Slashdot Mirror
Obama's Evolving Stance On NASA
mknewman writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting a change in Obama's stance on NASA, saying his position on space exploration continued to evolve Sunday as the Illinois Democrat endorsed a congressional plan to add $2 billion to NASA's budget and agreed to back at least one more space shuttle mission."
If you adjust for inflation, NASA's budget is about half of what it was during the space race years in the 60's. You can't go to Mars on that. You probably can't even go back to the moon on that. And a paltry $2 billion isn't going to make much of a difference.
Obama is no more serious about NASA's lofty aspirations that Bush or Clinton. It's just political pandering for Florida. And I am tired of hearing promises from politicians that they know damn well they can never deliver on.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Just to give you an idea on how much $2 billion might help NASA, there are some stats for NASA's budget. In 2007 they had a budget of $15.861 billion and for this year they are using $17.318 billion. If you adjust for inflation, NASA has averaged $16.290 billion dollars per year which means this $2 billion would be about a 11.5-12.2% increase in its annual budget.
By comparison, the DoD budget was $439.3 billion in 2007 but my gripe with U.S. fiscal spending is probably a bit off topic here.
My work here is dung.
It is interesting to me how when one politician changes his stance due to recognition of the will of the people, he is vilified as a panderer or "flip-flopper." Yet it is called evolutionary when the other does the same thing.
Could we not just as easily say that both are listening to the people who would put them in office? Or at least letting us think they are listening to us.
Yes, because it's much better to tell people we're going to go to Mars, and then not give them sufficient money to do so, resulting in other programs getting cut. Even John Glenn referred to Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration" as an unfunded mandate.
And it's not like this is the only unfunded mandate shoved down NASA's throat -- how much is HSPD-12 costing all of the agencies?
Disclaimer : I've been a contractor at NASA, and one of my projects lost their funding for more than year because of the Mars program ... by the time we got funding again, we couldn't get the team back together, because they had been assigned to other projects.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
He changed his mind! It's clearly pandering of the worst sort!
I really wish we could get rid of this ridiculous focus on changing views. Emerson summed it up nicely, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." In this case, it would have been foolish of Obama to be consistent -- he was wrong. He was persuaded otherwise. Is this somehow a bad thing, a moral failure? Yeah, it was advantageous of him to come to this conclusion, but it's almost always advantageous to change from a wrong conclusion to a correct one.
I love how not being able to change your mind or agree with someone else's proposal is now a thing of weakness in a politician.
The thing I like about Obama is that he pushes for compromise, builds consensus, and isn't just out to fuck over the other party.
But no, no, the fact that he is open to funding something that wasn't a priority for him originally, is this HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM because OMFG HE CHANGED HIS MIND~!@!@$#~!
Fucking zombies.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I think the return the US gets for its NASA spending is greatly under calculated. The last space race caused the US to focus on creating engineers and scientists through education. Look around you for the benefits.
Today I sometimes feel we are raising generations of people who will order a "Bud" because they can't read or pronounce Budweiser.
Think Deeply.
No, he changed his mind within the context of a campaign. PLEASE tell me how that should not be immediately suspect.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I see a lot of this around. I don't understand how people can be so dumb as to think that Democrats are the heavy spenders. The Republicans have, ever since Reagan, been trying to outdo each other by lowering tax but raising spending. See here for a discussion. It is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are the big spenders. And if you believe that you can run a deficit for decades without harming anything, then you're a fool. And McCain has admitted that the economy isn't his cup of tea, as evidenced by his proposed cuts to the fuel tax. At least Obama knew enough economics to oppose that.
Given the current crisis, I'd vote for Obama on that alone. What economic knowledge he's demonstrated makes him far more qualified a candidate than McCain or Clinton, despite some of his other failings.
It's perfectly acceptable to waste billions of dollars paying uneducated dolts to sit around and do nothing but create more useless babies.
But it's not acceptable to pay smart eggy headed scientists a whole lot less, people who have to be really fracking smart to actually work and do sciencey stuff using their brains and finding out stuff about the universe and world we live in.
Plus the scientists don't usually have a mess off leech-like children, if a NASA engineer does mate it is usually one child or two, which is below replacement levels. Plus their children are usually made to go to school and actually do somethign with their lives because the smart eggy headed scientist types are usually better at raising children that their child crapping counterparts.
I say, End all welfare programs and shovel all that money to NASA, we may have to worry about not having enough people, but by golly we will damned well have our permanent base on the moon, so when all of the breeding stock left on earth blow themselves up over their little sky god we can at least re-colonize the earth, or at least still preserve the best of humanity.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
He also said he was hoping "to ensure retention of" thousands of NASA workers in Texas and Florida whose jobs are threatened by a possible five-year gap before the beginning of the Constellation initiative to send astronauts to the moon and Mars.
So NASA can become a fucking welfare agency.
...objectively I can't figure out what the heck he actually plans to do. Every couple of weeks the ideas change. I mean, he seems like he has no clear vision about what he wants to actually do besides become President of the United States. This (NASA) being a good example. Factor this in with his relative inexperience in government and I start to feel like that at least with Clinton you would have known what you were getting. Either way, an unwashed chimp would be better than the cretin currently occupying the oval office. What happened to the John McCain of a few elections back? I used to like him too. Now he sounds like just another Republican.
Loading...
PLEASE tell me how that should not be immediately suspect.
Because the world doesn't stop for a campaign. Situations change, attitudes change. Both of these guys are moderates... not exactly known for sticking to their guns for no good reason. That is why people like them.
Though I wish both had stuck to their guns with the "no negative campaigning" bit. These new attack ads are terrible. Neither side is even very accurate, though the Obama ad showing the oil surplus in Iraq and proclaiming it to be "McCain Economics" is a bigger stretch.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Not to mention the recent renewal of "old cold war" tensions.
One thing commonly pointed to by politicians in reducing spending on NASA is the current cooperation with other countries. If Russian turns into a rival again, then I suspect space rivalry will again follow. Nothing like a little nationalism to shake the purse strings.
As I recall last time I did some Googling, for what we have spent on Iraq so far we could have had something like 16 Apollo programs in today's dollars.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I would counter your 'gas tax holiday' argument (about which you're entirely correct) with everything else Obama wants to do with respect to gas prices. Windfall tax on oil companies? That'll drive prices up. Preventing drilling for domestic oil reserves? That won't help either. Pull oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? That won't last long. Force the oil companies to drill the leases they already own? Gee, you'd think they would already be doing that if it would make them money. But it wouldn't, in large part due to government interference.
Obama claims that he will eliminate our dependence on middle-east oil in 10 years. Anyone who believes that is deluding themselves. At least McCain is willing to admit it's a weakness, rather than pretend he knows better.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
1. Solar power satellites? You mean satellites with large solar panels that would beam power back on Earth? Why?? Do you have any idea how little in panel area you can send in orbit, how inefficient it would be to beam power to Earth and how astronomically cost inefficient it would be compared to putting solar panels on every rooftop in California or even covering a part of Nevada with those?
2. I seem the recall that it has been calculated that mining Helium 3 on the moon would be cost inefficient and furthermore mining on the Moon would make dust fly around and create a kind of smog. What the hell would you want to mine on an asteroid, and do you realise how hard it would be to go to an asteroid (which are all thankfully orders of magnitude further from the Earth than the Moon), mine there and send tons of minerals back to Earth?
3. Which? How?
4. Why should the NASA launch any LEO stuff? You want us to ask the French to send our LEO stuff?
You're no better than people who get excited about hearing politicians say we're going to Mars, you don't really have a clue either, you just wanna hear something that sounds fantastic even if it's utterly nonsensical. Same reason why you got modded up really.
You just got troll'd!
And McCain has admitted that the economy isn't his cup of tea, as evidenced by his proposed cuts to the fuel tax. At least Obama knew enough economics to oppose that.
Given the current crisis, I'd vote for Obama on that alone. What economic knowledge he's demonstrated makes him far more qualified a candidate than McCain or Clinton, despite some of his other failings.
Obama has demonstrated nothing. I agree with Obama's decision not to support a gas tax holiday, but Obama's flip-flop stance on releasing the Strategic Reserve to combat high gas prices proves that he's probably even stupider than the average politician. And that he proposed this strategy a mere month after announcing that he wouldn't, while criticizing McCain for his reversal after 8 years when the price of gas has increased by 6x, shows that he's the consummate politician-- and that's certainly no compliment.
The whole point of the Strategic Reserve is to be used for emergencies. Obama wants to withdraw light crude from the reserve and then refill it with heavy crude. This presupposes a drop in gas prices, which certainly is no guarantee. It also undermines one of the reasons why the reserve is important; say, a hurricane wiping out refineries. Replacing light crude with heavy crude which requires MORE refining runs counter to logic.
I'd have wished that Obama was smarter and opposed the gas tax holiday for sane reasons. Now, it just seems like he was trying to differentiate himself from Clinton and McCain.
Regardless, it's been shown [washingtonpost.com] that Obama's tax cut plans would help the lower income brackets more than McCain's, and tax the rich more. This is obviously what a tax system is supposed to do.
A flat tax rate would tax the rich more than the poor (same percent of a higher income is more). Our system with a higher tax rate definitely taxes the rich more than the poor.
At what point does it stop being obvious that you need to take even more money from rich people and even less from poor people? When your tax rates get so high you're starting to cause your most productive workers to leave the country?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Usually, I'd agree with that, however, I think you're ignoring the "new cold war" aspect here. China is developing an aggressive space program, and if they say they're going to the moon, they mean it.
Just like they "meant it" when they said that those toys didn't have lead any more? Or when they said that the pollution in Beijing would be within international guidelines by the time of the Olympic games?
Sure, China is a country to be taken seriously, but you better not believe *everything* they say.
Good arguments. Like I said, Obama's not perfect. However, as it stands, after all the Bush tax cuts, the oil companies are undertaxed. I agree that a windfall tax is probably the wrong thing (but maybe not as bad as it sounds; it's a complicated issue), but at least Obama wants to let the other tax cuts of the Bush administration expire.
Preventing offshore drilling is actually a good thing in my book. As analysts have said, it'll take years to benefit from it and it won't last long, either. Everyone agrees it's a short-term solution, only, and yet the oil won't even be available in the short term.
I should point out that oil companies not drilling where they have rights is a problem. If government regulations are stopping them, why can't someone like Obama (or McCain) simply change the rules?
Finally, I'd like to note that all the sources I see say that Obama has called for the US to eliminate its oil dependence in 10 years, but he hasn't promised it will be so. I read it like JFK's call to get to the moon before 1970. It's a goal for the nation, and maybe we'll make it, but it seems unlikely (like the moon landing did, not that I think we'll actually make it this time around).
This is obviously what a tax system is supposed to do.
There are quite a few economists who would care to differ with that statement. A progressive tax (and welfare) system such as the one we have provides a degree of disincentive against earning more money, because the more money you earn, the greater percentage of it you pay to the government. In some places, such as France, it's so bad that for many people, it's more profitable to live off welfare than to work.
While the main purpose of taxes is to fund government, it should also be structured so as to encourage people to become more productive and contribute more to the economy. Unbalancing the tax system beyond its current state will do precisely the opposite.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
Gee, you'd think they would already be doing that if it would make them money.
But would it make them money? If the price of oil stays high due to a perceived lack of supply, that makes them more money per barrel, which means more profit. It makes sense for them to exhaust oil reserves in the middle east first, because these are the most dangerous to own due to the political climate in the area. How many oil fields were burned in the last Golf War? The price of oil is likely to go up in the long term, due to it being a finite resource, and keeping a big supply within the area of the greatest demand makes good long-term economic sense. No one is likely to attack the USA to take their oil, while the same can not be said for smaller countries (increasingly so when Russia and China start to get low on oil). Keeping oil in the ground in the USA looks like a good long-term investment. Why drill it now, when yo can drill it for the same cost but sell it for twice as much in a few years?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm a staunch Republican, but, I think trying to characterize his policy shifts as a sort of a flip flopper is rather inconsistent with what he's trying to do. Obama is just a left wing pol trying to guide his opinion about how government should be run in response to an evolving set of facts on the ground and I really don't have a problem with him changing his mind as long as he stays consistent with his core beliefs of being a hardcore liberal.
Where Kerry had a problem was that he made a political career out of being a total pacifist, lead anti-war protests across the USA and was instrumental in ending the USA's commitment to Viet Nam, but then he turned around and voted for the Invasion of Iraq in 2002 to get pick up a few votes and then ran not as a Dove but as a Wartime leader during the Democratic convention. That's a huge flip flop.
But what Obama is doing is nothing of the sort. He might, ideally, like, to get rid of NASA because he'd rather spend the money on something else... a lot of Dems feel that way. Walter Mondale famously tried to gut the Apollo moon landings because he wanted bread and butter for the poor. So, its not a big flip flop for Obama to shift on NASA back and forth because the whole left wing has been doing it for a long time.
This is my sig.
I mean, the obvious issue that comes to most people's minds was the shuttle explosion, apparently caused by poor engineering decisions, and subsequent cover-ups of them.
Not poor engineering decisions, poor management decisions. In both cases, engineers warned of the problems, and were cockblocked by management, mostly due to funding issues. NASA is our most important program, and one of our worst funded.
The sad thing is, if the bloated life-sucking tick that is DoD were cut down to size, we'd have plenty of money for both education and Constellation. As I say in my sig, Five percent of one year's DoD budget puts us on Mars. Even at padded government rates, we could put a team of four scientists and infrastructure for settlement on Mars for about 30 billion dollars. (Zubrin has suggested a private firm could do it for only seven billion.) Space geeks who haven't read The Case For Mars should make it a priority. All of the info is online at the link above; the paperback is almost always on the shelf at my local B&N; and it's only $11 at Amazon.
Zubrin has outlined a straightforward plan to settle an entire other planet at relatively low cost. What the hell is the hold-up? How is it this is not the most obvious project in the solar system?
Can we get a mars.slashdot.org subdomain?
Five percent of one year's DoD budget puts us on Mars.
How is Obama replacing 5 million barrels a day tomorrow? Tuneups and inflating tires? McCain has made it pretty clear he is for all alternative fuel source AND drilling. With the inelastic nature of oil, any increase in the supply will lower prices and drastically. T Boone Pickens by the way is not a green guy, he is just for reducing the burden of foreign oil. He is also for off shore drilling, shale production and ANWR drilling. There is no reason we can't do everything. If we started drilling tomorrow there will be some online in 2-3 years, the democratic talking point is 10 years+ but that would be for all 100%. I am all for getting off oil but the simple fact is that it cannot happen overnight, but in the interim, there is no reason to be sending so much money out of this country.
I'm not not licking toads.
You have no idea what facts/information he had before his decision, and what facts/information he has now. Unless you're inside Obama's head, your presumption that he's pandering is just that, a presumption, and a partisan one at that.
J. H. Christ. This is almost as bad as the whole "if you don't support Obama, you must be racist" deal. Almost.
The fact of the matter is, Obama has in recent weeks has completely 180'ed his position on several key issues. There has been no indication of why he changed his position on the issues. For someone who basically won the nomination based on his oratory skills, don't you think he should at the very least be able to articulate what changed in the course of a week weeks- to months?
And the fact that people who call him out on such things are either labelled partisan or bigoted is outrageous.
No kidding. A responsible should not need to be given the resources, if they don't have them, they shouldn't reproduce. But in today's socialist economy women are rewarded for having children when they do not have the capacity to support them.
With either candidate we're going to have a flood of illegal immigration. I guess we're going to GIVE them everything they need.
What ever happened to EARNED.
If he said "Has the woman EARNED the resource to keep a child? Has she EARNED health care?"
Everyone feels like they are entitled to something that something that is not theirs. How do they get it? They take it from ME.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
As long as the tax rate is less than 100% on the additional income, there is still incentive to earn more. Furthermore, if you subscribe to the school of thought that motivation to earn is relative rather than absolute, then this loss of incentive may be even smaller than is commonly thought.
The progressive tax system is necessary regardless of the effect it has on motivation, but because there are social costs that has to be paid. Costs which can not and are not internalized by market forces. It is only natural for us to require those that enjoy the fruits of our society more to contribute correspondingly more to it.
Even a flat income tax system that has a cut-off point (to not tax low earners) is progressive (a two-rate progressive tax).
Furthermore, welfare systems have problems with abuse, as with any other benefit system. Most systems now have time-limits on people qualified to work claiming benefits or social insurance. It doesn't mean that increasing the tax on the top 1% of the earners in the population will lead to more people on welfare. In fact, it argues the opposite in that we need to distribute the tax load more evenly and have other methods of motivating people to work and to improve productivity, including things such as modifying the way we distribute benefits.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
So says the "Anonymous Coward".
Yes. But that anonymous coward is right on the money. FDR is the one responsible for that ponzi scam they call "social security". As well as the general rise in power of the government that was supposed to serve the people. Now they just serve themselves and their constituents that keep them in office.
(1) NASA is primarily based out of Florida, California and Texas. (2) Those states have lots of electoral votes. (3) NASA's manned spacecraft stuff is concentrated in Florida and Texas. (4) Obama is trailing in Florida. So suddenly he's in favor of increased man space flights? Color me unsurprised.
The issue is not about Russia and Georgia engaging in a territorial dispute. The issue is about Russia seeking to re-establish it's sphere of influence through a projection of military power.
If the response to Russia's invasion of Georgia was muted / measured it is likely Russia would see that as a green light to implement (by force) a regime change in Georgia.
The only correct response was the W / McCain response (that also ultimately became the Obama position) which is to take a very hard line with Russia.
How is Obama replacing 5 million barrels a day tomorrow? Tuneups and inflating tires? McCain has made it pretty clear he is for all alternative fuel source AND drilling. With the inelastic nature of oil, any increase in the supply will lower prices and drastically. T Boone Pickens by the way is not a green guy, he is just for reducing the burden of foreign oil. He is also for off shore drilling, shale production and ANWR drilling. There is no reason we can't do everything. If we started drilling tomorrow there will be some online in 2-3 years, the democratic talking point is 10 years+ but that would be for all 100%. I am all for getting off oil but the simple fact is that it cannot happen overnight, but in the interim, there is no reason to be sending so much money out of this country.
Again, you make fun of simple things like Tuneups and properly inflating tires BEFORE ACTUALLY READING A DAMN THING ABOUT IT.
While it wouldn't maybe help the INDIVIDUAL very much, the ENTIRE COUNTRY would benefit a decent amount.
In fact, if the ENTIRE COUNTRY did these LITTLE things, we could WITHOUT A DOUBT save the same amount of Oil McCain's 'Day Dream' of offshore drilling MIGHT produce 10 YEARS from now.
I'm afraid the same holds true for ANWR. I'm not super concerned about the envirnment up there because I don't think the handful of wells that would be drilled would hurt anything, BUT it wouldn't help us either.
It would certainly help the Oil Companies who could pull the oil out of the ground for PENNIES and sell it for top dollar.
For those who don't know, Oil is priced based on GLOBAL markets, not production cost. SO drilling in the Continental United States is a sweet proposition for Oil Companies because they can pull it out of the ground for nothing but the production costs, BUT CHARGE LIKE THEY BOUGHT IT OVERSEAS.
As long as a SINGLE barrel of oil comes from outside the United States, ALL OIL PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES WILL COST PRETTY MUCH THE SAME regardless of the production costs.
Speculators have driven the price up some, but not nearly as much as people blame on them. Besides, speculation has its purpose. Speculation is why you can lock in a price for heating oil NOW, and KNOW FOR CERTAINTY what you will be paying this winter.
This goes the same for McCain's ludicrous 'Gas Tax Holiday'. If you remove the Federal Gas tax (which is less than 25Â for gasoline), then gasoline distributors will simply raise their prices by the EXACT amount removed. There is nothing in the law to prevent this, accept a few, older, arcane price fixing rules that would be IMPOSSIBLE to prove.
All John McCain would have done (if the Democratic Congress hadn't stopped him) is robbed the Highway Department of revenue needed to maintain the countries road system.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26222711/
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
Getting to Social Security, you tell me ONE THING wrong with making sure people have something when they retire. I'm so sick of these 20 YEAR OLDS bitching because they are asked to contribute a fingernail slice of their income to help those who came before them.
Ok. I'm 30 something. Here's my ONE THING. I will probably never see a dollar of it myself. The system is intended to work for me when I need it. That's the "security" part of it. But now, the way it's headed, I'm really only seeing the "social" part of it. If they continue to fuck it up and leave it business as usual, I'll have paid a lifetime into a system that won't pay me a dime back. That's the problem. Social Security isn't supposed to be about duty and responsibility, it was supposed to be about insurance for the future.
You'd be pretty sour if you knew you paid car insurance all your life without an accident, and when you finally did have an accident, there'd be nothing for you.
You'll have that sometimes...
Getting to Social Security, you tell me ONE THING wrong with making sure people have something when they retire.
I'll worry about myself - I can invest my money better than the government can - but why should I help you retire?
I'm so sick of these 20 YEAR OLDS bitching because they are asked to contribute a fingernail slice of their income to help those who came before them.
Well, I was 20 well over 10 years ago and let me tell you - once you add ss with medicare, you're at 15.3%. You consider that to be a fingernail slice? You think it should be 20%? 25%? I for one would gladly give up every penny i've put in just to be able to get out.
That is as selfish an snobbish as those (not that I'm accusing you of this, BTW) who scream they'd go to Canada before being Drafted.
If we ever have to draft that just means it isn't worth fighting for - look at WWII - many people gladly joined because it was a cause worth fighting for.
NO ONE has any sense of DUTY or RESPONSIBILITY now days.
Damn right - if they were responsible we wouldn't need Social Security!
Social Security has become a ghost of it's original intent, as an insurance program. It has now become an entitlement system.
NO ONE has a right to stop working if they can't afford it. Social Security is unneeded EXCEPT as an entitlement/insurance program. I.e. if someone gets becomes unable to work, they can withdraw from it. If they don't, then they have to figure out how to save up enough money to do it themselves.
Get rid of Social Security and call it what it is ... welfare. Combine the two systems and get rid of all the extra overhead.
Anyone above specified income (including withdrawl capabilities of 401k/Ira plans) should not be allowed to withdraw from it. Anyone that is capable of working should not be allowed to withdraw from it, except to provide a minimum wage. So ... if you want to be a greeter at Wal-mart ... go ahead and take out from Social Security to make up the difference.
Medicare is a different program and I'm not talking about healthcare.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Frankly, with the boomers all moving to old-people welfare in the next decade, we need an influx of warm bodies to help pay for them. Immigration, extra babies, whatever.
Societies may be made up of individuals, but the individual has little place in society. It's about what's best for the most, not what's best for you in particular. Yea, you may have to support some poor people. Yea, some women have children they can't afford.
Of course the government is strictly opposed to having a sensible family planning program with free contraception; I'm sure you are too because of course you'd have to pay for that, which you'd equate with stealing. Which is pretty classy btw; blame the kid for being born.
It's a hell of a lot easier to deal with the actual problem before it occurs. Put together a sensible immigration policy to draw skilled workers, set up a wide-reaching guest worker program with taxes and benefits to draw unskilled workers. Teach the kids how not to get pregnant, give them contraception. Teach 'em enough to become productive members of society, give 'em job training. Of course, all those social programs are stealing too, right?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Getting to Social Security, you tell me ONE THING wrong with making sure people have something when they retire.
I'll worry about myself - I can invest my money better than the government can - but why should I help you retire?
I'm so sick of these 20 YEAR OLDS bitching because they are asked to contribute a fingernail slice of their income to help those who came before them.
Well, I was 20 well over 10 years ago and let me tell you - once you add ss with medicare, you're at 15.3%. You consider that to be a fingernail slice? You think it should be 20%? 25%? I for one would gladly give up every penny i've put in just to be able to get out.
That is as selfish an snobbish as those (not that I'm accusing you of this, BTW) who scream they'd go to Canada before being Drafted.
If we ever have to draft that just means it isn't worth fighting for - look at WWII - many people gladly joined because it was a cause worth fighting for.
NO ONE has any sense of DUTY or RESPONSIBILITY now days.
Damn right - if they were responsible we wouldn't need Social Security!
We also had conscription during WWII, in case you have forgotten.
EVERY major War the United States has ever fought has had conscription because we intended to WIN.
As for responsibility, what about the person who works THEIR ENTIRE LIFE at a menial job JUST SO they won't need Welfare. They work their asses off to make ends meet and take care of their families. In all this, however, they only manage to break even.
Is it TOO MUCH for someone such as yourself, who seems to have done alright for themselves, to give JUST A LITTLE (nothing you wouldn't have pissed away anyway on junk)?
You can throw out all the percentages you want, the actual DOLLAR AMOUNT is nothing you wouldn't have spent anyway, on something FAR LESS worthy.
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
Here's another 'one thing'. Social security is a government run way of forcing people to build a nest egg for their future. Instead of just letting people handle that on their own through their own investments and savings- we let the government handle it so that 'no one gets left behind'. I have no problem with that... but, I want the option to opt out. Since I have a good knowledge of finance and investing, and I'm smart enough to live on LESS than my paycheque and invest the rest, I should be allowed to opt out and take care of my own retirement investing. Because we all know how well the government is managing the system and our money.
This is a classic case of "It just takes a few to ruin it for the rest"
You probably are capable of taking care of yourself. However, there are a lot of stupid people who would opt-out simply to have more piss-off money now, and would need STILL need help later when they can't work.
It is a simple fact of life that we are only as strong as out weakest link, and social security makes sure the weak links of our society are taken care of.
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
Social security can prevent you from dieing because you didn't afford the doctor or the meds to treat you.
No, sadly, it can't.
You'll have that sometimes...
Here's what I'd say, but such a nuanced approach would almost certainly fail before evangelicals: Life begins at conception, but the government's interest in a citizen begins at viable birth. So while I might believe that a 2-month fetus is "alive", there is no practical way for the law to treat it independently of the mother...at most you could force a C-section and then it would die anyway.
The government, being a constitutional republic of free people, does not have the legal authority to force mothers to carry the baby until it is viable. If it did, it would ALSO have the power to force mothers to get pregnant in the first place, or to take children from their parents for no reason whatsoever. Abortion is legal not because anyone likes it, but because it is on one side of a bright line that we don't want government to cross.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
with a nation engaged in the Cold War, a hot war in Vietnam, a much lower economic productivity, a much smaller pool of engineers, much more primitive technology, and no proven example of going to the Moon to reassure us.
And a culture that was a bit smarter than it is today, that actually cared about the nation's scientific accomplishments. Seriously, do you think a man landing on Mars today would get the same TV audience? Americans have gotten far less educated and far dumber between the 60s and now. It's a horrible stereotype but it's based in truth - the average American would be more interested in American Idol than steering their own country away from the road to irrelevance and obscurity.
I'm personally not against Social Security, but calling it a fingernail's slice is perhaps disingenuous. The total rate paid into Social Security and Medicare is 15.3%. Half of it is hidden from you--the employee pays half and the employer pays half--but that's really just a shell game. If you ever self-employ, you'll realize the full sting.
The cap on the payroll tax is at $102,000 this year, so a person earning that wage or more will pay $15606 into Social Security. If this person is not self-employed, then only $7803 of that will appear on their W-2. But, really, $15606 was paid in. That's money that could have been put towards paying employees directly or funding a pension plan.
Interestingly, that's about the same as the 401(k) cap.
I happen to hit both caps every year, and I expect to get much more from my 401(k) than from Social Security. That's fine though, since they're meant for different purposes. My 401(k) is for me. Social Security is a safety net for everyone. My quality of life is better when society functions better and has a reasonable baseline standard of living, and that's the Social in Social Security.
Yep, I'm a bleeding heart liberal. Whatcha gonna make of it?
Program Intellivision!
I applaud your efforts, but doing as you say will return us to the Victorian times when the poor were left in workhouses, hopeless and destitute. Now at least, they're only left just hopeless. Dickens would be turning in his grave.
Solutions to problems usually cause their own problems down the line. However, we must take history into account and not revive the original problem by rolling back what was the original solution.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Of course this country will never run out of money. If the government needs more money, they'll just print it.
Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
You honestly believe Social Security will one day, just cease to exist?
Yeah, I think it's a possibility. But more to the point you said
This country will never run out of money BE THIS IS WHERE EVERYONE KEEPS THEIR MONEY
And if you believe that statement, then you're living in the past.
You'll have that sometimes...
As a commodity becomes increasingly scare, you'd expect to see increasingly complicated systems used to effectively distribute the last of it. The increase in speculation is an effect, not a cause, of our current oil crisis.
Given that you are posting on Slashdot, you're probably rather technically oriented and rather secure financially. Consider those less fortunate than yourself: people who grew up without an education, or without ever having seen a computer. Consider the people who work at Tim Hortons sixteen hours a day, go home, watch some hockey and sleep.
Sure, you might argue that they're not contributing to society. But would you not be in the same position if not for some accident of fate? Do these people deserve to live any less than you do? Don't they deserve to experience life just as much as you do? It's not as if they can't afford medical care through any fault of their own. (And even if they have made mistakes: well, who here hasn't a made a mistake that might have ruined his life?)
What you're advocating is Social Darwinism. That's a consistent, but empty strategy that ignores all human feeling and empathy. Sure, it makes sense, but it ignores what makes us human in the first place.
As long as the tax rate is less than 100% on the additional income, there is still incentive to earn more.
Yes but the opportunity costs of work look more and more attractive. If I can work one more hour and earn $100, I'll do it. Heck I'd work every weekend for a year at $100/hour. Now throw in a 85% tax rate, reducing it to $15/hour, and I'd pass. (And I'm not pulling that number out of nowhere, that was approximately the top tax bracket in Sweden in the 1970s.)
Furthermore, if you subscribe to the school of thought that motivation to earn is relative rather than absolute, then this loss of incentive may be even smaller than is commonly thought.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but shouldn't it be the opposite? If the motivation to earn is absolute, then you won't lose any incentive.
How is Obama replacing 5 million barrels a day tomorrow? Tuneups and inflating tires? McCain has made it pretty clear he is for all alternative fuel source AND drilling.
So, essentially what you're saying is that we should ignore actions that will actually have the effect of lowering demand by increasing fuel efficiency, and that can be done now by individuals, and instead we should go with the stupid fucking dittohead plan of offshore drilling, which has greater long term costs than gains, and has no short term gains at all?
Yes, lets drill drill drill. No, it won't do anything to help anyone. Sure, the resulting environmental damage will wreak havoc on all kinds of tourism and other important industries, but in the long term it will also have a statistically insignificant effect on oil prices!
I mean, what the fuck? How can you be so blindly, happily, willfully fucking ignorant? How can you simply bend over and let an elephant fuck you in the ass, screaming "Thank you" the whole time?
The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
People don't have a choice. They need to buy heating oil and to fill up their car just to make a living. No one accepts the cost of gas, but no one has any reasonable alternatives at the moment.
I think you've put your finger on the essential point here, which is the Russian desire to create a sphere of influence.
The problem I see with a "very hard line" is that it's not credible. You've got to imagine yourself in Putin's shoes (which are the ones that count). Take a blank piece of paper and draw a line down the middle. On the left hand side you list the advantages to meddling in Georgia. On the right hand side you put the disadvantages.
What, exactly, is the United States able to credibly add to the right hand side of the equation? Not bloody much other than tough talk, which, I'm afraid, is not going to scare Putin very much. Our military is already over committed. Our economy is weak and vulnerable to energy price fluctuations. Speaking of energy prices, Russia has our allies spread-eagled over the energy barrel. Even we import 762 thousand barrels of Russian oil a day, which is about 15% as much as we produce domestically.
It's going to take patience to address the issue of Russian meddling in other countries, and a lot more credibility than the US currently enjoys.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
We already have excellent Healthcare centers. The Government could provide the EXACT SAME service as a private Insurance Company for PENNIES on the dollar compared to said Private Insurance company.
I don't mean to pick on you today, but geez. The government CAN'T EVEN PAVE THE ROADS PROPERLY. WHAT MAKES you THINK they CAN provide YOU health CARE? Show me one successful government program that private industry can't do better....(outside of the military)
You'll have that sometimes...
Actually, I work for my Father (my parents are divorced). He owns a Publishing company, who itself owns seven Newspapers.
Trust me when I say I do pretty well for myself.
However, I still do not WASTE money on garbage, as a lot of people who make a lot less do.
You can make fun of the fact that I live at home all you want, it doesn't change the fact that I pocket more cash than most people I know who make more than I do.
I simply didn't see the need to tie myself up with a house/apartment rent BILL when I didn't have too.
It has been my experience that the people who bitch most about bills are the ones who INCUR the most Bills.
You cut off luxuries (yes, they are luxuries, not necessities) of Cable/Satellite, DSL/Cable and then come talk to me about how much of a burden taxes are.
SO, your defense for being called out is to define yourself as a rich kid living at home.
Sorry man, you fail.
Maybe if you realized you were pushing your responsibilities off to your Dad you would get it. Yeah sure , YOU'RE not paying for the stuff you say other people waste their money on - your Daddy is.
Bragging that you're pocketing more cash than people who choose not to suck off their parents longer than they have to isn't really that impressive. You seem to have a lot to say about how well you are doing and how we should all follow your lead. The reality is your lead is actually copping out and pushing those responsibilities off to another person.
Yeah, that's enlightened.
The problem with the word "American" is that, technically speaking, Canadians, Mexicans, Cubans, and South Americans are all "American". The GP is clearly trying to be more specific. (Although, "Usonian" seems to be a less awkward alternative.)
The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.