The End (continued)

Preferences for spending cuts in various areas:

(General social survey 2010)
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-debt-deal/?hp


[snip]

Democrats Republicans
Space Exploration 63 54

0 is increase spending, 50 is keep spending as it is now, 100, cut spending.

So, most people in the U.S. agree that space exploration should be cut.

This will allow for significant savings for other, more important
endeavours. For instance servicing the debt costs (only in 2010)
413,954,825,362.17 US$, almost 414 billion in ONLY ONE YEAR.
(Source:http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ir_expense.htm)

Compare THAT figure to spending in space exploration (around
15 billion) and you will see how ridiculous all this talk is.

This is interesting because it shows that the space program
has lost all most of its popular support. This will make it
very easy to put an end to it without any public opposition.

Space is of course not the only thing that is should be "cut".

Kansas has decided that any dollar spent in arts endowments should
disappear. The budget for the arts has shrunk to zero.

That's obvious too, art doesn't bring any revenue and is
generally useless. Specially in Kansas.

Le 01/08/11 20:50, jacob navia a écrit :
servicing the debt costs (only in 2010)
413,954,825,362.17 US$, almost 414 billion in ONLY ONE YEAR.
(Source:http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ir_expense.htm)

To give you an idea, that means that it costs 47 255 117 dollars
each hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year...

The magnitude of that leaves the proposed savings of
1500 billion in the dust. 1500 billion is only the
debt servicing of 3 years, and those 1500 billion
should be spread out in 10 years.

The U.S.A is completely broke.

On 8/1/2011 10:50 AM, jacob navia wrote:
This will allow for significant savings for other, more important
endeavours. For instance servicing the debt costs (only in 2010)
413,954,825,362.17 US$, almost 414 billion in ONLY ONE YEAR.
(Source:http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ir_expense.htm)

Compare THAT figure to spending in space exploration (around
15 billion) and you will see how ridiculous all this talk is.

Saying that space exploration costs only 15 billion a year misses the
point; it's a whole pile of things that cost only a few billion each
year that make up the budget shortfall.

Pat

Le 02/08/11 17:56, Pat Flannery a écrit :
On 8/1/2011 10:50 AM, jacob navia wrote:
This will allow for significant savings for other, more important
endeavours. For instance servicing the debt costs (only in 2010)
413,954,825,362.17 US$, almost 414 billion in ONLY ONE YEAR.
(Source:http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ir_expense.htm)

Compare THAT figure to spending in space exploration (around
15 billion) and you will see how ridiculous all this talk is.

Saying that space exploration costs only 15 billion a year misses the
point; it's a whole pile of things that cost only a few billion each
year that make up the budget shortfall.

Pat

No. The principal culprit is the military and the wars. The U.S.A
spends 43% of all the world military expenses. The next country after
the U.S.A. is China with 7% of the world military expenses. Then come
all other countries of the world.

The U.S. has no enemy. After the soviets disappeared the miltary
searched frantically for an enemy that would justify the waste
and they were lucky: Bin laden came to fill the gap.

But now he is dead, and the question arises again:

Must the U.S.A. spend all by itself 43% of the world military
expenses? Without any country that opposes them?

Penny wise and pound foolish. Eliminating space exploration
will not solve any budget shortfall.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:56:11 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote, in part:

Saying that space exploration costs only 15 billion a year misses the
point; it's a whole pile of things that cost only a few billion each
year that make up the budget shortfall.

Well, no, not really. National defense, Social Security, Medicaid...
there are a *few* things which cost many billions that match and exceed
the budget shortfall.

However, the consequences of recklessly cutting them would be severe,
and so making the effort of looking for individual items, each of which
are only a few billion, elsewhere has been necessary. Ultimately, it is
true that the U.S. Government should live within its means.

However, when the country is still reeling from a stock market crash is
not the time to engage in fiscal discipline - and going to the wall to
protect every single tax cut for the rich is another thing for which I
cannot thank the Republicans, but must instead excoriate them.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

Le 02/08/11 19:12, John Savard a écrit :
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:56:11 -0800, Pat
wrote, in part:

Saying that space exploration costs only 15 billion a year misses the
point; it's a whole pile of things that cost only a few billion each
year that make up the budget shortfall.

Well, no, not really. National defense, Social Security, Medicaid...
there are a *few* things which cost many billions that match and exceed
the budget shortfall.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/bu...plane.html?hpw

quote
The Air Force decided last month to stick with its $12 billion Global
Hawk program, betting that the unmanned drone can replicate the aging
U-2’s ability to sweep up a broad mix of intelligence from commanding
heights, and do it more safely and for much longer stretches than the
piloted U-2. The Navy is also onboard, with plans to spend $11 billion
on a version that could patrol vast ocean areas.
end quote

12+11=23 billion. This SINGLE weapons program costs more than ALL
the space exploration program. NASA's budget is around 19 billion.

National defense?

Defense from whom?

I repeat: no single country is challenging the
U.S. dominance. They have no enemy but a powerful mililtary
industrial complex that is eating them alive.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:39:05 +0200, jacob navia
wrote, in part:

I repeat: no single country is challenging the
U.S. dominance. They have no enemy but a powerful mililtary
industrial complex that is eating them alive.

Russia invaded peaceful, democratic Georgia under a false pretext,
choosing a moment when the President of the U.S. was attending the
Olympics in a hostile foreign country to do so, in order that the
American response could not be well-orchestrated.

Mainland China continues to threaten both India and Taiwan, two
democratic nations.

A terrorist operation, killing almost as many Americans as the attack on
Pearl Harbor, was carried out by al-Qaeda - and that terrorist
organization still exists, having havens in Pakistan, which the U.S. is
being obstructed in dealing with.

Iran is developing a nuclear capability which could be used against
Israel, another Western democracy.

We do _not_ live in a peaceful world where there is simply no threat of
war pretty much forever and ever, where the world's democracies are free
to devote their attentions to mopping up human-rights abuses in places
like the Sudan and Somalia and Burma.

Instead, after a short respite, as the gains were not consolidated,
we're basically back to the Cold War.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

On 8/2/2011 4:35 PM, John Savard wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:39:05 +0200, jacob
wrote, in part:

I repeat: no single country is challenging the
U.S. dominance. They have no enemy but a powerful mililtary
industrial complex that is eating them alive.

Russia invaded peaceful, democratic Georgia under a false pretext,
choosing a moment when the President of the U.S. was attending the
Olympics in a hostile foreign country to do so, in order that the
American response could not be well-orchestrated.

Mainland China continues to threaten both India and Taiwan, two
democratic nations.

A terrorist operation, killing almost as many Americans as the attack on
Pearl Harbor, was carried out by al-Qaeda - and that terrorist
organization still exists, having havens in Pakistan, which the U.S. is
being obstructed in dealing with.

Iran is developing a nuclear capability which could be used against
Israel, another Western democracy.

We do _not_ live in a peaceful world where there is simply no threat of
war pretty much forever and ever, where the world's democracies are free
to devote their attentions to mopping up human-rights abuses in places
like the Sudan and Somalia and Burma.

Instead, after a short respite, as the gains were not consolidated,
we're basically back to the Cold War.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

Le 03/08/11 02:35, John Savard a écrit :
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:39:05 +0200, jacob
wrote, in part:

I repeat: no single country is challenging the
U.S. dominance. They have no enemy but a powerful mililtary
industrial complex that is eating them alive.

Russia invaded peaceful, democratic Georgia under a false pretext,
choosing a moment when the President of the U.S. was attending the
Olympics in a hostile foreign country to do so, in order that the
American response could not be well-orchestrated.


Let's suppose it was so and not that Georgia started it, as many
believe. In no case was the U.S. threatened. Russia invaded
Georgia, not New York. Why should the U.S. be more concerned
than France, Brazil or China?


Mainland China continues to threaten both India and Taiwan, two
democratic nations.


Yes, and so what? China threatens, as you say, India and Taiwan, not
California.

A terrorist operation, killing almost as many Americans as the attack on
Pearl Harbor, was carried out by al-Qaeda - and that terrorist
organization still exists, having havens in Pakistan, which the U.S. is
being obstructed in dealing with.


Sure, they exist. And so what? Does the U.S. need to spend 43% of
the world military expenses to counter a group of at most thousand
people?

Al Qaeda isn't even a small country, not even a small province by
population!

Iran is developing a nuclear capability which could be used against
Israel, another Western democracy.


Yes. And so what? It is threatening the U.S.? No.


We do _not_ live in a peaceful world where there is simply no threat of
war pretty much forever and ever, where the world's democracies are free
to devote their attentions to mopping up human-rights abuses in places
like the Sudan and Somalia and Burma.


Problem is, major WARS were started by the U.S. very often. If the
world is not as peaceful as it should be is because the U.S. starts
wars periodically.

Instead, after a short respite, as the gains were not consolidated,
we're basically back to the Cold War.


In all your examples you assume that the U.S. is the world policeman
that should intervene in any conflict because it has the divine
right to do so.

This is no longer feasible. The U.S. has no money to finance its empire.

Empires DISAPPEAR because the people that build the empire realize that
empires are too costly:

o Costly in terms of humans being sacrificed in endless wars

o Costly in terms of ressources spent in making those wars that reduce
the citizens of the empire to poverty.

The U.S. empire is no different than other empires that came and went
away into oblivion.

Good luck.

jacob navia wrote:
Kansas has decided that any dollar spent in arts endowments should
disappear. The budget for the arts has shrunk to zero.

That's obvious too, art doesn't bring any revenue and is
generally useless. Specially in Kansas.


Nor did guided tours to the highest point in Kansas.

--- :-) ---

Dave