Malazan Empire: The Space Program - Malazan Empire

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The Space Program Do we keep spending the money?

#1 User is offline   Adjutant Stormy~ 

  • Captain, Team Quick Ben
  • Group: Team Quick Ben
  • Posts: 1,344
  • Joined: 24-January 08

Posted 17 July 2011 - 09:25 AM

Thought provoked from here:
The Things NASA Taught Us

Space is expensive. Do we keep spending the kind of cash we have? I say yes, but, that's a point of view skewed by the fact that I'm a scientist.

Congress is considering cutting NASA's funding. I do not believe this is wise, even if it might be in the short term.

Thoughts?
<!--quoteo(post=462161:date=Nov 1 2008, 06:13 PM:name=Aptorian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aptorian @ Nov 1 2008, 06:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=462161"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->God damn. Mighty drunk. Must ... what is the english movement movement movement for drunk... with out you seemimg drunk?

bla bla bla

Peopleare harrasing me... grrrrrh.

Also people with big noses aren't jews, they're just french

EDIT: We has editted so mucj that5 we're not quite sure... also, leave britney alone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
0

#2 User is offline   Primateus 

  • E Pluribus Anus
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,180
  • Joined: 03-July 10
  • Location:A bigger town, but still small.
  • Interests:Stuff, lots of stuff!

Posted 17 July 2011 - 10:05 AM

I understand a governments reluctance to continue funding space research or to break into that line of research because it's hugely expensive. But I also think, and the article seems to prove my point, that no other area has sparked the imagination, innovation and developement like space has. I fully agree with those who say that space is where our future lie.
Screw you all, and have a nice day!

0

#3 User is online   Aptorian 

  • How 'bout a hug?
  • Group: The Wheelchairs of War
  • Posts: 24,109
  • Joined: 22-May 06

Posted 17 July 2011 - 11:10 AM

Looking up numbers on Wikipedia the annual budget of NASA is around 19 billion. The projected expenditure of the US federal budget for 2011 is something around 3820 billion. I am sure there's some additional numbers that aren't taken into account but it sounds like it's a drop in the ocean. Relatively speaking.

I envision that a shut down of NASA would go something like this. NASA begins to wind down. Immediately a score or more private businesses and corporations would spring up to take over. Naturally they'd be awarded lots of government contracts. The Republicans would get lots of "donations". It would all cost the American people a fraction of what it once cost. Then suddenly one day it is discovered that China has some crazy space programme that is clearly a threat to national interests. 300 billion is allocated to reinvegorating the American space industry. 200 billion of which goes to adminisration and golden handshakes. Every body is happy and another season of Dancing with the biggest loser on American Idol begins.
0

#4 User is offline   Shinrei 

  • charin charin
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,597
  • Joined: 20-February 03

Posted 17 July 2011 - 01:44 PM

View PostPrimateus, on 17 July 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:

I understand a governments reluctance to continue funding space research or to break into that line of research because it's hugely expensive. But I also think, and the article seems to prove my point, that no other area has sparked the imagination, innovation and developement like space has. I fully agree with those who say that space is where our future lie.


Why? (to the underlined part)

Personally, barring some sort of amazing energysource/wormhole discovery that was thought impossible, I don't think humans will colonize Mars or anywhere else in outer space or use it for any real gain other than various research projects. Cost to reward seems just too ridiculously skewed. One point I heard made was that we have barely tried to colonize or 'exploit' Antarctica in anyway, and in terms of environmental adaptation concerns, accessibility and cost, that should be a helluva lot easier than trying to do stuff on Mars or the moon.
You’ve never heard of the Silanda? … It’s the ship that made the Warren of Telas run in less than 12 parsecs.
0

#5 User is offline   Primateus 

  • E Pluribus Anus
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,180
  • Joined: 03-July 10
  • Location:A bigger town, but still small.
  • Interests:Stuff, lots of stuff!

Posted 17 July 2011 - 03:25 PM

Well, I never said it'd be anytime soon. But in terms of cost/benefit...If the population continues to grow as it does now with dwindling resources, food supply even suitable living space I don't think, in the long run, we'll have any other choice, that it would be too costly not to try and colonize other worlds. Certainly, the possibility of this lies, I think, not in our life time.

But it seems to me that Stephen Hawking is right and that the survival of our species depends on us colonizing space so to not put all of our eggs in one basket. Meaning some world-shattering disaster will not wipe us out.

I have no doubt that it'll be a very long process and that neither us nor our grandchildren are likely to see it.

All of this, of course, naturally entails that we manage not to wipe ourselves out before that.
Screw you all, and have a nice day!

0

#6 User is offline   RaRugged 

  • Recruit
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 21-April 11

Posted 17 July 2011 - 03:35 PM

View PostPennyapt, on 17 July 2011 - 11:10 AM, said:

Looking up numbers on Wikipedia the annual budget of NASA is around 19 billion. The projected expenditure of the US federal budget for 2011 is something around 3820 billion. I am sure there's some additional numbers that aren't taken into account but it sounds like it's a drop in the ocean. Relatively speaking.


This mentality is what got us $14 trlllion knee-deep in debt in the first place.
0

#7 User is online   Aptorian 

  • How 'bout a hug?
  • Group: The Wheelchairs of War
  • Posts: 24,109
  • Joined: 22-May 06

Posted 17 July 2011 - 03:44 PM

Spending money on education and science is never going to be something I will call a bad mentality. If people spent more money focusing on raising public awareness and less funding air conditioners in the Iraqi desert I am sure the economy would be in a better place.
0

#8 User is offline   Gust Hubb 

  • Necromancer Extraordinaire
  • View gallery
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 1,479
  • Joined: 19-May 11
  • Location:Northern Hemisphere
  • Interests:Glass slides with entrapped bits of colored tissue
  • Around, just quiet....er

Posted 17 July 2011 - 03:46 PM

I dunno, I like the way Primateus is thinking (even if I think another intelligent species could do better than us humans at running this world and others). I think that the money is going to be wasted regardless of what we do (like being dumped into "special" projects, other sundry corruption, or the defense budget), and rarely does anyone seem to give a crap what the poor and needy want (unless it is a massive media frenzy over some disaster for a couple of months before ignoring the problem altogether as in New Orleans).

As a result, if we can improve our lot another step and eject some of this crowded planet into other barren worlds like Mars, I say that would be helpful.
"You don't clean u other peoples messes.... You roll in them like a dog on leftover smoked whitefish torn out f the trash by raccoons after Sunday brunch on a hot day."
~Abyss

0

#9 User is offline   Binder of Demons 

  • Lord of Light
  • View gallery
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 1,617
  • Joined: 02-March 07
  • Location:Ireland
  • - Thread Killer -

Posted 17 July 2011 - 05:43 PM

For some reason I can't access the original link, but i think dramatically scaling back the Space Programme is a big mistake. I would consider the original space race as possibly the single biggest driver of technological progress outside of wartime development since the Industrial Revolution (and of course, the Space Race was a cold war thing).

I would prefer a non-military area of focus for the next generation of scientists and thinkers. And I firmly believe that developing technologies for living in Space (more specifically on the moon, or Mars) would be a huge benefit to us here on Earth. One of the biggest issues facing our planet currently is that of rampant consumption, and poor efficiency. And energy supply and efficiency is one of the major obstacles to living in space. While the first generation of technologies would probably be high tech and too expensive for the majority of people, you would rapidly see commercial application of many of these technologies, and eventually, low-cost (and hopefully low-tech) versions trickling down to the consumer.

Off the top of my head, I would see a few major areas of research needed for a manned mission to mars.
BATTERY DEVELOPMENT
RENEWABLE ENERGY
LIGHTWEIGHT MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT
ENERGY EFFICIENT BUILDING MATERIALS
RECYCLING TECHNOLOGY
WATER PURIFICATION AND EXTRACTION

I'd need to think longer about the medical developments necessary for a space programme doing manned missions but remote surgery is one possibility (and this is already under development). Radiation issues, and gravity related medical issues would also need to be greatly expanded beyond the existing knowledge from the ISS.


All of these are areas of research that will also need to be developed to deal with our problems here on Earth. A Space Programme just puts all of these issues into sharp relief and allows researchers to develop ideas for a closed system. Other people can then adapt their findings to the more open and chaotic systems in the "real world" here on Earth.

And then of course there is the benefit of unforeseen applications of ideas/technologies arising from a Space Programme. When you consider the monumental intellectual leaps that occurred when so many great scientists were working in a single area like the Manhattan Project, you can see the possibilities. Whole new areas of mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology arose from that time. Computer science as we know it was kick started (mostly the theoretical side). In biology, you had the area of "Nuclear Medicine" which lead to the study of the effects of radiation, which gave us an insight into some cancers, and also chemotherapy. Now these would probably have been investigated in due time, put a major research programme tends to accelerate the generation of these ideas. When you think of modern physics, the Manhattan project is like a who's who of the major thinkers of the 20th century.

Also a tangible goal can also lead to great breakthroughs from existing knowledge. Take for example the development of penicillin, which was already understood, but only when the need for better antibiotics was critical during wartime did people put the time and money into bringing it out of the lab.

And if you want to see how putting great minds together can lead to interesting ideas, take the development of GPS which came from a bunch of nerds messing around when they first heard the radio signal from SPUTNIK. Just to prove they could, over lunch, these guys figured out how to predict the position of SPUTNIK from the radio signal. One of their bosses overheard them, and asked the question, instead of using multiple earth bound positions to track one satellite, could you do the reverse, and use multiple satellites to give you a unique position on earth. The answer proved to be pretty straightforward, and gave us what we now know as GPS, which has become so commonplace.


But an ambitious Space Programme with good funding and an inspirational goal, would be a far better use of money in my mind than the amazing amounts which are wasted in bloated Defense budgets.

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt - Mark Twain

Never argue with an idiot!
They'll drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience!
- Anonymous
3

#10 User is offline   The Royal Mattress 

  • Recruit
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 17 July 2011 - 05:43 PM

View PostRaRugged, on 17 July 2011 - 03:35 PM, said:

View PostPennyapt, on 17 July 2011 - 11:10 AM, said:

Looking up numbers on Wikipedia the annual budget of NASA is around 19 billion. The projected expenditure of the US federal budget for 2011 is something around 3820 billion. I am sure there's some additional numbers that aren't taken into account but it sounds like it's a drop in the ocean. Relatively speaking.


This mentality is what got us $14 trlllion knee-deep in debt in the first place.



I would venture that what got us into 14 trillion into debt would be Reaganomics Debt chart (adjusted for inflation) . Its fairly clear from that chart that something sure changed right around 1981. Im still waiting for that 1 trillion we spent on a busted StarWars program to trickle on down into my job market.
Tehol ~ ‘Brys, if an army must rally, one must presume it is in dire straits, yes? Well then, where better to hide than under the king’s bed?
0

#11 User is offline   TaxManATX 

  • Corporal
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 26-October 10

Posted 17 July 2011 - 06:25 PM

I don't have time to add much to this topic as I need to get back to studying as soon as I finish lunch, but I wanted to post this link. It seems like a very interesting read and as soon as I'm done with my exams I plan on picking it up.

http://io9.com/58122...and-why-we-must
0

#12 User is online   worry 

  • Master of the Deck
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 13,734
  • Joined: 24-February 10
  • Location:the buried west

Posted 17 July 2011 - 06:44 PM

I'm with Binder of Demons, in that I think if the goals of NASA and space exploration in general could dovetail with what we might broadly call "efficiency technology" (renewable energy included) -- and I'm not saying that's not already the case, just not the perception -- it would be at least as relevant now as it ever was.
They came with white hands and left with red hands.
0

#13 User is offline   RaRugged 

  • Recruit
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 21-April 11

Posted 18 July 2011 - 01:24 AM

View PostThe Royal Mattress, on 17 July 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:

View PostRaRugged, on 17 July 2011 - 03:35 PM, said:

View PostPennyapt, on 17 July 2011 - 11:10 AM, said:

Looking up numbers on Wikipedia the annual budget of NASA is around 19 billion. The projected expenditure of the US federal budget for 2011 is something around 3820 billion. I am sure there's some additional numbers that aren't taken into account but it sounds like it's a drop in the ocean. Relatively speaking.


This mentality is what got us $14 trlllion knee-deep in debt in the first place.



I would venture that what got us into 14 trillion into debt would be Reaganomics Debt chart (adjusted for inflation) . Its fairly clear from that chart that something sure changed right around 1981. Im still waiting for that 1 trillion we spent on a busted StarWars program to trickle on down into my job market.




That's a wonderful argument for spending. Look, look! Other presidents have spent so much money! It won't hurt if we spend just a little more BILLIONS of dollars, right???

No one is defending Reagan's economic policy; in fact, many of his decisions mirror your mentality. The mentality of "a little won't hurt".
0

#14 User is online   worry 

  • Master of the Deck
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 13,734
  • Joined: 24-February 10
  • Location:the buried west

Posted 18 July 2011 - 02:57 AM

Money wasn't invented to be spent, we're supposed to keep it stored in a glass case next to our trophies, heirlooms, and Elvis collector plates.
They came with white hands and left with red hands.
0

#15 User is offline   The Royal Mattress 

  • Recruit
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 19 July 2011 - 03:33 AM

Im not saying that runaway deficit spending is a good thing, but a government of 300+ million people must, by necessity, spend a significant amount of money to take care of its people. Spending is a good thing on all counts, it boosts the economy, creates jobs, and promotes the general well-being of citizens and business. The problem that we have run into is the coupling of vast amounts of spending with a regime of slash taxes leadership. If the years of tax cuts on the wealthy, both individuals and coorporations, were repealed our country would be able to cover much of the deficit spending problems that we have run into, without the need to cut funding from programs such as nasa that benefit society on ever level imaginable. The deficit is a good republican talking point and scareword for votebuilding...but it ignores the true problems that are at play here. Trickle down economics IS the problem.
Tehol ~ ‘Brys, if an army must rally, one must presume it is in dire straits, yes? Well then, where better to hide than under the king’s bed?
0

#16 User is offline   Daemonwolf 

  • Lieutenant
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 10-July 11
  • Location:TX

Posted 19 July 2011 - 04:27 AM

View PostThe Royal Mattress, on 19 July 2011 - 03:33 AM, said:

Im not saying that runaway deficit spending is a good thing, but a government of 300+ million people must, by necessity, spend a significant amount of money to take care of its people. Spending is a good thing on all counts, it boosts the economy, creates jobs, and promotes the general well-being of citizens and business. The problem that we have run into is the coupling of vast amounts of spending with a regime of slash taxes leadership. If the years of tax cuts on the wealthy, both individuals and coorporations, were repealed our country would be able to cover much of the deficit spending problems that we have run into, without the need to cut funding from programs such as nasa that benefit society on ever level imaginable. The deficit is a good republican talking point and scareword for votebuilding...but it ignores the true problems that are at play here. Trickle down economics IS the problem.


I highly disagree with you The Royal Mattress.... Don't get me wrong, Yours is a viewpoint held by a great many people, and deserves to be heard just as much as it deserves to be considered.

My own personal disagreement with your statements being primarily based on your targeting of the wealthy. The main issue with taxing the wealthy is a very very complicated game. Just as economics are a complicated matter when you start looking at the cause and effect of it. For simplicity sake though here's a few things to think on.

1> Damn near everyone in the world wishes they were wealthy. Wealth leads to the loss of many limitations on doing the things you dream about. So were you to place yourself in the shoes of wealth, your viewpoint on this whole subject would change quite a bit, if only because now the rest of the world is after your money to pay for everything, so they don't have to.

2> Believe it or not, the wealthy are already footing a very substantial amount of the government's budget. While the vast majority of people, aren't actually paying taxes, and are really getting tax refunds. I wonder how many of the people asking for taxes on the wealthy to be raised got one. As an example, I was employed for half of 2010, when I filed my taxes, after collecting all that unemployment imagine my surprise when i got a $1400 refund. To put that in perspective, multiply that 1400 by the number of people earning $40000 or less (which is roughly 50% of the population or 150 million people to keep it simple. thats $21 Billion in refunds to people.)

3> The wealthy are the people who drive the economy even away from taxes, as the wealthy are the people who own businesses, which create jobs. Which gives non-wealthy people money to spend, which lets them go buy things, those things are sold by people who get paid to sell them, who got them from distributors, who got them from the manufaturer, which is owned by a business, that is in turn owned by a wealthy person. So if the wealthy person is working hard to make money, and keep his business ahead, while losing more and more of the money he makes to higher and higher taxes against him, what incentive does he have to even keep going and creating jobs? Its very similar to if your Job says i'll pay you $10/hr but you'll need to give 10% to taxes, or I'll give you $15/hr and you'll have to pay 40% to taxes... which is really the more appealing?

but back to the Original Post,

The space program for NASA was originally geared around the Constellation program following the shuttle, and was a year from completion before the funding was cut. The constellation program was going to be NASA returning to the moon.

However the space program is going to be continued via private companies, such as SpaceX who just broke ground on theirn new launchpad at vandenberg, california as well as being a company that was started with $100 million of Elon Musk's (co-founder of paypal) own money. NASA at the end of the shuttle program this week, will begin laying off approximately 1200 people in Florida alone, while they get a new game plan and transition plan in place. After which the current theory is that they will begin to re-hire a majority of them in an effort to begin on their new gameplan, whatever they decide that is, to meet the current goals set to them, of visiting an asteroid by 2020 and mars by 2030.

just my two cents...
You dream that with memories will come knowledge, and from knowledge, understanding. But for every answer you find, a thousand questions arise.

Deadhouse Gates, Steven Erikson
0

#17 User is offline   HoosierDaddy 

  • Believer
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 7,684
  • Joined: 30-June 08
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Football

Posted 19 July 2011 - 04:51 AM

Job creators as a euphemism for the rich. The Republican brand-names are so catchy aren't they? The guy who does those, can't think of his name right now, is a genius. They bounce around the Right's echo-chamber like a super-bouncy-ball.

Also, I love how "having wealth" limits the opportunity of "doing the things you dream about." That has to be the single most ridiculous statement I've ever read. I mean it just takes the cake. Christ, you really took 'Mo Money Mo Problems' seriously didn't you?

Space Agency needs to be publicly funded, with at least 10% of the Defense budget. Life-raft is a cliche, but it holds true. Earth is eventually going to go bye-bye when the Sun swallows it up in the expansion to Red Sun. So, those of us who don't believe there's a life-after or apocalypse would prefer the human race have some sort of chance of surviving; preferably one that isn't predicated on the whims of private financiers and for profit corporations.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
0

#18 User is offline   Daemonwolf 

  • Lieutenant
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 10-July 11
  • Location:TX

Posted 19 July 2011 - 05:31 AM

View PostHoosierDaddy, on 19 July 2011 - 04:51 AM, said:

Job creators as a euphemism for the rich. The Republican brand-names are so catchy aren't they? The guy who does those, can't think of his name right now, is a genius. They bounce around the Right's echo-chamber like a super-bouncy-ball.

Also, I love how "having wealth" limits the opportunity of "doing the things you dream about." That has to be the single most ridiculous statement I've ever read. I mean it just takes the cake. Christ, you really took 'Mo Money Mo Problems' seriously didn't you?

Space Agency needs to be publicly funded, with at least 10% of the Defense budget. Life-raft is a cliche, but it holds true. Earth is eventually going to go bye-bye when the Sun swallows it up in the expansion to Red Sun. So, those of us who don't believe there's a life-after or apocalypse would prefer the human race have some sort of chance of surviving; preferably one that isn't predicated on the whims of private financiers and for profit corporations.


As I stated in the post, you decided to deride, everyone's opinion is worth hearing. Just as everyone is entitled to give rebuttal.

So I can only ask since you feel the wealthy aren't a leading creator of jobs, and wealth isn't a driving motivator for people. What creates jobs, and motivates people? I always get confused on where the people I have conversed with that hold similar opinions as you, think that jobs, businesses, corporations, and even non-profit organizations get their start or their funding (philanthropy and charity is most commonly done by those of means, who can afford it, so those cant be used).

as for your second statement, what I said was "Wealth leads to the loss of many limitations on doing the things you dream about.' I.E. If you have wealth, your not limited on what you can do as much as many people. If your wealthy, you can afford to do almost anything you want to do. Be it travel the world, buy a new car, buy a new car dealership, start a shelter for abused animals, the deeper the pockets, the fewer the limitations.


and as for your third statement!!!


I have no issues with that, the defense budget itself is actually partially involved in research anyway. So why not just remove the defense research budget, and give NASA a two-fold task that encompasses research for both non-military and military applications? (Not saying that's actually what you said, but just kind of expanding your point with my own musings.)


just my two cents..
You dream that with memories will come knowledge, and from knowledge, understanding. But for every answer you find, a thousand questions arise.

Deadhouse Gates, Steven Erikson
0

#19 User is offline   HoosierDaddy 

  • Believer
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 7,684
  • Joined: 30-June 08
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Football

Posted 19 July 2011 - 05:41 AM

View PostDaemonwolf, on 19 July 2011 - 05:31 AM, said:

View PostHoosierDaddy, on 19 July 2011 - 04:51 AM, said:

Job creators as a euphemism for the rich. The Republican brand-names are so catchy aren't they? The guy who does those, can't think of his name right now, is a genius. They bounce around the Right's echo-chamber like a super-bouncy-ball.

Also, I love how "having wealth" limits the opportunity of "doing the things you dream about." That has to be the single most ridiculous statement I've ever read. I mean it just takes the cake. Christ, you really took 'Mo Money Mo Problems' seriously didn't you?

Space Agency needs to be publicly funded, with at least 10% of the Defense budget. Life-raft is a cliche, but it holds true. Earth is eventually going to go bye-bye when the Sun swallows it up in the expansion to Red Sun. So, those of us who don't believe there's a life-after or apocalypse would prefer the human race have some sort of chance of surviving; preferably one that isn't predicated on the whims of private financiers and for profit corporations.


As I stated in the post, you decided to deride, everyone's opinion is worth hearing. Just as everyone is entitled to give rebuttal.

So I can only ask since you feel the wealthy aren't a leading creator of jobs, and wealth isn't a driving motivator for people. What creates jobs, and motivates people? I always get confused on where the people I have conversed with that hold similar opinions as you, think that jobs, businesses, corporations, and even non-profit organizations get their start or their funding (philanthropy and charity is most commonly done by those of means, who can afford it, so those cant be used).

as for your second statement, what I said was "Wealth leads to the loss of many limitations on doing the things you dream about.' I.E. If you have wealth, your not limited on what you can do as much as many people. If your wealthy, you can afford to do almost anything you want to do. Be it travel the world, buy a new car, buy a new car dealership, start a shelter for abused animals, the deeper the pockets, the fewer the limitations.

and as for your third statement!!!

I have no issues with that, the defense budget itself is actually partially involved in research anyway. So why not just remove the defense research budget, and give NASA a two-fold task that encompasses research for both non-military and military applications? (Not saying that's actually what you said, but just kind of expanding your point with my own musings.)

just my two cents..


Deride? No, there is something to be admired in Republican branding, it certainly works. Do I disagree? Hell yes, but I can't disagree that it convinces most ignorant people. Death tax, death panels, they label things very well to sell their view.

Wealthy people don't create jobs in the U.S. anymore, they ship them off and downsize to make bigger profits. This discussion is not prudent to this topic, but you brought it up and I wanted to show how well this particular branding had done amongst the echo-chamber. No intelligent person buys supply-side economis which is all that this is, but if they can re-brand it as something else.... who knows?

I was actually trying to be a bit generous. If I was "wealthy" I'd have no problem be taxed to high-heaven. 90% for those who make so much they no longer know what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck. My mind wouldn't change you see because I feel some sort of compulsion to help and support my fellow man. "Wealth changes people": maybe, but if it changes them into those sort of people that forget how it was to be middle-class or worse then they were probably shits to begin with forget them. If they were wealthy to begin with, then they haven't changed at all and shouldn't know any differently. Which is why I understand how 5% or so of the richest people vote.
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....
0

#20 User is online   worry 

  • Master of the Deck
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 13,734
  • Joined: 24-February 10
  • Location:the buried west

Posted 19 July 2011 - 06:00 AM

1) Speculation. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind being wealthy, and perhaps Americans (Westerners?) partake in the delusion that they might become wealthy someday, but I don't think much of that applies to people worldwide (the billions in China? India? Africa?). But I imagine most people actually want to earn a middle class living doing something they enjoy doing (or at least value doing), without the worry that one or two unfortunate events would take them down to subsistence level or below. People might wish they could indulge in some of the leisure and luxury benefits of the ultra-rich, but what they want more than that (by quite a wide margin, I'd also speculate) is comfort and security.

2) As they should, and more. If we look at the numbers, "the top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes." (source: http://www.csmonitor...do-they-pay-now). It only makes sense that if you want to accomplish something that requires a lot of money, then you would collect it from those who have the vast majority of it. Also, people get refunds on the taxes they've prepaid, but it doesn't mean they get 100% of that amount in the refund. The claim that most people don't pay taxes is absolutely false. Even if you limit that to federal income tax, more than 50% of people wind up owing. And if that's still too low a number, it might be better to start determining why people are falling out of the middle class, instead of fudging the lines of where the middle class starts (not suggesting you personally made that argument). Cuz frankly, $21 billion spread across 150,000,000 people just isn't an impressive number at all.

3) Lots of factors and people drive the economy, but (some of) the wealthy sure would like to maintain a stranglehold on it, that's for sure. I wouldn't consider the majority of business owners wealthy, and in fact small businesses make up about 99.9% of all businesses (source: http://www.sba.gov/c...esses-are-there). Perhaps one place we would agree (I hope) is that it's kind of silly to lump the people making $250,000 a year or so with those making say, $1,000,000 or even $500k. Which isn't to say the 250k are taxed too highly IMO, but the others aren't taxed remotely highly enough (we may start disagreeing there). And of course, things like having kids and paying tuitions are already compensated for among the tax adjustments, so that's always a pretty lame complaint. And as we know, if you make $255,000 in a year, only that $5,001 is gonna be taxed that highest rate. But I mean, all that said, I wouldn't be mad at establishing a new bracket or two among the top 1% in the country, though I'm not aware of any such momentum among either Dems or Repubs. I'm not sure why you brought up "working hard" since there's no particular correlation between effort and income. And those hypothetical tax brackets, even if you're just using them for comparative purposes, are so unreal they distort more than they help. The real world difference between those tax brackets are people living at or below our lowest reasonable standard of living level and people so rich they don't actually exist; but let's apply them to the top earners who do exist...the average income of the top 1% is about $1.3 million (with pretty wide variation, but you know). If you taxed them at 40% (which didn't happen before Bush's tax cuts anyway), they'd still have $800,000 to spend or whatever. In a year. You'll have to forgive me if their complaints fall on deaf ears.

None of that is to say I don't value money. I like it, having it, using it, etc. All good. But if you're angry that your $500k became $300k, you're living your life wrong. You only get the one and you're missing the big picture. Likewise, and it may sound cheesy but I consider it true anyway, collectively we've only got the one world. And running it with money or wealth as the bottom line is shortsighted, petty, and ultimately a dead end. It's not healthy physically or emotionally, it's not rational, and it's not even utilitarian, even if it's couched in that language.

I could be wrong about all of this, however:

They came with white hands and left with red hands.
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users