Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Satellite Programs in Jeopardy of Collapse
smooth wombat writes "A committee of the National Academy of Sciences, headed by Richard Anthens, has warned that 'the vitality of Earth science and application programs has been placed at substantial risk by a rapidly shrinking budget.' The list of Earth-observing satellite programs affected is a long one and includes satellite programs which observe nearly every aspect of Earth's climate. A delay in launching a replacement satellite or the disabling of a current satellite without a replacement could mean that data necessary to monitor or predict an upcoming event would be severely restricted. For its part NASA says that tight budgets force it to cut funding for all but the most vital programs. 'We simply cannot afford all of the missions that our scientific constituencies would like us to sponsor,' NASA administrator Michael Griffin told members of Congress when he testified before the House Science Committee February 16."
$400 billion for the Iraq war. All of it pissed away and probably actually hurt our efforts on the war on terror. By comparison, NASA's budget is only $16 billion per year.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
The first thing I thought when I read the title was that, yet again, people were cancelling missions because they had no "obvious benefit" or some such nonsense, completely missing the point that science for science's sake has often lead to many of the greatest breakthroughs in science history.
However, I realised that they're not just cancelling missions that are trying to learn more generally, they're cancelling missions that have immediate and obvious benefits: weather monitoring to try and help avoid natural disasters, studying global warming and suchlike.
What ARE the Americans playing at? This seems to me to be a very foolish course of action, these problems will not go away if we're blind to them...
Just lie and say you're using that money to come out with some military weapon...
How about some socialist party? Every country needs it as much as they need the others. It all comes down to working together. Reps and dems aren't everything you know.
After all, the current US administration ignores and even harrasses scientists who don't conform with their mantra that there is no global warning anyway.
>>The list of Earth-observing satellite programs affected is a long one and includes satellite programs which observe nearly every aspect of Earth's climate
Don't worry about that pesky climate change thing. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
It's guns and butter. You just make some token gestures of restraint on the butter side so you don't scare off the people who really count: the lenders.
A time honored variant of this is that you have your bullets shipped in butter cartons, pay for them out of the butter budget, then sweep the details under the Rug of Aggregation.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Not only the $400B, we have to keep paying into the future - soldier's benefits aren't cheap plus the soldiers wounded are a long-term (rightfully so) expense as well and veteran's benefits make up a significant portion of the yearly budget and is not part of the military budget itself.
All of that, so we could show the world how awesome our toys are. Oh, and spreading democracy throughout the world.
Maybe if you guys spent the money on something like, I don't know, a national healthcare system, or something sensible, we wouldn't mind. However, invading other countries, against international law, and to no demonstratable benefit, is NOT a more productive use of your money.
Companies will only research what is commercially viable. The true breakthroughs come from science for science's sake, and this can't be done without funding.
So, we might be losing the ability to track dangerous weather systems, monitor volcanic activity and study the effect of humanity on the planet due to the demands of "scientific constituencies"? What exactly is a "scientific constituency"? The reporter/editor should have clarified this.
Or is this more of a situation where the sexy projects (travel to the Moon and Mars) are taking precedence over real science? And why doesn't that surprise me?
National Healthcare is not acceptable to me -- there is no mandate or power to Congress to provide it. I would rather cut government spending (and the defense budget) 90%, and give U.S. citizens the power to trade with everyone. The most loved countries in the world are those that openly trade without tariffs, embargoes or warmongering.
I'm not sure I could find where in the U.S. Constitution Congress is allotted the money or power to launch golf carts for a billion dollars.
Without even being American, I'm pretty sure that if you restrict the government to only the things expressly allowed in your constitution, you'd end up with being fifteen acres of the poorest hippies ever to own a printing press. You _are_ aware, are you not, that things like highways, fire brigades, the CDC or indeed a standing army are not covered by that constitution of yours?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
All those pesky earth-science satelites keep on reporting that the globe is heating up and stuff. Why would we want to hear that? That doesn't fit with our politics at all!
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Just in time for solar storms to distroy our sattelites. Won't some kind soul out there please get me off this crazy planet? I can brew beer in trade, or show you where the more tasty humans are!@!!
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
from the US government to involve the private sector in space. There are hell many millionaires who would pay anything for nice moon or space trips. That should generate more than enough revenue than what NASA would need.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
The funding will come, unfortunately it is all how you classify it.
A scientific satellite to help observe global warming? NOT in this administration! They don't even want to acknowledge that global warming is happening, let alone help observe it.
If this upsets you, I suggest you vote for a President that actually cares about Science.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
You _are_ aware, are you not, that things like highways, fire brigades, the CDC or indeed a standing army are not covered by that constitution of yours?
You _are_ aware that our 9th and 10th Amendments allow for the States and the People to perform these powers themselves? Why should someone in California pay for a highway in Illinois? Why should someone in Miami pay for a fire in Denver?
The Federal government has no ability to perform efficiently, which was why we had the Constitution in the first place. Give the states the ability to provide competitive service with one another, and they'll compete to attract the best citizens.
Cost of war in Iraq: 245.727 billion
NASA's 2006 Budget: 16.656 billion
Glad to see my government has no problems blowing 14 years worth of operating expenses on something that by all appearances will never have a positive outcome, while letting vital programs for all of earth collapse.
Why place a satellite in space to observe a global warming that does not exist anyway ?
These are not data you are searching for. [Waves hand.]
That will not be a problem because Bush keeps cutting Veteran's benefits, to the tune of over $14 Billion since he took office.
Support our troops indeed.
You say you want a revolution....
You _are_ aware that our 9th and 10th Amendments allow for the States and the People to perform these powers themselves?
But does it ever state that _somebody_ has to provide for any of it? And that includes any kind of military capability, of course. So if say, California and New York, decides they will not finance a war by a disagreeable president, it's quite ok for them to withold that money, I guess.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Hmmmm... Let me see... There's this...
... We (he) was in it for his Oil buddies. Now that he is a LAME DUCK president he can virtually spout off about whatever...
"the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.
AND
President Bush's Jan. 14 speech painted broad brushstrokes of his plan to put humans back on the Moon and send them to Mars.
Oh but that was back in 2004, right, trying to get more "techies" to vote for him...
And NOW, as most of us have always know is TRUE color...
Disgruntled members of a congressional oversight committee objected Wednesday to a White House budget plan that threatens to cripple NASA's unmanned space programs and Earth and aeronautics research, President Bush's plan instead emphasizes sending American explorers back to the moon by 2018.
Budget cuts for 2002
Elsewhere there is talk of a 1% increase in NASA's budget for 2k7 but this is NOTHING compared to the slash to the budget that Bush dealt NASA when he first took office because he "needed" that money for the military we would later use to attach the middle east...
Hmmmm... Nice Logic! Instead of looking FORWARD back then... and looking into alternative fuels, the future, and Space
But that's ok, it's obvious at this point that most Americans have a short attention span and don't really delve deeply. At least the "red" ones.
"The Federal government has no ability to perform efficiently, which was why we had the Constitution in the first place. Give the states the ability to provide competitive service with one another, and they'll compete to attract the best citizens." This bit of regurgitated "libertarian" thought puts me in the mind to paraphrase P. J. O'Rourke: Economic conservatives rail on about how the government doesn't work, then get elected and work hard to prove it.
It's funny, to me at least, how many everyday folks get suckered by a self-serving ideology of wealth-holders. Then again, I've always had a sick sense of humor.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
What ARE the Americans playing at? This seems to me to be a very foolish course of action, these problems will not go away if we're blind to them...
Well, the reasoning is pretty clear, if you accept one premise: anything the private sector might the government ought not do. By this way of reasoning, government weather monitoring, morally speaking, tantamount to theft of potential profits from private parties.
I'd posit, I hope in an impartial way, that acceptance of this precept is the greatest difference between the conservative and liberal theories of governance.
An alternative precept is this: the government should do any activity where, on the whole, the public benefits more from government participation than government non-participation. This is a liberal viewpoint. To represent the conservative viewpoint fairly, conservatives don't say this is false, but it is true only in a tautological sense. They believe that in any case where the private sector participates to some degree in an activity, public sector participation a priori impledes the progress of the public good. This means it is never the case that government activity in spheres the private sector is interested in does the public good, people of a conservative bent can hold both premises consistently.
Of course, these are caricatures of liberal and conservative thinking. Most thoughtful people don't reason exclusively from first principles to specific situations, but make allowances for exceptional circumstances.
In any case, while one might violently disagree with government policies of the left or right, the stupidity if it exists doesn't necessarily lie in the process of reasoning, but the first principles from which that reasoning proceeds.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I hate to tell you this, but not everything is a business, trying to generate profit.
Or, to put it differently: Do you feel that it's okay for your wife to sleep around so that she can find the most efficient lay?
Seriously, you need to go to China. I'm not saying this in a 'get the hell out' sort of way, but they have a government very much like the one you seem to want; no restrictions on business for the most part, very little taxation, cheap labor...
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
I'm going to leave your NASA kicking and go for the paragraph that turns you from ontopic, but misinformed into an out & out troll.
If you're afraid for the climate or the environment, donate your money voluntarily to commercial or not-for-profit businesses to create research wings. Asking me to pick up the tab for your toys, against my will, is really not acceptible anymore to me....
Climate & environmental research is not a toy. Perhaps its not appropriate for it to be in NASA, but without research of this sort, US agriculture (and by extension, the US economy and presumably you) would suffer.
My pics.
These NASA cuts are just the tip of what coming up.
i d=amz.HoNLRL_0&refer=us
Americans have spent way too much money;
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&s
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
The hilarity of Dubya talking about Mars landings and moon bases, all while mismanaging the federal budget and slashing science programs, was a welcome distraction at the time. I remember thinking, "This guy believes that humans are biologically separate from the animal kingdom, and that at least two-thirds of his constituents are going to Hell after they die, and now he's on the side of science?"
I just wish this expectation of failure made acceptance of the President's failures easier to deal with. Perhaps soon we can put a government in power that works to make America competitive in the science and information-dominated industries of the 21st century, rather than a government that pays lip service to this concept.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
science for science's sake has often lead to many of the greatest breakthroughs in science history.
We are talking about observational science here. What great breakthroughs have EOS missions ever produced?
It doesn't sound like the GOES weather satellites are effected, just some of the more specific Earth Observing System missions. Strange that the scientists quoted in the article don't make the distinction. The EOS boondoggle has survived for almost 20 years and sucked untold billions out of NASA's budget. It is about time it got called to account. How do these rather specialized space missions help to "avoid natural disasters?". We already have realtime imagery of hurricanes and still people don't get out of the way. Satellites can't predict earthquakes, tsunamis, or volcanic eruptions. As for global warming, I am sure the state of the art will progress without a few extra missions. Government scientists have too much invested in the hysteria to let it go.
an ill wind that blows no good
If you can't see it, it's not there.
In the old USSR age, the states in Eastern Europe also were known as satellites. So spending cleary has increased. Or does it mean that the US will be on the losing side after all...
Well, the moon program was an exercise in national prestige.
Which doesn't automatically mean it's a boondoggle.
At the time it was conceived, we were engaged in a great struggle over the future direction of civilization. The Cold War. While munitions (which I think we can all agree are legitimate government expenditure) were used in this struggle, the ultimate weapon of the struggles was national prestige. 132 billion in 2006 dollars spent over the course of a decade is not an unreasonable to get a decisive advantage in this area. By contrast the Vietnam war cost four times as much, not counting the downstream costs of dealing with maimed soldiers; it was a much worse investment.
Subsequently, one can argue that the resources put into the program were only sufficient to maintain our decisive advantage in this area. Since our lead was insurmountable, there was not much competition, and the coherency of the effort suffered accordingly.
Today, I question whether national prestige is really on the radar screen at all; US "hard power" is so great, it may well be that many disdain "soft power" issues like scientific and technological prestige.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I should really write this out as a form letter and paste it in pre-emptively to each NASA thread about budget, since it always turns into Bush-bashing.
The Bush administration has increased funding every year for the past several years. The President of the US does not control how NASA's budget works. Sure he has made a push toward manned space flight being revamped, but why would you complain about re-vamping an outmoded inefficient system?
It is the head of NASA who makes the budget the way it is. There is never enough money to do what you want to these days, no matter who is in charge of the country or what party they belong to. Michael Griffin has a hard job, and what he is saying is true, we need more science money. I am not disagreeing. But this notion that Bush has cut funding is folly, and shows up in every thread.
Guns and butter indeed.
kulakovich
Why should someone in California pay for a highway in Illinois? Why should someone in Miami pay for a fire in Denver?
Because the one thing you rugged rocky mountain individualists, Randroids, and libertarians in love with your own wallets don't understand is that we aren't just Californians or Illinoisans. We are not a Confederacy, no matter how much the Dixiecrats running the country want that to be.
We are Americans, E Pluribus Unum. Helping Californians helps me. If I help pay to fix earthquake damage in California, they help pay to fix tornado damage here. That way neither of our economies is overly strained. And that benefits us all.
Yes, you're right of course. I read somewhere yesterday (but now can't find the link) that when you factor in the cost of looking after veterans and all the additional costs, the war comes to about $1trillion - $2.2trillion over the long term.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
ie. the voters and/or lobbyists. Add 'scientific' in there, and he's most likely talking about groups like the American Geophysical Union and the American Astronomical Society
ps. There's a thing called a dictionary for when you find words that you don't understand.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Darn. I missed my opportunity to drop the green flag on the bush bashing because NASA has to have a real budget.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
Nearly $300 billion a year in foreign aid. All of it pissed away and probably actually hurt our efforts on the war on poverty. By comparison, NASA's budget is only $16 billion per year.
* Look, I can make completely unsubstantiated statements too! *
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Cost of missing 6 weeks worth of ocean surface temperature, a quarter's loss of micromeasurement of ocean surface levels, or a year's worth of rainforest acreage photographs: pretty much nothing.
r eview.asp?idArticle=3889&R=)
Cost of leaving a dictator in power: (excerpts from: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_p
"Four months before Saddam's fall, Human Rights Watch estimated that up to 290,000 people had "disappeared" since the late 1970s and were presumed dead. The Coalition Provisional Authority's human rights office estimates that 300,000 bodies are contained in the numerous mass graves. "And that's the lower end of the estimates," said one CPA spokesperson. In fact, the accumulated credible reports make the likely number at least 400,000 to 450,000. So, by a conservative estimate, the regime was killing civilians at an average rate of at least 16,000 a year between 1979 and March 2003."
(Of course, any numbers of killings do not include many thousands of cases of torture, rape, amputation, branding, and other atrocities committed by Saddam's regime that stopped short of death.)
[Furthermore,] U.N. economic sanctions were also killing civilians. Critics regularly claimed sanctions caused 4,000 to 5,000 Iraqi children to die per month from poor nutrition and health care. UNICEF attributed some 500,000 unnecessary deaths to the sanctions in the 1990s. The sanctions remained in place as long as Saddam's regime refused to comply with international requirements. Liberation made it possible to lift the sanctions almost immediately--thus saving approximately 60,000 lives a year, if we use UNICEF's numbers.
Meanwhile in many sections of Iraq, people have their first clean water, their first reliable electricity, their first real sewer system, ever. Hundreds of schools, dozens of hospitals exist where no service was available for at least 20 years.
Yeah, what *were* we thinking? We should have saved the money and spent it on satellites!
I know it's TERRIBLY fashionable among some circles to be against the war. But I think your throwaway comment that the money was 'pissed away' is somewhat hyperbolic, if not a downright lie.
Just mod me (troll) now.
-Styopa
"Asking me to pick up the tab for your toys, against my will, is really not acceptible anymore to me."
So move elsewhere. Or work to get someone else elected.
I never drive, I only use the trains. I therefore think that all funding for highways should be cut. I mean, private industry will pick up the slack, right? Anyone who drives can choose to send a few bucks to their favorite highway maintenance organization, right?
"A great majority of the citizens of the State are so far in debt that there is no likelihood of escaping it in their lifetimes, so the citizens push the debt off to the next two generations."
Personal debt has more to do with people not spending within their means, and being ecouraged to enter into bondage with the credit companies. It doesn't tie in so well with government debt, you are conflating the NASA budget with Social Security, etc.
"I don't see any public interest achievements in NASA, and I definitely don't see why NASA or the U.S. government needs to be handling any scientific research"
Then open your eyes. Or read more history of science. One of NASA's roles is to create new markets -- for example, without NASA, there wouldn't be a market for commerical satellites.
"It is time to just end the program entirely and leave it up to a competitive marketplace. There are enough billionaires with money to spend, let them finance these toys strictly for ego"
What competitive marketplace? There is no market yet. Government has always acted to open new markets, which is what NASA is all about.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The least successful war in U.S. history is probably going to be the costliest too.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Nasa, with those damn satelites controling how the wheater is on the globe predicted that there will be warmth and that the enterprises and cars should controll their emissions. Advising that combustible fuels should not be used anymore. All those things are bad, in the point of view of the Bush Administration, why would he give money to those satelites?
I am certainly not surprised.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
The Iraq war and even budget cuts have nothing to do with this. These satellite programs aren't getting cancelled because the budgets are being cut, they are getting cancelled because they have long since exceeded their budgets and then some.
The US satellite industry has self-destructed. At one time, not very long ago, if anyone in the world wanted to launch a satellite, they went to the US. Now, they go to the Europeans. Why? US companies didn't want to bother with little commercial satellites. They wanted contracts in the $billions. Even if these big government projects fail and get cancelled, they are still more profitable than the commercial contracts.
Increasing funding won't do a thing except waste more money. We need to stop measuring our performance by how much money we spend! How about measuring by how effective we are?
Eventually, of course, the government will wise up and stop bankrolling these billion dollar boondoggles. They will just buy data from the European and Asian satellites. But, of course, that won't happen until at least next quarter, so party on!
"Sir, he's entered the world code. That'll shut down the entire planet."
"You push that button, and everything we've invented for the last 500 years will be gone. We'll have to start all over."
long pause
"For God's sake, don't do it, Snake!"
"Call me Plissken..." click
Oh God that's just the START of it! Have a look at history people. Have a look at post war Europe or even Vietnam again. The real costs of war haven't even begun yet.
For starters....
Medicare for the next ten generations of freaks that will be born to all those poor guys coming home with their bodies full of DU dust.
Social service, psychologists, domestic courts and police costs to deal with with the abuse, alcoholism and drug dependency of seriously damaged vets.
Soaring crime from disaffected vets who fought for their country and now cant afford to eat.
Ongoing economic fallout from the other five and a half billion inhabitants of Earth who will now longer buy American products and educate their children to do the same.
A huge blow to self esteem for each and every American for losing another war, which will surely lead to yet another one within a decade.
Suffering from terrorist reprisals.
Humiliation of having the president tried at the ICC for war crimes and hung.
Bush has fucked you so good you don't even realise how much your backside is gonna sting in the morning.
...All this is a product of Mr. Bush's [mis]management or the lack of it. I feel saddened and helpless since I cannot do anything significant about it now.
Has anyone raised the point that the current NASA director may actually have some very smart advisors? Six months ago NASA was doing the worst possible thing (economically) but the best for short-term job-security: kowtowing to Congress and saying "Oh yes great leaders we will do more with less." Now, someone had the bright idea, and the balls, to stick it to Congress, and announce cancellation after cancellation -- which doesn't mean the programs will actually *be* cancelled. This could all be a massive game of chicken, in which NASA releases press release after press release hitting constituency after constituency until 51% of congress has people set to be directly harmed by the cuts (lost jobs, lost revenue from satellite services, etc), and actually hands over the cash to save the programs. The director will piss off his bosses and may lose his job, but he'll save his organization.
I, for one, am glad that you aren't worried about monitoring the status of the earth when there's a dead planet like Mars beckoning to be "explored." Beside that, we all know you can't possibly subsidize new, profitable, romantic business models on the back of programs that yield nothing but information (that might provide a counterpoint). We, all of us, accept that it's simply a matter of priority. If the investment does't lead US to a more competitive, hegemonic postion internationally, then it really isn't worth supporting.
That's why we support your tax cuts to the wealthy; they make the best decisions (while they are sitting around the pool talking to their stock brokers). I know it might seem unfair to the people who are born into such a world, but that is largely irrelevant to those that believe 16 fiscal quarters is a lifetime are bent on preserving a class structure that ignores the nature of anything but the balance sheet.
I'm saying that the people who put you at the helm shouldn't regret a thing. We should all be thankful that we have a leader who has our best interests so firmly in his grasp. The team with which you have surrounded yourself is professional & well schooled in the theories of upper management that have made this country what it is today. Even if it turns out they were grossly in error, we can all have faith that God will sort it out after the rapture!
Long Life to you Duh-ba-ya!
- nbsp; ) So you live to see what your policies help to accomplish! (
It's fairly common knowledge that the Aerospace and Defense spending is expected to collapse at the end of this administration. Bush "never saw a bill he didn't like", so has managed to rubber-stamp every budget increase that came across his desk.
:)
What isn't common knowledge is when said administration will end
I know a little sig that's just ten words long
Silly silly rationalists. There is no need to worry your little science addled heads about the future.
The end times are upon us.
So move elsewhere. Or work to get someone else elected.
This country (the U.S.) was built around personal responsibility and freedom. Neither of your "answers" there cover either. Why should I move when I live in a country that is based on freedom? I'd rather see solutions to downsize the federal government and let the states adapt. I don't believe in democracy, so voting is counter-intuitive and against my morals, although I do vote.
I never drive, I only use the trains.
The trains by me are funded by force -- the average rider pays a few dollars, and the taxpayer pays almost $10 more to cover the bureaucracy of the trains. Many trains originally were privately run, but the cronies found ways to get government to foot the bill. I believe cars are way more efficient and cheaper once you factor in the true costs of the train system.
It doesn't tie in so well with government debt, you are conflating the NASA budget with Social Security, etc.
They both tie in together. People live beyond their means, so they don't want to save for the future. The government welfare programs are overbudget, so the government inflates the currency, pushing the costs onto future generations while robbing the current citizens of the value of their savings and investments.
One of NASA's roles is to create new markets -- for example, without NASA, there wouldn't be a market for commerical satellites.
I don't believe that at all. We went from the telegraph to the telephone, and I do believe that satellites would have naturally evolved in a competitive market. Of cousre, we'll never know, but I see most human invention coming out of a profit motive. NASA has a profit motive as well -- for the cronies who provide overpriced and inefficient contract work.
You and I tend to never agree, but I appreciate your opinion, FWIW.
The annual, NASA's budget is in jeopardy and we're going to shut down the Hubble project. We're going to lose all of our weather satellites. We're not going to be able to do any science because of all the Homeland Security / CIA / Secret Government Agency / Bush is the Anti-Christ spy satellites that the budget has been diverted to.
It's another plea for awareness so that Congress can make sure that the NASA pet projects that have gone on for years can continue. Of course there isn't any money in the budget. We've supported projects well past their life cycle because there is percieved benefit. Take for example the Mars rovers. They were supposed to be well finished by now, but since they continue to move around up there, the program continues and takes up some of NASA's budget. Is it science? Yes. Is it necessary? No. Is it interesting and as a tax payer would I vote to support it? Sure. I like to look at the pretty pictures as much as the next geek.
This is the same story from a different angle that came out last year when NASA spoke before Congress about budget concerns. The same story occurred the year before that. The same story will occur next year. Academics will always be begging for money to support their projects. Politicians will never just hand it over when they have their own pet projects to support.
I'd think that all these weather/ Earth monitoring space equipment would fall under NOAA and their budget and not NASA. NASA needs to be completely rethought out from the ground up. I agree it was a good idea for the 1960s just to bring the money/people/power together to create a space program. But come on it's 2006 and where are we? Let's see do we a LEO space station, lunar colony, Mars colony, asteriod mining, constant weather monitoring for every planet in our solar system? Um no?
What does NASA do that directly benefits the average US citizens? What launch and monitor weather and science stats? OK. I'd agree NASA should design and fund newest bleeding edge of space R&D. They shouldn't be responsible for running that entire system for the public good though. Global weather monitoring sounds like a NOAA function anyways. Personnally, I'm still out on the opinion of global warming, but I've not seen any new data for about 6 years or so. (Last I took a serious look at it, it seemed that all the qualified scientists were using "global warming" as an excuse to fund every Earth monitoring idea that they came up with. Everyone wanted to just monitor it because well, it all depends on time scale and we don't have enough data to really judge things by. I'd personnally think that we should have weather/Earth monitoring as a "small" on going expense. It's just something that needs to be done and benefits everyone.
it's definitely in terrific jeopardy of collapsing.
6E8C 8721 B3D9 5269 5A9B 1122 00C3 C03D 99A7 1CFC
I think a reasonable solution would be to have the cash rich, reputable, business savvy Dubai Space Authority manage our commercial (and [ok fine] environmental) satellites. You know they're going to get that ports deal approved. When money talks bullshit walks... or something like that. This country needs foreign investments like a bleeding messiah. I bet $1 that Dubai will continue to rescue us from financial dissolution into the future. We love to talk about the 'billionz' we spend .. yet it's all borrowed money.
Reputable, cash rich, business savvy arabs (or maybe they're not savvy for doing this) try to save our ass and we bark at them like rotten dogs.
I guess people prefer to die in dignity than be helped by those whom they perceive to be inferior .. or scary... either way xenophobia is going to assure that our infrastructure will die in pieceS.
I say we open up space for foreign investments. China is launching 26 satellites this year, while we stab our friendly arab financial supporters in the ass.
Say what you want bozos.
Least successful war? I nominate three others...
Vietnam, which we LOST. Many more allied casualties than this war, war aims not achieved, one million Vietnamese dead.
Korea, which was a DRAW. Also many more casualies than this war, war aims not achieved, barely held on to S. Korea, lots of Koreans dead.
The War of 1812, which we LOST. Washington DC sacked and burned to the ground. More American casualties than this war, and signifiant homeground damage due to British invasion. Oh yeah, and it made Andrew Jackson the indian-killing moron a war hero.
I might also mention the American Civil War, but at least a few good things came out of that one. Also some bad things, like one out of three American males dead. But hey, who's counting?
If you calculate the cost of these wars in constant dollars, some of them, particularly Korea if you include reconstruction (which I assume people are including in the Iraq cost), approaches the current cost of the Iraq War. It is likely that before the end, the Iraq War and reconstruction will end up costing more than Korea, but not by much.
Now, I think that the Iraq War is an expensive and miserable failure, same as the next guy, but hyperbole really weakens the case, don't you think?
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
If the US can do what us aussies have (largely) done and eliminate all forms of protection, it would be a very good thing for the world at large.
Us aussies dont need to pay farmers to produce because our farmers are good enough that they (except in times of natural disasters like floods or drought) dont need subsidies to stay in business.
US farm subsidies cause more total output of various crops to be produced than would otherwise be the case which drives prices lower and hurts unsibsidised farmers. In the ideal world, there would be no subsidies, tarrifs, embargos or other trade barriers and everything would be produced by the countries most efficiantly able to produce it.
If that means that some hillbilly farmer cant produce unsubsidised produce that is cheaper (when all the costs are taken into account) than an australian farmer, so be it.
Cite for your figure?
I find $19,705 million for 2004 (cf France with $8,473 million).
source, found via
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Who exactly do you think pays the upkeep for your "cheaper and more efficient" road system? The Highway Fairy?
This comment does not exist.
$400 billion for the Iraq war. All of it pissed away and probably actually hurt our efforts on the war on terror.
Let's see how "insightful" you'll be 20 years from now, with a democratic Iraq flourishing for all its people and not just the few tyrants that its past was full of. Then let's see how other countries are doing. Most are currently run by a few, but even now we're starting to see Arabic people from all over that region becoming bolder in their demands for more freedoms. $400 billion is nothing when you consider the long term positive effects that this temporary chaos will eventually have on that region, and the world for that matter. Of course, when you're cheering for the wrong side, it's easier to imagine it all going wrong and being a "waste of money".
Wow.
What I don't understand is why there isn't more alarm in the USA about this situation. From my studies of economics I have come to understand that we don't really understand economics - for every economist that says the debt in the USA is a big problem, you can find another that will say it's not a problem at all. Conclusion - we don't know. However, as a biologist I do understand that graphs like this one generally indicate that a big change is about to happen:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif
"NASA administrator Michael Griffin told members of Congress when he testified before the House Science Committee February 16."
House Science Committee. Isn't that an oxymoron?
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
Thats because you probably have not looked.
For example, you could see how NASA research can benefit you if you are handicapped or as you grow older by reading Robert Heinlein's non-fiction essay "Spinoff", based on his testimony before comittee in Congress. Its found in the collection _Expanded Universe_.
You can read some of it via Amazon.com here.
It starts about page 501.
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
You _are_ aware, are you not, that things like highways, fire brigades, the CDC or indeed a standing army are not covered by that constitution of yours?
U.S. Constitution - Preamble
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Common Defence and General Welfare cover things like highways, fire brigades, the CDC and standing armies.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Wait a minute. Bush declared the war over. It can't be the least successful if it doesn't exist!
Thinking about the Bush administration just makes me mad.
Cheesy Movie Night
Ahh... no! You're hurting the slashbot's groupthink.
Too much cognitive dissonance... head exploding! BUSH EVIL! NO WAR FOR OIL!
*SPLODE*
a national healthcare system, or something sensible
I agree with you wholeheartedly. A national healthcare system is not sensible.
Common Defence and General Welfare cover things like highways, fire brigades, the CDC and standing armies.
Oh? I don't see it.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Its a bigger question than can be answered on slashdot, but here's a good start:
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1704
It truly is amazing how much that chart climbs in the years Bush Jr. has held office.
Cheesy Movie Night
"Four months before Saddam's fall, Human Rights Watch estimated that up to 290,000 people had "disappeared" since the late 1970s and were presumed dead. The Coalition Provisional Authority's human rights office estimates that 300,000 bodies are contained in the numerous mass graves. "And that's the lower end of the estimates," said one CPA spokesperson. In fact, the accumulated credible reports make the likely number at least 400,000 to 450,000. So, by a conservative estimate, the regime was killing civilians at an average rate of at least 16,000 a year between 1979 and March 2003." (Of course, any numbers of killings do not include many thousands of cases of torture, rape, amputation, branding, and other atrocities committed by Saddam's regime that stopped short of death.) [Furthermore,] U.N. economic sanctions were also killing civilians. Critics regularly claimed sanctions caused 4,000 to 5,000 Iraqi children to die per month from poor nutrition and health care. UNICEF attributed some 500,000 unnecessary deaths to the sanctions in the 1990s. The sanctions remained in place as long as Saddam's regime refused to comply with international requirements. Liberation made it possible to lift the sanctions almost immediately--thus saving approximately 60,000 lives a year, if we use UNICEF's numbers."
I don't recall any of these facts being presented as the reason for invading Iraq. Why? because they weren't, you moron. We're in Iraq for Oil. Not to catch terrorist and not to promote democracy (did you see how well we promote Democracy in Palestine lately?) and save the Children of Iraq.
Revisionist history is the art of dogs and worm scum like you.
-- Mean People Suck
From Wikipedia: "Although the water supply has reached prewar levels in some provinces, ageing and poorly maintained equipment combined with looting and vandalism leaves the drinking water system substandard."
From the GAO: "However, electrical service in the country as a whole has not shown a marked improvement over the immediate postwar levels of May 2003 and has worsened in some governorates." Not only is electrical service worse than during Saddam's rule, it's even worse than after much of their electrical capacity was destroyed DURING the war.
From Wikipedia (same link as before): "Untreated waste is polluting the Euphrates River, and many treatment plants require repair. More than 45 pipelines have exploded"
Right. And they're built to inferior standards, and you can't go to them in any case without risking death. I don't need to provide a link, you can see the story every day on CNN.
From Iraqi Body Count: estimates range from 28 - 32K deaths just from coalition military activity since the start of the war. Other estimates, some of which include deaths from lawlessness and terrorist activity, are much higher, ranging up to a quarter of a million.
Way to distort the facts. Maybe you should try getting your news from somewhere other than the Weekly Standard.
Sean
The moon doesn't have oil!!!!
> Four months before Saddam's fall, Human Rights Watch estimated that up to 290,000 people had "disappeared" since the late 1970s and were presumed dead.
You don't mention how many have died since the invasion. It might be interesting to compare the number of people killed per year during Saddam's presidency and the numbers since the invasion.
There is no doubt that Saddam was a monster, but let us put the suffering of the Iraqi people into context.
$400 billion for the Iraq war. All of it pissed away...
You say pissed away but it's not like that money was burned. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the money is still right here in the US. It's called redistribution of wealth. With Democrats it goes to their friends and the poor. With Republicans it goes to their friends and defense contractors. Really not a lot of difference between the two other than defense contractors usually pay their employees better than do the poor.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
Meanwhile in many sections of Iraq, people have their first clean water, their first reliable electricity, their first real sewer system, ever. Hundreds of schools, dozens of hospitals exist where no service was available for at least 20 years.
That's great. Why should I have to pay for it? Why should my friends and relatives have to go die for it? I don't give a flying fuck about the Iraqi people, frankly. There are kids here in the US who aren't getting a decent education or nourishment. I have relatives who can't afford good health care, in the most wealthy society on the planet.
Where are all the islamic countries and their aid? Why is it the job of the US to police the world and free the oppressed people (as long as there is some supposed long-term strategic value to doing so)? Look at what's happening in Sudan. Why aren't we sending in the troops? Oh, right... No strategic interests in that part of the world.
People like you make me crazy. Either you're insulting my intelligence by trying to divert my attention with emotional rhetoric, or you're just stupid. I wish the Bush Administration would just have the balls (hear that Rummy?) to just fucking say what they're doing, and why. "We believe that having a friendly country in the middle east will be in our long-term interests. So we took out an unfriendly despot in a country that wasn't particularly liked by its neighbors (a bunch of slightly more friendly despots). But we didn't do the homework on what would happen, and now we're kinda stuck. Oops! Live and learn!"
No, they have to pull out this stupid "Think of the happy Iraqi children!" bullshit.
Bah.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
The road system is funded by force, too. Or did you think that the Interstate Highway system was built with VC cash? With the virtually no exception, every single mile of the road that people drive on was funded by Federal and State governments. Whether you use it or not. I take Public Transit to work, but I still subsidize the roads that I'm not driving on through the taxes that the Feds take from my paycheck, the sales tax California gets when I buy things and the property taxes that I pay. Regardless of whether I drive a single mile.
I believe cars are way more efficient and cheaper once you factor in the true costs of the train system.
Really? In areas that are serviced by trains, in what way is a single car carrying a single person more efficient to the same destination than a train carrying far more? Besides, trains at least bring in some revenue through fares to somewhat offset their costs - highways largely don't.
And in many sections of Iraq, they still do not have the clean water, reliable electricity and sewer system they used to have. Moreover, the clinics and hospitals that do exist are completely overrun, understaffed and out of medecine. Oh the joy of anecdotes and incomplete information. Wake up and smell the stench of death and raw sewage.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
"This country (the U.S.) was built around personal responsibility and freedom"
Re-read your history. You misunderstand what personal responsibility and freedom meant to the people who founded the US. I suggest you read "Washington Crossing the Delaware," Macculloch (sp?) does a great job of explaining the different interpretations of the major factions.
"The trains by me are funded by force -- the average rider pays a few dollars, and the taxpayer pays almost $10 more to cover the bureaucracy of the trains."
BS. The US subsidy of trains is far less than you think. It's a mere fraction of the per-user subsidy of the highway system. Not only that, but you have no idea of the cost of a train ride, apparently. Nor do you account for the savings in public damages such as air pollution, traffic congestion, etc.
"The government welfare programs are overbudget, so the government inflates the currency, pushing the costs onto future generations while robbing the current citizens of the value of their savings and investments.
Government welfare programs are tied to inflation. Furthermore, are you aware at all of what happened to the value of currency before the US government started managing it? Or the rampant cycle of bust and boom that destroyed far more peoples' savings than the current modest rate of inflation? You are still very misinformed on the ramifications of a non-controlled currency.
"Of cousre, we'll never know, but I see most human invention coming out of a profit motive."
This is addressed in several other comments in this thread and article, so I'll skip it.
You're right, we do tend to disagree, we have very different understandings of the roles of government and how economics works. I appreciate the books you recommend to me, although I must say that the two I've read don't hold water when compared to the body of knowledge out there.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Don't you think it's important to be consistent with your anti-Bush rant?
You post two examples of Bush stating his support for manned programs, then as if you think you've proven something, post ANOTHER article saying the SAME THING yet you use it as a counter example.
Even worse though, is the assertion that the statements were for votes in 2004, and as proof of that(?) you post a 2002 budget. 2002, if I'm correct, was before 2004. What do you think you've demonstrated?
What the fuck is wrong with you mods?
War on poverty? What's that about, gunning down all the poor people?
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
NASA has failed to move into the digital era; NASA hardware is far behind current technologies. And the engineers familiar with NASA's older technologies are dying off. There is a chance that the U.S. may lose the ability to compete in space.
The U.S. government's insistence on zero margin for error ("How could an astronaut die?!! - it's unforgiveable) has also contributed to the high cost of running NASA.
Griffin used to help run the Star Wars "missile defense" boondoggle. That was a program outlawed by Congress in the 1980s, but whose administrators still found $BILLIONS each year to keep going. A program producing little useful science, and no useful defense products. It's only value was pumping corporate welfare into defense contractors and "trickle down" bribes into the politicians who love them.
But when running NASA, even Griffin can't find money to keep America's most beloved, productive, and strategic science agency alive.
Meanwhile, Bush's support for proliferating nuclear weapons to all the hot wars in Asia is great marketing for the useless Star Wars "missile defense shield".
--
make install -not war
That is expected. The closest that this admin has to war experience (excluding when powell and his people worked there), is cheney's shooting of a friend who had a gun in hand.
I really and truly feel sorry for the American people for what is likely to happen in the future. Considering the increased amount of debt that the US is in, and the trade deficit you guys have to suffer and that China keeps buying your national debt - China will _own_ the US through patience and planning, and there is nothing you can do about it unless the budget deficit is rectified immediately.
/A
Unfortunately, that means cutting the armed forces back by 90-95% and keeping organisations like PNAC under the thumb to the point that they decide to go live elsewhere. It'll probably also mean higher interest rates and harder to get credit for Joe Average.
I do not envy you guys at all right now...
Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
The constitution only enumerates the powers of the federal government. It says nothing at all about the powers of state governments. That is left to state constitutions and the like.
Just say, "Your doing gods work"; and the G.W. will be motovated again.
This once again shows how america cares not about our environment, but insted will waste billions of dollars fighting for oil. (Oh pardon me...Liberate a nation that does not want to be liberated). Rather than give a fraction on what we have wasted to a program that actually brings in results.
That things were bad before the war does not mean the war changed things for the better. I remember looking up life expectancy figures before the war to see if there was any significant difference between Iraq and neighboring Syria and Iran. Life expectancy in Iraq was around two years lower. After reading your post, I checked again.
Accoring to the CIA, the war made no difference; Iraq- 68.7 years, Iran - 69.96, Syria - 70.3.
According to the BBC, "Life expectancy: 57 years (men), 60 years (women) (UN)", or a full ten years lower than the CIA claims. The BBC website claims the UN as source; I haven't checked the UN website.
Score: Saddam 2 years - USA 12 years?
The preamble simply states the intended goals of the constitution. That is, it states that there are certain ends that the framers wanted to achieve by creating the constitution (like domestic tranquility and general welfare). It does not confer powers on anyone. The remainder of the constitution explicitly enumerates the powers of the various branches of the federal government. The framers intended these powers to contribute to achieving the goals described in the preamble. From a strict constitutional standpoint, if you don't believe that existing enumerated powers are sufficient to fully promote "the general welfare", then you should amend the constitution (by, for example, explicitly making the building of highways a federal concern).
...is that mostly, federal funding runs from the rich states that vote solidly Democrat, to the poorer states that vote Republican. Republicans hate government except when it delivers pork to their own districts.
:)
If the Randoids program were ever seriously considered for implementation I'd love to see how lonely they'd get politically
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
This work is clearly too important to Humanity to be entrusted to one single nation.
If the funding in the US dries up, scientists should go elsewhere, like EU, or Japan, or Russia, or Brazil, or India, or China. The US, as a result, will fall behind, and become a backwater bananna republic - which is precisely what it's citizens voted for.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The problem is that we stop taxing the rich and upper class with progressive taxation. Higher tax brackets is what is needed.
Tax the wealth of the upper class and rebuild our infrastructure and provide universal healthcare.
Homo Sapiens Americanus--A documentary in p
He was speaking of voters short attention span. That is voters who ignore the 2002 tax cuts but paid attention to what bush said prior to the election. Now we are back to more cuts.
Voters are not noticing lots of things. Such as Bush speaking for alternative energy, but cutting NREL 30%, then boosting them back to only a 10% cut, all the while increasing OIL research 200%. That is, he is increasing the gov. research of oil to more than what we spend on alternative research.
Now as to short attention spans, hopefully, you were able to read the above and to think. I have kept the words small just for you.
But my question to the mods is why are you still modded at 0?
Maybe this "satellite problem" is just a threat to Congress to stop cutting the budget?
No data about global warming? No global warming! Profit!
"He was speaking of voters short attention span. That is voters who ignore the 2002 tax cuts but paid attention to what bush said prior to the election. Now we are back to more cuts."
That doesn't explain how he used the same examples for both sides of his argument.
I notice you conveniently avoid addressing that because he (you) realize that it was ridiculous and makes no sense.
"But my question to the mods is why are you still modded at 0?"
Because in the bastion of groupthink that is slashdot, I dissent. Apparently all the free speech talk goes out the window when people like you are given power over other's speech.
My question to you is, why are you so ashamed of your opinion that you're afraid to put your name to it?
I think the reason the previous poster said that the money was "pissed away" is because of the apparent lack of progress in Iraq. While there have been some advances in electricity and healthcare, these advances are fairly limited and violence is still a daily fact in Iraq. According to estimates 4000 Iraqi civilians died last year due to insurgent attacks alone. Additionally, another 1600 Iraqi police and soldiers are died last year due to the insurgency. The civilian death toll for the first two months of 2006 is 1000 people (source here). So violence seems to be trending upwards.
Iraq is the new breeding ground for terrorists because of the high unemployment, oppression, and poverty. Unemployment is at 60% according to Senator John Murtha this week. He also states that oil production is below prewar levels and only 30% of Iraqis actually have running water. Also, Amnesty International reports that prisoners in Iraq are still being tortured (source here). I still believe that torture is unacceptable and so do many other Americans and people all over the world.
I think the real frustration is that there is no real strategy or plan for the American actions in Iraq (just repeating "stay the course" is NOT a plan). As it stands right now, it seems we will be on the ground in Iraq indefinitely. American troops in Iraq will only help fuel the insurgency as time goes on and the Iraqi people become more resentful of our presence. With British troops set to pull out by 2008, America will be pretty much alone in the country.
Smeghead every day of the week.
Umm, no.
Standing Army would be covered under Section 8 (Powers of Congress) "To raise and support Armies...".
The CDC is arguable, but in the same section we have "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" which could cover the CDC. That said, when the CDC got into the Gon Control debate, they lost any respect I might have had for what they do.
Fire Brigades? Those are funded by municipalities and other local governments. They're not even State level, much less national.
Highways? "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;" from Section 8 seems to cover that nicely, without even invoking "general Welfare" or "common Defence" - remember that the Interstate Highway System was built to facilitate military movements.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Bush has increased it slightly. It is fairly flat line compared to CPI (in 1996 dollars). Plain and simple, telling the NASA admin to do a great deal more, while keeping funding at about the same level. By the time that Bush is out of office (end of term or in prison), NASA will have been gutted. I only hope that in the end, griffin is doing the right things. Personally, I suspect that he is, IN SPITE of bush's inability to manage.
What about selling programs, satellites to other nations/institutes? Think of the benefit of buying completed or almost completed, maybe even launched satellites. Would that be viable?
If the scientists had been in control, we would have shot the International Space Station and the Shuttle years ago. Together they suck up most of NASA's budget, and return little or nothing in new data.
You are correct, NASA's budget is not being globally cut. However, because most of it is directed towards the ISS and Shuttle, there's not much left for support of small science or new manned vehicle design.
Congress needs to take its lumps for this mess, too. The ISS and Shuttle are popular because they spend money in most of the states.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
It could also just be a continuation of the status quo at NASA and a sign Griffin is losing the battle to reform NASA. There is a huge, powerful, entrenched bureaucracy at NASA in its manned space program. They spend the lion's share of NASA's budget and have for its entire existence. They are at a cross roads now. They've spent vast sums on two completely failed programs, the Shuttle and the ISS. They need to perpetuate their empire and protect their jobs program. The solution.... they are going to continue to squander money on ISS, Shuttle and the small army that feeds off them, AND they are going to start spending new vast sums on the their next gig at the same time.
If you were trying to right the situation at NASA chances are you would kill Shuttle and ISS outright and turn the ISS over to the Russians. They are already completely responsible for keeping it alive, and probably will continue with a modest budget and goals. If they were free of NASA interference maybe they could make a modest success out of it.
NASA would then be free to cull out all the dead weight in those programs and start a smaller leaner program to develop new launch vehicles that work. After that maybe they could get to the Moon and Mars. If all the money, people and time being squandered trying in vain to make the shuttle and ISS work were put in to a new program it might succeed. As it is Shuttle and ISS will continue to drain resources both from the new manned space program and EVERYTHING else NASA does. If there is a money contest between JPL or other unmanned programs that produce a LOT for very little money, and the manned space program that produces very little for a LOT of money, the manned space program wins every time. It is glamorous, it creates more jobs and as a result has more political support from politicians who want the prestige and the job programs in their district.
The dirty secret about NASA like all bureaucracies is the ones which are most successful and most powerful are the ones which are least efficient and most wasteful because they employ the most people and spend the most money and that translates in to power in bureaucracies. Doing more with less does not.
@de_machina
Perhaps this is slightly off topic, but Stephen Baxter's novel, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061057088/Voyage , deals with such debate in a very compelling story.
It's an interesting, very well researched read that makes you ask questions about NASA's priorities in recent decades.
After I finished, I kind of realized, that real science, smart un-manned missions and baby steps towards long term goals are better than flags and footprints.
... starting with those pesky sciencetitians that keep pointing out the flaws in our ideologically-driven policies.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
That should be Dei Gratia. As in 'ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA FIDEI DEFENSOR'. Gloria Deus would be 'the glory of God'.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Yeah, but do you really want to piss off a bunch of people that you trained to use rifles?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
>Why should I have to pay for it? Why should my friends and relatives have to go die for it?
Because your government chose to bomb and invade Irak, killing tens of thousands of people, reducing the country's infrastructures to a state which is worse than during Saddam reign ?
Frankly, I don't think that Americans are in any position to complain.
Thank you for the book ref. I am interested to read it.
As for the baby steps. I actually agree with you... I would rather see us send LOTS of probes and robots out. Much more then we have or are or will be..
My only point was slashing the budget and saying lets go to Mars are counter statements and actions.
That's all and thanks again for the book ref.
Go where the money is. Works all the time.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Hey, that chart was levelling off. A classic S-shaped curve, exponential growth hitting limits and slowing to a new equilibrium. I'd guess that in mid-2000 things were looking pretty good. Then in 2001 it's up again, and every year since then it's gone up, and up, and up some more.
What the hell went wrong in late 2000, guys? What changed?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
We are Americans, E Pluribus Unum. Helping Californians helps me. If I help pay to fix earthquake damage in California, they help pay to fix tornado damage here. That way neither of our economies is overly strained. And that benefits us all.
I agree, insurance doesn't exist.
Oh hey, can you buy me a TV? That helps society, right? I get better entertainment, and can better entertain friends, and hey, we're all connected, right? That means some of these benefits are going to spill over onto you! You support that, rigth? Cause we gotta help each other, man. Don't be one of these rugged individualists who only looks out for himself.
You're an idiot.
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
In many cases debt is actually wealth. IF you buy 20,000 worth of goods that can be sold for 40,000 you have good debt. If you commit to a 200,000 mortgage on a home that will sell for 400,000 in 10 years you have good debt. Borrowing $5 to buy a chocolate bar that you then consume.. you have bad debt... unless you need that chocolate to survive ;-p
The US gov can spend trillions and still have good debt if those trillions are an investment in an improved economy, improved export revenues, improved technology, etc. that will return as profits in the long run.. and be trillions in debt for a few years, hundreds of billions a few other years and trillions again... doesn't matter as long as it's invested debt, not consumed debt.
in fact our economy is based on debt and it would fail if we were to ever 'balance the budget' (which Clinton never did, he just showed numbers that proved that it would balance if spending continued the way it was going). Likewise we can never ever pay off the federal deficit... we'd no longer be obligated to anyone and our eocnomy would be floating free with no trade committments either way which would lead to complete chaos and uncertainty in the value of money. Money is backed by debt... it's the IOUs that give it value. Money would be worthless if it didn't represent a colossal promise to pay network.
But you're probably right, change is always right around the corner... especially with an election for a brand new president coming up in 2 years.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
1) Cut down NASA budgets so that they no longer can afford observing satellites.
2) Without these satellites, we loose great amounts of data on climate.
3) No data = no claims that we are hurting the plant, therefore no need to abide by the Kyoto Protocol or other environment protection treaties.
4) ????(*)
5) Profits.
(*) This step may never lead to step number 5, since there is a good chance that at this point our planet may already be ruined beyond repartation.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
On behalf of all the Iraqi people, I would just like to say THANK YOU AMERICAN SOLDIERS, for all depleted uranium dust swirling around in our enviornment, and the fields of cluster bombs, both of which will kill our children for the next two hundred years or more. That's ok, they are better off dead anyway than living in a world dominated by US GLOBAL POLITICAL CORPORATE MACHINES.
Its you poor stupid politically retarded American's I feel sorry for. Even when your government lies to you and lies again and again and again you still defend them and want to believe they are the good guys despite an ocean of evidence in your face every day to the contrary. You trail in political understanding far behind your European brothers who went through that fascist nightmare of out of control state power in World War II
Eventually you are going to have to stand up and stop being pussies and fight your own government not only for your own freedom, but for you very own survival, because you have complacently forfeited your freedoms without even raising a fight. That, my friends, is a nation of cowards.
The fact of the matter is, all state powers are evil by their very nature. They print script and tax and wage war.
The only way the human race will ever be free is if we all stop paying taxes, stop using their money, stop joining their militaries, stop building bombs for them under contract, stop obeying their laws.
Umm... that's the point he was making, that the US shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
Oh wait I forgot, all Americans are dumb.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
I think we all know what changed.
2001 began a new millennium, which increased the economy clock multiplier, causing higher debt output ratio than before.
Oh wait, no, it was Bush.
"Why should my friends and relatives have to go die for it?"
Because they volunteered.
You'd have a point if we had a draft, but we don't so you don't.
In many cases debt is actually wealth.
You post just convinces me further of belief that we don't really understand economics...
Debt is debt. Saying that a debt is actually wealth, because the thing you have brought might be worth more in the future, is just gambling. It might be worth less. Running an economy on the premise that "the more we spend, the wealthier we are" just sounds foolish to me. One day, the bubble bursts, and I'm afraid that day is coming fast...
Second, reduction in spending doesn't necessarily mean a 90-95% reduction in US armed forces. After all, the US hegemony has provided considerable value to the US and that appears to require a significant yet affordable amount of military power. Currently, there's isn't a compelling reason to relinquish that and one would need to take into account the decline in tax revenue.
Finally, the US already serves as a sort of ideological dumping ground. If the PNAC couldn't for some reason function inside the US, it would no doubt set up shop somewhere else. The EU is an obvious location.
"No one is thinking about how, when he came into office, he slashed the NASA budget to the BONE."
Well? This is from Wikipedia, but it checks with other sources too.
1999 13.665 12.999 1.0512
2000 13.601 12.618 1.0779
2001 14.253 12.884 1.1062
2002 14.902 13.305 1.12 (est)
2003 15.00 13.158 1.14 (est)
2004 15.470 13.452 1.15 (est)
2005 16.043 13.711 1.17 (est)
Looks like the budget is NOT less, yet you claimed otherwise.
Attack me all you want, you said something that is provably FALSE. And save that "adjusted for inflation" crap, you didn't say it, so don't claim that's what you meant after the fact.
First of all, I can't see what NASA's budget has to do with the amount of money spent in Iraq. Comparing the two is a purely rhetorical move, intended to show that NASA's budget is small -- which it isn't. $16 billion is actually quite a lot of money. Secondly, just pumping shitloads of cash into NASA (also known as the 'rob from the rich and give to the needy' approach) will not solve anything. All in all, your comment's hardly insightful; in fact, it's completely contentless. But hey, this is Slashdot, the place where the blind can see and the legless walk.
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
If your notional earthquake gets bad enough that the citizens of California cannot afford to repair the damage, those in the rest of the country who feel charitable can and will donate to charities in order to assist the citizens of California. That's why historicaly the American people are the most generous on a per capita basis - the Federal government was never intended to serve as some social experiment at forced charity, it was only meant to fill the most basic and neccesary roles, with states, municipalities, and ultimately individuals taking up the rest of the load. The rest of the world always whines and complains when the US federal government doesn't match (on a GDP basis) "donation" by other countries, however what they don't take into account is that donations by individual citizens usualy make up the difference. Would you rather have a system where 50% of your pay-cheque is taken away every month to pay for causes you don't give a crap about, or have only 10% taken away to pay for basic services, thereby giving you the other 40% to spend or donate however you wish?
Because your government chose to bomb and invade Irak, killing tens of thousands of people, reducing the country's infrastructures to a state which is worse than during Saddam reign ?
Frankly, I don't think that Americans are in any position to complain.
Where in the fuck did you get the idea that I was happy about that? I am mad as hell that we went there to begin with, dummy. It's not my government. I didn't vote for them. I held my nose and voted for the other guys. So did most of the people in my state and my part of the country.
The Iraqi people don't want us there, no matter how many right-wing cheerleaders post pictures of smiling children. If they did, they'd police themselves and settle the fuck down. After the shrine was blown up the other week, there were Iraqi police running around killing Sunnis. There are Shiite death squads (mostly police and army) who've been operating pretty much out in the open for at least a year.
This is not a civilized place, and the people are not ready for democracy. They don't want it. We can't force it on them. We fucked up. We've wasted money and lives. If the islamic world cared about anything besides hating the West, they'd step in and help Iraq help itself.
The US military does not train peacekeepers! They're trained to bring as much death and destruction to an area as they have to in order to achieve a strategic goal. When the military gets involved, people die. I wish our fucking cowboy-in-chief understood that, or cared. Maybe if most of our government officials hadn't gotten deferments in the last big war (oh, sorry, "police action"), they'd understand that.
For the record, lefties annoy me as much as right-wingers. They're two sides of the same (stupid) coin. People don't fucking think for themselves anymore.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
Yes the 19 billion represents Official Development Aid, but I was being a little liberal with my numbers and including Private Aid coming from the US as well as the substantial Foreign Direct Investment, which is about 200 billion going to developing countries.
To be fair though, We expect to get some financial return on the majority of that FDI.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Hanged. But AFAIK the ICC doesn't impose the death penalty. And, unfortunately, the US never signed up to the treaties that would be necessary for Americans to be tried, so Bush has immunity from prosecution.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
De-orbit the IPS (International Porkbarrel Station) so it impacts precisely at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That will solve two problems at once.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
That will not be a problem because Bush keeps cutting Veteran's benefits, to the tune of over $14 Billion since he took office.
To be fair, Bush is just the idiot who goes along with the budget by signing it, but he is just one of the many idiots that make proposals to spend like there is no tomorrow. Throw the bums out!
Vote Libertarian.
Rather it happened in 2001, your president's been pumping non-existant cash into the War on Terror ever since then and it's all come by just increasing your country's debt. That's why the value of the dollar has fallen so much in recent years.
you broke it (Iraq), you fix it
Meanwhile, Vietnam, which we lost about 30 years ago, is doing fairly well and has become a trading partner.
Of course, I don't see how this jibes with his talk earlier about promoting science, but I suppose that was just empty PR anyway. You don't need fancy satellites to tell you about the world when ID can explain anything for free.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
To end off, let's compare some major economies and their level of debt.
UK--40.8%
Germany--65.8%
Italy--105.6%
Japan--164.3%
Russia--28.2%
Spain--53.2%
India--59.7%
Brazil--52%
Canada--68.2%
South Korea--20.5%
France--66.5%
US--64.7%
See the rest here--http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook /fields/2186.html
For some shits and giggles, check out this report comparing the US to the EU.http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/
Scientist: Mr President, data collected from our Earth observing satellites is proof that's mankind is the major contributor to Global Warming!
GWB (Picks up phone): Send in the budget adjusters please..... I have a little job them. MuHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
It's not so much expenses are investment.
... you name it.
And we should always keep in mind all the benefits of this kind of war:
+ technology boost for a vast area of domains :
- weapons technology, of course. And that's important when you're one of the first arms dealers in the world. You have to keep head with competition.
- new medicines (prisoners, but also soldiers, are the ideal guinea pigs on which to test experimental substances
for which testing could be otherwise banned by well-thinking lobbyists. Vae Victis. Ciao Guantanamo, Abu Graib and other we'll never (and don't) want to learn about.
- army tactics: new tactics come with new types of engagement. guerilla, suicide bombings. New ways to learn.
- media manipulation strategies: no really advances here since Dr. Goebbels, but what a wonderful opportunity there to rediscover this fundamental truth: the bigger the lie, the more it is accepted.
A considerable amount of knowledge has already been gathered through this war, and things will continue that way. If you want to keep ahead of the technology race, nothing more valuable than a good, dirty, holy war.
+ juicy benefits for US industries: oil, reconstruction, security,
Of course, one could object that the people suffering from these expenses won't be those who will rip the benefits.
But the beneficiaries (big industries, big media, with lots of political friends) do matter a lot more, politically speaking, than the others(on the whole poor people, i.e. the cannon fodder of the history of civilizations)
So don't ruin the Big Party, and support these troop$.
Then you notice who's really supporting our troops. It's people like Washington State's liberal Senator Murray, who keeps trying to put the money back.
So somewhat less than $BIL 200, and not all to developing countries.
In fact, according to the data I found developing economies had total FDI inflows (from all sources, not just the US) of only $MIL 233,227 and outflows of $MIL 83,190.
So the US FDI in the developing countries could be around $BIL 200 if
Watch this Heartland Institute video
All you need to do is to check how government manipulates the numbers... The numbers behind the lies
check out this report comparing the US to the EU
And you criticise the graph I link to for being misleading? That is the most misleading document I've ever seen!
The only added-value this comment will provide is a (shameless) link to slashgeo.org. It is an ad-free community-driven slashcode-based website for geospatial technologies, including Remote Sensing. If you're reading this article, well, you probably have a serious interest in satellites, remote sensing, GIS and stuff alike, thus you could also be interested in slashgeo itself!
Cheers -
Animoog.org
Anyone notice that the national debt was beginning to level off during the Clinton years? It's a shame our government doesn't care about its financial status anymore.
The worst part of being a U.S. citizen: What's going to happen when the world demands to collect on the U.S. debt? It's no longer a matter of IF, but WHEN.
...for satellite launches because it just isn't economic or safe. It costs a lot more to put a satellite into a parking orbit with the shuttle, then with a traditional launch vehicle. Considerring that you still have to do a hoheman transfer after that, *and* a plane change (launches from Kennedy have a minimum inclination of 28 degrees, completely useless for geostationary satellites) there isn't really any advantage in using the shuttle. There is certainly less risk involved in traditional launchers too. If it explodes at launch, you've lost a satellite and a launcher. If the shuttle is lost on launch/re-entry... well we just have to look at the Columbia for the results. Why take the risk when an unmanned launcher can do the job just as well, if not better? If we take the Arianne launcher for example. It can put a geostationary satellite directly into a transfer orbit, negating a perigee burn and hence saving a *lot* of fuel. Further more, launches from French Guiana have a minimum inclination of 5 degrees, hence a plane change to acheive an equitorial orbit is much smaller, further reducing the fuel requirements. There is even a launcher called SeaLaunch that is launched from the equator, completely removing the costly plane change. Ah, but what if you want to put a satellite into an orbital inclination of more then 28 degrees? That's all well and good until you hit 46 degrees, the Russians can easily undersell NASA. Old ICBMs cost $200,000. A minute fraction of a shuttle launch. With all these vastly cheaper, and often easier (especially SeaLaunch and Arianne) launch methods, it's no wonder NASA doesn't get a heck of a lot of business launching anything other then US military/government/scientific satellites.
Official threat to Homeland Security
University of Surrey - http://www.surrey.ac.uk
Now, I think that the Iraq War is an expensive and miserable failure, same as the next guy, but hyperbole really weakens the case, don't you think?
You don't claim to know the long-term costs of the Iraq War, do you? It doesn't take much imagination to think of how it could dwarf all other wars in costliness. It really has been a boon for the military-industrial complex, though, hasn't it? It's my belief that we will be remembered for the fact that we couldn't control our own corruption from within. America could be so much stronger if it spent its resources wisely.
No, I'm not talking about government; I'm talking about the posts on this thread. At least 2/3 of the posts on this thread should be marked Off-Topic. Look, the title article is about NASA; could someone at least talk about NASA? Instead, so many are spewing off their political and economic philosophies.
OK, here's the deal: NASA just got a budget increase. Did anyone notice that? That's important, because it means the budget cuts are not to NASA, but to some programs. And, the reason, children, that the satellites are being starved, the number one reason for budget cuts everyone else in NASA, is not because Bush is President or the Republicans control Congress or the U.S. Vietnam War was a stalemate or the U.S. economy is deep in debt. No; the Number One drain on NASA's budget is the space shuttle program, followed closely by the space station program. As in, say bye-bye to 80% or more of whatever money NASA gets. THIS IS THE REASON BUSH IS CUTTING OUR LOSSES ON THE SHUTTLE AND SPACE STATION!! We (in the U.S.) have to get rid of those programs, or we aren't going to have a space program.
Yes, the Earth-observing satellite programs are in bad shape. They have been for a long time. Believe it or not, they were in bad shape before Bush became President. And, unless we cut our losses on the space station and come up with an economical replacement for the space shuttle, the EOS programs are going to be in terrible shape long after Bush leaves office.
Nothing I've said here is secret or novel. This is all common knowledge to anyone paying attention to the U.S. space program. So, how to explain the bulk of the posts to this thread?
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
You know, I was watching a show about the three mile island incident the other day. It showed president Carter going to the site to do a press release to show the public that it was safe. (well, it was sorta safe) That little show really made the local people feel better. "if the president is here, then it must be okay" He was willing to take a personal risk to help ease the concerns the of the people he serves.
How did we go from a president that served in the military, with nuclear physics experience, that was willing to take a risk to fulfill his duties to...well.
Grover Norquist, neocon extraordinaire and architect of Bush's economic program, once said that he wanted to shrink the Federal government to a size that could be then drowned in a bathtub.
After a 200 billion dollar war, estimated to have a final cost in the trillions, massive tax cuts, and borrowing to finance all of that, we are coming close to the endgame that the neocon theorists are playing towards: the bankrupting of the Federal government. No money for discretionary projects. It's a radical agenda. They are repealing the twentieth century by spending the government to death. And they're making a FORTUNE while doing so, and will continue to do so in the future as we service the debt they are saddling us with -- they own some of that debt, so they have a perpetual welfare machine for the wealthy. 17 percent of the budget is now interest on the debt, and it will increase to 25 percent in the nest few years. Imagine: a quarter from every dollar taxed will go to the holders of the debt instruments -- forever, since we'll never have the cash to pay down that nine billion dollar monster. We've gone from a 5 trillion dollar debt to a 9 trillion dollar debt in five years.
And back to point, this means no space program. No NASA. No research. No satellites to monitor global warming. No Mars. No SETI. NASA was living in a trailer park, budgetwise, for decades, but now it is being evicted from the lot.
No money left, sorry, we spent it all.
AND we'll still need to raise taxes just to keep up with the debt payments!
How much have the neocons cost us with these supply side experiments? How many trillions ahve we paid, how many more, just in interest to finance these tax cuts?
First of all, that link was not the main point of my comment (which you did not address.) Even so, what did you find misleading about it?
Now that things are getting tighter, we're discovering that he was playing a political yes-man, that projects have been in extreme danger for some time, and that the current budget might mean the closure of almost all Earth Science departments at NASA.
Please remember that he was specifically asked to get rid of the yes-man culture at NASA, but he has now been exposed as not only not doing so, but has been promoting it through his actions. I hope Congress raises NASA's budget to sane levels, sure, but it won't be easy if NASA won't tell them what levels are needed to be sane.
Whilst Congress is at it, I hope they also pass a bill to fire Dr. Griffin and pass a law prohibiting yes-men from ever being hired or retained by the agency.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Shoo, you pesky number station! Shoo!
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Don't know about 2000, but to a mythical matter-of-fact outside observer, 2001 marked the terror attack of September 11, and thus the beefing up of national security and the onset of two foreign wars, plus the scares of recession and dip in recreational travel, etc. One would hope (for the victims' sake) that the same trend will be visible in 2005 due to Katrina.
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
There are some complexities that are getting missed in your assessment.
First, the US can't cut military spending by 90-95%. It's simply ridiculous to suggest. The US has so much infrastructure (both in-country and outside) that there's always a significant outlay of cash required to keep it running. The military's strategic and logistical partnerships with other nations span the globe. US bases overseas are part of the socioeconomic framework of the host countries. As much as American towns and cities resist the closure of bases, so do the communities overseas. In Germany, for example, US military bases provide a lot of economic stability and when these bases are closed (as is happening now in the current re-alignment), the effects are just as devastating as they are for American towns. Barber shops, hardware stores, furniture stores, construction firms, grocers, etc. all take a hit when, say, 20% of the town's population picks up and leaves. Also, the US military must have the best of every kind of system. Part of the problem with being the biggest and the strongest is that you have to maintain that state, which is costly. It's safe to say that the military-industrial complex is simply too large and too powerful, but they would not be that way if the US didn't require the best and most advanced equipment.
What I think you may be driving at is the cost of conflict, which is high in wartime. Regardless of where one stands on the reasons for conflict or their validity, Americans are bearing the overwhelming cost of current wartime activity. It's especially so in Iraq, and perhaps less so in Afghanistan, but that may reflect where the international community sees the greatest need. The US is not the only victim of Islamic terrorism, after all. What may also be adding to the current cost of conflict is that a sizable chunk of that money (~400 billion for Iraq so far) is being spent with contractors like Titan, Khaki, KBR (and other Halliburton subsidiaries), Triple Canopy, etc. Military contracts in wartime are not unusual by themselves, but this is the first war for the US in which the profits of contractors and suppliers have not been restricted and tax cuts have been permitted. Furthermore, the American citizenry has not been asked to sacrifice anything for the effort -- there's no draft, there is no rationing of fuel or foodstuffs, for example. If the revenue gets cut and the costs are magnified, the fiscal problem gets bigger.
The biggest piece of spending, apart from entitlements, goes to service the debt. That piece gets bigger and bigger every year. As it does, other spending gets squeezed out. Entitlements are ripe for squeezing, btw. You can short people on their entitlements, but you can't miss a debt payment.
As for China holding our debt, they're not alone. Lots of nations buy US treasury bonds. What's important to remember is that the US has a very diverse and powerful economy. Even though there is a lot of US paper around, China in particular still finds it wise to peg their curency against the dollar. Yes, there is the risk of interest rate hikes. However, China has no banking system, really -- not in a sense that any western nation would recognize. The national merchant/investment bank is a near-empty building that is staffed by a handful of people who are paid to sit at desks and do nothing. I saw a report on it about a month ago on 60 minutes. (I looked for a link but didn't find one, but you could probably buy the transcript.)
So, yeah the debt's a problem, but it's not quite so dire just yet. In 20 year's time, when the full weight of entitlements are felt and the current trends of the additional debt are played out, then it will be a crisis. Right now, America needs better fiscal leadership. Traditionally, that's been territory claimed by republicans, but it's safe to say that times have changed. I'm not happy with the current situation, either, but I'm optimistic about the prospects for a strong reaction against nonstop spending and war pr
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
... Since I'm pretty sure there are plenty of things the government would rather pay for than satellite programs to monitor our increasingly volatile climate. Like programs to monitor people. No, let's just forget those nasty hurricanes that came and totally stomped our asses last year, and the weather patterns and climatic changes that spawned them. We have a resource war to pay for, and clearly the entire goddamn planet takes second place. Of course, since NASA seems to believe in witchcraft like 'global warming' and other such heresy, they probably don't deserve the money anyway. (Insert obvious sarcasm here.) Let's just watch the satellites drop while we piss into the wind, getting blown away while our tax dollars are squandered on other clearly more important 'projects'.
The same reason everyone else in the US has to pay for policies they oppose, because thats the way our system works. What? Should it all be voluntary financial support for each policy?
Who you voted for and whether or not your happy with the results really doesn't fucking matter. It is still your government just like it is still my government just like it would still be our government if Kerry was sitting in office.
I hope to god your kidding.
---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
Ah, indeed. That would be 1000 off, should squashing Dubya be your goal. Last time I checked, he was supposed to reside at the White House, 2600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.
917243? What are you 14, inexperienced, selfish or just stupid?
You equate entertainment (tv) with a natural disaster (earthquake) and call the parent an idiot? Love to hear you tell someone from New Orleans that. I also love how Bush apologists and pathetic antagonists like your self always attack someone with a bad analogy and then call them an idiot. Yes, you are the smart one.
There are a lot of poorly thought out posts on this subject, some flawed logic and more than a few frighteningly conceived, badly informed posts... and you're right down there with them.
There are also many very well informed, intelligent posts here today, It's a pity you aren't learning from them. But you just got here so there's still hope.
posting anon: mod points
That $400 is a vast vast understatement. Look at extended costs. Between the Benefits paid out to the families of the 2300+ soliders killed, and the medical costs for all the solders wounded (16,600+), and those coming back wiht Post Traumatic Stress, etc, it's estimated that we could end up paying 10 billion a year for that. And since most of the soldiers were only about 20, we'll be paying on that yearly for the next 45 years or so.
A retarded easterner with a fake Texas accent who skipped out on his military duty and sank every business he ever ran? Good question.
Actually, the bigger spending problem is seniors, not the Iraq war or defense spending. Defense is much smaller (at 23% of total government spending even when you include veterans' affairs) than government expenditures on social security, medicare, and other retirement-related programs (which cost 36% of total government spending). My source is the federal government, via a handy pie chart on page 81 of the instructions for IRS tax form 1040.
This problem is only going to get worse as people live longer and have fewer (tax-paying) children.
The obvious solution? We should have fought the Iraq war with senior-soldiers. Social security checks could have been conditional on enlistment.
The worst part is, most people won't care about it until another depression comes around. And the majority will blame the liberals, not because they caused it, but because propaganda will tell them so.
AC? What are you, 14, inexperienced, or unable to follow an argument?
Let's slow this down so that even you can understand it:
The GP was justifying massive government programs on the basis that, hey, we each go through bad times, so we help each other out. Okay? See where he's going? He's talking about having government programs as a kind of mutual insurances, i.e., if you oppose them, hey, you're going to get the short end of the stick one day and then you'll wish you had joined it. Still following? Still following? Gotta keep you ADD types focused because of your short attention span.
Okay, so then my first pithy response was to remind him that (actual) insurance is already there for this precise purpose -- his whole rant neglected the existence of insurance.
Then I pointed out the flawed premise behind his "we have to work together"/"we're all interconnected" bit by pointing out just how ridiculous it is. Any forced transfer from him to me could conceiveably be shown to spill some nebulous benefit onto him. This forces him to HEY STOP, LISTEN, NOW'S NOT THE TIME TO DRAW CARTOONS this forces him to rethink that whole angle. Yes, there may be some benefits, but you know, it's probably small. Hey! That might be why those evil, nasty, atomistic individualists "want every man for himself" -- because they see these supposed benefits as nebulous and flimsy, and we'd all be better off if we left each other own and had to see the true costs of our decisions! WOW!!! ZOWWY ZOWWY ZOWWY! *flashing lights*
Damn! Since this forces him to rethink his premises and the haste with which he mumbles some nebulous connection between people and a "we all benefit" assertion, maybe now he can see why others view his proposals as riduculous.
But that flew right by you, didn't it? All you saw was that "hey! He used the term 'TV' in the same context as disaster aid. OMG!!!!! He thinks suffering a disaster is 'like' (whatever that means) not having a TV! How DARE he! How dare he trivialize this topic! Let's focus on that and totally ignore his dismantling of the premise!"
Chugga chugga chugga chugga CHOOO CHOOO!!!!!!! Clue train has left the station, and it's missing one passenger.
You're still an idiot.
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
"From my studies of economics I have come to understand that we don't really understand economics..."
This isn't a major problem as long as we realize our understanding is limited.
The problem occurs when economists (and others) believe they understand economics and act accordingly.
Bicches.
Speak for yourself. I always liked Carter.
in fact our economy is based on debt and it would fail if we were to ever 'balance the budget' (which Clinton never did, he just showed numbers that proved that it would balance if spending continued the way it was going).
Uhh...isn't that exactly what you do when you make a budget?
From Dictionary.com:
budget
1. An itemized summary of estimated or intended expenditures for a given period along with proposals for financing them: submitted the annual budget to Congress.
2. A systematic plan for the expenditure of a usually fixed resource, such as money or time, during a given period: A new car will not be part of our budget this year.
3. The total sum of money allocated for a particular purpose or period of time: a project with an annual budget of five million dollars.
"National Healthcare is not acceptable to me -- there is no mandate or power to Congress to provide it."
While you have the right to your opinion about national healthcare (even if I think it is wrong), your basic ignorance of the facts insures that your opinion holds little weight. I would suggest you actually read the US Constitution-especially the phrases below:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
and
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"
Congress has the mandate and authority to provide national healthcare (that falls under the "general welfare"). They have certainly had their power and authority upheld in far murkier areas....
Vuja De: That sinking feeling that this is going to happen again. Often occurs in meetings with Product Managers.
PNAC is the Project for a New American Century. They are hawks, think-tanks and move in the shadows normally, but because they have the ear of your current president, they have become bold and don't shy away from the light so much presently. Their manifesto is a cause for concern, whether you are american or not. PNAC argued for invading Iraq two years before 9/11. No wonder the sales of tin-foil hats have shot up.
Okay, so cutting military spending by 90% immediately is not feasible. But cutting military spending so that you have a defence, not an offence, is well feasible, and will save tons of cash. Wars of conquest, as presently in Iraq, are expensive and sap the strength not only of the forces, but also of the people in the conquering nation. It also generates more enemies than is annihilated in the conquest.
As for 'islamic terrorism', while terror can never be excused - no matter who wields it, the individual or the mightiest nation on the planet - the motives behind the actions can be understood. The individual that has lost everything, that sees all they know come under threat by a might they can never compete against, sometimes take action in a way that couch-potatoes watching SuperBowl might never comprehend. Making the ultimate sacrifice to try and gain the freedom of your peers - it was not too many generations ago that a civil war took place in USA, where people made that type sacrifice for exactly the same reasons.
Lastly, any economy, no matter how diverse, can - and will - fall on hard times. Being heavily in debt, with most of that debt owned by a single entity, and being refused credit is a position where ones courage, attitude and honour comes under scrutiny. Time will tell how that test is passed.
Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
A low tax rate does not a good place to live make. Sure, I'd like lower tax, but at the same time, I'd like health-care that is affordable, that won't stop treating me because I contracted something that took longer to treat than the insurance company were willing to pay for - despite happily taking the insurance premium month in and month out for decades.
I'd want some form of social security, _especially_ in a market economy where the economy thrives on keeping a proportion of the workforce out of work - as competition is healthy, or so they say. A society that sacrifices social wellfare to ensure low taxes for the few well off is shortsighted at best.
But there is the difference between Europe and the US. Somehow people find it harder to ignore "the weak filth that can't take care of themselves" over here in Europe. Social conscience, humanity towards others, is still valued here, where it is seen as strength - not weakness.
On the issue of PNAC setting up shop in Europe, the mere suggestion is laughable. The agenda they have, were defeated once already over half a century ago. Europe will not tolerate the same ideas again in a hurry...
Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
For Bush, the only part of the world we need satellites aimed at is Iraq! He doesn't need satellites looking at the U.S., either -- he'll just tap our phones instead!
Hello, just wanted to point out that the army had a peacekeeping school and one of the first things Bush, Jr. did after taking office was close it down. -_-
The reason countries like Japan are so competitive w/ us is because their corporations don't have to shell out for medical insurance. National Health Care would take a huge burden off of our companies and give us a fighting chance at the whole "free trade" thing.
PNAC not only holds the ear of our government, they make up the highest levels of it. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Bush brother Jeb are main players of PNAC. John Bolton is a high-ranking PNAC soldier; his vociferous diatribes are scattered throughout the PNAC's library of essays.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
These NASA cuts are just the tip of what coming up. Americans have spent way too much money; http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&si d=amz.HoNLRL_0&refer=us
/ index.html
It's interesting that these cuts focus on earth science and the same satellites that keep us informed about climate changes. One of the thorny issues for this administration has been global warming, and this seems like another case of this administration's approach to problems. Rather than fix the problem, they try to make the problem disappear by attacking or dismantling those who publicize it. Remember Abu Ghraib? The administration's immediate response wasn't, "We're sorry, it'll never happen again." No, it was, "Who were those bastards who released the photos - let's get 'em!" How about the reclassification of thousands of declassified documents? Not to mention the recent censorship of NASA publications by a representative from the White House http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11240405/.
This administration's 'problem solving' and our financial situation highlighted in that article makes me feel like American power is crumbling from the inside out. While continuing to bark, we've lost our bite. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/07/us.iran.ap
[o]_O
You forgot the ever increasing costs from the wars on drugs and poverty.
While I don't have a problem with government spending money on space projects, I do believe that the people should have a say in where or how the money gets spent. Set up elections for a range of choices, chosen by the people. It's the least that can be done - after all, their money is being spent.
What global warming, i don't see any global warming...
...
Oh, wait
There are soo many of those groups around here, it's ridiculous. The odd thing is that were never quite so coordinated as they've become over the past ten years or so. Kinda scary in a way.
Well, the US did have a fairly defensive posture throughout the cold war, and one of the main critiques of it (something which rang true for many voters, too) was that it made the military weak. Iraq is not a war of conquest, really. It's a terrible travesty that was foisted on the American people in the hyper-nationalistic aftermath of the Sept. 11th attacks, but Iraq will continue to be Iraq, run by Iraqis (at least the ones that are sensitive to US concerns in the region) and eventually left to its own devices. Make no mistake, by invading the country and having to remain there in the destabilized aftermath, the US has signed up for more than a decade of presence there, but we've had longer tenures in other (admittedly more friendly) nations and America will stick it out in Iraq, too.
Let me lay it out very clearly for you. Islamic terrorists run around blowing things up for one reason: because they read the Koran to say that anyone who is not a muslim, or anyone that associates with non-muslims is an infidel and must die. If they don't kill the infidels and the apostates that associate with them, they will not reach heaven, nor will anyone in their family. It's that simple, really. It's been going on since long before the US came into being. Israel gets socked because it's viewed as an imperialist occupier of muslim lands. This "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" notion is the comfy pillow for people who do not want to call a spade a spade. It's a spade, my friend. It's not some altruistic vision that revealed itself to poor helpless people oppressed by America. More than half the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi -- rich people who don't work for a living and have never had want for anything. Same thing for the Cole attack in Yemen. Lost everything? Under threat? Bullshit.
Oh, by the way, the American Civil War was fought because close to half of the states of the union (those that happened to have the majority of the available coastline of the nation and more than half the arable land, it's worth noting) decided that they wanted to secede from the union because they wanted the freedom to own slaves and keep making money on the main trade good of cotton. The Union had an army and the Confederacy had an army. They were mustered and uniformed and drilled and fought most of their battles in the open, with faces uncovered. One side wanted free labor and little federal control and the other wanted unity as a single nation that would not enslave people. This simply does not even come close to the current situation the world faces against Islamic terrorism.
I loved this bit so much I had to dupe it:
"...being refused credit is a position where ones courage, attitude and honour comes under scrutiny."
What a pompous bucket of tripe! Being refused credit has nothing to do with any of those things. It's about the borrower's ability to pay back the debt in question in the given time period. There is always another lender, and the higher the rate of return (read: interest), the more attractive the loan becomes to entities that have the money. The American economy will have challenges, but remember this simple fact: if America goes down, everyone else goes with it... China, too, my friend. Japan had a pretty great economy going for awhile, there, and the ripple effects from its tanking are still being felt. If the same happened to America, the scale would be amazing. Be careful of your schadenfreude, you may find yourself more affected by American economic instability than you think.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
You have made an obvious debate error, therefore, you deserve to lose points. There were your statements, now here is reality:
There are more than "two sides" in the situation. Your assertion is incorrect then.
There are more than two ideas on what to do with "the middle east situation". Not being in favor of the war the US is waging does not automatically make one in favor of Saddam. You made allusions to that. Incorrect assumption.
You cannot be an "insurgent" in your own nation when you are invaded, you are a "resistance" fighter. You can only be an insurgent when there are NO foreigners involved. The invaders called the resistors "insurgent" is cute, but obvious propoganda.
Your pentagon war and profits machine inspired politically correct speech is illogical and insulting. It might work for the pro wrestling and nascar droolers with their chinese made US flags and "support the troops" bumper stickers, but not on too many more people.
Try again, just remember where you are, the IQ level is a little higher here than in most forums. You actually could make some points if you tried harder. Try this
-all the sides are wrong. There is no correct side in this war except for the victims. Both Saddam and a succession of US/UK blood profit managers have inflicted mass pain, murder and theft on the Iraqi people for years now, with no end in sight. The current strongest controlling armed warlord gang is called the US Department of Defense. There are many other armed warlord gangs currently at large in Iraq. All of them kill people, steal things, break other things. None of them actually have the Iraqi people's needs at heart, all have outside agendas.
That is the actual situation now.
Except that we didn't go into Iraq to "save the Iraqis." We went after nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Even if we had gone in with that noble cause, whore, you might have noticed there are hundreds of thousands dying over in Darfur, just to name one example, much faster than Saddam was taking 'em out in Iraq. Where is the hard-on jonesing to take out the Janjaweed? Oh, I forgot, they don't have oil.
The real reason we went in, of course, was to prop up the ratings of someone who is arguably the least competent President of all American history, and to provide wads of cash for his war-profiteering buddies. And the cost of taking that dictator out in such a staggeringly incompetent slipshod fashion is something that is being foisted off on thousands of families directly, and millions of us indirectly. We were told this would be a cakewalk. We were told it had to be done, or we would be in immediate danger. These weren't misunderstandings of intelligence or confusions of an addlepated bureaucracy. They were LIES. Unvarnished steaming bullshit.
Meanwhile in many sections of Iraq, people have their first clean water, their first reliable electricity, their first real sewer system, ever. Hundreds of schools, dozens of hospitals exist where no service was available for at least 20 years.
Documentation for this, whore? Because according to people who are THERE, that money is being fucked away on nothing, and the living conditions of Iraqis have gotten markedly worse over the last three years. Again, we weren't sold on this war to improve Iraqi life. We were sold on danger, terror, fear. You can take that noble face you're trying to glue onto this misadventure and jam it up your ass. By destabilizing a dictatorial regime without any plan whatsoever for the aftermath, we may have assumed a momentarily-noble pose, but we have not done the right thing for the long term, and in the long term this clusterfuck of a war is going to cost ten times what it needed to in both money and lives.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Yes, it should. Definitely. Otherwise you're forcing me into slavery, making me work for your gain, for projects that I in no wise support. I don't mind being taxed at the same level as you are (say, a flat tax of 33%) but I *definitely* should be able to say "But none of my money goes towards making war on Iraq, rebuilding Iraq, bombing Columbia's cocaine fields, or supporting any other external adventurism in any form." Instead, my money would go towards domestic needs, building and maintaining infrastructure, providing medical care, disaster relief, research and scientific infrastructure, education... you get the idea. You want to pay for Invading Iraq? Fine. You do that. Let's just see how much funding it'd get at this point in time under a FAIR system, one where we got to say where our money could not be spent.
The constitution is long dead anyway. Might as well start over.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You could have enslaved the south, and repopulated it. Then you get the land AND rid of the backwards hicks.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Good links, mahn! I usually check-out the status of Gravity Probe B, as I think that learning more about gravity and magnetism are what will help us get off this crazy rock. Glad to see there are more of those kinds of projects still on the horizon.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Ah, good point. Why is "Dei" before "Gratia" though? My Latin sucks balls.
:-(
I think what I was looking for was "Deo volente". Congess provides the benefits Deo volente -- they do their best to find a place in the budget, but there's no guarantee they'll come through.
Sometimes whipping out a Latin phrase backfires
Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
this link was several hours posted before IFWM "borrowed" (not even a cross link back those that you stole from).
You're talking semantics just like me... what is debt? It's an obligation arbitrarily created to facilitate an exchange of goods or services so that goals can be achieved in an efficient manner. Sure we could all wait until we've individually accumulated all the assets needed to produce something... or we could take advantage of accumulated wealth within our society to foster our ideas and produce that new thing in the short term... a huge benefit not only to ourselves but also to the community (well the potential is there, YMMV).
Maybe you don't understand economics but I happen to have a good grasp of the concepts and how they can be applied in the real world. That doesn't mean I won't do things that actually work against me at times (like buying a new toy or taking a trip for the pure enjoyment of it)... but hey we're all human and some things are more important that ROI.
Life is a gamble! You make decisions, often big decisions, with very little information, going with instinct and intuition (experience plus creativity/pattern recognition) every day. Each of these could leave you injured, dead, desitute or in jail.
You sound like an absolute pessimist to me... you're probably a Manual reader too... but I won't get personal, only say that one person's "foolish gamble" is another's "stroke of genius", it all depends how you look at it... risk or opportunity.
We need bubbles. Steady may get you where you're going but it doesn't leave any room for exploring along the way... which is what bubbles are really good at.. lots of resources lots of people, all looking at innovative ways to extend the craze. Just don't put all your eggs in and when you earn something during a bubble, stick it away for the burst. Then sit back and enjoy the downtime until the next craze comes along.
that's enough for now... if you're Christian, don't forget to give up something for Lent and donate your savings to charity, but keep the receipt... giving is good AND deductible. (yes I subscribe to benevolent self interest).
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
And it doesn't change that Europe is indeed susceptible to a PNAC. This sort of organization is ultimately a chameleon. It just so happens that US nationalism/imperialism is popular among the more ambitious campaigning contributing set. The equivalent people would no doubt be supporting the EU bureaucracy and its various activities or perhaps be interested in this "social conscience" of which you speak. PNAC can do imperialism, they can do "social conscience", whatever the political fad happens to be. All that matters is that there's a group of gullible people who've been programmed with the latest ideology. The US has them, Europe has them.
So let me get this straight. Satellites confirm global warming. Then Bush cuts significant funding for these satellite programs. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
Is it the engineers/IT/technical people? To some extent, but the best of them also have other sources of funding to carry them along (it will just get thinned out).
Missions come and go and the jobs with them. It can lead to unemployment and dislocation, just like the real world.
With fewer and fewer missions to support them, their interests, and their future, why should they bust a gut getting a degree with a dismal future? (go be a medical doctor, a lawyer, a plumber, etc.. don't waste your time with science.. it's nothing but a long and expensive road to a very untenable future.
Such decisions are necessary for what ever profession you choose, except maybe for lawyers.
"We are talking about observational science here" to the EOS community (I'm sure I left others out).
My personal opinion is I am unimpressed by the fast and loose data interpretation and the carefully crafted politics that characterise this branch of science.
an ill wind that blows no good
uhhh except that his plan didn't actually get there until 2005 which was of course one year after his potential 8 years of holding office would be up, nevermind that he wasn't re-elected. Who knows how he would have dealt with 9/11 and Katrina, and of course any other initiatives which may have gained popularity during his second term.
I'm not saying that reducing spending on unnecessary programs is bad or that diversifying spending into short and long term profitable programs to bring the budget within a normative mean is an impossible goal.. just that doing so and doing it in a way that maintains a year to year level of stability is very very difficult.
The question isn't How can we do it? but Why would we do it? What is the benefit to a balanced budget..... for a nation as large as the US with a tax base that is growing consistently and an economy that really has no limits as to what sort of programs it can support. Obviously you can't do everything all at once but an ambitious President could and should utilize the resources available rather than simply sitting on the sidelines or partying with the internationals and ignoring future needs.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Twenty years ago, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush's father were selling war machinery to Saddam. Now they again tell us they are acting in best interests of common Iraqis and Americans. Ha. I agree, let's see where Iraq is in another 20 years.
My two cents says this is to be expected. NASA and others are on the evil doers list because of the side they are taking regarding Stem Cells, Global Warming, Energy (i.e. conserve it), Intelligent Design, etc... I bet the coffers would open up if the warmed to the "right" side of issues.
Retarded RICH Easterner...
Nice summary!
+++OK ATH
If memory serves me, Clinton was elected in 1992 and 1996. I forget who was elected in 2000, though.
This login name for sale.
Your post convinces me that you don't really understand economics. Wealth is created by labors and innovation. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. You can, in fact, spend or borrow money as investment in order to make more money in the future. People and businesses do it every day.
A simple example: I borrow $10M to build a bicycle factory. I also spend $10M on steel, rubber, and workers salaries. If I sell $25M in bicycles the first year, I have created $5M in wealth. (This ignores, of course, interest and the time value of movney to keep the numbers simple).
And no, I did not "steal" that $5M from the people who bought my bicycles. Some of it is actually "new" money. In fact, you'll find that several percent more wealth is created by the US economy as a whole every year. There is not just a big pille of dollars that we pass around. Wealth creation can be viewed as one of the causes of inflation.
my bad. nothing like ignoring the facts and just going with what feels true.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Your graph is not properly normalized however. What does it look like as percent of GDP? worse? better? same?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I will continue to be baffled by people who, on the one hand complain about government oppression, but on the other hand will argue so vociferously in favor of funding that it with their own (but preferably someone elses a little moreso) money.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Word order doesn't usually make a difference in Latin.