Poll

2 votes (12.5%)
4 votes (25%)
5 votes (31.25%)
5 votes (31.25%)

16 members have voted

AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11690
April 12th, 2011 at 11:06:22 AM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Thousands of practical products? Name 10. Actually, here. I'll list medical breakthroughs that have come as a result of government-funded terrestrial plant and animal studies, you list practical products that have achieved commercial success as a result of the space program, and we'll see which list is longer.



1. MRIs
2. Flame retardant clothing
3. Cordless tools
4. Solar Power from calculators on up
5. Freeze Drying and improved food preservation
6. Halogen headlights
7. Improved UV sunglasses
8. Laser "scanners" at the store
9. LEDs
10. Numerous weight saving technologies


Thousands more are out there!

www.look-to-the-skies.com/space_program_spinoffs.htm
www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11690
April 12th, 2011 at 11:08:30 AM permalink
Quote: RonDiaz

Well we agree there, I wish they would spend more money on the space program and less money on bombs.



As many breakthrus that have come from NASA there are probably even more from military research.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7045
April 12th, 2011 at 11:28:53 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

No, it does not make more sense. The system is already highly progressive. The bottom 50% are paying almost nothing. They need to help at least as much as those paying 40%+ of their income. When the load gets more even then there will be fewer people voting for politicians promising "free health care."

Taxes are due this week, are you going to make a "Gift to the Treasury" on your 1040 of $1350?



I'm more of a tactician than a partisan, so I'll just point out that the bottom 50% have almost nothing to pay. They also are heavy users of the programs that the GOP wants to drastically cut. You'd better hope they forget to vote, or your party is going to position itself out of what should be a pretty easy victory in 18 months.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
SFB
SFB
Joined: Dec 20, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 203
April 12th, 2011 at 11:58:29 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

No, it does not make more sense. The system is already highly progressive. The bottom 50% are paying almost nothing. They need to help at least as much as those paying 40%+ of their income. When the load gets more even then there will be fewer people voting for politicians promising "free health care."

Taxes are due this week, are you going to make a "Gift to the Treasury" on your 1040 of $1350?



Hey AZ, my "Gift to the Treasury" will be $14,000 this week.

What say you? What is your refund?

SFB
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11690
April 12th, 2011 at 12:16:18 PM permalink
Quote: SFB

Hey AZ, my "Gift to the Treasury" will be $14,000 this week.

What say you? What is your refund?

SFB



So you are saying you paid $14,000 over and above your tax due? (See "Gift to the Treasury" on your tax form.)

My refund is not as important as the tax I pay. A refund merely means you overpaid during the year.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11690
April 12th, 2011 at 12:20:11 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

I'm more of a tactician than a partisan, so I'll just point out that the bottom 50% have almost nothing to pay. They also are heavy users of the programs that the GOP wants to drastically cut. You'd better hope they forget to vote, or your party is going to position itself out of what should be a pretty easy victory in 18 months.



Kind of hard to believe they have "almost nothing to pay" when most still own cars, houses, etc. Certainly they can meet the minimum 10% bracket we have in this country. Heavy users of government programs tend to vote democrat no matter what.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7045
April 12th, 2011 at 1:04:47 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Kind of hard to believe they have "almost nothing to pay" when most still own cars, houses, etc. Certainly they can meet the minimum 10% bracket we have in this country. Heavy users of government programs tend to vote democrat no matter what.



67% of American workers are homeowners. I doubt that most of the bottom 50% are homeowners, since that'd push a pretty large percentage of non-homeowners up the income ladder. Also, please note the huge difference between Rob Singer's '09 'Vette and my '99 Impala.

Edit: In honor of John Kyl, I feel like I should say that I don't intend my statement to be actually true. I don't drive a '99 Impala.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
SFB
SFB
Joined: Dec 20, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 203
April 12th, 2011 at 2:01:23 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

So you are saying you paid $14,000 over and above your tax due? (See "Gift to the Treasury" on your tax form.)

My refund is not as important as the tax I pay. A refund merely means you overpaid during the year.



AZ:

I pay what I am required to pay. This year, that $14k. Why would I pay more? If it happened to be $15,350, I would pay that.

The government does have a spending problem.

I detailed, 660b in cuts, and 400b in taxes to cover the trillion dollar deficit.

You have proposed getting rid of NPR and Planned Parenthood. That knocks about 20b from the annual federal budget.

But you wanted to spend that on NASA....

So, what can you propose that makes sense?

The government CAN cut the $660b. And NOT raise taxes. And we still have a $400b annual deficit. Which is only slighty better than the Bush years.

That just put off off the arrival of "USA as Greece" for 4-5 years.

To paraphase: "The federal deficit wasn't built in a day, but neither did it get here without a lot of people putting thier head in the sand..."

SFB
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11690
April 12th, 2011 at 4:13:03 PM permalink
Quote: SFB

AZ:


The government does have a spending problem.


So, what can you propose that makes sense?

SFB



First I would indeed get rid of the items I said, minimal savings but savings. I like the idea of moving discretionary spending back to 2008 or even 2006 levels. Otherwise an across the board cut. Let the cabinent secrataries figure out how to implement them by layoff or whatever. Turn Medicare into a defined contribution voucher system where people can use the same health providers as governmnet employees. But bottom line is vaious department heads of the government need to learn they are going to be told, "You were hired to work within a budget, figure it out" same as when revenue in a business goes down.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
April 12th, 2011 at 5:28:19 PM permalink
Quote: SFB

Soccer:

This line:

Ok, make it 200b. We SPEND alot more on defense than we get. And contrary to what you might beleive, I am a hawk in many respects. But you gotta spend that which you HAVE. And we don't have it. There is no free lunch.



I've re-read my post and I don't think any sane reading would glean an opinion on whether or not you're a hawk. Also, I disagree that we spend more than we get on defense. It's hard to measure that, but the fact is ... we're still free, and the Constitution still stands. So, so far, so good.

I also think that you are boxing yourself in when you say that you have to spend what you have. While it's true that resources are finite, there are plenty of resources to fund defense to the tune of $773 billion. The problem isn't inadequate resources, it's where we are spending the resources we have. I would strongly state that money spent on defense is much better used than money spent on a Nevada cowboy poetry festival.

Quote: SFB

You then mention:

Yes, they have contributed. And the vast majority have been paid out what they contributed. And it IS a social contract. We work to fund those not working. We can't keep that promise that was made when 12-14 people were working to everyone who was going to collect, (SS in the 1950-60's), to the almost 5 to 1 now, and 3 to 1 in about ten years. Medicare was only supposed to cost 5b a year in the 60's. A small price.... It will grow to over $100b a year, plus its growing at 7-8% a year.

In 1983, they changed the retirement age to 67 from 65 on me. You too, maybe. They will change it on my son, to probably 69 or 70. And Medicare will start at 66, or 67. Or they might put a cap on it. You can just allow that spending to GO, GO, GO.



It is very far from reality to state that the vast majority ... or any majority at all ... has been paid out. Baby boomers - who have paid in their whole lives - are just now hitting the system ... a payout of essentially zero. Compounding the problem is that these trust funds have been raided for "other programs of the government," meaning, we'll have to finance any periodic deficit with more borrowing. Nice.

Quote: SFB

Then you mention the other programs of the government

If only there was 75% waste. I think the President ought to be allowed to shoot at random any two federal employees every year. That would clean some things up too. However, Which federal programs would you cut that equal that 75%? I mean, you just took the page from the 1040 Booklet, which does not detail all the programs, But go done the list and zero out that which you feel is unnecessary. I think you will be hard pressed to get to that number. It seems real easy in the thoretical, but real hard when you get to the ground.

And AZ is right. I would prefer if you or he paid the tax, and not me. If I was King of Tax, I would exempt all CPA's everywhere, from ever paying tax. But I am not in charge.

I don't care WHAT the Federal Government decides to charge for taxes. I just want them to charge a rate that will allow them to cover what they want to spend. Not missing the mark by 1/3, If they decided to zero out all the social programs, I am fine with that. Make the DECISION. And then GET THERE.

What the Government decides to charge for taxes you, AZ, me and the Wiz, will pay. Of that I have NO doubt. IF ithe tax is calc'ed out to $1,350 more, you will pay it, just like I would. I may not be happy, I may not be able to go to Vegas, but thats what the form says. So, you pay it. Otherwise, if you don't want to pay that, you have to make a decision. Stay, go, cheat, or whatever.

SFB



Which federal programs would I cut to reach 75%? I think a better way to answer would be to say what I would consider keeping: space program, housing, and renewable energy research. Everything else - from cowboy poetry to abortion funding to student loans to PBS to nonrenewable energy - goes private. Those programs that can survive in the private marketplace will survive, and they will be run more efficiently.

I don't know where those cuts would land me, but I think it's a terrific place to start.

  • Jump to: