive attitude toward coal relative to "fracking" gas wells. Given the extent of coal mining already in operation, with environmental issues mitigated to the degree they may be, it is probably wise to "deal with the devil you know rather than the devil you do not know". Both of those situations have their devils. With respect to air emmissions under a coal liquifaction scenario there are many well understood technologies currently practiced in power and oil refining industries that are directly applicable to mitigate that problem. Applying these is more an economics rather than technological issue.

GA. Your insight into innovation is a refreshing outlook.

Kevin

GA to you, and a refreshing change to my view. The Internet (DARPAnet to those of us who knew it before Al Gore claimed it) and the World Wide Web are perfect examples of what you've just described.

Its nice to know when I am wrong, if the result is such a pleasant change in my view.

Thank you for enlightening this feeble mind!

I seem to recall they were talking about $50/ barrel for oil from coal in the late 1970's.

If anything, this has since come down in real terms.

As the cost of oil from wells at the time, was artificially inflated by OPEC to about this or slightly higher, no one was willing to risk a billion or so on a plant and then have the oil companies reduce their cost to below the startup's break even.

With so many wells today on secondary and tertiary recovery, I think the time is ripe for coal to oil to be used as the oil companies costs now exceed the coal based break even.

Unfortunately, the environmentalists are vehemently opposed and they now carry a lot of weight.

Even if they didn't they would tie the whole thing up in legal battles for so long it wouldn't be viable.

In Queensland (Australian state for you Americans), an experimental plant using in situ gasification has run into problems with supposed aromatic contamination of the ground water.

It seems to have been a one off but upset the farmers who have a lot of political clout, especially with a government which is facing defeat at the next election. The government apparently ordered a shut down.

The project claimed a break even of $25 a barrel (I'm not sure if that's $US of $A, but at the moment the difference is negligible.)

Even if they are forced to mine the coal first, modern mining methods should still enable a break even around $50 a barrel, making it potentially a goer, if it wasn't for the certainty of lengthy, expensive, green opposition.

Well actually I think you've' got your media releases blurred.

One pilot plant lobbied was was liquid petroleum from coal, but the technology was shown 'not quite kosher' (feel free to read that as a bit like 'cold fusion', or over-unity fraud).

The other [in pilot] is syngas and the issues are centered around old/existing mine groundwater contamination being expanded.

Yes I agree, environmetalist opposition is the greatest hurdle today with, I believe, technolgical economics only a second order problem. In the USA, with a degrading status for an economical and secure energy source that will only get worse with time, government must face up to the need for some bold action. Coal at this time is not in the lead as a candidate. I believe that is unfortunate. For the USA coal offers a very good long term solution, while some of the most popular alternative and/or renewable source approaches only amount to "stop-gap" aproaches.

Creating a whole new "synthetic petroleum" based economy in the USA would be a real innovative undertaking. Will private industry take that step? I agree with you that "no one is willing to risk a billion [actually many billions] on a plant then have the oil companies reduce their cost to below the start-ups break even". Of course you mean by that no private, profit driven, industry. In such situations it is only governments that will undertake such innovation. That's why government is needed to take on these really big needs.

But look at the value to the population at large. If the innovation worked, and if the oil multi-national refiners and OPEC producers dropped their prices everyone would save a lot of money. That would be true for the whole world, not just the USA. Of course we could keep a certain chain of gas stations going where environmentalists could still pay 50$-$60 to fill their gas tanks if that is what they want to do. The rest of us could use the $20-$25 savings to buy our food.

"union and other special interests represented by their lobbyists"

How many of the former is Obama weighing in favor of (Madison, Wisconsin, today, anyone?) and how much of his support has been FROM the SEIU, and AFSCME? How many of the second group you cite are IN the White House now?

CWarner17 IS a rational and logical guy, and while I do agree that a)Our government is run by money, not by elected officials, at the Federal Level entirely, and at the State level in many states, and b)Business is WAY too happy to send work AND quality tech out of our country, your support of OBAMA makes no sense in light of that statement above (A Quote from YOUR message, note).

You really need to think about deconflicting your arguments.

"You really need to think about deconflicting your arguments."

micah -- This is a complex world we live in and I am a complex person. I refuse to join and conform to any particular partisan viewpoint. If that means some of my ideas appear to be in conflict that's OK with me. Perhaps it is the way I express myself, always subject to interpretation by others. But I try to tell it as I see it.

I support President Obama and the Democrats, warts and all. Doesn't mean everything they do and stand for suits me. Ditto my attitude toward education in general and teacher's unions in particular. I'm a realist and politics is "right now in your face" reality. Obama, like all the other politicians has to play that game in a way that smells bad to a lot of us. Otherwise he will turn into a Herbert Hoover, a good man and an engineer, BTW, and be buried in the dust bin of history.

Ed Weldon

Ed:

Lest you mistake my arguments for a desire to return to "the way it was", I am convinced that little, if any, of our federal government has our best interests at heart. In other threads, I have seen the "Tea Party" (not a party, in the sense of having no cogent, cohesive platform, unless "Taxed Enough Already" is a platform") sneered at because it "doesn't stand for anything, except tearing down a working system.

Who says its working. I think it is clear that, regardless of political party, our elected leadership has forgotten who they serve. And the self-service of US Press-Inspired and Funded surveys don't help us at all. So, maybe tearing down a "Working" system (I submit that it ISN'T working. And I am directly employed by a part of it, so we take this "hit" too.) is a good start to a platform. It IS certainly a good start AWAY from "the way it was".

But Obummer is not even trying to listen to the people. He treats us like ignorant and lazy fools.

In that sense, he EPITOMIZES "the way it was". And that, to his and Michelle's horror, should they ever realize it, puts them in the shared camp with too many current Republican officials.

Both sides need to be replaced with people who actually fear, and thus learn to respect, their electorates.

Sorry. I left the line of your answer. Yes, we live in a complex society. But I can't find anything OBummer or his friends have done that can be expected to improve our lives, without a personal cost HE isn't ever going to pay, and I don't want him saddling my kids, their kids, or their grandkids with.

On top of that, I've never seen the Federal Government, meddling in what is supposed to be, at its highest levels, a State Government program, improve life in any form or shape.

But he and his buddies want us to think they'll manage it. Not on the form to date. And certainly not by trying, again, (by taxing us more heavily to do it) already failed methods.

So, you might find it easy to support conflicting views. But how do you argue against political cronyism, union-driven cost (and business and innovation losses as a result), and special-interest driven government, while, in the same statement, you extol the virtues of a President who has placed the power and prestige of his office clearly in support of all three?

One or the other, but not both. Else either your credibility, or your perspicacity fall in doubt.

Yeah you are dead right, what right minded person would want a decent job, education for their children, access to medical help and a safe pension. The way that you are talking it would seem that this is alreday available - it is if you are one of the rich but not for the rest of us.

A decent job, education for one's children, and access to medical help are all available to the self-sufficient individual- one who is willing to take responsibility for his own welfare rather than relying on any social structure to provide these needs. True, these are more readily available for some than for others- but most of us in the US can trace our antecedents to those who were once poor, homeless, resource-limited immigrants spurned by mainstream society, that took responsibility for their own well-being, rather than relying on a nanny state.

A "reliable pension"? You got me on that one- that's part of this whole charade of pretending we are wealthier than we really are...

The money you paid in to Social Security was spent years ago. The plan was that the current work force would pay for your retirement if you paid for your parent"s. OK, until you find yourself with a declining workforce and a growing retired population facing mushrooming cost of longer-lived retirees...

What a load. There are plenty of self-sufficient people out there who can't find work. You may debate the way things got here, but don't make a statement that flies in the face of reality.

Since the current Government put them in that situation, you're right about the situation, but the Government isn't going to fix what it broke.

Unfortunately, since you can't be bothered to log in, no one can ask you to clarify your intent, nor context. So, trust that you'll be answered on the obvious intent of your response, and don't take umbrage if you feel misinterpreted.

"Self-sufficient" people will figure out how to overcome the crises that life throws at them. I have, over the years, found myself a couple of times without "gainful employment" over the years- no jobs? I created my own. And I survived WITHOUT government support. That is the reality of taking responsibility for one's own life, in my experience.

what happens if you get ill and require medical help? There has to be some sort of safety net for people - would you not agree?

I've seen the same, and managed, because of being blessed beyond anything I deserved, to send routine, regular financial aid to both my parents, and my wife's parents. But few do, when they feel the government can do it, and is doing it. My siblings and I just didn't think the government was doing it well enough.

But it takes guts, and a willingness to do with less, when you refuse to take the government handout. Many times in our years together my wife and I qualified for welfare, but turned it down. At times that meant living on biscuits and gravy (period, water as needed, nothing else) for a couple of weeks while we got our feet under us again. But God provided, we survived, our kids are grown and healthy, and, for that experience, that little bit less willing to take the government handout themselves.

But, having been there, it makes it particularly galling to pay for those who WON'T do anything for themselves, because the government tells me they have a right to everything we gave up willingly to avoid being a burden.

And I enjoyed the socks off the last barn-raising (actually a house raising) that I got to help with, in PA. It was hard work, and I was not much more than manual labor, but it was FUN!

cwarner, you must live in a very small and close knit community if you actually believe what you wrote to be true. Most of us common people have very little over to help anyone, we can barely help oursleves at the moment. We have paid taxes and everything else that was asked of us but when we (the working classes) need some assistance there is nobody there to help us. My parents are old and in need of financial assistance and I do assist them, however I also have a family who also need to be supported. God forbid if my husband or myself gets ill. We will probably loose our home and end up in debt. The uthopian world that you live in seems great but for the majority of us it is not like you described.In your uthopian world who provides the medical assistance when needed?

Guest- You are probably right- my "Utopian world" is becoming more and more rare. I left the US many years ago, partly because I found the anonymity developing at most levels of US society untenable. I am of the opinion that an overly invasive government contributes to the problem- people would rather "let the government take care of it" than invest in helping their neighbors/families/friends directly. My contention is that, if you take the invasive government out of the picture, people will once again turn to their personal networks for mutual help...

IAW, life is not a zero sum game. ....EW

"And once we get burned by Mr. Nameless we'll never again trust a Mr. Nameless.

We are becoming very reluctant to send money to someone we don't trust to give to someone whose name we don't know to spend on who knows what frivolity that we're sure we won't approve of."

You mean like the government? Where only about 20 cents out of every dollar gets to the person who needs it. The rest is poured down the rat hole of government beauacracy, fraud and waste.

You and I are so much more capable of distributing our money to charities we support and to benevolent needs we run into. I heard a statistic not long ago about what state population overall donates the most of any state in the Union. It isn't California, New York, etc., any of the "rich" states. It is the state that ranks near the bottom in per capita income. It is Mississippi. Willingness to extend charity doesn't necessarily mean being "rich". It has to do with community and values adhered to by that community.

"Willingness to extend charity doesn't necessarily mean being "rich". It has to do with community and values adhered to by that community."

I disagree, but only in the (implied) definition of rich. Everything else is on the money.

My wife and I consider ourselves richest when we can help others, even if they don't know we did it. There is no monetary reward that can compare with the blessings God gives when we give to others what He so richly gives to us. And the blessings He gives bring peace, joy, and happiness that money couldn't buy, no matter how much we might have.

But let me clarify. God does not want His people to merely walk around talking about Him and His Graciousness, though that IS a big part of the deal. He wants us to give of ourselves, living as much like Christ as we are able. And He, after all, did many wonderful things for many people no more deserving (that is to say, not deserving at all) than we are.

I think if we all felt that way about the abilities we have, even if we didn't attribute them to God, we'd still be a better nation, just for caring and sharing.

It ain't all about the money. Sometimes it's about giving ME!

Are you responding to innovation? It looked like a your response was a self aggrandizing diatribe of your religious contributions to those less fortunate than yourself.

We've drifted off topic I think largely out a desire to continue a meeting of minds that originally gathered to address the OP topic but ran out of useful inputs to the question at hand. So we drift into philosophical discusssions only barely related to the topic but quite entertaining to present company.

So please either join the current grandchild of the topic or better still drag us back to the original topic even if your thoughts on the subject are similar to those already expressed.

Ed Weldon

Self-aggrandizing? You miss the point. It has nothing to do with religious contributions, or those less fortunate. Read back a few posts to the conversation about community.

And re-read what I said. I've been blessed. I hope others have. Why does any statement that includes God so offend so many. Gaia certainly seems acceptable, as does Mother Earth. I happen to believe my blessings come from God.

Sorry for you. You take offense at strange things, and leave others without issue.

And yes, I know Gaia and Mother Earth have not been mentioned in this thread. I challenge you to show one place where they were that you launched an attack on the person making mention.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

Hi Mica,

Stop to argue with others and hold up to impose your view on everything. First, you have to understand that your preferred or not liked president is there in commending place because corporations wanted him there in that position. Second, your vote doesn't count.

Now, concerning innovation, the government can do very little about it. Individuals and circumstances develop inventions that turned into innovations if the time is good and there are customers for it. What's interesting and capturing interests of people? Practically nothing at home or at work. Except when something happens somewhere. The reaction is stimulating and direct to inventions and innovations. Words, encouragemnets and other wordings aren't really provoke people's minds to do something exceptional, genial or extraordinary? I don't think so. Check out your children's innovative action. Deceiving, isn't it?

Schools and other institutions never created genius people, these places educate people. It require personal motivation and will to do something exceptional or big.

Who drives innovation? Creative people who can supply something to many customers. When someone can follow the road: SELL, DESIGN, and BUILD, and only in that order, there is possibilities to innovate, so people do, Gil.

NB: What and how did Edison, one of the biggest innovators? His actions explain clearly what and how to do to innovate but need to be convincing as Edison was.

The phenomena that drives this discussion off topic is the same thing that destroys the conditions for innovation. It is also the same thing that leads many people to focus on issues other than causes to effects.

When there is so much information that no one can digest it, it is difficult to know what to believe. When people don't believe anything, they can be enraged into believing anything. Rage - silent and seething or overt - reduces our willingness to question our own judgment.

Rage drives us to irrationally seek to judge and blame, instead of be accountable and seek to build general accountability. The irrational (who can not see themselves that way) say to themselves that others have no limits (without evidence to support this unspoken assumption) therefore they are justified to act without limits to not be unfairly overwhelmed by the opposition that they see as almost demonic.

When we fail to take responsibility, we are no longer interested in accountability as the thing that keeps us honest and responsible. Without accountability, one is unrestrained from making any kind of unproven assertion against anyone else that feels one is justified. Without limits, and without rational guidance, any notion of guilt becomes true and punishable.

It is the wealthy at fault. It is the dope smoking free lovers. it is the government. It is the poor. It is big corporations. It is the US. It is Canada. Ad nauseum nonsense.

Many have said here that when we are no longer in sufficiently small groups that can rein in our members by social and other coercion, accountability disappears, social order breaks down and productivity, efficient commerce - such as health care, and innovation all suffer.

One needs not invoke any villain other than the one looking back at us in the mirror.

Micah02, you seem to be turning a bit rabid. (somewhat understandably)

Imho, I would consider it a fundamental law of nature that governments expand in power and scope to fill the amount of citizen tolerance available, until such time as...

Governments are makers of laws, like spiders are makers of webs. You really can't fault them for what they do. The problem is that governments like this have no natural predators other than larger governments or smarter organizations (ie, the military, the central bankers, etc.)

Citizens permit and enable government growth, especially in times of strife, and also by pretending that it is okay to have the money supply controlled by outsiders.

If and when the time comes to have a revolution, I hope that those citizen-revolutionaries will understand how important it is to control their own money. it is the key to controlling the government.

It is this function of the american congress that has fallen short of its purpose. the power to control government through controlling spending has been lost, for whatever reasons.

I think that both the military and the central bankers have Obama (and all presidents), the congress, senate, and the people, by the balls. Subsequently, it is going to hurt a lot to rip free, and regain some clarity.

Chris

Chris:

I agree with you on every point, with the exception that I don't think the military, per se, is the culprit you might suspect. I don't doubt the Presidents in the US have been afraid of what the Joint Chiefs, or even the Sec Def might TELL them they should fear, but I doubt that the rank and file of the military, or indeed MOST of the military leadership, all the way to one step below the Joint Chiefs would be willing to depose our President, except in extremes of event we have not seen in over 200 years. He is, after all, OUR (I speak as a former US Sailor, but I believe I speak for the vast majority of our military men and women, of all ranks) Commander in Chief. As such, if we were ordered by our commanders to revolt against him, or against his office, our commanders would have grave reason to fear.

As such, I doubt he has any reason for a rational fear of the military.

Business and all the wickedness it could buy would be another matter entirely. In fact, if I were him, regardless of who he was (i.e., Mr. Obama is not alone in this, nor does it only apply to Democrats, or Republicans) I would be worried about both industry and the Houses of Congress. There appear to me to be too many completely amoral and self-centered people of no scruples in both of those camps.

Rabid? Possibly. Certainly VERY Jaundiced. And very tired of being told I MUST pay for the folly of people proclaimed to be wiser than any of us, but patently far more foolish than we, collectively, can ever be, and survive.

I didn't like the man when we elected him. Nothing has happened to change that. Nothing!!

micahd02,

I have no problem at all with the rank and file soldiers. that isn't the problem.

I think the size of military spending, and the fact that it is so easily removed from the list of large cuts to be made, says it all. somewhere there... is a most fearsome beast whose hunger will not be satisfied.

Chris

Just an economics point or two;

Borrowing is 'creation of credit' which is a fundamental of enabling 'growth'

The vast majority of US military spending is spent in America - it makes 'vast jobs'.

Perhaps the thing to focus on if you can't get past 'government' - is sorting the 'purchasing system' so Gov less expensive to deal with - Gov then will get 'better value' for its/your, dollar.

If anything is at the heart of this crisis it is reliance on a stock market un-linked to investment fundamental values, just speculating on 'share price'.

The false values created may look like 'creating credit' - but it is 'un-backed currency', unrelated to the value of the redeemable assets.

However it has nothing to do with 'driving innovation'.

facilitiesmgr -- Seems to me that most of the regulations that you are complaining about predate the current administration. I think your rant ought to be against government in general and the "preserve my safe little cocoon" mentality of America in particular rather than the current executive.

Yes, the health care bill had plenty of big brotherish features. But I suspect your complaints ring a bit hollow in the ears of someone who has just lost or can't obtain even some coverage against the wildly increasing costs of health care. Professional health care in the USA before the changes was a lottery for anyone in the lower 80 or 85% of the economic strata and not lucky enough to have a permanent entitlement like Medicare. At any time you could become a loser through no fault of your own. Obama tried to change that. If you are in the favored group there's not much to worry about and it's easy to rail against changes in the statue quo. That and following the advise of the vast bulk of professional economists are his major accomplishments.

You say "the fundamental things like capitalism, free enterprise, personal responsibility, accountability of each individual and freedom, don't need to change." I agree. I don't see a lot of movement in the direction of changing those fundamentals other than reining in the innovations of the Wall Street investment banks and trimming the profits of some health care providers who continue to gouge sick Americans. This one is deeply Which we're still waiting to see actually happen.

The real fundamental American value all of us, Obama included, are trying to change is the belief that it is good to spend more than we earn, continue ad infinitem to borrow the difference from someone else and forever try to get something for nothing; anyone whose name we don't know be dammed.

You want Americans to be innovative? Let's start giving them a reason to innovate. There is precious little of that and too much "don't rock the boat" these days. And too many dilettantes trying to invent tooth fairies that will save us all.

You want to turn us back into the world technology leader? Figure out how to put the whole country back to work and more willing to invest our earnings and time for the long term rather than spend for frivolous immediate gratification. Figure out how to put aside the partisan nonsense that divides us and start to work together toward common goals. Figure out how to get more of us to come out of our little safety cocoons and accept some constructive risks. And, by the way, lets get real about education, train our kids for real life and quit looking for gimmicks and ever more ways to turn the schools into agents for solving all of society's ills. Build that and the innovation will come.

Ed Weldon

1. The Health Insurance Reform Bill did absolutely nothing to address the excessive cost of health care- in fact, mandating universal insurance coverage will most likely INCREASE the cost of healthcare. Why? Because insurance companies make their profit by adding a percentage to the cost- and therefore they are motivated to support higher costs across the board. One should be looking at the actual cost of providing healthcare (i.e., liability insurance costs for providers, conflict of interest when doctors own the labs or equipment that are fed by their orders for unnecessary tests, etc.).

2. "Fundamental things like capitalism, free enterprise, personal responsibility, accountability, freedom..." While the erosion of our fundamental rights have been going on far longer than the present administration (Socialism has been on the ascendancy since FDR, the government has been taking over the private sector at least since the 1950's when they "rescued" the railroads, freedom has been threatened since we lost the War for States Rights (9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution, the last of the Bill of Rights) but the process has been accelerating recently with things like RICO and Homeland Security, courts allowing people to sue McDonalds when they spill coffee on their laps while trying to drive a car...), the present administration is doing absolutely nothing to reverse this trend, or to even acknowledge that these trends need addressing...

3. The real problem, as you so rightly point out, is that we have been pretending for too long that we are richer than we really are- private citizens and government alike. Don't expect the government to do much to change Wall Street- Wall Street is key to coming up with new ways to extend the illusion of unlimited wealth, and the government benefits because they have more paper wealth to tax...

The point of view in the quote "Figure out how to put aside the partisan nonsense that divides us and start to work together toward common goals. Figure out how to get more of us to come out of our little safety cocoons and accept some constructive risks. And, by the way, lets get real about education, train our kids for real life and quit looking for gimmicks and ever more ways to turn the schools into agents for solving all of society's ills." represents goals unfulfilled in the history of humanity.

Practical ideas to successfully drive innovation can only come by recognising the way things are and the way humans are. We do not put aside partisan nonsense. The number of times have we have managed any of those lofty things is so not commonly human that we all recognise such events as exceptional .

History shows us what is possible, and what always happens among us - regardless of the same kind of "positive thinking" that has also occurred from our very beginnings. Only the most arrogant among us believe they are the first to think we can be better, or that they are the beginning of some kind of advanced evolution that remains utterly without evidence of existence.

Large unaccountable organisations cannot reliably promote innovation. Small accountable, well funded and motivated organisations occasionally innovate. There are no guarantees about innovation in the best of circumstances, and government seldom qualifies.

"The real fundamental American value all of us, Obama included, are trying to change is the belief that it is good to spend more than we earn, continue ad infinitem to borrow the difference from someone else and forever try to get something for nothing"

REALLY?

Too late. Ed drank the Koolaid.

I have been following this for some time now. It doesn't look good. If all had your your attitude it would end in civil war. Do you really want that?

Show a bit more patience and think about what Obama inherited. I am too far away to get into the detail but screaming at the top of ones voice has never helped nobody.

Who drives innovation? I do, Ky.

I think you accidentally pressed the OT button. Or maybe it was someone else?

Anyway, anyone wanting to jump on the bandwagon will have to pull their own weight. Not that I don't like passengers but they can hinder progress, in some way. Driving innovation or an invention is a multi faceted exercise and only total commitment can bring you to were you want this to go.

Keeping the government out of the process is advised. If the product is good and the prospects of placing it on the market are realistic then strategic alliances can be formed and the next steps need not be as risky. Strength in numbers. Nobody wants to lose money so preparation is imperative. And then more preparation and then a bit.

The quality and need for the product rules the roost.

Its a lonely place sometimes, Ky.

Nope not me. There were two off topic scores when I punched in GA. As a rule I never use the off topic button. It should be considered rude to use this just because you don't agree with the poster. I think all answers are acceptable since the poster thinks it is acceptable. Perhaps they should have an "off topic", "agree", and "disagree" buttons. it would be more reflective of what people think of that answer.

You are of course correct in everyone pulling their own weight. The problem is that some people are incapable of pulling (mental or physical handicap) and the general population in any civilized society needs to support these people. Yes there are always the fakers who are handicapped morally or self inflicted by addiction. Weed out the fakers and help the addicted to at least push the car. Pissing contests will never solve anything, but they do give relief.

Who will "weed out the fakers"? Who will judge who they are? You? Will you stop me from being charitable? Will you have others decide that for me?

Thinking through the mechanics of how these lofty ambitions become reality should bring realistic expectations of government and society. That thinking generally does not occur, and neither do those in government become magically imbued with the wisdom of Soloman.

Innovation, like justice, is a moving target among humans.

I live in Canada where health care is a given right to all citizens. It is the same as most western democracies. It is no different than using tax money to educate it citizens. There is a gain to the state in having a "healthy" and "educated" population. There are private schools and private health clinics (albeit limited in scope) that people can still use if they can afford it. All citizens pay for it through taxation. And I would guess that more than 95% of Canadians participate in public health and education exclusively. I top my own health care provided by the government with some private insurance to cover private rooms in hospitals, vision, and dental. When I was working, I also carried loss work insurance to maintain a family income. For most Canadians we will not lose our personal equity if we get struck by catastrophic health needs. The standard of health care is very good. I ought to know from my own personal experience. Your health care costs are much too high v benefit. The question is why?

As a retired business owner, I was provided a very good edge in competition by not having to buy health care. The exception is the private supplemental health care but is a pittance compared to general health care costs. This action by most western countries places USA at a disadvantage in a global competitive market. As I said in another post, the west needs USA to succeed to maintain its lead over emerging economies. Our corporate tax is lower but we do have sales taxes. When it was first implemented, the political party that installed it was thrashed in the next election.

Many if not most posters in this thread may have the capability to support themselves and are not worried. With the cost off health care so high, I do hope they a right. It is my understanding that something approaching 50 million Americans are without health care. Other countries don't consider their lot as a "nanny state" because they receive so called free health care. There definitely is a price and it is paid for through taxation. As unfair as that seems to the people who can afford private health care, no one goes broke over hospital bills and even the most blatant of fakers is still cared for under the health care plans.This lack of health care stops most Canadians from being "wetbacks" across the St.Lawrence River. In fact, close to where I live there are several expat American families who moved because of a catastrophic health issue with a member of their family. A reverse "wetback" if you will.

You will never be stopped from being charitable and in fact are lauded for such action. Innovation in fixing your health care system, the most expensive in the world, needs serious attention. Check these facts for yourself. It would seem you are spending nearly twice as much, are not getting good outcomes, and still leave a significant portion of your population behind.

I apologize for my rant but it is aimed at a callous attitude towards your fellow American who may be less fortunate. Believe me, I have many American relatives and have heard both sides of the story. Turkey dinners are served with a good portion of crow and humble pie. Americans are among the most generous people in the world. They are most often the first (sometimes the only) responder to many world disasters (Haiti earthquake, Samoa tsunami, etc). Americans are also the country with one of the highest levels of educated population, provide most of the world's technology innovation (9 out of the top 10 technology innovative companies in the world are American. Only the emerging Chinese giant Huawei Technologies is included in the list for 2010.) , enjoy a high standard of living. So in response to the thread it should be realized that Americans already out innovate most countries or should I say all countries. America has the capacity and capability to look after all its citizens is a manner so that they will not lose everything in catastrophic personal times. Yeah it will take a mindset to change but knowing what is important to an individual's welfare is also important. What can be saved in the existing health system, seems to be enough to help create a balanced budget and allow companies and individuals to innovate. Innovation can be helped by federal grants or taxation relief. I have used taxation relief to develop several innovative technologies we used in water treatment. The lone wolf innovator is rare because it cost too damn much and besides most people need a wage to live.

I am a very conservative person and vote that way in my own country. From my house, I can throw a rock and it will literally land in USA waters . I visit and shop quite often across the border (especially now that our dollar has strengthened). I purchase special travel insurance as our public funded health care is far less costly and will only reimburse based on Canadian cost.

There may be people without Health insurance, but there is no one with out health care. Anyone can use , say in Los Angeles, where I am, the County health care system, and it is free. Millions of illegal immigrants from all over the world use this system. We have a place near San Diego, called Taco Towers, in which wealthy Mexicans (and I am sure, other races), come with their pregnant women, legally or illegally, stay, have their children on US soil, in order to procure citizenship for the child, then skeedadle back across the border. Does Canada award citizenship to anyone born there? I don't know. It is this type of abuse that is driving costs, also, in our healthcare system. If you are visiting , have an accident, you can go to an Emergency clinic, and get handled, as they cannot turn you away. I agree there is lots of room for improvement, but don't burn the house down because the front door is off the hinges. Insurance companies are barred from selling across State lines, which reduces competition, whereas I can buy car insurance across the same lines. We have had to shut down so many hospitals in L.A. area because of the illegal abuse of the system. How can you be responsible for the LEGAL citizens, that pay taxes for the right to their own county system, when so many abuse the right to the system, by not paying INTO the system. Mexicans alone, remit THIRTY BILLION DOLLARS a year , back to Mexico, to their families, yet will not put anything back into the system that treats them. BTW--I have heard that for every Doctor that flees the U.S. to Canada, 400 come the other way. I would like to see the stat. That will be the real stat for me. What do the Doctors feel about their own system. I personally have 2 friends that have moved out of Canada, as they have gotten older, to be closer to the US health care system, as the waits for tests and procedures became, for them , unbearable. If Canada had Mexico, and all of Latin America at it's Southern border, and offered free citizenship to all who were born there, legally in the country or not, I would like to see how any years the system would continue to operate at the same level.. Just me and my thoughts..(We have 3 Doctors in our family)

I was discussing innovation - pointing out that moralizing will never create the conditions for it.

When the first refuge of a litigant is to characterize the other litigant, the second knows the first has no argument. When the argument is for recreation, it is therefore pointless.

I take strong issue with the comment that says, "I live in Canada where health care is a given right to all citizens." Not the "I live in Canada" part, I lived in Canada when I was much younger, and enjoyed my time thoroughly. I mean the "health care is a right" comment. Health care paid for by the government is not a right any more than there is a "right" that I should have 2 new cars, food in the fridge, 40 acres and a John Deere tractor. The rights that our legal citizens should have is what is stated in the Constitution. Health care, education, a job, where I live, etc. is not the responsibility of a government. It is my responsibility and mine alone! The government is simply to help provide an orderly society, basically, in which I can pursue those things as I work interdependently with other citizens to pursue our stated rights in the Constitution.

That isn't to say that there shouldn't be some sort of safety net for those who may get caught without some basics of life for a short period of time, there should be. The difference between a safety net and a program that people get on for the rest of their lives is the duration of help.

If the government is doing only what it is supposed to do and helps to set the stage for the development of commerce without a lot of needless interference, people will have jobs to work at and businesses to start, which in turn creates even more jobs. We here in the U.S. have what it takes to again be the driving force of industry and commerce, if we are allowed to do it and have the financial motivation to do so with less taxes and regulation. I just heard Obama say that we have the best environment for businesses to work in. That's a bunch of horse doo doo. We have, I think, the highest corporate tax rates in the world. How willing would you be to start, or continue for that matter, a business here in the states if you know that you're going to be heavily penalized for working hard, risking money and effort?

We have in the past been hugely innovative and have been a dominate force in the world, able to step up and help in those catastrophic times mentioned in your post. The problem is, if you don't have a vibrant commerce and motivated citizens you don't have the capacity to respond with (without going further in debt to help generously). Chris Brady said "our blessing isn't given to us for our privilege, but for our purpose, and that purpose always involves the service of others." We have been blessed and a number of our early Presidents saw the destiny of our United States as being an asset to the world. They were right! Let's return to what has made us great. It wasn't a big government, it was good people, in and out of government.

Ky:

Do you understand what "don't drink the koolaid" refers to? Jim Jones slaughtered his followers in Ghana, when he lead them in a ritual suicide of The People's Temple, after a few of his thugs murdered a US Congressman.

His followers "drank the koolaid", blindly committing suicide to escape a judgment which was NOT coming on them, but which he proclaimed would come on them, because of His actions.

Drinking the koolaid refers to blind acceptance of a leaders edict without rational consideration of the effects on oneself.

Perhaps, now that I've explained the reference, you'll explain how that in any way relates to a civil war. Last I heard, speech was still free, and opinion unfettered (more or less, at least) in your country, also.

It certainly is so in the US. Still. And hopefully forever.

All our other American values are not going to be worth a hoot if we don't fix this one. If America collapses financially because of this sacred cow it's going to be very hard to put it all back together again. Those of you who are strong and lucky will probably survive the crash; but the American values (" fundamental things like capitalism, free enterprise, personal responsibility, accountability of each individual and freedom") probably won't be enough to put reassemble the USA of our memories. We are rapidly weakening and dividing ourselves into an impotence that the wolves of this world will be salivating over.........Ed Weldon

Ed, Obama put us more into debt than we have ever been, and daily wants to increase the debt. It is your inclusion of him in the ranks of us who want to stop the wanton spending that incurred my incredulity.

I apologize for not making that clearer. But not for feeling that your stated support of him and his efforts to "fix this one" is beyond ludicrous. His efforts have been toward miring us deeper in debt, and spending more than we can ever make. Please, when the fiscal responsibility awards are given out, don't waste time looking for one for him. He spent it already.

micah -- Let's see your numbers on the amount the debt has increased due to Obama's administration. And if possible describe the categories of that debt perhaps in the manner in which I described the 2011 budget in a recent reply.

Ed Weldon

Micah -- please read my reply #66 and its rough analysis of the 2011 federal budget numbers.

And just to set the story straight I and my wife are getting along on Social Security and a small pension and are reasonably happy with Medicare especially in view of what we're paying for it. This is largely due to some prudent building of our IRA and equity in our home. But we could live comfortably on significantly less. I would just spend less on toys other optional stuff.

So I would willingly sacrifice a sizeable piece of our Social Security monthly payments as well as pay a lot more for Medicare, all to the tune of around 1/3 of our annual income from these sources. That is what it is going to take as a minimum to just break even on that part of the federal budget if those of us with the means would join. And that respects what the tea partiers will be able to hack away from the existing appropriated budget. Also I'm willing to pay some income taxes ( I don't now) as well as a modest national sales tax. To me this is literally about saving the Republic. But I'm not going to hold my breath on this one. I think self interest will eventually carry the day and the healthy, wealthy scavengers will have their way with what remains after the collapse and dismemberment of the United States into its respective polarized factions.

I don't drink the stuff offered by the "loyal opposition". 'Cause that's where the Koolaid is coming from. And that's what the American public seems to want these days if the bulk of the media reporting is any indication. Not that I agree with the rioting overcompensated school teachers in Wisconsin. They are just like everyone else grabbing for their piece of the dying leviathan. Seems to be little I can do about it sitting here somewhere in no man's land where all the shrapnel is falling.

Call me a pessimist if you like. I prefer the word "realist".

Ed Weldon

"You want to turn us back into the world technology leader? Figure out how to put the whole country back to work and more willing to invest our earnings and time for the long term rather than spend for frivolous immediate gratification. Figure out how to put aside the partisan nonsense that divides us and start to work together toward common goals. Figure out how to get more of us to come out of our little safety cocoons and accept some constructive risks."

The reason there are 2 or more parties is that there basically divergant philosophies about the role of government. There isn't nearly as much difference between the 2 major parties as I would like to see, because the Republicans are many times just as bad as the Democrats in promoting their own agendas as the expense of the rest of us who fund all of their shenanigans.

If you want to put people back to work get government stranglehold regulations out of the way, cut tax rates for everybody who pays taxes, etc. and you would see an economy grow greatly. Real unemployment is currently about 18% or so, and worse in some parts of the country, because we have a government run amok with programs and spending (Obama's budget with a $1,300,000,000+ deficit in 2011) that provides little value to the environment of free enterprise and capitalism, which is where the jobs are created. You and I can't operate our households like this, why do these idiots on both side of the aisle think they can? This administration and the associated cronies who support big government as a nanny for all its citizens and non-citizens alike, have accumulated more debt in about 2 years than all other administrations from George Washington until 2 years ago put together.

And our economy, continuing to be in the toilet is a result of an obese, out-of-control government. There are more government employees now than in our history. That is a travesty, because the government doesn't produce anything. It just sucks off the tit of its' citizenry. That "tit" is no longer to be sucked on by the government-as-usual crowd and is starting to do something about it. Hence, the results of the last election where there was the greatest change of leadership, and I use that term very vaguely, in our history. Repulicans and Democrats alike who wanted to continue operating out of an empty piggy bank found out their constiuents aren't as stupid as they thought.

If you want to have people willing to "come out of our little safety cocoons and accept some constructive risks" you do that by helping re-create the environment where the fundamentals talked about on an earlier post can be utilized and embellished. Free enterprise principles do just that, they encourage people to strive and risk on their own, without the handout of a government, or its intrusion.

facilitiesmgr -- I have no important quarrel with what you say except for this statement: "(Obama's budget with a $1,300,000,000+ deficit in 2011)"

This is just a bit misleading. I went and looked up the summary tables for the 2011 budget projections on this page:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

Print it out. You'd think some bureaucrat figured nobody would read it if they had to bend their neck to read it on the computer screen. I set the page size of the .pdf so that just the first 2 or 3 years numbers along with the row and column headings would show on the computer screen. Then I individually printed from the Summary tables the first page of S-1, S-2, S-3, S-10, S-11 and S-13 as well as the second page of S-11 using the "current view" setting under the pdf print command.

Table S-3 shows Appropriated programs at $1,386 billion for 2011. This is the stuff the administration asks for. Table S-11 breaks it down roughly by government agency.

Table S-3 also breaks out the Mandatory programs at $2,177 billion derived from legislation including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and a big lump of "Other mandatory programs.

Next are the total interest payments at $213 billion

Then it lists receipts which for the purpose of making my point I'll divide into $746 billion Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes and all the other receipts; income taxes at $1,154 billion and estate, gift and excise taxes; duties, and Federal reserve earnings at $213 billion.

The point I would make is that all the taxes except Social Security and Medicare are roughly equal to the Appropriated program projected expenditures at about 1.4 trillion. I think this is a reasonable balance for the administration's "household" budget.

The real disparity is between the Mandatory programs and the taxes that directly support them. That's where your roughly 1.3 trillion deficit (or actually 1.597 trillion if you include the interest) is sitting. Another way of looking at it is that the deficit is roughly equal to the sum of all appropriated programs which include defense and the "Overseas Contingency Programs (Afghanistan and Iraq).

Yet another way to look at it is the tax, etc. receipts are about equal to the mandatory program payments leaving unfunded virtually the entire remainder of the government. That's every Cabinet department plus the White house, Congress and the Supreme Court. Picture each of the top officials of the government with his own little chair and blackberry in a couple of mobile homes on the Whitehouse lawn. There's a jar by each door where everyone can drop cash to pay for the utilities, coffee and toilet paper. Too bad there's no money to heat any of those rotting stone monuments. (does this sound like a Tea Party dream or what?)

It saddens me that the country is focusing on appropriations which balance receipts when the real gorilla in the room is in the mandatory stuff. But almost to an individual the Congress people will tell you that the American people don't want any of those mandatory entitlements touched. That is the real third rail of American politics this year. Maybe that will change next year. I don't know. Until this year's Washington farce runs it's course very little material improvement in our budget situation will occur. The problem is the mandatory entitlements. No elected official has the guts to deal with that yet. But that's where the bulk of the reality is sitting.

With a GDP forecast or 15 trillion, tax receipts of 2.2 trillion, and a deficit of 1.6 trillion it is going to take a whole bunch of innovation and economic growth to balance the budget with no new taxes. Somehow the American public is going to have to fill and/or reduce the gap.

Ed Weldon

solid data Ed ga.

Ed,

You criticize those in Congress for not addressing the entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) and rightfully so (although at this time in this particular session of congress there is a good reason not to).

You fail to include Obama in your criticism. Where in Obama's budget are any cuts to those sacred programs? What is his plan to address them? The only thing I've read regarding Obama's long term plan for those programs is to increase taxes to allow the programs to continue as they are.

To explain what I meant above by there being a good reason for congress not to tackle entitlement reform during this session of Congress I offer this:

• There needs to be agreement in the House and Senate and also with the president if the majority in Congress is not overwhelming to pass legislation reforming entitlements
• Currently this configuration does not exist
• To put forth meaningful reform may be foolish prior to the next election. Any talk of changing benefits (even if the changes have no effect on current recipients) will surely be used against Obama's opponents resulting in reelection of Obama and other's who stand in the way of reform.
• Best plan of action to accomplish the true goal of entitlement reform:
• is to be fiscally responsible with everything else,
• shore up majorities in both the House and Senate
• get an fiscal conservative in the White House