Republicans continue their war against science

The republicans forced following cuts from the recovery package:

$50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $50 million for exploration

• $50 million for Cross Agency Support

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

Another cut introduced by republicans is

• $98 million for school nutrition

Yes. We see here where the enemies of republicans are.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 12:11:43 +0100, jacob navia
wrote:

The republicans forced following cuts from the recovery package:

$50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $50 million for exploration

• $50 million for Cross Agency Support

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

Another cut introduced by republicans is

• $98 million for school nutrition

Yes. We see here where the enemies of republicans are.

Maybe its just me, but isn't this supposed to be an economic stimulus
package? This stuff looks like a wish list from an omnibus spending
bill. I can see why the GOP is ****ed, and I wonder why the Dems
aren't.

Brian

wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 12:11:43 +0100, jacob navia
wrote:

The republicans forced following cuts from the recovery package:

$50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $50 million for exploration

• $50 million for Cross Agency Support

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

Another cut introduced by republicans is

• $98 million for school nutrition

Yes. We see here where the enemies of republicans are.

Maybe its just me, but isn't this supposed to be an economic stimulus
package? This stuff looks like a wish list from an omnibus spending
bill. I can see why the GOP is ****ed, and I wonder why the Dems
aren't.

Brian

For them, all is simple:

The economy doesn't include space, science or technology. The economy
consists on making tax cuts for poor billionaires. That will
stimulate them to hire one more chauffeur, one more nanny for their
kids, and that is better for the economy.

Obviously, giving food to poor kids in the schools is a bad idea too.
Rather keep those tax cuts.

I don't think that "its just you". Republicans aren't quite gone.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

On Feb 8, 5:11 am, jacob navia wrote:
The republicans forced following cuts from the recovery package:

$50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $50 million for exploration

• $50 million for Cross Agency Support

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

Another cut introduced by republicans is

• $98 million for school nutrition

Yes. We see here where the enemies of republicans are.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatiquehttp://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

I'm as prospace as the next person on here.
And would love to see us expand and develop space,
but I'm enough of realist to know that most people in general and
congress specifically
look at space as a luxury that we can't afford right now.
Unless you can come up with something concrete that we could do in
space that would
immediately and sustain ably stimulate the economy. They are going to
cut out what pork/fat
they find/perceive.

Just my $0.02

Space Cadet

derwetzelsDASHspacecadetATyahooDOTcom


Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter

http://www.moonsociety.org/chapters/stlouis/

The Moon Society is a non-profit educational and
scientific foundation formed to further scientific
study and development of the moon.

Space Cadet wrote:
I'm as prospace as the next person on here.
And would love to see us expand and develop space,
but I'm enough of realist to know that most people in general and
congress specifically
look at space as a luxury that we can't afford right now.

No. The opposition was exclusively from republican senators.
The House passed the bill, and the common people in the U.S.
and elsewhere have always supported space.

Unless you can come up with something concrete that we could do in
space that would
immediately and sustain ably stimulate the economy. They are going to
cut out what pork/fat
they find/perceive.


The 200 million for the National Science Foundation is
"pork"...

Well, in that frame of mind, I would like to remind you that the
cost of the tax cuts for the upper 1% of the population cost
(in billions)

2001 3.9
2002 38.9
2003 71.2
2004 87.3
2005 64.5
2006 70.9
2007 72.6
2008 79.5
----------
TOTAL 488.8 BILLIONS spent already.

In that context, spending 98 million (not even 0.01% of that) in
school nutrition is a preposterous idea.

With just current spending that makes for more than 30 YEARS of
NASA (Assuming a 15 billion NASA budget).

(Source http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf)

Just my $0.02

Space Cadet

derwetzelsDASHspacecadetATyahooDOTcom


Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter

http://www.moonsociety.org/chapters/stlouis/

The Moon Society is a non-profit educational and
scientific foundation formed to further scientific
study and development of the moon.

Good idea to explore the moon. Pity that you do not follow
your ideas, and think that money spend in space and science
is a waste.

No, it isn't.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote:

Perhaps you could explain why the following are 'stimulus' and don't
belong in a general appropriations bill, instead?

:The republicans forced following cuts from the recovery package:
:
: $50 million for NASA
:
:• $50 million for aeronautics
:
:• $50 million for exploration
:
:• $50 million for Cross Agency Support
:
:• $200 million for National Science Foundation
:
:• $100 million for science
:
:Another cut introduced by republicans is
:
:• $98 million for school nutrition
:
:Yes. We see here where the enemies of republicans are.

Fred J. McCall wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

Perhaps you could explain why the following are 'stimulus' and don't
belong in a general appropriations bill, instead?

:The republicans forced following cuts from the recovery package:
:
: $50 million for NASA
:
:• $50 million for aeronautics
:
:• $50 million for exploration
:
:• $50 million for Cross Agency Support
:
:• $200 million for National Science Foundation
:
:• $100 million for science
:
:Another cut introduced by republicans is
:
:• $98 million for school nutrition
:
:Yes. We see here where the enemies of republicans are.

As I explained to your "space cadet" fellow republican:

For republicans, all is simple:

The economy doesn't include space, science or technology. The economy
consists on making tax cuts for poor billionaires. That will
stimulate them to hire one more chauffeur, one more nanny for their
kids, and that is better for the economy.

The solution for everything during the republican administration was
to give tax cuts to the rich.

The money thus spent was (in billions of dollars):

2001 3.9
2002 38.9
2003 71.2
2004 87.3
2005 64.5
2006 70.9
2007 72.6
2008 79.5
----------
TOTAL 488.8 BILLIONS spent already.

In that context, spending 98 million (not even 0.01% of that) in
school nutrition is a preposterous idea.

With just current spending that makes for more than 30 YEARS of
NASA (Assuming a 15 billion NASA budget).

(Source http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf)

Science belongs in a recovery plan because it gives the TOOLS
for staging that recovery. By developing new technologies like
solar power from space, new economic branches could be developed.
The development of alternative energy needs basic research, it is
not a done thing.

The U.S. President promised to give science the place it deserves
and he is (oh surprise) keeping that promise. Republicans can't
stand science or scientific thought. It is a waste of valuable
money that could be given to their friends.

Note that the 600 million that the original bill proposed and I
listed in my message is only around 3% of the 18 billion
Wall street received this year in bonuses for getting their
country into the depression!

They surely earned that bonus!

Isn' it Mr McCall?
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote:
The solution for everything during the republican administration was
to give tax cuts to the rich.


Better said would be: To the upper 1% of the households.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote:

:jacob navia wrote:
: The solution for everything during the republican administration was
: to give tax cuts to the rich.
:
:
:Better said would be: To the upper 1% of the households.
:

Yet, oddly, with all those cuts they're STILL paying most of the
taxes....


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:56:28 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

:jacob navia wrote:
: The solution for everything during the republican administration was
: to give tax cuts to the rich.
:
:Better said would be: To the upper 1% of the households.

Yet, oddly, with all those cuts they're STILL paying most of the
taxes....

?? ROTFL!! No, of course they aren't. What a ludirous claim. But
they definitely STILL get most of the benefits of government spending.
At least 90% of the trillions given away in corporate and bank
bailouts in the last six months have gone straight into the pockets of
the rich. And really, only the uncharacteristic brazenness of it is
at all surprising.

-- Roy L