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.
However... (Score:5, Interesting)
"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."
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.
Frankly, I think McCain is a little more inclined to beef up NASA precisely because of that aspect, and Obama will say damn near anything to win Florida. But it's also possible that he's reconsidered his positions on space because if he becomes President, he knows people aren't going to let him slide on the space race.
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.
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:Russia/USA is not a real problem. Yet. (Score:4, Informative)
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:Russia/USA is not a real problem. Yet. (Score:5, Funny)
> Why are we (US) so up in arms over Russia messing with Georgia?
We here in the US do _not tolerate_ a nation which invades and occupies another sovereign nation.
Re:Russia/USA is not a real problem. Yet. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, it may be true that Georgia was provoking Russia. But at a moment's notice, Russia launched a well-coordinated, overwhelming assault involving their army, navy, and air force, with fronts opened in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The military assault was coordinated with computer attacks and a media propaganda campaign (see, for instance, the "2,000 dead" figure the Russian media kept repeating without ever providing any source or photographs to back up their claims). You simply cannot do what Russia did overnight. It takes weeks or months of planning. Georgia provided the trigger for the war, true, but Russia was clearly waiting for an excuse.
Russia/Georgia, Please solve this quickly.
Here's the underlying issue. Russia (or at least Putin) feels like border states, such as the Ukraine and Georgia, should be subservient to Russia, and not pursue political or military ties to the West. So as far as Russia is concerned, this is very much about the West (EU and NATO). And by invading and occupying a country that is on the flank of Europe, and with close political ties to the U.S., Russia is trying to threaten and intimidate the West. Now the West is in a delicate position- they can't really let this stand, but it's not clear how they can punish Russia either. Regardless, relationships between Russia and the U.S./EU have fundamentally shifted. It's not that a new conflict has started, it's that Europe and the United States are finally waking up and realizing that they're already in the middle of a conflict.
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.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:5, Funny)
I'm voting Libertarian when I can and then voting against the incumbent - regardless of what party he belongs to.
If you vote Libertarian, aren't you already voting against the incumbent?
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: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: (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:Let's end the ruse (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (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?
Term Limits - Look at California's Failure (Score:4, Interesting)
We need term limits in Congress.
I was for term limits in California when they were first enacted, much for the same reasons as you. That said, they have been a plain and unmitigated disaster for this state because of the many unintended consequences they have produced.
First, there was gerrymandering. Since it was now impossible for an individual to hold a district for 20 to 30 years, the Democratically controlled legislature drew safe districts that would vote Democrat for the next 20 to 30 years. Republicans went along with this because the ones in power also got enough safe districts to hold up approval of the annual budget (which requires a 2/3 vote to pass).
Second, as a biproduct of gerrymandering, politics in the California became highly partisan. Since almost all legislative districts in California consistently vote 60/40 in favor one party, the real election became the primary. Of course, one wins the primary by appearing the fringes of his or her party. Thus, our state legislators and senators started to further toward both the left and right. Most moderates never made it to the general election.
Third, the rank partisanship, led to gridlock in the legislature, especially with the state budget. Democrats refuse to cut spending in tough times, and Republicans refuse to raise taxes, regardless of the need to do so. What should be a process of compromise, is reduced to an annual game of chicken because neither side wants to back down from their ideological rhetoric.
Fourth, these budget problems are exacerbated even further by the increased influence of lobbyist groups in the capitol. This is perhaps the most insidious consequence of term limits. Because legislators and senators are out after 6 and 8 years respectively, they often have very little time to learn the legislative process and become experts on the subjects their committees govern. Thus they have to rely on lobbyist groups for information and viewpoints. Think K Street in DC but much worse.
There are a host of other maladies that term limits have wrought on this state, like the political musical chairs our politicians play, but these four are by far the worst. Term limits is the best example of the law of unintended consequences. For every problem they solved did they created another equally bad or worse one.
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: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:5, Interesting)
HA! Upwards of $464 BILLION in debt is just fine for Bushie, but 2 BIL for funding for NASA, that's crossing the line. Thanks for the laugh early on monday morning.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Apollo total cost: $135 billion (2005 dollars) [wikipedia.org].
Iraq invasion and occupation: originally budgeted in 2003 at $74 billion, reached some $600 billion [bbc.co.uk] in 2008, and will probably pass a trillion by the time the US gets out even if everyone starts running for the exits right now. And since it's all been done on credit, factor in interest on the repayments. Then the medical costs of all the crippled soldiers. Then the knock-on effects of destabilising
Re:Iraq vs. Going to the moon. (Score:4, Informative)
What's the old saying? "Anyone can make a mistake, but it takes an act of Congress to really screw up."
Re: (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:Iraq vs. Going to the moon. (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, cause going to the moon 16 times is way more important that forming two new democracies in the middle east, or overthrowing brutally repressive regimes, one of which invaded two neighbors and gave the UN the finger for 12 years and the other harbored Al Queda.
Quick, mod me troll/flamebait so no one can read this!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd rather take a candidate that'll tell me the honest truth, even if it isn't popular. Setting a timeline for withdrawl pretty much tells Iran/Al Qaida/whoever else "just lay low for a year and a half, then you'll have free rein." It's naive foreign policy.
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: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: (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: (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: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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what about the CIA's attempts at assassinating Castro, Ngo Dinh Diem, Rafael Trujillo, et. al.?
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.
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?
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: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.
Evolution? (Score:5, Funny)
Is Obama's stance really evolving? I think it's clear that his policy on NASA is a result of intelligent design.
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: since you worked at NASA ..... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure how much knowledge you have in this area, to speak authoritatively on it? But my big question would be; Why does NASA expect they *deserve* more federal funding, when it appears they've been making too many mistakes and mis-steps in recent years?
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. But those who follow NASA a little more closely might remember such things as the
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
That was entirely caused by a budget cut between 2001 and 2002. There was a well funded program to permanently solve the problem that caused that accident, but NASA decided that since it had never had catastrophic consequences before, it would, along with the majority of other programs, have its solution canceled. The mistake, I suppose, was in choosing to cut that program, but without he massive funding cuts that occurred that year, I don't think NASA would have lost that shuttle.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh noes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not about changing your mind. It's about evaluating why someone held their previous position.
Did they simply have bad information?
Have they suddenly had a fundamental philosophical change that alters how you should look at their entire world view, and every policy pronouncement of theirs that is built on that platform?
Is their value system still only half baked, and this is just a sign of them slowly getting their act together?
Remember, Obama is the guy that just the other night (in that quasi-debate-format thing he attended with McCain in Colorado) who, when asked about when "human" life begins in the womb (as it relates, of course, to the abortion issue) said "that's above my pay grade." Wow. Never mind WHERE you are on that issue, isn't that - right there - THE most fundamental thing you have to wrestle with
Why wonder about his real thoughts on space/science when one of the signature hot-button science/philosphy issues of modern times seems to be beyond his much-lauded intellect and communications skills to talk about? That was a VERY telling moment, if you ask me.
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:Oh noes! (Score:5, Interesting)
How about a little honesty, instead of Clintonian slipperyness and weasle-wording it? How about, "There's no point trying to pin down a day on the calender when the nervous system of a fetus is not, and then - an hour later - is sophisticated and functional enough that we'd all call it a baby human. But likewise, I'm very comfortable saying that everyone in this room has swatted a mosquito with a nervous system vastly more advanced than that of the dozen cells in an early embryo. This issue isn't about pinning down a date, it's about erring widely on one side or the other of a long period of time, and using reason." Well, perhaps a little more soft-sell than that... but isn't that supposed to be - in the absence of any other real experience - his actual main selling point?
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, Obama is the guy that just the other night (in that quasi-debate-format thing he attended with McCain in Colorado) who, when asked about when "human" life begins in the womb (as it relates, of course, to the abortion issue) said "that's above my pay grade." Wow. Never mind WHERE you are on that issue, isn't that - right there - THE most fundamental thing you have to wrestle with ... science-wise, value-wise, and in all other ways before you should be talking about how you think that issue should be handled legislatively and judicially?
NO. I think the worry over when human life begins is a typical unnecessary distraction in this area. My take is that a consistent basis for law is much more important than the supposed ethical dilemmas. You can resolve the former and there's no method (aside from eliminating natural birth) for resolving the ethical/moral conflicts. Further, it's not the job of the President, Congress, or the Court to decide ethical matters. Thus, I don't see public policy towards abortion being in the scope of federal gover
How about a vision for space (Score:5, Interesting)
Reading the article, it really just comes across as Obama trying to push the shuttle layoffs to the right so they don't take place during his first term in office.
It's unfortunate, but I would really like to see him and McCain come up with a strong vision for space to spur international and private sector investments with a corresponding push in maths, sciences and engineering.
As trite as they may be, I could get excited about a candidate that pushed:
Note that I don't say "NASA". I think NASA has a very important role to play in the development of space technology but at some point they have to be out of the business of LEO (Low Earth Orbit) operations.
myke
Re: (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 furt
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Orbital solar plants are really only cost-effective if you can mine the materials from asteroids in near earth orbits. Launching them from factories on the moon might be fe
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.
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:What pisses me off about NASA and welfare. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What pisses me off about NASA and welfare. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Let's Invade the Moon (Score:4, Interesting)
If I were going to be president six months from now, I'd make sure that we returned to the Moon, in force. I'd spend what it takes to put a permanent solar power base there, lasering back to a network of satellites and delivering cheap, clean power around the world. Once the base was staffed and ample power generated, I'd start mining the rare minerals that are going to run out on Earth within the next 20-100 years. I'd give contractors who are majority American owned, and use majority American subcontractors, the highest priority for taking part in the project, and aim at creating a space launch industry as dominated by commercial carriers as are airliners, while keeping a reliable government capacity operating, just like in air travel.
The US would start to look admirable around the entire world again. Except in the boardrooms and war rooms of our worst enemies, who are using our foreign oil dependence to enslave us and the world, who'd hate us as we put them out of business.
It took only 7 years for the US to go from subsonic jets to landing on the Moon, 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. Even before exploiting the Moon's resources industrially, we've already benefited hugely from the scientific, engineering, industrial and patriotic rewards of the visionary investment. We could return to the Moon, and lead the world out of so many problems we've helped create and are most threatened by.
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.
Obama needs to change on FISA too (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know this is hard to understand after 8 years of "the decider", but, this is *exactly* when you want him to open his mind and alter his positions. Right now, he is, in theory, pounding the campaign trail and, *gasp*, listening to people. Did it occur to you that, during such bouts of listening, he might've actually changed his mind on one or two things?
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:Here' an Idea (Score:5, Informative)
Let's Put our Astronauts in Shuttles that don't use fuel and go green!
The exhaust of the main engines of the space shuttle is water.
Re:Here' an Idea (Score:4, Funny)
The exhaust of the solid rocket boosters is not... What's your point?
That we can clean up Washington in a environmentally sound way by
putting politicians under the main engines?
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.
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: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:5, Interesting)
You can't just wish away regulations that are impairing. It requires both legislative and executive power to do so, and the chances are that environmental lobbyists will oppose removing the regulations that make it pointless to drill on these lands.
What's kind of silly is that we look at the problem as a dependence on oil. This isn't the real issue. America has a dependence on hydrocarbons, once you get past that perception hurdle, you'll realize how easy it would be to significantly reduce our dependence on oil. There is one hydrocarbon that America has extremely huge reserves of, that's cheap, and isn't too problematic to get to.
Coal.
Did you know that South America has a gallon of gas priced under $1 USD? They're not losing money on it, and it's not subsidized. How are they doing it? Simple, they're turning coal into oil products. South Africa also buys most of their coal from the US. How long do you think it would take to get a couple coal gasification plants?
Think about it.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Informative)
OPEC supplies 53.8% of our oil imports (a little over 5.25 million barrels per day out of a little over 20 million barrels per day used).
The rest of our imports (the other 5 or so million barrels per day) come from countries like Mexico and Canada.
If people bothered to look up the numbers instead of just ASSUMING every damn thing, they would see that it isn't that difficult to fathom that in 10 years, if we cared to try, we could replace a QUARTER (not the 100% naysayers seem to want to believe) of our Oil with alternatives.
Such as T. Boone Pickens plan which ould eventually replace 38% of current oil consumption with Natural Gas.
That would be more than enough to NEVER have to buy another barrel of Oil from OPEC.
OPEC being the countries that, generally, may not have our best interests at heart.
Obama's plan is a hell of a lot better than McCain's that basically wants to drill off shore to MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER, but won't actually help things at all (at most, 200,000 barrels a day, versus replacing 5 MILLION BARRELS a day with Obama.)
People, it's simple math.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/us-imports-of-o.html [greencarcongress.com]
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
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, Informative)
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.
Please provide STATISTICS to prove your POSITION.
http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml [fueleconomy.gov]
Again, it's simple math.
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: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:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (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: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:Taxing the rich more (Score:5, Informative)
The argument is that a wealthy person can afford to pay a greater share, since their basic needs can be met with a much smaller slice of their income than a poor person.
If a person makes 100,000 dollars a year, and is taxed at a rate of 25%, then they still have 75,000 dollars to support their lifestyle, whereas a person making 10,000 dollars would have only 7,500 dollars left if taxed at the same rate.
In short, it's a much bigger deal when you have less money. Every bit is important.
The argument isn't that rich people use more or less services, but that the burden should be shared equally, and a flat tax puts a heavier weight on people who make less.
There is also the argument that it is better to tax the poor less, because that is more efficient than having to provide government programs to support them...It's the same argument that we use for making people who don't have children pay taxes to support public schools. Even though they're getting no direct benefit from supporting the schools, they're reaping indirect benefits from a more educated population.
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: (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: (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:Taxing the rich more (Score:5, Informative)
When your tax rates get so high you're starting to cause your most productive workers to leave the country?
That's a red herring and you know it. The fact is, the absolute tax rate matters not a whit. What matters is America's relative tax rate as compared with the rest of the industrialized world. And, as far as I can tell, America still has the lowest overall tax rates in the West.
If I'm a worker, and I think America's tax rates are too much, where am I going to emigrate to?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is obviously what a tax system is supposed to do. 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.
Yes, I'm sure if Bill Gates had any idea how much money he'd end up making I'm sure he'd have just said "fuck it" and taken a job at McDonalds. Poor bastard.
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: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: (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: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: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: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:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Informative)
He finds ways to justify all sorts of unconstitutional, unnecessary spending of the American tax payer's dollar (like his proposed $80B/year for international poverty), so why not NASA?
And how much has Bush spent on his initiatives for Africa, like AIDS reduction?
Fighting global poverty doesn't seem to be limited to Democratic Administrations and for that we can be thankful -- for all his other faults, GWB has actually done a few good things with his Africa policies.
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: (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 relat
Re:I like Obama subjectively but... (Score:4, Informative)
As to Obama's changes, while he is not bothered by the hobgoblins of the mind, where is McCain seems to live it.