Posted on 11/16/2009 4:53:44 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
Watch live online at:
What is seen is the fireworks show. But, what is not seen (with an acknowledgment to Bastiat)?
Just for this one launch that is the resources that could have provided 6034 average new houses, or 87,500 new mid sized cars or 10,000 four year ivy league college educations (without room and board) or 1,750,000 handguns that have been taken from the taxpayers and spent on providing a few elite government appartchicks a vacation with a really fabulous view. These are the things that are not seen and never will be.
bookmark
If your estimate is correct, this is well worth the $4.55 it cost each; 307,947,197 as of 11/16/09 at 13:25 UTC, American and a much better investment than anything you mentioned.
You raise two points. That the space shuttle is a "much better investment" than the aforementioned. Nonsense. By what criterion do you make this claim? You made a statement with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Point two $4.55 each. This is demonstrably untrue. First it is paid for by the taxpayers not everyone pays taxes. There were about 130000000 tax returns filed last year. The top 50% pay 96% of the taxes so this works out to $20.78 each for the top half of the taxpayers with the bottom 50% paying about $0.75 each, but this is not correct either. The top 10% pay 71% so this works out to about $76 apiece for the top 10%; however, this pales in comparison to the top 1% who pay 40.4% of the taxes. If you're in the top 1% you pay $435 for each shuttle launch. It's obvious that you along with Obama and the other socialists see government spending as a good thing as long as your pet project is the one that other people are being extorted to pay for it.
Nice straw man, but totally irrelevant. Please show me where I said the money "vanishes." I know where the money goes, and it is kind of like the so-called "stimulus package" Take a dollar from the person who earned it, and give a dollar to someone who is politically connected to spend. It is taken from those who earned it and bestowed upon those whom the government favors. So the net result is corporate welfare and payment for a bunch of engineers and PhDs who would otherwise be engaged in productive work, and the loss of money by the taxpayers who are forced to support this circus. You need to read Bastiat What is seen and not seen
That's your subjective, ignorant opinion.
By the way, it isn't the government's responsibility to buy houses or cars or education at Ivy League Schools which indoctrinate their students into hating the United States. If you or anybody else wants any of those things, earn the means with which to pay for them.
Speaking as a net taxpayer given the choice between discretionary spending - the shuttle - over non-discretionary spending - welfare, entitlements, etc. - I'll take the former. If you want to be something besides an emoting gum flapper, work at weaning people from the public teat of entitlements. That's something substantive to be outraged about.
Wow....10 posts and a launch thread has already eroded into a pissing match.
You have a valid point. I should have been more precise in what I said. I'll try and say what I meant more accurately. What I meant was that the original earners of the money lost the buying power of the 1.4 billion, and further that it was not spent on things that the earners wanted, but on paying for goods and services that ultimately end up in a giant fireworks display for Orlando and points east. Basically I was arguing that the money is spent on capital structure that serves no particular purpose other than providing amusement for the masses and rewards for the politically connected corporations that supply the space program.
By the way, it isn't the government's responsibility to buy houses or cars or education at Ivy League Schools which
Did I ever say it was? What I was saying (for those who are deliberately trying to misinterpret it) was that the money TAXED away from the productive citizens could have been used for any of those things by the productive citizens who earned it in the first place, but instead was used for corporate welfare whose ultimate product is a giant firecracker and a great vacation for the politically well connected (John Glenn comes to mind).
If you or anybody else wants any of those things, earn the means with which to pay for them.
They DID earn the means to pay for them. That 1.4 billion dollars was all earned by taxpayers and robbed from them in the proportions I stated earlier (not your deceptive $4.55 per person which by the way I notice that you lack the grace to admit was incorrect) Those means were extorted from them to be spent on space silliness. You know NASA doesn't really have anything legitimate to do when it solicits experiments from grade school children
That's your subjective, ignorant opinion.
As opposed to YOUR subjective, ignorant opinion. Actually my opinion is somewhat more objective than yours in that I would strongly suggest that the vast majority of productive citizens who actually PAY for the thing would rather have the money back in their pockets than hear about the latest experiment involving spiders in space
If you want to be something besides an emoting gum flapper
I always know that I'm right when the other party is reduced to as hominem attacks. Facts is facts Jack and spending hard earned (hard earned that is by the taxpayers, not the government who just steals it) on unconstitutional corporate welfare is just another form of socialism not substantively different at all from the "public teat of entitlement" which you decry. The only difference between NASA and welfare is who gets the largesse and with welfare you don't get the fireworks display. .
Happens every time you're even slightly critical of any of the space cadets' sacred cows.
t-minus 5 minutes
1 minute
Very pretty launch!
SRB separation.
it was a very pretty sight! Godspeed
That just never gets old.
No kidding! So many systems have to be 100% for them to
get back alive!
May we be warping space some day and getting out past the
edge of the galaxy...
Point two $4.55 each. This is demonstrably untrue. First it is paid for by the taxpayers not everyone pays taxes. There were about 130000000 tax returns filed last year. The top 50% pay 96% of the taxes so this works out to $20.78 each for the top half of the taxpayers with the bottom 50% paying about $0.75 each, but this is not correct either. The top 10% pay 71% so this works out to about $76 apiece for the top 10%; however, this pales in comparison to the top 1% who pay 40.4% of the taxes. If you're in the top 1% you pay $435 for each shuttle launch.
You know, I'd love to see a poll -- I'd be willing to bet that the higher you go up that ladder, the higher the % of people who support the space program, and have no problem with the $435.
Or, how about engineers? Same deal, different twist. Poll all engineers (just about the most practical people around, taken as a group), not including any who benefit directly / monetarily from the space program. I'd guess 3 out of 4 support the space program. Probably more.
Unfortunately, no such poll exists that I can find. However, there is some peripheral evidence on whether the rich like to pay higher taxes. two years ago, the Peoples' Democracy of Maryland passed a surtax on the "rich" as defined by those making over $1 mil. The Baltimore Sun ever eager to lick the excrement that dribbles out of the mouths of liberal politicians, predicted that the wealthy would "grin and bear it".
Didn't work that way. in 2008 there were about 3000 filers in the PDM with returns of over a million. In 2009 there were fewer than 2000. Instead of the additional $106,000,000 that the politician hoped to fleece from the "rich" their loot was down by $100,000,000. The "rich" packed up and left the state. So my guess is that the highest 1% would not approve of their money being used to fund the space circus.
Or, how about engineers? Same deal, different twist. Poll all engineers (just about the most practical people around, taken as a group), not including any who benefit directly / monetarily from the space program. I'd guess 3 out of 4 support the space program. Probably more.
And I'd trust foxes to guard the henhouse too. All engineers benefit from the space program. suppose that you have 750,000 engineers employeed at any given time in the country. Now suppose that NASA provides the jobs for 30,000 of them. what happens if the NASA trough dries up. Automatically 4% more engineers looking for work. This means that until some other process occurs that there is roughly a 4% decrease in the AVERAGE money available per engineer. Competition for jobs increases and the overall pool of engineer salary dollars shrinks. Engineers can expect to get paid less for the same job.
Conversely if NASA spends more looted taxpayer dollars, the competition for engineers goes up and engineers can demand higher salaries. I have no doubt that the majority of engineers as a group approve of government spending on engineers as the majority of farmers approve of government largesse being bestowed on farmers, and welfare queens as a group approve of AFDC payments.
The majority of every special interest group will approve of the government robbing some other constituency and giving them a share of the stolen goods.
Your 1st comment is irrelevant: Wealthy people in general do not mind paying taxes as long as they think they, or the country, get a good return on their dollar. It’s when they see the guy in another state paying less and getting the same or more benefit (or less damage!) that they move out.
That last is one of the most pea minded things I have ever heard said about engineers. I am an engineer and the notion that NASA hiring more engineers somehow helps me, someone in one of the thousands of types of engineering jobs that are totally disassociated from what NASA does, is nonsense. The many various areas of engineering are just too darn specialized — I’ve found out the hard way that if the area one is in goes cold, and one ends up looking for an engineering job, other areas being “hot” helps not one whit.
Now if you limit what you say to certain disciplines that do have a connection to NASA, what you say might be true.
However, even then, what you say is an insult. Most engineers are straight shooters, especially amongst fellow engineer friends. I have NEVER heard an engineer state that he supported NASA because he thought it would somehow be financially gainful to him or her, by increasing demand for engineers. Oh, I am sure, again, that in certain areas, a few might think that. But every engineer I’ve ever talked to or heard discuss the subject supports NASA for reasons of advancement in technology, advancements in knowledge (in many areas), access to new resources and manufacturing techniques (there are a whole bunch I am hoping will come to pass before I go to pasture!), military reasons (do we really want to let the Chinese set up shop on the Moon 1st?), and (not to mention) the survival of humankind, in the long run.
You may disagree with those reasons, but they are the honest and hardnosed arguments of very practical people, when it comes to such arguments.
And... something else you are evidently unaware of: Most engineers are not in engineering to line their own pockets. In that sense, being in engineering is perhaps itself the least practical aspect of most engineers. Considering the hard working nature of the job, not much fun in college, and relatively low pay for what’s being done, most engineers are not in engineering primarily for the money. Sure, we hope to make a decent buck, but engineers who want to do really well financially relative to their own capabilities go into other areas, like management or company ownership. MOST of us are in it for one big reason (and the others are secondary): We love what we do.
Your 1st comment is irrelevant: Wealthy people in general do not mind paying taxes as long as they think they, or the country, get a good return on their dollar. It’s when they see the guy in another state paying less and getting the same or more benefit (or less damage!) that they move out.
That last is one of the most pea minded things I have ever heard said about engineers. I am an engineer and the notion that NASA hiring more engineers somehow helps me, someone in one of the thousands of types of engineering jobs that are totally disassociated from what NASA does, is nonsense. The many various areas of engineering are just too darn specialized — I’ve found out the hard way that if the area one is in goes cold, and one ends up looking for an engineering job, other areas being “hot” helps not one whit.
Now if you limit what you say to certain disciplines that do have a connection to NASA, what you say might be true.
However, even then, what you say is an insult. Most engineers are straight shooters, especially amongst fellow engineer friends. I have NEVER heard an engineer state that he supported NASA because he thought it would somehow be financially gainful to him or her, by increasing demand for engineers. Oh, I am sure, again, that in certain areas, a few might think that. But every engineer I’ve ever talked to or heard discuss the subject supports NASA for reasons of advancement in technology, advancements in knowledge (in many areas), access to new resources and manufacturing techniques (there are a whole bunch I am hoping will come to pass before I go to pasture!), military reasons (do we really want to let the Chinese set up shop on the Moon 1st?), and (not to mention) the survival of humankind, in the long run.
You may disagree with those reasons, but they are the honest and hardnosed arguments of very practical people, when it comes to such arguments.
And... something else you are evidently unaware of: Most engineers are not in engineering to line their own pockets. In that sense, being in engineering is perhaps itself the least practical aspect of most engineers. Considering the hard working nature of the job, not much fun in college, and relatively low pay for what’s being done, most engineers are not in engineering primarily for the money. Sure, we hope to make a decent buck, but engineers who want to do really well financially relative to their own capabilities go into other areas, like management or company ownership. MOST of us are in it for one big reason (and the others are secondary): We love what we do.
Don’t ask me why that double posted. Mods - please remove ONE???
I watched a replay of the docking, it was right
on the money, smooth.
I’m in awe of these guys. SEND ME UP THERE!
Again, freedom was founded on the frontier, it’s one
reason we are losing it. Free men cannot live in a
closed society, they can only exist on the edge of it.
It is amazing, two extremely fragile objects traveling at 18,000 MPH, somewhere between 183 and 250 miles above Earth, with 11 lives hanging in the balance meeting up together. I couldn’t do that on roller skates and NASA makes it look so easy and routine that hardly anyone even notices. Meanwhile back on Earth most of the news is devoted to John and Kate and the Octo-Mom. Go figure.
Yeah, sure. That's why they hire accountants and tax attorneys to minimize the bite. It's because they enjoy paying taxes and think they're getting a good deal. Most (but not all I'll grant you) of the people I know who work for a living think that the most wasteful inefficient and useless entity is government.
Are you a wealthy person? Because if you aren't, then I'd like to know where you got the idea that the wealthy like to pay taxes. And since you're an engineer, let's be precise and define the term "wealthy" I'll give you my definition -those with at least 2 million in financial assets and are in the top 5% of income. This is a much more restrictive definition that the looters in government use, but I'd like to hear your idea of what constitutes "wealthy" Those people I know and I consider to be "wealthy" feel robbed and strongly resent that their efforts are supporting a vast horde of parasites.
That last is one of the most pea minded things I have ever heard said about engineers. I am an engineer and the notion that NASA hiring more engineers somehow helps me, someone in one of the thousands of types of engineering jobs that are totally disassociated from what NASA does, is nonsense
You might be an engineer, but you sure didn't take economics 101.
Chinese set up shop on the Moon 1st?), and (not to mention) the survival of humankind, in the long run.
I'd couldn't care less if the Chinese want to impoverish themselves by wasting the vast resources necessary to "set up shop on the moon" When they get there the will find airless rocks and dirt of no intrinsic value. In short they will find nothing that was worth the cost of getting there. You can find the same in Antartica, but you can get there for about .00000001% of the cost AND it has air. And speaking of cost aren't engineers suppost to look for minimum cost solutions? If you're an engineer, tell me what resource has a value per kg equal to the transportation cost of getting an infrastructure to the moon collecting the resource and returning the resource to earth?
Anyone who thinks space is "the survival of humankind, in the long run." has read too much science fiction and not enough science.
NASA for reasons of advancement in technology, advancements in knowledge (in many areas),
What Tang? I'd cheerfully give that up not to pay the money each launch costs me. International Space Station? Now there's something that really helps me every day. I can't tell you how important the behavior of spiders in a weightless environment is to me.
Most engineers are not in engineering to line their own pockets.
Major credibility gap here. Engineers work for a living not to make a living? You turn down your pay raises, and work for minimum wage do you? You love what you do so much that money isn't important to you? Do us both a favor and read Bastiat's What is seen and not seen before you continue.
low pay for what’s being done
Bull$shit. According to what I read on the web looking under median salary I see that right out of school the median engineering salary is $50,000 - $60,000. Not bad for a bachelor's degree. "As a group, engineers earn some of the highest average starting salaries among those holding bachelor’s degrees. "
at least according to the federal government whose spending habits you seem so enamoured of.
Well, I can see what YOU are expert at: Twisting words.
Neglecting scumbags who think “someone else should pay my share”, wealthy people (and people in general) work at minimizing their tax payments precisely because they (and the country) do not get a good return on their dollar. At least not anymore. But given a situation where the return IS “worth it”, most smart people will happily ante up. Think a cosmic eyeblink ago: WW2.
The rest of your arguments are even worse. Compared to what they contribute to society, engineers for the most part ARE poorly paid. If you can’t figure that out, “pea” was a major overcalculation on my part. You must be one of the vast majority of people who enjoy the fruits of modern technology / civilization, but have NO idea what it really takes to make that farm operate, much less create it in the first place. Sheesh...
Oh, and Econ 101? It was a required course, and I aced it. Very easy stuff (comparatively), really, but totally inadequate to understanding the engineering job market. :-)
One other thing: Yes, actually I have turned down higher paying opportunities to stay with what I love doing best. I am doing so again now, in fact, and scraping by (this time self-employed on a shoestring) at way less than what I used to make, to do so. But, ya’ know what? I’m HAPPY.
While you are spouting numbers, try taking a look at the pay curve for engineers who stay in engineering. It flattens out pretty quickly. If an engineer wants to make REAL money, he or she usually diverges off into something else. But, most of us stay with what we love (and get less ulcers, despite the long hard hours.)
:-)
Way to go - start off with an insult. Helps anyone who reads this other than me to know that your arguments are bogus since you can't seem to rely on them to present your case. (I've already seen that your arguments are rocket exhaust.)
But given a situation where the return IS “worth it”, most smart people will happily ante up.
You know the comptroller of Maryland said the same thing when they passed the surtax on the rich two years ago. I believe his words were "they'll grin and bear it." The year that the surtax passed there were 3000 people who were affected in MD. The next year (the first that the tax took effect) there were slightly less than 2000. The did not grin and bear it. They left the state.
Besides not everyone shares your blind enthusiasm for NASA and considers it a "good thing" I don't.
Compared to what they contribute to society, engineers for the most part ARE poorly paid
Ever heard of the free market? If you've heard of it you obviously don't understand the concept. You didn't read Bastiat did you? According to the theory of the free market, engineers are neither underpaid nor overpaid IF MARKET DISTORTIONS PRODUCED BY FEDERAL SPENDING ARE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
You must be one of the vast majority of people who enjoy the fruits of modern technology / civilization, but have NO idea what it really takes to make that farm operate, much less create it in the first place. Sheesh...
Another insult. I have a lot better understand of it than you do - obviously. In fact as I think about it you can go suck on a Tang bottle until you learn to to use logic rather than insult.
I see. You’re telling me that some NBA near thug making a million a year has contributed more to civilization than an average engineer, because pay levels not distorted by gov’t always accurately reflect such things. Righto...
Next: Your analysis of the engineering job market shows total lack of knowledge of it. If NASA does big stuff, say, really pushing on going to Mars (a 2x expansion of current expenditures to do that?), in all but the very short term, I and other engineers would face MORE competition in the overall engineering job market, not less. But I’ll bet you can’t figure out why.
My use of the phrase “twisting words” was accurate: I said that taxpayers (or almost any other smart person) would happily “ante up” IF the return was worth it. “Given a situation...” (This willingness to “pay up” applies to most good investment scenarios.) You respond only with situations where that clearly is not the case, and did not respond when I gave you an example of such a situation where it clearly WAS the case, even though the citizens’ sacrifices for the country were great. (I gave that example since I could see you were too biased to recognize such a situation or history on your own.)
I am NOT arguing (and you know it!) that most current gov’t expenditures, and the taxation to support them, are a good investment. That went away for the most part, oh, in the early ‘60’s or so.
I’m only arguing that NASA is a good investment, and that most engineers (very practical people) would agree, EXCLUSIVE OF ANY FINANCIAL SELF INTEREST. If you want to dismiss their opinion, fine. If you want to call myself and most other engineers liars or hypocrites, about that part in caps, fine. (You are attacking what is probably, taken as a whole, the most conservative professional group of any size, out there, and some of the most honorable people around, in general, too.)
Since the rest of your “logic” consists of far nastier insults than anything I’ve said, I’ll only respond with:
Merry Christmas!
Make that last “I’ll only conclude with...”
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
