Slashdot Mirror


Congress Dumps James Webb Space Telescope

Teancum writes "On the list of items on the upcoming federal budget for 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives has announced they are going to cancel the continued development of the James Webb Space Telescope. While this debate is certainly still very much a preliminary draft, the road ahead for this project is now very much uncertain. In this time of budget cuts, it seems unlikely that this project is going to survive at this time. It certainly will be an uphill battle for fans of this telescope if they want to keep it alive."

409 comments

  1. Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    War and Destruction... untouchable
    Knowledge and Progress... Short list for cuts

    Not surprised the least

    1. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Obama said today in the Twitter Town Hall that he's going to make defense budget cuts over time. There's also plans to reduce troups in Afghanistan. Assuming he follows through, he'll prove you wrong. Here's to hoping you (and a lot of people) are wrong.

    2. Re:Science loses again by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's too bad you posted as AC, because it's true.

      And it's funny how the people who cut this will take pride in how our country is on the so-called cutting-edge of technology and science.

      We're on the fast track to becoming a banana republic.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Science loses again by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Barack "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011" Obama?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    4. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Military research contributes a large part to scientific advancement. True for every country.
      I'd say the advancements in medicine alone from the military has given magnitudes more benefit to humanity than astronomy ever has.

      posting anon for obvious reasons.

    5. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think he means the Obama who gave .7 trillion to banks and 1 trillion to fix the economy. It's fixed right?

    6. Re:Science loses again by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the appropriations document:

      National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – NASA is funded at $16.8 billion in the bill, which is $1.6 billion below last year’s level and $1.9 billion below the President’s request. This funding includes:

              $3.65 billion for Space Exploration which is $152 million below last year. This includes funding above the request for NASA to meet Congressionally mandated program deadlines for the newly authorized crew vehicle and launch system.
              $4.1 billion for Space Operations which is $1.4 billion below last year’s level. The legislation will continue the closeout of the Space Shuttle program for a savings of $1 billion.
              $4.5 billion for NASA Science programs, which is $431 million below last year’s level. The bill also terminates funding for the James Webb Space Telescope, which is billions of dollars over budget and plagued by poor management.

      Meanwhile, in the same document:

      Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) – The bill provides $2.7 billion for the PTO – the full requested level. This funding is equal to the estimated amount of fees to be collected by the PTO during fiscal year 2012, and is an increase of $588 million or 28% above last year’s level. The bill also includes language that allows PTO to keep and use any fees in excess of the estimated collected amount, subject to standard Congressional approval, and includes language requiring PTO to report on efforts to reduce the patent application backlog

      (Bolding is mine)

      Stop a space telescope, cut back NASA funds while retiring a space shuttle... increase patent office funding... This is just a normal day in the office chaps...

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    7. Re:Science loses again by squidguy · · Score: 2

      troups? is this some sort of artistic shit? I thought we had troops in A-stan...

    8. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cutting budget for national security and defense: Horrible idea

      Cutting budget for war: Depends on the year, usually not a good thing if we think of ourselves as Team America

      Cutting budget for research: another bad idea

      Cutting budget to reduce the size of the government: Best decision yet, oh wait it hasn't happened. Greedy savages.

    9. Re:Science loses again by artor3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Considering we went from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month under Bush, to adding jobs every month under Obama, I'd say he's done a damn good job fixing the damage. If you were expecting those jobs to magically reappear over night, you're deluded.

    10. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the jobs that are being made aren't really jobs, they give the bare minimum so the person can live in a trailer park with 20$ to spend a week. That's not a life its just slavery.

    11. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All of which has been paid back, with interest. So, what is your gripe here?

    12. Re:Science loses again by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2

      I'd say no. Knowledge of astronomy was crucial for civilizations to even form as it was the way of marking time and navigation. Like for when to plant crops, which was vital for permanent settlement.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    13. Re:Science loses again by crashumbc · · Score: 0, Troll

      Still better then what Bush did...

    14. Re:Science loses again by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep. Other winners in this budget include the International Trade Administration, FBI, DEA, and the Bureau of Prisons. Other losers include NSF, NIST, NOAA, the Economic Development Administration, and programs to aid state and local law enforcement. You can draw your own conclusions about what set of priorities that reflects ...

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    15. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, 8000 years ago. Today, the earth-pointing climate satellites are useful, but the space-pointing astronomy ones don't have as much payoff.

    16. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      the jobs that are being made aren't really jobs, they give the bare minimum so the person can live in a trailer park with 20$ to spend a week. That's not a life its just slavery.

      Those were also the jobs that were lost. Though if you lost one, you might think of it as somewhat better.

      I'm on your side, poor people get screwed by the economy, but were getting screwed worse when the jobs were evaporating in the Great Bush Recession.

    17. Re:Science loses again by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1
      {citation needed]

      Personally, my next position pays 8% more than the previous one that I left.

      Just about the ONLY people who are taking a 'step down' like this are the real estate agents who were part of the building of the last bubble in the first place. Did you ever think they were being overpaid in the first place, and now the market has adjusted down to more correctly reflect their skill set?

    18. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're on the fast track to becoming a banana republic.

      Yeah, a banana republic with lots of nukes.

    19. Re:Science loses again by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      Guess Pakistan even beat you to that.

    20. Re:Science loses again by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Except for the adding hundreds of thousands of jobs every month has only happened twice, two blocks of three month growth in the spring of '10 and then '11.

      http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

      "Nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+54,000) in May, and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 9.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today."

    21. Re:Science loses again by Tom9729 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it a common complaint on /. that the PTO is understaffed and underfunded, hence all of the bogus patents that get granted?

    22. Re:Science loses again by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I'd say yes, military spending leads directly to civilian and commercial technologies.

      Easiest examples, the Internet, spread spectrum communications, GPS.

      http://www.google.com/patents?vid=2292387

    23. Re:Science loses again by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2

      8000 years is grossly off. It was used for much much longer than that. Also, in navigation which played a huge role in shaping how we are today. Also in understanding orbital mechanics, which affects anything involving satellites (communication and gps).

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    24. Re:Science loses again by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      if I wasn't looking, I'd swear there was a republican in office.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    25. Re:Science loses again by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Defense spending is hardly untouchable. Defense is about the only part of the Federal budget which has been consistently decreasing over the last 50 years as a percentage of GDP. It's ticked up a bit since 9/11, but is still lower than during Reagan's build-up in the 1980s, and nowhere near as high as during the Vietnam War.

      The thing that's threatening to bust the budget is entitlements. Medicare and Medicaid speciically. Just the growth predicted for entitlements between now and 2035 will exceed the entire defense budget. Go read the CBO's long-term outlooks if you don't believe me. I'm not saying entitlements have to go, but any budget plan which refuses to change entitlements is doomed to fail before it even starts.

    26. Re:Science loses again by Shihar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't disagree that there is other shit that needs cutting. Do we REALLY need a military that can stomp two of any other conventional armies on their own land at once? I personally think not. Self defense the ability to act WITH others in the world community is more than enough for me. I don't think the US needs a military designed to fight China and Russia on their own shores, considering that the only possible end game to that kind of 'victory' are a few thousand nuclear missiles up the arse.

      That said... the Jame's Webb telescope, while being an awesome piece of potential science, is a poster child for being a catastrofuck of poor planning and budgeting. They are going to miss both their launch data AND the cost by at least a 4X factor. Maybe canceling a few of these messes will convince people not to write rosy prediction of cost and time. Firing all of the management involves, killing the project, and proposing a realistic budget and timing is hardly the worst fate that cold befall NASA.

      Now if only we could fire all of the congressmen shit heads who propose their own unrealistic budgets on absurd timetables...

    27. Re:Science loses again by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      No in response to comparison between military medicine and astronomy. I didn't deny that there exists military spending that is beneficial.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    28. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he can't be criticized? Well, the US treats its people better than China, guess it shouldn't be criticized either by your logic.

    29. Re:Science loses again by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Congress writes the budget and sends it to the White House, the White House approves or rejects. If it is rejected, Congress can overrule the President's veto.

      Sucks when life is complicated, isn't it?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    30. Re:Science loses again by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the leader's job is to LEAD.

      see any of that?

      I don't. I see same-old same-old. he is NOT standing up for his so-called principles.

      you can say its the system but if the president can't accomplish his goals, I blame HIM. backroom deals, etc - just make it happen.

      but he does not. he's useless. /dev/null would be as effective.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    31. Re:Science loses again by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Work on your reading comprehension. I said "adding jobs every month". Not "adding hundreds of thousands of jobs every month". Go check out a graph of jobs lost/gained per month. The inflection point occurs pretty much immediately after the passage of the stimulus bill. Considering how much the Dems have done to repair the damage, it really is disgusting how the media is going along with the "stimulus failed" meme. But hey, good news doesn't get ratings.

    32. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US already is a banana republic. Its political process is now so crippled and toxic that it's unable to deal effectively with the economic crisis or properly scope its own national security interests. I don't say this with any joy; the US has been crucial to the general improvement in global conditions since at least the end of World War 2.

    33. Re:Science loses again by tautog · · Score: 2

      Re: real estate agents

      Trust the opinion of no one who is earning a commission on what you wish to buy.

    34. Re:Science loses again by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Isn't it a common complaint on /. that the PTO is understaffed and underfunded, hence all of the bogus patents that get granted?

      No.

      The complaint is that the PTO is being funded, hence all of the bogus patents that get granted. You'd see celebrations here if the funding was cut to zero.

    35. Re:Science loses again by tibit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nothing a single U.S. president does can "fix" economy or add/destroy jobs. Sorry. People who think so are so out of touch with reality it's scary. U.S. economy has been self-destructed from inside by greedy and unscrupulous businesspeople at all levels (both in small businesses and on tops of corporations), and by equally greedy and uneducated/ignorant consumers. The only way to "fix" it is to let a generation or two die off and be replaced by better people. Where the heck we'll get those, though, is a hard guess.

      Somehow blaming G.W.Bush for job losses is, as much as I disliked him and his policies, simply retarded. It's a coincidence there was a silly guy in the office in the time where a lot of bad shit happened -- plenty of it a result of policies of several administrations leading up to him. Same with Obama -- whatever happened economically would have happened no matter what, and my guesstimate is that it'd have happened stimulus or no stimulus.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    36. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another clueless "YAY! Job creation" kid. Let me guess. First year at uni?
       
      Throw money at it by taxing the future American, call it "creating jobs," and in a few years when those jobs have folded and you actually have to pay for the stimulus. Go ahead and claim that you "repaired the damage," trot off in your Prius, and except as the ultimate truth that you solved the nation's problems despite never examining their consequences shortly thereafter. Republicans may be corrupt, but the Democrats are downright stupid and short-sighted. Another reason which I never applied for citizenship there.

    37. Re:Science loses again by tibit · · Score: 1

      It's a coincidence. The stimulus was not even a drop in the bucket, in the grand scheme of things.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    38. Re:Science loses again by tibit · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    39. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the plus side, recently I've been seeing people protest against how other countries are starting to surpass America in technology and so on.

      If you properly spin this to show that "Congress is continuing to make the USA second rate" or other things that show the LACK of scientific spending as "kowtowing to our foreign masters", then the spark of patriotism (insecurity) in the populace will ignite into a furor of scientific spending.

      We did it for the space race to beat Russia. Do the same now. Just make sure you pick a SPECIFIC enemy and as exact a goal as you can. Kennedy didn't say "hey let's do something in space to do better than other people." Instead it was "We'll put a man on the moon before Russia."

      It's easier to compete against a single person for a single goal than faceless shadowmen for a vague, undefined objective.

    40. Re:Science loses again by tibit · · Score: 1

      Those might be, though, the only examples, and that's a whole lot of spending for not much in return.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    41. Re:Science loses again by hawguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that:

      Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) – The bill provides $2.7 billion for the PTO – the full requested level. This funding is equal to the estimated amount of fees to be collected by the PTO during fiscal year 2012, and is an increase of $588 million or 28% above last year’s level. The bill also includes language that allows PTO to keep and use any fees in excess of the estimated collected amount, subject to standard Congressional approval, and includes language requiring PTO to report on efforts to reduce the patent application backlog

      (Bolding is mine).

      The USPTO funds itself from fees it collects.

    42. Re:Science loses again by D'Sphitz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The right has been drooling over abolishing the minimum wage for decades, then we can see what real poverty looks like.

    43. Re:Science loses again by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      The American system of government gives a lot of power to the congress, including a huge amount of control of the purse strings of government.

      This particular set of cuts is clearly a Republican budget and agenda.

      Science = bad (might undercut cherished beliefs, might take away my goddamned SUVs and ATVs, done by liberal nerds),
      Military = good (protects God-given rights.)

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    44. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...No shit they paid it back. They bought treasury bonds with the money loaned to them at discount interest rates and sat on them until the treasury yields balanced their books. It was just a hand out by any other name. They repaid the loans with devalued capital, after using that money during a liquidity crunch to hostile takeover their competitors who didn't qualify for a government handout.

      If you convert the loan to gold at the time it was made and then make the same conversion when it was repaid you'll see that the tax payer was robbed of nearly 200 billion dollars, the majority of which sailed off in to the sunset as golden parachutes and bonuses for the people who crashed the american economy.

      The insult to injury here is that the Treasury department begged congress for unconditional trust and then turned right around and engaged in the largest example of graft in recorded human history - Carting wheelbarrows full of money out the back door in the form of secret purchases of toxic mortgages at 500% of their market value. The beneficiary? The treasury secretary's former employer Goldman Sachs and the new banking cartels: JP Morgan and Bank of America.

      These assholes caused the crisis and in return were handed majority ownership of the entire american real estate market on the backs of the people who they cheated out of house and home.

      Treason fails to communicate the gravity/magnitude of the events which you are so eager to forget. Why so forgiving? I suspect because holding a grudge would cause your illusion of democracy to dissolve if it meant that your favorite sock puppet was no less corrupt than his predecessor? Cognitive dissonance is a bitch ain't she?

    45. Re:Science loses again by D'Sphitz · · Score: 1

      Right. I was and am 100% against the bailouts, but it's dishonest to insinuate that we gave a trillion dollars away to rich folks, although it seems that's exactly what the vast majority believe.

    46. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That your purely factual post can have a moderation of 30% overrated says a lot about the type of people who use and abuse this site. Slashdot is going down the shitter because of these close-minded assholes.

    47. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to War and Destruction, don't forget strip searching, handcuffing, and imprisoning. Nothing brings a tear of pride to my patriotic eye faster...

    48. Re:Science loses again by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Underestimating how much something costs seems to be the only way to actually get it funded in the first place. We just need to tell Congress that going to Mars will take $10B and 3 years.

      Maybe, just maybe, then in 20 years and 10x cost over runs we'll actually go.

    49. Re:Science loses again by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      This is the budget submitted by Congress, which by the Constitution must originate in the House, which is run by Republicans. Parent mentions that the President's requests were different.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    50. Re:Science loses again by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      it amuses and saddens me to watch you guys shoot your own metaphorical feet. its like china is paying your representatives to cancel all research programs, so that there is no long-term growth.
      ps-this tirade is directed to the us guys.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    51. Re:Science loses again by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      why is this troll?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    52. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. It needed to be said, and you said it perfectly. Unfortunately the folks here on Slashdot will rage on and miss the point.

    53. Re:Science loses again by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Not to worry! The only people who'll work for that nonexistent minimum wage are those illegal darkies whom conservatives love to demonize, yet also love to hire because they'll work for little and not complain - they know their place.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    54. Re:Science loses again by Nimey · · Score: 1

      There is, he's just a moderate one from back when that animal existed.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    55. Re:Science loses again by ArcherB · · Score: 0

      Considering we went from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month under Bush, to adding jobs every month under Obama, I'd say he's done a damn good job fixing the damage. If you were expecting those jobs to magically reappear over night, you're deluded.

      After six years of Bush in office with a Republican congress, unemployment was at 4.7%. That was Jan 2007. Demand took congress at that time. Within two years unemployment had more than doubled.

      If it were Bush, it would not have taken 6 years to tank. If it were Bush, things would be better now.

      Sorry. Facts prove you wrong. The problem was Pelosi and Reid and Obama can't fix it. You shouldn't make your world out to be like what you want to believe.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    56. Re:Science loses again by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Democrats Took congress in Jan 2007. Not "demand". Stupid autocorrect.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    57. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China's research programs consist mostly of stealing and copying US technology. Why bother with the time and expense of R&D when you can just steal the tech.

    58. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      that's a lie. Incarceration rates in America anyone? when people get arrested for protesting, can you really claim that America is less oppressive then china?

    59. Re:Science loses again by celle · · Score: 2

      "...Military = good (protects God-given rights.)"

      Um, which ones are those?

      --------

      Sanity loses again!!!

    60. Re:Science loses again by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      I would rather concentrate my ire on the fact that the perpetrators of the largest financial fraud in history are not behind bars.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    61. Re:Science loses again by mywhitewolf · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand how economics works.

    62. Re:Science loses again by pluther · · Score: 1
      There are quite a few republicans in office.

      And they currently control the majority in the House, where this bill comes from.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    63. Re:Science loses again by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      The inflection point occurs pretty much immediately after the passage of the stimulus bill

      Which would not be evidence in favor of your point. Even the supporters of that bill acknowledged that kind of government action has a six to twelve month latency before it actually has any impact.

    64. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War and Destruction AND ENTITLEMENTS... untouchable

      Knowledge and Progress... Short list for cuts

      Not surprised the least

      There fixed it for you, but still not quite true due to the scale back of our armed forces and the reduction of the defense budget by billions.

    65. Re:Science loses again by dachshund · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing that's threatening to bust the budget is entitlements. Medicare and Medicaid speciically. Just the growth predicted for entitlements between now and 2035 will exceed the entire defense budget. Go read the CBO's long-term outlooks if you don't believe me. I'm not saying entitlements have to go, but any budget plan which refuses to change entitlements is doomed to fail before it even starts.

      Healthcare cost growth is a huge long-term problem, and it's one we're going to need to address. But it has precisely nothing to do with what we spend in 2012, 2013, 2014, etc.

      Military spending, on the other hand, really is great issue to address in the yearly budget. We can decide in 2011 how many overseas wars we should be fighting over the next fiscal year. We can decide in 2012 how much we want to spend in 2013, and so on.

      As best I can tell, the reason we spend so much time discussing "entitlements" is because politicians don't want to discuss issues that we can address today. So instead we have a stupid and fruitless conversation about problems that we're not facing yet. The inevitable outcome is that nobody wants to put their neck on the line to cut these programs, and all the serious decisions fly under the radar.

      Which, when you think about it, is the entire point.

      There's a pretty simple way to deal with Medicare spending in the future (note: it's not "entitlements" --- Social Security does not share Medicare's cost growth). Basically, leave it to the future. Oh sure, do what smart things we can do now to make healthcare costs grow less quickly. But when the costs themselves become unmanageable, let the voters and representatives of that time deal with it. Their problem, their decision. Cutting Medicare only requires one Congressional vote, it's not magic.

      If they can afford Medicare as it is now, good for them. If they can't, they'll have no choice but to cut it. That'll be unpopular, but in that case it'll also be necessary which means it'll happen.

    66. Re:Science loses again by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't even need to look outside NASA to see ridiculous spending to compare to. The same House appropriations bill with the $431M JWST cut includes $2B for the Space Launch System (SLS) and $1B for the Orion/MPCV capsule. The SLS is basically Congress's mandate to NASA to build a heavy-lift rocket out of Shuttle-legacy components capable of competing with SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket. The $2B is only for the first year of SLS funding, for a rocket which isn't expected to have its first launch until 2017 or later. Mind that this is for a rocket that NASA didn't even want in the first place.

    67. Re:Science loses again by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You realize the illusion of prosperity under the Bush administration was the same as the illusion of prosperity in the Roaring 20s right?

      They're basically clones of each other... a false prosperity, supported by a bubble of circle-jerking investors, in which none of the "wealth" goes to the workers [during the 20s, income for the average American rose one percent and for the rich rose something like 50%], and in the end the bubble finally reaches a maximum inflation, jitters a bit, and implodes. Sound familiar?

      If there is any causal connection, it's that the change in House control was the pin that pricked the bubble - the first investor to panic then brings the whole lie crashing down. Do you blame those who exposed the lie, or those who inflated it, created it, and enabled it?

    68. Re:Science loses again by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Thank you for contributing that useful bit to the discussion.

    69. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're on the fast track to becoming a banana republic.

      --
      BMO

      I hate to tell you, we are a banana republic, look at all the monkeys running the place. They make "Planet of the Apes" look inviting.

    70. Re:Science loses again by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I feel like I have to point out that a sizable chunk of that military spending IS science research, some of it even basic science work. It's just fairly narrow research. For example most of the basic science research will be DoD materials science with a smattering of DoE funded fundamental physics research.

      Biological research gets the shaft the hardest in the deal (except where it relates to computational research).

    71. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if only we could fire all of the congressmen shit heads who propose their own unrealistic budgets on absurd timetables...

        RECALL..RECALL..RECALL..RECALL..RECALL..

    72. Re:Science loses again by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Liar. Stop regurgitating talking points and think. What caused all the job losses? The recession, obviously. What caused the recession? Rampant greed and absentee regulators. It was a long time brewing. Beyond that, the causes are irrelevant. What is relevant is that once the Democrats were in charge, which happened on Jan 2009, things quickly improved.

      And the Democrats were not in control of the government in 2007. They had Congress, but Bush had the veto pen. They could not begin undoing his damage until 2009. Stop regurgitating the lies that Fox has poisoned you with, and think for your self.

    73. Re:Science loses again by bored · · Score: 2

      Generally your are correct, but the first picture is totally misleading. Three things.

      First, medicare/medicaid are a serious problem, 20 years from now. That said, its nothing that cannot be fixed with a few tweaks to the funding and eligibility models. The fundamental problem is that the government pays for services at whatever rate the medical community claims they are worth. Naturally, this an under damped response curve which will do what they always do, break the system. Furthermore, tweaking the benefits model would do wonders too. For example, deprioritizing old people with terminal medical conditions to avoid spending a shitload prolonging lives for two months.

      Secondly, this is a picture of the federal budget, not actual spending. If it were actual spending, you would see a significant uptick for things like the recent wars, which have been completely funded as emergency spending bills to keep them out of the general budget.

      Finally, besides all the funding that happens outside of the budget, is the fact that the majority of the money in the non defense and other categories end up falling into either DHS (the actual department of defense, rather than the department of war) or are auxiliary costs of the department of defense (think veterans benefits, NASA funding benefiting the military, etc). Then you have to consider what percentage of the interest on the debt is a direct result of wars/homeland security costs. The remaining discretionary spending portion for parks, roads, research, etc is less than 5% by some accounts.

    74. Re:Science loses again by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      half of all money spent on military in the world is spent by Americans. you could half your military budget and still spend more than the entire EU. where as the expenses paid by social security is comparable to most other westernized countries.

      social security and healthcare actually help to stimulate the economy, as well as improving quality / quantity of life of your citizens, again increasing growth especially in the lower class which are hit hardest by economic problems.

      military spending COULD be used to increase your economy, but you'd have to revert to the now illegal act of stealing other peoples land and working it to produce a profit.

    75. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think China treats its people better than the US, you are deeply delusional

    76. Re:Science loses again by cusco · · Score: 1

      Horsepuckey. When a company like Intel or Dow does custom work for the Pentagram or the intel agencies it ends up Classified, and that entire branch of research is off limits to commercial development. Remember your computer of five years ago? Five years ago the NSA had today's top-of-the-line machine, and whoever built it for them was prohibited from selling it to anyone else. We'll probably never know what amazing developments in physics, chemistry and electronics the world has missed out on because their inventor was prohibited from developing them.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    77. Re:Science loses again by eclectro · · Score: 0

      BZZZZZZT! Wrong, their is nothing wrong with Medicare/Medicaid. What's wrong is health care costs which are increasing at rate twice that of inflation and is 17% of GDP. Which is not just affecting entitlement programs, but the country as a whole.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    78. Re:Science loses again by tibit · · Score: 2

      So educate me. A U.S. President has nothing much to do with economics of U.S.A., or the world at large, for that matter. Their net worth is usually very low, and the influence they have in the matters of economical "ecosystem" is I'd say apocryphal at best. It's demonstrated over and over when they can't get shit done.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    79. Re:Science loses again by tibit · · Score: 1

      Well, thank you very much for contributing your bit, too ;)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    80. Re:Science loses again by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I do try so very hard.

    81. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it not mean that the PTO will fund 50% of its costs?

    82. Re:Science loses again by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Isn't the budget being drafted by the Congress, not the White House?

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    83. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "America's own budget crisis is prompting tough discussions about its defence spending, which, at nearly $700 billion, is bigger than that of the next 17 countries combined." Yeah, no room to cut here.

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/military-spending

      And who would have thunk that when when its the baby boomer's time to collect that 'entitlements' would go up to match. Pure craziness!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer

      Its only 'doomed to fail' because of the people who decided it was a good idea to cut taxes and increase spending simultaneously through war. I know, I know. The tax cuts will come trickling down and jump start the job factory any day now. Any day...

    84. Re:Science loses again by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I'd say no. Knowledge of astronomy was crucial for civilizations to even form as it was the way of marking time and navigation. Like for when to plant crops, which was vital for permanent settlement.

      I grew up next to a farm, and the farmer there based his planting on when a certain type of wild flower bloomed. It might not have agreed with the farmer's calendar, but it worked better for him, because it took into account how late the thaw had been and other factors.

    85. Re:Science loses again by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Your belly-feel doesn't align with the facts, or for that matter, logic. The stimulus employed millions of people. Those people now had money to spend. How is it possible for that to not impact the economy? Just because you "guesstimate" that nothing matters doesn't make it so.

      The mindset you are displaying is part of the problem. People see how complicated the system is, throw their hands up, and say "it's random, no one can control it". That sort of defeatism is self-fulfilling.

    86. Re:Science loses again by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the issue is that if one can not protect the sovereignty of a country then its science is a moot point. The country will soon be owned or destroyed by someone else.

      War/Destruction and Knowledge/Progress are not mutually exclusive. Look at the advances in aircraft during WW2. We went from biplanes to jet planes in a scant ten years. More recently Kevlar and composites that are used in manufacturing were originally researched for military use.

    87. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to be pretty close minded to think that those are the only examples. Others that leap to mind:
      Microwaves & radar (in particular the cavity magnetron), the jet engine, margarine, canning, the first successful modern use of interchangeable parts, synthetic rubber, the helicopter, standard gauge, and the ability to actually get into space. You could probably also give credit to things like night vision, digital photography, nuclear medicine, and smoke detectors that while not direct military efforts had significant help from military money, or had their foundations in military projects.

    88. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the $2.7 billion is just a reminder of the sad state of patent law in the US?

    89. Re:Science loses again by raddan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's because the the graph hardly shows military spending in decline. I'd say that it's level. Of course, that's proportional to GDP which means in reality, it's increased a LOT.

      But the fun doesn't stop there. The graph ends in 2001. Hmm, can't think of any large military expenditures between 2001 and 2011...

      Put a recent CBO graph up there, and we can talk. Of course, he's right about entitlement spending. My personal take on this is that the US has to decide between policing the world and caring for its own citizens, because it can't do both.

    90. Re:Science loses again by Phil06 · · Score: 0

      The question is not do we fund the James Webb Space Telescope, it is do we borrow money to fund the James Webb Space Telescope

      --
      "...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
    91. Re:Science loses again by malhombre · · Score: 1

      @artor3: thanks...I have no problem with cynicism for a reason, but I am sick of cynicism for it's own sake. And for the record, I didn't vote for Obama...I voted for republicans or independents in the past several elections, because I keep hoping for constitutional conservatives. Instead, I keep getting gut-punched with crap like the Patriot Act.

    92. Re:Science loses again by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is the republicans wont budge. They are the ones who all of the sudden decided agaisnt' raising the ceiling. For reference the ceiling has been raised almost 50 times in order to keep up with inflation. With the recovery act this year the number is much much higher than normal and the republicans are seizing on it. ... correction the Tea Party is seizing it. When Bush expanded government the Tea Party didn't even exist. When somone with a D next to their name comes into office all of the sudden this grass movement appears. Give me a break. Half the bailout was designed by Paulson under Bush, not Obama.

      Either way the intended effect is done and we are going to create an artificial austerity measure on purpose rather than necessity to make sure another R is in the White House next year regardless of America's bond rating going into the toilet and another 3,000 point crash. Sigh

      For the record I am in favor of some of this deficit reduction and think government is too large. I just hate the slimy politics of this with lies and deceptions. Please republicans raise the darn taxes if you are going to walk the walk on the upper class and save 3.8 trillion. It makes me mad as the Tea Party is not dictating Obama's policies as well as the Republicans do not want to lose their seats to this small minority crowd who is active in the primaries.

    93. Re:Science loses again by Savantissimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's ridiculous to measure military spending as a percent of GDP. The necessary expenses do not scale with GDP. We aren't facing any real military threats; the BS "terrorism" scare was just a marketing campaign to keep the gravy train rolling. We don't need the expenditures of the cold war today, yet we're spending much more in level dollar terms. We could cut $200B out of the DoD budget tomorrow and still be spending more than in the late 90s or the 70s. The accumulated interest on old military expenditures and increase in the veterans affairs budget due to idiotic wars of choice almost doubles the official budget, to over $1.1trillion a year, even before counting DHS, State Dept., DoE, etc. We're borrowing all that money, including the interest payments. Social Security and Medicare, on the other hand, pay for themselves, and have money left over to lend to the rest of the government. They'd have more but the rich don't pay Social Security tax on most of their income, and Medicare is forbidden from negotiating volume discounts with the pharmaceutical companies.

      We're going to spend $2.8 billion this year on the V-22 Osprey, which is a complete dog, unreliable, unmaintainable, dangerous. We're going to spend over $10 billion this year on idiotic, unworkable, destabilizing ballistic missile defense schemes. We're going to spend more on fucking air-conditioning for the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos than the entire NASA budget. And it's worse than completely useless- it soaks up engineering talent, manufacturing capacity and materials and produces nothing of value - it actually destroys value at home and abroad by killing and maiming people and destroying property. It's fucking psychotic.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    94. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do we REALLY need a military that can stomp two of any other conventional armies on their own land at once?"

      Actually, you don't have that any more. Not even close. You might be able to beat Russia in a conventional battle, but China no way. Their conventional military is much bigger and what's worse their manufacturing capacity is probably 100 times greater than yours. This would resoundingly exceed any technological superiority you enjoy.

      Other than that, I agree entirely with your sentiments.

    95. Re:Science loses again by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      So on the one hand, they spent so much for no effect! we haven't recovered back to where we were before!

      On the other hand, they spent so little that it made no difference! any recovery was a coincidence!

      Something does not reconcile here.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    96. Re:Science loses again by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Stimulus bills might not lead to direct money-in-people's-hands for 6 to 12 months, but there is a factor of a rising tide lifting all boats. The private sector gains some confidence that a flood of money is coming, directly or indirectly, and thus there's a need to gear up for that to take advantage of it as soon as it starts flowing. Business confidence plays as big a factor as many other economic indicators.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    97. Re:Science loses again by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Horsepuckey. When a company like Intel or Dow does custom work for the Pentagram ...

      What! the Wiccan's are hiring Intel and Dow now?!

    98. Re:Science loses again by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "The fundamental problem is that the government pays for services at whatever rate the medical community claims they are worth"

      Doctors will tell you that Medicare and especially Medicaid pay far below the rate of private health insurance. One doctor compared his Medicaid patients to "working for free."

      Medicare/Medicaid has a problem that people will soon be using more services than are being paid for in taxes.

      Your solution (which I term "screw the doctors") has been tried many places though. You can force doctors to make less money than they would receive in a free market. I suspect there are drawbacks, but it is done places.

    99. Re:Science loses again by glodime · · Score: 1

      Any budget plan which refuses to change entitlements is doomed to fail before it even starts.

      Just to counter that statement, if a budget were proposed that increased revenue enough to compensate for all current policy increases in entitlements for the next 15 years. Such a budget would seem to be less than doomed. It would in fact buy 15 years to decide how to deal with all current policy increases in entitlements in the 16th year and beyond.

      I'm not advocating this as a solution, just a theoretical possibility.

    100. Re:Science loses again by IICV · · Score: 1, Troll

      Defense is about the only part of the Federal budget which has been consistently decreasing over the last 50 years as a percentage of GDP.

      Way to lie with statistics, man. "Decreasing as a percentage of GDP" is an entirely meaningless metric - within that definition, the defense budget could be going up, down or sideways and there's no way of knowing.

      For instance, if both the GDP and the defense budget are increasing, but the GDP is increasing faster, then your statement would still be true and entirely misleading.

      It also doesn't account for the initial retardedly high value of our defense budget; for instance, if defense were 10% of GDP one year and 9% of GDP the next year, your statement would still be true and defense spending would still be ridiculously high.

      It makes me wonder why you didn't just provide a link to the actual, inflation adjusted dollar amounts put in to defense (like here, for instance). Presumably because it shows a rise in real spending on the defense department over the past decade, which kinda contradicts your point?

    101. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I voted for republicans or independents in the past several elections, because I keep hoping for constitutional conservatives."

      Good to see you learn from your mistakes.

      Except you obviously don't.

    102. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clarification: Half of its funding is from fees it collects, half is from federal funding.

    103. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're on the fast track to becoming a banana republic.

      Now, now, you are exaggerating. Surely you meant "a corn republic" instead.

      Jokes aside, US is on the cutting-edge of technology and science, but most of it is militarized to the extreme and ridiculousness. It became ubiquitous to develop an military angle to everything and anything so that you could attach to DoD tit for funding. If only astronomers made something up, any remote connection between what they do and military or population behavior control, then they would probably survive.

    104. Re:Science loses again by damburger · · Score: 1

      Because apparently, you can build a world-beating high tech economy purely on patent trolling.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    105. Re:Science loses again by andydread · · Score: 1

      When I hear Pelosi and Reid in the same sentence I immediately know you are a rabid Fox News, Sean Hannity. Glen Beck listening partisan hack with a severe lack of critical thinking skills on the matter. What this means is your words about the subject have no credibility.

    106. Re:Science loses again by andydread · · Score: 1

      George Bush killed the TPF. The bible says we are the only ones out there. No need to waste money on no stinkin' Terrestrial Planet Finder. I was looking forward to seeing that thing launched. Now this.

    107. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh that reminds me of a poor joke that's been in the back of my head for some time now!

      You used to be USA, but now you're slowly becoming USB(ananistan)! ...

      Well I though it was funny anyway.

    108. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf... dude do you actually believe the US army could fight china *or* russia?

      damn.... you know... call of duty and michael bay movies are not exactly documentaries....

    109. Re:Science loses again by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1

      We're on the fast track to becoming a banana republic.

      Absolute Rubbish!

      When Australia needs to import bananas it's from SOUTH america.
      USA *aspires* to become a banana republic.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    110. Re:Science loses again by howardd21 · · Score: 1

      Just simple things: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...

      Nah, we don;t those. Let's cut the military budget and all use a new language and commerce. I for one welcome our new Taliban overlords.

      --
      no comment
    111. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The thing that's threatening to bust the budget is entitlements. Medicare and Medicaid speciically [cbo.gov]. Just the growth predicted for entitlements between now and 2035 will exceed the entire defense budget."

      Yes, but there is one thing I don't get: a lot of these programs are built on the assumption that people pay into them, and then people get money out of the system when they really need it. Why is there such a problem with these two programs going forward in the future? That's easy: the retirement of the baby boomer generation. Less money in (from those continuing to work), more money out. Which leads me to a simple conclusion: it's underfunded. It's underfunded because people aren't paying enough into it to prepare for the burst of demands that will soon be made on the system. Realistically, people should have been taxed enough over the last few decades to make sure there was enough money in there to cover demographic bumps. But, of course, all we hear is whining about how overtaxed people are, but that they still want their entitlements upon their retirement. It's like there's some kind of magical switch that gets thrown when you retire: I don't owe society anything more, it owes me, because I've paid my dues. That's a reasonable attitude IF you have, in fact, paid in full. My impression is that for the last few decades people have not. Not in proportion to what's coming. They've scrimped. People were more focused on keeping more of their own money and throwing a big credit-card-debt party, especially after the Bush-era tax cuts kicked in. More of our own money to keep -- yay! How could this possibly be bad?

      Now the bills are coming due, and those of us in the wake of the baby boomers, and who continue to work as the baby boomer generation retire, will pay the difference in either money or in the societal impacts as the system degrades. I accept that the James Webb Telescope probably isn't the biggest priority right now, but people need to get over the idea that they can cut revenue, ramp up debt and costs, and get away with not changing the fundamentals in a budget. Only in the USA would politicians be so irresponsible as to play chicken with the idea of sovereign debt default in order to drive budget changes. I mean, it's pretty damn weird to be talking about the financial situation of Greece and the United States in the same sentence, but here we are. And it's jeopardizing the stability of the economy of the entire world, all for an ideological point of "no more taxes". No, actually you do damn well need to put taxes back up, especially on the people who benefited the most from the Bush-era cuts. Those cuts have pushed the system from surplus to deficit in a huge swing. You had a stable balance, and then went off the rails completely, by choice! In any sane economic policy, you leave things at surplus for a while and guarantee in law that any surplus is either returned to taxpayers, used to pay down accumulated debt (which also saves you interest charges), or some combination of the two. You dig yourself out of the hole, or at least fill some of it in so that you have more flexibility during the next downturn. Other countries have done this through the previous economic cycle, but the US kept right on digging a hole whether the economy was bad or good. It's nuts. You don't cut so much so early that you go into a budgetary death spiral. At the very least repeal those cuts for people who can genuinely afford them, such as the multi-millionaires where the majority of wealth is increasingly concentrated anyway.

    112. Re:Science loses again by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Wanna fix this? The best way is to grow the economy. Taxing the rich won't do it - according to the Wall Street Journal, taxing the rich at a 100% rate would still only raise $938B, while our deficit is $1,650B. Not enough.

      We either have to slice everything absolutely to the bone if we want to leave medicare and social security untouched (we do...) or we have to make it so there is a LOT more money in the country so's we can tax it.

      The way to do that is to pass the Fair Tax. It completely kills income taxes, which would cause a business boom of biblical proportions. We'd have investment dollars coming out our ears. Factories would be built across the land like mushrooms on a warm spring day. Pay is pretty good for electricians and milwrights and machinists and pipefitters and the like, and THAT is how we'll raise revenue... and cut expenses, such as the $100B / yr in unemployment payments and the $70B/yr in food stamps.

      Without the Fair Tax, I don't see any other way we can afford our "investments", and places like Russia, that got tired of communism decades ago, will be the ones that do the research, while we move in the direction that they have fled from.

    113. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutey, incredibly, incorrect when you say "...pays for services at whatever rate the medical community claims they are worth.."
      The government pays LESS THAN THE COST TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES ! I work in healthcare (hospital). Medicaid is even worse. Some hospitals, mostly in rural areas, have closed down their OB units because the reimbursement rate is so low, they can't afford to keep the unit open.
      The government (in this case, CMS) sets the rates for what they will pay for the services rendered.
      If the government would reimburse at the proper rate, then perhaps commercial insurance and self-pay would be lower. As it is, those rates are higher so hospitals can recoup the losses on Medicare and Medicaid.

    114. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, your 10 year old plot is convincing nobody.

      Nice claim btw: defense spending has gone down "excluding war costs".

      Air conditioners for the fools stealing all our money in the pentagon cost more than the James Webb.

       

    115. Re:Science loses again by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      So, does the PTO get $2.7B in fees, and another $2.7B in funds from Congress? Or, is this just one of those accounting things where the money collected by the PTO goes to the treasury, and then the treasury pays the same amount back to the PTO? (Ie a self-funding department shows up as a huge credit and a huge debit on the budget.)

    116. Re:Science loses again by gtall · · Score: 1

      You mean the American People? The ones who bought houses they couldn't afford? Bought second houses? Flipped houses? Sucked the equity out of their houses to piss of on consumerism? Them people?

    117. Re:Science loses again by gtall · · Score: 1

      Rather, let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire. 47-49% of American adults pay no income tax. It is time Americans pay for what they have voted for. After that, and with some spending cuts, a balanced budget will make altering the tax code and the spending side much clearer for Americans to decide upon.

    118. Re:Science loses again by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But when the costs themselves become unmanageable, let the voters and representatives of that time deal with it. Their problem, their decision. Cutting Medicare only requires one Congressional vote, it's not magic.

      If they can afford Medicare as it is now, good for them. If they can't, they'll have no choice but to cut it. That'll be unpopular, but in that case it'll also be necessary which means it'll happen.

      Well, if I'm not going to get Medicare in 30 years, why not just cut it today so that I can stop paying all those taxes for the next 30 years? If it will work for me to pay taxes for the next 30 years and not collect a dime, then it will work fine for the previous generation to do the same. Besides, we don't need to cut it so much as we need to reform it (raise retirement age, only spend money where we have clinically proven results, etc).

      On the other hand, US foreign policy today will impact the kind of world I live in 30 years from now. I don't see a need to be as engaged overseas as we have been, but the fact is that an army is actually one of those things that the Federal Government was created for in the first place.

    119. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need a military that can simultaneously defend 1) Saudi Arabia and 2) Taiwan (and other Asian countries) from attack. Because that's where our 1) oil and 2) semiconductors come from.

      This shouldn't all be the US's task, but Europe is not unified enough to project significant military power to the other side of the world.

    120. Re:Science loses again by JBHarris · · Score: 1

      The USPTO is a self-funded entity. http://www.inventorsdigest.com/archives/5543

      Previously the Treasury was taking some of the money from fees collected by the USPTO to pay for other things, but this year it stopped.

    121. Re:Science loses again by bmo · · Score: 1

      Well, if you want to play the literalist card, my message doesn't specify which direction "banana republic" is - either up or down.

      or sideways.

      --
      BMO

    122. Re:Science loses again by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      Considering we went from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month under Bush, to adding jobs every month under Obama, I'd say he's done a damn good job fixing the damage. If you were expecting those jobs to magically reappear over night, you're deluded.

      And what specific measurable things has the office of the president (any president) actually done that affected the "adding" of jobs? I give credit where it's due but this is not one of them. The only current adding of jobs and their more correct term "saved jobs" is so ambiguous as to be meaningless.

    123. Re:Science loses again by fredrated · · Score: 1

      7 trillion to banks? Sounds like raging b.s. to me, I suppose asking for a link is a waste of time?

    124. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Things quickly improved" Hmm, are you from Bizzaro world where everything is opposite? B/c if you think the current times are an improvement, there is a padded cell waiting for you at the end of the hall. Things have continued to spiral downward since Democrats took over Congress in '07.

    125. Re:Science loses again by cusco · · Score: 1

      No, if people get desperate enough they'll take those jobs. What the cons really like about hiring illegal aliens is the protection from workmens comp claims. Why do you think Tyson got caught a couple of years ago paying truckers $200/head to bring them to work on their midwestern chicken processing plants? The repetitive-stress injuries among the gringos were costing them too much, whereas if an illegal tries to file a claim they just call La Migra and the worker is on their way back to Mexico or Guatemala. (The fine when they were caught was less than the money they had saved in a year and a half.)

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    126. Re:Science loses again by fredrated · · Score: 1

      You are so off base and your nonsense has been so completely debunked you are clearly wilfully stupid.

    127. Re:Science loses again by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      So, honest question. Say we cut back "military spending" which is basically a jobs program. Say we just cut back on a platform. Where are those people going to go to work then? Those companies that make the military equipment will have to lay off. What about all the business around bases and such that depend on those people? Say we just cut back on personnel. same questions. Our economy can only absorb and support so many jobs.

      So while I certainly agree that our military is too large by far, it's not a simple black and white answer. Ask any town that's been affected BRAC decisions. On the economy as a whole, that was just moving jobs for the most part, not actual elimination which is what's needed.

    128. Re:Science loses again by jeremyp · · Score: 2

      The evidence at the moment is that it can't do either.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    129. Re:Science loses again by fredrated · · Score: 1

      That's because the people 'here at Slashdot' are so consistently ignorant. So tell me again, why do you visit and post here?

    130. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha thanks for the laugh. That level of ironic stupidity is easy to find on Slashdot, but not generally so baldfaced.

    131. Re:Science loses again by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      If you think China treats its people better than the US, you are deeply delusional

      1% of Americans are in jail. 1/8 black American males are in jail. We make China look like the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    132. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'The fundamental problem is that the government pays for services at whatever rate the medical community claims they are worth."
      I suggest you do a little more reading before making statements such as that. Although on the surface it appears to be true, in reality, CMS pays at best the cost to deliver those services and in many cases pays less than the cost to deliver them. Many small, mostly rural, hospitals have actually closed their OB units due to such low reimbursement.

    133. Re:Science loses again by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      You'd see a huge chunk of our economy shut down, as well - but it wouldn't be the first time a bunch of self-appointed "intellectual elite" roused the rabble for something they didn't really understand with horrifying consequences.

      So long as you get your free shit, right?

    134. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Often Science programs have to low ball the cost in order to the the project approved. Generally the SOP is to under estimate the cost so that the project can get initial funding and then to required additional funding later. If they put forward the real project cost, it would never get approved in the first place, being deemed "too expensive" by Congress.

      NASA will likely disappear (probably in th next 3 to 7 years). Boomers are retiring and are going to suck every tax dollar to pay for thier entitlements. Every day 10K boomers seek retirement and file for entitlements. No way Congress is going to cut back on entitlements because Boomers + retirees are the biggest voting block. They will vote out any politician that tries to cut entitlements. NASA will go away before entitlement are cut in any significant manner. I think we'll see more NASA projects cut. Unless the project can be completed by 2014, it will be cut. This includes all of the new development on the Shuttle replacement vehicles. The new launch vehicles are walking zombies and are doomed to be cut in the next year or two.

    135. Re:Science loses again by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the PTO doesn't make the laws governing patents (though they do make some of the rules) and they're woefully behind schedule in processing patent and trademark filings -- which leads to annoying situations like having a two-year window where nobody is sure if some random bit of technology is going to be patented or not. If they're not going to improve the patent system, they might as well at least better-fund the agency that has to do the work.

      NASA funding shouldn't be cut, though.

    136. Re:Science loses again by stupidllama · · Score: 1

      I think he means the Obama who gave .7 trillion to banks and 1 trillion to fix the economy. It's fixed right?

      just a quick question, if 787 billion = 1 trillion, but tax cuts dont count as spending, and the stimulus was give or take 40% tax cuts, how much was really spent, by your definition of spending?

    137. Re:Science loses again by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Maybe by you.

      A common complaint is that the PTO is underfunded, which means long delays and less investigation per patent application.

    138. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll forgive you, because stacked graph charts are horrendously stupid so I don't think you misread it intentionally, but if you look at it again, military funding is ONLY that light grey section, nothing below it. It's drastically shrunk, relative to GDP.

      You're absolutely right that it's probably rocketed up since 2001 when that graph ends, though...

    139. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the BS "terrorism" scare was just a marketing campaign ...
      But what about those 3000 Americans that were killed on 9/11?

    140. Re:Science loses again by wulfhere · · Score: 1

      What makes you think we can afford Medicare/Medicaid now?

      --
      -- Sent from a computer.
    141. Re:Science loses again by dachshund · · Score: 1

      Well, if I'm not going to get Medicare in 30 years, why not just cut it today so that I can stop paying all those taxes for the next 30 years? If it will work for me to pay taxes for the next 30 years and not collect a dime, then it will work fine for the previous generation to do the same.

      This proposal has never been on the table. Moreover it never will be on the table. Current seniors have too much political clout to let it happen. And selfishness aside, they're basically right on this one --- there's no current crisis that would necessitate getting rid of their Medicare. There is a future crisis, which will have to be dealt with by future Congresses and future Medicare beneficiaries.

      Also, when you say that you "won't receive a dime" in benefits I can only assume that you're not very familiar with Medicare as a program. Let me explain how it works: Medicare collects taxes from workers. This creates a generous pool of money that's used to provide medical benefits to retirees. The system sustains itself as long as there are workers.

      What does change is the quantity of health care that we can purchase with those dollars. Health care costs are projected to go way up. So even though you'll be getting plenty of financial benefit for the taxes you pay today, the money won't buy as much as it does today.

      (Incidentally, you'd have the same problem if you invested your Medicare taxes on the private market. The problem is not money management, it's the price of healthcare.)

      The question that a future Congress needs to resolve is: what do we do when when Medicare taxes don't cover the full Medicare benefit package. There are a lot of possible answers to that question --- for one thing, we could simply reduce benefit levels and let individuals make it up out of their private funds. That'd still be more efficient than the privatization plans currently on the table, since centralized Medicare is huge and gets much better rates than private insurers.

      And who knows, maybe healthcare costs aren't going to grow out of control for 30 straight years. There are a lot of technical advances we couldn't predict thirty years ago, and I can only assume that there will be similar advances in the future. Also, the country could get a lot richer. We simply don't have the data to make good decisions about Medicare now, which is precisely why current Congresses should be focusing on things they know how to deal with --- current spending --- not speculating about the distant future.

      On the other hand, US foreign policy today will impact the kind of world I live in 30 years from now. I don't see a need to be as engaged overseas as we have been, but the fact is that an army is actually one of those things that the Federal Government was created for in the first place.

      Oh for god's sake, the Federal Government was not created to maintain a standing army with an unlimited mission at unlimited funding levels. The founders gave us a democracy and assumed that we would know how to use it.

      If you, as a voter, believe that the war in Afghanistan is going to make the world better in 30 years, that's excellent. But "the Constitution says we can make war, therefore I turned off my brain" is not an argument.

    142. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, keep the R&D part of the military, but cut the funding for actually using it beyond defense

    143. Re:Science loses again by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1
      Frankly I wouldn't be put off if the DEA was just disbanded.
      Anyway, losing the Webb telescope is indeed a bummer, but at least not all science programs got cuts, a few space projects actually have a bigger budget this coming year than last; they just didn't get as much as they asked for - yet that's somehow considered a 'cut" too, by many. ( It's funny that even a technical increase can still be deemed "a cut" in politics, but so it goes with budgets and perspectives.)

      From TFA:

      The draft appropriations bill, which the subcommittee is scheduled to vote on July 7, also includes $1.95 billion for the Space Launch System — the heavy-lift rocket Congress ordered NASA to build for deep space exploration. The proposed 2012 funding level is $150 million more than the heavy lifter got for 2011, but some $700 million below the amount recommended in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, which became law in October.

      The bill also would provide $812 million for the Joint Polar Satellite System, or JPSS, being developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

      That amount would be an increase of $430 million from the amount appropriated for the program in 2011 but $258 million less than the agency requested. In total, NOAA would receive $4.49 billion next year, $103 million less than was appropriated for 2011 and $1 billion less than the administration’s request for 2012.

      The NOAA did get a net cut there but not nearly as much as it sounds on the surface of it.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    144. Re:Science loses again by dachshund · · Score: 2

      Nearly every other industrialized country offers universal health care for all of their workers and retirees. For the most part these countries are less well off than the US, and yet they can provide these benefits without drowning themselves in debt.

      In my opinion there's no question about whether we can "afford" Medicare. There is a question about our budget priorities, tax levels, and how we manage our money.

    145. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did invading Iraq bring them back? Did it do anything to the people who caused the incident? No?

    146. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble with that is step 1 never happens in your list of actions ("... firing all the management [involved], killing the project, and proposing a realistic budget and timing..."). Management of unsuccessful projects, on the civil servant side at least, whether it be projects canceled, over budget, not meeting goals, killing astronauts, etc., doesn't result in being out of a job. About half the time it results in promotion.

    147. Re:Science loses again by sznupi · · Score: 1

      If only astronomers made something up, any remote connection between what they do and [...] population behavior control

      Pushing the expansion of astrology (hey, it seems to be catchy as far as the apes running around are concerned) to far objects / systems?

      But seriously, what hope is there if even the discovery of the vastness of hydrocarbon deposits on Titan didn't do the trick?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    148. Re:Science loses again by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I think you need to check your figures. There are 1.9 million fewer employed persons now, than when Barack Obama was sworn into office.

    149. Re:Science loses again by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, you could ZERO OUT the military budget for this year and STILL have a deficit. We are pathetically profligate no matter which team you're on.

    150. Re:Science loses again by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      There is very little more annoying and more indicative of someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about than the guy who yells BZZZT on a web forum.

      One wonders, in your myopic little world where there's plenty of money for puppies and unicorns if only we soak the rich for all they have, what you believe to be the driving force behind the speedy increases in health care costs....

    151. Re:Science loses again by beckett · · Score: 1

      Wanna fix this? The best way is to grow the economy. Taxing the rich won't do it - according to the Wall Street Journal, taxing the rich at a 100% rate would still only raise $938B, while our deficit is $1,650B. Not enough..

      Can you provide your source for this? The United States has more millionairesthan any other country on the world.

    152. Re:Science loses again by dachshund · · Score: 1

      Just for the record, you could ZERO OUT the military budget for this year and STILL have a deficit. We are pathetically profligate no matter which team you're on.

      Sure. But we're in the middle of a terrible recession and we just renewed a huge temporary tax cut. So this is the worst possible moment to look at the deficit.

      But it's hardly an insoluble problem. For example, the CBO's Extended Baseline Scenario says that if Congress does nothing at all most of the long-term deficit problem will go away. The economy should get better, the tax cuts will expire, the AMT will stop getting patched, the Medicare "doc fix" will vanish, the wars will end, and we wind up in long-term budget balance.

      Here's a chart chart that graphically illustrates the difference between the EBS and the likely "Alternative Fiscal Scenario" in which we keep doing all of these things.

      Now is Congress actually going to let this happen? Of course not. But they don't need to. We simply need Congress to re-institute strong PAYGO rules, where every spending hike is matched by a cut or a tax increase, and every tax cut is paid for.

      This is a big demand, but it's hardly asking for the moon. It's a hell of a lot easier (and better) than asking Americans to eliminate the social safety net or privatize the military.

    153. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion" WSJ, Apr 17, 2011

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621304576267113524583554.html

    154. Re:Science loses again by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      half of all money spent on military in the world is spent by Americans. you could half your military budget and still spend more than the entire EU. where as the expenses paid by social security is comparable to most other westernized countries.

      Yeah, but then when NATO decides to invade a country like Libya, who would WE call to do the actual work.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    155. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget..
      We spend more for A/C for TENTS in the middle east than we do on NASA.
      Great plan there folks.

    156. Re:Science loses again by bored · · Score: 1

      You are absolutey, incredibly, incorrect when you say "...pays for services at whatever rate the medical community claims they are worth.."

      Really? Do you know how the SGR is computed? Lets see...


      The statute specifies a formula to calculate the SGR based on our estimate of the change in each of four factors. The four factors for calculating the SGR are as follows:
      (1) The estimated percentage change in fees for physiciansâ(TM) services.
      (2) The estimated percentage change in the average number of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries.
      (3) The estimated 10-year average annual percentage change in real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.
      (4) The estimated percentage change in expenditures due to changes in law or regulations.

      https://www.cms.gov/SustainableGRatesConFact/Downloads/sgr2012p.pdf

      With medicare everything is a formula, but the underlying values being plugged into the formula are correlated with a number of things, including most importantly doctors fees and "locality cost of business". Guess who sets those values? Now if you feel that medicare is underpaying you, what is the best way to get more money from medicare? Well raising your retail rates of course, because you can get ahead of the curve by raising your rates in expectation of your costs in one or two years time. In other words, you overprice your retail numbers, so that you get paid sufficiently from medicare next year. Of course, the same game applies for insurance companies too, which use formulas directly correlated to the medicare payment schedule. The end result is very few people are paying the retail numbers, but the majority of the patients are isolated through medicare/insurance which are basing their numbers on the retail costs.

    157. Re:Science loses again by bored · · Score: 1

      Doctors will tell you that Medicare and especially Medicaid pay far below the rate of private health insurance. One doctor compared his Medicaid patients to "working for free."

      Maybe, but my step father does almost exclusively medicare/medicaid work. Its hard to generalize about medicaid, as the states are involved. Medicare on the otherhand pays pretty well when compared with insurance. The raw numbers are generally a little less, but my mother who does all the paperwork says that medicare is a much better deal as she can do dozens of medicare claims in the time it generally takes to do a single insurance claim, as the paperwork is usually much more straightforward. Then there is the issue of getting paid. Medicare is reliable, the insurance companies? Not so much. In the end they don't like private insurance because its just to mush hassle.

      So, while my parents aren't getting rich and living in expensive houses/etc, they are doing just fine. When compared to some other professions they are doing extremely well. Working for a decent wage, and working for free are two different things. The doctors, claiming they are working for free should try getting a PhD in physics.

      A quick google search turned up this.. Look at page 3

      http://www.cchap.org/storage/newsletter-three-files/article%201.pdf

    158. Re:Science loses again by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Your graph at http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/35xx/doc3521/352101.gif shows not just Defense, but also "Other" and "Non Defense Discretionary" decreasing at pretty much the same "consistent decrease" (all three show a few periods where they increase). Also "interest" is also showing a decrease though more recently, which shows how much this graph is dependent on the GDP size. The graph also ends at 2001 which is a bit of some time ago...

      I agree the graph shows how alarming the increase in Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, which I think is your point. Your point could be made quite effectively without lying (saying that "only defense has decreased in percentage of GDP", which is clearly a lie from your OWN graph!).

    159. Re:Science loses again by beckett · · Score: 1

      thanks

    160. Re:Science loses again by beckett · · Score: 1

      according to the Wall Street Journal, taxing the rich at a 100% rate would still only raise $938B, while our deficit is $1,650B.

      With great bravado, the Journal claims that even the income of the top 10% of the taxpayers wouldn't close the deficit. The top 10% reported $3,856 billion in AGI, equal to 46% of total reported income in the United States, almost 27 percent of GDP. On that, they paid $721 billion in personal federal income taxes, or an average of 18.7% of income. If the remaining 81% of income were paid in federal income taxes, the increment in tax revenues would be more than $3,100 billion, or roughly 21% of GDP. The budget deficit would obviously be closed many times over.

      source

    161. Re:Science loses again by Soldats · · Score: 1

      "Now if only we could fire all of the congressmen shit heads who propose their own unrealistic budgets on absurd timetables..."

      Isn't that what voting is for?

      Better get to the voting booth this next election.

    162. Re:Science loses again by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Actually, you don't have that any more. Not even close. You might be able to beat Russia in a conventional battle, but China no way.

      You realize that modern armies don't find hand to hand any more, right? China doesn't even have a blue water navy.

      The US military is unmatched in its ability to break stuff. China's military, unless it went into hiding, wouldn't last long at all. Peaceful occupation is another story, but that is true of any country.

      The Russian military would be much tougher to destroy.

    163. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep just look at how much "money" is laying around in the USA and outside by citizens and Corporations. I don't know how much there is but I will guess conservatively I say that there is $1000 Trillion in cash, liquid assets, illiquid assets, and just plain natural resources.

      So we can easily pay off the entire national debt by just tapping out assets!!!

      Here's the rub. 10% of the people have 90% of the assets tied up in private hands and assets that are not bought and sold are not taxed.
      So the answer has to get to the root of the problem of who owns American assets. Is it really each for his own or does there come a time
      when despots crush the serfs until the serfs revolt?

      The Rebublican't party is trying to pay off the debt using money from the 90% that own 10% and are buying and selling like mad, paying their taxes.
      What they won't have is anything that disturbs the uber rich who really own and control what we call a democracy (oh yeah that's rich).

      So, in the course of human events when .....blah blah.blah, it is the duty of the people to ..you know. Yes, we need to foreclose on the uber rich assets and start anew.

      I am tired of churning to pay for national defense of uber neighbor who pays no taxes.

    164. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WORD! ... so sad, though...

    165. Re:Science loses again by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      "Nothing a single U.S. president does can "fix" economy or add/destroy jobs." ~ Laughably false. Try again, only this time bone up on some American History first.

    166. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only power the POTUS has over the budget is to say Yes or No. In the reality the unclean masses of the USA live in, if he says Yes to this budget, all the cuts and invasive policies are his fault, if he say No then the failure to pass a budget and raise the Debt Ceiling is, wait for it, his fault. The sword only falls one way with our electorate and that is why we are doomed to the current situation for the foreseeable future. In the words of the oracle "Stupid is as stupid does.".

      To the poster who said we are headed to be a banana republic, the only reason you can't see what our banana republic is going to look like is because you're already in the middle of it.

    167. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when the costs themselves become unmanageable, let the voters and representatives of that time deal with it. Their problem, their decision. Cutting Medicare only requires one Congressional vote, it's not magic.

      If they can afford Medicare as it is now, good for them. If they can't, they'll have no choice but to cut it. That'll be unpopular, but in that case it'll also be necessary which means it'll happen.

      Well, if I'm not going to get Medicare in 30 years, why not just cut it today so that I can stop paying all those taxes for the next 30 years? If it will work for me to pay taxes for the next 30 years and not collect a dime, then it will work fine for the previous generation to do the same. Besides, we don't need to cut it so much as we need to reform it (raise retirement age, only spend money where we have clinically proven results, etc).

      On the other hand, US foreign policy today will impact the kind of world I live in 30 years from now. I don't see a need to be as engaged overseas as we have been, but the fact is that an army is actually one of those things that the Federal Government was created for in the first place.

      You seem to be missing the point that at the end of this there will be no Medicare or Medicaid and you will still be paying the taxes to support the current members of that classes membership. Your children, or at least the children of those not living in their parents basement, will also still be paying those taxes and they and you will get nothing for them. We will still be running massive deficits and these arguments will still be going on because anyone with any power in Washington doesn't give a rat's rear about anyone not making multimillion $$ campaign donations.

      A time is coming when it won't be pretty, first term members of Congress getting gunned down in shopping malls, one at a time. I really hope it doesn't come to violence but I'm almost sure it will. Guy Fawkes may have failed in his attempt but we all still know he is.

      I know you all discount this type of thing but God help us all when the new American Revolution begins.

    168. Re:Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't really want the military we had in the 70's. My brother was a LT in '78 and spent most of time trying figure out how to drum out the drug addicts and criminals that made up 60% of unit. His first vehicle was a jeep from the 1940's and they we still issuing revolvers to the infantry, but didn't have enough ammo to teach the grunts how to use them.

      Another brother was an LT in the 90's and the money Reagan spent on the military gave us the force we have today. You know, one that can do it's job.

      Spending can come down but don't ask the career military to go back to the 1970's. For the counties sake have some compassion!

    169. Re:Science loses again by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I didn't say these materials were invented by military contractors just that their use was advanced greatly by military use. When I talked about composites I was referring more to ceramic composites originally used in space research.

      How about a few more examples;
      Spy satellites that advanced communication satellites.
      The GPS constellation put up by the USDOD
      The computer; advanced during WW2 to break codes and calculate ballistics tables
      The Interstate Highway system in the US; built partly to facilitate troop movements and provide alternate airfields.
      The Internet; a DARPA project.

    170. Re:Science loses again by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

      The right has been drooling over abolishing the minimum wage for decades, then we can see what real poverty looks like.

      Adults brain-damaged by kwashiorkor in their youth ; mothers selling one child to get money to feed their other children ; annual cholera epidemics.
      A real return to "Victorian values".

      The Right are also attacking public health, sanitation, and the legality of contraception too. You need to get rid of those too, to keep the masses properly in their place.

      It worked for Tsar Nicholas, didn't it?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    171. Re:Science loses again by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      WSJ says "Those people that the president has targeted" and Huffpo says "the top 10%." There's no way to know if the 2 articles are measuring the same set of people. Both articles may be right or not. The fact is, tho, that you can't 100% tax either one of them, so the study of this hypothesis is simply an exercise designed to show the futility of raising taxes on "the rich." If you did tax them at 100%, they would just stop working, as that has another name, which is slavery. If you tax 'em at 95%, lots of them will also stop working, or not work nearly so hard. If you tax them at 90%, the same thing occurs, its just a matter of degree.

      What would be better is a tax system that nails so many of those that avoid taxes completely right now, which are the criminals, the illegal aliens, the bozos that send their money to Swiss bank accounts and European Securities, etc. etc. Throw in taxing tourists of which there are about 45 million a year, and you're talking some real money. This would be the Fair Tax. It is a consumption tax - a sales tax - which would let us get completely rid of the income taxes that devastate our businesses so much, and force American businessmen to either ship jobs overseas, or go out of business completely because manufacturing here is so expensive.

    172. Re:Science loses again by beckett · · Score: 1

      The fact is, tho, that you can't 100% tax either one of them, so the study of this hypothesis is simply an exercise designed to show the futility of raising taxes on "the rich."

      You're actually missing the point of the original example, which is summarized in the same Jeffrey Sachs Huffington Post article:

      The real point is obvious. The money received by the richest households is vast, and higher taxes on the rich will make a major contribution to closing the deficit. Nobody says that the rich should carry the entire tax burden or that spending cuts shouldn't play a role. The waste in military spending alone is so large that we can and should save at least 2 percent of GDP per year from the defense budget alone.

      America's richest households have enjoyed quite a ride in recent decades as they've accumulated a mountain of wealth unprecedented in human history, at a time when much of the rest of society has been suffering. The average income tax rate paid by the top 1% has declined from 34.5% in 1980 to just 23.27% in 2008. During this period, the share of total income accruing to the richest 1% has soared from 8.5% in 1980 to 20% in 2008. The share of total AGI accruing to the top 10% of taxpayers has similarly risen from 32% in 1980 to 46% of income in 2008.

  2. whack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This was a way cool project that could have led us towards life in the distant cosmos! Maybe its because were in for a much bigger revelation... (FINGERS CROSSED, and by revelation I don't mean that in a religious sense)... More than likely though their probably just rerouting the funding to war crime projects....

    1. Re:whack! by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      Not that I don't agree with you but, why waste the effort and the money launching it in the first place? Can it be "repurposed" to any other task than those originally intended?

    2. Re:whack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it could be turned into a death ray to fry terrorists. It sure would receive funding then.

    3. Re:whack! by That+Guy+From+Mrktng · · Score: 1

      and music pirates, don't forget those! I bet RIAA will drop the whole revenue milked from Justin Bieber onto that ray.

      "3 strikes and you're .. uh... Fried!.. hahaha yeah! Ares that!" *awkward executive air guitar*

  3. Fuck you James Web by harrytuttle777 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Fuck you, Fuck you couch, and fuck your telescope. No-one messes with congress and gets away with it.

  4. Budget problems by Trillan · · Score: 4, Informative

    From Wikipedia:
    "In June 2011, it was reported that the Webb telescope will cost at least four times more than originally proposed, and launch at least seven years late. Initial budget estimates were that the observatory would cost $1.6 billion and launch in 2011. NASA has now scheduled the telescope for a 2018 launch, though outside analysts suggest the flight could slip past 2020. The latest estimated price tag for the telescope is now $6.8 billion."

    Although a loss for science, this would seem to be more accurately blamed on poor management and budgeting. Perhaps a smaller, better managed project will rise from the ashes.

    1. Re:Budget problems by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The panel noted that the project was in good shape technically, but that NASA had not budgeted enough for the project initially. In other words, it would have cost less if they'd put more in up front and completed it on schedule. This is why you shouldn't let penny-pinchers be in charge of cost estimates (or anything, for that matter). If they weren't willing to commit sufficient funds to the project, they shouldn't have done it at all.

    2. Re:Budget problems by thrich81 · · Score: 0

      Man, your comment needs to be modded way up. Any project which goes FOUR times over budget needs to be cut off, no matter what its merits. Either the proponents originally intentionally underestimated the costs in order to get the project approved or the project development team is incompetent -- in neither case should the reward be project continuance. You have to ask, "If the true cost would have been known at inception would the project have been funded?" I am the biggest fan of space science and astronomy but there has to be some kind of accountability, and as others have pointed out JWST is taking funds for other worthy projects.

    3. Re:Budget problems by ridgecritter · · Score: 2

      The panel noted that the project was in good shape technically, but that NASA had not budgeted enough for the project initially. In other words, it would have cost less if they'd put more in up front and completed it on schedule. This is why you shouldn't let penny-pinchers be in charge of cost estimates (or anything, for that matter). If they weren't willing to commit sufficient funds to the project, they shouldn't have done it at all.

      I concur completely. The rule in aerospace projects, whether civilian or military, is lowball up-front estimates (helps the project get funded) inevitably followed by cost and schedule overruns. Check the F35 as one example. C&S inflation comes from a variety of sources, but the initial lowballing is a major contributor. Good work costs real money. (And yeah, I know real money doesn't guarantee good work.)

    4. Re:Budget problems by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1

      Easier to ask for forgiveness (and for cost overruns to be covered) than for permission.

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    5. Re:Budget problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget the F35. The Shuttle. It was sold on a huge lie (easy, cheap, and safe access to space). It turned into the most expensive launch system ever. Then, to save the program (because it clearly wasn't cost effective, and in fact was killing launch budgets), it had to be decreed to be the only launch vehicle that would be used. The Galileo spacecraft launched late because of that (it was supposed to go up on a regular rocket). Hubble would have been in a better orbit except that it was decreed to have to go up on the shuttle. Then to hear all this stuff about how great it was because it launched all this stuff was just sickening. Yes, it repaired the Hubble, but what gets overlooked is that a single shuttle launch with an empty payload bay cost more than the entire Hubble telescope.

    6. Re:Budget problems by Burdell · · Score: 1

      The same was true of the Constellation project. It was only behind schedule and over budget because the pointy-heads didn't listen to the engineers when setting up the project. From what I understand from some people involved in the planning meetings, it was basically on the schedule they said they needed and possibly even a little under the budget at that point that they said the needed.

    7. Re:Budget problems by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Although a loss for science, this would seem to be more accurately blamed on poor management and budgeting. Perhaps a smaller, better managed project will rise from the ashes.

      This isn't exactly a surprise. The only way NASA can get funding is to promise the moon (usually figuratively, though occasionally literally) on an implausible shoestring budget, and then hope that the real costs later on don't cause management to scupper an already-in-progress high-profile project. This is a pretty common strategy in government funded technology and research projects, and it's something that's as old as NASA.

      The Mercury program came in at roughly double its original estimated price.

      The Air Force anticipated in 1958 that a lunar program would cost $1.5 billion and be complete by the end of 1965. In 1961, NASA's experts said they could do the job by 1967, at a cost of $7 billion. By the time Neil Armstrong took his one small step, it was 1969, and the program had rung up a price tag of about $25 billion (in 1960s dollars).

      Looking at the last space telescope project, the Hubble was originally budgeted at $400 million. It cost $2.5 billion by launch time, and total program costs to date run to between $4.5 and $6 billion.

      This problem isn't unique to NASA. Technology development programs in the military offer some particularly good examples. Lockheed completed their contract for the F-22 Raptor more than two years and ten billion dollars behind schedule--but they still received more than $800 million in performance awards for their work.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    8. Re:Budget problems by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Without Shuttle, Hubble as it was launched would be known as an expensive boondoggle and no longer be operational.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Flawed_mirror

    9. Re:Budget problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lets compare that to the F-22 "Raptor".... supposed to cost about $80 million per plane, the "fly away cost" per plane on last delivery was about $165 million. Years late for initial delivery, the total program cost was over $65 billion......

      Oh, and as of this writing, ALL OF THEM ARE GROUNDED due to problems with their oxygen generators..... not a single plane is flying right now.

      That is a load of crap, foisted on the American taxpayer by the defense-industrial complex.

    10. Re:Budget problems by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      This is crazy thinking. If the project has merit, fund it.

      The reason projects are over budget is that the people making the decisions always go for cheap. Not good or useful or necessary, but cheap. So if you believe in your project, you will lie about it. Because otherwise, it will never get a chance, never mind its actual merits.

      To change this, you need to punish not the guys making the proposition, but the morons who accept clearly impossible projects. The guilty party here is not NASA: they are playing the game by the rules _congress_ has set. Instead of saying "the incompetents are over budget", say "who let the clueless moron give the go-ahead to an impossible plan?".

      See also "war in Iraq".

    11. Re:Budget problems by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      This is why you shouldn't let penny-pinchers be in charge of cost estimates (or anything, for that matter). If they weren't willing to commit sufficient funds to the project, they shouldn't have done it at all.

      It is just as likely that the scientists and engineers involved did not provide accurate cost estimates to the "penny-pinchers" so that the project would get approved. Management can only act on the information they are given. I can see the conversation now:
      Management: How much do you think it will cost?
      Engineers: $4B
      Management: I am not sure we could get that approved. Are there ways to trim things and decrease the costs? How about you try and decrease the costs.
      Later;
      Management: New budget complete? How much is the new estimate?
      Engineers: $1.6B.
      Management: Are you sure you can do it for that?
      Engineers: Fairly sure.
      Management: OK, we'll go with that.

      It might be the scientists and it might be the penny-pinchers or a combination of the two; we don't know.

    12. Re:Budget problems by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Without Shuttle, Hubble as it was launched would be known as an expensive boondoggle and no longer be operational.

      Without the shuttle we could have launched a new Hubble every few years, because that would have cost less than the maintenance missions.

    13. Re:Budget problems by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Did you read what he wrote? We could build and launch another Hubble from scratch, for less than the cost of one or two Shuttle launches alone.

    14. Re:Budget problems by garyebickford · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Boy, been there, done that, burned the t-shirt. As a VP R&D in a startup a long time ago (early 1990s) I once spent two months with my software manager doing a complete system plan for a complete rewrite, rearchitecture and platform change (including converting from several languages to C), down to the function level, with good estimates of the time it would take to do every piece of it. This was a product with several hundred thousand lines of code in FORTRAN, Pascal, Assembler of various sorts, maybe some C, and microcode for a custom image processor. It came down to six engineers and about two years. We got approval for that project plan at the board meeting.

      Then one of the engineers mentioned to the head of sales that he thought we would 'have an image on the screen' (meaning we would have figured out how to write a toy/test program to paint a window) in about two months.

      Within a few days, the sales guy had promised delivery of two systems in ... you guessed it ... two months, to GE. Oh, and by the way - the company didn't have the cash flow to hire more engineers, so we only had two guys available to the project. As it happened, I quit a week or so later for other reasons. According to what I was told later, by conspiring with the users at GE who agreed to receive the boxes, they managed to ship two completely non-functioning systems to GE, and spent the next two years 'fixing' it while the folks at GE got more and more pissed. I think GE finally sued them. After numerous equally dicey escapades, the company got forced into bankruptcy.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    15. Re:Budget problems by trout007 · · Score: 2

      To steal a line from "From the Earth to the Moon". Budgets and schedules are based on what has been done before. That works great for paving a highway or building a building. Not as good when you are building a new aircraft or satellite. It is almost entirely useless when building something that has never been tried before like a 6.5 m diameter 7 segment folding infrared space telescope.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    16. Re:Budget problems by tibit · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering how much would it cost if SpaceX's engineering and management could be used to run it. They'd probably pull it off for $750M or somesuch, and end up launching it on their own freaking rocket to boot. Heck, they probably could launch a technology testbed/prototype (with a smaller mirror) to check things out, too.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    17. Re:Budget problems by robot256 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly right. I was involved in one of the instruments on JWST, and we had no end of trouble because half the engineering work was done before they had even done the research to see if it would work at all. After they did figure out how to make it work, it turned out the engineering was done to essentially nonsense specs. That took a lot of jury-rigging and overtime to deliver, just one of many examples I'm sure.

    18. Re:Budget problems by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It also seems to be a rule of thumb that once the overrun has been spent completing the hard bit the project is cancelled. In telescopes the mirrors are the hard bit.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    19. Re:Budget problems by robot256 · · Score: 1

      This has been the cycle for many years, as projects low-ball their estimates to beat other projects on the review desk. Then they have to low-ball even further to beat the other low-ballers. Basically, Congress is saying that this has gone too far and has got to stop. There are gears grinding in the bureaucracy to start producing more accurate estimates.

    20. Re:Budget problems by Relayman · · Score: 1

      It's a bigger loss for science the longer it takes to get it into space.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    21. Re:Budget problems by robot256 · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between a rocket based on tried-and-true technology updated for the 21st century and bleeding-edge never-been-done-before space telescope. A large part of the problem with JWST is that the ambitious requirements called for instruments with materials that literally did not yet exist and had to be researched before they could even be designed. Unfortunately management did not understand this and built the instruments before we knew if they would even work, and they didn't, so the last minute scramble to fix everything was totally inefficient and entirely predictable.

      SpaceX has proven itself capable of tackling problems of efficiency and cost, but I don't think they would want to incur the amount of risk involved in this kind of research. Of course, I could be wrong, and it's possible that they would do a great job, but I don't think its within their core competencies at this time, if you'll forgive the buzzword.

    22. Re:Budget problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's over budget because it wasn't funded. Congress likes to do what it did with the Superconducting Super Collider in TX. They spent $2 billion on a $12 billion project and canceled it. If they had funded the telescope 100% the first time they were asked for money, it would have been done much faster, and possibly even on budget. Instead, because Congress funds annually for multi-year projects, they have to fight every year for the ability to have another year. And if they lose that battle even once, then it's gone.

      That level of accountability costs more than handling it the way a real corporation would. Fund the whole thing 100% and make a temporary department or whatever that oversees the payment of those funds. That, and actually manage projects properly. Most project managers are incompetent, those dealing with the government even more so (whether government employed or private, though whether that's incompetence or deliberate fraud, they make it hard to tell, but the fact they keep getting business despite a very low rate of completing projects successfully leads me to suspect the latter).

    23. Re:Budget problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without Shuttle, Hubble as it was launched would be known as an expensive boondoggle and no longer be operational.

      Without the shuttle we could have launched a new Hubble every few years, because that would have cost less than the maintenance missions.

      Without the Shuttle, Congress would never have authorized a launch for a Hubble-like spacecraft every few years as the budget priorities would have shifted and it would have been just another NASA project prematurely cancelled. See also DC-X, CRV, Big-G, and a great many other projects (those are just the manned spaceflight programs that got cancelled over the years).

    24. Re:Budget problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why you shouldn't let penny-pinchers be in charge of cost estimates (or anything, for that matter).

      There is a problem with that approach. The people who approve or reject it aren't scientists with long term goals in mind.

      In the case of NASA, it was a big problem for hypersonics research. I'm not sure of which program exactly, but they basically had to tell the administration that they would achieve hypersonic flight. The only drawback was that a lot of basic research was still to be done - developing light weight materials to withstand the heat (these are sharp nosed vehicles, unlike the space-shuttle), developing and testing scramjet engines, developing robust controllers that can deal with flexibility (light weight and heat tolerance can be achieved with more flexible materials).

      If they went to Congress and said - "Look, we have all these basic research to do for 10 years before we can realistically even begin to think of the bigger goals. However, we need all this money to do it, even though you won't have a finished product to see for it", they would have been shot down. So they lied through their teeth, promised unachievable things, got funding and managed to make some progress. Did they meet those grand targets they promised? No. But without the funding for the initial research, they would never have got off the ground.

    25. Re:Budget problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although a loss for science, this would seem to be more accurately blamed on poor management and budgeting.

      And also NASA fail (maybe an issue of management). My girlfriend's father works for one of the subcontractors on the project. The word I've heard is that NASA is specifically in charge of producing the imaging sensors, but the ones they have shipped are flawed and degrading at such a fast rate that by the time the telescope launches the sensors will be absolutely useless. At this point no more work can be done on the telescope until these sensors are replaced, but that will apparently take a few years. So basically all the subcontractors are sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for NASA to do its job. Because of this all of the engineers at the subcontractors are leaving for greener pastures, and NASA is going to suffer huge brain drain in the companies it works with. Sounds like a clusterfuck.

    26. Re:Budget problems by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Just one example of US technology advances are the F-35 and especially the F-22 which serve as a virtual showcase of US advanced technology in the areas of ultra high speed computing, advanced materials science, and communication systems. This technology also has a surprising amount of non-military applications. The Shuttle program has served as a R&D platform ever since the program was started. The Shuttle program has been terminated but they already have a replacement in the X-37 which has used some of the scientific results and data collected during the Shuttle program. "because it clearly wasn't cost effective," Science research and development is by nature not cost effective. If you are lucky the science might provide the opportunity to recoup some of the initial expense if the research can lead to implementations. "because it clearly wasn't cost effective, "

    27. Re:Budget problems by tibit · · Score: 1

      Their core competency is to get shit done, even when it means reengineering everything from scratch. Not much different than what was called for in JWST. Of course JWST called for stuff that was never done before, but hey, SpaceX's feat was pretty much never done before either: a completely integrated launch vehicle supplier.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    28. Re:Budget problems by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      $6.8 billion. That's a lot of money.

      Or as it's now known, three weeks in Afghanistan.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    29. Re:Budget problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called a wedge. Cf. Caro's book on Robert Moses to see how this can be effectively employed on (against?) public finances.

    30. Re:Budget problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I once bid for a government job. I said I could do it for seventeen cents a piece. The winning bidder bid four cents apiece.

      A few months into the project, the winning bidder admitted they couldn't actually do it for four cents apiece, and that they needed more money.

      Eventually, the job was done - by the winning bidder - at roughly twenty cents apiece. Obviously, I had a lot to learn about procurement practice.

    31. Re:Budget problems by 1_brown_mouse · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see how the mirrors hold up under the rocket launch versus the slower shuttle launch.

      Its all a moot point now, anyway.

    32. Re:Budget problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Wikipedia:
      "In June 2011, it was reported that the Webb telescope will cost at least four times more than originally proposed, and launch at least seven years late. Initial budget estimates were that the observatory would cost $1.6 billion and launch in 2011. NASA has now scheduled the telescope for a 2018 launch, though outside analysts suggest the flight could slip past 2020. The latest estimated price tag for the telescope is now $6.8 billion."

      Although a loss for science, this would seem to be more accurately blamed on poor management and budgeting. Perhaps a smaller, better managed project will rise from the ashes.

      Arrrghh, where is Richard Branson when you need him?

    33. Re:Budget problems by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Even more than the money, which is horrible, combine it with time. At this point, I think they've admitted to being less than half way through the product when they're were originally supposed to be finished and have already already spent more than they were supposed to in total.

    34. Re:Budget problems by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Great example! What would have happened if the war had been ten years behind schedule and billions over budget?

      (For the more inflicted among you: YES, I KNOW. That was the point.)

    35. Re:Budget problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder there's no tourism in that country.

    36. Re:Budget problems by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Basically it is the SCSC of the astronomy community. With the growing costs overruns (and delays) other projects were going to be squeezed out. We really need to get back to state where research, aka 'science' is not beholden to government funding, government planners and government managers. Were this project done by private industry on behalf of an again, privately funded (aka charitable) research foundation I think it quite likely it would have had been done and launched already.

    37. Re:Budget problems by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      and with fire-and-forget, over the horizon missiles, wtf is the point of a $80million airplane? Load the missile on a dang biplane and you're good to go.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  5. Can we start a kickstarter? by buback · · Score: 2

    Seriously, I wonder how much money we can get donated to keep this going. in retrospect, I'd gladly have paid what i could for the Hubble, and the repair/upgrade missions, out of my own pocket.

    1. Re:Can we start a kickstarter? by zaxus · · Score: 1

      You already did. It's called taxes.

      --
      /. zen: Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters...
    2. Re:Can we start a kickstarter? by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Well, they're currently $5 billion over budget and 10 years behind schedule. Still think all they need is a bit more money? :)

      It's a good idea, but it's clearly being mismanaged.

    3. Re:Can we start a kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My taxes are not going where I want them to go.

    4. Re:Can we start a kickstarter? by zill · · Score: 2

      GP has a very good point actually.

      Only a very small percentage of your taxes goes to NASA. Suppose I want to fund NASA without funding the 3 wars at the same time, I would have to jump through a lot of hoops. There is currently no legal way of donating to NASA besides signing up for a tour and then giving the security guard a suitcase of cash claiming that you found it unattended.

      Nearly $3 million dollars was donated to the US treasury last year, out of which NASA received roughly $15,000. I suspect that if NASA ran a well publicized donation drive for one of its more well-known missions (manned mission to Mars for example), they could easily solicit 10 or times that amount. For one, foreign donations to the US treasury is probably rare, but I imagine many foreign Scifi fans are willing to donate to NASA, myself being one.

    5. Re:Can we start a kickstarter? by zill · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the double post, but I forgot to mention that public works funded by private citizens is not unheard of. The most famous example of which would be the Statue of Liberty.

    6. Re:Can we start a kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every single person in the USA (308,745,538 people) would have to pay $16.194566 to get it the missing $5 billion together.

      Which sounds less than it is. After all, how many people do you think will actually pay? And how much?
      I think, in the USA, even 10% would be a dream. Everyone of them paying $80 is a mere fantasy.
      And that would still only be half of the needed money.

      I'm really sorry. I did this calculations to show how it's possible, but now it looks very unlikely.

      Maybe if the whole (rich) world would chime in.

      If you start it, I will be your strongest supporter and rally people for it. But inside, I could not believe in its success. :/

    7. Re:Can we start a kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need 1,000,000 people to donate $50 a month for ten years. That is cheaper than my phone bill.

      However, I would like to have the opportunity to rename it. Seems fair that the people who paid for it should get to choose the name.

    8. Re:Can we start a kickstarter? by Nimey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My taxes are going to Bush's wars. How can I redirect them?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    9. Re:Can we start a kickstarter? by Jiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hear that if you vote for Obama in 2008, we will no longer have to deal with Bush's wars. Try it, maybe it'll work. He is promising change, after all.

    10. Re:Can we start a kickstarter? by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      I just tried making one, and was shot down. Apparently it counts as:


      Project Guidelines
      No charity or cause funding. Examples of prohibited use include raising money for the Red Cross, funding an awareness campaign, funding a scholarship, or donating a portion of funds raised on Kickstarter to a charity or cause.

    11. Re:Can we start a kickstarter? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone has raised $7 billion on Kickstarter before...

    12. Re:Can we start a kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just about to post along the same lines. All these people whining about what the government allots for this or that pet program. Gosh, too bad science can't be privately funded by enthusiastic donors. They have enough enthusiasm to bemoan the defunding of science, but not quite enough to reach into their own wallets.

  6. Absurd by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cutting this project will do basically nothing to help the deficit situation. Until they start seriously talking about slashing defense spending, drastically reforming Medicare and Social Security, AND raising taxes, it's obvious they're just playing politics with no intention of doing anything to fix the problem. They could cut this and everything else in the discretionary non-defense budget and still run a huge deficit.

    1. Re:Absurd by NiceGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you think the Repubs are going to do any of that, you're dreaming. They're busy pandering.

    2. Re:Absurd by peragrin · · Score: 2

      it is the And Raising taxes part that they always seem to forget. Or if they do do it all, they seem to forget the next step entirely. the paying down debt before cutting taxes back.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Absurd by silky1 · · Score: 0

      Even if you could prove that raising taxes actually increases revenues, why would you want to give them any more of your money? Bottom line...stop spending...stop spending...stop spending.

    4. Re:Absurd by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't "forget" to raise taxes. The Republicans have instituted a very well-crafted and carefully executed plan for the past decade or so. They pass a massive tax cut to wipe out the surplus. They then drive us deep into debt with wars and the unfunded Medicare expansion. Next, they use that debt as an excuse to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. Then they take the savings, and insist the way to grow the economy is with more tax cuts. See where this is going?

      The end result is a society with no safety net to support the ~250 million serfs, who must therefore work for whatever wages their lords are willing to pay, and die in the streets when they are no longer of use. Meanwhile, those lords pay no taxes. The government, with no revenue, cannot regulate the lords to keep them from further abusing their serfs. We're on a fast track to return to the Gilded Age. This is not an accident.

    5. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. SS and Medicare have their own revenue stream. See SS and Medicare on pay stub if you still have one.

      2. We could cut until we're blue in the balls and it will do no good because of:

      1. War costs
      2. interest on current debt
      3. and all that debt that has been racked up

        Point: We have no choice but to raise taxes. Unfortuately, the Republicans didn't think of this when they rammed the wars and Homeland security up all our asses.

        Yes, the Republican party did this and the Democrat wimps whined and followed suit and lastly, the fucking retarded American people, thumping their collective chests and wanting to be all powerful while being scared of their own shadows, went along with the horseshit cumming out of Washington - they beleived the pundits who know less than they do.

        Yes, I meant "cumming" - they were fucking us after all.

        And now, I see propaganda about taxes and "cuts" and in the meantime, the fuckers who ruined out economy are off on their yachts and private jets paying the lowest taxes ever while convincing Joe Peon that if he "works hard and starts a business" he can join their ranks but if he actually tries, they crush him.

        The rich are evil. Jesus said so: camel-eye of needle- blah blah blah.

    6. Re:Absurd by astar · · Score: 0

      Your first sentence is correct. Your second sentence is silly. Instead of looking at budgeting numbers as scalar and instantaneous, look at just some recent patterns where "slashing" makes the deficit *worse*. California is the first data set to come to mind. Greece is in the headlines today. Or the same take, from a different angle, look how well bailing out speculators has worked for us. Inside people's heads is the idea that interesting things like the universe and all its parts are composed of hmm, scalars, continuous functions, predictable by statistical methods, mechanical, etc. Do you really want to claim that way our species made its living over the past 4 million years (yah, I know) is predictable. If not, then you might see that the way the world makes its living today may not be easily improved by a bean counter. But from bean counters, we get "slash" as a way to make things better.

         

    7. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you could prove that raising taxes actually increases revenues

      lol... you have got to be fucking kidding me.... Think about that statement for just one minute. Done? Of course raising taxes increases revenue you complete dumb ass! Hmmm, if you increase how much money you bring in then you increase revenue! Thats like saying "can you prove that turning on the heat causes warming".....

      It's fucktards like you that are ruining America.

    8. Re:Absurd by tonyAG · · Score: 1

      Better than the Democrats building their politically correct perfect utopia!

    9. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, i love how the bad option is utopia.....

      Yes we should all totally be against that! Keep your government Utopia out of my rich lord's Billions! Now excuse me I have to go work 3 jobs to survive...

    10. Re:Absurd by silky1 · · Score: 1

      Compared to the effect of lowering taxes, the idea of raising taxes to increase revenue is wrong. It's proved time and time again, people will spend more when taxes are lower and spend less when they are higher.

    11. Re:Absurd by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      If you think the Repubs are going to do any of that, you're dreaming. They're busy pandering.

      If you think Dems are going to let anyone so much as touch Medicare or Social Security, you are also dreaming.

      Money spent today buys votes whether it's a tax cut or an entitlement payment.

    12. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to the effect of lowering taxes, the idea of raising taxes to increase revenue is wrong. It's proved time and time again, people will spend more when taxes are lower and spend less when they are higher.

      *Citation needed

      Last time I checked taxes were raised in the 90s and the economy boomed and then taxes were cut under Bush and the economy went into the great depression 2. I would say that pretty much proves the opposite of the voodoo economics you just tried to sell us. Don't believe me? Check out a graph that shows exactly that

    13. Re:Absurd by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      See, if the rate is 100%, you will get no taxes. At 0%, you get no taxes. Thus, there must be some optimal amounts of taxes which maximises revenue.

      Now clearly, the US is closer to the 0 bound, so increases taxes increases revenue: proof comes from Bush, lowering taxes lowered revenue. During a bubble. Thus, the right course of action is to increase taxes.

      Why would you want to maximise revenue? Because it is a proxy for economic output: good tax structure leads to healthy economy.

    14. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think Medicare and SS are a drop in the bucket compared to defense spending, you are delusional. Also OLD PEOPLE vote Republican. It'd be political suicide.

    15. Re:Absurd by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      Oh noes...utopia...how terrible.

    16. Re:Absurd by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked taxes were raised in the 90s and the economy boomed and then taxes were cut under Bush and the economy went into the great depression 2.

      Hint: correlation is not causation.

      If you really think that raising taxes improves the economy, you should just increase tax rates to 100% because then the economy would really be booming.

    17. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to reduce spending AND raise taxes, otherwise it really doesn't work. You sound like a Libertarian imbecile.

    18. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, the good old fallacy of extremes. Just because I think higher taxes is good (keeps the rich from getting too rich and the poor from getting too poor) that doesn't mean that I think a tax rate of 100% is a good idea. I think a well balanced, progressive tax code works the best and when there are surpluses then they should be saved for rainy days when that money can be put back into the economy to smooth the curves out....

      Hint: Your straw man just got PWNt son

    19. Re:Absurd by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      If you think the Repubs are going to do any of that, you're dreaming. They're busy pandering.

      Pandering to who? The Republicans are the ones that have proposed real reforms for entitlements, despite the deep political danger of doing so. Touching Medicare and Social Security has been the third rail of American politics since the 60's. You may not agree with their plan, but they've had the balls to actually produce a plan. The Democrats haven't even submitted a budget yet.

      Don't lecture us about pandering. The Democrats are the ones going to old people and telling them that there's no problem with entitlements. The Democrats are the ones telling old people they'll be eating dog food and selling their organs unless entitlements are made untouchable.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    20. Re:Absurd by couchslug · · Score: 1

      That, and NO civilians except Robert Gates know fuck all about military reform.

      Neither Party has a clue nor are they interested.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    21. Re:Absurd by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      We should stop spending on you first. Too bad you Republicans elect politicians who insist on funding you until the bitter end, while cutting anyone else with less access to power than you have.

      Please back up your insistence on "stop spending" by mailing in an extra check to the IRS in the amount above what you pay it in taxes that the rest of us spend in your state. Then go on about it, once you've put your money where your Republican mouth is.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    22. Re:Absurd by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It also buys old people food and rent, dividends on their lifetime of investment in the US when they were working.

      Before Social Security and Medicare, lots, probably most, old Americans starved and lived in rat traps. Thanks, compassionate conservatives, for sending us back to the good old days!

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    23. Re:Absurd by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You mean the Democrats' moderately corporatist real world? You Republicans aren't fit to run Sim City, let alone the US.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    24. Re:Absurd by arse+maker · · Score: 1

      While you have gone off the deep end with your conclusions :) ...

      I think the evidence shows the neocon plan is to remove social welfare, which isnt a shock. They pretty much say that up front.
      Trying to bankrupt the country to get medicare + social security dumped is kinda insane though.

      I often wonder how many of the republicans really know what they are doing or just listen to the party rhetoric and don't question it. I can't believe they all really understand what they are doing.

    25. Re:Absurd by Nimey · · Score: 1

      If only we could make not-rich people who vote for these assholes be the ones to suffer first.

      In a more obvious fashion than being out of a job, because that's somehow Carter's fault.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    26. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and the Democrats had nearly two years to do something about it. All they did was whimper and follow suit.

      I'm getting really sick of the narrow minded who blame one party over another. Who out there claimed the Dems wouldn't allow something like The Patriot act or unfair taxation go unchecked? Who extended the Patriot act in every fashion imaginable? Who extended the tax cuts? Who is feeding funding to our sworn enemies that could pay for JWST dozens of times over?

      Get your head out of your ass. Both parties fuck you and as long as you buy into either one of them you're going to continue to get fucked. It's easy to see that they're the same party that makes up a fake fight for your dollars if you just take the blinders off for even a minute.

    27. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ~250 million serfs

      Actually, it's even worse. The population is over 300 million, but the tax cuts only really benefit the top 1-2%. 295 million serfs.

    28. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

        We're on a fast track to return to the Gelded Age.

      There, fixed that for you. (Hat tilted to Mike Jittlov)
      Lets leave the safety nets at the door, shoot the bad guys (instead of enabling them towards entitlements and social programs), and leave everyone to fend for themselves. Its a lot cheaper and a lot more fun.

    29. Re:Absurd by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Hint: Your straw man just got PWNt son

      No one will ever take you seriously until you stop talking like that.

    30. Re:Absurd by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      It is lip service until they pass a bill with the cuts in place.

      Most everyone rational knows that the cuts are needed to balance the budget without raising taxes, so that's what the politicians are claiming will be done. What is really going to happen is that the cuts will never see the light of day, then the Republicans will make some spurious claim about Democrat obstructionism to balancing the budget.

      This gets them support from voters who want to make the deep cuts without sacrificing the votes of the seniors.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    31. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, ein and others conveniently forget 1. the president is a Democrat and 2. for his first two years he had not only a House majority of his party but a filibuster proof Senate majority as well. They could do ANYTHING they wanted and no Republican could stop them.

      Where were their budgets? There hasn't been one in years, only "continuing resolutions." How about this year? This year the House passed a budget which failed in the Senate and the president submitted a budget which failed 99-0 in the Senate. What's the Senate, controlled by Democrats, doing other than playing a political game of chicken?

      Democrats have always been about raising taxes while refusing to control spending. They make promises to the other side they refuse to keep. They want to negotiate in secret while claiming transparency. They attacked a reform framework put forth by their opponents while offering no alternative plan of their own. They lie about the same framework to scare voters. It's cowardly. CBO cannot score a lofty teleprompter speech. They need a specific plan.

      The president talks of raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" but really proposes to hit those making $200,000 and up. His rhetoric does not match his plans. He is a bald-faced liar.

      He says we must live within our means and happily runs trillion dollar deficits year after year. He piles lies upon lies. He now attacks tax breaks on corporate jets, insinuating it's a Republican item, but he himself signed it into law when his own party passed the stimulus bill.

      He called raising the debt ceiling a "failure of leadership" and voted against it in the Senate and now it's the most necessary thing ever even though it was just raised a couple years ago. He called Iraq a "dumb war," Bush negotiated a complete withdraw of troops by end of 2011, Obama said he'd keep to that plan and now he's said, no, let's leave 10,000 troops there. More lies.

      He says Libya is not "hostilities," outraging both parties for his violation of the War Powers Act, risking a constitutional crisis. Again today in the Twitter Townhall he lied about job creation and jobs saved according to his own government numbers. He attacks high earners for not being part of "shared sacrifice" while the millionaire himself avoids taxes by taking deductions he calls "spending through the tax code." Despite a supposed wage freeze, his White House staff pulled 8% increases last year on average.

      He attacks the Congress, for not being in D.C. for negotiations, claiming, "I was here," lamely hiding behind Osama's corpse as proof he's on the job, while he's jetted off to NY, to CA, to PA, to FL, to IA... all over the damned place for political fundraisers. More damned lies.

      How do you negotiate with a public scold and liar?

      Only a naive imbecile would trust either party.

      That said, I am sick to death of the Big Lie that Democrats have clean hands and only good intentions. Demonizing Republicans and lying to the American People at every opportunity is not going to change the facts of a failure to lead with public counter proposals, a failure to be truthful, a failure to keep promises and a failure to acknowledge your past gimmicks did not meet expectations.

      Disappointed as I am, it's hard to blame Congress for ending funding after seeing the Webb telescope has already slipped many years behind schedule and now four times over budget. NASA's showing its ineptness. With Obama having cancelled Constellation, the shuttle fleet retiring without a replacement and now no funding for the Hubble alternative do to mismanagement it doesn't look like NASA's capable of anything substantial now.

    32. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats had the congress from 2007 until this year. They had the presidency for two of those years as well as a filibuster proof senate—they could do ANYTHING. Did they increase taxes, did they pass a balanced budget, did they pass ANY budget? Do you see your own lies yet?

      Decades of history shows Democrats are no better at controlling spending or paying down the debt. They "remember" to raise taxes and conveniently forget to hold the line on spending. They use the specter of crisis to keep control all while doing nothing to solve the financial problems at hand.

      Republicans did put up a scoreable framework, the so-called "Ryan plan," for tackling the debt and entitlement reforms. You know, a plan to SAVE Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Where is the Democrat's alternative plan? A real plan, not empty speeches, not attack ads, not sniping remarks.

      Having a substantive plan that can be viewed, reviewed, scored and analyzed would mean accountability. That's too risky politically the Democrats calculate. Instead they can preach about "millionaires and billionaires" (making $200,000), "corporate jets," attack "windfall profits" of companies living on 6% average margins, let their corporate pals—like GE—avoid taxes, and do everything possible to grow the reach of government into regulating everything from your toilet tank to your lightbulbs, requiring you to buy products or preventing you from buying others, all creating more dependency where, of course, more inefficient government control is the solution.

      Those ~250 million will be serfs all right, just not for the lords you think.

      I know it's popular to claim it was the wars that drove us deeper into debt but the total cost of both Iraq and Afghanistan, across 10 years, is less than the budget deficit for any one of the last 3 years. Relatively speaking, a drop in the bucket. I know the liberal think-tank NPP study claims it's far more but that wasn't in terms of direct expenditures but instead pulled in many other things to drive up the numbers. However, even their running ticker at "costofwar.com" uses the much lower figure I'm referring to which is in line with Obama's claims.

    33. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has a name. The strategy is called "Starve the Beast." You make government smaller by defunding it. The hypothesis is that in a budget crisis, The People will understand when you take on popular entitlements, and it won't be such a political third rail. We've successfully defunded government. Time for sinister phase II.

    34. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot one other important aspect: and if any of the serfs get out of line, jail them. And with the absolutely world-class, massive investment that the USA has in its prison system, the capacity is there and ever growing. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, which is just bizarre given that it isn't a totalitarian state.

    35. Re:Absurd by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      They're just responding to the pandering from the Democrats. The Republicans will do exactly that - slash across the board and raise taxes - if the Democrats let them. Thankfully, it looks like at least Pres. Obama is willing to say he'll support such actions. I'm not giving the Republicans a free pass but Republicans have only been in the majority of the House for 1.5 years while for 2 years previously the Democrats had majorities in the House, Senate, and had the White House all while doing nothing serious about the budget other than creating a huge deficit (which they in turn blamed on Republicans for creating the "need" for it, as if Republicans are solely responsible for all the ills in the country). It's awfully hard to get anything done when you play the victim and always blame one party for all the problems in the world. That's such inane thinking, it's almost unbelievable. Democrats having been destroying this country with as much aplomb as Republicans ever have had.

    36. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you, at the minimum, cite some references for this incredible plan? Or is this in the realm of "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor raid before it happened," "Astronauts never landed on the moon," and "grassy knoll" conspiracy theories?

    37. Re:Absurd by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 2

      The surplus was gone before the tax cuts were instituted. The tech bubble burst that started in 2000 didn't help. 9/11 didn't help (estimates put direct and indirect costs of 9/11 - just what the terrorists did, not including our military/intelligence response - in the hundreds of billions of dollars, which all reduced government income). Then we had the housing market bubble bursts that we're still not through. The housing market problems were largely caused by government policies created in the 1990s. It didn't help that we had a fiscally unsound administration from 2001 to 2009 and a worse one (a massive increase in spending with an extension of tax cuts; that's fiscal disaster) from 2009 to the present (not that we should really blame the administrations, Congress is in charge of spending). In short, the surplus was based on predictions as accurate as NASA saying this telescope would be on time and under budget. When has anything the government done been on time and under cost?

    38. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? It's the Democrats who are pushing us into being dependent on the Government. Thank God the Republicans are there to at least offer a differing opinion. Neither party is correct, but the disagreement may spark conversation and compromises that help point us in the right direction. It took years of idiots (Democrats and Republicans) to get us into this mess, raiding the debt ceiling is akin to kicking the can down the road; the problem of spending what we don't have needs to be addressed. Cutting projects that have no short-term tangible reward to society is an easy thing to sell to the public, doing anything to the social programs of today (e.g. Medicare, , Social Security, welfare, etc.) would be fought by everyone with a lawyer even though they need to change before they go away completely.

      I hate to see the James Webb Space Telescope get cut (I worked in space launch and helped the program in the past) and hope it doesn't, but we need to take a close look at all our expenditures and make cuts everywhere we can.

    39. Re:Absurd by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      Oops, I should have written Republicans have been in the majority of the House for .5 years, not 1.5. My mistake.

    40. Re:Absurd by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

      You say it like it's a bad thing. People need to be taken care of.

      Do you not have any old relatives? That will be you shortly. I don't know about yours, but mine can barely walk, are on over a dozen prescriptions each that keep them from feeling like their skin isn't melting off, and are in the hospital twice a month for one thing or another. This isn't magically going to stop. As medicine gets better, people live longer, but the age that they become unworkable is still the same, around 60.

    41. Re:Absurd by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      There never was any surplus. Even when Clinton was running around claiming a surplus that calculation included using the Social Security tax revenues for general expenditures and writing IOUs for the trust fund.

      The fact is that the Bush Reagan tax cuts were subsidised by Social Security taxes.

      Now that SS expenditures are exceeding revenues the Grim Reaper is at the door asking for the repayment of the loans made to the trust fund.

      Hopefully that will be done by insisting on repayment of the tax cuts.

    42. Re:Absurd by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That, and NO civilians except Robert Gates know fuck all about military reform.

      What, do veterans just forget everything when they retire?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    43. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then we had the housing market bubble bursts that we're still not through. The housing market problems were largely caused by government policies created in the 1990s.

      I keep hearing this talking point, and it's maddening for two reasons. First, the vast, vast majority of housing loans that went bad were *private* loans, not issued or backed by Fanny/Freddie. I suppose you could blame deregulation of private lenders for the loose lending, but of course, that really just puts the blame on a private sector unable to behave without government oversight. Second, the housing collapse and the financial crisis are two distinct things. If it weren't for unchecked speculation on Wall Street (allowed by deregulation), the first would not have been able to cause the second. So, you know, maybe there is a role for government in the economy after all.

    44. Re:Absurd by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The serfs thing is hyperbole, but the rest is known as starving the beast.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  7. Where has the wonder gone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the future, when people look back at our age, they will see things as Hubble, and (hopefully) the James Webb telescope as some of the true wonders of our time. INNA (I am not American), but where has the USA's sense of wonder gone?. Truely, the USA needs to invest in things like this great telescope. They can afford not to build another (half a?) stealth fighter, surely.

    1. Re:Where has the wonder gone? by ridgecritter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Our sense of wonder was spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, Goldman-Sachs, and AIG.

    2. Re:Where has the wonder gone? by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1

      Those are "only" $200 million each or so, ignoring development costs. So it might take a couple of them.

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    3. Re:Where has the wonder gone? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      I work on NASA Science Mission Directorate missions, and while if JWST is not built, it will be in many ways a shame, but in other ways it will be a great relief.

      JWST is facing potential cancellation not simply because it seems less important than military spending or other items, but because it is incredibly late, incredibly over budget, and taking funding from other missions. With MSL (the other SMD money sink) being launched soon, if JWST costs can be either constrained or repurposed we have a lot of opportunity to do a lot of new and interesting things which could be just as exciting.

      While the US budget is certainly worth being questioned for its priorities (as is any county's, its only healthy), I don't think this is necessarily indicative of those issus.

  8. Mixed Feelings by notKevinJohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    As someone who works on several NASA science mission directorate missions, I have to say I have mixed feelings about this. James Webb was going to be an amazing successor to Hubble, and would have been very popular with the general public as well as with scientists. However, it is way way over budget, and eating the budgets of other worthy science missions, and maybe there is something to be said for cutting missions who can't keep on budget. I was really looking forward to James Webb though, even if it was the 800lb gorilla of the science mission directorate.

    1. Re:Mixed Feelings by notKevinJohn · · Score: 1

      Oh no! someone on the internet is mad at me!

    2. Re:Mixed Feelings by speedplane · · Score: 1

      I generally agree. James Webb is great science, but at a huge cost that could most likely be spent more effectively elsewhere. Space telescopes are sexy and are attractive to congressmen that want to work on "bold projects." But often the best science comes in smaller increments. I'm all for increasing space and science funding, but in a world of limited resources, you still need to prioritize. Take a look at the article below for a critical view of the James Webb telescope: http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110605/NEWS01/110604013/Telescope-debacle-devours-NASA-funds

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    3. Re:Mixed Feelings by gplus · · Score: 1

      But imagine if JWST had spotted biological life on an Earth like planet 15 light years away. That would have been one of the most important discoveries in the history of mankind. All the other things NASA does pales by comparison.

    4. Re:Mixed Feelings by michaelwv · · Score: 2

      But we're not getting the money back in science. If the proposal was to cut JWST and take a ~billion dollars and add it to NASA grant-funded science or to NSF, then I'd love to have that conversation. But just cutting JWST just cuts the science.

    5. Re:Mixed Feelings by notKevinJohn · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's the very thing we launched Kepler to do, and it has a much better chance of finding it then JWST would.

    6. Re:Mixed Feelings by forand · · Score: 2

      The problem with what you are saying is that, while it is true JWST took funds from other worthy projects, those funds will NOT be available for other worthy projects after JWST is cut. This is just taking money out of astrophysical research.

      It should also be noted that funding agencies essentially insist that cost estimates be understated so they can more easily be sold to the purse holders. This is a great detriment to science in the long run but the situation as it stands. Finally expecting a space telescope using technology not yet developed to be 'on budget' is rather comical. You cannot know what it will cost to overcome as yet un-confronted challenges.

    7. Re:Mixed Feelings by gplus · · Score: 1

      The Slashdot thread is long dead now, but I can still reply to you:

      Yes, but Kepler is a relatively small and cheap telescope that's scheduled to die later next year. And it hasn't found anything really interesting yet (interesting in the context of an ET biology discovery).

      In my opinion, attempts to find biological life on a planet outside our solar system. Is much more important than all the other research that NASA does. The robot cars that drive around on Mars are cute, and the pictures that the Cassini–Huygens send back from Saturn are pretty. But a space telescope finding ET life (even if it's just some spectral lines that has to be interpreted by astronomists), would shake the world. So my point is: huge, complicated, difficult, expensive space telescopes, should be the main focus of NASA's efforts. (my 2 cents, anyway. does 2 cents help?)

  9. Hah by beadfulthings · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What do we need with a space telescope or space exploration program anyway? Our children are being groomed to be the poorly fed, poorly housed, poorly educated drones of the likes of of the Koch Brothers--or worse, cannon fodder in the next forever war undertaken to line the pockets of the defense contractors. Other countries will gladly assume the exploration of frontiers and the advancement of knowledge while our kids get to learn about creation science.

    --
    "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    1. Re:Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The world will soon re-order itself without the us as a major power. Same as the romans, the persians, mongolians, etc, etc, etc....

    2. Re:Hah by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      How is this modded insightful? The cost of the entire telescope project, even with the massive cost overruns and across eight years, couldn't pay for even a significant fraction of California's education budget for one year.

      It's amazing how ignorant drivel (we have no food? Really?) gets modded up by taking a jab at the Koch brothers, as if they were the Illuminati or something, sitting on the board of every school district around the country.

      If you don't think $10,000 per student is enough money, you're delusional. Offer me $200k-$300k per classroom of 20 or 30 kids and I'll give you a group of rocket scientists (pun inteded) in 12 years.

    3. Re:Hah by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      How is this modded insightful?.

      Because there's no (+1 True Statement)

    4. Re:Hah by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The Romans were a major power for a thousand years as a republic and then as an empire, and then even after centuries of "fall" the power behind all power in Europe for another thousand. Even after other powers rose they were incarnations of Rome, and required the power in Rome (the pope and his bureaucracy) to exert any power for more centuries, and remains powerful even apart from the major power in Italy.

      The same is true of the Persians and Mongolians, and other empires - Spain, Britain, France, China, Egypt, Babylon...

      The US power in the world ain't going away anytime you can foresee. Like previous empires, its misfortunes are matched and exceeded by its contemporary rivals, which fall further and faster.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Hah by tibit · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. Let's see at how you could spend $200k per year (for 20 kids), in a low cost of living state like Ohio:

      - a Ph.D. to teach the kids: $90k
      - classroom rental in an office complex somewhere: $25k
      - transportation contract with a small business: $25k
      - classroom supplies: $40k
      - roadtrips: $10k
      - surplus/cushion: $10k

      I'm assuming that healthcare can be taken care of by the parents. Heck, they have to have a pediatrician and yearly
      checkups anyway, I don't think a "school nurse" is really necessary. Have the teacher go through a CPR and first
      aid training and it should be fine.

      Those are all very realistic numbers, and I can't but see an amazing experience for the kids that could go through
      such a program, and for the teacher, too. Yes, you could easily get a group of very, very good kids after 12 years
      of this.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    6. Re:Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. Guess I'll move my ass somewhere else, their since this country doesn't really give a shit about its future.

      Oh, wait. It does. To bad the people in charge can't look past the next election cycle to save their lives.

      The problem here isn't the citizenry. Then again, we deserve whom we elect.

    7. Re:Hah by scromp · · Score: 1

      Jesus will tell us everything we need to know about space.

    8. Re:Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not sure you caught that the OP was being ironic.

      If you don't think $10,000 per student is enough money, you're delusional. Offer me $200k-$300k per classroom of 20 or 30 kids and I'll give you a group of rocket scientists (pun inteded) in 12 years.

      Now do that where you get $300k for your class, then have to pay $100k for regulatory compliance (standardized tests and such), $100k for overheads (the room, the buses, the meals, the one special ed kid in the class who you have to outsource to another school), and $100k in administrative costs to the district. You'll be teaching for free and begging for donations for text books and pencils. And that's where we are today. There's a single student in the Anchorage School District who costs $250,000 all by himself (he gets a nurse at his house, solo trip to school, and special desks and such). When you are spending $250k on a single student, the other $50k wouldn't go far.

      I'm not arguing with the point that $10,000 per student is enough to provide a good education. I'm just stating that less than half of that is spent on the students. So you should compare the expenditures on the students, not our cost. To fix the cost, you have to fix the government (NCLB, standardized tests, and such that the federal government demands and doesn't fund, with similar actions within the states themselves).

    9. Re:Hah by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Now do that where you get $300k for your class, then have to pay $100k for regulatory compliance (standardized tests and such), $100k for overheads (the room, the buses, the meals, the one special ed kid in the class who you have to outsource to another school), and $100k in administrative costs to the district. You'll be teaching for free and begging for donations for text books and pencils. And that's where we are today. There's a single student in the Anchorage School District who costs $250,000 all by himself (he gets a nurse at his house, solo trip to school, and special desks and such). When you are spending $250k on a single student, the other $50k wouldn't go far.

      I'm not talking about complying with regulations, as that all is part of the problem, just as you say.

      I'm saying that if the government would like to write me a check for $300,000 per 30 students, I will give them the most highly educated bunch of whippersnappers the world has ever seen.

      In other words, we're spending more than enough money on education, but we're spending it... poorly.

    10. Re:Hah by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "Our children are being groomed to be the poorly fed, poorly housed, poorly educated drones of the likes of of the Koch Brothers"

      Of course our kids are actually eating too much, live in the largest homes in history, and are more likely to go to college than ever.

    11. Re:Hah by koreaman · · Score: 1

      I hate to sound insensitive, but why are students who are intellectually incapable of normal learning even sent to school? I think the government should provide for his care, but why does that have to take the form of sending him to school? How does sending him to school benefit him or the other students at all?

      By the way, I'm visiting Anchorage now from one of the hottest parts of the lower 48. I've never seen such a paradise on earth :)

    12. Re:Hah by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      I will give them the most highly educated bunch of whippersnappers the world has ever seen.

      Using words like "whippersnappers", I doubt you're going to get them to listen to you at all, let alone teach them anything.

      --
      That is all.
    13. Re:Hah by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Using words like "whippersnappers", I doubt you're going to get them to listen to you at all, let alone teach them anything.

      Yes, obviously I have no sense of humour.

  10. It's the superconducting supercollider all over again (just with fewer Texans shooting it.) Disappointing in the extreme.

    --
    Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    1. Re:SCSC by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      It's the superconducting supercollider all over again (just with fewer Texans shooting it.) Disappointing in the extreme.

      Two things killed the SSC: non-physicists that were jealous of the money physics was getting (yes, chemists, biologists, etc, were lobbying Congress to kill the SSC), and Democrats. They saw it as a boondoggle. Bush the Elder wanted it. The Democratic-controlled Congress canceled it.

      Republicans have traditionally been in favor of big science and engineering projects. The space station, SSC, etc. But there's a reason why this is different. No matter how you cut it, this project isn't essential. And the American mood right now is one of fear and anger over the debt. That means big projects are mostly going to have to take a back seat for awhile. So before you yell at Congress, turn your anger to the American public. Because this is exactly the kind of thing they're asking to be cut.

      If you don't like that, then try to change their minds. If you think that Americans are stupid for wanting a smaller budget and government, then get busy trying to sell them otherwise. Used to, I would have also told you "or move elsewhere". But look around you. With the exception of China and India, pretty much every other country in the world is also deeply in debt and trying to reign in their spending. Where would you go?

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  11. Podcast about Infrared Astronomy & JWST by jrivar59 · · Score: 2, Informative

    This This Astronomy Cast podcast episode does a great job of explaining why infrared astronomy is important, and the role that the JWST will (would have?) played in discovery.

  12. One thing I've noticed about large organizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long-time employees don't seem to get better through the years, instead they seem to peak within 4-6 years from the start of their tenure and then lapse into bureaucracy, internal politics, and mediocrity. Basically they lose their idealistic energy and learn to take care of themselves, while developing a clique-ish mistrust of new ideas and their proponents.

    NASA is chock full of long-timers I bet. Maybe they should offer generous early retirement to some of them, especially those in management, slim the ranks and later bring in new blood.

  13. Shaking my head... by TheRedDuke · · Score: 2

    ...because we're (indirectly) building this instead:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford_(CVN-78)
    Military Industrial Complex FTW!

    1. Re:Shaking my head... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 0

      Building and operating that employ a lot more people than the Webb Telescope will.

    2. Re:Shaking my head... by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Gerald R. Ford is slated to replace the current USS Enterprise, ending her then 50-plus years of active service

      Is it just me or are there some eerie symbolic coincidences with that sentence?

      • Enterprise is the name of a famous spacecraft
      • Ford was president at the end of the Apollo program
      • Military project (named Ford) is getting precedence over space projects, including 50+ years of manned space flight
      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Shaking my head... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      And that is just perfect proof of how our country has been sold, lock, stock, and barrel, to the MIC. How many carriers are we up to now? 11? And frankly even though she is 51 years old the ship the Ford is supposed to replace, the Enterprise, still does her job and frankly could probably do that job another 20 years.

      No the Ford and the F35 are just handouts by another name. look at the F35, how many times has its budget been blown? How far behind is it now? And the sad part is the stupid thing is like building a biplane in the age of jets. We have ALREADY developed planes that can pull more gs than the pilots can survive in the F teen series, yet here we are, when a UCAV could do it safer and cheaper, acting like the cold war is still going on.

      We need to cancel the Ford, hell if it was up to me we'd do the reverse of what we did in WWII and use its keel for a battleship since we've found their ship to shore bombardment is still damned useful, cancel the F35 outright, and if they can't get the Webb done in two years with 10% more funds then kill it or offer it to the Europeans to finish.

      Sadly we'll blow huge amounts on shit we don't need like the Osprey since it is a handout to the MIC but groups like NOAA where they can give us real data to help shape our world? Nah just cut the budget.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Shaking my head... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then, lets just rename it... How about the Ronald Regan Space Telescope? That ought to please the Rep's and keep it in the budget. :-P

    5. Re:Shaking my head... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building and operating that employ a lot more people than the Webb Telescope will.

      It's like the essence of human endeavors would be: "Keep them busy, don't bother to ask for the purpose".

    6. Re:Shaking my head... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Hell, stick that in your quotes files.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:Shaking my head... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      and how is that supposed to answer the gp's question?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    8. Re:Shaking my head... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like someone with much bluster but little foresight.
      Mind you, I'm not completely disagreeing with the military industrial complex rant - there are plenty of bloated useless projects. But the carriers? We actually use those. They're extremely useful things.

      > How many carriers are we up to now? 11?
      We've been in the 10-12 range for ages. When a new one is built, the oldest is scrapped, or at least pulled off real duty and just used for pilots to get their takeoff/landing practice. At some point, maintenance and upgrades end up taking as much time and money as building a new one, particularly on nuclear powered ships. Further, the upgrades in the new ones include things that can't be retrofitted into the old ones anymore. The last few before this replaced older ones that were still gas powered (and thus needed additional fuel tankers).

      The number of carriers is a requirement imposed by the amount of sea (how much is that? all of it) the navy has to cover, a few always being under repair/upgrade (normal for any saltwater navy), and by our complete inability to repair or replace them on short notice - for example, if there's a war and some get wrecked. They run about $5 billion and five years to build, and that's in peacetime, when the country isn't being bombed, the shipyard is safe, and the economy is functional. Pick any five year span in which carriers were used for warfare and ask whether we can do without them for that long, next time it happens. One close to each main US coast, another at Hawaii, two in repair or used for training, a couple available to the Atlantic, a couple available to the Pacific, and a couple in reserve... it adds up to, unsurprisingly, about as many as we have. Subtract any, and that leaves areas uncovered; meaning in an emergency, you'd have to shuffle another one around the world, leaving some other place uncovered and showing up late to whatever just happened.

      > still does her job and frankly could probably do that job another 20 years.
      Not really. First, military tech can cycle much faster than that, and other countries are preparing to build new carriers. You think an early 60s ship is going to do well against whatever China's producing ten years from now? Or India? Or Russia? Keep in mind it's the first nuclear carrier ever made - in the world, not just for the US - and had enough first-time learn-the-hard-way issues that no others of its class were made.
      Secondly, no, Enterprise can't do its job as it is now for another 20 years, because its reactor's end-of-life is in the 2013-2015 range (as was known back when it was originally designed and built).

      > do the reverse of what we did in WWII and use its keel for a battleship since we've found their ship to shore bombardment is still damned useful
      Uh, we haven't used a battleship since 1991. Other things do the bombing now, with greater accuracy. (Including the high energy weapons the new carriers higher-output reactors are supposed to power.)

    9. Re:Shaking my head... by surveyork · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia there are 22 aircraft carriers in operation in the world. 11 of them are American. All the American carriers are supercarriers (over 100,000 tons of displacement). The rest of the world's carriers are ligth and middle carriers. In other words: When you see pictures of American carriers close to any other carrier, the non-US carriers look like toys. Despite this tremendous naval superiority, the US military still wants MOAR!

      /facepalm

      --
      2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
    10. Re:Shaking my head... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Name "Enterprise" has been used by US Navy ships since 1775, 190 years before the TV show. You have your "named-after" relationship backwards.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise#United_States_of_America

    11. Re:Shaking my head... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent down, but mod grandparent up.

    12. Re:Shaking my head... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Broken window fallacy.

    13. Re:Shaking my head... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Enterprise is also the name of one of the Space Shuttles.

    14. Re:Shaking my head... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      With that name does that mean it's for sale immediately and the Indonesians can bribe us to use it? Is the USS Benedict Arnold next?
      Those who think Bush or Clinton was the worst President don't pay attention to the news much and don't hear about what is in the old documents that get released.

  14. Re:One thing I've noticed about large organization by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You mean the long-timers that developed Hubble, the Shuttle program, ISS, and (mostly) successful Mars rovers?

    If anything, NASA gets worse with each new generation. As I saw on reddit once, "If you watch NASA backwards, it's about a space agency that has no spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on moon"

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  15. Solicit $$$ from Billy Gates by squidguy · · Score: 1

    Instead of funding aids research, perhaps Billy can write a check for the telescope instead.

    1. Re:Solicit $$$ from Billy Gates by hey! · · Score: 1

      Nah. Just return the tax rates to what they werewhen the so-called "Reagan Boom" started. Budget crisis averted without raising taxes beyond what everyone agrees is consistent withdrawal robust economic growth. Bill Gates chips in his share without having to give up the benefactor to humanity gig. Everyone chips in some and the rising tides lift the yachts along with the dinghies.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  16. Privatizing the project might save it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hubble doesn't have much time left and needs a replacement.

  17. The root of all evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Money truly is the root of all evil. Why is this being cancelled instead of making a few fewer missiles? Because the missiles are making profit for somebody. All a telescope does is produce science, and worse, it's science you can't make a profit off of. So to keep the money flowing we'll blow up a few more nomads in Afghanistan and scrap a state-of-the-art observatory.

    Money is America's god and it is the most vile and selfish of gods.

    1. Re:The root of all evil by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points.
      See Mammon a Jesus coined term for this problem. I only invoke him out of an interest in truly sad irony.

    2. Re:The root of all evil by tantaliz3 · · Score: 1

      Wait, wait....Money itself is just a tool. Just like a hammer. It in itself is neither good or evil, it just it. Money isn't the problem, it's the attitude that drives it's destructive power.

    3. Re:The root of all evil by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Right. When people say "money is the root of all evil" they tend to leave out the first few words of the phrase. Originally, it was "the love of money is the root of all evil". Without those first three words, it really doesn't make much sense.

  18. Re:One thing I've noticed about large organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've worked at NASA (and LockMart, and a few other places not on the T.O.). You're so very wrong. If your assessment is from your experience, you've been unlucky in your work venues and I wish you better luck in future. If your assessment isn't from experience, then you need to get out more.

  19. Hate the US government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No offense to US citizens everywhere, but the government you currently find yourselves serving is hideously destructive to it's own existence, and by extension, all of you as well. Unfortunately, it's also capable of sinking the rest of the world with it as well...

    1. Re:Hate the US government by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      10-20% of us know that (that's more people than most European nations), and are trying to do something to fix it. Unfortunately there are structural and procedural features of the US government which make it a statistical certainty that we'll never have more than two viable parties. Worse, the process to fix it would require cooperation from one or both of those parties (and their financial backers) so that's not going to happen.

      There are people in the US advocating for social democracy, there are people who realize moving farther and farther to the right of the economic spectrum is destroying us and rotting away the middle class. There are people who realize that there is no such thing as a scaleable market solution for basic scientific research, education, or health care--but those things still need to get done. We exist, but there's just too few, and everyone else is either too scared of the caricature of "evil socialism" built up from after WWII to even consider something left of a center-right party, or they just don't care. And again, those people who don't care and opt-out of participating in civil society end up playing into the hands of the party that least represents their interest due to the structure of our election system.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  20. Then just change the name by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 2

    to the WalMart-Exxon-Verizon Space Telescope. That way it'll have all the funding it needs.

    1. Re:Then just change the name by tantaliz3 · · Score: 2

      Fuck NO. Crazy ass corporations will make you pay for each pixel you download from it!

    2. Re:Then just change the name by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I'd think Verizon would fund it all on their own. Just think of the roaming charges.

  21. Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they are so damn anti-science, take away every damn gadget they have and make them what they want US to be, stone agers

  22. Re:One thing I've noticed about large organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some make a convincing argument that the Shuttle and the ISS are what killed NASA. Way too expensive, which sucked up most of the funding, with basically nothing in return. We're going to finish building the ISS so that we can say we did it, then we can dump in in the Indian Ocean. If it wasn't for a Presidential mandate back in the 80's to launch everything on the Shuttle, it would have died a long time ago and we would have been able to develop much better launch vehicles.

  23. lol by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Everyone needs to calm down and learn how politics works. This is a "give-away" the republicans threw in the mix... the price-tag is relatively small, but public interest is high. So when they haggle, the democrats can claim they saved the program. The democrats constituents will think its a big win while the republicans constituents could care less. How many times did congress/NASA propose cutting funding to Hubble? I lost count myself.

    1. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an interesting viewpoint in terms of how it will play out. Sadly, I'm not convinced that the program will survive this round of budget negotiations. Blood is in the water and Congress wants to do some deep cuts. Putting back expensive projects is going to require some political capital.

      It is interesting to note, with perhaps just a small and scattered response lukewarm at best, nobody is posting "write to your congressmen! Here are the links to the 'Save the JWST' petition website!"

      This is a geek newsgroup too where the folks here at least have a clue what the telescope actually will do and may even be employees at NASA where it matters on a more personal level. I think that speaks volumes in terms of how much public support for this project actually exists.

      Essentially, other than a vague "I support science" sentiment, none at all.

      If major groups like the Planetary Society or other geek-related groups and bloggers were getting hot and heavy to keep this project alive, perhaps using this as a way to get the "geek vote" might work. Unfortunately, even the geeks want this project canceled or at least are indifferent and don't care. It just isn't that inspiring of a project.

  24. JWST not really HST successor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    James Webb ... I dunno what to feel about this. JWST promised to be a very capable IR telescope, but it has no UV and Vis capability. I've worked with HST data before, from STIS in near UV; getting that type of data would not be possible with either JWST or anything in the pipeline... Realistically, when HST finally gives up the ghost, we will lose something nearly irreplacable. JWST wasn't going to change that, it is not really a HST successor. JWST is really a successor to Spitzer...

    1. Re:JWST not really HST successor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did a crossword the other day, and the clue was "successor to HST" and the answer was "DDE"

  25. The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's your choice - feed people who won't get off their ass to work or have nice toys like this telescope.

    Defense? That's one of the very few legitimate functions of government.

    You may not like the choices, but that's the plain unvarnished truth.

    1. Re:The truth by zill · · Score: 1

      Defense? That's one of the very few legitimate functions of government.

      I wholeheartedly agree.

      Unfortunately very little of the $700 billion military budget last year went towards defending this country from foreign enemies.

    2. Re:The truth by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      It's your choice - feed people who won't get off their ass to work or have nice toys like this telescope.

      I love how being f@#$ed over by bankers, corps and lobbiests == being lazy. Who's against banking reform.. because we can't have the poor defaulting, while the banks are bailed out...

    3. Re:The truth by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      It's understandable that you posted as AC. I wouldn't sign my name to that drivel either.

    4. Re:The truth by hawguy · · Score: 1

      It's your choice - feed people who won't get off their ass to work or have nice toys like this telescope.

      Or, another choice - cheap gas where gas taxes don't pay the real cost of highway maintenance, or nice toys like this telescope ($40B for highways, versus $16B for NASA's entire budget.

      You may not like the choices, but that's the plain unvarnished truth.

      There are many many possible choices and tradeoffs.

  26. Hey congress... by jonwil · · Score: 2

    How about cutting things from the budget that will ACTUALLY HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

    Cutting the space telescope (with its tiny budget) wont make any difference.

    If you want to fix the US economy and the US debt problem, cut where it will help. Cut the billions and billions of dollars spent on subsidies to the airlines, the big agribusiness companies, the coal industry, the oil industry, the media companies, the defence industry etc.

    1. Re:Hey congress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A space telescope doesn't vote (well, the team does, but it's tiny).

      There are millions of people on the dole. They all vote to keep the checks flowing.

      They are hundreds of thousands of people with serious cash. They're ready to share it to get you reelected.

    2. Re:Hey congress... by jonwil · · Score: 1

      If I was an American, I would be out there writing letters to my Representatives (and getting as many people as I could to do the same) DEMANDING that they do something meaningful about the national debt and threatening to vote for the other guy if they dont do it.

      If enough people started asking for something to be done to solve the problem, Congress would have to listen (especially with an election in the near future)

    3. Re:Hey congress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. Will cutting the JWST itself make a difference? No, but cutting a large number of small mismanaged programs has the potential to make a difference and unfortunately, the budget overrun of JWST makes it a candidate for such cuts. There are plenty of good spending cuts to be found out there - F-22 and Osprey in the defense department, perhaps a long term shrinking of Naval tonnage (though with piracy on the rise an increase in hulls might make sense - replace older cruisers/destroyers with more modern, smaller, cheaper to operate ones). Entitlement reform is probably the biggest need, but also the most difficult politically. In the long term (century time frame) we need to shift from paying for our parents' generation to paying for our own retirement with our payroll taxes, thereby avoiding the issue of unbalanced generation sizes.

    4. Re:Hey congress... by superluminique · · Score: 1

      Let me first disclose that I am a professional astrophysicist (though I'm not working in the US) so you know my bias right away ;-) All the budget arguments regarding the fact that it's a tiny drop in the sea (in comparison to the military allocation per say) make a lot of sense. As far as astrophysics goes, not having the James Webb Telescope will imply a delay in the science by at least a decade. I can understand the frustration with the fact that it's overbudget but even re-doing a stupid sidewalk seem to go overbudget... At the point where the project is, we are talking about hundreds of jobs depending on it and just as many people's career based on the fact that it is supposed to come online soon. It's not on the launchpad yet, but it feels like cancelling something once it's almost ready to go.

    5. Re:Hey congress... by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The big ticket items of Federal government spending are not corporate subsidies (although yes they should be cut as well), but:

      Social Security
      Medicare
      Defense

      The big ticket items of state government spending are education and health cate (mainly Medicaid).

    6. Re:Hey congress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, but they have lobbyists, you see, and if I cut those they won't send Jennifer over to my office in the afternoons anymore.

  27. Partially correct. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    It is true that within budget cutting they are being stupid (political) about it and probably more interesting in the number of programs they can claim they killed because that makes a nice talking point.

    The REALITY is that all this spending could continue at this level if we funded it. We have less economy to produce the revenue and that is a HUGE reason for the recent shortfalls -- its not merely wasteful spending (which is a big factor) but the other HUGE issue is going largely ignored. The banksters caused this economic mess which blew a ton of money besides the bailout they also received (and have since payed back although it caused a lot of inflation but that is another issue.) The military complex and the recent wars for oil also have big financial interests (yup, the banksters again.) Then we have the foolish bush tax cuts which were trickle down all over again with slightly different wording and cost about the same as the wars (so we have double the debt instead.) Today we are still hearing the 30 year old trickle down BS but wrapped in terms of job creation by trickle down (which is the same thing as before but talking about jobs instead of prosperity. So, we've come down a peg in that JOBS are what we want now when in the 80s we wanted more prosperity.)

    Another thing people forget is Obama put the military into the budget. Bush did not have it in the budget (100% pure debt.) This makes the numbers much higher under Obama than Bush because it is finally part of the "math". As far as the economy getting better-- as too much money is robbed from the actual economy the ability to rebuild it becomes diminished. Oddly, even republicans are bitching about fixing the economy -- as if they concede the government plays a major role but without them flatly admitting it.

    What is going on and will continue to go on until the collapse in about a decade is an auctioning off of as much of our assets as possible. There isn't much a small group can do about it, it will take collective action and that won't happen until the masses can't ignore it and learn a little bit.... at that time it will be too late to regain what was lost. The comeback after the fall is going to be long and hard -- don't think it'll ever get back to the 90s because that is impossible. If we didn't go astray all this time we'd still peak because the world is catching up and a big part of our "edge" was having them behind us (which is where our incentive to screw the world came from; the public doesn't like that so we didn't overtly do it.)

    It is quite likely our collateral for our huge debt is medicare and social security so those two will gutted in an emergency foreclosure... like the greeks are dealing with (loosely like that.) will we have riots when they gut it? i don't think so.

    We get distracted. hate union workers because they get too much or government workers... who just don't fall down as quickly as the rest do and that is why they are still at older levels of compensation and benefits; its not that they are getting too much (they are getting less actually) its that everybody on the outside is getting MUCH LESS. I remember the autoworker hate, they had many old clever contracts which adjusted for inflation and kept health benefits-- if the economy actually prospered they'd be at the same relative position 40 years ago but instead everybody else came down. Immigrants are another very human scapegoat in such situations. Its served quite well since the 80s and it continues - blame them... (not to ignore the real impacts they do have but it doesn't match the hype.)

  28. Re:One thing I've noticed about large organization by trout007 · · Score: 1

    What NASA is missing is a goal and the political will to stock with it for more than one election cycle.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  29. So many things wrong here by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    1) THis is the HOUSE's bill, not CONgress. This is the side of CONgress that is under control by neo-cons and tea* (more of the former). It still has to go through the Senate which is under Dems control.
    2) The bill attempts to pretty much kill earth Sciences esp. that devoted to Climate Change.
    3) The bill attempts to pretty much kill Private Space efforts esp. CCDEV (which is about launching humans into space).
    4) The bill attempts to pretty much kill interplanetary space efforts.
    So, what will there be?
    THe SLS. They want all of the money to flow to the Communist Jobs bill called SLS, otherwise, known as Senate Launch System. Needless to say that this bill will die as it sits. But it shows where neo-cons/tea* are coming from. They prefer putting money into their friends pockets, rather than allowing true competition to exists. The USA will be damned if they control CONgress and WH ever again.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  30. Part of the game and everybody does it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you get away with cost overruns then you will sell things below cost and get the rest the money later by "mistake." Hell, I've done it a bit when I did IT work-- the cheap bastards wouldn't have a clue they must spend X so I'd give a lower quote and chalk it up under maintenance or something. Actually, now and then the management would mislabel something to get the budget to work out in the end; even more odd when they made the budget and should realize it doesn't come out clean -- simply adjust it and maybe next year it'll all be closer to fitting... (this was also a problem when they'd see "free" money in 1 area then waste it only to later wish they had it to use in another area for something more critical.)

  31. Funding JWST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our politicians (aka "leaders") are greasing this counties slide into oblivion. We could pay for JWST if we fired about half the staffers that service congress. But why stop there?

  32. Eliminate the "war" on drugs by hawguy · · Score: 1

    If they'd eliminate the "war" on drugs, I daresay they could save some money in the DOJ budget by reducing the DEA and Federal prison system budgets, and they'd gain tax revenue by taxing recreational drugs.

  33. !obama by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

    Whoever tagged this story "obama" either doesn't realize that the House is controlled by Republicans, not Obama (the Democratic president) - or they're just another lying Republican blaming their party's worst behavior on someone else, usually a Democrat and especially a Democratic president.

    Republicans. Not Obama.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:!obama by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Whoever tagged this story "obama" either doesn't realize that the House is controlled by Republicans, not Obama (the Democratic president) - or they're just another lying Republican blaming their party's worst behavior on someone else, usually a Democrat and especially a Democratic president.

      Republicans. Not Obama.

      And they seem to have missed this in TFA:

      NASA is funded at $16.8 billion in the bill, which is $1.6 billion below last year’s level and $1.9 billion below the President’s request. This funding includes:

      So Obama requested a $300M increase in NASA funding.

  34. There is a free market solution! by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

    For all you that are concern about cutting this program, we are confident that job-creating entrepreneurs will continue to fund this effort. Given that markets have dried here on Earth, venture capitalist will used this telescope to search for new markets in other star systems. We can help this further if we cut taxes to zero on those making $250,000 or more. Don't listen to the other side, the founding fathers never wanted the federal government to fund space programs. They clearly stated that sole purpose of the American government is to defend this nation by perpetual warfare and not promoting scientific development. Also remember, the federal budget is exactly like your home budget. If the federal government does not spend money, then we will never have a deficit and the free market will rain gold in your pockets. Thank you and God bless America.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  35. Quit Complaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have the best politicians that money can buy. Quit complaining. We put these bums in office, and we deserve what we got.

  36. Re:One thing I've noticed about large organization by tibit · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I don't know, I'm working with an electrical engineer "close to retirement" with plenty of previous big project / corporate experience, and the guy is a joy to work with and there's a shitload of stuff I'm learning from him. Of course it's just an anecdote. Even the "bureaucracy" aspects of his experience are useful. We seriously needed some insight into product lifecycle management, and the guy just came knowing all this, knowing what worked well and what was a pain in the butt, etc., all from front-line experience in a corporate environment. YMMV...

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  37. SPACE TELESCOPE?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a waste of money! If'n the bible says so, then Goddidit and that's good enough for me! Yer science was made by Satan to deceive us all!

  38. Re:One thing I've noticed about large organization by arse+maker · · Score: 2

    People fixate on the human space program too much. NASA has had an almost constant string of fantastic science missions since Apollo.

    No one wants to pay to put people into LEO, hell people were bored of the Moon landings after a couple of missions.

  39. Why the budget overruns? by wisebabo · · Score: 2

    Look, I really REALLY love NASA's unmanned science programs and would think it would be a crying shame if they cut the JWST at this point but what is wrong with the budgeting process if they get it off by a factor of four? (so I've heard). Should they first launch a small prototype test mission to evaluate the technologies or something? Or were they putting the wrong people in charge of budgeting? Are they scientists who may be brilliant in their fields but not skilled at project forecasting or bureaucrats who might be looking to please their political masters? I never did like the idea that the telescope was named after a NASA administrator rather than a famous DEAD astronomer, it seemed a bit too self-serving. Maybe this is expensive poetic justice; instead I guess they could've named it the Carl Sagan Space Telescope to look at "billions and billions" of stars.

    Anyway, it would be a shame to see this cancelled after they've spent so much and even finished the mirrors. (I know, sunk-costs fallacy). Of course if they taxed the rich (top execs got 23% more in the last YEAR while average income has stayed flat for the last DECADE) appropriately we would be more likely to afford things like the JWST cost overruns or not.

  40. a scam! by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

    the us is behaving like a person who is running a wildly successful scam on everyone and just wants to grab as much much money as they can before the whole thing collapses, future long-term benefit be dammed.

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    1. Re:a scam! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      It took a while, but people are starting to realise that the US economy has been a pyramid scheme since Reagan's tax cuts went through.

  41. Science loses again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the ENTIRE NASA budget is less than what the pentagon said they 'lost' somewhere between here and Iraq?

  42. JWST conforms to the universe by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Redshift 13 or so is where the galaxy formation action is so JWST is a successor to HST in terms of chasing the universe into the red. Do you really want all the trouble of a cold mirror for a UV telescope? Better to go for surface quality I think.

  43. James Webb [ST] is Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the demise of hte Super Collider, Space Transportation System and now the James Webb Space Telescope, the United States of America enters an era that Spain entered after 1492.

    We all know well what happened to Span and its citizens after that for the next 508 years!

    Better to be "Leaving" the U.S.A. than "Entering" the U.S.A., given the TSA's mandate to administer rectum, vagina and penis orthoscopic tests and "taste" and "demonstration of function" tests on U.S.A. citizens traveling by airline carriors.

    Toodles from the Merry EU.

    --

    1. Re:James Webb [ST] is Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the demise of hte Super Collider, Space Transportation System and now the James Webb Space Telescope, the United States of America enters an era that Spain entered after 1492.

      We all know well what happened to Span and its citizens after that for the next 508 years!

      They entered a golden age that lasted well over a hundred years. Sounds like a good plan to me!

  44. Possibly good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect this comment will be buried as I post AC, but . . .

    The JWST is actually not favoured by a lot of astronomers. It's budget has gotten so large that it is threatening a lot of other arguably more valuable projects.

  45. Just rename the space telescope by HW_Hack · · Score: 1

    Just rename it the Ronald Reagan Space Telescope and poof the House of Reps will support it

    --
    Its not the years, its the mileage .....
    1. Re:Just rename the space telescope by md65536 · · Score: 1

      Just rename it the Ronald Reagan Space Telescope and poof the House of Reps will support it

      "We don't like the word 'telescope'. Too elitist. Can we go with the Ronald Reagan Space War Freedomer?"

  46. Who cares? by IrquiM · · Score: 1

    US defaults in less than a month anyway

    --
    This is blinging
  47. NASA is seriously f***ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm all for the DoD getting into space if it can sufficiently frighten America's enemies for the $$ we put in. But what can NASA do if it can't fund what it does best: long term unmanned science missions? I thought the Webb telescope was a done deal and almost ready. Is it now apparently like Boston's "big dig", a money pit?

  48. James Webb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't know who this James Webb is, but why should my tax dollars buy him a telescope? That's socialism!

  49. Instant fix by the magic President! by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It looks like a couple of decades of cuts to education funding have taken their toll going by some of the posts here and expectations of magic or similar bullshit. It doesn't have to be that way because you can find things out on your own and improve your own education.
    It's going to take a long time for the USA to climb out of the hole it is in no matter who is in charge.

  50. No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists are using Christian taxpayer dollars to advance their secular agenda by building devices designed to question God's account of the Creation. This is an abomination that must be stopped.

  51. WTF? by Urkki · · Score: 1

    Just.. WTF? So much money spent, and now (about to be) flushed down the drain? So much things we would have learnt, and now will not.

    Publicly available science output of NASA (and others) has been a big positive impact on the world, to offset all the bomb dropping, meddling and invasion stunts US has pulled since WW2. I hope they reconsider, because this aspect of positive global PR value is bigger than many USians think. Space is something which can really bring the peoples of Earth together, at least for now, because it's something unreachable and can't yield real resources - there's not much money at stake. At this rate, I'll soon be actually rooting for China to take the lead in science and technology.

  52. Stop posturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As a scientist"
    "As a physicist"
    "As a NASA/JPL employee"

    always followed with something extremely idiotic.

    The JWST was well on its way ("in the final design and fabrication phase"), it makes no fucking sense to drop it now. So go fuck yourself, mister NASA important guy, your "as someone who works on several NASA science mission directorate missions" doesn't make your post less stupid and loathsome.

  53. So we should fund over budget and badly managed by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    projects just because "science" is part of it?

    Congress is going after the telescope because the project is turning into or already is a boondoggle.

    War and Destruction are not the top budget concerns, they are far down the list below Welfare and other Entitlements that elected officials use to directly buy votes so they can stay in office. Right below Welfare and Entitlements are tax breaks and special development rules for the big businesses which fund the campaigns. Then you might find your wars and such.

    Still I will agree with science being near the bottom, but how many votes does it generate?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:So we should fund over budget and badly managed by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Sunk costs is important here. We've already spent several billion dollars on the telescope. Now we have the choice to either spend a couple billion more and have the most advanced telescope in the known universe, or save that couple billion and have a bunch of useless parts in a warehouse somewhere. The money that's already been spent, has already been spent.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  54. If we cut half the military by mykos · · Score: 1

    We could cut our military spending in half and still be the world's top spender. Shit, we could cut 90% and we'd still be in the top five.

  55. Commercial Sponsorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just rename it:
    The Steve Jobs Space Telescope - they will contractually have need to point it back at Earth and you will only be able to watch the videos in Quicktime.
    The Google Telescope - it will be upgraded to watch the ants in your garden for marketing purposes and only the most popular stars and planets will be seen.
    The Microsoft Telescope - can't wait for Service Pack 4 and the "Configuring Updates 3 of 3 - please do not switch off your telescope" hang.

  56. To save it, rename it by indytx · · Score: 1

    To save it, rename it the Ronald Reagan Space Telescope,

    --
    Make love, not reality television.
  57. Problem with Name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the tea baggers probably think it's named after congressman James Webb, and not the NASA administrator, so it goes on the same cut list as the NEA, DOE, etc.
     
    Just name it after Reagan, and they'll triple its funding. Hell, they'll probably add lasers, nukes, and guest quarters.

  58. kill the manned space program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. Kill the 'Orion' rocket too. The meat sacks in orbiting tin cans do not contribute to science. Telescopes and probes do contribute.

    Eliminate the meat sacks, and future cuts will be acts against science, and not this human crap.

  59. ESA Herschel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Webb is a duplication of effort and not needed. Besides, Hubble has produced so much data it will take decades of work to analyze the data. But what we really need is a solution to our energy needs which I don't see NASA giving us. Choose. You can't have it all. Realistically, we don't NEED NASA. If you think so, then PROVE IT.

  60. I told you so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's more important to spend 20 billion dollars on airco for your stormtroopers in Middle East rather than to invest it in your dilapidated space program.

    http://gizmodo.com/5813257/air-conditioning-our-military-costs-more-than-nasas-entire-budget

    The only place you yanks will ever fly is to the hell!

  61. Virgin Galactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need a philanthropist to just step in, take over the project, and task Virgin Galactic with deploying the thing in orbit. Searching for planets which could sustain life doesn't need to be the government's job. Do we really want the government to determine what they let us know about anyway? I'm sure people like me would also gladly donate money to such a project as long as their reports to the SEC show that the money isn't being diverged to Vegas hookers.

  62. Economy is not the Administration by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    The administration in power is not somehow magically responsible for the economy. On slashdot, of all places, we should know better. Can we stop parroting the commentators who pretend the economy is a game of tug-of-war between administrations? *Nobody* wants the economy to collapse.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Economy is not the Administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "*Nobody* wants the economy to collapse."

      I think there are people who don't care if it collapses as long as they think they'll get their pensions and cush union jobs.

  63. Actually, no by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately for the USPTO, congress took 100 million when the 2011 budget finally passed.

    http://www.postgrant.com/2011/04/uspto-budget-cuts-affect-patent-operations.html

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  64. Why is this marked troll? by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    Just wondering because the original 5 - Insightful post has already been debunked many times that he posted bad data. All the posts that show otherwise have mysteriously been down ranked or marked troll?

  65. Law of Diminished Returns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No replacement for the Space Shuttle, and now no replacement for the Hubble. That should fix about, oh, 0.01% of our budget and debt problems. Now about those wars half-way around the world ...

  66. Dump arts funding; now there's Webb funding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's quite simple, actually. Cut off funding for purely non-essentials, such as the arst, and presto! Now you have funding for for worth while, essential projects like the Webb telescope.

    Done. Nuf said.

  67. That's an unbelievably irresponsible attitude. by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    There's a pretty simple way to deal with Medicare spending in the future (note: it's not "entitlements" --- Social Security does not share Medicare's cost growth). Basically, leave it to the future

    That's an unbelievably irresponsible attitude.

    Medicare's unfunded liabilites are $89 TRILLION (source: 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports). In other words, $89 trillion in future obligations, for which we currently have no idea where the money will come. If that doesn't qualify as an existential threat to the United States, I don't know what does. This number should terrorize you much more than al Qaeda ever did. It does me.

    When this hits the fan, no one can say they hadn't been warned -- this coming disaster is a "known known."

    The only way out is a massive reform of the program, and soon. Yes, Paul Ryan's plan qualifies. Hope you're not a partisan who automatically rejects any idea thought up by a Republican.

    When Lyndon Johnson created the Medicare program, he was seduced by cost projections that were orders of magnitude too small. Love him or hate him, the man didn't have a death wish for his country's economy, so it's safe to say that he wouldn't have touched the Medicare idea with a 10 foot pole if he had known the true costs of the beast it would grow into.

    "Leaving it to the future" will make the unfunded liability grow larger, faster (and obviously, to reach $89 trillion it has already undergone massive exponential growth). You don't have kids or grandkids, do you? If you do, your cavalier attitude about saddling them with unthinkable burdens is akin to child abuse.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:That's an unbelievably irresponsible attitude. by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      It's not a Medicare issue, it's a healthcare issue. If the govt isn't paying for it, we'll be paying for it out of our own pockets, or just suffering and dying. Medicare costs have actually risen slower than healthcare costs generally. Putting everyone on Medicare would reduce the overall costs of healthcare to the economy. It's a pretty basic comparison between buying wholesale and buying retail. Then again, plenty of healthcare providers couldn't even meet their base costs if they had to rely solely on Medicare.

      It is certainly a genuinely big problem, but 'fixing' Medicare doesn't do squat to address the core issue.

  68. Military spending as a percent of GDP: a rethink by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    It's ridiculous to measure military spending as a percent of GDP.

    It's not entirely ridiculous. Comparing certain categories of spending against a total budget lets you know whether that category is becoming more affordable.

    Over the past few decades, technology and productivity gains have made just about everything more affordable. Example: when a typical family dropped $2000 on an Apple ][e in 1983, that was perhaps 7% of their annual income, but when a typical family spends $1000 on a MacBook in 2011, it's only perhaps 1% of their annual income. Similarly, the fraction of family budgets spent on staples like milk and bread has been dropping. The net result of all this is more funds left over for luxuries that previous generations could rarely afford. That, in a nutshell, is progress.

    Now scale the concept up to the national budget. Expressing it as a percent of GDP shows that defense, too, has become more affordable. (You can argue that we should have taken a bigger "peace dividend" when the cold war ended, and I might agree with you on that, but that's not the point. The point is, calculating the percent of GDP devoted to defense is not entirely ridiculous.)

    So. We've seen that defense, like most other things, has become more affordable. Just about the only thing that hasn't become more affordable over the years is the non-defense portion of government. And that, my friend, is a huge problem. Here's the part of my post that will elicit derision from some readers: creeping socialism is to blame. But really... if you can think of anywhere else to place the blame for the indisputable fact that non-defense government spending, both in absolute terms and as a percent of GDP, is out of control, I'm all ears.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  69. Positive effects of axing this program by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Yes, most programs overpromise to some extent. However, "but mom, everybody's doing it!" is hardly a defense.

    I hate to see JWST go, but there's a potential silver lining to this. Here's how I hope it goes down: if the worst offenders, like JWST, get the axe, it will cause the surviving programs to become cost-conscious, lest they suffer the same fate. In the end, our science dollars will have accomplished more than if all programs had received an unconditional blank check. Not really a paradox if you think about it.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  70. maybe it would sell better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as the "jack web telescope"?

  71. Let's THINK about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ground-based telescopes can now equal or exceed even the Webb telescope. Robots can beat or far exceed what humans in space can do for a tiny fraction of the cost and none of the risk. What's wrong with applying logic to this discussion?