NASA scuttling more space missions so it can spend more on global warming

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 1:08:02 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:08:27 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Governments don't HAVE GDPs, -countries- have GDPs.

The amount a country, or government, or society spends on its services
tells us absolutely nothing about its economic system.

Irrelevant wrt my earlier comments.

I am speaking of government spending as a -percentage- of its country's GDP. Any government that spends 100% of its country's GDP year after year, can only be socialist to begin with. It would essentially be taxing the private sector into non-existence.

No, you are playing with words to avoid actually dealing with
substance.

The government of a completely capitalistic, democratic country can
spend 100% of its country's GDP every year.

A country with a government that spent on that level for any length of time would be losing capital. Its trade deficit would have to be quite severe for the numbers to come out the way you suggest, and perhaps because of less foreign investment, pushing down GDP. It would be a nominally capitalist country but w/o capital.

It need not be socialist
at all.

It would be in danger of becoming so.

High taxes need not have any effect on the private sector at all.

Public sector spending crowds out private sector spending.

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 4:57:34 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:26:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA

wrote:



Do you know how many agencies have gotten in on this gravy train, how many scientists, bureaucrats and politicians have their noses in the trough, thinking they've hit the jackpot? Global warming is being defended by people who want "STATE-sponsored jobs for life."



Since global warming is the single greatest threat we face, it is good

that there are a number of different agencies involved.

The globe warms every day as different parts of the globe turn to face the Sun but this phenomena of speculative empiricism won't even recognize this most basic fact that you can read out of any temperature graph -

" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard

Any perceived variation in long term temperature variations pales into significance to the real problem in that there are these guys going around masquerading as astronomers and they can't comprehend the most basic experiences of temperatures in term of daily fluctuations and the underlying cause .

Would dearly like to know what goes through your heads when the realization dawns that the guys a few centuries ago made a terrible mistake and physicists ran with that imaginative conclusion found in the NASA/Harvard website ?.

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 6:56:07 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:58:31 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:53:25 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:



On Sunday, March 9, 2014 8:43:34 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:



The Eurotrash socialists are busy bankrupting their countries by squandering money on solar and wind power. Spain was a good example of this. I hardly think they'll pony up any more money for a space mission.



And conventional nuclear energy that's going to cost future generations those extra billion per year (and that's only if nothing bad ever happens) is not a bankrupting consideration?



A billion per year is chump change compared to the cost of overall much more expensive energy.



Agreed. An extra $1000 per year on utilities will result in $200 billion lost by US consumers alone. And that's a VERY conservative estimate. The resultant drag on the economy and incomes will make the situation even worse.

The rotten, corrupt liberal government in Ontario, Canada signed a "green initiative" to get people to use solar panels. So, wealthier people who can afford the $70,000 price to put them on their house get to sell excess power back to the grid at $0.82kWh which is approx. 8 TIMES the going-rate for power. Who is paying for this subsidy? The middle class in the province, of course, in the form of 6% increases in the cost of power, for the next 20 years!

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 6:58:18 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:00:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 03:16:33 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:



I am not confusing anything, but you certainly seem to be confused. A poor economic system, such as socialism, inevitably requires a coercive government to inflict it, otherwise people will naturally tend to abandon it.



So, we'll add both political science and economics to the categories

of things you know little about.



Socialism doesn't allow for individualism; some may prefer to work for, or divert personal resources to, perfectly fine goals not supported or allowed by the rest.



Socialism doesn't provide incentives. Why work harder or sacrifice one's time if one must then share the benefits with those who did no extra work, or took no risk?



People have attempted to get away from Cuba on small boats, rafts and floating vehicles. People had attempted to escape the Eastern Bloc by scaling the Berlin Wall or crossing the Iron Curtain. North Koreans take dangerous routes in an attempt to escape.



Are you so out of touch with recent history or do you just lack common sense? Maybe both?

The Green Revolution/Global Warming scam IS socialism in a new guise. You should SEE what some of the people behind this say when they think they won't be repeated. Things like "it's good for worldwide wealth re-distribution" and "fairness for the Third World," and "Businessmen and scientists who don't agree (to tow the line) on global warming should be put in jail." Marxism is Marxism, no matter what they call it.

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:51:44 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, March 13, 2014 6:56:07 AM UTC-4, wsne... wrote:

Agreed. An extra $1000 per year on utilities will result in $200 billion lost by US consumers alone. And that's a VERY conservative estimate. The resultant drag on the economy and incomes will make the situation even worse.

The rotten, corrupt liberal government in Ontario, Canada signed a "green initiative" to get people to use solar panels. So, wealthier people who can afford the $70,000 price to put them on their house get to sell excess power back to the grid at $0.82kWh which is approx. 8 TIMES the going-rate for power. Who is paying for this subsidy? The middle class in the province, of course, in the form of 6% increases in the cost of power, for the next 20 years!

Solar should work well in Ontario:

http://www.sootoday.com/content/news...ls.asp?c=70691

Spring will arrive Real Soon Now.

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 12:40:55 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles wrote:
wrote in message

Governments spend or waste 100% of their country's GDP.

You need to learn the difference between debt, deficit and GDP.

wsnelloi

wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 12:40:55 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles wrote:
wrote in message

Governments spend or waste 100% of their country's GDP.

You need to learn the difference between debt, deficit and GDP.

================================================== ====
You need to take your head out of your arse and develop some reading
comprehension, you babbling imbecile. Governments buy the military and the
military are destructive.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:24:12 PM UTC-4, Lord Andorkles wrote:


Governments buy the military and the
military are destructive.

That's the point of having a military...it's used to kill people and break things. If it wasn't destructive, why have it? Sometimes you need to have a military in order to get your enemies to take you seriously.

A ****head wrote

wrote in message
...

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:24:12 PM UTC-4, Lord Andorkles wrote:


Governments buy the military and the
military are destructive.

That's the point of having a military...it's used to kill people and break
things.
================================================== ===========
Don't change the ****ing subject, faggot. Governments waste GDP on the
military.

On Friday, March 28, 2014 3:08:03 PM UTC-4, Lord Androcles wrote:
A ****head wrote



wrote in message

...



On Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:24:12 PM UTC-4, Lord Andorkles wrote:

Governments buy the military and the
military are destructive.

That's the point of having a military...it's used to kill people and break
things.

================================================== ===========

Don't change the ****ing subject, faggot. Governments waste GDP on the
military.

Lacking strength, courage, ethics and intelligence, Andorkles resorts to harsh language and fails once more.

Although, if the UK is really too poor to maintain a military, then maybe there is no reason for anyone to invade it anyway. Perhaps it should give the Islas Malvinas to Argentina and be done with it. ;=)