Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TM Lounge' started by trpguyy, Feb 4, 2004.
And it goes on...
Perhaps this modern "space race" will get people excited again about space travel?
Or lead to another pointless exercise in national competition. I don't know why our governments can't just work together for the good of ALL MANKIND. I fear that the costs of individual efforts are bound to slow the "race to Mars" down a lot. "Synergy" is the key to reduction of wasted effort.
And don't get me wrong...I'm a fan of space exploration and have been for decades. I remember who Laika was...but can't remember the name of the monkey!
how about all those who want a mars mission pay for that mission?
with a $500B deficit now is not the time.
I disagree James. It's things like this planned mission to Mars that help to give the American people confidence in their country and it has a positive effect on the country, which will help to burn off a $500B deficit.
Things are not always as they seem.
any kind pf social program that will aid people in the ghetto, we are told to pull our selves up by our bootstraps.
what's wrong with asking a bunch of guys with degrees from MIT to do the same?
surely they are better equipped to stand on their own feet than ghetto residents.
why is it uplifting to society to throw money at a bunch of aerospace companies and never so to help people who are suffering and dieing?
can you say 'haliburton'?
Somehow, despite our leftist pinko commie tendencies, the Canadian government has managed to end up with a budget surplus this year, even without putting anybody on Mars...
The only argument I can see for spending all of this money on a Mars mission is that it will help stimulate research. However, spending that money on AIDS or cancer research would have the same effect, and save a lot more lives. Putting a man or woman on Mars does seem like a tremendously cool idea, but the question, "Why?" does come up. It's not like people are now using the moon as a vacation spot, or for research, or for colonization, and it's a lot easier to get to. It does strike me as a tremendously expensive exercise in doing something just to prove that it can be done. I, for one, have no doubt that it can be done, so I think that a more relevant challenge might be in order. Perhaps countries that want to prove their capabilities should prove that they can conquer poverty, hunger, and illiteracy, and then worry about conquering Mars.
Why stop at Mars? Let's explore Uranus. There are a bunch of people I would like to send there...
NE, if you wait until all of those other things are conquered before you make the next move in space exploration, then it will never get done.
James, I think that social programs have their place, but my biggest complaint is that when you get right down to it, who is it that pays for those social programs? It isn't the people that are benefitting from them, because they don't pay income tax...they don't have to because they don't make enough money, they don't pull their own weight. The people that actually pay for the social programs are the people that don't need them. It's a redistribution of wealth, sanctioned theft really. I can liken it to our government being Robin Hood, taking money to the rich and giving it to the poor.
James, you said:
"why is it uplifting to society to throw money at a bunch of aerospace companies and never so to help people who are suffering and dieing? "
Do you really think that the money that get's thrown at the aerospace companies doesn't in part make it's way back into the social programs of the country? By boosting those companies, they hire more people. Smart people. People that are going to make a lot of money. Those people pay income tax based on what they make. In some cases that's A LOT of money. That money in turn ends up getting spent on social programs. A lot more money than would make it's way there if the government didn't put some money toward the aerospace companies. It would be dumb not to bolster those companies. Those companies, like it or not, are the companies that help to drive the US economy. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money.
On the other hand, those that need the social programs that you are talking about do nothing but drain money money from the economy because they don't pay income taxes. The only taxes they pay are sales taxes and taxes that are associated with the price of goods and services. (Imort taxes is one example.) Unfortunately, because they don't make a lot of money, they end up putting far less money back into the economy.
By comparisson, take someone that makes good money at a company like Lockheed Martin. That person is going to pay a lot of income tax, and likewise, because they have more money to spend on goods and services, is going to dump much more money into the economy due to sales taxes and other related taxes.
A manned mission to mars is a good goal to shoot for for that very reason.
"spending that money on AIDS or cancer research would have the same effect, and save a lot more lives" NE
suppose money was spent on social programs in the ghetto and a bunch of those non performing people(like me) were able to go out and get jobs.
they would then pay tax and the gument would get it's money back.
I'd be happy to be a taxpayer but I'm not going to be able to do that without some(a lot of) help.
why can't we deploy all those folks at haliburton to rebuild the ghetto
or the infrastructure or something that will do some good as opposed to a trophy hunt?
I'm not against going to mars but why can't they pay for it their selves just as some one who wants to go scuba diving has to?
"NE, if you wait until all of those other things are conquered before you make the next move in space exploration, then it will never get done."
Turn that around:
If you wait until Mars is conquered before you make the next move in eliminating poverty and illiteracy, then it will never get done.
I know which scenario I prefer!
There are a couple of big problems with the idea that giving money to large corporations automatically stimulates the economy more than spending it on social programs. (Wow, did this one get off-topic in a hurry!)
1.) Those who advocate corporate welfare always paint social programs as if there is nothing other than welfare, and that welfare has no secondary benefits. To me, social spending means making sure that everybody is healthy and fed, and has an opportunity to get an education. That results in a happier, more productive, better-educated workforce. It also results in less crime, because people with skills and food on the table are less likely to resort to robbery or dealing drugs.
2.) Those who advocate corporate welfare always claim that it gets re-invested in the economy. That overlooks several basic facts. First, a lot of that money finds its way into the pockets of the executives. Second, many corporations are not creating highly-paid jobs in the US, they are creating low-paying jobs in China and Mexico. How much of the money that's going to be spent putting a man on Mars will actually end up in the pockets of these researchers? Aerospace companies are already spending money on R & D; is it not likely or at least possible that giving them money to spend on these kinds of projects is just going to result in them being able to divert some of their own money from R & D towards more profitable ventures?
3.) The trickle-down theorists seem to feel that money put into the hands of the wealthy gets taxed and spent at a higher rate. However, somebody who is living on a subsistence income is spending virtually 100% of his income on taxable items -- since rent includes the property taxes paid by the owner. Wealthy people aren't spending anywhere near 100% of their income in that manner. Furthermore, again this ignores the fact that giving money to the wealthy does not create a larger or more skilled workforce. Subsidizing childcare and education do.
4.) I find it ironic that you would cast the government as Robin Hood. Isn't Robin Hood the good guy? I have no problem with redistribution of wealth. Society functions best when all its members are happy and healthy, and very few wealthy people or companies achieved that wealth solely through the sweat of their own brow.
I think this post will demonstrate that I agree with you on that. My point is simply that if the government feels compelled to research something, there are more immediate concerns.