- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,762
- Reaction score
- 1,619
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Conservatives aren't allowed to support any government spending without being hypocrites.
I am not a conservative. I am a Whig.
Conservatives aren't allowed to support any government spending without being hypocrites.
I am not a conservative. I am a Whig.
Just setting the record straight, your majesty.
Okay then. I suspect you won't have any problems eliminating the technological innovations of NASA from your life and everyone else's, since they don't produce anything of worth.
First, you can throw out pretty much anything that uses microprocessors or wireless technology.
Next, you can walk to your local hospital and start ripping off prosthetic limbs. Once you're done with that, visit the folks awaiting a heart transplant and remove their ventricle pumps.
You know what, just read this and tell me which innovations you're willing to go without...
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2009/pdf/spinoff2009.pdf
Why would I support cap and trade for carbon emissions?
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Just FYI, before you look foolish.
The market failure isn't from a lack of knowledge, it's from a lack of funding and profit motive.
Well, you know squat about economics and finance, but you're an expert at childish insults. Good for you...
Well, maybe you can inform the CIA and the NSA that NASA will no longer be putting their spy satellites into orbit. You can also inform the Air Force that any future collaboration with NASA will no longer be necessary. And don't forget to tell China and Russia that space is never to be weaponized. I'm sure we can trust them...
Not only am I saying they won't, I am saying they would even kill and maim one another for simply being a different color or religion. Humans have this funny habit of acting violently and selfishly and irrationally.
I think many people would pay for a space program. It does deliver essential benefits, but those are long-term and not easily definable for the market to invest.
The government does do essential funding of non-marketable activities. I would include the military, as big as it is, in this category. Ditto the State Department. Ditto basic science research. These are things we should continue to fund at the government level. That means collecting taxes to pay for it. In no way does this resemble socialism.
Where did you get that silly notion? :lol:Conservatives aren't allowed to support any government spending without being hypocrites.
It is most certainly socialism, it's just people have such a nasty association with the word, they don't want to believe they can support it. Socialism is essentially a state managed economy. A socialist program is one in which the state steps in to manage some part of the economy, ie public health care, public schools, etc. Like it or not, a military can be provided in a free market. The state providing it instead is a socialist program. I personally don't have a problem with that and in fact would agree with you that it is essential, but as mentioned to 1984, I'm a pinko-commie Democrat.
The difference is between a state-owned business, which is not socialism, and a state-owned economy, which is. Either way, I am a Whig and so I don't have a problem with some moderate state spending and programs.
A program can be socialist without the entire state being socialist. Public health care will not make the US a socialist country, but that doesn't make it any less of a socialist program.
Ok, your right. So they are socialist. I do think that there are essential, necessary programs that are not profitable and government should collect taxes to pay for them. I think of them in terms of community needs, for the good of the community. I include many programs, though not all that we have, including military, foreign aid and diplomacy, healthcare for the old, sick and poor, space and science and art and regulatory agencies for much. Entitlements is a bit much - we used to rely on family and charity to provide. We need a better mix there.
But I am totally down with funding the sciences. Once we're out of this deficit.
Which is why I'm not a libertarian anymore. Like so many things in life, the economy works best with a blend of socialist and capitalist features.
The problem with yanking entitlements is we've encouraged a large amount of elderly Americans to think of them as, if not entirely, at least a large chunk of their retirement. It's a little cruel to pull the rug out from under their feet at this point. I am not entirely opposed to telling the younger generations they're on their own, but then what do we do when people don't save for old age? Let them starve on the street?
I don't know. I'm saving for an early retirement. On one hand I don't see how it's my problem is someone else doesn't. But on the other hand there are a lot of practical problems.
But I am totally down with funding the sciences. Once we're out of this deficit.
Well. As long as you continue being respectful, you can come to the after party. :2wave:
You're confusing me with the market. I personally am a pinko-commie, liberal, hippy Democrat. I am all for taxing the crap out of you to pay for programs you don't want. Though I used to be a Libertarian, so it's pretty easy to bat for the other team.
If these innovations were important enough, the private sector would have come up with them eventually.
It is widely accepted that pollution is a market failure. Or do you only care about certain market failures?
You're partially right. Republicans/conservatives are supposed to believe in the free market. Unfortunately, the current representation of conservatives seems to only believe in the free market when it suits big business or their own wallets. A shame really.
That is not a market failure. That is how the market is supposed to work. You obviously know about economic theory, so I'm not going to explain the laws of supply and demand to you.
Suffice it to say, if the market refuses to produce something, it is not a failure.
That item is just not in demand.
That item is just not in demand. I've seen no evidence yet to support your belief that the space program is so necessary we need to force the public to pay for it.
Okay, I can see how you're still chafing from the liberal comment. Seeing as how I'm a liberal, you can't possibly think that I meant it as an insult. Like if you told me I'm truely a conservative at heart, I wouldn't be all "ew, blech." I'd take it in the spirit it was given. You should try it. It's much more fulfilling to the ego to decide to be complimented. For example, you just called me childish. I'll take that to mean I am caref ree and easy to get along with.
Oh and accounting major with a minor in finance. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's incorrect information.
I'm sure we can too, that's why I'm invested in both. There's that finance background. Economic ties are much harder to sever than military, but that's a different thread.
That humans act selfishly is the basis for the free market theory of economics. You still haven't really responded to my question. Why do you think we should ignore the free market's decision that a space program does not have enough demand to turn a profit, and instead rely on the government forcing tax dollars to pay for it.
I would also like you to admit you support a socialist program.
But I am totally down with funding the sciences. Once we're out of this deficit.
Armstrong and other astronauts expressed concerns over the past few days that scrapping the moon program would have deep consequences in terms of America's standing in the world. They wrote an open letter to Obama voicing their concerns.
Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell, who signed the letter with Armstrong, told Fox News he believes Obama's plan is "short-sighted."
"We're going to be a third-rate nation. China and Russia are going to be premier," he said.
FOXNews.com - Obama Details Revised NASA Vision
Personally, when it comes to science and technology, I tend to listen to the experts:
when you have Gene Cernan, Neal Armstrong, and Jim Lovell, and a whole bunch of NASA scientists telling you that Constellation is an important program and that cancelling it will be devastating, I'll take their word over that of some Washington bozos any day.
Hey, even Obama said so, before he was elected:
YouTube- Save Constellation
:thumbs:
but you won't heed the concerns of Buzz Aldrin ... only the other astronauts
so, please tell us what the benefit of continuing the constellation program would be
Pass. I think I'll just drink to JFK's newly dead legacy instead.
That's swell. So, which innovations are you willing to go without? Just checking...
Time is a precious resource.
CO2 is not pollution.
Look, I was prompted to choose a "lean" so I picked "slightly conservative". Don't read too much into it...
Either way, I'm pretty sure that most sensible Republicans and conservatives understand the limitations of the free market. There are certain things it is ill equipped to handle; the military, police protection, courts, manned space exploration, etc.
No need to explain. I minored in economics and finance and have my MBA.
Market failure is an inefficient allocation of goods and services. I consider space exploration essential to the long term prosperity and security of the United States, as do many others, which would suggest there is "demand" for it, and since the market cannot efficiently allocate goods and services to that end, I, along with others, would consider it a market failure. You can disagree with whether or not it's truly "essential", but that is another argument entirely.
You're the one who asserted your opinion as fact (space exploration is a "luxury", isn't essential). I, on the other hand, merely offered my humble opinion. If you want to discuss the necessity of the space program with me, then do so without the arrogant presumption that your opinion is the only valid one...majesty.
It's kind of hard to be chafed when you're drinking a beer on your porch.
Maybe you can use some of that financial expertise to turn manned space exploration into a profitable venture.
I think you missed the point. Space is literally the "final frontier". Eventually, it will be heavily weaponized and subject to intense militarization. I'm of the opinion that the United States should be on the forefront of such efforts, as opposed to some other, less ethical country.
Because I'm of the opinion that manned space exploration is essential to the long term prosperity and security of the United States of America.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the revolutionary overthrow of our government by the proletariat. Perhaps I was asleep...
I don't see how committing to build the hardware to take us to the outer planets is "tempering the dream". Bush's programs would not get us to Mars and would not set the stage for the habitat and propulsion systems necessary to take the next big step. Getting to the moon was easy, what Obama is doing is the first step to the stars.
I don't see how committing to build the hardware to take us to the outer planets is "tempering the dream". Bush's programs would not get us to Mars and would not set the stage for the habitat and propulsion systems necessary to take the next big step. Getting to the moon was easy, what Obama is doing is the first step to the stars.
Yeah, but watch out for who is deciding the right blend. Enter corporate donors, special interests, and corrupt politicians.
Social Security: the least of our entitlement worries. It is frustrating that those who can afford retirement on their own are collecting SS. I would cut them out first of all. The rest have had promises and they count on it. My parents count on it so they can take a long trip every year to somewhere interesting. Before FDR we didn't have it. How did we care for our elders then? They lived with us. We need to go back to that model and have families care for the elderly.
Medicare/Medicaid: This is a tough one and evidently the more costly and growing of the entitlements. Since we are talking socialism, lemme briefly tell you my solution. At the state/local level (where-ever the optimal savings for administration and staffing occurs) we create Co-ops, so they are not government run. We fund the co-ops with state and local taxes. Taxes will go up. The co-ops provide medical care for the old, the sick (pre-existing conditions) and the poor. Medicare and Medicaid are closed down. The co-ops will hire their own staff (admin, nurses, doctors) and buy their own facilities (clinics, urgent care, pharmacies, hospitals). Costs are contained based on the employment and facility ownership. They can serve X number of people in T amount of time. The latest drugs are not always used to save money. No choice of doctors in this system. You may be able to buy supplementals for the latest drugs and doctor choice.
I am screwed on retirement.
Yeah, like Crippler said, why are you hating on the sciences?
NASA's entire budget in FY 2009 only accounted for approximately 1% of the deficit, and half a percent of the entire Federal budget. Your concern over the deficit is, forgive me, laughable.
Never mind that Obama didn't even decrease NASA's budget; he just shifted the funding from space exploration to climate research. I'm sure you consider that "essential".