Upcoming Tax Rebates

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
"anything to give me more money and the govt less is always a good thing"



Mino2126, think about that comment for a minute. Are you advocating that we should have no government altogether? How about national defense, police, SEC, public education, medicare? You are essentially saying that you are better equipped to provide these services by yourself than the govt.
 
I'm fully aware of that - and that's why I wrote "<em>(don't even start quoting the million dollar pen or toilet)</em>". That was my way of saying that we should not get into that specific pointless conversation of arguing about NASA's spending habits. Because of that chain letter that I believe EVERYONE got, it seems to be the first thing popping whenever somebody mentions NASA and money in the same sentence. However, they were not terribly efficient with their budget or their protocols. Nobody can deny that.
 
<p>mino2126 said <em>"T!M....the rich already account for the majority of the tax burden in the US"</em></p>

<p>I'm not arguing that is should be increased. I was responding to awgee's comment:</p>

<p><em>"Why does everyone think rich people should pay more? Do rich people use more government services?"</em></p>

<p>I took that to mean "...should pay more than the non-rich" as opposed to "...should pay more than they do now." If I had that wrong, I apologize. I was trying to answer the question <em>"Do rich people use more government services?"</em></p>

<p>I tried to say why I think they DO use more govt services. Apparently, either I didn't do it well, or awgee would prefer to eat tainted food, have no child-labor laws, have no pollution controls, have no freeways, have no laws regarding banking or commerce, have no regulations on monopolies, have no structure to airplane routes, have no standards for product safety, have absolutely no taxes and no govt, have less money going towards scientific research, have no postal service, and have no internet.</p>

<p>Trooper then brings up the good point of defining "services." I was trying to make the point that some of the biggest benefits we get from the government aren't direct things like food stamps. I think the poor get more benefit in the form of direct compensation. However, I see a bigger benefit of the government in providing security and stability. We don't have 1000% inflation. You don't have to worry much about being invaded by a foreign country or of having riots in the streets. I contend that you would have a much harder time of getting to be wealthy if this was not the case. Furthermore, I contend that when you have money, you benefit more from this.</p>

<p>I contend that those with money enough to buy a house do benefit more from (as Trooper more narrowly defines service) police, fire, the US Marines, and various other government agencies that keep you and your property safe. If those things didn't exist, what would stop the huddled masses from squatting on your land, raping your mother, stabbing your father, raping your father (nod to Arlo Guthrie), and burning down your house? A homeless guy doesn't have crap to protect. What does he need the fire department for? Who were the fire depts protecting in the recent fires - the poor?</p>

<p>There are many places in the world and in history where a breakdown of government, and the people's faith in it, has led to riots, mass inflation, death, etc. etc. Would you rather live here or in Iraq right now? How about in Darfur? Whose lives are more different between here and there - the rich, the middle, or the poor? I contend that the poor would have it rough anywhere. The rich however, benefit much more living here as compared to Iraq. Here, you are much less likely to get kidnapped.</p>

<p>I contend that the security, the stability, the regulations, and the infrastructure that the government provides are "services" of the government.</p>

<p>As for mino's comment that, <em>"anything to give me more money and the govt less is always a good thing,"</em> I would definitely disagree with that. Me giving him my tax money instead of giving it to the govt would qualify. It doesn't sound like a good deal to me.</p>
 
Tim, you didn't get them memo. Around these parts it's "government is bad, taxes are bad, people are poor because they are lazy, people don't get ahead because they don't want to, give me the full rebate that I deserve for working as hard as I do". Get with the program!
 
T!M - Everything you mention would still exist and be less expensive without government involvement.<p>


But the biggest cost of government involvement is individual freedom. And the poor's freedoms are restricted the most by the supposed help from the government.
 
Green_Cactus, you don't think that NASA spending a total of $1,180 on pens that write in zero gravity was efficient? Private industry spent money developing that technology, and NASA benefited from the endeavor. And it's obvious that you didn't read the link I gave you because apparently you think that it was wasteful.
 
LOL.





So why don't you share your knowledge of A&D with me. I'm fascinated to hear your take about the environment. I didn't know that Raytheon was a government entity until you told me so earlier today. I'd love to hear other things you can share with me.
 
How about the fact that is still costing around $600 million (WINEX, do me a favor and look up the correct number so I can edit this later) to send the shuttle into orbit? How about the boatloads of money that were dumped into X-33 and next-gen shuttle project? Before you start whining again, I know - Lockheed worked on that and they are NOT the government. The work was commissioned by NASA. Instead of just telling me how much of a moron I am and how I don't have he mental capacity to count past my fingers, can you enlighten ME as how NASA in particular is run as an efficient entity.
 
I've never worked for NASA. I have friends who have worked as consultants for NASA, but I haven't personally been involved.





That having been said, the space programs is one of the more successful endeavors our Federal government has been involved in. During the early 80's, I remember reading an article about the space program and commercial technologies that were spun off from the space program. At that point in time, companies that commercialized technologies that wouldn't have existed if it weren't for the space program had returned $7 for each $1 spent on the space program.





That having been said, while I am drawn towards the sciences, I personally feel that the government has no business being in that business. Though our founding forefathers could have never envisioned an organization like NASA, basic scientific research was going on in the 1700's, and they felt no need to interject involvement of the Federal government in scientific research. We could easily eliminate 80% of Federal expenditures if we simply respected the Constitution. Philosophically, the only portions of the job that NASA does that I can support are things related to national defense.





Spending on something like the X-33 can be justified based on defense applications of the technology. And even though the program was canceled, I would be surprised if we didn't gain some value from the program.





To answer your question about cost, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33), NASA spent $912 million and Lockheed spent $357 million. The amount spent by the government is a little over 10% more than the Federal government plans on spending to fund PBS in Fiscal '08 and '09 ($400 million in Fiscal '08 and $420 in Fiscal '09) if President Bush is unsuccessful in slashing the budget for public television. ( sourcehttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/arts/06cuts.html)
 
Well, I would go further and say that some like the X-Prize shows that feats that were achieved by NASA can be done on a much tighter budget. Even the ailing Russian Soyuz program can still send payloads into space at a much lower cost - what did Tito pay? Was it $20mil?. Add to that the Indian and Chinese pursuit into Space and we have a global competition that should be cutting costs quite a bit. And there is also the Ariane program to add to the bunch. The Russians pretty much copied the US design so I guess they cut some corners that way. I just feel that give the length and money spent on space technology, I want my Jetsons hover craft like 8 years ago.





My knowledge about NASA pretty much stems from co-workers and collegues that were involved in NASA projects. My take away is that the built-in bureaucracy was driving them all mad and that was the reason they went into the private/civil sector.





I do agree however that a lot of technology is dual-use and it can be argued that it falls within national defense. And if you want to put spending in perspective, how many days in Iraq is $912 million worth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top