It's unlikely they'd ever run the life-support so close to the bone that the crew can't wait in the capsule for the fumes to dissipate. (But, worst case, it wouldn't be difficult to include some small oxygen tanks/masks to allow the crew to get far enough up-wind of the fumes, assuming they've landed too far away from the recovery team due to an emergency decent.)
So even if this is a problem, it's not actually a problem.
Some would say strategic voting is still possible with Instant Runoff Voting
But it would be a very weird election where it was useful. Look at the scenarios created to demonstrate strategic voting under IRV, then change "Candidate A, B, C" to actual parties. The scenario usually falls apart.
Australia has pencil-and-paper voting and we still get to have live results TV coverage. The only time we don't get a same-day result is when it comes down to one seat, and it's within the margin of postal-ballots. (Or recently, when neither party got a majority and the independents took their sweet fucking time deciding who to support.)
Although I would suggest the US separates Federal, State and Local elections to different times of year, and where possible, different years. That would make things easier both for voters and for counters.
You need to drill down into the history behind the issue. Conservatives are easier to motivate to vote, and almost only vote Republican. Groups that are easy to discourage (young, black, poor) tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat. High turn-out elections favour Democrats, low turn-out elections favour Republicans.
Hence the Republican powers-that-be tend to (quite rightly) see voter registration drives, "Rock The Vote", "Vote or Die", as a pro-Democrat mechanism. So they push back by making voting more difficult. Hell, I saw a conservative editorial recently describing voter-registration drives and anything that encourages voting as "anti-democratic".
Hence the push for voter-ID systems. And it polls well with non-Republicans, as an anti-fraud measure, making it easy to hide their real intent. (Along with less publicised anti Voter Registration Drive measures, like making it effectively illegal to hand out voter registration forms, etc.)
Here in Australia, we have mandatory voting (well, mandatory turning-up-and-getting-your-name-crossed-off, you can still leave your ballot blank). There's a $50 fine for non-voting, although it's apparently easy to get out of. And we have over 95% turnout at Federal and State elections. The left-wing party supports mandatory voting, the right-wing party opposes it. For exactly the same reasons, and with each using exactly the same poll-friendly lies to defend their positions.
This is all part of the long and nasty history of efforts to keep the "wrong" group from voting.
What did you have in mind when you suggested self funding military?
A joke. The old gag of misunderstanding what someone is saying and, to their horror, "crediting" them with the exact opposite of what they want.
Plundering and e-bay?
Well, the US was accused of invading Iraq only to "steal its oil". By denying it, you only looked like liars as well as thieves. So perhaps in a weird kind of way, there's a greater integrity to simply conduct it as an openly profit making venture. It would have given a clear time-line for withdrawal, cost+profit. Everyone's on the same page. Resistance adds cost to the published total. Cooperation pays it down faster.
But an explicit separate tax about half of all income tax just for wars would be a great thing. Nothing would reign in the military industrial complex faster than people seeing how much it takes to run it and having it come out of their check in a visible manner.
Not the "self-funding" I meant. But okay, seriously, I've heard people suggest that. Personally, I'd separate corporate income tax, along with cap gains, deferred interest and the other 15% tax dodges, into a stand-alone budget paying for the Defense, Homeland Security, and so on. With a decadal average balanced-budget rule (ie, a floating ten year average must be balanced, it allows for economic cycles, but doesn't allow for offsetting back to the "civilian" budget via debt.).
Given that most recruits are from lower down the income scale, they already have "skin in the game". So this draws a clear link between those who financially benefit from military/law-enforcement spending and the cost.
Between WWII and 1980, the growth in the median family income matched the growth in GDP almost perfectly. Ie, double the size of the GDP, double the median family income. What was good for America was good for Americans.
Between 1980 and 2000, after the switch to "supply-side" economics, there was a disconnect between GDP and most of the population. Ie, double the size of the GDP, only 20% rise in median family income and most of that near the beginning. Only the wealthiest 10%, then only the wealthiest 1%, fully gained from the rise in GDP.
Between 2000 and the crash, the benefit contracted even further. Only the top 0.1% saw income growth. Even those between 99 and 99.9% had flat incomes (in constant dollar terms), along with everyone else below them. (Since the recovery, I suspect it has contracted even further.) The "Occupy" movement is at least a decade out of date, We Are The 99.9%, and possibly the 99.99%
At the same time, and probably because of that very economic disconnect, intergeneration wealth fluidity has fallen off a cliff. That is, if you look at people in any income bracket, they are less and less likely to be born to parents who weren't already in that income bracket. It's harder for the bright and hard working to rise in society, and it's easier for the dull and lazy to retain their station. The American Dream (that anyone with an ounce of talent and a bucket of moxie can make it) has ended. And I suspect that the failure to capitalise on a generation of talent in the lower ranks is the reason for America's decline.
So I would say that supply-side economics has resoundingly failed to deliver what it promised. Over 30 years of slavishly giving the Chicago-school-of-economics boys everything they wanted, the US is in the toilet. (Remember the whole point of Reagan's "deficits don't matter" was that supply-side economics would perpetually increase revenues to more than compensate for the tax cuts. Didn't happen.)
this Keynesian type of thinking is exactly what turns a recession into a depression.
Average length of recessions/depressions pre-WWI was 22 months. Between WWI and WWII they averaged 18 months. After WWII, they averaged 11 months. Thus the average duration of recessions was cut in half because of counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy.
Average length of growth phases between recessions pre-WWI was 27 months. Between WWI and WWII they averaged 35 months. And after WWII, they averaged 50 months. The average length of the growth phase was nearly doubled because of counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy.
I'm not sure why this stuff is so hard to grasp. Counter-cycling made things better. Supply-side made things worse. QED.
Doesn't that just amplify the troll's point? Ctrl-c, ctrl-v is a hell of a lot less typing than "(yes it's a link to my blog but typing is very difficult for me so I don't want to repeat myself)."
A Lunar base is a fine goal, when the economy is not in a shitter
Actually, while debt is cheap (low interest) and unemployment high (low inflation) is precisely when stupid big government projects are wise. When the economy is healthy and unemployment low is when the government should be paying down debt and reducing spending.
It's called counter-cycling. 'Tis even in the bible. Save in the fat years for the lean years.
The problem is that Republican Presidents (particularly Reagan and Dubya) tend to borrow and spend like crazy, even in the good years, especially in the good years. (Bush Sr is the exception, he tried to curtail spending, Clinton (with Gingrich in Congress) almost succeeded. There even was concern amongst the money-men in the late 1990's that the US would pay off its debt entirely by 2012. Then Bush Jr got elected.)
My guess is China will draw a line in the sand and say *No more money for you until you pay back what you already owe.*
China owns about 8% of US Federal debt. (Over 70% is owned by US citizens, companies and funds.) And it's entirely in fixed-term Treasury bonds. They get paid when the bond expires, with interest at the rate it says on the bond. And bonds are only paid in US dollars. The only way to "call in" the debt is to sell the bonds on the open market to other buyers, which would flood the market and massively decrease their value (to China). At which point the Treasury would buy them up at fire-sale prices. (Which the Treasury is doing. Effectively converting existing higher-interest bonds into low-interest bonds. Saving money in the long term.)
All China can do is stop buying. Which they have. (Well, they are still buying some, but they aren't full replacing the bonds that mature). And yet the interest on bonds is about as low as it gets, which means there's loads of others buying, which means no one is concerned that China isn't buying US debt.
The low interest rate on bonds means the US is flush with would-be debt buyers. Honestly, the best thing the US could do right now is borrow as much as possible while the price is so incredibly low. (And unemployment so high. Which means spending on massive infrastructure programs (via debt) wouldn't be inflationary.)
Oh, and the Treasury registers every bond owner, and can decide who buys or sells US bonds, even on the open market. It can therefore selectively cancel bonds. Normally it wouldn't, but if China tried to do something publicly obnoxious, like trying to use debt to blackmail the US, the Treasury could selectively cancel Chinese owned bonds without spooking the bond market because international traders would know that China walked into it. China, not being stupid, would not set themselves up like that.
You're thinking too far into the future of the program-- I'm talking about conception,
No, you're thinking about something that only ever existed in your head. The STS was never intended to be a passenger-only vehicle. They never "gutted the seats & called it a cargo hold."
And there's nothing in that link that backs up anything you said. The shuttle was always intended to be a low cost space truck. Nixon even used that term in meetings.
Tidal forces from the moon are slowing the Earth's rotation. In a few billion years, the Earth will become tidally locked. At that point the moon will stop creeping away (and start creeping inwards, much more slowly, due to the loss of energy via gravitational waves).
Do some research on Citizens United and their Supreme Court victory, overturning a (weak) attempt to limit corporate donations in elections. Find out how your Dad feels about SuperPACs and the lobbyist-driven corruption of politics. For example, does he believe the core parts of the Citizens United decision? That corporations are people, and that money is the same as speech? Does he believe that things have gotten worse since that decision? Don't be partisan, yet, it's okay if he blames Democrats, or believes "both sides are as bad". You just want to get him thinking about it, angry about it.
Then, a week or so later, "just discover" that the Supreme Court decision was 5/4 along party lines. Ie, the 5 Republican appointees voted for Citizens United, including the two Bush appointees. The 4 Democrat appointees voted against it, including Obama's appointee. Then point out that there'll likely be at least one more retirement in the next four years, possibly two. So whoever the next President is, his appointments will set the tone of the court for at least a decade.
Then research some more 5/4 decisions. Bring them up whenever it seems appropriate, over the next few months. Make the same point about retirements in the next four years.
Nothing Obama does is more important. Without the Supreme Court, trying to reform anything in Congress will be overturned by the Court. You need to win the Court first.
I'm pretty sure that companies like Lockheed Martin and McDonnell-Douglas would *love* to have gobs and gobs of cash being spent on the Aerospace industry. They'd make off like bandits. By your logic, wouldn't it make more sense to back somebody like Gingrich who wants to build a permanent manned presence on the moon by 2020? You do realize how much money that would entail for the aerospace industry? So why are they backing a candidate who says that this would be a waste of money, and that we should focus our research efforts elsewhere at the moment?
Romney will do what he's told, and that means that NASA's budget goes to the current "Primes", and so-called "Commercial" space will be de-funded (COTS/CCDev). Gingrich wants to change the system, and as President he might succeed. And that change may benefit someone other than the existing Primes. In the long term, I think Boeing would do brilliantly under a more competitive industry, LM/MD might not but they need the shake up. But they aren't thinking long term, they want to preserve what they have, and that means a tame candidate like Romney being influenced by a jackass like Mike Griffin.
(Example: Gingrich wants "Prizes" for the big risky stuff like Moon and Mars. All the risk is on the company, and some young innovative company might slip in and snatch it by doing something clever. The Primes want conventional cost-plus contracts. All the risk is on the government and no young clever company has any chance of scoring a major contract. Gingrich also wants to streamline NASA, which probably means closing under-utilised centres (NASA and its contractors are ridiculously spread over the US), which reduces the influence of the Primes over NASA policy.)
It really is rather frightening what passes for conservatism in the US.
Yeah, you want to say how radical the conservatives are, but...
seriously, why is public health care even on the political landscape in your country? it was done decades ago everywhere else in the world
There's a kind of wilful ignorance in the US, which I guess comes from the US's former greatness. Americans just don't realise how bad they have it, which makes them vulnerable to lies. (For example, Veterans hospitals are the most efficient medical providers in the US, and one of the most efficient systems in the world. It should be the model for all health reform. Yet it's a mantra amongst Republican candidates that "VA could be made more efficient by switching to a voucher system" (although they are increasingly using other words as codes for "voucher"), and they did introduce a voluntary voucher system for Medicare which turned out to be hideously inefficient.)
And it's fanned by the propaganda wing of the US Right, such as Fox News, WSJ, etc, which constantly wage war against anyone who knows anything. Where "expert" is a swearword. Where people who want policies that benefit the country, but not themselves, are denounced as "Hypocrites".
Australia has a population of 21 million, which would make it the third largest state in the US, if we joined. Personally, I think it would do wonders for the US to have us.
"And why pick on SS when the military is larger and not self-[funding]?"
Hmmm... so you're saying we should make the military self-funding? Interesting idea. There'll be implementation issues, but... no no, you're right, it's definitely the way ahead. In fact I think we should forever name this policy after you - "The Marc Doctrine"... Now now, don't be modest...
Except Gingrich is being consistent to things he's talked about since the '80s. (I recall picking up his "Window of Opportunity" in the mid-Eighties. (Second hand, $2.) It was fully of stuff like that.)
The guys backing Romney, like Mike Griffin, are lobbyists for the current major aerospace players, like ATK, who don't want change. They have lobbied ruthlessly against any changes to improve NASA, or build a more competitive low-cost commercial launch industry. It's no wonder they are backing Romney. He will do what he's told.
Or maybe... they accept the idea that we (as a country) would be better off postponing something like that until we can afford it, despite how badly they would like to see it done. It's like deciding between saving/investing your money and going out drinking. One makes you happy now and the other makes you happy later.
And yet Mike Griffin, as NASA Administrator, chose to go out drinking. He proposed a giant Saturn V style rocket that NASA didn't have the funding or experience to build. When Obama tried to cancel it, he lobbied ruthlessly for his employer to save it (as SLS), again even though NASA can't afford it, and even though that it has excluded any funding for actual missions/payloads for the SLS. Their petty dickery has gotten to the point where the House Republicans tried to zero funding for the Commercial-Crew Development program, because they see it as a potential low-cost rival to their emplo... I mean donors.
Griffin, and the OMG Big Fucking Rocket faction, have precisely chosen what makes employers happy now, over what will grow the industry in the long term.
Slashdot Mirror
It's unlikely they'd ever run the life-support so close to the bone that the crew can't wait in the capsule for the fumes to dissipate. (But, worst case, it wouldn't be difficult to include some small oxygen tanks/masks to allow the crew to get far enough up-wind of the fumes, assuming they've landed too far away from the recovery team due to an emergency decent.)
So even if this is a problem, it's not actually a problem.
Sir, I've met Al Gore, and you're no Al Gore.
Some would say strategic voting is still possible with Instant Runoff Voting
But it would be a very weird election where it was useful. Look at the scenarios created to demonstrate strategic voting under IRV, then change "Candidate A, B, C" to actual parties. The scenario usually falls apart.
The election day revenue could replace taxes.
Australia has pencil-and-paper voting and we still get to have live results TV coverage. The only time we don't get a same-day result is when it comes down to one seat, and it's within the margin of postal-ballots. (Or recently, when neither party got a majority and the independents took their sweet fucking time deciding who to support.)
Although I would suggest the US separates Federal, State and Local elections to different times of year, and where possible, different years. That would make things easier both for voters and for counters.
special interests
You need to drill down into the history behind the issue. Conservatives are easier to motivate to vote, and almost only vote Republican. Groups that are easy to discourage (young, black, poor) tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat. High turn-out elections favour Democrats, low turn-out elections favour Republicans.
Hence the Republican powers-that-be tend to (quite rightly) see voter registration drives, "Rock The Vote", "Vote or Die", as a pro-Democrat mechanism. So they push back by making voting more difficult. Hell, I saw a conservative editorial recently describing voter-registration drives and anything that encourages voting as "anti-democratic".
Hence the push for voter-ID systems. And it polls well with non-Republicans, as an anti-fraud measure, making it easy to hide their real intent. (Along with less publicised anti Voter Registration Drive measures, like making it effectively illegal to hand out voter registration forms, etc.)
Here in Australia, we have mandatory voting (well, mandatory turning-up-and-getting-your-name-crossed-off, you can still leave your ballot blank). There's a $50 fine for non-voting, although it's apparently easy to get out of. And we have over 95% turnout at Federal and State elections. The left-wing party supports mandatory voting, the right-wing party opposes it. For exactly the same reasons, and with each using exactly the same poll-friendly lies to defend their positions.
This is all part of the long and nasty history of efforts to keep the "wrong" group from voting.
Oh don't be stupid. ZX-32 is a boys name, she'll be teased.
What did you have in mind when you suggested self funding military?
A joke. The old gag of misunderstanding what someone is saying and, to their horror, "crediting" them with the exact opposite of what they want.
Plundering and e-bay?
Well, the US was accused of invading Iraq only to "steal its oil". By denying it, you only looked like liars as well as thieves. So perhaps in a weird kind of way, there's a greater integrity to simply conduct it as an openly profit making venture. It would have given a clear time-line for withdrawal, cost+profit. Everyone's on the same page. Resistance adds cost to the published total. Cooperation pays it down faster.
But an explicit separate tax about half of all income tax just for wars would be a great thing. Nothing would reign in the military industrial complex faster than people seeing how much it takes to run it and having it come out of their check in a visible manner.
Not the "self-funding" I meant. But okay, seriously, I've heard people suggest that. Personally, I'd separate corporate income tax, along with cap gains, deferred interest and the other 15% tax dodges, into a stand-alone budget paying for the Defense, Homeland Security, and so on. With a decadal average balanced-budget rule (ie, a floating ten year average must be balanced, it allows for economic cycles, but doesn't allow for offsetting back to the "civilian" budget via debt.).
Given that most recruits are from lower down the income scale, they already have "skin in the game". So this draws a clear link between those who financially benefit from military/law-enforcement spending and the cost.
Between WWII and 1980, the growth in the median family income matched the growth in GDP almost perfectly. Ie, double the size of the GDP, double the median family income. What was good for America was good for Americans.
Between 1980 and 2000, after the switch to "supply-side" economics, there was a disconnect between GDP and most of the population. Ie, double the size of the GDP, only 20% rise in median family income and most of that near the beginning. Only the wealthiest 10%, then only the wealthiest 1%, fully gained from the rise in GDP.
Between 2000 and the crash, the benefit contracted even further. Only the top 0.1% saw income growth. Even those between 99 and 99.9% had flat incomes (in constant dollar terms), along with everyone else below them. (Since the recovery, I suspect it has contracted even further.) The "Occupy" movement is at least a decade out of date, We Are The 99.9%, and possibly the 99.99%
At the same time, and probably because of that very economic disconnect, intergeneration wealth fluidity has fallen off a cliff. That is, if you look at people in any income bracket, they are less and less likely to be born to parents who weren't already in that income bracket. It's harder for the bright and hard working to rise in society, and it's easier for the dull and lazy to retain their station. The American Dream (that anyone with an ounce of talent and a bucket of moxie can make it) has ended. And I suspect that the failure to capitalise on a generation of talent in the lower ranks is the reason for America's decline.
So I would say that supply-side economics has resoundingly failed to deliver what it promised. Over 30 years of slavishly giving the Chicago-school-of-economics boys everything they wanted, the US is in the toilet. (Remember the whole point of Reagan's "deficits don't matter" was that supply-side economics would perpetually increase revenues to more than compensate for the tax cuts. Didn't happen.)
this Keynesian type of thinking is exactly what turns a recession into a depression.
Average length of recessions/depressions pre-WWI was 22 months. Between WWI and WWII they averaged 18 months. After WWII, they averaged 11 months. Thus the average duration of recessions was cut in half because of counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy.
Average length of growth phases between recessions pre-WWI was 27 months. Between WWI and WWII they averaged 35 months. And after WWII, they averaged 50 months. The average length of the growth phase was nearly doubled because of counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy.
I'm not sure why this stuff is so hard to grasp. Counter-cycling made things better. Supply-side made things worse. QED.
Doesn't that just amplify the troll's point? Ctrl-c, ctrl-v is a hell of a lot less typing than "(yes it's a link to my blog but typing is very difficult for me so I don't want to repeat myself)."
Vote for the other side and you guarantee more of the same. So what other choice do you have?
(And hey, Obama got Kagan in, smart liberal jew. And apparently he's been getting better at playing Congress as time goes on.)
A Lunar base is a fine goal, when the economy is not in a shitter
Actually, while debt is cheap (low interest) and unemployment high (low inflation) is precisely when stupid big government projects are wise. When the economy is healthy and unemployment low is when the government should be paying down debt and reducing spending.
It's called counter-cycling. 'Tis even in the bible. Save in the fat years for the lean years.
The problem is that Republican Presidents (particularly Reagan and Dubya) tend to borrow and spend like crazy, even in the good years, especially in the good years. (Bush Sr is the exception, he tried to curtail spending, Clinton (with Gingrich in Congress) almost succeeded. There even was concern amongst the money-men in the late 1990's that the US would pay off its debt entirely by 2012. Then Bush Jr got elected.)
My guess is China will draw a line in the sand and say *No more money for you until you pay back what you already owe.*
China owns about 8% of US Federal debt. (Over 70% is owned by US citizens, companies and funds.) And it's entirely in fixed-term Treasury bonds. They get paid when the bond expires, with interest at the rate it says on the bond. And bonds are only paid in US dollars. The only way to "call in" the debt is to sell the bonds on the open market to other buyers, which would flood the market and massively decrease their value (to China). At which point the Treasury would buy them up at fire-sale prices. (Which the Treasury is doing. Effectively converting existing higher-interest bonds into low-interest bonds. Saving money in the long term.)
All China can do is stop buying. Which they have. (Well, they are still buying some, but they aren't full replacing the bonds that mature). And yet the interest on bonds is about as low as it gets, which means there's loads of others buying, which means no one is concerned that China isn't buying US debt.
The low interest rate on bonds means the US is flush with would-be debt buyers. Honestly, the best thing the US could do right now is borrow as much as possible while the price is so incredibly low. (And unemployment so high. Which means spending on massive infrastructure programs (via debt) wouldn't be inflationary.)
Oh, and the Treasury registers every bond owner, and can decide who buys or sells US bonds, even on the open market. It can therefore selectively cancel bonds. Normally it wouldn't, but if China tried to do something publicly obnoxious, like trying to use debt to blackmail the US, the Treasury could selectively cancel Chinese owned bonds without spooking the bond market because international traders would know that China walked into it. China, not being stupid, would not set themselves up like that.
The whole "China owns us" meme is retarded.
You're thinking too far into the future of the program-- I'm talking about conception,
No, you're thinking about something that only ever existed in your head. The STS was never intended to be a passenger-only vehicle. They never "gutted the seats & called it a cargo hold."
I can shart out links too, you know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program#Purpose_of_the_system
And there's nothing in that link that backs up anything you said. The shuttle was always intended to be a low cost space truck. Nixon even used that term in meetings.
Tidal forces from the moon are slowing the Earth's rotation. In a few billion years, the Earth will become tidally locked. At that point the moon will stop creeping away (and start creeping inwards, much more slowly, due to the loss of energy via gravitational waves).
Do some research on Citizens United and their Supreme Court victory, overturning a (weak) attempt to limit corporate donations in elections. Find out how your Dad feels about SuperPACs and the lobbyist-driven corruption of politics. For example, does he believe the core parts of the Citizens United decision? That corporations are people, and that money is the same as speech? Does he believe that things have gotten worse since that decision? Don't be partisan, yet, it's okay if he blames Democrats, or believes "both sides are as bad". You just want to get him thinking about it, angry about it.
Then, a week or so later, "just discover" that the Supreme Court decision was 5/4 along party lines. Ie, the 5 Republican appointees voted for Citizens United, including the two Bush appointees. The 4 Democrat appointees voted against it, including Obama's appointee. Then point out that there'll likely be at least one more retirement in the next four years, possibly two. So whoever the next President is, his appointments will set the tone of the court for at least a decade.
Then research some more 5/4 decisions. Bring them up whenever it seems appropriate, over the next few months. Make the same point about retirements in the next four years.
Nothing Obama does is more important. Without the Supreme Court, trying to reform anything in Congress will be overturned by the Court. You need to win the Court first.
I'm pretty sure that companies like Lockheed Martin and McDonnell-Douglas would *love* to have gobs and gobs of cash being spent on the Aerospace industry. They'd make off like bandits. By your logic, wouldn't it make more sense to back somebody like Gingrich who wants to build a permanent manned presence on the moon by 2020? You do realize how much money that would entail for the aerospace industry? So why are they backing a candidate who says that this would be a waste of money, and that we should focus our research efforts elsewhere at the moment?
Romney will do what he's told, and that means that NASA's budget goes to the current "Primes", and so-called "Commercial" space will be de-funded (COTS/CCDev). Gingrich wants to change the system, and as President he might succeed. And that change may benefit someone other than the existing Primes. In the long term, I think Boeing would do brilliantly under a more competitive industry, LM/MD might not but they need the shake up. But they aren't thinking long term, they want to preserve what they have, and that means a tame candidate like Romney being influenced by a jackass like Mike Griffin.
(Example: Gingrich wants "Prizes" for the big risky stuff like Moon and Mars. All the risk is on the company, and some young innovative company might slip in and snatch it by doing something clever. The Primes want conventional cost-plus contracts. All the risk is on the government and no young clever company has any chance of scoring a major contract. Gingrich also wants to streamline NASA, which probably means closing under-utilised centres (NASA and its contractors are ridiculously spread over the US), which reduces the influence of the Primes over NASA policy.)
It really is rather frightening what passes for conservatism in the US.
Yeah, you want to say how radical the conservatives are, but...
seriously, why is public health care even on the political landscape in your country? it was done decades ago everywhere else in the world
There's a kind of wilful ignorance in the US, which I guess comes from the US's former greatness. Americans just don't realise how bad they have it, which makes them vulnerable to lies. (For example, Veterans hospitals are the most efficient medical providers in the US, and one of the most efficient systems in the world. It should be the model for all health reform. Yet it's a mantra amongst Republican candidates that "VA could be made more efficient by switching to a voucher system" (although they are increasingly using other words as codes for "voucher"), and they did introduce a voluntary voucher system for Medicare which turned out to be hideously inefficient.)
And it's fanned by the propaganda wing of the US Right, such as Fox News, WSJ, etc, which constantly wage war against anyone who knows anything. Where "expert" is a swearword. Where people who want policies that benefit the country, but not themselves, are denounced as "Hypocrites".
Australia has a population of 21 million, which would make it the third largest state in the US, if we joined. Personally, I think it would do wonders for the US to have us.
I would love to see your definition of Corporate America.
Top 40 grossing US corporations? Their profits are higher than they were before the crash.
"And why pick on SS when the military is larger and not self-[funding]?"
Hmmm... so you're saying we should make the military self-funding? Interesting idea. There'll be implementation issues, but... no no, you're right, it's definitely the way ahead. In fact I think we should forever name this policy after you - "The Marc Doctrine"... Now now, don't be modest...
Except Gingrich is being consistent to things he's talked about since the '80s. (I recall picking up his "Window of Opportunity" in the mid-Eighties. (Second hand, $2.) It was fully of stuff like that.)
The guys backing Romney, like Mike Griffin, are lobbyists for the current major aerospace players, like ATK, who don't want change. They have lobbied ruthlessly against any changes to improve NASA, or build a more competitive low-cost commercial launch industry. It's no wonder they are backing Romney. He will do what he's told.
Or maybe... they accept the idea that we (as a country) would be better off postponing something like that until we can afford it, despite how badly they would like to see it done. It's like deciding between saving/investing your money and going out drinking. One makes you happy now and the other makes you happy later.
And yet Mike Griffin, as NASA Administrator, chose to go out drinking. He proposed a giant Saturn V style rocket that NASA didn't have the funding or experience to build. When Obama tried to cancel it, he lobbied ruthlessly for his employer to save it (as SLS), again even though NASA can't afford it, and even though that it has excluded any funding for actual missions/payloads for the SLS. Their petty dickery has gotten to the point where the House Republicans tried to zero funding for the Commercial-Crew Development program, because they see it as a potential low-cost rival to their emplo... I mean donors.
Griffin, and the OMG Big Fucking Rocket faction, have precisely chosen what makes employers happy now, over what will grow the industry in the long term.
Many people don't base their endorsements on a single issue!
There is one issue. That they work for him. They were hired by his campaign. And, shock horror, they endorse him.
Try heroin mixed with a mild laxative.