A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 2nd 03, 11:30 PM
The Ruzicka Family
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message Social
security was included.

No. The Social Security Administration was included. Much of the
money for Social Security (as well as other social programs) are 'off
budget', I.E. the money spent on them is not discretionary.


Until you can at least provide factual data to support your claim, then all
you are doing is arguing against the facts I have presented, based on your
opinion. I presented the breakdown of a $1.7 trillion federal budget. If
you have factual data showing totally different amounts, please present
them. If you sincerely believe that the "administration" of the Education,
Health/Human Services, HUD, Food/Nutrition programs, Labor Department, Soc.
Sec. Admin departments actually use almost $600B, just to "administrate,"
you're nuts.

I have shown that it is indeed justified.


No, you have done no such thing. You supplied your opinion that the
National Debt was directly attributed to excessive defense spending.


Again, at least I can say that I have supplied data to support my position,
including showing where the data came from. You have yet to show ANY
supporting data at all to support your position. If you can show such data,
I would be more than happy to discuss it. Until such time though, you do
not have a leg to stand on.


No. You have provided carefully slanted data from a selected portion
of the available sources.


LOL What I have done is provide actual data. Whether or not your opinion
agrees with it is irrelevant. Please provide factual evidence to support
YOUR conclusions.


Your main point remains an unsupported assumption based on your
personal opinion and incomplete information.


Again, this is ridiculous. Your original point, regarding social spending
being a magnitude more than defense spending was the totally unsupported
opinion. You provided absolutely NO data to support your opinion, for that
is what it was, an opinion, not a factual statement. You want to PROVE me
wrong? Then please do so. But proving means more than just saying I'm
wrong. It means backing up your words with facts. Whether or not you agree
with my facts, whether you think they're slanted or not, at least I took the
time to gets some facts to back up my ideas. You, on the other hand, appear
to think that simply spewing an opinion automatically makes it a fact. Like
the saying goes, put up or shut up.
Whether or not this "debate" (if I can call it that, as, between the two of
us, I am the only one presenting any facts) will continue probably depends
on whether or not the moderators here care to let it go on. Since it
appears that most of the people in the group are rather more on the
conservative side of things, it probably won't be long before I get shut
out. But then again, who knows? Like I have said repeatedly, I'm all for a
good spirited debate, but it's pointless when the other side can not, or
will not, back up their positions. So, if you can nor or will not provide
factual data from a reputable source, then please do us all a favor and not
respond back.

  #12  
Old November 3rd 03, 02:01 AM
Dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 14:30:03 -0800 (PST), "The Ruzicka Family"
wrote:

Whether or not this "debate" (if I can call it that, as, between the two of
us, I am the only one presenting any facts) will continue probably depends
on whether or not the moderators here care to let it go on. Since it
appears that most of the people in the group are rather more on the
conservative side of things, it probably won't be long before I get shut
out. But then again, who knows?


I'd like to think (and I assume) that one's position in the political
spectrum is not used as a reason to "shut you out" from posting here.

As a casual observer, it seems that the real debate between you and
Derek is over who gets "the blame" for swallowing up money that might
otherwise be used for the space program. Martha seemed to place that
blame squarely on the defense budget. You seem to concur. Personally,
I think our defense spending is far too high. Not that I think we have
far too much defense, but I think it's as inefficient and over-spending
as any other government (and often corporate) bureaucracy. My totally
unsupported opinion is that we should be getting far more "bang for the
buck", not only from the DOD, but from many places we currently pour our
money into (not only governmental).

Derek's assertion that social spending is an "order of magnitude" above
military spending is pretty hard to swallow. So is the assertion that
military spending is solely to blame for us not having enough money for
space (or roads, healthcare, libraries- whatever). There are flaws in
our system. One is the bloated and excessive cost of getting anything
done anymore. Lots of reasons for that beyond simple greed and graft, I
suppose. Another is that it's easy for a President and/or Congress to
take the easy way out, financially and politically, and just spend
beyond our government's revenues. You listed the interest on the
national debt. That amount is appalling. That problem is getting worse
at a record rate.

Maybe if someone with courage actually tackled the problems with the
bloated and inefficient (and in some cases, no doubt corrupt) status
quo, and the citizenry began to realize that we then need to pay for
what we get, we'd have the money to actually rebuild our infrastructure,
provide the needed "social" programs, maintain an adequate defense _and_
explore space to boot. But I'm not holding my breath.....

Dale

  #13  
Old November 3rd 03, 05:14 AM
The Ruzicka Family
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?

"Dale" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 14:30:03 -0800 (PST), "The Ruzicka Family"
wrote:

I'd like to think (and I assume) that one's position in the political
spectrum is not used as a reason to "shut you out" from posting here.


If I mistook the positions of anyone here, or gave offense, I do apologize.


Derek's assertion that social spending is an "order of magnitude" above
military spending is pretty hard to swallow. So is the assertion that
military spending is solely to blame for us not having enough money for
space (or roads, healthcare, libraries- whatever). There are flaws in
our system. One is the bloated and excessive cost of getting anything
done anymore. Lots of reasons for that beyond simple greed and graft, I
suppose. Another is that it's easy for a President and/or Congress to
take the easy way out, financially and politically, and just spend
beyond our government's revenues. You listed the interest on the
national debt. That amount is appalling. That problem is getting worse
at a record rate.


I was not trying to imply that I believe the spending we do on defense is to
"blame" for anything, other than possibly the increasing deficit. I was
simply trying to point out that the original statement of social program
spending being a "magnitude" higher than defense was not accurate. Hell, I
work for the largest defense contractor on the planet (or at least in the
USA). I do though believe that our priorities in the USA have become
skewed. When we can't afford simple things, like seat belts on our school
buses, yet we pay for them for Iraqi kids, or we demand that NASA build a
better shuttle, yet refuse to give them all the money needed to do a proper
job (just like with the current shuttle system), things are out of whack.

Again though, I do apologize to anyone else I may have inadvertently
insulted.

  #14  
Old November 3rd 03, 07:46 AM
Dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:14:01 -0800 (PST), "The Ruzicka Family"
wrote:

If I mistook the positions of anyone here, or gave offense, I do apologize.


I was just trying to reassure you that you won't be banned from this
group just because many members may have a different political
viewpoint than yours- not that you mistook anyone's position.

I was not trying to imply that I believe the spending we do on defense is to
"blame" for anything, other than possibly the increasing deficit.


My turn to apologize. I kinda merged your posts with Martha's,
so perhaps I was the one who mistook someone's position...

I'm not sure we're equipping Iraqi schoolbuses with seatbelts at the
expense of our own kids, but I do agree that our priorities seem to
be seriously out of whack. We should try to get back in whack

Dale

  #15  
Old November 3rd 03, 10:53 PM
John Penta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:46:57 -0800 (PST), Dale wrote:


I'm not sure we're equipping Iraqi schoolbuses with seatbelts at the
expense of our own kids, but I do agree that our priorities seem to
be seriously out of whack. We should try to get back in whack


Having been on said schoolbuses since they started appearing in the
mid-90s (when I was in middle school; I graduated HS in June 02,
so...), I have to say that I never saw the point of seatbelts on em.
In general, seatbelts have a purpose...but on the seats of your
average schoolbus?

No point, say I.

John

  #16  
Old November 4th 03, 04:08 AM
The Ruzicka Family
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?

"John Penta" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:46:57 -0800 (PST), Dale wrote:


I'm not sure we're equipping Iraqi schoolbuses with seatbelts at the
expense of our own kids, but I do agree that our priorities seem to
be seriously out of whack. We should try to get back in whack


Having been on said schoolbuses since they started appearing in the
mid-90s (when I was in middle school; I graduated HS in June 02,
so...), I have to say that I never saw the point of seatbelts on em.
In general, seatbelts have a purpose...but on the seats of your
average schoolbus?

No point, say I.

John

Quite possibly true, but beside the intended point. The purpose of my
comment was not if they are useful or not. The purpose was to say that it
is a bit screwed up to NOT fund bus seat belts for American kids (such a
request was turned down by the Bush Administration), yet at the same time
pay for bus seat belts for Iraqi kids (a small part of the $87B
appropriation). (and no, I do not have the reference to cite specifically
on this one. it was just a passing reference I hear on CNN)
Sorry for bringing it up though, as I did not mean for the discussion to
turn primarily onto the advantages/disadvantages of bus seat belts!

  #17  
Old November 4th 03, 03:44 PM
John Penta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 19:08:16 -0800 (PST), "The Ruzicka Family"
wrote:

"John Penta" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:46:57 -0800 (PST), Dale wrote:


I'm not sure we're equipping Iraqi schoolbuses with seatbelts at the
expense of our own kids, but I do agree that our priorities seem to
be seriously out of whack. We should try to get back in whack


Having been on said schoolbuses since they started appearing in the
mid-90s (when I was in middle school; I graduated HS in June 02,
so...), I have to say that I never saw the point of seatbelts on em.
In general, seatbelts have a purpose...but on the seats of your
average schoolbus?

No point, say I.

John

Quite possibly true, but beside the intended point. The purpose of my
comment was not if they are useful or not. The purpose was to say that it
is a bit screwed up to NOT fund bus seat belts for American kids (such a
request was turned down by the Bush Administration), yet at the same time
pay for bus seat belts for Iraqi kids (a small part of the $87B
appropriation). (and no, I do not have the reference to cite specifically
on this one. it was just a passing reference I hear on CNN)
Sorry for bringing it up though, as I did not mean for the discussion to
turn primarily onto the advantages/disadvantages of bus seat belts!



Hmm. OK then.

In all fairness to the appropriations committee, seatbelts have (IIRC)
standard on US schoolbuses for a while now.

Since Iraq drives on the right, it wouldn't be hard to use US-make
schoolbuses, and lots of schools probably have buses they don't use.

John

  #18  
Old November 5th 03, 01:17 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?

"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:

I was
simply trying to point out that the original statement of social program
spending being a "magnitude" higher than defense was not accurate.


Something you have failed to do, because you have failed to examine
the entirety of goverment spending.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

  #19  
Old November 5th 03, 01:18 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?

"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:

Quite possibly true, but beside the intended point. The purpose of my
comment was not if they are useful or not. The purpose was to say that it
is a bit screwed up to NOT fund bus seat belts for American kids (such a
request was turned down by the Bush Administration)


Why should the Federal goverment pay for things that are rightly the
province of the several States?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

  #20  
Old November 5th 03, 05:16 AM
The Ruzicka Family
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Signs Of Intelligent Life In Congress?

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"The Ruzicka Family" wrote:

I was
simply trying to point out that the original statement of social program
spending being a "magnitude" higher than defense was not accurate.


Something you have failed to do, because you have failed to examine
the entirety of goverment spending.

D.


This is really getting rather boring. If you have factual data from a
reputable source to present that supports your side, then by all means
present it and prove your point. On the other hand, if you can NOT supply
such data, then you can NOT support your side. It's really pretty simple.
That's the way reasonable debates work. Again, as the saying goes, put up
or shut up.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.