October 4, 2009
-
Space Program vs. Welfare
A few days ago my sister was made to write an essay for a standardized test at school. The question was (and this is not an exact quote but it’s basically what they said): Many people think that the money spent on the space program could be better spent helping the poor, do you think that the government should spend money on the space program or on programs to help the poor?
Of course the way she answered it was that she thought the money should be better spent on the space program and she gave some good reasons why but not quite as many as I would. At any rate, it turns out that everyone else in her class (11th graders) with the exception of some girl that had moved here from Taiwan and my sister, said that the space program should be scrapped in favor of more “social spending.” The most frightening aspect of this, is that someday those kids are going to be able to vote.
At any rate, the question creates a false dichotomy, it is not an either or scenario. There is already a great deal of money spent on welfare and other forms of “social spending.” I have decided that “Social Spending” is essentially a bureaucratic euphemism for socialism. There is already a great deal more spent on socialist programs than there is on space exploration. Scrapping the space program in favor of spending more money on socialist programs is really not going to make a huge difference in how much money is delved out to people who are out of jobs or whatever. Now in terms of what is better for society as a whole, space exploration bears fruits which enhance the lives of everyone, whereas social spending does not. For example, the microwave was invented to give the astronauts a way to prepare food. How many people cook primarily with the microwave vs. how many are depending on subsidies from the government? Also, do you like using a GPS unit to find new places? Do you like knowing when a hurricane is getting ready to hit? If you answer yes to these things then you are probably one of the people who benefits more from the space program than social spending. Which is actually the majority.
Space exploration leads to innovations and scientific discovery, welfare and other social programs fuel the development of a class of people dependent upon the government, sometimes over multiple generations. Whether those people are helped by being dependent on the government is negligible at best, but certainly the majority of people who are not part of those programs do not benefit from them, and in fact are harmed by them because it is their money which is being taken in order to provide the government with revenue for all that.
I don’t understand why the left does not see that space exploration provides the only long term answer to two of their favorite issues/concerns. Those issues being pollution and overpopulation. Imagine if all the garbage in landfills were jettisoned into space instead of left beneath the ground. Or if heavy industry was relocated to the moon. No one would care if there was a nuclear meltdown on the moon, of if heavy industrial pollution were released into the vacuum of space. Also, if space technology improves colonies could be established on other planetary bodies in the solar system (relieving population pressure on the earth), and perhaps a way to reach other solar systems could even be discovered. What I don’t understand is why the liberals are trying to call themselves progressive, when their politicians (whom they almost always agree with) continually cut spending on useful things like the military and space program (the only useful things the government does), and spend it on programs with negative returns. That is regress, not progress.
Comments (9)
I have mixed feelings about the piece. I agree with our conclusion– there needs to be a well-funded space program, but I disagree with your framing of “social welfare” and you assessment and impacting of its benifits. (I’m too lazy to expound on it now)
But to add, addtionally, there’s a very good reason for keeping the space program: We need rocket scientists employed. There is a whole generation of scientist and engineers trained and experienced in the specialzied skillsets of space exploration. To gut the space program is to effectively end the training of the next generation’s rocket scientists and engineers.
Um, they’re cutting spending because we’ve been 20% over budget every year for about a decade (thanks GWB). And there will never be a nuclear power plant on the moon unless we can run a power cable a quarter of a million miles to get the juice back to earth.
Some of your points are valid, but a lot of the science you propose will materialize would not be practical.
@CelestialTeapot -
True
@agnophilo -
There can be a nuclear power plant on the moon when there’s a colony there, or heavy industry. Obviously technology needs to improve, but it’s not going to improve if no one bothers to work on it or strive to be better than they are. And during the last administration I read some articles about how a lunar colony was being planned near a site where they found some water. I think it was near the southern polar region. I must admit that I’m a bit surprised that someone would underestimate my intelligence to such a degree that they would assume I was advocating something like running a cable from the moon to the earth, or even beaming the power down.
GW was a loser, but the new guy is much worse. And they are not cutting spending on any of the social programs, in fact the Democrats are looking for new ways to waste money like, for example, their socialized medical coverage plan. What the economy needs is for the government to step back and leave it alone. The government also needs to downsize. Aside from the welfare and other socialist forms of spending, there are a lot of departments sucking up tax payer money just to keep bureaucrats employed.
Edit: Also, cutting the space program and military spending is just a normal part of the Democrats MO. So at least as far as the space program goes, they’re just being typical Democrats. If they were trying to help the economy or save money they would shut down Cash for Clunkers.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex -
“There can be a nuclear power plant on the moon when there’s a colony there, or heavy industry. Obviously technology needs to improve, but it’s not going to improve if no one bothers to work on it or strive to be better than they are.”
The sheer amount of industry (and pollution) you need in order to create a shuttle capable of getting off of the earth (especially with hundreds of tons of supplies), traveling to the moon, and returning with hundreds of tons of other supplies would negate any benefit to our environment. Not to mention that long-term exposure to low gravity leads to a loss of bone density which causes serious health problems, which is why astronauts can only go up into space a few times with heavy training and rehabilitation between trips.
This stuff might be plausible in a century or two, but right now it would be a waste of effort.
“And during the last administration I read some articles about how a lunar colony was being planned near a site where they found some water. I think it was near the southern polar region.”
Yeah, I read that they weren’t going to police the world and were going to restore honor and integrity to the oval office. I read a lot of things.
“I must admit that I’m a bit surprised that someone would underestimate my intelligence to such a degree that they would assume I was advocating something like running a cable from the moon to the earth, or even beaming the power down.”
Actually I merely said that you couldn’t do that so there would be no reason to have nuclear power plants on the moon. And if you were going to have industry on the moon, why not use solar power since the sun’s radiation outside of an atmosphere would be much more intense? It should also be mentioned that in a low gravity environment without a carbon cycle, waste emisssions would quickly create a toxic atmosphere on the moon.
“GW was a loser, but the new guy is much worse.”
And do you watch anything but fox news?
“And they are not cutting spending on any of the social programs, in fact the Democrats are looking for new ways to waste money like, for example, their socialized medical coverage plan.”
That’s because making health insurance universal could eliminate up to 60% of bankruptcies each year (which are caused by unaffordable medical bills), preventing millions of people from ever relying on existing welfare programs, which by itself has the potential to save more money than is being spent. In addition we are paying 1 1/2 times what it costs to maintain everyone’s health, and tens of millions have no health coverage and millions more have bad health coverage. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year beyond what we should be spending, which should go down dramatically if we get a public option which will lower hospitals’ expenses, allow people who can’t get health insurance to get insurance, and force private insurers to compete and stop price-gouging.
“What the economy needs is for the government to step back and leave it alone.”
Um, the largest public works program in history and a world war are what got us out of the great depression. Public spending is the reason we’re not seeing part 2 of the great depression right now. This “government spending is automatically bad” stuff gets old.
“The government also needs to downsize. Aside from the welfare and other socialist forms of spending, there are a lot of departments sucking up tax payer money just to keep bureaucrats employed.”
Some parts of the government do, some don’t. I’m not keen on cutting the budget for the FBI or the post office, or the border patrol etc. But that doesn’t mean all programs are working.
“Edit: Also, cutting the space program and military spending is just a normal part of the Democrats MO. So at least as far as the space program goes, they’re just being typical Democrats.”
Um, obama increased the NASA budget…
“If they were trying to help the economy or save money they would shut down Cash for Clunkers.”
They did, over a month ago you ignoramus. That’s because it was a temporary grant program, not a continual thing. It ends when the funding runs out, the funding runs out the more successful it is. It was very successful, even after tripling the budget it still ran out very fast, because people were buying hundreds of thousands of new cars. Which is a good thing.
@agnophilo -
A century or two will make no difference if no effort is made in the meantime. Obviously the colony would start on a small scale and work its way up, and many innovations would be made in the process.
It was not an idea that the white house came up with, it was a plan that NASA created after water was discovered in generous quantities on the moon. The article where I read about it first was on the internet, but you can read about more of that sort of stuff in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics.
Assuming of course that the moon has enough gravity to sustain an atmosphere. It would be interesting to find out. And if the moon could sustain an atmosphere and one was created the next step would be terraforming.
Do you watch anything other than CNN? I actually don’t watch TV at all. But every time I read a news article about Obama it just makes me dislike him even more, even though most of the time whoever wrote article has their lips firmly pressed to his posterior. It all ranges from plans to increase government control over the private sector, to making moves towards world government, or some irrelevant bit of info about his personal life which I could not care less about but the totally butt kissing tone taken on by the writer is beyond irritating to me. I have no reason to like him. I don’t like government to begin with, I don’t want the government passing more laws, regulating more stuff, raising taxes, or providing more “services” (which really amounts to nationalizing some aspect of the private sector which was previously independant).
Sounds like you have been listening to propaganda. It’s not going to save money at all, neither is it going to get anyone off of welfare. It is designed at bankrupting the private insurance industries so that everyone will have to accept the governments plan. It will make someone like myself, who is physically active and has literally textbook perfect medical readings have to pay money for some fool that smokes and or over eats. Up until they get to be 59 or 60, at which point the government plan won’t cover them for things like organ or hip transplants, and will require them to make an “end of life” decision. “We” are not spending money, but we will be spending money if the Democrats push their plan through and force us all to pay for the medical plan. A person who smokes or is overweight carries a much higher insurance fee because they are at a much higher risk due to their bad lifestyle choices. It’s not price gouging, it’s just common sense. When they get medical insurance now they have to pay more than I do, if they can find someone willing to cover them, but it’s all their fault. At any rate, the point is that THEY are paying for it. If the Democrats plan goes through then I have to pay for it and that’s just not fair, or right.
Fist of all, you don’t know that the economy would not have recovered without the war, and second, the Keynesian economics instituted by FDR but he government into debt, a debt which continues to grow. Those sorts of policies also cause inflation. On the other hand, the more money the government takes in taxes, the less there is in the economy. The less employers have to pay their employees, means that they cannot sustain as many employees, which means more unemployment. Also, the more the government taxes people the less spending money people have. The less money people have to spend the less money they do spend.
If he increased funding to NASA then that must be a recent development. I would be interested in seeing the source of that information.
Which does not in any way invalidate my point. Where did the government get the money from to by the old cars? Tax payers. What was the payoff for buying those old cars? Did it cut down on the federal deficit? No. Did it lead to any new innovations? No. It was just another ploy by the Democrats to buy more votes. Giving away money to win votes has been their MO for years. It didn’t do anything for the economy, and chances are most of those people are going to be making car payments for a long time now, and many will have to borrow money to do so. It was a thoroughly pointless (other than buying votes) waste of money.
“A century or two will make no difference if no effort is made in the meantime. Obviously the colony would start on a small scale and work its way up, and many innovations would be made in the process.”
Rather than move thousands of tons of power generation equipment to the moon, why not just keep the plant here and fire the nuclear waste into space? Even that though would not be practical, and probably won’t be until we develop an alternative to chemical rockets. Not to mention if the rocket were to malfunction and crash it would spread radioactive shit everywhere, potentially throughout the atmosphere if it burnt up in re-entry which could cause all kinds of problems (huge spike in the number of cancer cases, for instance).
“It was not an idea that the white house came up with, it was a plan that NASA created after water was discovered in generous quantities on the moon. The article where I read about it first was on the internet, but you can read about more of that sort of stuff in Popular Science and Popular Mechanics.”
Who said it was?
“Assuming of course that the moon has enough gravity to sustain an atmosphere. It would be interesting to find out. And if the moon could sustain an atmosphere and one was created the next step would be terraforming.”
No, because while it could sustain an atmosphere (as it once did) the atmosphere would be unstable and would leak out into space. Ours is doing so as well, but it is also hit by a lot more meteors than the moon which bring more oxygen/nitrogen.
“Do you watch anything other than CNN?”
Yes.
“I actually don’t watch TV at all. But every time I read a news article about Obama it just makes me dislike him even more, even though most of the time whoever wrote article has their lips firmly pressed to his posterior. It all ranges from plans to increase government control over the private sector,”
No, the heath insurance industry, not the private sector at large. Insuring those the private sector won’t insure and imposing regulations to stop them from taking peoples’ money and not providing them with the agreed services is hardly orwellian or communism.
“to making moves towards world government,”
And what pray tell are those “steps”? He works with other countries instead of threatening to bomb them so he’s trying to establish a NWO?
“or some irrelevant bit of info about his personal life which I could not care less about but the totally butt kissing tone taken on by the writer is beyond irritating to me. I have no reason to like him. I don’t like government to begin with, I don’t want the government passing more laws, regulating more stuff, raising taxes, or providing more “services” (which really amounts to nationalizing some aspect of the private sector which was previously independant).”
Well he cut your taxes and is providing services to people who can’t get them from the private sector. So yeah.
“Sounds like you have been listening to propaganda.”
I know you have.
“It’s not going to save money at all, neither is it going to get anyone off of welfare.”
How could eliminating up to 60% of bankruptcies not mean fewer people will seek public assistance?
“It is designed at bankrupting the private insurance industries so that everyone will have to accept the governments plan.”
Um, no. If it were then insurance companies wouldn’t be negotiating at all. And you have no evidence that this would happen or that this is the “secret plan”.
“It will make someone like myself, who is physically active and has literally textbook perfect medical readings have to pay money for some fool that smokes and or over eats.”
Um, that’s how private insurance works too. The premiums of the healthy pay for the care for the sick, and then when you’re sick, healthy peoples’ premiums will pay for you to get care. Then insurance companies started weeding out sick people and old people and jacking up their premiums so fewer people could afford insurance, and that’s why we have programs like medicare and medicaid. Now they’re telling people they can’t get insurance because they’re sick, or because they misspelled something in their medical history so they’re “misrepresenting” their history so they can opt out of their policy. They’re even telling people that they are perfectly healthy they can’t get a policy because someone in their family got sick, so that means they might have bad genes.
This is why we have government insurance, to insure people the private sector refuses to. Not to steal their business.
The health insurance industry isn’t shaking their fist at medicare saying “how dare you insure those with the highest healthcare costs! Damn you government!” The program was created because the private sector refused to insure them, and seniors were committing suicide left and right.
“Up until they get to be 59 or 60, at which point the government plan won’t cover them for things like organ or hip transplants,”
Show me evidence that HR 3200 or medicare refuses to cover these things based on age.
“and will require them to make an “end of life” decision.”
HR 3200 doesn’t require anyone to do shit, it merely says that the insurance will pay for a consultation for end of life care. If you’re going to die and you want to know your options, thanks to republicans that consultation is no longer covered by your insurance. Oh, and the hypocrisy is palpable.
“”We” are not spending money, but we will be spending money if the Democrats push their plan through and force us all to pay for the medical plan.”
And “force” you to pay less for health insurance and “force” your existing insurance policy to have more protections. Yeah, what assholes!
Sorry, but you can characterize ANY legislation as “forcing” this and that, or necessarily having some baaaaad consequence. This is lazy propaganda, and it has nothing to do with whether or not these are good policies.
“A person who smokes or is overweight carries a much higher insurance fee because they are at a much higher risk due to their bad lifestyle choices. It’s not price gouging, it’s just common sense.”
We as a country pay 150% what it costs to maintain everyone’s health. You could pay less than you are now and cover everyone for everything.
“When they get medical insurance now they have to pay more than I do, if they can find someone willing to cover them, but it’s all their fault. At any rate, the point is that THEY are paying for it. If the Democrats plan goes through then I have to pay for it and that’s just not fair, or right.”
Yeah, just like it’s not fair or right that you have to pay for firetrucks when you’ve never had a fire, right? I mean if someone had a fire because they were smoking in bed, shouldn’t they get stuck with a “your house burned down” bill? And shouldn’t only people who pay enough taxes get to call 9/11? Shouldn’t only wealthy people have nice roads to drive on? I mean otherwise you’re paying for roads for a bunch of lazy people, right?
It should also be mentioned that not every overweight person is overweight because they overeat, a lot of people can’t help it. So fuck em’ I guess, right?
“Fist of all, you don’t know that the economy would not have recovered without the war,”
Um, it only recovered with looooots of public spending.
“and second, the Keynesian economics instituted by FDR but he government into debt, a debt which continues to grow.”
Um, a lot of things contributed to the stock market crash, including unregulated financial practices.
“Those sorts of policies also cause inflation. On the other hand, the more money the government takes in taxes, the less there is in the economy.”
This is irrelevant since your taxes went down under the obama plan, but the idea that taxation causes unemployment would only be true if the government sat on the money and didn’t buy things and pay salaries with it. Almost every dime of your tax dollars make their way back into the private sector and stimulate the economy, and the public sector is part of the “economy” too. When the government raises taxes to pay for a new road to be built, they spend that money hiring private companies, which then spend their pay checks and buy products and services from people who do the same in turn, and so on forever.
“The less employers have to pay their employees, means that they cannot sustain as many employees, which means more unemployment. Also, the more the government taxes people the less spending money people have. The less money people have to spend the less money they do spend.”
Again, no. This would be true only in the short term in the case of some big spending hike, but in general no. If the government opens up a new government office or something, that funnels money to the private industry which has to construct the building, provide utilities to it, provide hundreds if not thousands of products to it (office supplies and whatnot), clean and maintain it, etc, etc. All done via the private sector. And even the employees salaries stimulate the economy by creating more demand for everything those employees buy, from homes to cars to dildos to reeces pieces etc, etc, etc.
“If he increased funding to NASA then that must be a recent development. I would be interested in seeing the source of that information.”
I just looked up the nasa budget. I just looked for a source, went to the wikipedia article on it, and apparently the NASA budget is slightly smaller, but if you adjust the rates for inflation it is slightly larger, and next year’s proposed budget is significantly larger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
“Which does not in any way invalidate my point. Where did the government get the money from to by the old cars? Tax payers. What was the payoff for buying those old cars? Did it cut down on the federal deficit? No. Did it lead to any new innovations? No. It was just another ploy by the Democrats to buy more votes. Giving away money to win votes has been their MO for years. It didn’t do anything for the economy,”
Selling hundreds of thousands of cars did nothing for the economy? You can’t seriously be that dense. This wasn’t about fixing the deficit, it was about re-opening car factories and rubber plants and steel plants so they don’t have to keep laying more and more people off. When the banks crashed people couldn’t get loans for cars and the industry came grinding to a halt. It was an attempt to get it moving again because something like 7% of the country is employed by the auto industry.
“and chances are most of those people are going to be making car payments for a long time now, and many will have to borrow money to do so. It was a thoroughly pointless (other than buying votes) waste of money.”
Totally separate issue.
@agnophilo -
I’m going to suggest you go back and re-read the comment that you are replying to in this case.
The moon never had an atmosphere, it has always been a barren lifeless rock. Unlike Mars, which actually DOES have an atmosphere, and contains erosion features which indicate that it had more of one in the past.
Who said it was? Well I inferred that based on your initial comment: “Yeah, I read that they weren’t going to police the world and were going to restore honor and integrity to the oval office. I read a lot of things.” Those other things you mentioned are completely unrelated issues, and tend to center around the president. Actually they sound like the standard run of the mill liberal rhetoric.
I was speaking in general about all Of the articles pertaining to Obama, and listing all the things they involve. Having the government take over any part of the private sector is a step in the wrong direction. Not only does it eliminate competition and other options, but it requires people to pay for a service they may not want or benefit from, AND, the government tends to take a minimalist approach when providing a service.
“How could eliminating up to 60% of bankruptcies not mean fewer people will seek public assistance?”–That is NOT going to happen as a result of their plans to socialize medical care. I know the white house has been making those sorts of statements but it’s just unsubstantiated rhetoric. Just because Obama and the Democrats are advocating something, does not automatically make it good. Just because they say something it does not automatically follow that what they say is true.
The plan may have been modified, but the last time I checked one of the provisions was that private insurance companies would be required to cover ANYONE who sought coverage. That is the sort of thing that will bankrupt them. The reason they do not cover everyone is because it is not economically feasible for them to do so.
It IS communism because in order to cover those people the tax payers would have to pay for it. It’s taking money away from some people and giving it to others, which is the textbook definition of communism. How does it go? “Take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his need.”
I never said anything about a secret plan, this is all very overt and obvious to anyone who reads the news.
You can see the entire bill in PDF format here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf Check out pages 429-430.
If I have to pay for something that is not my fault, then it’s bad legislation. If I have to pay for your coverage and you are at a higher risk of heart attack because you eat too much, or cancer because you smoke too much, then that isn’t fair or right. It’s your own fault for making poor life decisions and it is your responsibility to pay for it, not mine. Yes to a certain extent there is a collective pot that everyone pays into with insurance companies, and you only get any of that money back if something happens, but someone with high risk is still going to pay a lot more than I would. Actually I think it would be best if there were no insurance providers whatsoever, it only serves to drive up the cost of medical care. In countries where insurance is not expected or mandatory then the cost of medical care is much lower. But turning it over to the government is NOT the answer. The government isn’t God.
I’m not a country I’m an individual, and right now everyone pays for their own. It’s that sort of collectivist thinking that provides fertile ground for despotism, where the rights of the individual are disregarded for “the greater good.”
“Yeah, just like it’s not fair or right that you have to pay for firetrucks when you’ve never had a fire, right? I mean if someone had a fire because they were smoking in bed, shouldn’t they get stuck with a “your house burned down” bill? And shouldn’t only people who pay enough taxes get to call 9/11? Shouldn’t only wealthy people have nice roads to drive on? I mean otherwise you’re paying for roads for a bunch of lazy people, right?”–Those are completely unrelated issues. Using that kind of argument why don’t you also pay to put gas in my car, or pay to replace my car because it broke down. Maybe it broke down because I never changed the oil or the tires, but my problems are your problems right? Even if they’re self inflicted?
Governments also spend money on a lot of bullcrap. I just had to go into court to pay a ticket, and one of the first things the judge did was state that the tickets were so expensive in order to bring in more revenue for the State government (in this case Georgia). And while I do tend to be more accepting of state governments than federal government, the fact is the spending is wasteful and it typifies the sort of waste that the Feds engage in on a much larger scale. He said that each year the Georgia House is coming up with new laws and spending programs, creating new bureaucracies and requires more money on a yearly basis. One of them was something about rehabilitating drunk drivers. I can’t remember what the others were he mentioned, but he said that there were far too many to mention and it would take at least an entire day to cover them all.
What makes you think my taxes went down? At any rate, I have a problem with taxes as a matter of principle. The way I see it is that if there must be taxes then the fair tax plan is the way to go. I don’t want anyone’s taxes to be raised. And for certain my dad is paying more this year than he did before Obama got elected.
I see that you are someone who really loves government (not that I am surprised by that), but as I said before, the more the government takes over the less competition there is. Also, not everyone wants to work for the government. I do agree with you that the money does eventually make it back to the increasingly smaller private sector, after all, government employees still need to buy groceries, and they still watch movies and eat at McDonalds. So some of the money gets back, but I’m still not seeing how any of that is a net improvement.
And if the auto industry had made better products then it never would have gotten into trouble in the first place. Also, you are assuming that all of those people who bought new cars bought them from American car companies. I know I wouldn’t. When I get my next car it’s going to be another Toyota because they have good mileage and are easy to maintain. They are also smaller and more maneuverable, making it easier for me to weave in and out of the complacent slow moving traffic. Right now pretty much every sector of the economy is suffering, having the government ram money into any given sector is not going to solve the crisis. It is going to put the government into greater debt and waste tax payer money. If people aren’t spending money there is a reason for it, usually it is because they cannot afford too. In an economic downturn it is inevitable that some franchises or businesses will go under. Once the economy gets better new businesses will open up. The government isn’t just a magic wishing well, a money tree, or God. They have to get their money from somewhere, and the way they get it is by taxing people. The people who had the money in the first place were probably doing something better and more useful with it than what the government is going to do. The point is that the money was already in the economy, so having the government take the money out of the economy so that it can put the money back into the economy is gratuitous.
This should have been mentioned earlier, but concerning world government: The way he signs treaties with the UN which compromise US sovereignty and the way he tries to establish international laws are what I consider to be steps toward world government.
Ambro, I liked your article. I’ll let you handle the details of this argument. I decided that unless actual scripture is involved, it’s not worth my effort, and only scripture will change my mind. Give me a little time, and yeah, I can find scripture that relates to this. 2 Peter 1:3