To Boldly Go....Most of the Way

Story

...this is why I personally despise congress. Bitch and moan about our $16 billion budget, then use $3 billion of it for your "projects". Glad to see Alan Mollohan isn't getting away with it...

 

I long for the day when a president can exercise a line-item veto and simply remove obnoxious parts of a bill that have no business being there. That would allow the removal of most "pork" spending. Or at least a president with the backbone to reject bloated bills outright and demand that Congress clean them up before he'd sign them.

I think I've got a long wait coming in either case.

 

@Star, you're all for the Iraq war, and that costs $10 Billion a month. (and a battalion of soldiers killed every month)

That's just money down the drain. Almost half a trillion so far, roughly. (if not more)


I don't want to harp about the Iraq war for ever, but I just fail to see your reasoning.

Half a trillion is a lot more than 3 million.

 

I'm not Star, but where'd you get that figure? A battalion of soldiers killed every month would be a figure in excess of 25,000 soldiers killed since the start of the war. That's a death rate in excess of Vietnam.

EDIT: US Casualty rates. The Vietnamese are still missing in excess of 3 million soldiers.

 

I got that figure from Meet the Press with Tim Russert, and it depends on what you classify a battalion as. Web Definition

A battalion can be anywhere from several hundred to a thousand men as far as I know. It has a very broad definition and can even mean a large number.


When you work out the number of dead, maimed and injured, it's pretty close to the mark.


Anyway, the main point is, why worry about 3 million dollars, when 10 billion is wasted every month.

That sort of reasoning doesn't make sense to me.

 

I know what a battalion is, and that the size can vary from a few hundred to over a thousand depending on the type of unit. A combat battalion is roughly 700 soldiers, since we don't operate as pure battalions, but task organized; which is called a Task Force. A Task Organized Brigade is called a Combat Team. You have to remember I did spend 24 years in the American Army, and have worked with military forces from 7 nations; yours included.

You said killed, not maimed and wounded. Tim Russet is hardly what I would call a reliable source. To lose a Battalion of soldiers on a monthly basis is extremely high, and would be equivalent to 2 US Infantry Divisions. The US death toll since the start of the War is 2486, 2002 from combat. Roughly 68 deaths a month, far lower then the number you cited, and far lower than Vietnam. Those figures are as of June 9, 2006 1:03 AM EDT, last fatality was on June 7th.

The cost of the war in 2005 was an estimated $5.6 Billion per month. I hardly think that the cost of the war has inflated to $10 Billion a month in six months. That would mean there has been a drastic escalation in Combat Operations; and that simply is not the case.

 

Where do you get your information from? And this isn't 2005.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), estimates the war at $6-$9 Billion a month.


http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqwarcost.htm



BTW, I said I got that figure from Meet the Press.

I never said Tim Russert said it. The show is called Meet the Press with Tim Russert.

The person that said that was retired General McCafferey.

Somehow, I think he might know what he is talking.


Even for arguments sake, say it is 5 billion dollars, or even 1 billion.

It's still a few dollars more than 3 million......

 

I assume you have examples that can back that up?

What has he or the program said that was inaccurate or not reputable? (apart from me saying killed instead of lost or whatever the term was)

 

My reasoning is this: NASA pays my salary, and the salaries of thousands of others, and when someone or something takes our funding and misuses it on their projects, they are, to some degree, jeopardizing my making a living. The cost of this war is not taking a penny from NASA's (or any of its' agencies)funding. Several people with their own agenda are.

I work and pay taxes to help support whatever actions our government may undertake. I don't agree with all of them, but there is no way of doing something that is going to make everyone happy. I support the actions in the middle east for reasons I've conveyed in the past, as I would prefer not to worry about having my head sliced off because I don't agree with someone else's views to the contrary.

If you think this war is expensive, wait until you see what the next one costs.

By the way, as the story states, it's $3 billion, not $3 million. Still mere chump change in the war chest, right?

 

In Iraq you get lots of little fireworks for your money,with NASA you get one big firework for your money,as long as we get to see the show who cares

 

Well yes it is.

3 billion is a couple of weeks worth of financing the war machine, if that. And this war has been going on for years.

Imagine if that wasted money was poured into NASA or other projects, instead of wasting it, and peoples lives.

If it was for something positive, I wouldn't be questioning it, but it's obviously a huge mess.


To finance it, cuts have to be made elsewhere, that's just common sense.

And NASA would be a prime candidate like everything else.

 

It doesnt work like that though the money unlike NASA doesnt just get used with nothing but discovery to show for it,the weapons are made in America the money doesnt leave the country,the american people are making the weapons and being paid to make the weapons,thousands of people jobs rely on the war continuing,the money just gets shifted around

The only resource that gets used up never to be seen again is oil the manufacture and fuelling of ot war and one of the main materials,but Iraq has plenty so its no big deal

For example each cruise missile costs 1 million to the army where does that million go ?50 000 maybe on materials 'just plucking a number,probably much cheaper' the rest is used to pay for manufacture of the missile,I dont know what the tax situation is like in America but here easily over 70% will be reclaimed in income tax,then whatever people buy with the money is taxed here it 20%,the the retailer will then also have his wages taxed and the stuff he buys will be taxed ect.ect

The only important thing you need to do is to manufacture your own stuff,if you start to buy stuff from other countries the money leaves never to be seen again,as long as the manufacture of weapons stays in America theres nothing to worry about,the war ending would probably be bad for the American economy as so many products are now imported

 

Rikky, it doesn't work like that.

Although war can be profitable for some sections of the private sector, it's extremely expensive for the government to run a war machine. (history has shown that many times)

Especially one the size of the US.

 

The current occupant of the Oval Office has not vetoed a single bill!

Grown government at highest levels while reducing benefits to many.



Oh and NINE TRILLION dollars of debt!

 

I'll concede its expensive for the US I havnt seen any true figures as to where the money flows so I cant really argue,just thinking out loud,Total war is a different beast though as it takes labour time away from other sectors which cripples economies like us WW2

 

no worries guys when the states charge £5 uk pounds $9.21 dollars for a gallon
the dept will soon resolve it's self .iraq oil is free to the usa ho so sorry

 

The thing that intrigues me about this debate is that we blame the ELECTED people that we have chosen to govern us. We somehow miss the fact that most decisions are NOT made by the people we elect, but rather by the professional bureaucrats that wheel and deal behind our backs. I have had the misfortune to have had to deal with these characters in the past, their fake smiles and condescending manner make you want to P*ke. But the slime are astute enough to never run for office, or even subjugate themselves to FREE election of office. There the ones that filter BILLIONS to there compadres, and tell the elected green horns that this is the only thing that can be done.

NASA/Space Research is humankind’s ticket to the rest of the universe, War of any kind is two or more adult belligerents trying to beat the Cr*p out of the other. War has never in the history of humankind resolved one single issue. To those that think otherwise, just think a minute would me coming and beating you up change your mind, I think and trust it wouldn’t.

In my own opinion Space Research wins hands down!!!!!!! Star17 I may not agree with some of your opinions, but dude I envy you and the opportunity that you and your co-workers have to better Humankind.

 

Ask the American Indians, or better yet, the Astecs, if violence didn't take their lands and subvert their culture. The arguement about violence is weak thinking. I don't think Nazi Germany responded well to debates, although it was tried. Historically, violence has ended many cultures and solved many problems. Finding historical examples isn't hard, wars have settled many an issue with finality, although not necessarily with justice. There really is such a thing as a surgical strike, and it can prevent even bigger conflicts in the long run. Unfortunately it takes brains to figure out where it is needed, a resourse sadly lacking in our current government.

My $.02? I was opposed to the war in Iraq with a vengenence. Having started it however, it has to be seen through or the results will be spectacular, and bad.

Being a member of NSS, I can only grit my teeth at what our government does. The cold war combined with the space race did bring out our best. The USA tends to laps into complacency it not joged.

 

You mean we have a puppet government??? :O
abri

 

Punch & Judy comes to mind

 

Getting back on topic (please bitch & moan about the war and government in someone else's thread), the FY '07 budget has been submitted; two things come immediately to mind- 1, we know approximately how much we'll have to work with. 2, so will some members of congress.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=20098

 

$16.7 Billion proposed for FY2007, I would have expected more. Hope it doesn't get cut to fund some one else's pet project.

 

Me thinks someone needs a successful launch...........Hey all the best on your guys upcoming flight our prayers and best wish's are with you Star & NASA Gang. If I had Billions Star, NASA would get it!

 

If I understand the original topic correctly, it has to do with congress hanging extra items on bills in order to get money for unrelated projects, which is called pork. If I got that part right, my comment is this ... there are not many avenues of funding available to Americans who want to build or renovate planetariums for colleges. The response of most Americans to things which cost money is no. There isn't as big a provision for improving our society as there is for defending it, so people do whatever they can to get the money for improvement through whatever channels are available.
abri

 

About the space program not getting funding (or having its funding siphoned off) I do believe your preaching to the choir.

Goverment and war have everything to do with our current problems with NASA.

Maybe the Chinese will have a robust space program in 10 or so years, this would do wonders for ours (weird, ain't it?).