Nasa

[Thorne]

Perhaps I feel the marginal utility of getting internet access is very high, while the marginal utility of money spent on the space program is very low. I might also feel that many charities have better marginal utility than the space program. So its certainly consistent for someone to have internet and not support expensive space programs because they have other priorities for the money.

This is my point exactly. You, and others, feel one way about this, I feel a different way. Neither of us is necessarily right or wrong. The only thing that would be wrong is for one group to force the others to follow their agenda. So if a group wishes to give money to charity, they should be free to do so, and if another group prefers to give money to space exploration, they should be accorded the same freedom.

I think this is awfully close to a personal attack. Someone can't advocate having charities get money over space programs without being told they personally shouldn't buy internet and should instead donate the money to charity? Or being told by implication they don't care about the human race?

It was not meant as a personal attack, and I do apologize if anyone took it as such. It just bothers me when people try to tell me that I'm not doing something right because I want to spend my own money, or use my own resources, as I see fit. If anything, I was berating that kind of personality, without meaning to point any fingers.

A similar vein would be suggesting you think its a good thing to let the starving children in Africa die because you'd rather spend money on the space program than feeding them. I haven't brought this up before because I don't think its constructive, and its not the type of argument I'd normally make. However, you are making the equivalent argument in the opposite direction so now it becomes relevant.

I see your point, I honestly do, I just reject the logic of it. There have been starving children all over the world throughout history, and no amount of charity or breast-beating has done a bit of good in the end. It's just that I believe all of the off-shoots of the space program, such as medical advances, communications advances, etc., have done more to ameliorate the suffering in the world than all the charities in the world combined. Charities, for the most part, only remedy the symptoms of poverty and disease: science fights the causes, or at least the physical causes. The political causes are more endemic and entrenched, and harder still to overcome. But ultimately, throwing money at them is not the answer.

For example, suppose we could develop a sustainable habitat on a planet as hostile as Mars. Don't you think that would have a significant impact on survival at the fringes of the Sahara? And, once the initial habitat has been constructed, the resources to sustain it would come from Mars itself, or from the asteroids. There would not need to be a constant drain of resources, and in all likelihood those initial expenditures would be recovered a hundredfold, or more, once the habitat became established.

[SadisticNature]

This is my point exactly. You, and others, feel one way about this, I feel a different way. Neither of us is necessarily right or wrong. The only thing that would be wrong is for one group to force the others to follow their agenda. So if a group wishes to give money to charity, they should be free to do so, and if another group prefers to give money to space exploration, they should be accorded the same freedom.


It was not meant as a personal attack, and I do apologize if anyone took it as such. It just bothers me when people try to tell me that I'm not doing something right because I want to spend my own money, or use my own resources, as I see fit. If anything, I was berating that kind of personality, without meaning to point any fingers.


I see your point, I honestly do, I just reject the logic of it. There have been starving children all over the world throughout history, and no amount of charity or breast-beating has done a bit of good in the end. It's just that I believe all of the off-shoots of the space program, such as medical advances, communications advances, etc., have done more to ameliorate the suffering in the world than all the charities in the world combined. Charities, for the most part, only remedy the symptoms of poverty and disease: science fights the causes, or at least the physical causes. The political causes are more endemic and entrenched, and harder still to overcome. But ultimately, throwing money at them is not the answer.

For example, suppose we could develop a sustainable habitat on a planet as hostile as Mars. Don't you think that would have a significant impact on survival at the fringes of the Sahara? And, once the initial habitat has been constructed, the resources to sustain it would come from Mars itself, or from the asteroids. There would not need to be a constant drain of resources, and in all likelihood those initial expenditures would be recovered a hundredfold, or more, once the habitat became established.

You are allowed to use your own money as you see fit. But once taxes are collected by the government those taxes are no longer "your" money but the governments money. You aren't arguing about personal donations you're arguing about government spending. And your argument seems to be "I pay taxes" the government can only spend money in ways I like. Well there are people who pay taxes and don't support the military, so by that argument the US shouldn't pay for one.

[Thorne]

And your argument seems to be "I pay taxes" the government can only spend money in ways I like. Well there are people who pay taxes and don't support the military, so by that argument the US shouldn't pay for one.

No, I'm arguing that the government should spend the money in a manner which is representative of the taxpayers. Granted, certain funding must be maintained, regardless, for purposes of national security. Others, however, are discretionary, and can be handled differently. Actually, I would think that NASA would fall into both of these.

But what I would really like to see is an optional tax form, which the taxpayer can fill out if he wishes, allowing him to request where the discretionary portion of his tax money is spent. So if we assume that, say 30% of my taxes are considered (by the government) to be discretionary, I can select maybe 50% of it goes to NASA and 50% to general science funding. This could even be just guidelines, not binding in any way but giving me at least some sense that some of my tax dollars are being used as I want them to be. Probably a silly idea, and extremely doubtful that it would be implemented, but hell, I can fantasize, can't I?

[steelish]

You are allowed to use your own money as you see fit. But once taxes are collected by the government those taxes are no longer "your" money but the governments money.

Wrong. That's the current viewpoint of people who do not understand how America is really supposed to work. The government works FOR the people, and if they pass a new tax code or say $$ will be spent on a specific thing, then they are beholden to the people who elected them to spend the money in the manner they said it would be spent. It is "OUR" money because it is "OUR" government. Unfortunately, education has been twisted to the point where the true American Government process has been taught incorrectly for so long now, that even adults have a skewed view of it.

The American Government now keeps 70¢ of every $1 collected for themselves, to spend on their own expenses. Only 30¢ of each $1 collected gets distributed to the various programs.

[SadisticNature]

Wrong. That's the current viewpoint of people who do not understand how America is really supposed to work. The government works FOR the people, and if they pass a new tax code or say $$ will be spent on a specific thing, then they are beholden to the people who elected them to spend the money in the manner they said it would be spent. It is "OUR" money because it is "OUR" government. Unfortunately, education has been twisted to the point where the true American Government process has been taught incorrectly for so long now, that even adults have a skewed view of it.

The American Government now keeps 70¢ of every $1 collected for themselves, to spend on their own expenses. Only 30¢ of each $1 collected gets distributed to the various programs.

The government works for the people. That means everyone, not just you. It's a republic not a democracy, so they are allowed to vote for unpopular things once elected.

Also you keep $0.70 cents of every $1 collected is rather misleading. Do you count military expenses as keeping for itself? What about medicare? What about medicaid? What about social security?

The government actually spends far more than it takes in, and the overhead of the government itself is small compared to programs.

[steelish]

The government works for the people. That means everyone, not just you. It's a republic not a democracy, so they are allowed to vote for unpopular things once elected.

It means all American citizens, yes. It also means that if a program is voted into existence, and they say they will do "X", they should do "X" and not do "Y"...that is what I am trying to say.

Also you keep $0.70 cents of every $1 collected is rather misleading. Do you count military expenses as keeping for itself?

No, that comes out of the 30¢

What about medicare?

No, that comes out of the 30¢

What about medicaid?

No, that comes out of the 30¢

What about social security?

No, that comes out of the 30¢

The government actually spends far more than it takes in, and the overhead of the government itself is small compared to programs.

Exactly, therefore you can understand the frustration and the reason the deficit is so high. The government officials have their own fleet of planes, their own healthcare system, and very high salaries. Once voted out or retired, they (and their families) retain that healthcare and they continue to earn their salaries until death. Is it any wonder why they consume so much of our taxpaying monies?

[SadisticNature]

It means all American citizens, yes. It also means that if a program is voted into existence, and they say they will do "X", they should do "X" and not do "Y"...that is what I am trying to say.



No, that comes out of the 30¢



No, that comes out of the 30¢



No, that comes out of the 30¢



No, that comes out of the 30¢



Exactly, therefore you can understand the frustration and the reason the deficit is so high. The government officials have their own fleet of planes, their own healthcare system, and very high salaries. Once voted out or retired, they (and their families) retain that healthcare and they continue to earn their salaries until death. Is it any wonder why they consume so much of our taxpaying monies?

You might want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

Your 30 cents figure is actually grossly erroneous.

Medicare + Medicaid = 19% of spending
Social Security = 20% of spending
Defense = 23% of spending

Government Salaries are covered in Other Mandatory Spending and represent a portion of a category that covers 17% of spending.

So your 70 cent figure is actually more like 10 cents on the dollar, and your 30 cents figure is more like 90 cents on the dollar.

[DuncanONeil]

Than it is too late to fix anything!

BTB what has this to do with NASA?

You might want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...federal_budget

Your 30 cents figure is actually grossly erroneous.

Medicare + Medicaid = 19% of spending
Social Security = 20% of spending
Defense = 23% of spending

Government Salaries are covered in Other Mandatory Spending and represent a portion of a category that covers 17% of spending.

So your 70 cent figure is actually more like 10 cents on the dollar, and your 30 cents figure is more like 90 cents on the dollar.