Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

cIclops · 2008-04-06 03:50:48

Space products and services are produced all over the world, sometimes the best ones are produced overseas. Why cripple a project by forbidding them to use foreign input? If a project is totally outsourced it will have to justify itself in a wider context - for example DSN stations are located in Australia and Spain - should they be shut down?

If you object to costly stealth bombers and military occupations, they you will also object to even more expensive social programs that turn citizens into government dependents.

Gregori · 2008-04-06 04:06:04

If you object to costly stealth bombers and military occupations, they you will also object to even more expensive social programs that turn citizens into government dependents.

Why would I object to social spending?

Martian Republic · 2008-04-13 20:59:20

Space products and services are produced all over the world, sometimes the best ones are produced overseas. Why cripple a project by forbidding them to use foreign input? If a project is totally outsourced it will have to justify itself in a wider context - for example DSN stations are located in Australia and Spain - should they be shut down?

The two main reason that the United States should spend money on space projects is:
1. To generate business activities for domestic manufacturers with government contracts. To create good paying jobs for Americans with good benefits.
2. Give government contracts to domestic business to develop new technologies so we can accomplish new national goals in space like the Kennedy Moon Mission Program. Which will cause technological spin off like the Kennedy Moon Mission did, like fourteen dollars returned to the US Economy for every one dollars in the Moon Mission Goal.

cIclops, you have the American tax payer finance some massive space project and then sacrifice those job good paying jobs so some of those same Americans can't have those jobs and sacrifice those technological spin off that can return fourteen dollars for every dollars invested in it, then no, I am not interested in that space program. Matter of fact cIclops, if you came up with that kind of plan, for having the United States finance a space program, then I would appose it and even demand that we get out of the space business. The only time that the United States has any right to get into any kind of project like that, is if it or the American People are receiving any benefits out of it. If we aren't getting any benefits out of it, then the United States shouldn't be investing in it. The United States should be engaged in financing major projects like building dams, roads, canals, a Kennedy type Moon Mission Program. No a space program that is beneficial to the United States, doesn't have to be detrimental to the rest of the world either and can also be beneficial to them too.

If you object to costly stealth bombers and military occupations, they you will also object to even more expensive social programs that turn citizens into government dependents.

We object to the costly stealth bombers, because it returns very little back to the US Economy and even those costly stealth bombers of being out sourced overseas too. I use to work in an Air Craft Manufacturing Plant where they use to make F-16 Landing Gear. They closed down the factory and sent the equipment like mills, lathes overseas and now they make the F-16 Landing Gear for the US Air Force and not us. So we aren't even getting the right to build them either and we are being put out of business. However, we have the right to fly them into war with them and die in them, when they get shoot down. I rather do something more productive with our money like re-building the infrastructure inside the United States or do a Kennedy kind of Moon Mission Goal.

Larry,

Commodore · 2008-04-13 21:38:13

If you object to costly stealth bombers and military occupations, they you will also object to even more expensive social programs that turn citizens into government dependents.
Why would I object to social spending?

Because that inevitably leads to a populous that thinks it can vote themselves the right to everyone elses stuff. That means yours. And they can.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't aid those who can not help themselves. But the government can only keep them alive, only they can make it worth living.

Now, I'm opposed to the goverment making jobs for the sake of making jobs. We need to demand the most effective use of our money as possible. But buying stuff off the shelf overseas makes us dependent on those shelves, which are garenteed to leave us wanting and needing someday.

cIclops · 2008-04-14 00:28:57

The two main reason that the United States should spend money on space projects is:
1. To generate business activities for domestic manufacturers with government contracts. To create good paying jobs for Americans with good benefits.
2. Give government contracts to domestic business to develop new technologies so we can accomplish new national goals in space like the Kennedy Moon Mission Program. Which will cause technological spin off like the Kennedy Moon Mission did, like fourteen dollars returned to the US Economy for every one dollars in the Moon Mission Goal.

No Larry, those are really bad reasons for government spending on space. Firstly, government should not be supporting private business with contracts to create jobs. These won't be good jobs, they will be tax payer supported ones. Good jobs are created when a business makes the right products and services. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, when government tried to create all the jobs.

Second, spin offs and new technologies are hard to predict and develop - and government is not very good at doing it. If useful technology comes out of a space project, fine - projects should be selected for their goals and objectives not because they might produce a future "spinoff". It sometimes makes sense for government to target specific high risk technologies, but often these projects fail. If a project can make a 14 to 1 return on investment, private business will happily do it, government subsidy is not needed.

Gregori · 2008-04-14 15:19:41

If you object to costly stealth bombers and military occupations, they you will also object to even more expensive social programs that turn citizens into government dependents.
Why would I object to social spending?
Because that inevitably leads to a populous that thinks it can vote themselves the right to everyone elses stuff. That means yours. And they can.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't aid those who can not help themselves. But the government can only keep them alive, only they can make it worth living.
Now, I'm opposed to the goverment making jobs for the sake of making jobs. We need to demand the most effective use of our money as possible. But buying stuff off the shelf overseas makes us dependent on those shelves, which are garenteed to leave us wanting and needing someday.

Everyone being the keyword.

Commodore · 2008-04-14 20:54:33

Why would I object to social spending?
Because that inevitably leads to a populous that thinks it can vote themselves the right to everyone elses stuff. That means yours. And they can.
Everyone being the keyword.

Why would everyone vote to give up more of their money when they can just take it from a minority?

Gregori · 2008-04-15 06:25:34

Because that inevitably leads to a populous that thinks it can vote themselves the right to everyone elses stuff. That means yours. And they can.
Everyone being the keyword.
Why would everyone vote to give up more of their money when they can just take it from a minority?

Ohh those poor rich people...

No seriously though, the point of social spending would be to to share everybody's resources, for the benefit of everybody (yeah even the guys making a shit load of money) Good education, Infrastructure, Communication, R&D, Medical care..

Grypd · 2008-04-15 06:36:17

Social spending though tends to basic education, basic medical care and of course pensions/unemployment benefits. The majority of all money collected will go to these priorities which is needless to say right but it becomes a major burden on a state to pay these.

Gregori · 2008-04-15 06:47:35

Social spending though tends to basic education, basic medical care and of course pensions/unemployment benefits. The majority of all money collected will go to these priorities which is needless to say right but it becomes a major burden on a state to pay these.

But we are the state, so it a burden worth paying for.

I'd include under the umbrella of social spending all of the other things I mentioned above

Commodore · 2008-04-16 07:22:29

No seriously though, the point of social spending would be to to share everybody's resources, for the benefit of everybody (yeah even the guys making a shit load of money) Good education, Infrastructure, Communication, R&D, Medical care..

The trouble is it doesn't work that way. In the US, the top fraction of one percent or income earners pay 40% of the taxes. The bottom 95% pay the same amount, 40%. Whats wrong with this picture? The rich do not use goverment services more than everyone else, probably the other way around.

You can't keep milking the rich like a bottomless money pit out of envy and jealously and expect them to still be here. Not unless you intend to invade the Cayman Islands.

Instead you have to admit that endless social engineering programs are a failure on the national, state/provincial, and local/city/municipal level and the governments only responsibility is that of physical infrastucture and material necessities, and not nanny state enforcement.

The best part is these costs are fixed based on population, and only grow when the taxable population does.

Grypd · 2008-04-16 07:31:39

But in a democracy it is weight of numbers that influence any vote and that top fraction of one percent may have a lot of the money and be able to influence politics much more than the average person but in the end it is that 95% that really have the power.

And any politician has to look after that 95% to keep himself elected. Social programmes do have a place in society it is these that make our civilisation it really only becomes a problem when you dont have an idea of where you want your limits.

Can anyone really argue that basic education, basic medical care and keeping those who cannot get work or are too old to work is wrong.

Terraformer · 2008-04-16 07:47:34

I'm in favour of a 'gradual subsidised healthcare slope'. Basically, the less you can possibly spend on your healthcare, the more it is subsidised. With taking into account the fact that you can't take all the cash the people have available for their own healthcare, you have to leave an incentive to get a better paying job.

They already have free basic education.

cIclops · 2008-04-16 07:56:12

Just bringing the topic back to space politics.

Gregori · 2008-04-16 08:28:55

No seriously though, the point of social spending would be to to share everybody's resources, for the benefit of everybody (yeah even the guys making a shit load of money) Good education, Infrastructure, Communication, R&D, Medical care..
The trouble is it doesn't work that way. In the US, the top fraction of one percent or income earners pay 40% of the taxes. The bottom 95% pay the same amount, 40%. Whats wrong with this picture? The rich do not use goverment services more than everyone else, probably the other way around.
You can't keep milking the rich like a bottomless money pit out of envy and jealously and expect them to still be here. Not unless you intend to invade the Cayman Islands.
Instead you have to admit that endless social engineering programs are a failure on the national, state/provincial, and local/city/municipal level and the governments only responsibility is that of physical infrastucture and material necessities, and not nanny state enforcement.
The best part is these costs are fixed based on population, and only grow when the taxable population does.

Where does rich people's money come from? Magic? Thin Air?

The government's responsibility is to the people that elected it.

I don't have to admit that social programs are failure because thats a load of bollocks. The education I'm receiving is paid for by the government. When I get a big fancy high paying job from that education, the government makes more than its investment back from making me pay higher taxes. Everybody wins! I'm not a greedy person, so I have no problem giving back to the society that helped me get where I am.

To bring this back on topic, I would prefer all that money that was spent on the Iraq war and military were invested in either Space or social programs like education. We'd could have easily been on Mars by now for the outrageous amount that was spent.

If they spent a fraction of that money on a Human Mars Mission, there would be no need to outsource!!

Martian Republic · 2008-04-16 16:16:25

The two main reason that the United States should spend money on space projects is:
1. To generate business activities for domestic manufacturers with government contracts. To create good paying jobs for Americans with good benefits.
2. Give government contracts to domestic business to develop new technologies so we can accomplish new national goals in space like the Kennedy Moon Mission Program. Which will cause technological spin off like the Kennedy Moon Mission did, like fourteen dollars returned to the US Economy for every one dollars in the Moon Mission Goal.
No Larry, those are really bad reasons for government spending on space. Firstly, government should not be supporting private business with contracts to create jobs. These won't be good jobs, they will be tax payer supported ones. Good jobs are created when a business makes the right products and services. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, when government tried to create all the jobs.

If business are so good at creating jobs on there own, then why did the US Government have to bail them out during the Great Depression by having those four river project to prime the pump to get the US Economy going?

The Kennedy Moon Project had the same impact on the US Economy, but on a slightly smaller scale.

Second, spin offs and new technologies are hard to predict and develop - and government is not very good at doing it. If useful technology comes out of a space project, fine - projects should be selected for their goals and objectives not because they might produce a future "spinoff". It sometimes makes sense for government to target specific high risk technologies, but often these projects fail. If a project can make a 14 to 1 return on investment, private business will happily do it, government subsidy is not needed.

Can you name one area where the Moon Mission Goal didn't have some major impact on the US Economy?

Like the medical field, computer, metalergy, etc.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2008-04-16 20:07:24

No seriously though, the point of social spending would be to to share everybody's resources, for the benefit of everybody (yeah even the guys making a shit load of money) Good education, Infrastructure, Communication, R&D, Medical care..
The trouble is it doesn't work that way. In the US, the top fraction of one percent or income earners pay 40% of the taxes. The bottom 95% pay the same amount, 40%. Whats wrong with this picture? The rich do not use goverment services more than everyone else, probably the other way around.
You can't keep milking the rich like a bottomless money pit out of envy and jealously and expect them to still be here. Not unless you intend to invade the Cayman Islands.
Instead you have to admit that endless social engineering programs are a failure on the national, state/provincial, and local/city/municipal level and the governments only responsibility is that of physical infrastucture and material necessities, and not nanny state enforcement.
The best part is these costs are fixed based on population, and only grow when the taxable population does.

Speaking of Social Programs:

What do you thing of Social Program for the rich people, by the bail out of Bear Stearns by the Federal Reserve fifty billion or more and then cycled through the Federal Government as debt with interest to pay too?

That on top of another four to five billion dollars that Federal Reserve has already created out of thin air to finance those rich people gambling debt and submitted credit created to the US Government to pay with interest. Actually, I would like to see those billion air and million air eat there own bad paper instead of having the Federal Reserve generate Federal Reserve Note that we tax payers have to pay back with interest. If they don't want to pay for social programs, then we should have to pay for there gambling debt.

That sound reasonable to me.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2008-04-16 20:18:00

Social spending though tends to basic education, basic medical care and of course pensions/unemployment benefits. The majority of all money collected will go to these priorities which is needless to say right but it becomes a major burden on a state to pay these.

The solution to that problem is:

Have a government inspired building program, like build things we need like subway, super trains, nuclear power plants and even an aggressive space program. When you do that, you replace people who need to be helped, with people who have good paying jobs and who are themselves tax payers and are better able to help themselves without government help. We get the infrastructure that we need to have to have a modern society and advance the human race and we really need that infrastructure too. That the beauty of it, it serve both needs at the same time by giving them productive member of society, we get something we really need and they become tax payer too.

Larry,

cIclops · 2008-04-17 03:22:37

If business are so good at creating jobs on there own, then why did the US Government have to bail them out during the Great Depression by having those four river project to prime the pump to get the US Economy going?

Government often acts because of public or corporate pressure, it doesn't mean that it's the best thing to do. Do you bail out a friend who has made bad decisions or let them solve their own problems? Which is better? Would you bail out the guy next door?

Spending oodles of tax payer's money is always good for somebody. Space exploration and science would not be funded by private capital, neither would most other areas of science. Government funding speeds up developments in these areas, and they are clearly of benefit to the whole of society. The question is how much benefit and at what cost?

Grypd · 2008-04-17 06:43:38

Hi Larry,

What do you thing of Social Program for the rich people, by the bail out of Bear Stearns by the Federal Reserve fifty billion or more and then cycled through the Federal Government as debt with interest to pay too?

In the great wall street crash of 1929 we learned very harshly some lessons. The first is that we have to protect banks. In the case of 1929 the crash collapsed banks and we had a wave of collateral damage. this was literally destroyed buisnesses that though struggling could have easily have survived. Many small buisnesses simply had one bank account and when that bank collapsed so did there savings. With no cash they could not pay for items or even wages so they went down themselves. Banks by there very nature are closely linked. If one goes then there is a real risk of others going with it too. In 1929 we learned that lesson. It was the total collapse of the banks that kept the crash going on and on and creating the great depression that through almost half of the USA's workforce out of jobs.

In 1987 we had a crash that was actually by nature more severe than the one of 1929 but we had learnt our lesson and kept the banks safe and the Markets knew the Banks where safe. The result was that in a matter of days the crash figures had recovered.

I know it is not fair to protect one element of buisness above others and to provide a get out of Jail free card but we really dont have a choice as it is the only way to protect the whole economy and by its nature ordinary people. I dont in any way like it but necessity it is.

There are two types of Banks, Savings and Investment. Bear Stearns is the latter and it is investment banks which are the ones that stump up the cash to pay for mortgages and for loans ie credit cards, car loans etc. It in turn gets the money to pay for that by borrowing from the safer savings banks.

The credit crunch caused by America's sub prime market worries and the fealing that the Dollar is so weak has made banks unwilling to lend money to each other and as a result Bear Stearns found itself without any cash to pay of outstanding loans even though it had good assets. If Bear Stearns had gone down it would have left a lot of other banks who had loaned it money in a bad position.

Martian Republic · 2008-04-17 21:00:58

If business are so good at creating jobs on there own, then why did the US Government have to bail them out during the Great Depression by having those four river project to prime the pump to get the US Economy going?
Government often acts because of public or corporate pressure, it doesn't mean that it's the best thing to do. Do you bail out a friend who has made bad decisions or let them solve their own problems? Which is better? Would you bail out the guy next door?
Spending oodles of tax payer's money is always good for somebody. Space exploration and science would not be funded by private capital, neither would most other areas of science. Government funding speeds up developments in these areas, and they are clearly of benefit to the whole of society. The question is how much benefit and at what cost?

What you fail to understand cIclops is:

Beside the power and the authority of the United States to lobby taxes on the people, they also have the power to generate credit internally from it own self. We all know that the United States can generate a trillion dollars through taxes. But, what you don't seem to get in your head is that the US Government can also generate another trillion dollars worth of credit by calling it into existence by the power invested in them by the US Constitution. You seem to think that it not the best thing for the US Government to do, to have the US Government investing in building up the United States and the infrastructure that support a modern society. The truth of the matter is, if the US Government, state governments and city, county government didn't build that infrastructure, it wouldn't have gotten built and we wouldn't have a modern society. When the US Government has control over the credit system, they build up the physical infrastructure of the United States. When the Private banker have control over the credit system, they generate debt and draw money out of building up the physical infrastructure. They create companies like Bear Stearns that generate worthless piles of debts or derivatives. You can't wear it or eat it, it just exist and can bring down the financial house when comes down.

The US Government should have stepped in and taken over the Federal Reserve and declared it bankrupt and then Declare Bear Stearns Bankrupt and derivatives side of Chase bankrupt too along with the other banks that have derivatives also along with the rest of Wall Street. We would want to save the saving and checking account side of those banks, because we will need to setup a new economic system to replace the one that is in the process of collapsing. But, before you respond in protest to what I just wrote, consider this for a moment. There are only three possibilities that we can possibly have and they are:

1. Try to save this financial house of cards which is in the process of collapsing, like what they Bear Stearns. Bear Stearns is only the tip of the ice berg, Chase has 77 trillion dollars of worthless derivations. The Gross National Product of the United States for one Year is only about 7 trillion dollars.

What will happen?

You will have run away inflation and then the dollars will evaporate out of existence like the 1923 German Republic D Mark did. The only way that they slowed down the collapse and why we haven't collapsed already was the creating of over half a trillion dollars or more and maybe a trillion dollars or more. That there not telling us about. Which will be Hyper inflationary. Any attempt to save that worthless paper will destroy the US Dollars by Hyper Inflating it out of existence.

2. Do nothing and it will collapse on it own into a 1929 Depression, very simple.

3. Start off saying the whole system is bankrupt and it need US Federal Government to intervene to setup a new economic system to save the United States and the rest of the world too. You don't save those Bear Stearns derivatives. But you say to Bear Stearns, your bankrupts. Now we might be able to save your building. You say to the rest of Wall Street that has the same problem, bankrupt too and we not going to bail you out either. To Chase and the other banks that have derivatives, your bankrupt too. Now we will save your saving account and those checking accounts by individual and for those productive sectors of the US Economy like farmers, factories etc, because, we need them for setting up a new economy. Yes, we will keep you in business for there sake and not necessarily like what you did, but you will be re-regulated like what FDR did to hold you in check.

Part two of this operation of restarting the US Economy is the US Government building infrastructure like those four river projects of FDR. For Abe Lincoln, it was the Transcontinental rail road. The Second and First National Banks were government owned and operated banks that also had an infrastructural projects going on. That how the Eire Canal got built and most of the Rail Roads of the East got built. For John F. Kennedy, it was the National Moon Mission Goal that he set for the United States to achieve before this decade was out to land a man on the moon and return him safe back to the Earth. Now off of this government building program, we have private enterprise adding there input to the mex and an important part of the process too. So I am not suggesting a new idea. The idea that I am suggesting is what the United States does when everything else fails and then we goes back to it, because it works and because, nothing else does work. When every the United States goes back to it, we re-build ourselves after coming to near destruction with those failed policies that don't.

So what kind of infrastructure should the United States build to both rebuild America and advance the human race also?

1. Rebuild and modernize the rail roads.
2. Build a Nation Wide Amtrack levitated rail system for whole United States and offer it to the rest of the world too.
3. Setup a subway system for maybe 70 major city inside the United States to interface with those other rail system and the air port too.
4. Build nuclear power plants and put fusion on a very high priority to be developed and brought on line to replace fission power.
5. We want to develop new technologies, so we have a space program that has goals just outside our capability to accomplish with present technologies. We don't want off the shelf technologies for our space program. It defeats one of our primary reason for having a space program, which is to develop new technologies and not cycle through the same old stuff that we can get off the shelf. We are looking for the technological spin offs that John F. Kennedy got with his National Moon Mission Goal. He got a fourteen to One Dollar return on his investment. If we don't get that return on our investment in technological spin offs, then were not interested in the space program. You don't get technological spin offs with off the shelf technologies or you don't get very many technological spin offs with off the shelf technologies.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2008-04-17 21:29:20

Hi Larry,
What do you thing of Social Program for the rich people, by the bail out of Bear Stearns by the Federal Reserve fifty billion or more and then cycled through the Federal Government as debt with interest to pay too?
In the great wall street crash of 1929 we learned very harshly some lessons. The first is that we have to protect banks. In the case of 1929 the crash collapsed banks and we had a wave of collateral damage. this was literally destroyed buisnesses that though struggling could have easily have survived. Many small buisnesses simply had one bank account and when that bank collapsed so did there savings. With no cash they could not pay for items or even wages so they went down themselves. Banks by there very nature are closely linked. If one goes then there is a real risk of others going with it too. In 1929 we learned that lesson. It was the total collapse of the banks that kept the crash going on and on and creating the great depression that through almost half of the USA's workforce out of jobs.
In 1987 we had a crash that was actually by nature more severe than the one of 1929 but we had learnt our lesson and kept the banks safe and the Markets knew the Banks where safe. The result was that in a matter of days the crash figures had recovered.
I know it is not fair to protect one element of buisness above others and to provide a get out of Jail free card but we really dont have a choice as it is the only way to protect the whole economy and by its nature ordinary people. I dont in any way like it but necessity it is.
There are two types of Banks, Savings and Investment. Bear Stearns is the latter and it is investment banks which are the ones that stump up the cash to pay for mortgages and for loans ie credit cards, car loans etc. It in turn gets the money to pay for that by borrowing from the safer savings banks.
The credit crunch caused by America's sub prime market worries and the fealing that the Dollar is so weak has made banks unwilling to lend money to each other and as a result Bear Stearns found itself without any cash to pay of outstanding loans even though it had good assets. If Bear Stearns had gone down it would have left a lot of other banks who had loaned it money in a bad position.

Your right there are two types of banks. Actually there is only one kind of bank the other one is actually an investment house and not actually a bank, although it called a bank. But, that supposed investment house is actually just generating paper and passing it around to other members of this scam. As long as you can keep increasing the face amount of those worthless pieces of paper and give the allusion of the value of that paper is increasing in dollars value, the everything OK. But, like any Ponzi Scam or pyramid that demands new people to keep it going or chain letters, sooner or later it has to collapse and then there trouble.

It was those private banks and Wall Street along with there segregates in the Federal Reserve that is also a private bank, that cause the 1929 Stock Market Crash. I was FDR regulating those institution that held them in check and what made it less likely that we would have another Depression. However, if you been watching you will have seen those rules and regulation have been removed and they have even declared the Federal Reserve to be Autonomous from the Federal Government and that the US Government has absolutely no authority over them. The reason that there a credit crunch that brought down Bear Stearns is, nobody wants there bad paper that not worth the paper it written on. Those banks and other members of Wall Street have there own bad paper they can't get rid of and there not interested in buy more bad paper from Bear Stearns and increase there holding of worthless paper even if it at a discount and greatly reduced in price.

Larry,

Commodore · 2008-04-17 22:33:24

No seriously though, the point of social spending would be to to share everybody's resources, for the benefit of everybody (yeah even the guys making a shit load of money) Good education, Infrastructure, Communication, R&D, Medical care..
The trouble is it doesn't work that way. In the US, the top fraction of one percent or income earners pay 40% of the taxes. The bottom 95% pay the same amount, 40%. Whats wrong with this picture? The rich do not use goverment services more than everyone else, probably the other way around.
You can't keep milking the rich like a bottomless money pit out of envy and jealously and expect them to still be here. Not unless you intend to invade the Cayman Islands.
Instead you have to admit that endless social engineering programs are a failure on the national, state/provincial, and local/city/municipal level and the governments only responsibility is that of physical infrastucture and material necessities, and not nanny state enforcement.
The best part is these costs are fixed based on population, and only grow when the taxable population does.

Where does rich people's money come from? Magic? Thin Air?

Actually, money is just the physical representation of labor, energy, and natural resources. In the beginning, thats all a business starts with. Eventually, they go public, and people from all walks of life throw money at them to fund everything from college to retirement to their own business, to their Learjet. Things seem to go astray at this point cause the people in charge of this money can make everything from an honest misread of the market to criminal enterprises.

The government's responsibility is to the people that elected it.

Social programs, by their very definition, enforce the will of the government upon the people, regardless of the will of the people. They breed dependance to ensure the current ruling stays in power.

There are basic infrastructure items that any modern functioning society needs. These are Transportation, health, education, energy, defense, law enforcement, agriculture and administrative needs that produce a physical product that individuals cannot produce on their own. The point is to enable people to fairly pursue their dreams.

I don't have to admit that social programs are failure because thats a load of bollocks. The education I'm receiving is paid for by the government. When I get a big fancy high paying job from that education, the government makes more than its investment back from making me pay higher taxes. Everybody wins! I'm not a greedy person, so I have no problem giving back to the society that helped me get where I am.

The only things the education process needs is information and motivation. The question is what exactly is the information being broadcast, and whether or not its motivating. Is the information actually useful in the day to day effort to stay alive. Education systems can teach you a trade that you enjoy, but what happens when that industry fails for whatever reason for whatever period of time. Are you equipped to fend for yourself? The three R's won't put food on the table and a roof over the table all by themselves. The inevitable result is public assistance, which requires funds from other people, including yourself at some point. If the academics had put more of an emphasis on teaching people how to live instead of how to make a living, there would be far less of a requirement for public assistance, and the taxes to support it, and in paying less taxes, people would be far more capable of preparing for the inevitable ups and downs of the markets.

Notice a pattern here. Paying the proper attention to the infrastructure of life makes for a freer and more durable society. Unfortunately, schools in the US are turning away from the vocational education programs in favor for more traditional academics because its thought thats where the money is. At least untill you have to pay an arm and a leg to get a plumber to plunge your toilet.

Remember, goverment in its highest form, seeks to make itself obsolete.

Commodore · 2008-04-17 22:41:55

No seriously though, the point of social spending would be to to share everybody's resources, for the benefit of everybody (yeah even the guys making a shit load of money) Good education, Infrastructure, Communication, R&D, Medical care..
The trouble is it doesn't work that way. In the US, the top fraction of one percent or income earners pay 40% of the taxes. The bottom 95% pay the same amount, 40%. Whats wrong with this picture? The rich do not use goverment services more than everyone else, probably the other way around.
You can't keep milking the rich like a bottomless money pit out of envy and jealously and expect them to still be here. Not unless you intend to invade the Cayman Islands.
Instead you have to admit that endless social engineering programs are a failure on the national, state/provincial, and local/city/municipal level and the governments only responsibility is that of physical infrastucture and material necessities, and not nanny state enforcement.
The best part is these costs are fixed based on population, and only grow when the taxable population does.
Speaking of Social Programs:
What do you thing of Social Program for the rich people, by the bail out of Bear Stearns by the Federal Reserve fifty billion or more and then cycled through the Federal Government as debt with interest to pay too?
That on top of another four to five billion dollars that Federal Reserve has already created out of thin air to finance those rich people gambling debt and submitted credit created to the US Government to pay with interest. Actually, I would like to see those billion air and million air eat there own bad paper instead of having the Federal Reserve generate Federal Reserve Note that we tax payers have to pay back with interest. If they don't want to pay for social programs, then we should have to pay for there gambling debt.
That sound reasonable to me.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
Larry,

At this point, we are faced with a choice of bailing them, or watching the next crash. Which is to say we don't have a whole lot of choice.

We need to segregate the instruments that maintain the integrity of our infrastructure and currency from those who would engage in such gambling. Though I don;t think we can get rid of them completely we can marginalize them to nonessential sectors of the economy.

cIclops · 2008-04-18 03:19:51

Beside the power and the authority of the United States to lobby taxes on the people, they also have the power to generate credit internally from it own self.
<snip>
Larry

Wow that was quite a reply Larry - almost an essay

Let me make these points:

1. Government doesn't create wealth, business does - government consumes wealth.
2. Credit can and should be created by private capital sources, it isn't necessary for government to do this. Government consumes enormous quantites of credit for its own ill conceived and often useless and wasteful projects.
3. Government interferes in the economy by setting interest rates in an attempt to control the money supply and therefore the economy. This does have an effect on the supply of credit.
4. Taxation channels vast resources through government departments, this is redistributed according to the political agenda of the day - mostly inefficiently.

Now some spending on space and science is IMHO a good thing because it yields enormous benefits. To repeat the question, how much should be spent considering this is all taxpayer money and some of it will be wasted?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2008-04-06 03:50:48

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#27 2008-04-06 04:06:04

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#28 2008-04-13 20:59:20

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#29 2008-04-13 21:38:13

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#30 2008-04-14 00:28:57

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#31 2008-04-14 15:19:41

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#32 2008-04-14 20:54:33

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#33 2008-04-15 06:25:34

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#34 2008-04-15 06:36:17

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#35 2008-04-15 06:47:35

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#36 2008-04-16 07:22:29

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#37 2008-04-16 07:31:39

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#38 2008-04-16 07:47:34

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#39 2008-04-16 07:56:12

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#40 2008-04-16 08:28:55

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#41 2008-04-16 16:16:25

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#42 2008-04-16 20:07:24

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#43 2008-04-16 20:18:00

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#44 2008-04-17 03:22:37

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#45 2008-04-17 06:43:38

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#46 2008-04-17 21:00:58

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#47 2008-04-17 21:29:20

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#48 2008-04-17 22:33:24

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#49 2008-04-17 22:41:55

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

#50 2008-04-18 03:19:51

Re: Outsourcing US exploration of the Moon/Mars to foreigners.

Board footer