PDA

View Full Version : Obama's New $3,800,000,000,000 Dollar Plan



SchmoSalt
1 Feb 2010, 12:28pm
US President Barack Obama has announced a $3.8tn (£2.4tn) budget plan for 2011, which includes increased spending for job creation, but cuts in other areas.Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8490522.stm)

---

Personally, I hate politics. I hate getting into debates and getting involved in issues. But this has gone too far.

Our country is already over a trillion dollars in debt. The more debt we accumulate, the less power we have in world politics. With less power in world politics, we become weaker and weaker as a nation. Our currency becomes less and less valuable. Overall, the US as a whole suffers. This plan to "SPEND SPEND SPEND" only raises our debt, making our country even more worthless than it already is.

You may say "Hey, at least it's helping our economy." This may be true, the plan may be helping our economy. But how long will it last? How long will this temporary fix last before we fall into yet another crisis? Then, will we spend even more? Push ourselves even lower into debt? This policy of quick fixes and throwing money at the problem is broken. It's a destructive cycle that has only one ending: Tragedy.

Another thing that got me infuriated is how he cut $250bn off of NASA. This is a big deal. NASA isn't just some space exploration project. They have invented things we use everyday and take for granted. The future called, it says it has been delayed.

Now, instead of putting money towards R&D projects such as NASA he is putting the money towards projects such as welfare. So, instead of advancing our technology, which improves life for everyone by the way, he is pissing it away on projects to "help" people.

Do you make $250,000 or more? Prepare to get ringed up the block and back with Obama's new income tax policy! I do not understand the logic of this. So, if I do well and succeed I should be punished for my success? If I fail or choose to fail, then I get rewarded? How does that make any sense? It makes as much sense as bailing out banks that rightfully (and should of) failed.

Overall, this sounds like Yet Another Obama Scheme™. It involves mindlessly pumping money we don't have into worthless sectors and in turn we get minimal benefits. So much for the change Obama promised back in 2008. The only change I see is the change left in our wallets once 2012 rolls around...

Italian Jew
1 Feb 2010, 12:54pm
The plan in general is designed to reduce the debt by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.




Another thing that got me infuriated is how he cut $250bn off of NASA. This is a big deal. NASA isn't just some space exploration project. They have invented things we use everyday and take for granted. The future called, it says it has been delayed.

Now, instead of putting money towards R&D projects such as NASA he is putting the money towards projects such as welfare. So, instead of advancing our technology, which improves life for everyone by the way, he is pissing it away on projects to "help" people.



Yeah, because we SOOOOOOOOOOO need to go back to the moon again. We need to spend billions more for some cool new rocks.

He added $6 billion for funding over the next 5 years, but scrapped the moon mission. NASA wants more, but his plan is intended to shift a focus towards private companies funding space programs.

He also cut funding for other BS projects while diverting money to sectors that need it (infrastructure, small business, etc).

Stop griping for the sake of griping.


Do you make $250,000 or more? Prepare to get ringed up the block and back with Obama's new income tax policy! I do not understand the logic of this. So, if I do well and succeed I should be punished for my success? If I fail or choose to fail, then I get rewarded? How does that make any sense? It makes as much sense as bailing out banks that rightfully (and should of) failed.

Much better than your last desperate statements in regards to a topic that makes ACTUAL sense to argue over.

What you say would be true if the quality of life of someone making over $250,000 a year was better than one who makes less than $60,000 a year. It's not a punishment or reward system. You may not agree with higher taxes for richer people, but you cannot deny that people who make more money have more money available to pay taxes. An insane bit of math, I know.

SchmoSalt
1 Feb 2010, 01:18pm
The plan in general is designed to reduce the debt by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.



Yeah, because we SOOOOOOOOOOO need to go back to the moon again. We need to spend billions more for some cool new rocks.

I find it funny how everyone was comparing Obama against JFK. JFK wholeheartedly supported the space program. He saw it not just as a means of beating the Russians in the space race, but also as a means of innovation. America has lost its innovative spirit.


What you say would be true if the quality of life of someone making over $250,000 a year was better than one who makes less than $60,000 a year. It's not a punishment or reward system. You may not agree with higher taxes for richer people, but you cannot deny that people who make more money have more money available to pay taxes. An insane bit of math, I know.

Which is why everyone should be taxed the same percentage. Not this communist-esque system of taxing the rich a much higher percentage. If you're rolling in $250,000+ a year, you've most likely earned it. To put higher taxes on more successful people is to take a stab at the American Dream.

Italian Jew
1 Feb 2010, 01:33pm
I find it funny how everyone was comparing Obama against JFK. JFK wholeheartedly supported the space program. He saw it not just as a means of beating the Russians in the space race, but also as a means of innovation. America has lost its innovative spirit.

No, the plan just seeks to plant the onus of innovation into the hands of private companies instead of mainly government funded programs.



Which is why everyone should be taxed the same percentage. Not this communist-esque system of taxing the rich a much higher percentage. If you're rolling in $250,000+ a year, you've most likely earned it. To put higher taxes on more successful people is to take a stab at the American Dream.

2 things:

First, yes, that seems easier, but the reason why there is distaste from many politicians over the idea is the implementation of it. Which flat tax idea would you use? What would you do with deductibles or decide when income occurs (I am not an expert in these matters, but know general things)? Pick a specific plan you want to talk about and you will find some problems that many don't want to deal with in our current economic state. Just saying "Flat Tax plan instead of communism tax plan pl0x" doesn't solve anything.

Second, it's not a stab at the American Dream because even if they did pay more, they still have much, much more money to spend as they wish. If you're going to go with the American Dream idea, wouldn't it be fitting to give back to America if you did benefit from the dream? Nobody wants to pay more taxes, but it is what it is. They aren't going to lose their status wholesale by paying more.

It would be great to get a flat tax system at some point, but I don't think changing the entire system would help our situation at this point.






Keep in mind, Congress does have to pass his budget, so some things could change.

Ganzta
1 Feb 2010, 03:44pm
Our country is already over a trillion dollars in debt. The more debt we accumulate, the less power we have in world politics. With less power in world politics, we become weaker and weaker as a nation. Our currency becomes less and less valuable. Overall, the US as a whole suffers. This plan to "SPEND SPEND SPEND" only raises our debt, making our country even more worthless than it already is.



You have to realize that the only thing the government can and needs to do during a recession is to spend money to stimulate the economy. During a recession, most citizens are most likely to save their money and not spend them therefore further stagnates the economy. America would actually be what you called as a "Tragedy" if Obama decided to not spend any money and add more funds to NASA.


Another thing that got me infuriated is how he cut $250bn off of NASA. This is a big deal. NASA isn't just some space exploration project. They have invented things we use everyday and take for granted. The future called, it says it has been delayed.

Now, instead of putting money towards R&D projects such as NASA he is putting the money towards projects such as welfare. So, instead of advancing our technology, which improves life for everyone by the way, he is pissing it away on projects to "help" people.
With the current unemployment rate of 10% (according to http://www.dol.gov), we need to get those without a job working. Obama is diverting those funds to infrastructure , and other job creating governmental projects. It seems to me that your arguments are ignorant and that you are just venting out your anger because you won't get that personal hover car anytime soon.


Do you make $250,000 or more? Prepare to get ringed up the block and back with Obama's new income tax policy! I do not understand the logic of this. So, if I do well and succeed I should be punished for my success? If I fail or choose to fail, then I get rewarded? How does that make any sense? It makes as much sense as bailing out banks that rightfully (and should of) failed.
As IJ have said, reading your argument for the income tax policy is like walking into an automatic revolving door, expecting it to move forward, but it suddenly malfunctions and slams me in the face. You've turned the only thing worth debating in your argument into something Special Steve would think.
As anyone who has taken or is currently taking Economics, you would know that, right now, giving the wealthy a tax cut would actually increase government revenue, but it is against Obama's "ethics" to do so. It would also be an unwise political move as millions of American would consider this an endorsement of the elite.

phoenixdan
1 Feb 2010, 05:42pm
I think we should put all of our money towards NASA then start a new colony on a foreign planet and then we can worry about healthcare. ;)

Slavic
2 Feb 2010, 06:35am
I think we should put all of our money towards NASA then start a new colony on a foreign planet and then we can worry about healthcare. ;)

Stop the Presses!

Jazzyy
2 Feb 2010, 02:43pm
Although I believe that it is a giant deal that we need to have space exploration, we have to acknowledge that we have a problem down here. We're too much indebt and it's an increasing problem. We need to fix this economy, not travel to the moon at this time.

After playing Mass Effect 2 I really would like to see more space stuff, but NASA already has a plan, private funding.

But even so, we are not going to pay back all of this debt, it's a well known fact :/. But, china can't do shit about it, if our economy explodes, everyone else's explodes. So maybe we should be investing to go build colonies on the moon.

Jaffa
2 Feb 2010, 03:18pm
Since when was the American innovative spirit government funded?

Metal
2 Feb 2010, 05:31pm
Life goes on, even with crappy economy

Jazzyy
2 Feb 2010, 09:25pm
Life goes on, even with crappy economy
Yes, even if you are homeless and don't have a job because of the economy.

LegalSmash
3 Feb 2010, 05:59pm
My responses are bolded throughout.


Source ("")

---

Personally, I hate politics. I hate getting into debates and getting involved in issues. But this has gone too far.

Our country is already over a trillion dollars in debt. The more debt we accumulate, the less power we have in world politics. With less power in world politics, we become weaker and weaker as a nation. Our currency becomes less and less valuable. Overall, the US as a whole suffers. This plan to "SPEND SPEND SPEND" only raises our debt, making our country even more worthless than it already is.

Trillion dollars in debt to stave off the largest economic disaster since the great depression is worthwhile. Our currency has measured up to shit since the euro surpassed us, and in all honesty, despite that we won't lose financial supremacy because of three things: Our currency rate is not fixed artificially (like China's Yuan), we are not 20+ nations trying to get along despite deep seated racial and political rivalries that go back three thousand years, and we are not about to have a civil war... America is stable as you can get... even in this economy, and its why OPEC, and EVERYONE ELSE measures all of their internationally posted information in US dollars....

Next: Despite having NO power in world politics prior to WWII, we were the MOST powerful nation on earth... funny how that works out... we have two things in excess of everyone else but china: lots of people to use as citizen soldiers, and natural resources... so long as we don't stop producing poor kids that join the military or stop being able to produce guns and ammo, we'll be good.

The US as a whole suffers when the US as a whole suffers... very good... see spot run.

Yes, spending raises debt... not spending right now is an ostrich strategy that results in us being EVEN more destitute than we currently find ourselves... 10-15% unemployment is NOT as much as the talking heads on TV make it sound... also, you have to consider that about 6 % of that can be considered cyclical, or a result of people NOT being fit to work due to a lack of skills that cater to the current job market... While as a lawyer I may be in demand for something at any time, being a bolt tightener at a car plant may not get you a job when the plants use robots... These manufacturing jobs are the ones that have been lost.

You may say "Hey, at least it's helping our economy." This may be true, the plan may be helping our economy. But how long will it last? How long will this temporary fix last before we fall into yet another crisis? Then, will we spend even more? Push ourselves even lower into debt? This policy of quick fixes and throwing money at the problem is broken. It's a destructive cycle that has only one ending: Tragedy.

seriously, thats the wa the economy works... peaks and valleys... the difference here and in shorter recessions is that housing didnt take a giant shit in 2000, or in 1982, nor did such a large scale of the banks, and there were not 14 states that had a large shift to jobs directly linked to that and financial services. You don't seem to grasp the concept of debt and how to manage it... your mom must either not teach you about how to make credit work for you, or you are not paying attention in class.

Re your tragedy comment... I can totally see a bambi deer on a poster with that slogan in a teabagger rally

Another thing that got me infuriated is how he cut $250bn off of NASA. This is a big deal. NASA isn't just some space exploration project. They have invented things we use everyday and take for granted. The future called, it says it has been delayed.

LOL My dad worked for Nasa for several years buddy... You want to know why we didn't go back to the moon? There was nothing on the bitch that we wanted... if there was some unobtainium up there I guarantee you that there would have been a big ass american flag plastered all over that bitch... its the same thing as stem cells... despite what you may believe, ingenuity in this country in technology is not spurred by the government... its private industry that does research and then presents the idea when the govt wants to do something.... be it blow someone up, or something, or make a giant rocket and go show their giant penis... I mean rocket... is bigger than the russian one... LOL. Also, 250 Billion is NOT that much... what they SHOULD do with that money is pay off all the professional students student loans off, so they'd WANT to work with the govts shitty paygrades.... go see what a private engineer makes working for boeing when compared to what nasa pays their guys...

Now, instead of putting money towards R&D projects such as NASA he is putting the money towards projects such as welfare. So, instead of advancing our technology, which improves life for everyone by the way, he is pissing it away on projects to "help" people.

You are so ignorant it makes my head hurt. The money isn't going to "welfare", or even to entitlement programs.... its going to fund programs that were created in the prior administration that were not funded, like that bullshit senior prescription plan that costs us untold billion a year to give some baby boomer a hard dick on my tax dollars... I'd rather it go to education and preventative birth control for poor people than some old guy's dick... furthermore, I know you don't think this far ahead, but we'd have LESS welfare recipients if we'd subsidize their birth control and abortions... its nipping the problem in the bud, see how that works?

Do you make $250,000 or more? Prepare to get ringed up the block and back with Obama's new income tax policy! I do not understand the logic of this. So, if I do well and succeed I should be punished for my success? If I fail or choose to fail, then I get rewarded? How does that make any sense? It makes as much sense as bailing out banks that rightfully (and should of) failed.

So I'm supposed to feel bad that someone has to learn to budget better? Most Americans making OVER 250K are making their money on dividends which are taxed at 15% capital gains rate... meanwhile, my salary gets charged at regular income rate....

Let me put it plainly, go read the tax code, see you are wrong, then die in a fire.

The argument of "I'm getting punished for success" is most effective on the dumbasses that are making 24000 a year at most who are yelling at the rallies rather than the doctors, lawyers, and financial giants that are smart enough to put their money in interest bearing accounts and letting it trickle in with a lower taxed rate... its essentially the "Hey I can be one too maybe,.... one day... kind of... IF I WAS IN THE NBA OR A RAPPER!" thought process. News Flash... you are not going to be in the NBA, a rapper, or more likely than not successful... if you are lucky, you'll get a bachelor's and make in the neighborhood of 50K for the majority of your life.... congratulations... life sucks, get a helmet

Overall, this sounds like Yet Another Obama Scheme™. It involves mindlessly pumping money we don't have into worthless sectors and in turn we get minimal benefits. So much for the change Obama promised back in 2008. The only change I see is the change left in our wallets once 2012 rolls around...

What sectors are worthless? Please explain, I tire of your canned dribel.

[QUOTE=Italian Jew;361501]The plan in general is designed to reduce the debt by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

SchmoSalt
3 Feb 2010, 10:45pm
My responses are bolded throughout.



What sectors are worthless? Please explain, I tire of your canned dribel.


The plan in general is designed to reduce the debt by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

We can do without pretty much every federal program and sector. The federal government should only consist of the three branches, and a standing army. Other than that, everything else is pretty much worthless. The size of the federal government just keeps getting bigger and stronger. They keep taking our money, and keep pissing it away in an very inefficient way.

I would rather have no government money go towards anything besides infrastructure and back to the people. Everything else such as universal healthcare, welfare, R&D projects (yes, NASA & private subsidies) is a waste of my tax dollars. The best preventive healthcare you can have is common sense. If people can't support their own, that's their problem. This is the land of opportunity, which means you have the opportunity to succeed, and fail.

If the rich subverts taxes though special methods, then what is the problem with having equal tax rates? From what you're saying, it seems like it wouldn't make a single difference. So why attack that idea? If what you say is true, then you shouldn't be attacking that idea at all. ;D

Also, people with Bachelor degrees make way more than some measly 50k. Why would people go to college for 5-6 years just to make a piss poor 50k a year? I know the field I am getting into starts at around 70k and goes all the way up to 200k. I think you're getting college degrees confused with trade school certificates...

You can call me ignorant all you want. But without raw data and evidence to back up your claims, they are just words.

FYI: I do support the Tea Party. Anything that involves less taxes and (typically) less government is always good.

Italian Jew
4 Feb 2010, 12:59am
We can do without pretty much every federal program and sector. The federal government should only consist of the three branches, and a standing army.

It already only consists of three branches. Way to open your statement by proposing a system that is already in place.

Every federal program resides under a branch, so...you want them all to stay?


Other than that, everything else is pretty much worthless. The size of the federal government just keeps getting bigger and stronger. They keep taking our money, and keep pissing it away in an very inefficient way.


Now if we assume what you previously said is true, other than what is already present in our government, everything else is worthless. I'll spot you some points seeing as how you kinda shot yourself in the foot already.

The government gets bigger because our influence and interests are reaching further places across the planet. Our economy depends depends on this because of our switch from a producing nation to a consuming one. We mainly provide services rather than produce things, so we rely on foreign economies just as they rely on ours. A small federal government could not handle our size or our obligations at this time.

If you want to go live elsewhere and see how governments can "take" people's money, go right ahead. At least ours is actively trying to fund something for a large population's benefit. As for it being inefficient, that's just politics. It's going to get dirty no matter what side of the aisle you're on or how big the hall is. A politician will always have their interests on any system level.

If you want to minimize this effectively, you're going to need incredibly small governing bodies. You would either keep a small governing body in charge of the entire US and its interests or split up the responsibilities in different regions. Shrinking the federal government would not only put fewer people in charge (less of a "chance" of inefficiency/corruption, but much higher stakes), but remove thousands of people from government jobs. Splitting the responsibilities in smaller governing bodies across the country would lack any unified response to the plethora of decisions needing to be made every hour that affect the country as a whole. Locally, it might be better, but for international matters (the stuff that keeps our economy going), it sure as hell isn't efficient.

You may hear politicians say they want a smaller federal government, but they aren't doing anything to harm their political power or status. The government would still be at a size you would classify as inefficient, but you might choose to ignore it as it may feed into your specific beliefs. Efforts to make things easier and more efficient also tend to backfire in some degree in regards to politics because everything gets more complicated as time goes on.

Our influential boundaries are spreading in some parts while clashing with other spheres of influence elsewhere. You can't lose progress in those areas and retain your standing in the world at the same time, so cutting out what makes our country strong isn't a smart idea.



I would rather have no government money go towards anything besides infrastructure and back to the people.



What do you mean "government money going back to the people"? Did people pay taxes and get that money back from the government (seems very inefficient, something you claim you want to avoid). Nah, that would be too stupid. If not that, then I can only assume you mean services that affect and give something to people.



Everything else such as universal healthcare, welfare, R&D projects (yes, NASA & private subsidies) is a waste of my tax dollars.

Holy shit, those are things that give services to people! So it is either you proposed a stupid plan of people paying taxes that they know the government will have to return (goal of collecting the money only to give it away), or you again support a current system.

While those may be a "waste" of your tax dollars to you, they affect many more people than you could hope to meet in your life. Forget the government having the means to try and help people who need it.

By the way, what incredibly outrageous taxes do you pay while attending college? Hell, there is a good chance your school could have been funded by government money. You could be using services provided by government or even received financial aid (again, provided by people paying for it) yet you complain about paying taxes (which you probably don't too much of).

By the way part 2:

Way to manage to support funding for NASA at the beginning of the thread and are now demean its value. Can you even decide on what to think?



The best preventive healthcare you can have is common sense.


Because genetics has no say in what diseases one may get in life. Getting shot by some punk down the street...damn, my bad for getting shot. Fuck, I should have swerved out of the way of that car when I was stopped at a red light. If I keep telling myself I won't get cancer, I won't get it. Damn that common sense for being gone from my life for so long.



If people can't support their own, that's their problem. This is the land of opportunity, which means you have the opportunity to succeed, and fail.


I believe it is the land of equal opportunity. If someone from the lower class wants to succeed, they are going to need someone's help to get there. You might be right though, as in the entire history of the U.S., there has not been one instance of someone helping out another. Helping just breaks from the concept of the land of opportunity. Helping is just wrong. :blink:



If the rich subverts taxes though special methods, then what is the problem with having equal tax rates? From what you're saying, it seems like it wouldn't make a single difference. So why attack that idea? If what you say is true, then you shouldn't be attacking that idea at all. ;D


Not what Legal was getting at, but ok.

Hand waving and saying "equal tax rates" does not make it fixed.



Also, people with Bachelor degrees make way more than some measly 50k. Why would people go to college for 5-6 years just to make a piss poor 50k a year? I know the field I am getting into starts at around 70k and goes all the way up to 200k. I think you're getting college degrees confused with trade school certificates...


People would go to college to start out at 50K because it's better than bagging groceries for less than half of that. When you start out, unless you are insanely lucky, you are going to be making less than what you aspire to receive. What field are you getting into automatically starts you off to 70K a year right out of school? You are not guaranteed anything like that in life, no matter what degree you get. (This assume you do in fact get a job)



You can call me ignorant all you want. [B]But without raw data and evidence to back up your claims, they are just words.

Irony



FYI: I do support the Tea Party.

Yeah, OK. You're the right-wing equivalent of a soy drinking, tree fucking hippie. It's not like we didn't believe you were involved with their ideology whatsoever.


Anything that involves less taxes and (typically) less government is always good.

ERRRR!!!! Wrong!

Less money towards education, infrastructure, defense, etc. can be a very bad thing. It can be a good thing in certain circumstances, but it sure as shit isn't ALWAYS good.

Funny to use typically and always in the same sentence as one assumes "most of the time" where the other is "always". And also for reasons stated way above, a smaller government that is involved in a huge system is a VERY bad thing, especially if it depends upon the huge system.

It would be great if this were true as we wouldn't need a governing body to decide things and we could all prance around daisies every day.

If there is anything in response to this, I will get to you later. I am tired as hell as you can tell by the way I slapped this together.

Nasu
5 Feb 2010, 12:05pm
Obama tries to change the USA without the peoples support..

Prez
5 Feb 2010, 02:13pm
Obama tries to change the USA without the peoples support..

What are you talking about? If he didn't have support from the citizens, how is he president? Also, how did he gain a supermajority within the frigging senate?

Learn to research.

Dracula
5 Feb 2010, 02:20pm
What are you talking about? If he didn't have support from the citizens, how is he president? Also, how did he gain a supermajority within the frigging senate?

Learn to research.

Lol, seing as we have a Senate pretty much run by the Democratic party I wonder why he got soo many votes?

Slavic
5 Feb 2010, 03:03pm
Lol, seing as we have a Senate pretty much run by the Democratic party I wonder why he got soo many votes?

Yea because last time I checked the Senate picks the president.

Maybe if it was the Supreme Court i'd give you some points.

Dracula
5 Feb 2010, 03:07pm
And when did i say anything about congress deciding that?

Italian Jew
5 Feb 2010, 03:52pm
And when did i say anything about congress deciding that?



Lol, seing as we have a Senate pretty much run by the Democratic party I wonder why he got soo many votes?

I'm guessing your shock is due to the way you thought you worded that. You made it sound like Congress voted him in, but Congress doesn't vote for him. They may vote on the budget, or policies he promotes (which are proposed by Congressmen), but nothing involving him.

He gets a lot of lovin' though from his party (which is what you were trying to say I assume), but that's to be expected when multiple bodies are run by the same party.


Also, how did he gain a supermajority within the frigging senate?


Dude, he didn't have much say in that. Bush and Co. alienated the people and they wanted to try another flavor of politician. Of course, it is the same shit, just different piles.

Dracula
5 Feb 2010, 03:59pm
He gets a lot of lovin' though from his party (which is what you were trying to say I assume), but that's to be expected when multiple bodies are run by the same party.


^

Ganzta
5 Feb 2010, 05:00pm
^

Actually, because he is trying to be bipartisan and moderate, he's not getting much loving from his party.

Italian Jew
5 Feb 2010, 05:08pm
Actually, because he is trying to be bipartisan and moderate, he's not getting much loving from his party.

I thought we were talking about right when he won and got into office, or assumed as such because that's when people were whining about whatever it was they were whining about.

Astrum
6 Feb 2010, 05:06pm
Yeah, because we SOOOOOOOOOOO need to go back to the moon again. We need to spend billions more for some cool new rocks.

He added $6 billion for funding over the next 5 years, but scrapped the moon mission. NASA wants more, but his plan is intended to shift a focus towards private companies funding space programs.

The two bolded statements are definitely not contradictory in any way...


No, the plan just seeks to plant the onus of innovation into the hands of private companies instead of mainly government funded programs.

Ah yes, private industry, the panacea to all of our problems.


LOL My dad worked for Nasa for several years buddy... You want to know why we didn't go back to the moon? There was nothing on the bitch that we wanted... if there was some unobtainium up there I guarantee you that there would have been a big ass american flag plastered all over that bitch....

Math time. Let's assume for a moment the Moon is made of solid, 100% pure gold. No ore, no processing; just fly there, pick it up, fly back, and sell it. For this example I will use conservative estimates. We'll look at the Apollo 11 program which cost about $355 Million (1969) or approximately $2.1 Billion (2009) using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI inflation calculator. We'll take half that and assume no R&D is needed for a private company to get to the moon (the government is so wasteful after all). So that leaves us with about $1.0 Billion (2009). I will also assume gold is worth $2,000 per troy ounce (nearly double what it's actually worth right now).

If you could haul back a ton, 2,000 pounds, of 100% pure gold that would be 29,167 troy ounces of gold. Priced at $2,000 per troy ounce that'd net you about $58 Million (2009). Let's take this one step further, let's say they were to do an unmanned robotic mission to collect the gold, we'll cut the price in half three more times. That's a mere $125 Million1 (2009) to collect 2,000 pounds of 100% gold. And you know what? The company would still go bankrupt or the stockholders would oust the board for being so negligent. And remember, I was being exceedingly conservative with my estimates and assuming the Moon was made out of solid gold. Even if it were made out of solid Rhodium which is the most expensive PGM with starting bids around $2,500 per troy ounce, it still wouldn't be worth it.

Space exploration is fucking expensive. Not only is it fucking expensive it doesn't have a very good ROI. The ROI for space exploration isn't immediate and usually comes from technology (http://www.spacecoalition.com/products.cfm) invented along the way as well as the advancement of human knowledge. Private companies can profit off of putting things in Low Earth Orbit such as satellites, but they can't justify going far beyond LEO/GTO and certainly not with people.

Private industry isn't going anywhere without a major advancement in inter-planetary travel or the infrastructure to support them. Both are pretty far off at this point.

1The SpaceX rocket Falcon 9 has a price of $45-50 Million for LEO/GTO.

Mephisto
7 Feb 2010, 01:14pm
To make an economy roll, you have to spend. I prefer having big spending plans like that more than spending it in aimless wars

Italian Jew
7 Feb 2010, 02:19pm
The two bolded statements are definitely not contradictory in any way...


Uh huh... One was about spending money to go back to the moon. The other was about NASA receiving an increased budget (less than what they want), the removal of the moon mission, and private companies being encouraged to get into the action.




Ah yes, private industry, the panacea to all of our problems.


Anything wrong with encouraging private companies to invest in space programs if they so wish? There are more pressing matters for our government to attend to, so if private companies want to explore their interests, more power to them.

I don't think anybody thought that businesses were doing it for a quick profit, so why is your "math lesson" necessary? There isn't any immediate money to be made as of now, something we all kinda figured.

Astrum
7 Feb 2010, 10:16pm
Anything wrong with encouraging private companies to invest in space programs if they so wish? There are more pressing matters for our government to attend to, so if private companies want to explore their interests, more power to them.

I don't think anybody thought that businesses were doing it for a quick profit, so why is your "math lesson" necessary? There isn't any immediate money to be made as of now, something we all kinda figured.

Private companies are free to invest in whatever they wish, that's their prerogative. My point is their domain is largely geocentric orbitals. My rather contrived math example was to show that even if there was a proverbial gold chest up in space no one would spend the money and wait years for the development to get it, except perhaps a government. We're not talking about "quick profit" here, we're talking about the potential for profit on a decade long or more time scale. There's basically none to be had at this point beyond a relatively shallow geocentric orbit, an area of space which is already available to private industry and has been for years.

What private industry really needs is the infrastructure to support travel beyond Luna's orbit. Most resources gathered in space will be used to support building more infrastructure in space, basically some of it will be brought back to Earth and little will come from Earth. Gravity wells are expensive. The gold chests in the sky really are out there, but private industry doesn't have the funds to open them. We're talking about tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to set up the infrastructure over the course of a decade or more with little to no profit until it's done. There's basically no market to expand into right now; it doesn't exist yet and the barrier to entry is so high that it's doubtful there will be one if the private sector is in the driver's seat.

One of the gold chests is the moon. It has a lot of He-3, oxygen, iron and even a fair amount of aluminium and titanium, although the titanium is much harder to get. Gravity on the Moon is 1/6th that of Earth's and has practically no atmosphere making it a good location for translunar launches. This sort of project is beyond the reach of private interests and is really within the purview of governments. Barring an amazing breakthrough in interplanetary travel technology the private sector won't be able to go beyond the Moon.

That's not to say such a thing would even be easy for a government, it won't. However, it's a step in the right direction for expanding into the rest of the solar system. Now I know NASA's budget is getting increased, but this sort of infrastructure building really requires people, not machines. Our robotics technology is advancing quickly, but it's not even close to feasible for robots to do this.

As most of you know I'm a small government kind of guy, but space exploration really is something that governments have to do at this point. Private industry is not going to pick up the ball yet, it's simply not feasible for them to do so. By cutting the manned portion of our space exploration we're really just shooting ourselves in the foot. I can guarantee you China and India will be taking this route in the next 50-100 years. While robotic probes to various celestial bodies will placate us space geeks, it's not doing anything for us in terms of expanding into space. I'd rather see NASA build a probe to visit Proxima Centauri.

Ganzta
7 Feb 2010, 11:04pm
Well, after this super red herring about space exploration, let's get back on the topic of Obama's budget plan.

Astrum
8 Feb 2010, 01:08am
Ganzta shut the fuck up and troll elsewhere. I took one section from the budget, NASA, and I offered my opinion on it. I elucidated my opinions with examples and my reasoning for forming them. That is not a red herring, in fact it's just the opposite.

This is why I don't comment in this section anymore.

Italian Jew
8 Feb 2010, 10:15am
Private companies are free to invest in whatever they wish, that's their prerogative. My point is their domain is largely geocentric orbitals. My rather contrived math example was to show that even if there was a proverbial gold chest up in space no one would spend the money and wait years for the development to get it, except perhaps a government. We're not talking about "quick profit" here, we're talking about the potential for profit on a decade long or more time scale. There's basically none to be had at this point beyond a relatively shallow geocentric orbit, an area of space which is already available to private industry and has been for years.

What private industry really needs is the infrastructure to support travel beyond Luna's orbit. Most resources gathered in space will be used to support building mOre infrastructure in space, basically some of it will be brought back to Earth and little will come from Earth. Gravity wells are expensive. The gold chests in the sky really are out there, but private industry doesn't have the funds to open them. We're talking about tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to set up the infrastructure over the course of a decade or more with little to no profit until it's done. There's Basically no market to expand into right now; it doesn't exist yet and the barrier to entry is so high that it's doubtful there will be one if the private sector is in the driver's seat.

One of the gold chests is the moon. It has a lot of He-3, oxygen, iron and even a fair amount of aluminium and titanium, although the titanium is much harder to get. Gravity on the Moon is 1/6th that of EArth's and has practically no atmosphere making it a good location for translunar launches. This sort of project is beyond the reach of private interests and is really within the purview of governments. Barring an amazing breakthrough in interplanetary travel technology the private sector won't be able to go beyond the Moon.

That's not to say such a thing would even be easy for a government, it won't. However, it's a step in the right direction for expanding into the rest of the solar system. Now I know NASA's budget is getting increased, but this sort of infrastructure building really requires people, not Machines. Our robotics technology is advancing quickly, but it's not even close to feasible for robots to do this.

As most of you know I'm a small government kind of guy, but space exploration really is something that governments have to do at this point. Private industry is not going to pick up the ball yet, it's simply not feasible for them to do so. By cutting the manned portion of our space exploration we're really just shooting ourselves in the foot. I can guarantee you China and India will be taking this route in the next 50-100 years. While robotic probes to various celestial bodies will placate us space geeks, it's not doing anything for us in terms of expanding into space. I'd rather see NASA build a probe to visit Proxima Centauri.

Now this statement officially meets Ganzta's requirements for being on topic. :P

Prez
8 Feb 2010, 03:23pm
Now this statement officially meets Ganzta's requirements for being on topic. :P

I lol'd.

LegalSmash
14 Feb 2010, 09:47pm
Now this statement officially meets Ganzta's requirements for being on topic. :P

I nearly shit my pants loling

wawa779
15 Feb 2010, 08:58am
This whole spending wouldn't be possbile without the 'Fake"( or money that appears from nowhere) Thanks to the Federal Reserve Bank (defiently a private bank)

Italian Jew
15 Feb 2010, 12:07pm
This whole spending wouldn't be possbile without the 'Fake"( or money that appears from nowhere) Thanks to the Federal Reserve Bank (defiently a private bank)

Why are so many turds like you raiding the News and Politics sections? Have we offended the cult of stupidity in some way?

Nasu
16 Feb 2010, 09:06am
Why are so many turds like you raiding the News and Politics sections? Have we offended the cult of stupidity in some way?

So that you could track them down and punch them down with a hammer.

LegalSmash
21 Feb 2010, 12:00am
Why are so many turds like you raiding the News and Politics sections? Have we offended the cult of stupidity in some way?

maybe its our chance to round them up, herd them onto trains, take them to a bridge with a deep end and drown them.

Mad Dogg
21 Feb 2010, 12:47am
That obama is fuckt up

http://dark-wraith.com/images/ObamaMask.png

Italian Jew
21 Feb 2010, 01:33am
maybe its our chance to round them up, herd them onto trains, take them to a bridge with a deep end and drown them.

There isn't enough water on Earth to drown all of them.

LegalSmash
21 Feb 2010, 06:58am
There isn't enough water on Earth to drown all of them.

Yeah shmucksalt alone would take at least 300 gold of water to drown.

Prez
21 Feb 2010, 06:41pm
That obama is fuckt up

http://dark-wraith.com/images/ObamaMask.png

Why the fuck do you even post?

Repeat
23 Feb 2010, 10:11pm
Yeah, because we SOOOOOOOOOOO need to go back to the moon again. We need to spend billions more for some cool new rocks.





.

Goddamn right we do!

But seriously, scrapping a lot of programs is necessary. Deciding on what is and isn't necessary changes from person to person. The privatization of the space industry could be the best thing that ever happened to space exploration and technology. I just can't wait to hear people bitch and moan that there is too much of a monopoly on space travel and shit by the private industries that took the risk and financed the programs.

I could use some space rocks, that's for sure. Don't know what for, but I think i could find something to do with them.

Prez
24 Feb 2010, 01:44pm
Goddamn right we do!

But seriously, scrapping a lot of programs is necessary. Deciding on what is and isn't necessary changes from person to person. The privatization of the space industry could be the best thing that ever happened to space exploration and technology. I just can't wait to hear people bitch and moan that there is too much of a monopoly on space travel and shit by the private industries that took the risk and financed the programs.

I could use some space rocks, that's for sure. Don't know what for, but I think i could find something to do with them.

Throw them at old people?

TNT
27 Feb 2010, 01:06pm
What a surprise. Obama spending more money? Woah. Didn't see that coming.

Italian Jew
27 Feb 2010, 03:05pm
What a surprise. Obama spending more money? Woah. Didn't see that coming.




It's like they keep coming out from under their rocks or something.

Dracula
27 Feb 2010, 04:14pm
What a surprise. Obama spending more money? Woah. Didn't see that coming.

Your quite right good sir, in fact just replace Obama with any other presidents name and boom your still right, you sir are a genius.

Ganzta
28 Feb 2010, 12:01am
Your quite right good sir, in fact just replace Obama with any other presidents name and boom your still right, you sir are a genius.

there's hoover

Drox
3 Mar 2010, 01:54pm
http://stimulusiv.ytmnd.com/

Prez
3 Mar 2010, 04:48pm
http://stimulusiv.ytmnd.com/

Lol

TNT
3 Mar 2010, 05:25pm
The plan in general is designed to reduce the debt by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.


Ahaha, becauuse lowering the debt by 1.2 trillion over 10 years is going to make a difference. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

TNT
3 Mar 2010, 05:27pm
Your quite right good sir, in fact just replace Obama with any other presidents name and boom your still right, you sir are a genius.

Roosevelt was a good president. He not only got us out of the depression, but he also put many bill into effect that are still used today.

Drox
3 Mar 2010, 06:05pm
Roosevelt was a good president. He not only got us out of the depression, but he also put many bill into effect that are still used today.

"Many people credit Roosevelt for helping America through the Great Depression. Others criticize him for prolonging the depression and making it more painful for working people. They will explain how he socialized the US economy in ways that would have made the founding fathers roll over in their graves."

Roosevelt did some good things but at the same time like every other president he also had some fuck ups. To say he was a good president is a matter of opinion, no one is perfect. He was however a president from a huge part of history that made America what it is today.

Presidents shouldnt be labeled as good or bad, they just did what they could have done with what they had. Which can either get them praised or criticized.

Italian Jew
3 Mar 2010, 08:44pm
Ahaha, becauuse lowering the debt by 1.2 trillion over 10 years is going to make a difference. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

It's much better than increasing the debt. You can't magically get rid of all the debt at once, so what would you propose besides some stupid fucking bump of a comment.

iNorris
13 Mar 2010, 01:01am
Pat Quinn is doing the smart thing and adding a 1% income tax to keep schools in business. I don't think that Obama realizes that such a small tax could garner quite a bit of cashola.

FlyAwayNow
13 Mar 2010, 07:21am
Does'nt the goverment spend $500,000 something a second? Becuase I swear by the time I finish looking at this thread they would've spent what anyone makes in a lifetime.

SgtJoo
13 Mar 2010, 07:46am
What government doesn't spend a metric ton of money all the time? Nobody is going to collect on our debt because it would devalue the dollar, throw us into a depression and royally screw the world economy.

SchmoSalt
14 Mar 2010, 05:23pm
Pat Quinn is doing the smart thing and adding a 1% income tax to keep schools in business. I don't think that Obama realizes that such a small tax could garner quite a bit of cashola.

Yes, because it is genius to pour more money into an already broken unionized school system...

SgtJoo
15 Mar 2010, 11:21am
Yes, because it is genius to pour more money into an already broken unionized school system...

As opposed to letting the school system become worse than it already is?

SchmoSalt
15 Mar 2010, 04:04pm
As opposed to letting the school system become worse than it already is?

Pissing our money away on greedy unionized teachers is hardly the answer. Washington DC spends nearly $300,000 per classroom, but they have one of the worst scoring student bodies in the nation.

The answer is to change how you spend the money. Embrace capitalism. Get rid of the broken, corrupt union system. Then, privatize the school system. Let the parents choose what school their kid goes to, attach the money to each student, and pay each school for each student they have. That way bad schools will fail, and good schools will succeed.

Belgium uses this same exact system, and their students score almost twice as much as US students do on tests. This system works, people are just too afraid or brainwashed by the unions to want to put it into effect.

SgtJoo
15 Mar 2010, 04:46pm
Pissing our money away on greedy unionized teachers is hardly the answer. Washington DC spends nearly $300,000 per classroom, but they have one of the worst scoring student bodies in the nation.

The answer is to change how you spend the money. Embrace capitalism. Get rid of the broken, corrupt union system. Then, privatize the school system. Let the parents choose what school their kid goes to, attach the money to each student, and pay each school for each student they have. That way bad schools will fail, and good schools will succeed.

Belgium uses this same exact system, and their students score almost twice as much as US students do on tests. This system works, people are just too afraid or brainwashed by the unions to want to put it into effect.

Seeing as I live in a right-to-work state, I don't really really think I'm "brainwashed" by unions. :lol: How would you make a private system fair and affordable to everyone in America, including poor families? Families already get free lunch and can't afford to go to public school? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just asking how it would work.

SchmoSalt
15 Mar 2010, 04:48pm
Seeing as I live in a right-to-work state, I don't really really think I'm "brainwashed" by unions. :lol: How would you make a private system fair and affordable to everyone in America, including poor families? Families already get free lunch and can't afford to go to public school? I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm just asking how it would work.

People would only pay for schooling through taxes, like right now. Government would subsidize these schools for each student they have and in turn these schools would be free to anyone.

SgtJoo
15 Mar 2010, 05:49pm
People would only pay for schooling through taxes, like right now. Government would subsidize these schools for each student they have and in turn these schools would be free to anyone.

And these schools would magically be dramatically better than the public school system we have now? I think I got a pretty damn good education in high school from Advanced Placement classes.

SchmoSalt
15 Mar 2010, 06:27pm
And these schools would magically be dramatically better than the public school system we have now? I think I got a pretty damn good education in high school from Advanced Placement classes.

Compared to what?

You see, when you privatize an industry and get rid of the terrible unions it creates this thing called competition. If a school is being uncompetitive, students will leave, and it will go out of business. It forces schools and their staffs to preform their best or else parents will just take their business elsewhere.

Competition is the best thing we have going for us. Take old Soviet cars for an example. During the Cold War the Soviet Union ran a government monopoly (much like our education system) in their car industry while the US let private companies in their car industry. Compare the very best the Soviets could produce compared to any car the US has produced. It's a very big difference.

Cars aren't the only example of the benefits of competition. Imagine the telecom industry if we didn't have competition. We would still be on those old hand-dial phones. There would be no fancy digital phones we have today because there would be no reason to research and make them. There would be no internet because there would be no drive to make the next best thing. Everything we see today is a result of competition, in one way or another.

SgtJoo
15 Mar 2010, 07:09pm
What happens when the nearest 'business' or "school" is dramatically far away because the only ones near someone's house shut down? What about small towns with only one school? Privatization of industries isn't the answer to everything. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The government does what it can to help underperforming schools as is. I think there would be a lot more problems switching to a truly capitalist education system than there are now. Privately run health insurance companies sure as hell screw the American public more than a public option would. Government run programs aren't necessarily terribly inefficient. I really don't see what the problem is with the current state of the education system.

Edit: Props for the avatar. :D

SchmoSalt
15 Mar 2010, 11:44pm
What happens when the nearest 'business' or "school" is dramatically far away because the only ones near someone's house shut down? What about small towns with only one school? Privatization of industries isn't the answer to everything. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The government does what it can to help underperforming schools as is. I think there would be a lot more problems switching to a truly capitalist education system than there are now. Privately run health insurance companies sure as hell screw the American public more than a public option would. Government run programs aren't necessarily terribly inefficient. I really don't see what the problem is with the current state of the education system.

Edit: Props for the avatar. :D

It would make sense from a business prospective to open a school where there is no competition in the area. For those small towns, there isn't much you can do anyways in form of competition.

I don't understand why you say our system isn't broken. The US is clearly behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to education.

The main problem is the government. The government has never managed a system efficiently. Just look at the DC school system for an example. That school system receives the highest amount of money per student in the entire nation but yet they have the lowest scores in the entire nation.

You let government bureaucrats run things and the thing becomes a bloated lop of refuse. The same would apply with healthcare. Not only would those who pay now for healthcare pay more for healthcare, but the quality of healthcare would go through the floor. Time and time again it is proven that you cannot trust the government to run essential social programs.

The school system has failed me. Whenever I got a bad teacher in high school I would have to use some sort of means of bypassing the system. Typically, these means of short circuiting the system didn't work. I had no say in if I could change teachers because the teacher I had was horrible. No, the school instead said that it was only fair to keep me in those terrible classrooms even though my parents were paying for my education in the long run (Taxes!)

So our present and future students will have to suffer because of our wonderful government who takes our money and pisses it away on teachers that should of never been teachers in the first place. In the real world when you do a bad job you get fired. There is nothing wrong about it because you weren't holding up to your end of the agreement with your employer.

Why do teachers get treated differently? Are they running into burning buildings saving people? No. Are they keeping us safe from the criminals out on the streets? No. Are they protecting our freedoms with their lives overseas? No. They are just working a job for a living, nothing more. There are no heroics when it comes to teaching. There is nothing special about teachers that justifies them from being fired.

In a private-run, government-funded system, they would be fired for not doing their job. But we are not in a private-run system. That is the problem with our education system.

Slavic
17 Mar 2010, 03:34pm
It would make sense from a business prospective to open a school where there is no competition in the area. For those small towns, there isn't much you can do anyways in form of competition.

I don't understand why you say our system isn't broken. The US is clearly behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to education.

The main problem is the government. The government has never managed a system efficiently. Just look at the DC school system for an example. That school system receives the highest amount of money per student in the entire nation but yet they have the lowest scores in the entire nation.

You let government bureaucrats run things and the thing becomes a bloated lop of refuse. The same would apply with healthcare. Not only would those who pay now for healthcare pay more for healthcare, but the quality of healthcare would go through the floor. Time and time again it is proven that you cannot trust the government to run essential social programs.

The school system has failed me. Whenever I got a bad teacher in high school I would have to use some sort of means of bypassing the system. Typically, these means of short circuiting the system didn't work. I had no say in if I could change teachers because the teacher I had was horrible. No, the school instead said that it was only fair to keep me in those terrible classrooms even though my parents were paying for my education in the long run (Taxes!)

So our present and future students will have to suffer because of our wonderful government who takes our money and pisses it away on teachers that should of never been teachers in the first place. In the real world when you do a bad job you get fired. There is nothing wrong about it because you weren't holding up to your end of the agreement with your employer.

Why do teachers get treated differently? Are they running into burning buildings saving people? No. Are they keeping us safe from the criminals out on the streets? No. Are they protecting our freedoms with their lives overseas? No. They are just working a job for a living, nothing more. There are no heroics when it comes to teaching. There is nothing special about teachers that justifies them from being fired.

In a private-run, government-funded system, they would be fired for not doing their job. But we are not in a private-run system. That is the problem with our education system.

even if it was decided to leave our school system as is, the removal of tenure I bet would make a remarkable difference in teaching quality. Specifically in colleges.

LegalSmash
19 Mar 2010, 04:28pm
Compared to what?

You see, when you privatize an industry and get rid of the terrible unions it creates this thing called competition. If a school is being uncompetitive, students will leave, and it will go out of business. It forces schools and their staffs to preform their best or else parents will just take their business elsewhere.

Competition is the best thing we have going for us. Take old Soviet cars for an example. During the Cold War the Soviet Union ran a government monopoly (much like our education system) in their car industry while the US let private companies in their car industry. Compare the very best the Soviets could produce compared to any car the US has produced. It's a very big difference.

Cars aren't the only example of the benefits of competition. Imagine the telecom industry if we didn't have competition. We would still be on those old hand-dial phones. There would be no fancy digital phones we have today because there would be no reason to research and make them. There would be no internet because there would be no drive to make the next best thing. Everything we see today is a result of competition, in one way or another.

So you advocate the federal govt taking a state right to regulate education? That's not very libertarian of you.

SchmoSalt
20 Mar 2010, 04:55pm
So you advocate the federal govt taking a state right to regulate education? That's not very libertarian of you.

When did I say that the feds should regulate it?

VirDeBello
22 Mar 2010, 02:23am
What the fuck.........I came up with a clever post and I shoulda have copied my reply because Iraqi internet sucks and not all e-mails and messages go through. So Ima try to re-type everything. Yes I hit refresh a million times and tried to go back and see if the message was still there but no.

Alright I have been living under a rock for a year and my friend on facebook says "Healthcare reform shit passed! Yay!" So I read a CNN article giving me a rough detail of this reform. I know I will pay a $750 fine if I don't get healthcare but that makes me worried and already a bit pissed. See I rarely get sick, within two years the biggest thing I had done with wisdom teeth removal which you the American people paid for :wave: lol Thanks. Last time I got sick was before the Army, two years ago lol and not just cold or runny nose sick but so sick I couldn't get outta bed to take a shit. So for me that takes care of myself, excersies everyday and doesn't use tobacco products will I be put into some healthy people category or will I suffer because of fat fucks? I hope someone smart like Legal or that sorta cailber can help someone understand whats happening on the homefront. Just been busy this year paying my dues :usa2: Hopefully you guys can help.