Obama's Evolving Stance On NASA 941
mknewman writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting a change in Obama's stance on NASA, saying his position on space exploration continued to evolve Sunday as the Illinois Democrat endorsed a congressional plan to add $2 billion to NASA's budget and agreed to back at least one more space shuttle mission."
Let's end the ruse (Score:5, Insightful)
If you adjust for inflation, NASA's budget is about half [wikipedia.org] of what it was during the space race years in the 60's. You can't go to Mars on that. You probably can't even go back to the moon on that. And a paltry $2 billion isn't going to make much of a difference.
Obama is no more serious about NASA's lofty aspirations that Bush or Clinton. It's just political pandering for Florida. And I am tired of hearing promises from politicians that they know damn well they can never deliver on.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
11-12% Increase (Score:5, Insightful)
By comparison, the DoD budget was $439.3 billion in 2007 [wikipedia.org] but my gripe with U.S. fiscal spending is probably a bit off topic here.
Evolution vs. pandering? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is interesting to me how when one politician changes his stance due to recognition of the will of the people, he is vilified as a panderer or "flip-flopper." Yet it is called evolutionary when the other does the same thing.
Could we not just as easily say that both are listening to the people who would put them in office? Or at least letting us think they are listening to us.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:4, Insightful)
Of curse he is. The candidates are going to say whatever they have to and then do whatever they want when in office.
I'm voting Libertarian when I can and then voting against the incumbent - regardless of what party he belongs to. We need term limits in Congress. If we got rid of this career politician horseshit, we'd have MUCH better representation in Washington.
Better this than unfunded mandates. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because it's much better to tell people we're going to go to Mars, and then not give them sufficient money to do so, resulting in other programs getting cut. Even John Glenn referred to Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration" as an unfunded mandate [space.com].
And it's not like this is the only unfunded mandate shoved down NASA's throat -- how much is HSPD-12 costing all of the agencies?
Disclaimer : I've been a contractor at NASA, and one of my projects lost their funding for more than year because of the Mars program ... by the time we got funding again, we couldn't get the team back together, because they had been assigned to other projects.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:5, Insightful)
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
That's a nice lyric from The Who but there are actual real differences between Obama & Bush. He seems to list specifics of a planned removal [barackobama.com] from Iraq:
Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 â" more than 7 years after the war began.
I think what's lacking when it comes to candidates is there's no accountability. I like to see goals listed out that are achievable, realistic & measurable. But when they are elected and these goals melt away or the politician is so deluded the think they're achieving these goals, I just cringe.
... but what can I do but vote for the candidate that at least (for now) is saying what I want my Commander in Chief to say?
It happens to every politician every election for every position. You're right in saying that everyone's tired of failed promises. But there are some larger issues that Obama has (at least for now) claimed definite goals for. I'm not an Obama supporter but I can find his plans for removal from Iraq for better or for worse.
If Obama can't deliver $2 billion to NASA, I'll be pissed. This may be political pandering (in fact, I'll guarantee it is) but I really don't care. I would like to see more money devoted to NASA and our progress to human proliferation through space.
The odds are high that if elected he'll never follow his Iraq plans or he'll alter them or claim there's new data that makes it impossible
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh noes! (Score:5, Insightful)
He changed his mind! It's clearly pandering of the worst sort!
I really wish we could get rid of this ridiculous focus on changing views. Emerson summed it up nicely, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." In this case, it would have been foolish of Obama to be consistent -- he was wrong. He was persuaded otherwise. Is this somehow a bad thing, a moral failure? Yeah, it was advantageous of him to come to this conclusion, but it's almost always advantageous to change from a wrong conclusion to a correct one.
Re:Evolving? (Score:4, Insightful)
I love how not being able to change your mind or agree with someone else's proposal is now a thing of weakness in a politician.
The thing I like about Obama is that he pushes for compromise, builds consensus, and isn't just out to fuck over the other party.
But no, no, the fact that he is open to funding something that wasn't a priority for him originally, is this HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM because OMFG HE CHANGED HIS MIND~!@!@$#~!
Fucking zombies.
Re:Evolution vs. pandering? (Score:2, Insightful)
This just in: Americans are f*cking morons with a black-and-white political system.
If you believe team A is bad, it means team B is good.
For instance, if you don't like (most don't) much of the Bush administrations power grabs, it means you must fully support those of Clinton (DMCA, among others)
If you oppose Republicans and Big Oil, that means you ahve to support censorship and Big Media.
THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND
stop thinking
dont waste your vote, give it to OBAMAMAMA
Think about it, if McCain is bad, he HAS to be good. ITS SO LOGICAL
ROI (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the return the US gets for its NASA spending is greatly under calculated. The last space race caused the US to focus on creating engineers and scientists through education. Look around you for the benefits.
Today I sometimes feel we are raising generations of people who will order a "Bud" because they can't read or pronounce Budweiser.
Re:Evolving? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I see a lot of this around. I don't understand how people can be so dumb as to think that Democrats are the heavy spenders. The Republicans have, ever since Reagan, been trying to outdo each other by lowering tax but raising spending. See here [businessweek.com] for a discussion. It is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are the big spenders. And if you believe that you can run a deficit for decades without harming anything, then you're a fool. And McCain has admitted that the economy isn't his cup of tea, as evidenced by his proposed cuts to the fuel tax. At least Obama knew enough economics to oppose that.
Given the current crisis, I'd vote for Obama on that alone. What economic knowledge he's demonstrated makes him far more qualified a candidate than McCain or Clinton, despite some of his other failings.
What pisses me off about NASA and welfare. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's perfectly acceptable to waste billions of dollars paying uneducated dolts to sit around and do nothing but create more useless babies.
But it's not acceptable to pay smart eggy headed scientists a whole lot less, people who have to be really fracking smart to actually work and do sciencey stuff using their brains and finding out stuff about the universe and world we live in.
Plus the scientists don't usually have a mess off leech-like children, if a NASA engineer does mate it is usually one child or two, which is below replacement levels. Plus their children are usually made to go to school and actually do somethign with their lives because the smart eggy headed scientist types are usually better at raising children that their child crapping counterparts.
I say, End all welfare programs and shovel all that money to NASA, we may have to worry about not having enough people, but by golly we will damned well have our permanent base on the moon, so when all of the breeding stock left on earth blow themselves up over their little sky god we can at least re-colonize the earth, or at least still preserve the best of humanity.
Re:Evolving? (Score:2, Insightful)
He also said he was hoping "to ensure retention of" thousands of NASA workers in Texas and Florida whose jobs are threatened by a possible five-year gap before the beginning of the Constellation initiative to send astronauts to the moon and Mars.
So NASA can become a fucking welfare agency.
I like Obama subjectively but... (Score:1, Insightful)
...objectively I can't figure out what the heck he actually plans to do. Every couple of weeks the ideas change. I mean, he seems like he has no clear vision about what he wants to actually do besides become President of the United States. This (NASA) being a good example. Factor this in with his relative inexperience in government and I start to feel like that at least with Clinton you would have known what you were getting. Either way, an unwashed chimp would be better than the cretin currently occupying the oval office. What happened to the John McCain of a few elections back? I used to like him too. Now he sounds like just another Republican.
Re:Evolving? (Score:2, Insightful)
PLEASE tell me how that should not be immediately suspect.
Because the world doesn't stop for a campaign. Situations change, attitudes change. Both of these guys are moderates... not exactly known for sticking to their guns for no good reason. That is why people like them.
Though I wish both had stuck to their guns with the "no negative campaigning" bit. These new attack ads are terrible. Neither side is even very accurate, though the Obama ad showing the oil surplus in Iraq and proclaiming it to be "McCain Economics" is a bigger stretch.
Re:However... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention the recent renewal of "old cold war" tensions.
One thing commonly pointed to by politicians in reducing spending on NASA is the current cooperation with other countries. If Russian turns into a rival again, then I suspect space rivalry will again follow. Nothing like a little nationalism to shake the purse strings.
Iraq vs. Going to the moon. (Score:4, Insightful)
As I recall last time I did some Googling, for what we have spent on Iraq so far we could have had something like 16 Apollo programs in today's dollars.
Steve
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama claims that he will eliminate our dependence on middle-east oil in 10 years. Anyone who believes that is deluding themselves. At least McCain is willing to admit it's a weakness, rather than pretend he knows better.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Insightful)
I for one am damned happy that some politicians haven't been able to deliver on their promises.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Insightful)
But he is the "old boss". If you want the "new boss" to not be the "same", Obama has some significant differences. (Though not as many as I'd like, and he's rapidly backpedaled from to positions I found most interesting. which is why I'll probably be writing in Nader.) McCain, less so.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? So the unelected bureaucrats can run the Government? I don't think so. If an incumbent is really bad, they get kicked out by the voters.
What you are really saying here is that the electorate is a bunch of stupid morons who you don't trust, and you'd prefer a monarchy. But who gets to pick the monarchy?
Re:How about a vision for space (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Solar power satellites? You mean satellites with large solar panels that would beam power back on Earth? Why?? Do you have any idea how little in panel area you can send in orbit, how inefficient it would be to beam power to Earth and how astronomically cost inefficient it would be compared to putting solar panels on every rooftop in California or even covering a part of Nevada with those?
2. I seem the recall that it has been calculated that mining Helium 3 on the moon would be cost inefficient and furthermore mining on the Moon would make dust fly around and create a kind of smog. What the hell would you want to mine on an asteroid, and do you realise how hard it would be to go to an asteroid (which are all thankfully orders of magnitude further from the Earth than the Moon), mine there and send tons of minerals back to Earth?
3. Which? How?
4. Why should the NASA launch any LEO stuff? You want us to ask the French to send our LEO stuff?
You're no better than people who get excited about hearing politicians say we're going to Mars, you don't really have a clue either, you just wanna hear something that sounds fantastic even if it's utterly nonsensical. Same reason why you got modded up really.
Re:I like Obama subjectively but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Every couple of weeks the ideas change.
Citation needed. Other than his position on NASA, which changed months ago (this is only a minor evolution in his most recent position), I can't think of any specific examples to support your claim (not that they don't exist, I just can't think of any). Can you?
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
And McCain has admitted that the economy isn't his cup of tea, as evidenced by his proposed cuts to the fuel tax. At least Obama knew enough economics to oppose that.
Given the current crisis, I'd vote for Obama on that alone. What economic knowledge he's demonstrated makes him far more qualified a candidate than McCain or Clinton, despite some of his other failings.
Obama has demonstrated nothing. I agree with Obama's decision not to support a gas tax holiday, but Obama's flip-flop stance on releasing the Strategic Reserve to combat high gas prices proves that he's probably even stupider than the average politician. And that he proposed this strategy a mere month after announcing that he wouldn't, while criticizing McCain for his reversal after 8 years when the price of gas has increased by 6x, shows that he's the consummate politician-- and that's certainly no compliment.
The whole point of the Strategic Reserve is to be used for emergencies. Obama wants to withdraw light crude from the reserve and then refill it with heavy crude. This presupposes a drop in gas prices, which certainly is no guarantee. It also undermines one of the reasons why the reserve is important; say, a hurricane wiping out refineries. Replacing light crude with heavy crude which requires MORE refining runs counter to logic.
I'd have wished that Obama was smarter and opposed the gas tax holiday for sane reasons. Now, it just seems like he was trying to differentiate himself from Clinton and McCain.
Taxing the rich more (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless, it's been shown [washingtonpost.com] that Obama's tax cut plans would help the lower income brackets more than McCain's, and tax the rich more. This is obviously what a tax system is supposed to do.
A flat tax rate would tax the rich more than the poor (same percent of a higher income is more). Our system with a higher tax rate definitely taxes the rich more than the poor.
At what point does it stop being obvious that you need to take even more money from rich people and even less from poor people? When your tax rates get so high you're starting to cause your most productive workers to leave the country?
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather take a candidate that'll tell me the honest truth, even if it isn't popular.
Ron Paul lost. Badly.
Re:However... (Score:1, Insightful)
Usually, I'd agree with that, however, I think you're ignoring the "new cold war" aspect here. China is developing an aggressive space program, and if they say they're going to the moon, they mean it.
Just like they "meant it" when they said that those toys didn't have lead any more? Or when they said that the pollution in Beijing would be within international guidelines by the time of the Olympic games?
Sure, China is a country to be taken seriously, but you better not believe *everything* they say.
Re:Evolution vs. pandering? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between truly changing your position based on new information, and lying about your position because of voter polls. I think most "flip-floppers" are doing the later. They know what they want, but will gladly lie about it if it will get them into office.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:4, Insightful)
Good arguments. Like I said, Obama's not perfect. However, as it stands, after all the Bush tax cuts, the oil companies are undertaxed. I agree that a windfall tax is probably the wrong thing (but maybe not as bad as it sounds; it's a complicated issue), but at least Obama wants to let the other tax cuts of the Bush administration expire.
Preventing offshore drilling is actually a good thing in my book. As analysts have said, it'll take years to benefit from it and it won't last long, either. Everyone agrees it's a short-term solution, only, and yet the oil won't even be available in the short term.
I should point out that oil companies not drilling where they have rights is a problem. If government regulations are stopping them, why can't someone like Obama (or McCain) simply change the rules?
Finally, I'd like to note that all the sources I see say that Obama has called for the US to eliminate its oil dependence in 10 years, but he hasn't promised it will be so. I read it like JFK's call to get to the moon before 1970. It's a goal for the nation, and maybe we'll make it, but it seems unlikely (like the moon landing did, not that I think we'll actually make it this time around).
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:2, Insightful)
There are quite a few economists who would care to differ with that statement. A progressive tax (and welfare) system such as the one we have provides a degree of disincentive against earning more money, because the more money you earn, the greater percentage of it you pay to the government. In some places, such as France, it's so bad that for many people, it's more profitable to live off welfare than to work.
While the main purpose of taxes is to fund government, it should also be structured so as to encourage people to become more productive and contribute more to the economy. Unbalancing the tax system beyond its current state will do precisely the opposite.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is, though, how this would be done.
Remember that private business' goal is maximum profit for minimum input. If you rely on private business for a space race, as odd as it may sound, we'd get a space system akin to what the Communist system was like. Shortsighted, concentrating on immediate goals and without any value for later expeditions. And worst of all, dangerous as hell.
The Soviet Union lost the space race early on, long before Apollo. It was lost due to a lot of reasons, but one of them was the pressure for quick achivements. First man in space, first spacewalk, first triple crew craft... The key for these quick 'n dirty successes was reuse of designs that were never meant to be used as they actually were used. Voskod was designed as a two person craft. Actually, it wasn't really designed at all, it was a refitted Vostok capsule. And for the three person flight, they crammed in some sort of auxiliary seat.
The whole thing was a damn death trap. It's a miracle that nothing bad happened. Actually, Leonov's spacewalk was a near fatality. If you believe in luck being quantifyable, the Russians used their whole allotment of luck in space for those two flights.
I would expect the same from a "private" space race fueled by some sort of prize for the winner. They'd slap together something that can barely accomplish what is required but nothing else, hire some poor idiot for half a million bucks (after all, they only gotta pay if he succeeds, so it's well within the profit margin), strap him onto the flying coffin and liftoff!
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:4, Insightful)
I think what's lacking when it comes to candidates is there's no accountability. I like to see goals listed out that are achievable, realistic & measurable. But when they are elected and these goals melt away or the politician is so deluded the think they're achieving these goals, I just cringe.
What's even worse is that politicians' political policies are almost never policies or plans at all, usually they're just wishlists of what they hope to achieve: Create X million jobs, achieve X level of energy independence, etc., invest in currently unproven or infeasible technology Y to achieve Z. Listing _whats_ is easy. There's rarely any discussion on _how_ these whats will be achieved. The hows are hard, and usually painful for government, industry or the public, if not all three.
And then there's Obama saying "The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government." or elsewhere where he's said words to the effect "We'll remove them as conditions allow, in order to prevent chaos and civil war erupting in a vacuum." Well, DUH! That's what they're doing now. Does anyone think Bush is trying to deliberately keep them there _longer_ than necessary? Wait, there are those people that would argue that he has been in order to let the contractors milk as much out of it as possible... it certainly would explain why it took 4 years to get with the program. Nevertheless, I believe the U.S. has _always_ been committed to getting troops out as fast as possible without leaving things worse than when we went in. So Obama's statement is nothing more than a visit from Captain Obvious.
Most campaigning these days, by any candidate from either party, seems to fall into one of two categories: Christmas lists of what he or she _will_ accomplish (or often simply give away), with little or no consideration to how, or wordy attempts to state with eloquence and apparent profundity, the blindingly obvious.
Frankly, almost anyone could do either one of these things. Too bad there are those pesky details that make the difference between someone who is talking out of some orifice other than his mouth and someone who is speaking from real experience, careful research, proper consultation and detailed consideration.
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:3, Insightful)
A flat tax rate would tax the rich more than the poor (same percent of a higher income is more). Our system with a higher tax rate definitely taxes the rich more than the poor.
Well no, it would tax them the same, because taxes are a per-unit thing. The fact that rich people have more units doesn't mean they're taxed more (on a flat-tax system, our current progressive one actually does tax them more).
At what point does it stop being obvious that you need to take even more money from rich people and even less from poor people? When your tax rates get so high you're starting to cause your most productive workers to leave the country?
There is no necessary correlation between a person's income and their productivity.
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:3, Insightful)
The most productive workers can't even get in due to immigration problems. And I admit that McCain is more likely to fix that than Obama. However, the demand is still there, so we obviously aren't at that point yet. But we aren't talking about raising taxes more here. We're talking about cutting taxes. And it makes sense to give more tax breaks to the poor than to the rich. Of course, maybe I'm just being too much of a humanitarian there.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:5, Insightful)
We need term limits in Congress.
As a voter you have every right to vote against incumbents if you wish. Making term limits a law simply covers up for the fact that most voters don't pay attention. Forcing them to choose someone new doesn't really address that. Making them have to suffer with the person they put in office until the next election does teach a lesson that sometimes gets learned. Term limits will require a constitutional amendment and I suppose I don't have to lecture you on the odds of that happening (not good, in case you don't know).
Re:What pisses me off about NASA and welfare. (Score:2, Insightful)
"It's perfectly acceptable to waste billions of dollars paying uneducated dolts to sit around and do nothing but create more useless babies"
I love how all people on welfare are "uneducated dolts" etc...
Why is it when people need money for things like NASA (of all things, and I love space exploration) you would take it from poor people, that most are woman that were left to take care of our nations children, or even just people that were born in a shitty situation (yes it does happen) instead of take it from WARS that have been proven to have been a lie and hudge waste of money?
It always some asshole with a condescending attitude towards others that piss me off, they just can't stand the fact that someone might get a handout when they need it, and they themselves did not get something for free, cry me a fucking river!
There is plenty of waste, stop trying to take it from poor people.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:5, Insightful)
Some will say that by voting Libertarian he is in fact helping the incumbent. At least this is what the other party will always whine about.
Personally I think this is silly. Look at the last presidential election:
There is nothing wrong with Ralph Nader or anyone else running as a third party. The reason the democrats didn't win the last presidential election wasn't because of Ralph Nader but because they failed to appeal to the people who voted for Ralph Nader. Of course, it's always easier to blame someone else for their shortcomings...
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, you'd think they would already be doing that if it would make them money.
But would it make them money? If the price of oil stays high due to a perceived lack of supply, that makes them more money per barrel, which means more profit. It makes sense for them to exhaust oil reserves in the middle east first, because these are the most dangerous to own due to the political climate in the area. How many oil fields were burned in the last Golf War? The price of oil is likely to go up in the long term, due to it being a finite resource, and keeping a big supply within the area of the greatest demand makes good long-term economic sense. No one is likely to attack the USA to take their oil, while the same can not be said for smaller countries (increasingly so when Russia and China start to get low on oil). Keeping oil in the ground in the USA looks like a good long-term investment. Why drill it now, when yo can drill it for the same cost but sell it for twice as much in a few years?
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Insightful)
The "when does life begin" question was clearly intended to give the assembled crowd (all rabidly pro-life evangelicals) a canned applause line for McCain and an uncomfortable moment for Obama. Obama fumbled with it because he couldn't just come out and say he was pro-choice in a crowd full of pro-lifers that he was attempting to pander to, and he couldn't have said "life begins at conception" like McCain did because he would alienate his base. Of course, McCain's response, although beloved by the "moral majority" types, is also wrought with potential craziness (is a miscarriage neglicent homicide?).
"Above my pay grade" is a pretty silly response for someone running for the highest office in the land (although I think he was probably trying to say that only God can make that determination, rather than saying some higher Earthly official could do so), but it's difficult to say what a good answer would have been in that particular circumstance.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Insightful)
We need term limits in Congress. If we got rid of this career politician horseshit, we'd have MUCH better representation in Washington.
Of course, because our country would be in much better shape if it was run solely by the self employed and the independently wealthy - you know, the kind of people who can afford to run for office knowing they'd be back on the streets looking for a job in two years.
Or do you mean to force every politician who wants to keep serving the country and not cater to special interests to instead find their favorite PAC or lobbyist and start "lining up" their post-service job?
In Defense of Obama... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a staunch Republican, but, I think trying to characterize his policy shifts as a sort of a flip flopper is rather inconsistent with what he's trying to do. Obama is just a left wing pol trying to guide his opinion about how government should be run in response to an evolving set of facts on the ground and I really don't have a problem with him changing his mind as long as he stays consistent with his core beliefs of being a hardcore liberal.
Where Kerry had a problem was that he made a political career out of being a total pacifist, lead anti-war protests across the USA and was instrumental in ending the USA's commitment to Viet Nam, but then he turned around and voted for the Invasion of Iraq in 2002 to get pick up a few votes and then ran not as a Dove but as a Wartime leader during the Democratic convention. That's a huge flip flop.
But what Obama is doing is nothing of the sort. He might, ideally, like, to get rid of NASA because he'd rather spend the money on something else... a lot of Dems feel that way. Walter Mondale famously tried to gut the Apollo moon landings because he wanted bread and butter for the poor. So, its not a big flip flop for Obama to shift on NASA back and forth because the whole left wing has been doing it for a long time.
Re: since you worked at NASA ..... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, the obvious issue that comes to most people's minds was the shuttle explosion, apparently caused by poor engineering decisions, and subsequent cover-ups of them.
Not poor engineering decisions, poor management decisions. In both cases, engineers warned of the problems, and were cockblocked by management, mostly due to funding issues. NASA is our most important program, and one of our worst funded.
The sad thing is, if the bloated life-sucking tick that is DoD were cut down to size, we'd have plenty of money for both education and Constellation. As I say in my sig, Five percent of one year's DoD budget puts us on Mars. [colorado.edu] Even at padded government rates, we could put a team of four scientists and infrastructure for settlement on Mars for about 30 billion dollars. (Zubrin has suggested a private firm could do it for only seven billion.) Space geeks who haven't read The Case For Mars should make it a priority. All of the info is online at the link above; the paperback is almost always on the shelf at my local B&N; and it's only $11 at Amazon.
Zubrin has outlined a straightforward plan to settle an entire other planet at relatively low cost. What the hell is the hold-up? How is it this is not the most obvious project in the solar system?
Can we get a mars.slashdot.org subdomain?
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I like Obama subjectively but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it's things like the formal plans his team write up for withdrawal from Iraq that don't mesh with the words you hear him or his campaign say on talk shows (verbally they speak in tones of immediate withdrawal early on in the primaries, later it much more 'phased' and now it's much more 'phased based upon conditions.') I don't disagree with what he's saying, I'm just wondering how much faith you can put in what he says at any point and time. Another example is that he was very much for resuming relations with Cuba at one point in the past couple of years, and now (depending upon who he's talking to) he's for continuing with the status quo. Again, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with which position he takes, it's just that his position evolves over issues that don't appear to be changing fundamentally or seem to require a 'rethinking' of approach. I certainly don't want to suggest he should simply re-iterate the same dogma through a campaign or presidential tenure, but he already sounds like a modified more centrist version of the Obama we heard about during the primaries. Just my $0.00002...
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:3, Insightful)
Even with tax cuts, we are still talking about charging the rich a higher percentage of the cost of government than the poor than is currently the case. Supposedly, as taxes will creep up (and they will, politicians have uses for your money), that percentage difference will stay.
I agree that the US is nowhere near the "drive the productive ones away by high taxes" point. Our major competitors for people who want a western style country, such as Canada and West Europe, are the ones suffering the brain drain.
Re:Evolving? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have no idea what facts/information he had before his decision, and what facts/information he has now. Unless you're inside Obama's head, your presumption that he's pandering is just that, a presumption, and a partisan one at that.
J. H. Christ. This is almost as bad as the whole "if you don't support Obama, you must be racist" deal. Almost.
The fact of the matter is, Obama has in recent weeks has completely 180'ed his position on several key issues. There has been no indication of why he changed his position on the issues. For someone who basically won the nomination based on his oratory skills, don't you think he should at the very least be able to articulate what changed in the course of a week weeks- to months?
And the fact that people who call him out on such things are either labelled partisan or bigoted is outrageous.
Re:What pisses me off about NASA and welfare. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:2, Insightful)
No kidding. A responsible should not need to be given the resources, if they don't have them, they shouldn't reproduce. But in today's socialist economy women are rewarded for having children when they do not have the capacity to support them.
With either candidate we're going to have a flood of illegal immigration. I guess we're going to GIVE them everything they need.
What ever happened to EARNED.
If he said "Has the woman EARNED the resource to keep a child? Has she EARNED health care?"
Everyone feels like they are entitled to something that something that is not theirs. How do they get it? They take it from ME.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: the USSR's space program, a counterpoint: as seemingly-primitive as the Soyuz capsule is, it's still running, while the Apollo is long-retired, shortly to be followed by the Space Shuttle going into mothballs.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as the tax rate is less than 100% on the additional income, there is still incentive to earn more. Furthermore, if you subscribe to the school of thought that motivation to earn is relative rather than absolute, then this loss of incentive may be even smaller than is commonly thought.
The progressive tax system is necessary regardless of the effect it has on motivation, but because there are social costs that has to be paid. Costs which can not and are not internalized by market forces. It is only natural for us to require those that enjoy the fruits of our society more to contribute correspondingly more to it.
Even a flat income tax system that has a cut-off point (to not tax low earners) is progressive (a two-rate progressive tax).
Furthermore, welfare systems have problems with abuse, as with any other benefit system. Most systems now have time-limits on people qualified to work claiming benefits or social insurance. It doesn't mean that increasing the tax on the top 1% of the earners in the population will lead to more people on welfare. In fact, it argues the opposite in that we need to distribute the tax load more evenly and have other methods of motivating people to work and to improve productivity, including things such as modifying the way we distribute benefits.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Insightful)
So what about the CIA's attempts at assassinating Castro, Ngo Dinh Diem, Rafael Trujillo, et. al.?
Re:Iraq vs. Going to the moon. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Iraq War has cost 10-16 times as much as the entire Apollo program's final budget including all the associated research and development... we're not talking about just 1 launch here, we're talking about the entire shebang.
Depressing, isn't it, how our leaders misplace their priorities?
Re:Oh noes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What pisses me off about NASA and welfare. (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree 100%.
Some self entitled punk, sitting around drinking his import beers (or whine (misspelling intentional) coolers) bitching about things.
Hey, why not donate 50 percent of your income to the space race? All of a sudden its a little different though, if it comes from your pocketbook.
Hey, disclaimer goes here... I've made nearly 200K a year as a Sr. Network Eng. (Consultant). After starting my own business and ending up on a customers motorcycle that failed (throttle grip stuck wide open and came apart) and went into a wall at 130 mph, I collected welfare for myself and my two boys. It was needed and it helped. I also helped support a 'welfare mom' who was pregnant at 15 yrs old. Shes in her 30s now, a BS in ChEn and has more REAL professional titles than you could probably hope to attain. I know of scores of other success stories, but alas, OP isn't worth the time or effort.
Dont get me wrong, there are PLENTY of idiots pumping kids out for the paycheck, but a GOOD 20 % of those you see using a 'welfare' (EBT) card at the checkstand gets that to collect child support. Assholes with no sense of responsibility (my term instead of deadbeat dad, since my X pays nothing by choice) get sued by the local District Attorney, and Health and Human Services will attach wages, etc to collect. Luckily, the recipient gets branded as a 'welfare recipient', rather than just an anonymous person who had sex with the wrong person ;). Of course (humor here), not many here will understand what I am saying, /. isn't known for having a large population of sexually active (or non virgin, at that) peoples on it.
Anyway, sorry about typos and grammatical errors, sending this from my Cellular.
--Toll_Free
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. But that anonymous coward is right on the money. FDR is the one responsible for that ponzi scam they call "social security". As well as the general rise in power of the government that was supposed to serve the people. Now they just serve themselves and their constituents that keep them in office.
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, the more you have, the more you benefit you get from a strong military that keeps the status quo.
The poor guy benefits from roads by driving to work. The rich guy benefits from roads that make his cargo-hauling empire possible. (Though that gets into the personal v. corporate taxes stuff.)
Pragmatic Stance (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a logical reason for taxes to be per-unit (of income), instead of per person?
In that case, people would be your unit, so the more people you have, the more total taxes you pay.
The government services they finance are not per-unit, I don't get twice as much DEA enforcement, or USCIS (= INS) prevention of competition for my job from Mexicans, than somebody who makes half my income.
You don't get twice as much service, but you do get twice the benefit. Should someone pay the same amount to protect their $25,000 as you do to protect your $50,000?
But unless the market is really messed up more productive people can negotiate higher salaries.
People with a less available skill set can negotiate higher salaries. Some very productive people work as unskilled labor. Your productivity may increase demand slightly, but a shortage of supply is a sure way to earn more.
They can also change jobs to higher paying ones a lot more easily than people without a track record of productiveness.
In what industry do you work?
Re:Russia/USA is not a real problem. Yet. (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue is not about Russia and Georgia engaging in a territorial dispute. The issue is about Russia seeking to re-establish it's sphere of influence through a projection of military power.
If the response to Russia's invasion of Georgia was muted / measured it is likely Russia would see that as a green light to implement (by force) a regime change in Georgia.
The only correct response was the W / McCain response (that also ultimately became the Obama position) which is to take a very hard line with Russia.
Re:11-12% Increase (Score:4, Insightful)
In all fairness, that $439.3 billion in 2007 went largely to ensure the stability of the entire western world. Lets face it, the European governments, as much as their sheeple love to hate the "evil Americans", rely almost entirely on the United States military to ensure international stability.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/22/europe/defense.php [iht.com]
If your not convinced how heavily the EU relies on the US, take a look at whats happening in Georgia. Europe is waiting for a country nearly 5,000 miles away to do "something" to make the Russians play nice. Lets not forget the whole "cold war" thing where the US placed nearly a "million" men in Europe to deter soviet aggression. Of course thats forgotten.. silly me.
There is ALOT of national interest tied to what the US military does for the US, as opposed to the advantages provided by NASA. One can speculate all day long what NASA "might" achieve with significant advances in funding, but history has shown time and time again what happens when a nation reduces its military capacity ala funding.
Of course, comparing military spending to space spending is an irrational argument anyway. Of course we should increase our funding for space exploration and the advancement of science and technology. However, the question is how to best get our tax dollars worth out of it. Is NASA really the only way to go?
Re:What pisses me off about NASA and welfare. (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks for the response, My father who worked very hard his whole life had to once take Welfare before we havd to move to find a new job for him.
Not eveyone that is on welfare, wants to be there, and as the most wealthy and powerful contry in the world, we should be ashamed we do not do more to take care of our poor. god forbid that the fortunate give a little to take care off the peole that have nothing.
Then people complain when the crime rates go up, people will do anything when they have nothing and are starving, not that I think that stealing is ok, but that a father will do what it takes to feed a starving child.
Why not take care of these people, and sure a percentage of these people will always take avantage of the system, oh well, are they really getting somthing for nothing, or just being paid to stay out of peoples way that really want to to something with their time and lives?
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
How is Obama replacing 5 million barrels a day tomorrow? Tuneups and inflating tires? McCain has made it pretty clear he is for all alternative fuel source AND drilling. With the inelastic nature of oil, any increase in the supply will lower prices and drastically. T Boone Pickens by the way is not a green guy, he is just for reducing the burden of foreign oil. He is also for off shore drilling, shale production and ANWR drilling. There is no reason we can't do everything. If we started drilling tomorrow there will be some online in 2-3 years, the democratic talking point is 10 years+ but that would be for all 100%. I am all for getting off oil but the simple fact is that it cannot happen overnight, but in the interim, there is no reason to be sending so much money out of this country.
Again, you make fun of simple things like Tuneups and properly inflating tires BEFORE ACTUALLY READING A DAMN THING ABOUT IT.
While it wouldn't maybe help the INDIVIDUAL very much, the ENTIRE COUNTRY would benefit a decent amount.
In fact, if the ENTIRE COUNTRY did these LITTLE things, we could WITHOUT A DOUBT save the same amount of Oil McCain's 'Day Dream' of offshore drilling MIGHT produce 10 YEARS from now.
I'm afraid the same holds true for ANWR. I'm not super concerned about the envirnment up there because I don't think the handful of wells that would be drilled would hurt anything, BUT it wouldn't help us either.
It would certainly help the Oil Companies who could pull the oil out of the ground for PENNIES and sell it for top dollar.
For those who don't know, Oil is priced based on GLOBAL markets, not production cost. SO drilling in the Continental United States is a sweet proposition for Oil Companies because they can pull it out of the ground for nothing but the production costs, BUT CHARGE LIKE THEY BOUGHT IT OVERSEAS.
As long as a SINGLE barrel of oil comes from outside the United States, ALL OIL PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES WILL COST PRETTY MUCH THE SAME regardless of the production costs.
Speculators have driven the price up some, but not nearly as much as people blame on them. Besides, speculation has its purpose. Speculation is why you can lock in a price for heating oil NOW, and KNOW FOR CERTAINTY what you will be paying this winter.
This goes the same for McCain's ludicrous 'Gas Tax Holiday'. If you remove the Federal Gas tax (which is less than 25Â for gasoline), then gasoline distributors will simply raise their prices by the EXACT amount removed. There is nothing in the law to prevent this, accept a few, older, arcane price fixing rules that would be IMPOSSIBLE to prove.
All John McCain would have done (if the Democratic Congress hadn't stopped him) is robbed the Highway Department of revenue needed to maintain the countries road system.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26222711/ [msn.com]
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting to Social Security, you tell me ONE THING wrong with making sure people have something when they retire. I'm so sick of these 20 YEAR OLDS bitching because they are asked to contribute a fingernail slice of their income to help those who came before them.
Ok. I'm 30 something. Here's my ONE THING. I will probably never see a dollar of it myself. The system is intended to work for me when I need it. That's the "security" part of it. But now, the way it's headed, I'm really only seeing the "social" part of it. If they continue to fuck it up and leave it business as usual, I'll have paid a lifetime into a system that won't pay me a dime back. That's the problem. Social Security isn't supposed to be about duty and responsibility, it was supposed to be about insurance for the future.
You'd be pretty sour if you knew you paid car insurance all your life without an accident, and when you finally did have an accident, there'd be nothing for you.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll worry about myself - I can invest my money better than the government can - but why should I help you retire?
I'm so sick of these 20 YEAR OLDS bitching because they are asked to contribute a fingernail slice of their income to help those who came before them.
Well, I was 20 well over 10 years ago and let me tell you - once you add ss with medicare, you're at 15.3%. You consider that to be a fingernail slice? You think it should be 20%? 25%? I for one would gladly give up every penny i've put in just to be able to get out.
That is as selfish an snobbish as those (not that I'm accusing you of this, BTW) who scream they'd go to Canada before being Drafted.
If we ever have to draft that just means it isn't worth fighting for - look at WWII - many people gladly joined because it was a cause worth fighting for.
NO ONE has any sense of DUTY or RESPONSIBILITY now days.
Damn right - if they were responsible we wouldn't need Social Security!
Re:What pisses me off about NASA and welfare. (Score:3, Insightful)
What's really frightening is that you get to vote.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes...please do vote Libertarian. Encourage all your otherwise McCain voting friends to do so too. Please.
This whole thread seems to be premised on the fallacy that "There is no difference between the two major candidates."
This is false and has been demonstrably false since the first time I heard it, in 2000. If in that election the other candidate was inaugurated we would not have invaded Iraq, we would have an equitable tax code, we wouldn't have a disappearing middle class, we wouldn't have a ballooning debt destined to be paid down by our grandchildren, poor people might have access to health care, our regulatory structures may have been able to stop the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and possibly, just possibly, 9/11 may not have happened. But forget all that. Since it's easier for me to declare that the two candidates are the same rather than inform myself and investigate their actual positions, I'll do that!
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:-1, Insightful)
1. People are responsible to provide for themselves. Shocking, to most, there was a time before social security and people managed to live through it.
2. The government taking from me is NOT the same as me giving to someone on my own free will.
3. The system was doomed from the start because it was not initialized properly. People one day woke up and found themselves receiving money from the government. If the social security was a forced savings account that benefited the person putting money in, then it would be better, but this is flat out socialism.
The governments job is simple: to restrain evil. Its job is not to provide for retirement. Providing for one's own retirement is a person's individual responsibility, like wiping your butt after you go the bathroom or chewing your food before swallowing. If we continue on this trend I am sure we will have official government butt wipers and food chewers. I tell me ONE THING wrong with having your butt wiped or your food chewed? The problem is not in providing for someone when they retire, it is in the government being the one to provide.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, though, that the shuttles came long after the space race, when NASA was required to become "cost oriented". The Apollo spaceship was an incredibly well designed piece of engineering art. If anything, Apollo 13 proved that. For me this mission was the most successful one, from an engineering point of view. It showed that even in the event of what "should" be a fatal disaster the capsule could be returned safely.
The US fatalities started when NASA was required to cut cost and be "profitable". And the first thing sacrificed on the altar of profit is safety.
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with that type of argement (that the rich support society disproprionatly) is that it totally ignores that the society is what allows the rich to be rich. The rich disproportionately benifit from society's ability to create the environment to allow for wealth creation.
The next bit that it ignores that the rich get disproprtionally more of the income in a far more scewed ratio than they pay taxes. So the top 5 percent of income eners have more collective wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined. That distribution is just insane. Those same top 5 percent pay about 50% of taxes. In a "fair" system they would be paying 95%.
And finally there is the idea of "disposable income". For this purpose that means anything above the absolute minimum needed to live. That line (the absolute minimum) is hard to define, but no matter how you define it whne you take the numbers and start to look at how big a percentage of people's dispoable income they spend on taxes (remembering that the poor still pay sales and other taxes like FICA etc if they have an income) all of a sudden that already tiped ballence stands on its side.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:4, Insightful)
If in that election the other candidate was inaugurated we would not have invaded Iraq, we would have an equitable tax code, we wouldn't have a disappearing middle class, we wouldn't have a ballooning debt destined to be paid down by our grandchildren, poor people might have access to health care, our regulatory structures may have been able to stop the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and possibly, just possibly, 9/11 may not have happened.
Yeah, I saw that episode of Family Guy too. In the real world though there is thing called inertia, and unless you believe Albert Gore was going to overturn NAFTA then the middle class would still be disappearing. As for an equitable tax code?Ha! Do you also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus? Stop the sub prime mortgage crisis, sure Al would have told all those people buying homes,"Hey you can't afford home ownership so keep renting." Shine on, you crazy diamond.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
Social Security has become a ghost of it's original intent, as an insurance program. It has now become an entitlement system.
NO ONE has a right to stop working if they can't afford it. Social Security is unneeded EXCEPT as an entitlement/insurance program. I.e. if someone gets becomes unable to work, they can withdraw from it. If they don't, then they have to figure out how to save up enough money to do it themselves.
Get rid of Social Security and call it what it is ... welfare. Combine the two systems and get rid of all the extra overhead.
Anyone above specified income (including withdrawl capabilities of 401k/Ira plans) should not be allowed to withdraw from it. Anyone that is capable of working should not be allowed to withdraw from it, except to provide a minimum wage. So ... if you want to be a greeter at Wal-mart ... go ahead and take out from Social Security to make up the difference.
Medicare is a different program and I'm not talking about healthcare.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, with the boomers all moving to old-people welfare in the next decade, we need an influx of warm bodies to help pay for them. Immigration, extra babies, whatever.
Societies may be made up of individuals, but the individual has little place in society. It's about what's best for the most, not what's best for you in particular. Yea, you may have to support some poor people. Yea, some women have children they can't afford.
Of course the government is strictly opposed to having a sensible family planning program with free contraception; I'm sure you are too because of course you'd have to pay for that, which you'd equate with stealing. Which is pretty classy btw; blame the kid for being born.
It's a hell of a lot easier to deal with the actual problem before it occurs. Put together a sensible immigration policy to draw skilled workers, set up a wide-reaching guest worker program with taxes and benefits to draw unskilled workers. Teach the kids how not to get pregnant, give them contraception. Teach 'em enough to become productive members of society, give 'em job training. Of course, all those social programs are stealing too, right?
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:1, Insightful)
Getting to Social Security, you tell me ONE THING wrong with making sure people have something when they retire.
I'll worry about myself - I can invest my money better than the government can - but why should I help you retire?
I'm so sick of these 20 YEAR OLDS bitching because they are asked to contribute a fingernail slice of their income to help those who came before them.
Well, I was 20 well over 10 years ago and let me tell you - once you add ss with medicare, you're at 15.3%. You consider that to be a fingernail slice? You think it should be 20%? 25%? I for one would gladly give up every penny i've put in just to be able to get out.
That is as selfish an snobbish as those (not that I'm accusing you of this, BTW) who scream they'd go to Canada before being Drafted.
If we ever have to draft that just means it isn't worth fighting for - look at WWII - many people gladly joined because it was a cause worth fighting for.
NO ONE has any sense of DUTY or RESPONSIBILITY now days.
Damn right - if they were responsible we wouldn't need Social Security!
We also had conscription during WWII, in case you have forgotten.
EVERY major War the United States has ever fought has had conscription because we intended to WIN.
As for responsibility, what about the person who works THEIR ENTIRE LIFE at a menial job JUST SO they won't need Welfare. They work their asses off to make ends meet and take care of their families. In all this, however, they only manage to break even.
Is it TOO MUCH for someone such as yourself, who seems to have done alright for themselves, to give JUST A LITTLE (nothing you wouldn't have pissed away anyway on junk)?
You can throw out all the percentages you want, the actual DOLLAR AMOUNT is nothing you wouldn't have spent anyway, on something FAR LESS worthy.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's another 'one thing'. Social security is a government run way of forcing people to build a nest egg for their future. Instead of just letting people handle that on their own through their own investments and savings- we let the government handle it so that 'no one gets left behind'. I have no problem with that... but, I want the option to opt out. Since I have a good knowledge of finance and investing, and I'm smart enough to live on LESS than my paycheque and invest the rest, I should be allowed to opt out and take care of my own retirement investing. Because we all know how well the government is managing the system and our money.
This is a classic case of "It just takes a few to ruin it for the rest"
You probably are capable of taking care of yourself. However, there are a lot of stupid people who would opt-out simply to have more piss-off money now, and would need STILL need help later when they can't work.
It is a simple fact of life that we are only as strong as out weakest link, and social security makes sure the weak links of our society are taken care of.
Re:In Defense of Obama... (Score:3, Insightful)
And speaking from the US, you're correct! But we have to polarize everything here.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:2, Insightful)
In theory as well the public sector is bad as it is a monopoly full of self-interested unions who only seek to maximize their own monetary position.
Yet, why don't we look at reality instead of theory.
Sure the private sector has given us Enrons... but it has also given us Google and Tesla and 3M...
The public sector has only given us Enrons... with the payouts admittedly given to public sector employees instead of shareholders.
To top it all off, you're trying to connect the flimsy spacecraft built by Russians (state run communist program)... and saying this is what the private sector would build???
You base this on what? Cars that have been improving in quality and efficiency over and over (talking about cars overall in a free market.. spare us the anti GM SUV comments... the market has chosen Honda and Toyota). Computers which have gotten more reliable and cheaper? Just where is your evidence that the private sector would build something as hacked together as the state-build Russian space system?
More importantly... where is your evidence that the market would ultimately favor a slapped together space vehicle instead of a quality one?
As for an x-prize type scenario. This is more like a prototype challenge. It would not be end all of space exploration. yet, who knows what ingenuity would come from it. I'm pretty sure, it wouldn't become the chose commercial route to space until it met strict safety and requirements. So dare I say, who cares if an xprize results in some poor guy testing it? It's their choice to risk their life.
Imagine our history if the Wright brothers were not allowed to hack together a plane and all airplane research had to be done by a government sanctioned body?
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
Social security can prevent you from dieing because you didn't afford the doctor or the meds to treat you.
No, sadly, it can't.
Nuanced approach that would probably fail (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's what I'd say, but such a nuanced approach would almost certainly fail before evangelicals: Life begins at conception, but the government's interest in a citizen begins at viable birth. So while I might believe that a 2-month fetus is "alive", there is no practical way for the law to treat it independently of the mother...at most you could force a C-section and then it would die anyway.
The government, being a constitutional republic of free people, does not have the legal authority to force mothers to carry the baby until it is viable. If it did, it would ALSO have the power to force mothers to get pregnant in the first place, or to take children from their parents for no reason whatsoever. Abortion is legal not because anyone likes it, but because it is on one side of a bright line that we don't want government to cross.
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:4, Insightful)
What correlation is that? Last I checked the CEO of IBM cut jobs while increasing his salary and he's far from alone.
Even the company I work for, the owner just got a huge infusion of cash and what's he doing? Cutting jobs because the economy is weak despite the fact that it actually costs him more money to retrain temporary staff creating a productivity sink for those still left that are already overworked.
There are those out there where direct income results in more jobs, same owner of said company pays for his yard work to be done so you could argue that way. Whether that is a good trade-off for contributing back to society is left up to debate. I'd bet the majority of people feel taxes are a far better recourse as we've seen what happens when you let rich people do whatever they want with their money.
That said, just because they are rich doesn't mean they should be stripped of all the fruits of their labor. A larger slice seems pretty fair since the odds are, they would not have gotten where they were without the help of some social service somewhere along the line.
Re:Let's Invade the Moon (Score:4, Insightful)
with a nation engaged in the Cold War, a hot war in Vietnam, a much lower economic productivity, a much smaller pool of engineers, much more primitive technology, and no proven example of going to the Moon to reassure us.
And a culture that was a bit smarter than it is today, that actually cared about the nation's scientific accomplishments. Seriously, do you think a man landing on Mars today would get the same TV audience? Americans have gotten far less educated and far dumber between the 60s and now. It's a horrible stereotype but it's based in truth - the average American would be more interested in American Idol than steering their own country away from the road to irrelevance and obscurity.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm personally not against Social Security, but calling it a fingernail's slice is perhaps disingenuous. The total rate paid into Social Security and Medicare is 15.3%. Half of it is hidden from you--the employee pays half and the employer pays half--but that's really just a shell game. If you ever self-employ, you'll realize the full sting.
The cap on the payroll tax is at $102,000 this year, so a person earning that wage or more will pay $15606 into Social Security. If this person is not self-employed, then only $7803 of that will appear on their W-2. But, really, $15606 was paid in. That's money that could have been put towards paying employees directly or funding a pension plan.
Interestingly, that's about the same as the 401(k) cap.
I happen to hit both caps every year, and I expect to get much more from my 401(k) than from Social Security. That's fine though, since they're meant for different purposes. My 401(k) is for me. Social Security is a safety net for everyone. My quality of life is better when society functions better and has a reasonable baseline standard of living, and that's the Social in Social Security.
Yep, I'm a bleeding heart liberal. Whatcha gonna make of it?
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:4, Insightful)
I applaud your efforts, but doing as you say will return us to the Victorian times when the poor were left in workhouses, hopeless and destitute. Now at least, they're only left just hopeless. Dickens would be turning in his grave.
Solutions to problems usually cause their own problems down the line. However, we must take history into account and not revive the original problem by rolling back what was the original solution.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
You honestly believe Social Security will one day, just cease to exist?
Yeah, I think it's a possibility. But more to the point you said
This country will never run out of money BE THIS IS WHERE EVERYONE KEEPS THEIR MONEY
And if you believe that statement, then you're living in the past.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
As a commodity becomes increasingly scare, you'd expect to see increasingly complicated systems used to effectively distribute the last of it. The increase in speculation is an effect, not a cause, of our current oil crisis.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that you are posting on Slashdot, you're probably rather technically oriented and rather secure financially. Consider those less fortunate than yourself: people who grew up without an education, or without ever having seen a computer. Consider the people who work at Tim Hortons sixteen hours a day, go home, watch some hockey and sleep.
Sure, you might argue that they're not contributing to society. But would you not be in the same position if not for some accident of fate? Do these people deserve to live any less than you do? Don't they deserve to experience life just as much as you do? It's not as if they can't afford medical care through any fault of their own. (And even if they have made mistakes: well, who here hasn't a made a mistake that might have ruined his life?)
What you're advocating is Social Darwinism. That's a consistent, but empty strategy that ignores all human feeling and empathy. Sure, it makes sense, but it ignores what makes us human in the first place.
Re:What pisses me off about NASA and welfare. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as the tax rate is less than 100% on the additional income, there is still incentive to earn more.
Yes but the opportunity costs of work look more and more attractive. If I can work one more hour and earn $100, I'll do it. Heck I'd work every weekend for a year at $100/hour. Now throw in a 85% tax rate, reducing it to $15/hour, and I'd pass. (And I'm not pulling that number out of nowhere, that was approximately the top tax bracket in Sweden in the 1970s.)
Furthermore, if you subscribe to the school of thought that motivation to earn is relative rather than absolute, then this loss of incentive may be even smaller than is commonly thought.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but shouldn't it be the opposite? If the motivation to earn is absolute, then you won't lose any incentive.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
How is Obama replacing 5 million barrels a day tomorrow? Tuneups and inflating tires? McCain has made it pretty clear he is for all alternative fuel source AND drilling.
So, essentially what you're saying is that we should ignore actions that will actually have the effect of lowering demand by increasing fuel efficiency, and that can be done now by individuals, and instead we should go with the stupid fucking dittohead plan of offshore drilling, which has greater long term costs than gains, and has no short term gains at all?
Yes, lets drill drill drill. No, it won't do anything to help anyone. Sure, the resulting environmental damage will wreak havoc on all kinds of tourism and other important industries, but in the long term it will also have a statistically insignificant effect on oil prices!
I mean, what the fuck? How can you be so blindly, happily, willfully fucking ignorant? How can you simply bend over and let an elephant fuck you in the ass, screaming "Thank you" the whole time?
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:2, Insightful)
People don't have a choice. They need to buy heating oil and to fill up their car just to make a living. No one accepts the cost of gas, but no one has any reasonable alternatives at the moment.
Re:Russia/USA is not a real problem. Yet. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you've put your finger on the essential point here, which is the Russian desire to create a sphere of influence.
The problem I see with a "very hard line" is that it's not credible. You've got to imagine yourself in Putin's shoes (which are the ones that count). Take a blank piece of paper and draw a line down the middle. On the left hand side you list the advantages to meddling in Georgia. On the right hand side you put the disadvantages.
What, exactly, is the United States able to credibly add to the right hand side of the equation? Not bloody much other than tough talk, which, I'm afraid, is not going to scare Putin very much. Our military is already over committed. Our economy is weak and vulnerable to energy price fluctuations. Speaking of energy prices, Russia has our allies spread-eagled over the energy barrel. Even we import 762 thousand barrels of Russian oil a day, which is about 15% as much as we produce domestically.
It's going to take patience to address the issue of Russian meddling in other countries, and a lot more credibility than the US currently enjoys.
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:3, Insightful)
My biggest concern about "Fair Tax" would be the impact on tourism. Those of us who live outside of the US still pay our income taxes, and would suddenly find everything in the US being MUCH more expensive than it was previously (I assume we wouldn't get a tax rebate on our purchases when we leave the country?). That'd have fairly negative effects on the amount of international tourism you get (granted, some places would hardly notice, but others might be hurt pretty badly by it).
It's a popular point. The thing that most people don't understand though is that the price of anything already has about 26-30% of tax built into it already that would go away. Since companies don't need to pay income tax anymore, or payroll tax, etc, the price of their goods/services go down without the tax burden. So, prices would remain the same. So, many of these scenarios go away when you realize that the FairTax is taking the place of existing embedded taxes that would be repealed.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
We already have excellent Healthcare centers. The Government could provide the EXACT SAME service as a private Insurance Company for PENNIES on the dollar compared to said Private Insurance company.
I don't mean to pick on you today, but geez. The government CAN'T EVEN PAVE THE ROADS PROPERLY. WHAT MAKES you THINK they CAN provide YOU health CARE? Show me one successful government program that private industry can't do better....(outside of the military)
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I work for my Father (my parents are divorced). He owns a Publishing company, who itself owns seven Newspapers.
Trust me when I say I do pretty well for myself.
However, I still do not WASTE money on garbage, as a lot of people who make a lot less do.
You can make fun of the fact that I live at home all you want, it doesn't change the fact that I pocket more cash than most people I know who make more than I do.
I simply didn't see the need to tie myself up with a house/apartment rent BILL when I didn't have too.
It has been my experience that the people who bitch most about bills are the ones who INCUR the most Bills.
You cut off luxuries (yes, they are luxuries, not necessities) of Cable/Satellite, DSL/Cable and then come talk to me about how much of a burden taxes are.
SO, your defense for being called out is to define yourself as a rich kid living at home.
Sorry man, you fail.
Maybe if you realized you were pushing your responsibilities off to your Dad you would get it. Yeah sure , YOU'RE not paying for the stuff you say other people waste their money on - your Daddy is.
Bragging that you're pocketing more cash than people who choose not to suck off their parents longer than they have to isn't really that impressive. You seem to have a lot to say about how well you are doing and how we should all follow your lead. The reality is your lead is actually copping out and pushing those responsibilities off to another person.
Yeah, that's enlightened.
Re:What pisses me off about NASA and welfare. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that would be against the status quo really;
It's really an appearance of Lazy sponge vs. budget for smart folks -- so that the two can fight over the scraps. What is really going on, is the shoveling of money towards lazy elites who are basically socialists at the top, who can never fail, and they are capitalists when there is a profit around and they think they should be rewarded... "hey, what S&L bailout? We don't owe anyone money."
If we could spend that money on NASA, trying to genetically modify a CEO who poops gold -- then that would be a great way to justify the value of this expensive herd of parasites.
But hey, let's go back to making the poor fight with scientists while we get our pockets picked. It has been working rather well to turn all the would-be intelligent folks into Libertarians.
Or maybe we should instead talk about NASA fighting over a budget with the $75 Billion Nuclear Subs. Or subsidies to corporations who we pay for the privilege of them taking our resources without compensation.
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair tax isn't constitutional, so there would have to be a constitutional amendment. And then we would be stuck with the income tax in addition, unless the income tax amendment was repealed at the same time.
There are some things good about the national sales tax idea, but there is no way a constitutional amendment is getting passed.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not Libertarian. I don't think any Libertarian voter deserves any scorn from bitter democrats. Just as Perot voters didn't deserve any scorn for "helping" Clinton become president against the elder Bush.
The losers in the election are responsible for their own loss. They should have appealed to more voters, and more democrats and republicans should have actually voted.
He is showing his right as an American to vote for the candidate of his choice NOT YOURS. It is you that is showing some lack of responsibility by trying to justify a 2 party system because your candidate can't seem to win.
Re:Russia/USA is not a real problem. Yet. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with the word "American" is that, technically speaking, Canadians, Mexicans, Cubans, and South Americans are all "American". The GP is clearly trying to be more specific. (Although, "Usonian" seems to be a less awkward alternative.)