NASA To Continue Funding Canceled Ares Project Until March

wooferhound passes along this quote from the Orlando Sentinel: "Thanks to congressional inaction, NASA must continue to fund its defunct Ares I rocket program until March — a requirement that will cost the agency nearly $500 million at a time when NASA is struggling with the expensive task of replacing the space shuttle. About one-third of that money — $165 million — will go to Alliant Techsystems, or ATK, which has a $2 billion contract to build the solid-rocket first stage for the Ares I, the rocket that was supposed to fill the shuttle's role of transporting astronauts to the International Space Station. ... The odd scenario, in which NASA is throwing money at a canceled rocket program but can't fund a modernization program, is because of several twists in the legislative process that started a year ago and came to a head this month. At the root of the problem is a 70-word sentence inserted into the 2010 budget — by lawmakers seeking to protect Ares I jobs in their home states — that bars NASA from shutting down the program until Congress passed a new budget a year later. That should have happened before the Oct. 1 start of the federal fiscal year. But Congress never passed a 2011 budget and instead voted this month to extend the 2010 budget until March — so NASA still must abide by the 2010 language."

Comments

NASA modernization program?

[mschaffer]

Seems odd that the US space agency needs a "modernization program". Obviously, it should be called something else since NASA still plans on using Russia's own antiquated hardware to keep the ISS going.
Anyhow, I don't understand why we should be so happy that NASA is funding a program that it's not planning on using---regardless of where the funding is coming from.
Well, it's only money. After all, it's not like they are taking your money, out of your wallet.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyhow, I don't understand why we should be so happy that NASA is funding a program that it's not planning on using---regardless of where the funding is coming from.

I'm not sure where you are getting this sentiment from; TFA is saying exactly that. Check the title of the article from TFA:

"NASA's Ares rocket dead, but Congress lets you pay $500 million more for it"

And this is coming from someone in Florida. You would think that an indirect recipient, out of anyone out there on the net, would be happy about the program going forward.

Oh wait, from TFA:

Indeed, ATK plans to continue work at its Utah plant.

Maybe the article writer would have a different tone if the 500 million dollars in funding was going on in Florida, not in Utah. :)

Funny the way it works out sometimes.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[commodore64_love]

>>>it's not like they are taking your money, out of your wallet.

No they are taking money out of the Chinese government's wallet (and other lenders like Saudi Arabia). The people who will eventually repay that money won't be us, but our children and grandchildren. Jefferson or maybe Madison (forget who) said it is immoral to borrow money from future generations, which is why they bent-over backwards to pay off the government debt as soon as possible. WE should do the same.

Current national debt == ~$130,000 per US home, plus another ~$90,000 in personal debt per home == a not rich country

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

Well, it's only money. After all, it's not like they are taking your money, out of your wallet.

Pork -- welfare for the rich. Will no one think of the rich children?

I'm fine with feeding and housing the poor, but most welfare in the US goes to the rich, who get the lion's share of everything government supplies.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are planning on using the Ares program. Or at least they should be. Their 2011 budget states that they are to start work on a heavy lift vehicle using components from space shuttle/Ares.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Stenchwarrior]

I'm not sure you meant to use the word "welfare". I've been on both ends of that spectrum: On welfare and paying into the system that supplies the money. And it's a complete fucking racket, for sure, but one thing it doesn't help is The Rich. Go down to your local welfare office and look around the waiting room and tell me how many "rich" people you see down there. Maybe you meant that the rich get so many tax breaks and incentives that come out of the same government money that welfare does, but I promise you that welfare wouldn't suffer if that pool dried up. If you were to cut even one recipient's food stipend by $5/month you would have an all-out riot on your hands...those guys don't mess around. Instead, they will take money away from Social Security, medical research and, yes, NASA.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[whitehaint]

Actually most welfare goes to businesses.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as millions of white people predicted - NASA is now turning into a THIRD WORLD organisation. It will soon collapse because there simply won't be enough intelligent WHITE PEOPLE working there, to keep it functioning.

THIRD WORLD PEOPLE = THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.

Any rational, logical rebuttals?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[c6gunner]

He's just bitching because the people who pay 90% of the taxes get a few breaks here and there. Apparently, if you're part of the small percentage of the population who actually keep the country running, you shouldn't get any special treatment. That's his idea of "fairness".

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

Given what people getting welfare and food stamps say where I can hear them, a lot of them do not actually need the money to live on. Not only are a lot of them getting most of their food for free, they think buying cigarettes and Four Loko is part of a sound strategy for becoming self-sufficient.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[TrisexualPuppy]

Well...

Re:NASA modernization program?

[dasunt]

He's just bitching because the people who pay 90% of the taxes get a few breaks here and there. Apparently, if you're part of the small percentage of the population who actually keep the country running, you shouldn't get any special treatment. That's his idea of "fairness".

If there wasn't a large wealth disparity in the US (Gini index for reference), perhaps the majority of taxes wouldn't come from such minority of people.

Probably that wasn't the fix you were looking for though...

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Duhavid]

"small percentage of the population who actually keep the country running"

Which is more likely to work, all workers and no capitalists or all capitalists and no workers? No, they do not keep the country running. They are a big part of the reason that the country is not running well at this point.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mu51c10rd]

Can you back up that claim? Look at who actually pays income tax...it is the rich. Who supplies the jobs? The rich. Who uses the public school system more, the firefighters, police, roads, utilities, naitonal parks, social security, food stamps, unemployment, medicare/medicaid? Definitely not the rich.
Who uses pork more? Look at your local congressmen and see what "pork" they got. I guarantee you benefit from some of those earmarks.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Duhavid]

"I'm not sure you meant to use the word "welfare"."

Re-read his post. Pork is "welfare" for the rich. A complete racket by which the rich maintain themselves on our tax dollars rather than going out and earning profits by making products people want to buy.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[c6gunner]

Imagine that - a small subset of the population is better than the rest. The nerve of some people. How dare they stand out from the crowd? Clearly the communists had it right - we must force ALL people into standard-sized molds. I propose we start by making one-size-fits-all shoes.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[c6gunner]

Re: "capitalist" ..... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

I buy shares of cigarette and liquor companies too. How is this not a sound strategy?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[rwa2]

Well look on the bright side, we could be saving $200 million!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-announces-plan-to-launch-700-million-into-spa,1950/

(kudos to Soulskill on the memerrific taglines lately)

Re:NASA modernization program?

[nedlohs]

Capitalist fits perfectly in those sentences. Are you sure you know what the word means?

That doesn't make the claim correct (you'll produce more cars with all capital - a robot filled factory for example - than you will with all labor), but the "worker" and "capitalist" terms are used just fine.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Ragzouken]

This is exactly the problem with the rich. They genuinely believe that their wealth is evidence that they are part of a minority of people who work harder and are superior to the rest. Some people get lucky, and most people don't. I really have trouble believing that anybody, rich or otherwise, is working a million dollars harder than the average man.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Duhavid]

I would ask where the robots came from. Capital cannot produce them, workers do.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[c6gunner]

Capitalist fits perfectly in those sentences. Are you sure you know what the word means?

Bullshit. In order for it to make any sense, you have to accept that workers can't be capitalists, and capitalists can't do work. Two assumptions for which no justification is provided. If you think what he said makes sense, you're either misreading it or you're as clueless as he is.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Imagine that - a small subset of the population is better than the rest. The nerve of some people. How dare they stand out from the crowd? Clearly the communists had it right - we must force ALL people into standard-sized molds.

Ah the old wealth gospel. I grew up in a life of privilege - attended the most expensive private boarding school in the state, rubbed shoulders with kids of rockstars, sports franchaise owners and all kinds of captains of industry. I know plenty of such families, and, without doubt, they are no "better" than the rest. There are just as many dumbasses and leachers among them as there are among any other broad group of society. For most, the only thing they are better at is being born into the modern aristocracy.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Duhavid]

I think you know what I mean. That "small percentage that actually keep the country running". If I am in error about what you meant by the phrase, please educate me.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[GaryOlson]

...one-size-fits-all shoes

That would violate my constitutional rights which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[c6gunner]

This is exactly why you'll never be rich.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[nedlohs]

Where they come from is irrelevant once they exist. And no workers do not produce them, a combination of workers and capital does.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[GaryOlson]

Your terminology fails to convey the right meaning. Let's try

Porkfare -- subsidies for the rich.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

Those LINK cards don't benefit the poor, they benefit the poor's employers -- WalMart, McDonald's, etc, who aren't forced to pay their employees a living wage, because Uncle Sam kicking in a stipend. Better thay should raise the minimum wage so that a man working 40 hours a week could feed his family.

Section eight housing helps landlords at the expense of the poor; the poor tenant is paying $200 a month rent for a house or apartment that might get $250 or $300 on the open market, while the landlord is collecting another $300 or $400 from the government. This drives up rents for everyone, the poor included, while the landlord gets twice to three times what he would get if it weren't for Section 8.

TIF financing that local governments pay to get industry in depressed areas also go to the rich.

Then there's the pork I originally mentioned -- money for a project that's been cancelled is nothing but welfare, and the rich get every penny of it.

The poor get very little at all from any level of government, the rich get damned near everything.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[c6gunner]

It's a false dichotomy, and a stupid question. Labor has always existed, as long as there have been human beings. The difference in wealth and success between societies arises from how they organize that labor.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[nedlohs]

No you don't. They are the standard labels in economics.

Capitalists own the capital and derive income for merely owning it. Workers work with the capital and exchange their labor for income.

That one person can be both a worker and a capitalist is irrelevant to the question of which role is more important in an economy.

Do you have trouble understanding anything that involves sets that may overlap? Does the existence of movies in which an actor does the direction mean you can't have a discussion about whether acting or direction has more "importance" in film making?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Stenchwarrior]

We were getting so much from the government because of the number of children we have that I had to get a job paying $40k/year to make it worth getting off the program. You really think Wal-Mart is going to pay the door-greeter $20/hour? No fucking way. I'm making upwards of $70k/year now so I'm glad I did it, but there are plenty of people on the program that will never get off, no matter how much you raise minimum wage.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Duhavid]

I don't see it as a stupid question, but as a question to point out something. And of course labor has existed as long as people. What is the point of making that observation? And yes, how labor is organized is very important. Does any of the above mean that those who are fortunate or hard working enough to be wealthy should be able to do stupid things with my tax dollars?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Duhavid]

Referring to my above, could you get robots with all capital and no workers? No. You could with all workers and no capital. Workers make things, capital controls what is made, when it is made, by whom it is made, &c. But you *have* to have workers. Capital is optional, but usually controlling.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[c6gunner]

I don't see it as a stupid question, but as a question to point out something

What?

And of course labor has existed as long as people. What is the point of making that observation?

In order to address your false dichotomy.

Does any of the above mean that those who are fortunate or hard working enough to be wealthy should be able to do stupid things with my tax dollars?

It means they should be able to do stupid things with their tax dollars, but that's a completely different discussion, anyway.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what.... I've sat here and seen all of this shit you're posting and it makes me want to SHOOT YOU IN THE FACE. I would, too, if given the opportunity.

The middle class of this country is being systematically wiped out, and you seem to think that this is ok.

FUCK YOU

You, and everybody else that thinks like you needs to die a slow, painful, agonizing death.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at who actually pays income tax...it is the rich.

People who earn income, those might or might not be the rich depending on what they actually do. Now why the fuck is this relevant? Are you proposing that taxation should be a system where you take out what you put in, in the most direct way possible? If more people happen to have better income, they will pay the bulk of the income tax. The current situation in no way indicates that we should encourage the rich to become richer for the purposes of taxation. Now look how big of a percentage the rich pay in sales and property taxes (be it directly, or through their landlord) and come back to us.

the firefighters

When your chemical factory is on fire, who're you gonna call? Who'll prevent your nasty shit

Who supplies the jobs? The rich.

Bull-fucking-shit. They employ people if and only if they can skim off of their labor. Calling the unconscionable exploitation that most employers engage in a "supply" is absurd.

What do you say? Without them investing you wouldn't even have that?

Bullshit, if there wasn't a huge wealth disparity the average person would actually be able to start their own business to employ people (if they are good at that sort of thing) or invest to a reasonable extent. We don't need mega-rich people, we just happen to be stuck with them.

from burning and fucking over everyone?

police

People who have stuff to protect make good use of them, direct or indirect.

roads

Ah yes, when has a corp actually used the roads to, like, move stuff and arrive to perform services? Nah.

food stamps

Happen to also be a big, fat, indirect subsidy to fuckers who don't pay a decent wage and employ to people for 20 hours a week instead of hiring someone fulltime.

Who uses pork more? Look at your local congressmen and see what "pork" they got. I guarantee you benefit from some of those earmarks.

Ah yes, try to pass off government-business collusion as individual corruption, why not, after all no one likes the term 'facism'. Sounds bad...

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical commie - if words don't work, kill anyone who disagrees.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Xyrus]

He's just bitching because the people who pay 90% of the taxes get a few breaks here and there.

I really really wish people would stop confusing income tax rate to total tax burden. They are not the same thing. Not even close.

The total tax burden is higher on the lower end of the economic spectrum than the upper end. Why? Because the rich have whole set of tricks to keep their total burden lower (even though the rich control about 80% of the wealth in the country).

The people who keep this country running are those who ARE NOT millionaires. They're the ones actually providing services and producing goods (the ones that haven't been shipped off over seas that is). If the millionaires and billionaires didn't have everyone else's backs to stand on they'd come tumbling down pretty damn fast.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Duhavid]

"I don't see it as a stupid question, but as a question to point out something

What?"

That it is not "a small percentage of the population" that keeps the country running. That capital doesn't keep anything running ( I would argue, currently, it is preventing things from running here ), workers do.

"And of course labor has existed as long as people. What is the point of making that observation?

In order to address your false dichotomy."

How is it a dichotomy and how is it false?

"Does any of the above mean that those who are fortunate or hard working enough to be wealthy should be able to do stupid things with my tax dollars?

It means they should be able to do stupid things with their tax dollars, but that's a completely different discussion, anyway."

They should be allowed to do almost any stupid thing they want with their private money. Tax money should be used sparingly, wisely and effectively.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Gabrosin]

Why is it that when people want to disparage the upper class, they always go after people who have their fortunes handed down through generations, and ignore the large percentage of people who became doctors, lawyers, business leaders, or athletes/entertainers through their own hard efforts? Of course there are people who have plenty of money that they did nothing to earn, on account of their parents, grandparents, and other ancestors. But they're only a small part of the total picture, and if you had that sort of money you'd want to be able to secure your family's future too.

I'm not going to side with the poster claiming that the rich are somehow "better" than the rest of the country, but in the vast majority of cases, those who are pulling in significant salaries and paying into the highest tax brackets are doing so because they nourished some trade or talent that allows them to command a high price for their time and efforts. To pretend that all people with money have it because of an accident of birth is pure sophistry.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Gabrosin]

"Which is more likely to work, all workers and no capitalists or all capitalists and no workers?"

What a dumb argument you two are having. The question is meaningless. Both arrangements will work equally well, which is to say, not at all. It's impossible to produce goods without both capital and workers. If you had all workers, they would by default be the capitalists, as they would have to own their own capital (or sit idle, unable to produce). If you had all capitalists, they would also sit idle, unable to produce, until one or more of them started to do work. It's a false choice.

The fallacy in the mind of the asker of that question is believing that the workers are somehow more important than the capitalists because one capitalist can support many workers, while situations where many capitalists support a single worker are much rarer and harder to define. The system still falls apart with the absence of either side.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[geekoid]

Sure it does.

It gives the rich something to complain about. The rich use it like a club to keep unneeded projects alive so their companies can make money.

It's the government spending money in order to keep jobs going.Jobs in places owned by the rich, who make the profits from the labor.

5$ a month is a meal. So think about that next time your sipping your 5 dollar 'coffee'.

Go down to the local welfare agency and look at how many back breaking jobs are posted at, or below, minimum wage and then tell me the rich to get anything from it.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I'm rich, and the reason you will never be rich is that I have all your money. And by the way, thanks for the tax cuts. I think I'm going to spend it in Dubai.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[shadowofwind]

In the part of ATK I worked for, all of our money came from the government, from taxes of course, and we squandered most of it. We were not keeping the country running, we were almost wholly parisitic.

Those are 'the rich' he was talking about, and those are the kind I've encountered in my life. If you've dealt with constructive, productive rich people, in your life as a non-American, then I'm happy for your experince. It doesn't make the other side of the picture unreal though.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[edawstwin]

Mod parent up. Most jealous poor people just bitch and moan about their station in life and continue to do the exact same things that have kept them poor. Success stories are too numerous to mention (I'm not talking about rags to riches, just somewhat poor to somewhat well-off, like me), but if you're willing to work more than 40 hours a week, make good long term decisions, and make a sacrifice or two along the way (do I really need a 55 inch LCD TV and a PS3 from a rent-to-own store?), you can do much better than most. There was a recent study that showed that less than one-third of American millionaires inherited their wealth. How have the other two-thirds achieved this status by "luck"?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[thunderclap]

You know what amuses me? That people assume that if they wasn't a wealth disparity, they would have some. That's BS. For better or worse our system is based on who you know, who you are and what skills you have. Czarist Russia had that until the Bolsheviks lead by Lenin crushed it. What did it gain? 70 years of abject poverty for the country. Its a pipe dream people. Socialism hasn't worked yet. We have a guy trying it NOW! His name is Chavez. And he is destroying the once prosperous country of Venezuela. Our system is simple: Everyone pays taxes. But the government has a set amount. If your work doesn't reach that set amount you owe them. For the people who make under $40000 our pay is more than enough to pass that and we get some back. So we really don't pay any. So when you whine about tax cuts for the wealthy, you are referring to the people who the govt is demanding they give 30% of what they earn. Can you afford that right now? Poor people pay nothing because they have nothing. So yes while it sucks that on 5% pay for everyone, I am thankful they do and I want to cut them a break. So play the game and if you are insane like Olberman or our senators from California and Nevada who seem to think that money just appears (they want the people who actually pay to give it to those who don't, which doesn't work. Handouts never do) please give your money to a homeless or low income person.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[geekoid]

wow.. just.. wow.

The middle class pay most of the taxes, not the rich. And the rich pays nowhere near when the amount of wealth they have would justify.

slightly over 66% of all income tax is paid by people earning between about 34K and 353K.

Exxon made billions of dollars, didn't pay a cent to the US.

When talking about taxes, 'Fair' has to so with wealth distribution, not everyone paying the same percentage.

Of course, when talking about fair taxes, the only thing that should be considered is total taxes v. total income. As it stands, the middle class carries most of that burden as well.

You are being stupid. Stop being stupid, it's beneath you.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[thunderclap]

Oh really? So you believe that a country that has no one wealthy would work. OK, Venezuela is for you.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[edawstwin]

Why should a company be forced to pay a "living wage" if the work doesn't warrant that wage? Any moron can stand at a door and say, "Hello". Most morons can handle stocking shelves, cash registers, driving trucks, etc... How are these jobs worth as much as professions like teachers, nurses, engineers, etc... that do earn what you would probably consider a "living wage"? And more importantly, what gives the government the moral right to tell a company how much any particular job is worth?

And why is 40 hours a week the magic number? Most people that become "rich" during their lives work far more than 40 hours.

The poor get very little at all from any level of government, the rich get damned near everything.

Welfare, Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, federally funded schools, unemployment insurance, military employment (and the training and college educations that come with it), just to name a few. How do the rich directly benefit from these?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[geekoid]

A) You make the flase assumption that more money = better people. It does not.

B) You make an argument to the extreme.

So your whole post is a one logical fallacy or another. And after reading your others post, there all almost entire logical fallacies. So basically you are a troll. I wish I had realized you where a attention starved troll before replying. Oh well, I guess years of being alone has allowed to to craft you troll tendencies to a fine art.

well done, you lonely bastard.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Duhavid]

That is not what I said. I said given a choice in believing that something would be produced in two extreme situations, I would believe that all workers and no capital would produce products, and all capital and no workers would produce no products.

I believe that earned wealth is a great thing. I also believe that in earning that wealth, you probably didn't do it as much "by yourself" as you think you did.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[nedlohs]

That's not the argument we are having.

the argument we are having is "is capitalist a correct word to use in that context or does the statement imply that the person stating it doesn't know the meaning of the term".

Re:NASA modernization program?

[c6gunner]

The word "better" is subjective, I'm not taking anything to an extreme, and you obviously don't understand what a "logical fallacy" is. So basically you are a troll.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are no better. They have no more right to their millions of dollars than you have to the $350 you've saved up. But they have no less of a right, either.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[nedlohs]

Sure if the global population is 1,000,000* people capital is optional.

And "have to"? You know for a fact it is impossible to have a self sustaining automated system that produces stuff? The sun seems pretty much self sustaining (well over a reasonable time span in terms of humans) without any input from workers and yet produces heat and light just fine.

You really think it is a physical impossibility for machines to be built which maintain the existing machines and build new ones so that there is no human labor element necessary going forward?

Sure it can't be done now, but the human population isn't 1,000,000 now so clearly you aren't restricting this to the current state.

* Yes, the number is plucked from thin air - some number much lower than the current level.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[c6gunner]

100% of income tax is paid by people making between $0 and $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. You've made the range large enough that it's completely fucking meaningless.

As for Exxon, you're flat-out lying. Exxon paid $30 BILLION in taxes in 2007 alone. You're a dishonest jackass, and I have no intention of discussing anything with you until you apologize for your behavior.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[dubdays]

He's just bitching because the people who pay 90% of the taxes get a few breaks here and there.

Actually, he was using it as a metaphor, but that's beside the point.

Apparently, if you're part of the small percentage of the population who actually keep the country running, you shouldn't get any special treatment. That's his idea of "fairness".

And this is the real issue of all of this...the word "fairness". What exactly does it mean to be fair? The fact of the matter is that while there are indeed many lazy people out there, the real point is that people are NOT equal. This is caused by a variety of reasons, but I think we can agree that a few people were born with certain abilities that are more "valuable" in the market. But, that does not mean they are harder workers or even necessarily deserve to be paid more. They are lucky to be able to use their innate qualities and intellect for monetary gain that the average person is unable to do (yes...unable is the correct word). As far as I'm concerned, the mentally handicapped man who works in our packing department works just as hard (if not harder) than our company president. Is it fair that he makes barely over minimum wage while the president has a huge house and five cars? No, it's not fair, but it's reality, and this is exactly why people who are able to earn higher incomes should help to pay for the welfare of those less fortunate, both legally and ethically.

Like I said, lazy people do take advantage of the system. But, having nothing to help the poor is morally wrong. Any system will have its flaws and we should try to mitigate them. But in this case, the flaws do not outweigh the necessity of welfare...not by a long shot.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Duhavid]

"Sure if the global population is 1,000,000* people capital is optional."

It is optional at any level. I am not arguing that it is efficient, desirable, or any other such argument, only that it is, ultimately, optional.

"And "have to"? You know for a fact it is impossible to have a self sustaining automated system that produces stuff? The sun seems pretty much self sustaining (well over a reasonable time span in terms of humans) without any input from workers and yet produces heat and light just fine."

A, I think that automated self sustaining systems might be possible. But they would have to be built by people first. So, yes, have to to such a point. Then what?

B, The introduction of the sun into this argument seems silly. The sun is not a product of our economy.

"You really think it is a physical impossibility for machines to be built which maintain the existing machines and build new ones so that there is no human labor element necessary going forward?"

It might be. And yes, going forward, maybe you could have such machines. But again, workers would have to build them first. And still, then what?

"Sure it can't be done now, but the human population isn't 1,000,000 now so clearly you aren't restricting this to the current state."

I am not concerned with population levels. 1 or 1 trillion trillion.

"* Yes, the number is plucked from thin air - some number much lower than the current level."

Re:NASA modernization program?

[hairyfeet]

Just remember, they are out breeding you by about 10,000 to one, and that number is only INCREASING. All your greed will be worth exactly a bucket of warm spit when the economy collapses and there aren't anymore bread and circuses to keep the huge desperate masses opiated, in which case you will either do a really nice impression of the fall of Saigon, or will be lined up against the wall, your choice.

There is a GOOD reason why governments don't last, and the USA is living proof. The rich buy off the laws with treasonous bribes that they then take a tax deduction on, the merchant class would happily give your job to a six year old in Malaysia they would work to death to save paying a living wage, and the congress becomes nothing but a home for lobbyists and a revolving door to the cushy corporate sector after their bribe taking days are over.

The only problem with your brilliant master plan there chief is by wiping out the middle class you have given the poor NOTHING to shoot for, and nothing to achieve. More and more are seeing the American Dream for the sham it is, and they are outbreeding you by ever increasing numbers. Do you think when the shit hits the fan they'll just peaceably starve like the last depression? Not on your life pal. See what happened to the French. Give me twelve people in a room and they may not pick a president but they WILL pick someone to hate, and THEY HATE YOU. Remember someone with nothing to look forward to also has nothing to lose. Can you say the same?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[YoungHack]

For support of this "get lucky" philosophy, I recommend N Taleb's book "Fooled By Randomness."

People get rich by working hard, yes. People get insanely rich by working hard and getting lucky. But they tend to over-attribute the outcome to working hard and discount the effect of chance. Lots of not-rich people work very very hard, but not everyone can be lucky.

Read the book.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[nedlohs]

We can not feed 6 billion people by gathering food with our bare hands.

As soon as you give a farmer a hoe or a spade he is now a capitalist since he owns some capital. Or give him some land to use exclusively, he is now a capitalist again.

Unless you mean a system in which no one "owns" anything, though I would say that's the same as a system in which everything has shared ownership of everything and hence everyone is a capitalist as soon as one spade is built.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Duhavid]

"We can not feed 6 billion people by gathering food with our bare hands."

I don't recall saying we should try. I am not against tools, up to and including robots.

"As soon as you give a farmer a hoe or a spade he is now a capitalist since he owns some capital. Or give him some land to use exclusively, he is now a capitalist again."

You can make that argument, I am not disputing it. I would say that he/she/it is now both capitalist ( owner of means of production ) and worker ( worker ). I think it is good.

I am exactly and only saying that capital in and of itself does nothing in producing products. Workers do that. And any other objects used by the workers in producting products were the result of workers working, not capital.

As a signal element in deciding what kind of products, how many products, for enabling valuing of products ( by cost vs other things like quality etc ), capital is the best thing we know to date. And it is good at that. I think it's use as a gating factor is not so good. How many people out there have ( or had ) great ideas that would enrich humanity ( and themselves ), but cant act on them because of a lack of capital?

"Unless you mean a system in which no one "owns" anything, though I would say that's the same as a system in which everything has shared ownership of everything and hence everyone is a capitalist as soon as one spade is built."

I think communism has been rightly torn down as a viable ( for populations above tribal size ) economic system. I do think that the notion that workers do not share as much as they ought in the benefits of their work has some weight. Don't construe that as saying that investors are not entitled to a return.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[HeronBlademaster]

They employ people if and only if they can skim off of their labor.

I think what you mean is, an employer only hires someone if hiring that person earns more than they cost. I'm awed by your "insight".

That's called making a profit, not "skimming off their labor", and it's a fundamental component of economics. I challenge you to show how any employer could stay in business despite paying employees more than the employer earns from their employment, or even paying the same as what their employment earns -- non-profits don't count (the economy wouldn't work very well if *everyone* were a non-profit!).

Re:NASA modernization program?

[jbengt]

There was a recent study that showed that less than one-third of American millionaires inherited their wealth. How have the other two-thirds achieved this status by "luck"?

No, by inflation.
Seriously, when the lottery first came out, a million dollar payout of $20,000 per year for 50 years was an amazing amount - I could have retired at 21 years of age and lived off that indefinitely. Now, a million dollars cash in hand is barely enough to retire on at age 67.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

but in the vast majority of cases, those who are pulling in significant salaries and paying into the highest tax brackets are doing so because they nourished some trade or talent that allows them to command a high price for their time and efforts.

That would be pure sophistry. Most of those who have "nourished some trade or talent" were only able to do so because they were rich enough and connected enough in the first place. The chance of a child from a low income family making it into the top 5% of earners is roughly 1% while kids born into the top 20% have a 22% chance of making it there. Intergenerational mobility in the USA is less than that of France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark - we're only ahead of the UK and then just barely.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why you'll never be rich.

I'm pretty fucking wealthy and have made most of it watching others work harder than me. A large chunk of my start up capital was garnered selling drugs. Then I started my own internet retail company selling sex toys which I ran into the ground after funneling most of my profits out of the company. I hired based on age of the applicant and desperation for a job. They worked for pennies compared to what I was pulling in. They are now jobless, and the company went under because of no reinvestment back into it. This was part of my strategy.

Now I am sitting fat and day trade as a hobby. I'm decently good at that too. At least I'm good enough to not have to work and my wife and daughter don't have to worry about money and they can enjoy themselves. You'd be amazed at how much happier life is when you and your spouse can sit at home and fuck off all day long.

And I know damn well that I made my wealth through illegal activities, tax evasion, and screwing over the weaker that have been raised to suck off their boss for a few bucks a day. This is really the difference between rich and poor. And my daughter will be pretty successful in whatever she does as well. Her and I both know that her attending a prestigious university is for show and not actually education. I've taught her everything she needs to know about being successful. Thankfully, I can pay for her university attendance no problem.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[thunderclap]

all workers and no capital will product nothing as well. With capital there is no way to get resources and no incentive for the workers to work. Unless you are suggesting slavery?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[saleenS281]

You get special treatment by being allowed to make your money, and keep more of it than you would in any other country in this world. Not to mention, I'm sick of hearing the top 1% cry about their tax rate when it's a fraction of what it was historically when our country was 'booming".

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Re:NASA modernization program?

[edawstwin]

There was a recent study that showed that less than one-third of American millionaires inherited their wealth. How have the other two-thirds achieved this status by "luck"?

No, by inflation. Seriously, when the lottery first came out, a million dollar payout of $20,000 per year for 50 years was an amazing amount - I could have retired at 21 years of age and lived off that indefinitely. Now, a million dollars cash in hand is barely enough to retire on at age 67.

If you're poor or middle class, inflation doesn't get you a million dollars unless you invest well and really long time (decades) passes. The point of the study was to show that most millionaires in America are self-made, whether through starting businesses, investing well, or working hard at a high-income job. Very little luck or inflation had anything to do with it.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Duhavid]

I think you mean

"Without capital there is no way to get resources and no incentive for the workers to work"

and not

"With capital there is no way to get resources and no incentive for the workers to work".

I think you are incorrect in this assumption. There are many who work for nothing. Called volunteers. There are many who work that they might possess the product of their work.

On resources, how does one get them? You are thinking only in term of buying them. There are other ways one could get resources. Trade. Go and dig them out of wherever they are ( which might mean having to work to build the tools ( which might mean building tools to build tools, ad infinitum ) to dig them out )

Note, I am still not saying that money/capital is bad or should not be used, just that it does not have to be a limiting factor. Noted full well that it *is* a gating factor for a lot of things. But because it is a path ( and the best path we know so far ) to an end does not mean it is the only path.

So, "no way to get resources"? I disagree.
"no incentive"? I disagree.

And I am not suggesting slavery ( which would be workers who are coerced and unpaid ).

Re:NASA modernization program?

[iwnbs]

I agree with your moral and ethical claims that the poor (working or not) should be helped. However, I'm not too sure that Government is the best/most efficient entity to tackle the problem. I expect that private, tax-exempt non-profit organizations do a better job due to specialization in addressing specific niches (food, housing, medical care, etc.). Private philanthropy, like private business, will almost always operate more efficiently than an equivalent government entity. So, instead of giving up a certain percentage of my income to help the government combat "insert cause here" I'd much rather donate to a charity/organization of my choosing. I believe in moral absolutes, and I believe that most people are aware of their desires to help their fellow human beings; enough to donate money, time, and themselves. At least, this is what I've observed in my own life. The main issue with defining "fairness" (which implies justice) is not with coming up with a suitable definition or implementation using ethics and morality. It is with the prevailing moral system itself. Western society seems to be increasingly adherent to a relativistic moral system. The concept of "fairness" is an inconsistent moving target from person to person, and consensus on what is "fair" is difficult to obtain. Then it is subject to change over time. This is why I'd rather "welfare" come from the private sector (non-profs, good neighbors, etc.). "Fairness" would then be left for the individual to determine. At least I can "choose" to donate to organizations which share the same philosophy as me.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at your local congressmen and see what "pork" they got.

Seems to assume that the rats^^^^politians aren't rich. Please re-verify their bank accounts and lifestyles.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

There was a recent study that showed that less than one-third of American millionaires inherited their wealth. How have the other two-thirds achieved this status by "luck"?

Yes very much by luck. Being born into wealth gives people all kinds of opportunities that the average-born do not have. I should know since I grew up in exactly that kind of environment and I am one of those millionaires who did not inherit as I haven't taken a dime from my parents since college. I know plenty of people who are smarter and harder working than I am but just didn't have the good fortune of making the right connections. Plus, I say your numbers are skewed. My numbers say that being born into the top quintile of wealth gives one a 22% chance of ending up in the top 5% - that leaves practically nothing for the other 80% of the population.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

People get rich by working hard, yes. People get insanely rich by working hard and getting lucky. But they tend to over-attribute the outcome to working hard and discount the effect of chance. Lots of not-rich people work very very hard, but not everyone can be lucky.

I haven't read the book, but that math has long been intuitively obvious to me. It's why I don't believe for a second that sky-high CEO pay is justified - there are plenty of other people out there with the skills and knowledge to run a company well, they just haven't been fortunate enough to find themselves at the right confluence of events. If we stopped paying ridiculous amounts to corporate-level officers we might lose a few stars, but there are tens of thousands of equally good people just waiting in line to take their place.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Man On Pink Corner]

Referring to my above, could you get robots with all capital and no workers? No. You could with all workers and no capital. Workers make things, capital controls what is made, when it is made, by whom it is made, &c. But you *have* to have workers. Capital is optional, but usually controlling.

The farmers said the same thing. In 1900, 41% of the US work force was employed in agriculture. That percentage is now 1.9%.

There is no reason not to believe that most other industrial sectors will experience the same upheaval. So, yes, it's not only entirely possible, but very damned likely, that the people you call "capitalists" will be able to get by with a negligible fraction of the workforce they've historically employed.

That is going to make for a very interesting century. The historical references to the French revolution or the Bolsheviks that many underaged, overeducated commenters in this thread are making will be of no predictive power whatsoever.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

All real wealth is created by labor. By taking something and converting it to something more useful. If you pick up a stick off the ground and fashion it into an ax handle you have increased its value.

Money and therefore capital is an abstract concept. A means of accounting for the value added. It facilitates the complexity of our modern civilization making it easier to trade things of value but it only works as long as everyone agrees to accept it as valuable.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[lgw]

Yeah, those evil bastards who create most of the jobs in this country by working longs weeks trying to keep their small businesses going, with their life savings at risk. Total mooches off society I tell ya!

BTW, we don't tax people who have wealth, we tax people who have high incomes, and that's mostly small business owners. Sure, there are a couple thousand CEOs and CFOs who make million dolar salaries, but they're not much of an affront to social justice. You don't (normally) become very wealthy by having a high income, but by making good or lucky investments over an extended time, and that has very little to do with income taxes.

But then, one reason why so many people with decent professional salaries never become wealthy is this inability to distinguish weath from income.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[lgw]

You know what amuses me? That people assume that if they wasn't a wealth disparity, they would have some.

I believe the analogy you're looking for is "no matter how much water you pour from my bucket into your colander, you still won't have any water". Although, we should really come up with a car analogy for Slashdot.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[lgw]

The bottom 1/3 of incomes pay about 1% of taxes, while the top 1% of incomes pay about 1/3 of taxes. That's the top 1% carrying a very high burden. But that has little to do with "the wealthy", who might have little or no income to tax. Income redistribution will never achieve wealth distribution, as becoming wealthy is a matter of habits and culture.

The only "fair" income tax is the one where everyone pays the same amount, say $30,000 each this year. Totally equitable. You'd probably prefer a just system to a fair one, but then we run into strongly divergent opinions on social justice.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

I challenge you to read the post beyond what you quoted and further challenge you to find a fault with the quoted sentence in the context of jobs being "supplied".

Re:NASA modernization program?

[HeronBlademaster]

My objection was that it's not "unconscionable exploitation" to provide a job in exchange for money, even if those wages are low. Companies pay what people are willing to work for.

If people want higher wages, they should start by not taking low-paying jobs.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

Defend it all you like. Try defending it to the people who have nothing to eat.

One day they'll be ok and you won't because they killed you. And that's why you're not alive.

Not a good argument is it?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Jarik_Tentsu]

Come to Australia.

I know a graduate who said "Hmm, I wanna bum around for a year without working... Don't worry, the government will support me financially - dole ftw!" and he did.

In fact, the less you work here, the more money you get. It's a system which seems to reward laziness.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Rudolf]

The middle class pay most of the taxes, not the rich. And the rich pays nowhere near when the amount of wealth they have would justify.

slightly over 66% of all income tax is paid by people earning between about 34K and 353K.

353K is middle class?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but you are the one being stupid. People in the top 10th earning percentile pay 65.84% of taxes. I think it is fair to call the top 10% of the population "rich". Source:

http://home.netcom.com/~rdavis2/richpay.html

People in the 50-90 percentile pay 30.69% of taxes. That is middle class (actually high middle class) by any sane definion of "middle". You can't call someone earning more than 90% of the population in the middle, unless you are telling me that people who score in the 90+ percentile on their SAT test are "middle intelligent".

The data is a bit old (2005) but taxes and income distribution haven't changed much since then. If you think otherwise, prove me wrong with a citation based on current IRS data.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, we don't tax people who have wealth, we tax people who have high incomes,

Sounds like an argument against taxing capital gains separately from other forms of income.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Shotgun]

But, but...I had a former boss tell me that my labor was a commodity that I should seek to sell to the highest bidder.

He said that as he was congratulating me on finding a higher paying job.

Doesn't that make me, a worker, into a capitalist?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Duhavid]

Automation and tools can reduce, or perhaps, eventually eliminate a need for labor. We are not there yet, so that does not yet apply, and, currently, you need workers.

And when all sectors of the economy are all automated and no workers are needed ( really, before then... ) what are things going to look like? Ugly, as you state above, I think.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[MJMullinII]

>>>it's not like they are taking your money, out of your wallet.

No they are taking money out of the Chinese government's wallet (and other lenders like Saudi Arabia). The people who will eventually repay that money won't be us, but our children and grandchildren. Jefferson or maybe Madison (forget who) said it is immoral to borrow money from future generations, which is why they bent-over backwards to pay off the government debt as soon as possible. WE should do the same.

Current national debt == ~$130,000 per US home, plus another ~$90,000 in personal debt per home == a not rich country

“A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.” -- Alexander Hamilton

And considering how U.S. T-Bill auctions are practically "standing room" only...I don't buy the tales of doom and gloom by those who try and compare the finances of the United States to a two-bedroom household in Jersey.

Much like how the laws of physics break down on the quantum level (hence the putting together of Quantum Physics), "common sense" economic theory completely breaks down when you get to the level of National Government (especially one the size of the United States).

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Man On Pink Corner]

Automation and tools can reduce, or perhaps, eventually eliminate a need for labor. We are not there yet, so that does not yet apply, and, currently, you need workers.

If something as messy and complicated as the US agricultural industry can run with 5% of its former workforce, and do it very cost-efficiently and safely, then other labor-intensive sectors will follow suit.

And when all sectors of the economy are all automated and no workers are needed ( really, before then... ) what are things going to look like? Ugly, as you state above, I think.

Yeah, I'm guessing so, at least for awhile.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

The point of the study was to show that most millionaires in America are self-made, whether through starting businesses, investing well, or working hard at a high-income job. Very little luck or inflation had anything to do with it.

I don't know where inflation would come in to it, but luck ALWAYS plays a part. If your parents are drug addicts, that's purely luck. You're not going to be financially successful, period. If you're born with a high IQ, that's luck, too. As was pointed out above, if you're born into the top 20% you have opportunities and contacts that normal peple don't have, and unless you're very unlucky you're going to stay rich. This is why the "self made man" is a delusion.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

Look at who actually pays income tax

EVERYBODY.

Who supplies the jobs?

Who produces the wealth that funds those jobs? The people working those jobs.

Who uses the public school system more, the firefighters, police, roads, utilities, naitonal parks, social security, food stamps, unemployment, medicare/medicaid?

The public school system is a necessary shambles that help keep the poor poor. The rich need firefighters, police, roads, utilities, naitonal parks more than anybody. When a poor man's house catches fire, it's usually not his house, it's his landlord's, and he has little to lose in that fire. The police protect the rich from the poor, almost all of whome fear the police no matter how honest they are. The rich use the roads far more than anyone, to move goods and drive their Escalades on at 90 MPH (because if you can afford an Escalade you can afford speeding tickets). The poor can't afford vacations, and few have seen the inside of a national park.

Who uses pork more?

The rich.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

If people want higher wages, they should start by not taking low-paying jobs.

Ah, yes. That line. Guess what if they could they would, now back to your 12 hour work week in the late 1800s, unless you are unwilling to eat your own dog food and prefer to hide behind the regulations that have dramatically improved working conditions since then. Bullshitting about how you are better than them is not a valid argument either. You are where you are thanks to people actively changing things instead of accepting the non-choice between life in extreme poverty (and/or starvation) and life in poverty with a horrible job.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

Yeah, those evil bastards who create most of the jobs in this country by working longs weeks trying to keep their small businesses going, with their life savings at risk. Total mooches off society I tell ya!

Those aren't the rich, they are upper middle class and pay their fair share of taxes, and perhaps more than their fair share. They also contribute to society in other ways.

The stockbroker, the CEO, the movie star, the major league sports players, THESE are the rich, and they are parasites, contributing little if anything, contributing FAR less to society than they get back.

BTW, we don't tax people who have wealth, we tax people who have high incomes

We tax ALL income. IMO a tax on wealth would be very unfair, but the higher your income, the more you should pay -- because you're getting far more back from government than someone with less income.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're thinking of the statistic that the top 10% of highest-income Americans are paying 71% of the taxes.

Which is a disparity, you are correct about that.

The disparity is that they pay 71% of all taxes, but earn >95% of all income. That means the people who earn collectively 5% of the nations income pay 29% of the nations taxes.

I agree, that seems unfair.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

How are these jobs worth as much as professions like teachers, nurses, engineers, etc... that do earn what you would probably consider a "living wage"?

Professionals (except public school teachers, who are way underpaid) make far more than a "living wage". And why should morons, who were born stupid through no fault of their own, be consigned to a life of poverty just because of their bad luck? If you're not paying a full time employee enough to buy food and clothing and pay rent, you're exploiting him. If your employees have LINK cards you're exploiting the government.

If don't pay the people who create your wealth (like the guy behind the cookstove who turns your raw meat into profits) enough to live on, you are cheating him. Im my view, it's fraud; you're stealing his labor. If you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you're in the wrong business.

As to 40 hours, that's 1/3 of each day (except weekends). "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy". If you're working more than 40 hours a week, you don't have much of a life. I would posit that far less than 40 hours should be considered "full time employment".

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

Well, I'm eligible to retire in 2012 (right when the Mayan calendar rolls over), and I intend on doing lots and lots of nothing.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

100% of income tax is paid by people making between $0 and $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. You've made the range large enough that it's completely fucking meaningless.

As for Exxon, you're flat-out lying. Exxon paid $30 BILLION in taxes in 2007 alone. You're a dishonest jackass, and I have no intention of discussing anything with you until you apologize for your behavior.

You're a weasel. He was talking about incomne taxes, which they paid none. You are talking about other taxes, and splicing in the per barrel royalty they pay for the privilege of using citizen owned lands in public trust and pretending that it's income tax.

If my company makes a billion dollars, and spends a billion dollars on things it successfully claims are OPEX, I don't pay a damn cent in income taxes. I now own a billion dollars or "farm/ranch" land that I can sell and pay $0 in income taxes on. Instead I pay 10%-15% in capital gains taxes. Not a cent in income for the above transactions.

C6gunner, you are a weasel.

EOT.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[toddestan]

Well, if that's your attitude then don't act all surprised when the rest of us decide to raise your taxes.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad we agree. Now lets work on scrapping welfare and medicare.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[c6gunner]

Well, if that's your attitude, don't be surprised when I decide to leave, and take my money with me. Meanwhile the rest of you can stand around holding hands and yes-we-can yourselves into anarchy and poverty. Ayn Rand may have been a bit of a nutbag, but she got one thing right: if you keep increasing the burden on the most capable members of your society, eventually you'll end up with a society of incompetents.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[HeronBlademaster]

Nowhere did I say or imply that I think I'm better than them. What I said was, if people want companies to pay more money, taking extremely low-paying jobs is the wrong way to do it.

This has nothing to do with 12 hour work weeks or "eating your own dog food" (which I assume you meant metaphorically, though I can't see how it applies). A 12 hour work week sounds like a part time job, and there are plenty of those around, but that has little to do with how much employees are paid per hour.

You are where you are thanks to people actively changing things instead of accepting the non-choice between life in extreme poverty (and/or starvation) and life in poverty with a horrible job.

You do realize that you're defending my point, right? As you yourself point out, it's not a choice between "poverty" and "poverty with horrible low-paying job". They have other choices. But sharing your attitude - "if they could, they would" -- is what leaves them in that situation.

The government has all sorts of programs available for people with little or no money, not to mention there are independent food banks, soup kitchens, and so on. These are meant to be relied upon while people find decent jobs.

See, these people who take low-paying jobs without complaint are the cause of the problem. Yes, it would be difficult for a while. No, they would not starve, unless they're too stubborn and proud to ask for help. But the biggest reason this will never actually work is this: everyone has to be willing to do it at the same time, and hold out until companies relent. It's the same reason strikes and boycotts really only work if everyone does it.

Of course, most everyone has your attitude, that they have no choice, and that is the reason these low-paying employers don't raise wages.

As for "I am where I am thanks to people actively changing things", well, yes, I am. Perhaps if you read up on how the Mormons ended up building a city in the middle of the desert, you'll understand why my definition of "actively change" may include choosing to live in poverty for a time.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

Private philanthropy, like private business, will almost always operate more efficiently than an equivalent government entity

I don't buy that at all. The larger an organization, any organization, gets, the more bureaucracy is needed and the more waste is generated. If you weren't alive when AT&T held a monopoly on telephony, you never saw bureaucracy. It was a horrible mess.

On the other hand, my electric company (CWLP) is owned by the city, most of the state's residents get their electricity from the private (well, it's a publically traded stock) company Amerin. CWLP customers have the cheapest electricity in the state, and CWLP turns a profit. It also has far better uptime than Amerin*, and FAR better customer service (I have to buy natural gas from Amerin).

The "anything government is poorly run" is a false meme. Any organization is only as good as its leaders.

I believe that most people are aware of their desires to help their fellow human beings

Not most people I know.

* Amerin cuts corners to increase profit, so trees don't get trimmed and branches break power lines when a storm hits. When two F-2 (almost F-3) tornados hit Springfield in March 2006, knocking out power in the entire city, most of the city's lights were back on that night, and even in the areas directly hit where the entire electrical infrastructure was completely destroyed, service was restored in a week.

That summer a weak F-1 hit the St. Louis area. I visited a friend who lives across the river (serviced by Amerin), and the only evidence of a tornado I saw was that he still didn't have electricity.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

There are always fraudsters. You want to punish the innocent poor who are working their asses off at McDonald's because the crackheads are selling their LINK cards to dope dealers?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[toddestan]

Here in the real world we tried an experiment where we cut the taxes to the wealthy, (that would be the Bush tax cuts of 2001). Now that it's the end of 2010 and we're stuck with a bunch of incompetents running the show, I'm going to say that Ayn Rand is completely full of it. Give more to the rich, and they just hoard it - which isn't too surprising, as you can't spend your way to wealth. Maybe we should go back to the income tax rate structure that was in place 50 years ago? Seemed to work great back then.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[c6gunner]

Complete bullshit of course. The philanthropic efforts of Bill and Melinda Gates, and the excellent R&D work being done by companies like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX (not to mention Tesla Motors, and the new tech coming out of other American automakers) easily expose your lies for what they are. And it's almost not even worth commenting on the ridiculous notion that 9 years of tax cuts should lead to massive changes on a national scale. You're impatient, you're biased, and you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[toddestan]

Yes, because you can find an exception with Bill and Melinda Gates, that makes the rule. I don't even know what you're trying to say with Virgin Galatic and Telsa, which are companies. I'll just ignore what the management of Enron did, the whole financial meltdown, the whole CEO culture, and the bonuses Wall Street decided to pay themselves out of taxpayer funds, and other nonsense.

As for taxes, it's not just the tax cuts of 2001. The top marginal rate has been going down for some time now, with the result that the middle class has been in decline at the expense of the ultra-rich. This has been going on since the 1980's. I'll admit, trickle-down economics sounds good, but it's obvious to anyone who doen't watch Fox News that it doesn't work.

But anyhow, it's pretty clear that not only that you are an arrogant ass, that you're also a complete idiot. So yes, please do leave the country.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps richer people aren't working harder, just smarter? Add to the fact that their skills are in demand but are in short supply and you have a more plausible explanation. (This doesn't always apply though)

Re:NASA modernization program?

[edawstwin]

If you're not paying a full time employee enough to buy food and clothing and pay rent, you're exploiting him.

By this logic, every job should pay exactly the same.

I would posit that far less than 40 hours should be considered "full time employment".

Most people think like you, and that is why most people will never be rich, or even "well-off". Work your 35-40 hours at a "living wage" until you're 65, depend on someone else or the government to support you until you die, and leave nothing to your kids. Not how I want to spend the rest of my days.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

If you're not paying a full time employee enough to buy food and clothing and pay rent, you're exploiting him.

By this logic, every job should pay exactly the same.

You're not demonstrating any logic at all. A professional who has invested the time to get an education should of course earn more than a high school dropout, but if that dropout is working full time and going hungry, he's being ripped off by his employer.

Most people think like you, and that is why most people will never be rich

I have no desire to be rich. I have a decent job with decent pay, my old sedan will get me where I'm going just as fast as a Ferrari, and I don't need to live in a mansion covered in bling. Money is just a tool.

Money won't buy happiness, but lack of it will buy misery. If your employee is going hungry, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Gabrosin]

You're arguing against a completely different problem. Yeah, publicly available education in the US sucks (relative to other first-world countries, at least). There are a whole host of reasons for this. And low-income families don't usually place enough importance on education, so children grow up unmotivated and miss any opportunity they had to break into a well-paying career. But that's not what I'm talking about.

There's a huge difference between the children of the mega-rich (who can lead a life of luxury purely on money handed down by their parents) and the children of middle-class families (who may have an easier path to a college degree, but are still going to have to work for a living). I'm talking about the latter. That's who makes up the majority of the higher tax brackets.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

But that's not what I'm talking about.

And neither am I, but thanks for the strawman.

There's a huge difference between the children of the mega-rich (who can lead a life of luxury purely on money handed down by their parents) and the children of middle-class families (who may have an easier path to a college degree, but are still going to have to work for a living). I'm talking about the latter. That's who makes up the majority of the higher tax brackets.

No it isn't. You are welcome to document your assertion to prove me wrong. Remember that the context of this discussion is the increased percentage of tax on income over $250K/yr. $150K/yr is currently the cut-off for the top 5%. Good luck.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[edawstwin]

If you're not paying a full time employee enough to buy food and clothing and pay rent, you're exploiting him.

By this logic, every job should pay exactly the same.

You're not demonstrating any logic at all. A professional who has invested the time to get an education should of course earn more than a high school dropout, but if that dropout is working full time and going hungry, he's being ripped off by his employer.

It is you who are not demonstrating any logic at all. If highly specialized knowledge and experience are required for certain jobs, and virtually no knowledge and skill are required for others, then there should be a discrepancy, and there should be no limit to that discrepancy, top or bottom. If I hire someone to push a button once a minute for eight hours, why should I have to pay more than that job is worth to me? No one is forcing that person to take the job and if he/she had better skills, another job would probably be available. If I have need for four employees but can only afford to hire one at some government-imposed minimum wage, then my business is hampered by forcing costs to be higher, and three people are potentially left unemployed (assuming not every job in the area has been filled). It is always better to have a job at a low wage than no job at all.

An employer does not have any moral obligation to provide anything other than a fair wage for the job done, which should be solely determined by the market.

Money won't buy happiness, but lack of it will buy misery. If your employee is going hungry, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Lack of money should motivate people to find a better job or work longer hours. And I would never be ashamed of myself if my employee was going hungry. It is he who should be ashamed of himself in that case.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

If highly specialized knowledge and experience are required for certain jobs, and virtually no knowledge and skill are required for others, then there should be a discrepancy

Yes, there should.

and there should be no limit to that discrepancy, top or bottom

Why not? WHY do you think it's moral to starve a family?

If I hire someone to push a button once a minute for eight hours, why should I have to pay more than that job is worth to me?

If getting the button pushed every minute isn't worth paying someone a living wage, then DON'T HIRE ANYBODY TO PUSH THE DAMNED BUTTON.

No one is forcing that person to take the job

Nobody but hunger, and that hunger allows you to easily defraud him of his labor. You're doing with your employers what the government used to do before they cancelled AFDC -- keep the people poor, forever, for generations.

It is dispicable.

If I have need for four employees but can only afford to hire one at some government-imposed minimum wage

The same minimum wage your competetion is paying. A level playing field. If you can't compete, that's not your workers' fault or the government's fault, you are the one who has failed.

An employer does not have any moral obligation to provide anything other than a fair wage for the job done

Yes, a FAIR wage. One that doesn't allow him survival isn't a fair wage.

Lack of money should motivate people to find a better job or work longer hours.

Most of the poor people I know are working two jobs. Your immoral stinginess is depriving them of having a life.

And I would never be ashamed of myself if my employee was going hungry.

Of course not. You're a sociopath who has no morals whatever.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Gabrosin]

There are about seven million people making $150k or better, most of them in the top two tax brackets (and the rest in the high end of the 28% bracket). Only about 1.5 million of them are making the sort of money that would let you go without a job or retire after only a few years and still live comfortably for the rest of your life (~$400k or better). The rest of those people are well-off, certainly, but they still have to keep getting up and going to work every day to support themselves; even if you saved diligently on $150k a year, it takes a long time and wise financial decisions to reach the point where they could give up that annual income. So your ultra-wealthy make up less than 25% of the top tax brackets.

There are just as many dumbasses and leachers among them as there are among any other broad group of society. For most, the only thing they are better at is being born into the modern aristocracy.

Most of those who have "nourished some trade or talent" were only able to do so because they were rich enough and connected enough in the first place.

Now why don't you go back and document your own claims, before calling out someone else. Your statement comparing the chances of reaching the top 5% from low income roots is not sufficient. Yes, it's easier for a person who grows up with moderate means to reach the top 5% than it is for someone who grows up in poverty. But EASIER is not the same as EASY. Kids in middle class homes who slack off through high school and college and don't learn to do anything useful might have more to fall back on when they fail, but bumming around unemployed all day long isn't going to be enough for them to live anything more than a meager existence, certainly not to become one of the wealthy "modern aristocracy" you're opposing.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

There are about seven million people making $150k or better, most of them in the top two tax brackets (and the rest in the high end of the 28% bracket).

You fail to convey the relevance of this claim to the conversation.

Your statement comparing the chances of reaching the top 5% from low income roots is not sufficient.

You missed the other half where being in the top 20% gives you a 22% chance of making it into the top 5% - that's essentially static.

Now why don't you go back and document your own claims, before calling out someone else.

I have. Twice now in other posts in this thread. Where's yours?
Yeah. That's what I thought.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Gabrosin]

You fail to convey the relevance of this claim to the conversation.

You fail to convey the relevance of your own claims to the conversation, and when called out on it you just blindly repeat them, like a good little sheep. I made a statement saying that the majority of people in the top tax brackets don't come from megarich families like the ones you initially described (kids of rock stars and franchise owners and so on). You asked for evidence and then I gave it to you in the form of income tax figures (from taxfoundation.org if you care, not that you've gone and provided citations for any of your claims). Meanwhile all you want to talk about is intergenerational mobility, which is NOT what the original statement is about. You want to pretend that people who have money have it because of an accident of birth rather than the hard work it requires to sustain a career capable of commanding a high income. And in the majority of cases, you are very wrong.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You asked for evidence and then I gave it to you in the form of income tax figures (from taxfoundation.org if you care, not that you've gone and provided citations for any of your claims).

Except that this 'evidence' doesn't prove what you claim it does. It's ridiculous to draw conclusions about the parents from the children's current tax rates.

Meanwhile all you want to talk about is intergenerational mobility, which is NOT what the original statement is about. You want to pretend that people who have money have it because of an accident of birth rather than the hard work it requires to sustain a career capable of commanding a high income. And in the majority of cases, you are very wrong.

Blind sheep shit. The point is that poor people can work hard too but it doesn't do them anywhere near as much good as it does those who get a massive headstart. You deliberately conflate being born to the mega-wealthy to being born to the merely wealthy so you can dismiss that headstart they get over the other 80% as non-existent. And that "good little sheep" bit - just who do you think is leading this good little sheep? Huh? A conspiracy of poor people? Evil liberals?

Re:NASA modernization program?

[edawstwin]

Suppose I started a company that could afford to employ one person and needed exactly that one employee and me to produce a product. The total revenue from selling that product would be 1.5 times whatever you consider a "living wage". Being the owner who risked capital, time, etc... I pay myself 1.0 times that wage, and I have 0.5 left. By your thinking, I shouldn't even offer the job. So my company goes out of business and now two people are unemployed when two could have had jobs. The employee could have gone to work for someone else as well to get enough money to be at "living wage" status.

I completely reject the notion that people working more than 40 hours a week don't have lives, as I've worked anywhere from 40-80 hour weeks consistently for the last 25 years and have always had a "life". I may have wanted more free time at certain jobs, but that drove me to find employment that took less of my time for more money. I always had some time to do the things that I enjoy. I've been poor and worked 70 hour weeks (or 50 hour weeks plus college) because I knew that's what I had to do make a better life. I also know people who gladly work 60+ hours and don't consider that a burden in the least. All of the people that I know that would be considered middle-class or higher have (for extended periods) or do work more than 40 hours per week. It is practically a necessity if you have a family.

Absolutely ALL of the poor people that I know (six people that I can think of) work less than 40 hours per week at some mindless and physically undemanding job and receive some form of government entitlement. None of them look for truly better employment or try to further their education, but they all complain about not making more money. Just 10 or 20 hours per week doing something about their situation would make a huge difference in their lives, but they refuse. Why do these people deserve more money from their employer for just showing up 40 hours a week to punch a clock? Because you say so isn't a valid reason. The work should justify the pay.

"You're a sociopath who has no morals whatever."

You obviously have nothing of value to say, or you wouldn't resort to name-calling. Just because I am unwilling to be sympathetic to people who wish to steal from their employer (and that is exactly what you are proposing - less work than the pay is worth, and I'm the "immoral" one?) does not make me a sociopath. Do you even know what the term means? I have enormous empathy for my friends that I consider less well-off and am constantly helping them with money and encouragement to find better jobs (admittedly the money is really just enabling them to stay poor). I have never physically fought or abused anyone in my life, except maybe verbally in the course of my job, and even then I feel horribly guilty about it no matter how much that person deserved it. I give to charities and am planning to start a chairity that gives job training and childcare to single mothers. Does that sound remotely like a sociopath?

"WHY do you think it's moral to starve a family?"

Because I am not starving them - they are doing it to themselves. If the market rate for 40 hours of work is less than "living wage", then that's what it is. You can't arbitraily set the wage to something higher. Businesses go under and even more people are out of work. If a company is exploiting its workers by paying less than what a job is truly worth, a competitor will come along and take his employees or force him to pay more. In contrast, if someone is unwilling to work harder or longer to survive, then he certainly doesn't deserve to get a raise. I will gladly help friends and family that can't afford food or rent, and have, (and I suspect most people would/have as well, thus charities), but I should never be FORCED to.

"The same minimum wage your competetion is paying. A level playing field."

But it's not level. By forcing me to pay X dollars an hour, I may get less (or more) value out of an employee t

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Gabrosin]

You deliberately conflate being born to the mega-wealthy to being born to the merely wealthy so you can dismiss that headstart they get over the other 80% as non-existent.

I can't tell whether you're being deliberately ignorant or just confused. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A HEAD START.

You made this statement:

For most, the only thing they are better at is being born into the modern aristocracy.

I am supporting THIS statement:

in the vast majority of cases, those who are pulling in significant salaries and paying into the highest tax brackets are doing so because they nourished some trade or talent that allows them to command a high price for their time and efforts.

Does my statement say anything about whether someone was born into a poor family or a rich one? No, it does not. But it DOES rebut your statement, which claims that most of the wealthy are wealthy only because they are born wealthy. This is NOT TRUE. It takes a large amount of residual wealth being handed down from your parents for someone to lead a rich lifestyle without having to work to maintain it. The pool of these people is small, compared to the number of well-off people (who are still being taxed at the highest rates) who have their money because they go out and earn it on a daily basis.

You are the one who is deliberately conflating the mega-wealthy with the merely comfortable. And I'm still waiting for your citation.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

No, it does not. But it DOES rebut your statement, which claims that most of the wealthy are wealthy only because they are born wealthy. This is NOT TRUE.

You seem to think that the luck of being born into wealth is orthogonal with working hard. Far from it. BOTH are necessary for the vast majority of cases.

You are the one who is deliberately conflating the mega-wealthy with the merely comfortable. And I'm still waiting for your citation.

Like I said, I've posted the link twice in other parts of this thread. Go fetch.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Gabrosin]

You seem to think that the luck of being born into wealth is orthogonal with working hard. Far from it. BOTH are necessary for the vast majority of cases.

I accept your concession, sir. Good day.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

Absolutely ALL of the poor people that I know (six people that I can think of) work less than 40 hours per week at some mindless and physically undemanding job and receive some form of government entitlement.

They're not getting those "entitlements" (there are no more entitlements, it all carries strings these days), their employers are.

If your employee is on food stamps, you're the one milking the government's teat; I'm paying you whether or not I'm your customer. You're not just robbing your employee, you're robbing taxpayers.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I accept your concession, sir. Good day.

Lol. You are now agreeing that being born into the modern aristocracy was your original claim. Either that, or you think that the people so born are better than those born to other classes and not just lucky for it.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[edawstwin]

The employer (if the "entitled" person is even employed) gains no benefit because his employee doesn't work any harder or contribute more to the company's bottom line. If you don't understand that someone who is taking entitlements directly from the government is the one actually benefiting from the entitlement (in the form no extra effort for a benefit) and therefore taking money indirectly from taxpayers, then there's no sense in continuing a debate.

Re:NASA modernization program?

[mcgrew]

there's no sense in continuing a debate.

Well, at least we agree on something.

cvs blame or git-blame?

[Anonymous Coward]

any way to identify who specifically added the sentence?

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[MaxOfS2D]

if I recall correctly, mostly republicans, but they were covering their backs by funding this somehow

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[Dunbal]

Dunno, but I'm sure those redundant, pointless jobs will be added under someone's "and he created X jobs in 2011..." political campaign slogans. After all jobs with no purpose outside the job itself is the whole point of government, unlike economic efficiency where the jobs actually have to contribute something society deems as worthwhile.

Now to find jobs that completely undo what little these new jobs do, hmmm maybe on the environmental side of things...

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[Rich0]

Yup, it would waste less money to just send every worker a year's salary beyond their regular severance and send them home. At least then we don't have to pay to keep the lights on and churn through materials to build things we intend to throw away.

The magnitude of government waste amazes me sometimes...

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[Anonymous Coward]

It involves a preexisting government contract - it wasn't covering "their" backs - it was covering "our" backs. If the government goes around welshing on it's agreements with businesses the only people doing government contracting will be those with no other options - not a very good assortment of tools for us to stay where we are or grow more powerful.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[commodore64_love]

>>>mostly republicans

Citation please. That would be a remarkable feat, considering the republicans were a super-minority completely and totally dominated by the Democrats (controlled ~60% of the Congress). Speaking as someone outside the power base (i.e. unelected libertarian), I consider myself an impartial observer of the Rep-Dem Duopoly. And I don't comprehend how the republicans can be blamed when it was the Democrats that held the power of Congress for four years. And another ~40 years from 1956 to 1994.

This last century was the century of the Democrat-run Congresses.
So how again is it that we blame the Reps? Makes as little sense as blaming the minority libertarians.
i.e. Citation please.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[Cwix]

Super minority?

They certainly had enough power to filibuster everything that was looked at. That doesn't make a super minority. The last century was a Democrat run congress?

Please leave the rock youve been hiding under.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[h00manist]

Dunno, but I'm sure those redundant, pointless jobs will be added under someone's "and he created X jobs in 2011..." political campaign slogans. After all jobs with no purpose outside the job itself is the whole point of government, unlike economic efficiency where the jobs actually have to contribute something society deems as worthwhile.

Now to find jobs that completely undo what little these new jobs do, hmmm maybe on the environmental side of things...

Umm let's go easy on the private-sector-is-nirvana please. Companies produce profit, yes. That requires being "efficient", at least with time and money, yes. Contributions to society? Not helpful to profitability. To public-relations, perhaps, so companies run ads saying "we are totally eco-everything!", true or not, and they're done with social-contribution-PR. Profitability, more often than not, leads to intense studies of how to sell the least expensive things, for the most money, as an illusion of a most amazing thing. So in food, for example, that results in lots products based on low cost ingredients - water, sugar, fat, salt, wheat, corn, soybean, and various chemicals. Because they are low cost, don't spoil, give huge taste rewards to anything they are mixed with. Fresh fruits and vegetables are not as profitable, there's just no way to do it, so they are not promoted, marketed, researched, etc. Therefore, junk food national diet, international now, heavily promoted. It's a profitable, possible sector. So, private sector has efficiency - for profit, not health.

Whose "profit interests" would be served by good health, that could counter all this? Perhaps the insurance companies. Or temp-labor. But still they do almost nothing to promote health. Why? Well, good salesmen, complex contracts and good lawyers results in much better profits than healthy insurance buyers.

And yes, I have a company, started several over the years - was last an employee in '97 - and it is very hard, almost impossible, to create a company producing "social contributions", plus income to pay for costs plus profit, plus manage all operations, all at the same time. That's why almost nobody does it, it's not so much because company owners are cruel and greedy. Companies with more greed produce more profit and grow faster, they are financially, socially rewarded, that's what happens. What's profitable? Not good social-services. That's a myth. Selling drugs, alcohol, prostitution, power, weapons, false dreams, and useless junk, now that's efficient, that's good profit.

Government is not nirvana, neither was socialism, and capitalism isn't much more than self-promotion and marketing either. So start looking for something new, because we need it badly.

Myself, I'm rooting that someday we reach humanism. No, it's not simple and easy, nothing is, and not a product for sale. And I could give a damn if capitalism just finished and became obsolete, humanity can do better than this.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[0xdeadbeef]

The language that keeps Constellation going was inserted into the 2010 budget last year by U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who sought to protect the program and Ares jobs at Marshall Space Flight Center in his home state.

Here, you fucking retard. Yes, that is TFA.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[commodore64_love]

The Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate until Senator Kennedy died. As Obama wisely observed at the start of his presidency, "The Republicans will take a backseat and remain quiet." The Democrats held an unstoppable majority.

Malcolm X once observed in the late sixties, "The Democrats are so powerful, the republicans might well pack their bags and go home." In the previous century, the Democrats controlled the Congress for almost 80 years out of 100. THAT is why I call it the century of the Democrat Congresses.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[gad_zuki!]

You have no idea how government works. Funding is handled by bipartisan committees. The minority party has a lot of sway on funding, especially the GOP because the Dems have so many consrevative members that they often need to reach across the aisle to get anything done.

The problem is that your corporatist press isn't mentioning names and uses the term "lawmakers" to cover the overly business friendly GOP. Funny how that works. I had to do a lot of digging to get this:

According to NASA, the agency has been spending an average of $95 million a month on Ares I. At that rate, it will spend about $475 million from Oct. 1 to March 4 — the period covered by the current budget extension.

The language that keeps Constellation going was inserted into the 2010 budget last year by [corrupt] U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who sought to protect the program and Ares jobs at Marshall Space Flight Center in his home state.

His office confirmed that the language was still in effect but did not respond to e-mails seeking details.

http://www.truthistreason.net/thanks-to-congress-inaction-500-million-goes-to-defunct-rocket-program-lockheed-martin

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[gad_zuki!]

It was Republican Richard Shelby bringing the pork back home. You know a member of the party of *snicker* fiscal responsbility:

The language that keeps Constellation going was inserted into the 2010 budget last year by [corrupt] U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who sought to protect the program and Ares jobs at Marshall Space Flight Center in his home state.

His office confirmed that the language was still in effect but did not respond to e-mails seeking details.

http://www.truthistreason.net/thanks-to-congress-inaction-500-million-goes-to-defunct-rocket-program-lockheed-martin

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[JonySuede]

sadly Regan was in power long enough to irreversibly damage the fabric of your society.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[geekoid]

You are not unbiased observer. IN fact, you state leaning means your bias is most likely 'everyone who makes a viewpoint is wrong' you are mostly likely a HORRIBLE observer.

Now, you seem to suffer from the delusion that a super minority has no power. 60 percent is not totally dominated. If you would have bothered tom pay attention over the last few years, you would see where the republicans filibusters almost everything, refused to vote on well over 100 of standard nominations. They have clearly done everything that can to stall the government. This includes not voting for bills they wanted because democrats agreed with them.

The government is complex and changing environments. Hell both parties have change a lot in the last 60 years.

You have certainly confirmed my bias the libertarians are simple minded people that can not grasp political complexities. Or anything that doesn't impact them immediately, really,.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[Anonymous Coward]

The damage was done long before Reagan. FDR is the one that really screwed it up. Reagan did what he could within that framework, but it was too little, too late.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[Dunbal]

Contributions to society? Not helpful to profitability.

      I'm not an economist and all I know is what I learned in the standard macro/microeconomics college level courses, so it's not really my place to answer this.

      But I believe the whole idea is that 1) new ideas are "worth more" to people than the re-invention of the wheel and 2) people who individually manage their scarce resources will only spend money on things that they perceive have value. As an aggregate, this tends to favor selection (and thus ease of profitability) for items that people actually want (which I call beneficial to society), versus things that people don't want (which I call not beneficial to society). Of course the underlying assumption is that people are qualified to decide for themselves how to live although apparently this is not the case.

      Where all of this gets distorted is in the monopoly/oligopoly situation, where you get the item the manufacturer wants to sell you or nothing at all, or in the government obligation situation where you have to get the item despite the fact that you don't want or need it at all, or in the situation of addictive drugs (cocaine, caffeine, etc) where people start spending money on them to avoid the withdrawal symptoms even when the actual pleasure gained from the drugs no longer exists.

      I'm not really a capitalist, but economic theory makes sense. However like most theories it really has very little to do with the world we actually live in. And I agree that this world is very far from Nirvana or any other fictional plane of bliss.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[commodore64_love]

Only because the Democrat Congress (which had well over 60% majority) let him.
They could have easily blocked Reagan from doing anything.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...because you get more than six reps in a room and they'll vote in lock step, no matter what, whereas a hundred democrats in a room won't even be able to agree where to have lunch? Lets face it, we really are pretty much a one party country now, as the Dems couldn't even agree on who would pick up the check at the titty bar. You got about a bazillion "factions" from the DINOs to the ultra libs, the pro this or anti that and the ONLY thing they have in common is they can't agree on shit.

Hell look at how the dems couldn't even muster enough support to keep the reps from ramming the tax break for those making a million plus, which with the current mood of the country should have been a slam dunk. Lets face it, we need a good three or four new parties, because what we got now is one party and a bunch of guys that just stand around and argue with each other.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[ultranova]

Dunno, but I'm sure those redundant, pointless jobs will be added under someone's "and he created X jobs in 2011..." political campaign slogans. After all jobs with no purpose outside the job itself is the whole point of government, unlike economic efficiency where the jobs actually have to contribute something society deems as worthwhile.

Of course, the very fact that creating X jobs gives such political gain should tell you something about where private-sector economic efficiency has led.

Re:cvs blame or git-blame?

[Brucelet]

Did you seriously link a verbatim reproduction of TFA with emphasis added?

China

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet the Chinese are now laughing so hard it hurts.

America is finished with nonsense like this.

Re:China

[h00manist]

I'll bet the Chinese are now laughing so hard it hurts.

America is finished with nonsense like this.

Not really, the Chinese are not laughing, no. They are too busy copying everything America does to become exactly like it. Especially the waste. For example, getting rid of all their bicycles, and putting everyone to produce, buy and sell cars for themselves and everyone. Producing many more accidents. But they have no hospitals, and nobody cares. Too busy making money with cars. Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

Head of NASA doesn't object?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, if I was the head of NASA I would jump to this and use that $500 million to do something productive. There is just no way that that could come back to bite me. Not when there are so many senators and other obvious targets for the news agencies to make fun of.

Really, I'm just waiting for the reporter with the balls to make a story about the $500 million that goes to some senators brother or something. Why else would they conveniently not make a budget this one year?

Well, at least it's not my tax money.

Re:Head of NASA doesn't object?

[vlm]

Strange, if I was the head of NASA I would jump to this and use that $500 million to do something productive. There is just no way that that could come back to bite me. Not when there are so many senators and other obvious targets for the news agencies to make fun of.

You must not have gotten the news that corporations and govt have merged. $500M is going to his friends, former and future coworkers / employers. Side effects such as producing a working vehicle are not relevant to the primary goal of transferring $500M, about half from Chinese bond holders and half from taxes, to his "family".

Now if the $500M when to the department of agriculture or something, he has no "family" there so he would complain.

Doing what works

[Anonymous Coward]

The old way produces rockets, the new way no ones sure about. I figure they'll hedge their bets as best is possible.

What if they just don't?

[cfa22]

How bad would the penalties be?

Re:What if they just don't?

[Aladrin]

Are you asking what the penalties are for breaking the law?

Re:What if they just don't?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? Government agencies break the law all the time and don't get punished for it -- because they're the government.

Re:What if they just don't?

[Registered Coward v2]

How bad would the penalties be?

I don't know, but upsetting the people who write your budget is generally not a good idea. Looked at it that way, $160 mill is cheap insurance to keep funds flowing.

Re:What if they just don't?

[owyn999]

Obviously not, he's wondering what the costs for breaking the contracts would be and if they outweigh the cost of continuing development on a project that isn't intended for use. Probably not but some states representative managed to get their jobs protected until after the election...

Re:What if they just don't?

[dbIII]

The TSA breaks the law every time it gropes someone under 18 without their parents permission, or under 16 with their permission.

Re:What if they just don't?

[ScentCone]

The TSA breaks the law every time it gropes someone under 18 without their parents permission, or under 16 with their permission.

Which also makes all doctors and nurses criminals. Because just like the TSA, they're only in it for the gropes, right?

Re:What if they just don't?

[dbIII]

Doctors have been deregistered for far less than a TSA grope.

Re:What if they just don't?

[c6gunner]

Ah, but of course. I guess parents break the law every time they do a diaper change, you fucking idiot.

Re:What if they just don't?

[Anonymous Coward]

You grope your kids when you change their diapers? Sick fuck.

Re:What if they just don't?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've been put in prison for far less than a TSA grope...

Re:What if they just don't?

[khallow]

As I see it, if the executive branch doesn't follow the funding directives of Congress on a large scale, then government is no longer operating within constitutional bounds. Then much like a banana republic, what happens would depend on who ends up on top. On a small scale, Congress may choose to ignore it or they could punish it with removal of funds from other executive branch operations.

The penalties can range from no action at all to impeachment and removal of the president. It's pretty much at the discretion of Congress what penalty is attempted though particularly harsh penalties such as impeachment may be bounced by the Supreme Court or simply not make it through both the House and Senate. My rather uninformed opinion is that the usual approach would be to greatly cut funding in programs that the president desires. The Supreme Court itself can also punish the people below the president with the usual judicial sticks such as jail time and fines. Though if it comes to that, we have to consider the president's ability to pardon such offenses. I suspect that would neuter most of the penalties that the Supreme Court could assign.

Re:What if they just don't?

[dbIII]

If you can't tell the difference than idiot is not a strong enough word.

Re:What if they just don't?

[c6gunner]

Sure, I can tell the difference: one is something that you're opposed to, while the other is not.

Oh, and it's spelled "then", you fucking idiot.

Re:What if they just don't?

[dbIII]

So when did the angry English teachers hit slashdot? A typo is a typo (1am excuse but who cares).
You knew exactly what I meant here and when you were pretending you didn't understand what I meant above.
What is this bullshit of defending government agencies even when they break their own laws in obvious and disgusting ways? Do you think they have droit de seigneur? Divine right of fucking kings where the rulers don't have to obey the same laws as the rest of us? Magna Carta and then the US Constitution were supposed to stop that sort of "might makes right" idiocy.

Re:What if they just don't?

[c6gunner]

A typo is a typo, and yours was not.

The TSA isn't breaking any laws - that was the entire point I was trying to get across to you, and you're still failing to understand. If you'd stop and think for a minute, you'd realize that your expanded definition of "groping" would criminalize all sorts of things, from ballet and cheer-leading to doctors and gynecologists. Initially I called you an idiot because I figured you were being intentionally oblivious - now that it's become obvious that you're actually too stupid to understand what you're saying, I'm left feeling like a bit of a dick for mocking you. Let me know if you need me to explain this in any more detail, 'k?

Re:What if they just don't?

[swillden]

How bad would the penalties be?

ATK would sue, and a federal judge would direct the government to pay up, plus whatever penalties the judge felt were appropriate.

Re:What if they just don't?

[geekoid]

No they don't, and that's the problem.

Re:What if they just don't?

[ScentCone]

Doctors have been deregistered for far less than a TSA grope.

You mean, like, checking your prostate gland, or doing a PAP smear, or checking for mammory lumps? That sort of thing? Doctors (and TSA agents) aren't penalized for doing their job, their penalized for taking advantage of their job to personally use their position of authority to commit an actual assault. Checking for a payload of PETN in your boxers is, unfortunately, now part of the job - just like it's the doctor's job to actually hold your balls and tell you to cough.

Re:What if they just don't?

[deodiaus2]

The gov't has no problem violating laws when it is to its own benefit.
One thing pointed out during Hurricane Katrina is that allowing foreign mercenaries to be stationed as guards was in direct violation of Posse-Kommo-Tattas.
Just another example of selective prosecution.

Re:What if they just don't?

[Anonymous Coward]

But I dont want my diapers changed!

Re:What if they just don't?

[dbIII]

A typo is a typo, and yours was not.

So "than" instead of "then" was not a typo? What was it then?
So much anger. Put it to use instead of aiming it at a guy that is pointing out the TSA is doing what your local cop would get in trouble for becuase there are specific laws against it. Your effort at argument by furthur reducing it to absurdity is missing the point by a very long way.

Re:What if they just don't?

[Rich0]

Keep in mind the executive branch runs the police and the jails, so the ability of the courts and congress to punish anybody is basically at their discretion.

I don't see how impeachment would be subject to judicial review. As long as Congress can come up with something resembling a charge I don't see any constitutional reason that they can't impeach and convict a president for blowing his nose the wrong way. It just isn't something that is very likely to happen.

In general while Congress is being fiscally irresponsible it isn't appropriate to just disregard them. On the other hand, we really need to reform the practice of adding riders to bills/etc that allows this stuff to happen...

Re:What if they just don't?

[dbIII]

Clue: One is imposed, not for your benefit, results in a fine if you back out and there are established laws that prevent law enforcement going that far which are still on the books (the last is the only point I wanted to make). The other is not and completely irrelevant to this entire thread about government agencies breaking laws.
We've had out little excursion into absurdity that you think I invited by using an emotive example (and then replying to your absurdity). Please just consider the point that government agencies are breaking laws now and asking for later forgiveness. If the TSA can do it for what they say is a good enough reason why not NASA.
My personal opinion of the TSA is that they have outlived their right to exist as an organisation but that's as offtopic as your talk of medical examinations.

socialism

[Threni]

You know, it's odd for a country with so many vocal opponents of socialism endorsing this bizarre situation of private defense/aerospace companies being funded by the taxpayer with very little in the way of end results.

Re:socialism

[dbIII]

No, it's flat out anti-socialism :)
Socialism by the dictionary and it's usage outside of the USA can be as simple as a church group feeding poor people. Thus most people using it as an insult don't have a clue what they are talking about. I suppose in the limited vocabulary of a cut price education people try to get a lot of different meanings that don't belong out of the words they know.
I find it quite insane that government interference is allowed beyond setting a budget and telling NASA to do what they like with it, and simply threatening to cut that budget if the government doesn't like what they do.
Why is NASA under such strict and IMHO stupid micromanagement when the TSA with a larger budget is completely out of control? I can't think of any answer other than "pork" and even more blatant corruption.

Re:socialism

[amliebsch]

socialism noun \s-sh-li-zm\
Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Now, I can't speak about how people outside the USA use the term "socialism," but I do know me some dictionary definitions, and if they are using it to describe simple acts of community charity, that's certainly at odds with the *dictionary.*

Re:socialism

[dbIII]

Cool, an entire complex philosophy that grew out of centuries of Christian charity truncated to three bullet points and the rest thrown away. Education by Powerpoint?
Anyway, I stuffed up and really mean the adjective as in "socialist organisation" which is a simpler concept to deal with with examples like the church group I mentioned above. I probably didn't put in enough for many people to be able to work out the context.

Re:socialism

[amliebsch]

No, the term "socialism" was invented in the 19th century pretty much specifically to describe what the dictionary definitions state (ideas which, incidentally, were explicitly humanist, not "grown out of centuries of Christian charity"). Things like "altruism" and "charity" have been around much longer and have more appropriate words to describe them than "socialism." You are attempting to broaden the term beyond its original definition specifically for the purpose of rehabilitating the ideas it was invented to describe.

Re:socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

the limited vocabulary of a cut price education

What is this shit? You went to some fag ivy league school and think you wrote the fucking dictionary? When idiotic verbal cumfartery like your above sentence is written, I skip over the rest of your post because any "benefit of the doubt" credibility I allowed you fucking vanished.

Re:socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

What's even funnier is he wasn't even right about the dictionary definition. His non-cut-price education apparently didn't include the meanings of words.

Re:socialism

[ultranova]

You know, it's odd for a country with so many vocal opponents of socialism endorsing this bizarre situation of private defense/aerospace companies being funded by the taxpayer with very little in the way of end results.

Not really. Opposition to socialism is usually the result of propaganda by the rich and the powerful who are trying to keep their privileges. Of course these people aren't opposed to being given even more money and power. A good example is Wal-Mart not paying its employees enough to live on, so the taxpayers end up subsidising Wal-Mart through food stamps for its employees.

Remember, "capitalism" doesn't mean "fair" competition, it means using your property to get more. The main difference between medieval times and industrial revolution with its robber barons is what the primary means of production were: land versus factories. This, of course, means that the philosophy of privatizing everything is just the Divine Right of Kings all over again, repackaged to fit a new wording and philosophical background - and, perfectly coincidentally, again justifying why all wealth and power is gathered in few hands while the rest get scraps.

So, the choice is not between Socialism and Capitalism; the choice is between Socialism and Feudalism. Capitalism is just Feudalism 2.0. And you are a serf.

Judging by history, it will take anywhere from a few centuries to a few millenia until people wise up and overthrow their overlords, atfer which they'll return with Feudalism 3.0. Unless, of course, you wish to count this delusional "service economy" which magically inflating GDP without any actual increase in production - indeed, the real amount of production is shrinking, which is the ultimate reason why poverty is increasing. Oh well, I'm sure a libertarian or two will pop up and tell me how property rights are everything, assuming of course they don't mod me down in an attempt to censor my message in the name of freedom.

Re:socialism

[amliebsch]

Actually, excepting the current economic slump, manufacturing output has been steadily increasing, not decreasing. It only seems like the reverse is true because (1) productivity has gone way up, meaning fewer workers are required, and (2) other sectors of the economy have grown much faster, reducing the contribution of manufacturing to the GDP.

HTH, HAND.

RTFA

[scjohnno]

The language that keeps Constellation going was inserted into the 2010 budget last year by U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican who sought to protect the program and Ares jobs at Marshall Space Flight Center in his home state.

I would also like to posit that if you are of the opinion that the Republicans have had little or no effect on the legislative process for the past two years, then you have not been paying attention.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Scott Brown won the special election in Mass., the Republicans couldn't even sustain a filibuster without Democrat help. That's the rub about being the majority, responsibility goes along with it.

Shelby couldn't have got that provision in without Democratic consent, probably as a quid pro quo for his vote on something, which the Democrats wouldn't have needed if their caucus had been united. And it was Majority Leader Reid's responsibility to guide a budget bill through the Senate. He and Pelosi failed their clear duty to get a budget done.

Well, they were busy

[pedantic bore]

It's not like Congress hasn't been busy recently, and presumably NASA and its subcontractors aren't just taking the money and throwing it in a shredder. It takes time and money to properly mothball a project of that size, and in the meanwhile maybe they can make a little progress toward their goals.

Re:Well, they were busy

[Isaac-1]

What goals? Design another new shuttle replacement that will in turn be cancelled before being completed?

Re:Well, they were busy

[Oriumpor]

We need to learn from the pragmatists. Shuttles don't work.

The buran was mothballed after 1 successful, UNMANNED!!!!, re-entry. CLUE BAT MEET NASA.

I'm actually incredibly proud of our nation's ability to get shit into space without NASA.

My father in law works for one of these companies, guess what, they care about budgets and maximizing profit and still get to space on a schedule.

Nasa was something to behold when we threw hundreds of billions at it to develop technologies nobody was sure about. It's place is now as a pillar of what not to do, since NASA managed to do what it did in spite of itself.

everyone blame

[Anonymous Coward]

I know exactly who did it: a corrupt politician. There are 535 of them in the Congress, so... does it really matter which one of them did it this particular time?

And here's the kicker: when the new Congress comes in with all their bright eyes and lofty ideals, it will take about a month before they become exactly as corrupt as the rest of their peers. Which is to say, completely.

Re:everyone blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. It is just too bad that there is no way to ever escape from this corrupt system. For all eternity, we must labor under the reign of corrupt leaders with no hope of ever possibly thinking about anything that might be better. Nope. Never. Nothing.

Demorep ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no difference between democrat and republican. They both have their own set of rich friend and lobby they cater to, but mostly it is pork , corruption, and not caring about the average serf, pardon i meant citizen. Anybody thinking of "democrat versus republican" and self associate with one of the party, while lambasting the other party, is thoroughly blinded by rhetoric and is removed from reality.

Hubris!

[blind biker]

This is good money thrown into the trashbin! Or better yet, simply shredded! There will be no finished product, no technical or scientific achievement as a result of this money. And while I might show my ignorance about the details of the Ares program, why the heck are they even developing solid fuel rockets? This is supposedly a manned program, no?

Re:Hubris!

[geekoid]

Ignoring your ignorance of rockets, it's not Hubris. No one is saying they are better then some god.

The word you are looking for is 'pork'.

The replacement program

[NetNinja]

NASA should have planed the Shutle replacement program as soon as the first Shuttle took off. I truely believe the space program has been so left behind since the Apollo missions that the U.S. should have been to Mars already.

The space race was to beat the Russians by landing on the moon? How about the exploration of space is mankinds future.

I guess NASA doesn't do a good job at promoting themselves otherwise they would have tons of money.

Re:The replacement program

[amliebsch]

It's hard to blame NASA - their lack of focus and even their bureaucratic sloth is largely attributable to the micromanagement of Congress. Being a government agency is good for billions of dollars but not for efficiency. That is why SpaceX is eating NASA's lunch when it comes to getting things into space efficiently.

Re:The replacement program

[geekoid]

Not NASA, congress. If you haven't made an effort by contacting you Representative and urge for more funding for NASA, well then you also share in the blame.

Flyboys

[Squidlips]

Gee that is (almost) enough money to fund a Mars sample return mission; something with actual scientific value. But that will never happen as long as NASA is run by flyboys with delusions of Star Wars....

And most, if not all, of those states are...

[geekoid]

red. You know, the people that want to 'cut taxes' and 'have a smaller government'.

This is what happens when the voters go for lines like 'cut taxes'. It's a stupid misdirection that leads t nowhere good. You can't generically cut taxes and reduce pork. You must go after specific pork.

But hey, everyones' for cutting pork until it's their job.

Shuttle Replacement

[m0s3m8n]

"is struggling with the expensive task of replacing the space shuttle". Is the author talking about SpaceX or some other mythical shuttle replacement? Last I knew, outside of SpaceX, NASA did not have a pot to piss in with regards to future manned launch vehicles. Please enlighten me.

Just when you thought

[slapout]

Just when you thought Congress had run out of ways to waste money

Community charity IS socialism.

[geekoid]

giving food to the poor falls under the first definition you list.
Collective - the church (or any organization)
Giving out food - distribution of goods,

And for icing, the government funds it in the way of tax deductions and exemptions.

Anyone who claims to hate socialism, but doesn't act to remove tax exemptions from donation is a hypocrite.

Re:Community charity IS socialism.

[amliebsch]

The church, as a collective, owns only the donations, *never* the means of production, so calling it "socialism" is not appropriate. The word "charity" describes it much more accurately.

And for the record, encouragement of private charity is nothing like socialism, so there is no inherent hypocrisy in simultaneously advocating FOR government promotion of private charity and AGAINST government ownership of the means of production.

ah, capitalism.

[nimbius]

the grande olde race to the bottom with your favorite bureaucratic players serving their duly appointed decades of service in office to the allmighty dollar and its greased corporate hand.

The soviets managed the first satellite, the manned lunar orbit, and the first robotic probe on the moon as well as plasma engine technology, and this was all done about 30 years ago. here in the states we still shoot people into space with the firm conviction that at any moment the event can fail catastrophically for any reason, or no reason at all...and thats okay.

Re:ah, capitalism.

[edawstwin]

The soviets managed the first satellite, the manned lunar orbit, and the first robotic probe on the moon as well as plasma engine technology, and this was all done about 30 years ago.

Slavery gets shit done.

lottery

[confused one]

And the lucky lottery winner for 2011 is... ATK

OK, I know it's not a lottery -- it's on purpose (I'm sure someone intended this to happen). AND perhaps I shouldn't be picking on ATK since there's a lot of good people who work there -- I mean them no personal insult.

It looks like the bulk of the rest of the money goes to Lockheed for work on the Orion. That won't go to waste as it's likely Orion, or parts of it, will get used in some future system. It even appears Lockheed might try to put it to use on a commercial launcher:

Lockheed reserved Delta for 2013 test flight Lockheed Martin wants to Launch Orion on Delta IV Heavy

Negative competence

[DCFusor]

How many times PER DAY of us hearing about how destructive our government is of the value WE create is it going to take before we stand up and toss the doggone bums out? And I don't mean like last time when we just voted out incumbents -- the stupid other party then decided they'd been given a "mandate" when in truth, we didn't vote for them, but against the other losers. Remember who pays for it all? This isn't incompetence, it's negative, not merely zero, competence.

What choice is it when we only get to pick one loser or another, chosen by one of the two heads of the same monster? That's not a representative government anymore, not even close.

Meta-law?

[Geminii]

What if a law was passed invalidating all porkbarrelling clauses in federal legislation, including retroactively?

Re:Meta-law?

[khallow]

What if a law was passed invalidating all porkbarrelling clauses in federal legislation, including retroactively?

How do you know it hasn't passed already?

Re:Meta-law?

[DragonWriter]

What if a law was passed invalidating all porkbarrelling clauses in federal legislation, including retroactively?

It would probably be unenforceable due to vagueness: "porkbarrelling" is a subjective description applied to laws directing funds in a manner which the speaker feels does more to benefit the political interest of a legislator than the national interest.

Even if it wasn't unenforceable due to vagueness, and it wasn't a Constitutional amendment, any newer law specifically directing funds in a manner inconsistent with the "meta-law" would supercede the "meta-law" to the extent that they conflicted, as newer enactments trump older ones.

In any case, it wouldn't have any substantive effect.

Re:Meta-law?

[Geminii]

The meta-law would act to make such funds-direction aspects of a proposed bill invalid, not to be considered part of the bill when voted on or passed into law. Therefore it couldn't be superceded by a porkbarrel section of a newer bill, as those sections would be cut out before it became law. There would have to be a new law specifically modifying the meta-law passed to re-allow porkbarrelling.

Re:Meta-law?

[DragonWriter]

The meta-law would act to make such funds-direction aspects of a proposed bill invalid, not to be considered part of the bill when voted on or passed into law.

The US Constitutional system doesn't have a category of "meta-law". A federal law is either a Constitutional provisions, a ratified treaty, or an act of Congress. Treaties are irrelevant here, and An act of Congress cannot limit a future act of Congress. If some text is part of the text of an act of Congress as actually voted on and adopted, even if some earlier act of Congress purports to prohibit such text from being in the bill, the it is part of the act and given whatever force is due to that act, including superceding previous conflicting acts of Congress.

As I said in GP, therefore, under the actual system in the US Constitution, such a provision --even ignoring the problem of vagueness -- would have no substantive impact unless the so-called "meta-law" were, in fact, adopted as a Constitutional Amendment, which -- as part of the Constitution -- can constrain acts of Congress.

Re:Meta-law?

[Geminii]

An Amendment would serve, then.

Re:Meta-law?

[DragonWriter]

An Amendment would serve, then.

Sure, once you deal with the more fundamental problem that "porkbarrel spending" is not an objective category.

NASA Jobs Program

[cdrguru]

I guess this is just so there can be some jobs in a few places in the country. We would do much better paying 1000 people to dig holes in random places and another 1000 to fill them in. Replicate that all over the country and we could have millions of government jobs and zero unemployment.

The jobs aren't coming back. The jobs were based on making stuff in the US which isn't financially responsible to do anymore. The jobs were also because more and more stuff was needed because people were spending money they really didn't have. End result is that there aren't as many jobs as there used to be. Come back in 30 years and maybe, just maybe there will be unemployment down to 5% again.

If you look at the real numbers you will discover that there are a few more jobless people than anyone wants to admit. It is like 30% of the population today. The unemployment numbers are only those people still (after three years) collecting unemployment and still trying to find a job. Anyone over 40 can basically forget it - they will never have a job again. Anyone without real skills can forget it - an undocumented illegal can do their job for less than half of what they were making. And we still haven't made it attractive for the illegals to leave.

Funniest thing I saw the other day was that Arizona was trying to criminalize undocumented workers with SB1070. Excuse me, they are already criminals. The moment they crossed the border they were a criminal.

The problem for people not working is there is no more welfare program that someone can get government assistance for 20 years on. So what does a 50-year-old person that will never work again do until they are 65 and eligible for Social Security? Live with their parents?

Think of NASA as a government jobs program because it certainly isn't a space program anymore. We've been there and found out that it isn't popular enough with people. So, we're not going there anymore except with other people's hardware. I give that five years before we give up on using other people's hardware as well.

Make them give it back?

[bytestorm]

Since they know the program is cancelled, I hope they're not actually spending any of that money continuing the project. Can the government request for/force them to pay the money back?

Unconstitutional phrase

[Anonymous Coward]

That phrase in the law is absolutely unconstitutional. Amazing but true, governments do not have to spend every dollar in their budget. Congress only spends money from its legislative budget. This bill (like most spending) is part of the executive budget. Congress approves funding for the executive budget, but it cannot mandate spending. That job is reserved for the executive branch. The same applies to the judicial branch and its judicial budget.

Er, wait, "inaction"?

[Wolfkin]

That would be congressional *action*, would it not? If they hadn't acted to insert the 70 words, this wouldn't be a problem.

How far to finished?

[OgGreeb]

How far from March 2011 is it to the Constellation finish line? Do we reach a point where we've invested so much
money we might as well finish it? I'm aware of the principle of not overvaluing sunk costs, but geez -- $500mil is
a lot of money.

hairyfeet got BLOWN AWAY 4 times in 1 day...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34665368

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924664&cid=34669668

ROTFLMAO - I wouldn't listen to "professor hairyfeet" guys, he's only an ITT Tech student.

hairyfeet blown away 4 times in 1 day?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34665368

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924664&cid=34669668

ROTFLMAO! Unbelievable. I wouldn't listen to "professor hairyfeet" guys, he's only an ITT Tech student.

disregard

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA shouldn't just throw away 500 million dollars on something that won't be finished. This is a perfect example of the flawed spending of governments without foresight.
NASA should just shut down the project and tell Congress to "F* OFF, Or give us $500m more dollars next budget term."

Stupid stupid government.

What If

[YetAnotherBob]

I was up by the ATK plant last month. My Aunt died. She had lived within sight of the Morton Thiokol plant on the Utah-Idaho border for almost 30 years. Her Husband retired from it. ATK has displays set up out front of some of the solid fuel rockets they make. Most are military medium or short range types. The shuttle boosters are featured too.

What if they could have a successful orbital insertion by March? The have the Contract, they can get paid for any work done. If they do, they might be able to get the full contract value. It would be a nice touch. NASA even has a history of canceling replacement programs for the Shuttle, just before they work.

That would be sweet! maybe ATK could compete with SpaceX.

What does a douchebag say?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I believe the analogy you're looking for is "no matter how much water you pour from my bucket into your colander, you still won't have any water". Although, we should really come up with a car analogy for Slashdot." by lgw (121541) on Tuesday December 28, @07:16PM (#34693298) Journal

What does a douchebag say?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The bottom 1/3 of incomes pay about 1% of taxes, while the top 1% of incomes pay about 1/3 of taxes. That's the top 1% carrying a very high burden. But that has little to do with "the wealthy", who might have little or no income to tax. Income redistribution will never achieve wealth distribution, as becoming wealthy is a matter of habits and culture.

The only "fair" income tax is the one where everyone pays the same amount, say $30,000 each this year. Totally equitable. You'd probably prefer a just system to a fair one, but then we run into strongly divergent opinions on social justice." by lgw (121541) on Tuesday December 28, @07:24PM (#34693372) Journal

Call me crazy, but...

[MaDeR]

...someone, hold on, could make a family of rockets for that kind of money. Complete, with a few test flights. Just sayin'.