Obama: US needs better math, science education

Feb 19, 2011 By ERICA WERNER , Associated Press
President Barack Obama speaks at the Intel Corporation, Friday, Feb. 18, 2011, in Hillsboro, Ore. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

(AP) -- President Barack Obama says improving math and science education is essential to helping the U.S. compete globally, and he wants the private sector to get involved in making it happen.

Obama recorded his weekly radio and Internet address during a visit this past week to Corp. outside of Portland, Ore. He praised the company for making a 10-year, $200 million commitment to promote math and - and held it up as an example of how corporate America can make money at the same time it builds the country.

"Companies like Intel are proving that we can compete - that instead of just being a nation that buys what's made overseas, we can make things in America and sell them around the globe," Obama said. "Winning this competition depends on the ingenuity and creativity of our private sector. . But it's also going to depend on what we do as a nation to make America the best place on earth to do business."

Obama's West Coast swing, which also included a dinner with big names in California's , was part of his push to promote a budget proposal that increases spending on education, research and development and high-speed Internet, while cutting other areas. Republicans newly in control of the House are pushing much deeper cuts and resisting new spending.

The GOP is also taking Obama to task for avoiding significant changes to the biggest budget busters: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

In the Republicans' weekly radio address, Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., trumpeted the GOP's push to cut $60 billion from the current fiscal year budget and promised a 2012 budget proposal that, unlike Obama's, offers "real entitlement reform."

"Our reforms will focus both on saving these programs for current and future generations of Americans and on getting our debt under control and our economy growing," Price said. "By taking critical steps forward now, we can fulfill the mission of health and retirement security for all Americans without making changes for those in or near retirement."

Explore further: Best of Last Week – First map of hidden universe, pursuit of compact fusion and new clues about the causes of depression

3 /5 (1 vote)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Obama set to tour Intel plant as he pushes agenda

Feb 18, 2011

(AP) -- President Barack Obama is promoting his job-creation agenda at Intel Corp., the Silicon Valley giant known for its processors and a commitment to math and science education.

Intel chief to join White House council on jobs

Feb 18, 2011

(AP) -- Casting about for innovative job-creation ideas, President Barack Obama is naming one of his critics to an advisory council responsible for finding new ways to promote economic growth and bring jobs ...

Obama: Government, business help shape US future

Feb 06, 2011

(AP) -- President Barack Obama says the American government has a responsibility to make the U.S. the best place in the world to do business, but companies have a responsibility to invest in the nation's ...

Obama promotes clean energy; GOP hits Dem spending

Oct 02, 2010

(AP) -- Wind, solar and other clean energy technologies produce jobs and are essential for the country's environment and economy, President Barack Obama said in promoting his administration's efforts.

Obama: Five-year freeze on NASA budget

Feb 14, 2011

President Barack Obama on Monday proposed reining in expenses at NASA, sending a 2012 budget blueprint to Congress that calls for a five-year freeze on spending levels at the US space agency.

Republicans could scale back US science budgets

Nov 10, 2010

Budgets for scientific research in the United States could be scaled back with the return of a Republican-majority in Congress as conservatives aim to slash spending to reduce the ballooning deficit.

Recommended for you

Color and texture matter most when it comes to tomatoes

2 hours ago

A new study in the Journal of Food Science, published by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), evaluated consumers' choice in fresh tomato selection and revealed which characteristics make the red fruit most appealing.

How the lotus got its own administration

6 hours ago

Actually the lotus is a very ordinary plant. Nevertheless, during the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) a complex bureaucratic structure was built up around this plant. The lotus was part of the Imperial Household, ...

What labels on textiles can tell us about society

7 hours ago

Throughout Chinese history, dynastic states used labels on textiles to spread information on the maker, the commissioner, the owner or the date and site of production. Silks produced in state-owned manufacture ...

US company sells out of Ebola toys

Oct 17, 2014

They might look tasteless, but satisfied customers dub them cute and adorable. Ebola-themed toys have proved such a hit that one US-based company has sold out.

User comments : 43

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1.1 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2011
Ignorance of math and science did not anoint Obowma, ignorance of history, civics and comparative cultures did.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2011
Nobama is the anti-Christ. Everything he says is a Liberal lie.

Defund Government. Defund it all.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2011
What Osa...er...Obama failed to mention was that Intel's new fab facility is only "creating" 5000 jobs (which is to say, contractors will allocate 5000 existing employees,) and most of these "jobs" are just that "jobs", not careers. When the construction projects are done, there will be no "work" to do. And when the development tools are installed, most of the workers will be laid off. This facility is going to be the most advanced manufacturing facility in the world.

Do you think they're going to have 5000 employees walking around in there doing "work"? Heck no.

It's going to be almost fully automated nano-assembly and lithography.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2011
Who are STEM graduates going to work for?
semmsterr
3.8 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2011
Please lord, keep this generation of Republicans out of the White House, amen.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2011
Please lord, keep this generation of Republicans out of the White House, amen.

How will that help support creation of opportunities for businesses to create STEM jobs?
Or do you think the govt should hire all of them?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2011
Please lord, keep this generation of Republicans out of the White House, amen.

How will that help support creation of opportunities for businesses to create STEM jobs?
Or do you think the govt should hire all of them?

Past precedent shows more jobs are created under Democrats than Republicans since the 20's.

Besides that, we'll only have to root out corruption in one party as opposed to two.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2011
Past precedent shows more jobs are created under Democrats than Republicans since the 20's.

What past precedent?
Grallen
5 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2011
Education of math and science = People have the skills to create new technology.

If technological advancement is ignored, and Asia or Europe pulls ahead, the USA will become irrelevant in economy and politics.

I would back the plan, even if you don't back the man.

Well unless your a citizen of a foreign country that wants the USA to fail.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2011
People have the skills to create new technology.

But will they have the opportunity in the USA with excessive regulations and an anti-business policies?
Grallen
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2011
But will they have the opportunity in the USA with excessive regulations and an anti-business policies?


Almost every other country in the world can stricter regulation and policies. Why are you concerned about fairy tales? Are you a foreign power trying to screw the USA?

I highly recommend this article: "As US cuts back, China aims to be top at science" It's on physorg, but I can't link it directly.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2011
Past precedent shows more jobs are created under Democrats than Republicans since the 20's.
What past precedent?

Go pull up the Bureau of Labor and Statistics results by administration and correlate it. All the data is freely available. You do know how to do that, right?
But will they have the opportunity in the USA with excessive regulations and an anti-business policies?
Not if big business is allowed to not pay small business for services.

For example, Cisco just changed their pay policy to net 60, but if you get services from Cisco you have to pay net 15. Small businesses cannot survive like that. The greatest engine of job creation is small and medium business. The example above is one of many showing the number one opponent to job growth is unregulated big business.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2011
These stats do not support your claim:
http:/online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/JOBSHISTORY09.html
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2011
Go pull up the Bureau of Labor and Statistics results by administration
These stats do not support your claim:
http:/online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/JOBSHISTORY09.html

Did you even look at them? They perfectly exemplify my claim.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2011
Yeah ryggesogn2 and the other knuckle-dragger's. Go pull up the Bureau of Labor and Statistics results by administration and correlate it.

Oh, I'm sorry, it doesn't fit your brain washing formula.

POS.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2011
Go pull up the Bureau of Labor and Statistics results by administration
These stats do not support your claim:
http:/online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/JOBSHISTORY09.html

Did you even look at them? They perfectly exemplify my claim.

I looked. I don't see the correlation. Maybe you should take a closer look at the data.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2011
I looked. I don't see the correlation. Maybe you should take a closer look at the data.
You obviously didn't look at your own source, let alone the DoL stats.

Let us know when you learn how to read graphs in kindergarten.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2011
Analyzing the data here, http:/data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet,

The mean unemployment rate for all democrat administrations from 1948 to present is 6.06%.
The mean unemployment rate for all republican administrations from 1948 to present is 5.78%.

kaasinees
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2011
Funny... Intel buys equipment at ASML for high-tech chip production. :) Thats how we get our money, with knowledge.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2011
Further analysis of the unemployment rate data:
DD (D-Pres, D-Congress): 6.35%
RD (R-Pres, D-Congress): 5.82%
RR (R-Pres, R-Congress): 4.78%
DR (D-Pres, R-Congress): 4.48%

If you are concerned about employment, make sure you have a majority of republicans in Congress.

This is a significant result.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
From 1945 to 2008, during the 30 years in which the Democrats controlled the White House, 54.2 million jobs were created. In that same period, during the 36 years in which Republicans controlled the White House, 34.6 million jobs were created. President Clinton presided over the largest growth in new jobs in history. On average, Democrats increased the number of jobs in the market by 16.6%. Republicans increased the number of jobs by only 7.34%.

And if you want to blame Obama for the ~3 million jobs lost in the first two years of his term, then go ahead. And don't forget the Bush lost almost twice that many jobs during the last two years of his last term.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2011
Presidents don't create jobs, congress doesn't create jobs, private enterprise creates jobs. Congress can either beat them over the head or let them alone to do so, the President has precious little to do with the unemployment rate, most especially if he doesn't have a majority in congress...
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2011
the President has precious little to do with the unemployment rate, most especially if he doesn't have a majority in congress...
Then can you explain to me why the unemployment rate is always blamed on Obama, most notably by yourself on several occasions?

The p[roblem, as I said above, is that Big business stifles small business simply because they're alrge enough to do so. This prevents competition and innovation. Without the government providing protection for small businesses, the large ones will continue to "drink their milkshake".
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2011
Then can you explain to me why the unemployment rate is always blamed on Obama, most notably by yourself on several occasions?


As soon as you explain why you suggested we look at who was president when and correlate this with the unemployment rate...

The p[roblem, as I said above, is that Big business stifles small business simply because they're alrge enough to do so.


They collude with government to do so. They can't do this without the force of law.

This prevents competition and innovation. Without the government providing protection for small businesses, the large ones will continue to "drink their milkshake".


The government is who gives the tools to big business to drink those shakes. Without it they can't do it, or certainly can't do it as effectively.

But since you seem so concerned all the sudden with competition and innovation why not set up a government bureau to promote this...doesn't everything the government does turn to gold in your world?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
Big business stifles small business simply because they're alrge enough to do so.

Not unless they have the power of the state behind them. That's why the Chicago meat packers WANTED govt regulations, to limit their competitors.
Businesses today are not concerned about big corporate competitors, they complain about the high cost of govt regulations and fickle tax laws.
Time and again it has been demonstrated that large corporations become uncompetitive unless they have an internal culture that promotes innovation and competition.
So if SH is intentionally disregards this corporate truth, then his motivation must be to promote state power over the individual, socialism.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2011
Bull. Without the government, they can take over the little guys more effectively, because they don't have to go to the trouble of bribing congressmen to write laws favorable to them, or corrupting regulators into looking the other way when they violate regulations. With a powerful government, big business is forced to at least appear that they're playing by the rules. Without a powerful government, they get to make up the rules whenever and however it suits them, and nothing or nobody can stop them.

The federal government has more to do with private job creation than you might think.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2011
"The Republican plan to slash government spending by $61bn in 2011 could reduce US economic growth by 1.5 to 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters of the year, a Goldman Sachs economist has warned."
http:/www.cnbc.com/id/41753958
When has any Goldman Sachs economic prediction been proven to be accurate?

"In the latest example of former Obama supporters on Wall Street turning against the administration, Goldman Sachs has pledged more money to Republicans than to Democrats in this year's election cycle. It's the first time the firm has leaned Republican in at least 20 years."
http:/www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/10/goldman-sachs-political-contributions_n_712370.html

Too little to late?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2011
Without the government, they can take over the little guys more effectively,

How, if the 'little guy' doesn't want to be taken over?
There are a lot of 'little guys' who build up a small business niche and sell at a tidy profit to a 'big guy' because the 'big guy' can't innovate as quickly as the 'little guy' and the 'little guy' in not interested in running a big company.
Conversely, there are many 'little guys' who start out with 'big guys' and build a business that competes with their former company. TRW is one example and I am sure there are hundreds in all the various high tech fields.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2011
By buying out all his suppliers and undercutting prices with his consumers. And lending money at extortionist rates to both in order to ensure they're economically beholden indefinitely. And when critical mass with both those practices are reached, hiring thugs to kill and threaten anyone who challenges their dominance. Little guys can only take on big guys when they band together. Without government protection, little guys almost never have a chance to organize to take on the big guys.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2011
By buying out all his suppliers and undercutting prices with his consumers. And lending money at extortionist rates to both in order to ensure they're economically beholden indefinitely.

When has this been effective and when has the govt done anything to prevent these free market activities?
hiring thugs to kill and threaten anyone who challenges their dominance

This is what the govt does.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2011
"I would argue that three factors largely explain our collective failure: specialization, the difficulty of forecasting, and the disengagement of much of the profession from the real world."
http:/www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rajan14/English
Mises, Hayek and the Austrians base their theories upon the real world. Which is why their theories have been accurate.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2011
Mises, Hayek and the Austrians base their theories upon the real world. Which is why their theories have been accurate.
Like the theory that consumption should increase during economic hardship?

More lies from an uninformed Marjon.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2011
"Schiff was not the only Austrian to accurately predict the current recession. Congressman Ron Paul made virtually identical predictions."
"Here’s what Ron Paul predicted in 2003 about … the bubble that was growing through Fannie and Freddie and the banks: [Video clip] “Ironically, by transferring risk of a widespread credit default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When house prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty, their equity will be wiped out."
"It isn’t me (Paul) that makes these predictions, it’s the predictions made by good Austrian economists, people like Mises and Hayek and Rothbard and Sennholz. They taught us this, it’s available, and the young people especially are responding to this and studying this school of thought."
http:/www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/3323-austrian-economics-rising
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2011
Then can you explain to me why the unemployment rate is always blamed on Obama, most notably by yourself on several occasions?
'Blaming the economy on the president is like blaming Ronald McDonald when you get a bad hamburger.' -source?

"Humans have something "akin to brain damage," says Ritholtz. "To neurophysiologists, who research cognitive functions, the emotionally driven appear to suffer from cognitive deficits that mimic certain types of brain injuries. Anyone with an intense emotional interest in a subject loses the ability to observe it objectively: You selectively perceive events. You ignore data and facts that disagree with your main philosophy. Even your memory works to fool you, as you selectively retain what you believe in, and subtly mask any memories that might conflict." -Paul B Farrell Marketwatch article this week

-Anybody here identify with this? Come on, you know who you are.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2011
The federal government has more to do with private job creation than you might think.


Like what? Stifle the hell out of it? Yeah the do that...Republicans and Democrats alike. Their methods are totally different, and one does a "better" job at it than the other, but both parties are equally guilty of doing this.
Howhot
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2011
Politics 101; ryggesogn2. Nothing is as it sounds. Here is your quote of Ron Paul without diversionary intro;

"Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When house prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty, their equity will be wiped out."

Can we all say "Daaaahhh". Banks demanded of our government to loosen regulation on loans so that lending wasn't regulated. Your gov, agreed and very smart people made the financial instruments of doom. Enjoy the bubble.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2011
Banks demanded of our government to loosen regulation on loans so that lending wasn't regulated.

Quite false. It was the govt the demanded banks provide loans to 'undeserved' neighborhoods. It was called the Community Reinvestment Act.
Wachovia bragged about bundling and securitizing loans in order to spread the risk and to enable more people to 'invest' in real-estate. Recall this was 1997 just after the stock market crashed and investors wanted more investment options.
Not long ago, a bank in MA was warned by the govt (FDIC) that it did not have enough bad loans.
Economic mandates by the govt have unintended consequences. Just like every emergent system, like the earth's climate.
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2011
Yes it is true, It was called the Community Reinvestment Act, and it was designed to rebuild neighborhoods. The alternative was blight. It actually worked, and I know of several slum areas that have been rebuilt, and many people lifted out of poverty because of it. So your point is?

"a bank in MA was warned by the govt (FDIC) that it did not have enough bad loans."

BS.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2011
"Petrucelli is so cautious that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. recently criticized his bank for not lending enough.

The FDIC’s negative review of East Bridgewater Savings Bank’s loan volume is an anomaly in today’s current banking scene as lenders reel from their role in offering too many cruddy mortgage products to borrowers with weak credit.

Still, the FDIC slapped East Bridgewater Savings with a rare “needs to improve” rating after evaluating the bank under the Community Reinvestment Act.

From late 2003 through mid-2008, East Bridgewater Savings averaged 28 cents in loans for every dollar in deposit. The average loan-to-deposit ratio among similar size savings banks is more than 90 percent, FDIC data show.

Read more: Community bank finds paranoid a smart bet | Boston Business Journal"

As for the first, and subsequent, securitized mortgage loans, they all carried an implicit guarantee from the US govt (Freddie and Fannie). Such 'investment' products sold like hot cakes.
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2011
Actually ryggesogn2 it was your buddy 'W' and his republican administration that cause all of the crash. 98% his fault, as he allowed the securitisation of home owners debt obligations to be collateral for trade. CDO's (mortgage back securities) made the boom, and are the cause of the bust.

Note: The big bust happened under W's watch. Mr. O is just doing cleanup from a nasty hangover.
Howhot
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2011
"As for the first, and subsequent, securitized mortgage loans, they all carried an implicit guarantee from the US govt (Freddie and Fannie). Such 'investment' products sold like hot cakes."

And you liked it!!!

There is nothing wrong with "investment". What screwed the pooch was when big bank startups came in and loaned money to anything that moved. They collapsed, and WE (the US tax payer) had to bail out the banks that had bought startups. In the mean-time, all of "Toxic" financials explode, leaving the banks fodder for government cleanup.

In the meantime; you and I fight over the crumbs we make.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2011
Why did I like it?
What screwed the pooch is when the US govt guaranteed any mortgage from anyone no questions asked. If the bank lending the money had no such guarantee, do you think they might be a more cautious?
Taxpayers DID NOT have to bail out any bank. Let them collapse or be sold.
But all was caused by the US govt promoting easy money and socializing the risk.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2011
"the proposal would require that public-employee unions be recertified annually by a majority vote of all their members, not merely by a majority of those who cast ballots. The bill would also end the government's practice of automatically deducting union dues from employee paychecks. "If workers have freedom of choice on their own dues money and a real voice in their union," the governor says, "they may get better representation." "
Imagine, all employees would get to vote every year on the performance of their union. Why are union bosses so afraid they can't satisfy their members they must us govt power to force people to stay in the union. That's exactly how socialist dictators keep people from leaving.