US Officially Out of the Space Program

[Ramo]

And what makes you think the US government is capable of pulling this off?

Because literally every other developed country has.

[David Floyd]

The same government that successful completed World War II, created the first Atomic Bomb, created ARPANet, etc?

Those were accomplished in a different environment - while partisan politics certainly existed during WWII, they were not allowed to measurably interfere with the war effort.

In this environment, partisan politics basically **** up everything the government tries to do. The space program has been a (limited) exception, but only because it isn't all that expensive relatively speaking, and because the entire nation was behind the program during the 1960s.

Are you saying that the US government is somewhat lesser than the governments of European countries (forget the single payer systems of Britain and Canada, but what of the public/private systems of, say, Switzerland?)?

Recently? Absolutely.

[KrazyHorse]

I guess I was being a bit optimistic about DF's chances of contributing something meaningful.

By the way, the present value (real discount rate 2%) of NASA spending over the last 50 years is 1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS

I'd really like to see somebody explain to me how much total benefit can be reasonably attributed to this spending.

[David Floyd]

Ramo,

Because literally every other developed country has.

Your point?

Additionally, a single-payer system - or even a public/private system - doesn't even really enjoy majority support in this country. Some aspects of it do, of course, and polls may sometimes indicate support, but in the end, it's just not going to happen. The public isn't behind it, and the politicians are too partisan in any case.

And that ignores whether or not such a system would be beneficial - it certainly wouldn't be to me.

[David Floyd]

By the way, the present value (real discount rate 2%) of NASA spending over the last 50 years is 1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS

I'd really like to see somebody explain to me how much total benefit can be reasonably attributed to this spending.

1.4 trillion over 50 years? Really? Gosh, that's a lot of money for the US to spend, relative to everything else we spend money on

You have yet to explain to me what, in the past 50 years, the government has spent an equal or greater amount of money on that has generated an equal or greater return.

I'd argue that military spending probably has, but I can't think of much else, and in any case, for every example you can think of, there are numerous counter-examples of even greater waste.

[KrazyHorse]

1.4 trillion over 50 years? Really? Gosh, that's a lot of money for the US to spend, relative to everything else we spend money on

Is this even supposed to be an argument? "We waste a lot of other money therefore wasting this money isn't a big deal"?

****.

You have yet to explain to me what, in the past 50 years, the government has spent an equal or greater amount of money on that has generated an equal or greater return.

a) I don't have to do any such thing. The government doesn't have a fixed sum of money to be spent. It can and does run deficits whenever the **** it feels like. The comparison is simply between spending this money and not spending this money

b) I'd hazard a guess that federal highway spending would hold up pretty well.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, just Apollo present valued is ~150 billion dollars.

Yeah, those 12 dudes wandering about on the moon sure were worth it.



What a resounding success!

[KrazyHorse]

I find it hilarious when supposed libertarians pick something that THEY feel is worthwhile (despite it manifestly not being a public good yadda yadda yadda) and claiming that gov't spending in that area is okay.

[David Floyd]

Is this even supposed to be an argument? "We waste a lot of other money therefore wasting this money isn't a big deal"?

No, genius. The argument is - AGAIN - that the space program has provided more benefits than most other federal programs of equal or greater size.

Yes, the highway system is another good example. I didn't say there were NONE - I said that the space program is above average in terms of getting a return on federal spending.

a) I don't have to do any such thing. The government doesn't have a fixed sum of money to be spent. It can and does run deficits whenever the **** it feels like. The comparison is simply between spending this money and not spending this money

Yes, unlimited deficit spending certainly works out well for the economy

This attitude is part of the problem with federal spending to begin with. There's little incentive NOT to be wasteful, because as you accurately point out, the government spends as much as it wants anyway. The only (limited) check on this is what is politically acceptable/unacceptable, which surely you must agree is not a very objectively useful limitation.

[Ramo]

Ramo,



Your point?

Additionally, a single-payer system - or even a public/private system - doesn't even really enjoy majority support in this country. Some aspects of it do, of course, and polls may sometimes indicate support, but in the end, it's just not going to happen. The public isn't behind it, and the politicians are too partisan in any case.

And that ignores whether or not such a system would be beneficial - it certainly wouldn't be to me.

What? We have a public/private system. The proposal on the table is to fill in the safety net and implement some regulatory reforms, i.e. to Swissify the system. What exactly do you think Medicare or Medicaid is? A huge portion of expenditures are public. Are you claiming that Medicare is unpopular?

As for how changes might help you personally, a few possibilities:
If you make up to 300/400% of the federal poverty level (depending on the bill), you would receive subsidies.
If lose your job, you would be able to purchase a plan within a health insurance exchange with a large risk pool (buying in the individual market is currently very expensive).
If you get a job working for a small business or start your own, premiums would decrease dramatically because they could buy into the exchange.
If you get sick (i.e. cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.), insurance companies would not be able to discriminate against you.

Those are the biggies. But I really have no intention of getting into a long argument about health care right now.

[David Floyd]

I find it hilarious when supposed libertarians pick something that THEY feel is worthwhile (despite it manifestly not being a public good yadda yadda yadda) and claiming that gov't spending in that area is okay.

I think it's probably obvious that I'm not a Libertarian, at least not in the same sense that Berzerker, for example, is.

[KrazyHorse]

No, genius. The argument is - AGAIN - that the space program has provided more benefits than most other federal programs of equal or greater size.

That's the same argument, you ****wit.

[David Floyd]

Ramo, we can agree to disagree on this thread. I don't want to hijack this into another health care debate.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, the highway system is another good example. I didn't say there were NONE - I said that the space program is above average in terms of getting a return on federal spending.

a) You've shown me nothing to make me believe that this is the case

b) This is the same retarded argument, you ****wit.

[David Floyd]

That's the same argument, you ****wit.

Indeed. I'm glad you finally understand I'm not changing my argument. It's been the same all thread long, regardless of your strawmen.