Political posterizing redux.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Coito ergo sum]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, boring already.

[Svartalf]

Vote Cthulhu, there is no lesser evil.

[Gerald McGrew]

CES,

I have to ask, because I'm a little confused. On the previous thread, you were bitching about Obama cutting back on NASA's ability to continue and pursue manned space missions, but I have to wonder...what the hell do you think a Romney-Ryan administration would do? Have you seen their budget proposal? We'd be lucky to even have something called "NASA"!

[Coito ergo sum]

CES,

I have to ask, because I'm a little confused. On the previous thread, you were bitching about Obama cutting back on NASA's ability to continue and pursue manned space missions, but I have to wonder...what the hell do you think a Romney-Ryan administration would do? Have you seen their budget proposal? We'd be lucky to even have something called "NASA"!

Neither one is good on NASA, but I have no other choices. Obama is certainly no better. He's the one that canceled Constellation. His decision. He's the one that set us back. Whichever one gets elected, I hope they will do better on NASA, but they probably won't. It's not politically expedient for either of them.

[Gerald McGrew]

Neither one is good on NASA, but I have no other choices. Obama is certainly no better. He's the one that canceled Constellation. His decision. He's the one that set us back. Whichever one gets elected, I hope they will do better on NASA, but they probably won't. It's not politically expedient for either of them.

But surely you understand the difference between "cancelled a specific program" and "would decimate the entire agency"?

[Coito ergo sum]

Neither one is good on NASA, but I have no other choices. Obama is certainly no better. He's the one that canceled Constellation. His decision. He's the one that set us back. Whichever one gets elected, I hope they will do better on NASA, but they probably won't. It's not politically expedient for either of them.

But surely you understand the difference between "cancelled a specific program" and "would decimate the entire agency"?

Obama already decimated it. Look - this is not just "one specific program" -- he ended any reasonable chance of getting humans to the Moon or Mars for many decades to come. He ended US manned space flight altogether.

And, you'll need to be specific about what you think Romney will do that is worse.

[Coito ergo sum]

[Gerald McGrew]

Obama already decimated it. Look - this is not just "one specific program" -- he ended any reasonable chance of getting humans to the Moon or Mars for many decades to come. He ended US manned space flight altogether.

I agree that's unfortunate. But we do live in a time of "smaller gov't". I'm always flabbergasted when the people advocating for debt reduction and smaller gov't are surprised when a program and/or agency they personally favor gets cut. WTF do they think "smaller gov't" entails? "Cut the things other people rely on, but leave my stuff alone"?

And, you'll need to be specific about what you think Romney will do that is worse.

Again, it comes down to the math of the Romney-Ryan budget proposals. They want to reduce federal tax revenues (e.g. by eliminating capital gains taxes, further reducing top marginal rates), cap federal spending at a percentage of GDP (15.5% in a first term), and reduce the deficit at the same time. They've both stated however that Defense is immune from cuts (and may actually get additional funding). Add in their projections for spending on Medicare (3.25% of GDP), Medicaid (2% of GDP), and SS (4.75% of GDP), and you get 5.5% of GDP left (10 - 15.5). (source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ ... aths_2.pdf)

We currently spend about 4.7% of our GDP on defense. That leaves 0.8% of GDP left for all other federal spending. Current GDP is about $15 trillion. That gives $120 billion for all other federal spending. Know what we spent on interest on the debt in 2012? $200 billion.

Now you tell me, how exactly is NASA, or most other federal agencies, going to fare under that scenario?

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama already decimated it. Look - this is not just "one specific program" -- he ended any reasonable chance of getting humans to the Moon or Mars for many decades to come. He ended US manned space flight altogether.

I agree that's unfortunate. But we do live in a time of "smaller gov't". I'm always flabbergasted when the people advocating for debt reduction and smaller gov't are surprised when a program and/or agency they personally favor gets cut. WTF do they think "smaller gov't" entails? "Cut the things other people rely on, but leave my stuff alone"?

No. If manned space flight were the least important or most wasteful bit of spending that we had to choose from, I'd be all for cutting it if we had to. But, there is so much more waste and nonsense that billions are spent on that to say that $16 billion for NASA is the thing that we ought to cut is quite irrational, I think. Much of the $900 billion dollar stimulus package in 2009 was wasted on pet projects and boondoggles. At least space exploration produces something for the money.

And, you'll need to be specific about what you think Romney will do that is worse.

Again, it comes down to the math of the Romney-Ryan budget proposals. They want to reduce federal tax revenues (e.g. by eliminating capital gains taxes, further reducing top marginal rates), cap federal spending at a percentage of GDP (15.5% in a first term), and reduce the deficit at the same time. They've both stated however that Defense is immune from cuts (and may actually get additional funding). Add in their projections for spending on Medicare (3.25% of GDP), Medicaid (2% of GDP), and SS (4.75% of GDP), and you get 5.5% of GDP left (10 - 15.5). (source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ ... aths_2.pdf)

We currently spend about 4.7% of our GDP on defense. That leaves 0.8% of GDP left for all other federal spending. Current GDP is about $15 trillion. That gives $120 billion for all other federal spending. Know what we spent on interest on the debt in 2012? $200 billion.

Now you tell me, how exactly is NASA, or most other federal agencies, going to fare under that scenario?

So, in short, you don't have any idea how they "decimate" NASA, you just figure they can't fit it into the budget. Remember, your assertion was that killing one program was one thing, but it was nothing compared to what Romney and Ryan were going to do. All you've indicated is that you don't think they would have enough money to pay for it. News flash. Our deficit this year is $1.3 TRILLION dollars -- that means that we paid for $1.3 trillion dollars worth of stuff by borrowing money. NASA is $16 billion or so of that figure.

[Gerald McGrew]

No. If manned space flight were the least important or most wasteful bit of spending that we had to choose from, I'd be all for cutting it if we had to. But, there is so much more waste and nonsense that billions are spent on that to say that $16 billion for NASA is the thing that we ought to cut is quite irrational, I think. Much of the $900 billion dollar stimulus package in 2009 was wasted on pet projects and boondoggles. At least space exploration produces something for the money.

Just as I described..."Keep what I want, fuck everyone else", apparently including the people who held the 3 million jobs created/saved by the stimulus.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2 ... 0_CV_N.htm

So, in short, you don't have any idea how they "decimate" NASA, you just figure they can't fit it into the budget.

?????? I just showed you how there's absolutely nothing left in the budget for any agency spending (outside DoD). Now, if you're naive enough to argue "Oh, but they'll never touch NASA funding", I'll allow that to speak for itself.

All you've indicated is that you don't think they would have enough money to pay for it.

"I" don't think? Me? Are you even paying attention? I'm using the numbers provided by Romney-Ryan. If we can't trust the numbers they provide, WTF are you basing your position on?

News flash. Our deficit this year is $1.3 TRILLION dollars -- that means that we paid for $1.3 trillion dollars worth of stuff by borrowing money. NASA is $16 billion or so of that figure.

Ah, I see. Deficits and increasing debt are just fine when it's for your favored program. Funny how Republicans always seem to resort to deficit spending and accruing debt when they want to protect their sacred cows. And of course there's the fact that Romney promised to balance the budget....http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... rk-rangers

So just how much of a deficit are you willing to run, and how much annual debt are you willing to accumulate? Be specific.

[Coito ergo sum]

No. If manned space flight were the least important or most wasteful bit of spending that we had to choose from, I'd be all for cutting it if we had to. But, there is so much more waste and nonsense that billions are spent on that to say that $16 billion for NASA is the thing that we ought to cut is quite irrational, I think. Much of the $900 billion dollar stimulus package in 2009 was wasted on pet projects and boondoggles. At least space exploration produces something for the money.

Just as I described..."Keep what I want, fuck everyone else", apparently including the people who held the 3 million jobs created/saved by the stimulus.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2 ... 0_CV_N.htm

Discussions are more productive if you don't grossly misrepresent what the other person says. I didn't say anything of the kind. I said that there were many more wasteful programs to choose from and NASA isn't on the top of the list.

For example: http://www.businessinsider.com/mccain-1 ... 010-8?op=1

That is a far cry from "fuck everyone else.

So, in short, you don't have any idea how they "decimate" NASA, you just figure they can't fit it into the budget.

?????? I just showed you how there's absolutely nothing left in the budget for any agency spending (outside DoD). Now, if you're naive enough to argue "Oh, but they'll never touch NASA funding", I'll allow that to speak for itself.

That isn't "decimating" NASA. We don't "have the money" for $1.3 trillion in programs and government functions that we nevertheless pay for with borrowed dollars now. Just pointing what we'd be able to afford if we only spent exactly what our revenues were is not the same thing as explaining how Romney would be doing more to "decimate" NASA while Obama merely "canceled one program." Don't you get that?

All you've indicated is that you don't think they would have enough money to pay for it.

"I" don't think? Me? Are you even paying attention? I'm using the numbers provided by Romney-Ryan. If we can't trust the numbers they provide, WTF are you basing your position on?

Look - they're not claiming to balance the budget this year. Neither is Obama. O.k.? We are going to have deficit spending. They're paying for NASA with deficit spending now. How does Romney and Ryan paying for it with deficit spending make it "worse" than what Obama is doing? We have a fucking $1.3 trillion deficit NOW.

News flash. Our deficit this year is $1.3 TRILLION dollars -- that means that we paid for $1.3 trillion dollars worth of stuff by borrowing money. NASA is $16 billion or so of that figure.

Ah, I see. Deficits and increasing debt are just fine when it's for your favored program.

That isn't even in the same world as what I said. What I said was that there are far more wasteful programs than NASA. I stand by that. It's not just you who gets to prioritize which spending is more valuable than other spending. I'm not saying NASA is the most important spending. All I have said is there is plenty of other spending to cut that is less relevant and useful than manned space flight.

Funny how Republicans always seem to resort to deficit spending and accruing debt when they want to protect their sacred cows. And of course there's the fact that Romney promised to balance the budget....http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... rk-rangers

Neither party has balanced the budget. Even the so called "surplus" in the 1990s was smoke-and-mirrors because the total national debt went up every, single year. They balanced the public debt by borrowing from social security.

So just how much of a deficit are you willing to run, and how much annual debt are you willing to accumulate? Be specific.

I would prefer not to exceed 50% of total debt to GDP ratio. We're up over 100% or thereabouts of debt to GDP ratio. I don't think it's healthy to be much higher than 50%. Adding more than $1 trillion a year is not good, when our GDP is something like $15 trillion dollars, and our national debt is something like $16 trillion and climbing. Not health.

Now, if a country is going to inject "stimulus" into the economy, it seems to me that a space program is a very, very good way to go about it. Why? Because it builds something. That means that there will thousands upon thousands of people hired, from all the designers and engineers, to managers and administrators, to support personell. Further, they will buy things -- particularly lots of raw materials, fuels, metals, and all sorts of stuff which will help support industries. Moreover, it is furthering the ends of science and human knowledge, operates as an inspiration for people to get into science and technology, engineering and other such fields, and ends up being exponentially beneficial with development of new technologies.

This is not a "pet project" as you so condescendingly mischaracterize my argument. This is something that I think all sides could agree on. We all agree that science and technology is good. Education is good. Technological development is good. Inspiring children is good. And, stimulating industrial production and employment is good, right? Certainly better than a lot of the projects in that link I gave above. Why not start by cutting those projects? Or, why not start with many of the wasteful projects set forth here: http://www.cagw.org/

And, finally -- YOU'RE THE ONE WHO MADE THE ASSERTION: Obama just cut "one program," and I should really be concerned with what Ryan and Romney will do to NASA. Why? What will they do to NASA that is worse than what Obama did? Just saying that we will have to deficit spend to pay for it doesn't mean they're doing worse than Obama for NASA. Obama is doing that now. So what are you trying say?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Have fun, Gerald, but don't get your hopes up.

[Gerald McGrew]

CES,

I think it comes down to one question to you: Do you think a Romney-Ryan administration would keep NASA funding at current levels, or possibly even increase its funding (i.e. to restore what Obama cut)?