Oooooohhhh yeeaaahhh: people were Mad As Hell about stuff they can't understand because they don't read, and they voted blindly to kick out whoever they could. Turns out it's a big surprise to these voters that a lot of the newly elected were running on a platform of spending cuts.
Released today, we have this bit of news that clarifies that wanting things different rarely means you actually want things to change:
"A new national poll suggests that cuts in federal spending are likely to be hard to sell to the American public, even though the desire for less spending on domestic programs is significantly higher than it was during the Reagan and Clinton years.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday, the number of Americans who want more government spending on domestic programs equals the number who want the government to spend less. Overall, 49 percent say the federal government should spend MORE money for domestic programs; that figure is up 17 percentage points since 1994. Another 49 percent saying less should be spent on domestic programs."
Honestly, it's sometimes hard to actually feel sympathy for the people who keep signing themselves up to be screwed because they are too lazy to learn about how the world actually works. Meanwhile China and India are catching up to us in R&D, education and technology initiatives. Once that tipping point is crossed, there will be no going back. Think about what the effect was when Japan largely caught up to us in the 70's and 80's, and then multiply times ten (on the low end). We keep screaming about all our Rights, small government, and a dozen useless distractions, and they will be laughing all the way to the bank.
For a little insight for you Readers out there, check out this article from The Economist about the shift in science and R&D to emerging economies. It's not too late to change, but with more and more politicians claiming that "science" is just something you pick and choose to "believe" it's looking good. 
http://www.economist.com/node/17460678
Oooooohhhh yeeaaahhh: people were Mad As Hell about stuff they can't understand because they don't read, and they voted blindly to kick out whoever they could. Turns out it's a big surprise to these voters that a lot of the newly elected were running on a platform of spending cuts.
Released today, we have this bit of news that clarifies that wanting things different rarely means you actually want things to change:
"A new national poll suggests that cuts in federal spending are likely to be hard to sell to the American public, even though the desire for less spending on domestic programs is significantly higher than it was during the Reagan and Clinton years.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday, the number of Americans who want more government spending on domestic programs equals the number who want the government to spend less. Overall, 49 percent say the federal government should spend MORE money for domestic programs; that figure is up 17 percentage points since 1994. Another 49 percent saying less should be spent on domestic programs."
Honestly, it's sometimes hard to actually feel sympathy for the people who keep signing themselves up to be screwed because they are too lazy to learn about how the world actually works. Meanwhile China and India are catching up to us in R&D, education and technology initiatives. Once that tipping point is crossed, there will be no going back. Think about what the effect was when Japan largely caught up to us in the 70's and 80's, and then multiply times ten (on the low end). We keep screaming about all our Rights, small government, and a dozen useless distractions, and they will be laughing all the way to the bank.
For a little insight for you Readers out there, check out this article from The Economist about the shift in science and R&D to emerging economies. It's not too late to change, but with more and more politicians claiming that "science" is just something you pick and choose to "believe" it's looking good.
http://www.economist.com/node/17460678