What good is NASA anyways? Put that 15 billion a year towards the poor you BUMS!

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Several things:

1) We spend about 400 billion dollars annualy (more than our defense budget) on helping the poor, the needy, and all that other filth that would be better off if they had good paying jobs due to a high-tech economic base than meager jobs due to a service-based economy.

2) Even with that 400 billion dollars a year, we still have the same problem we've always had, in fact it has only been during the REVERSAL of LBJ's "Great Society" programs, and the cuts from government aid to faith-based organizations and the cut of taxation that the poverty levels have decreased and the standard of living increased.

3) European nations, we'll go with the EU in general, are mainly socialist and have a lower standard of living (not sure how much in specifics but I did read some where once that Sweden's standard of living was lower than the Mississippi standard of living, the source was a UN doccument, but you'll have to check me on that), more unemployed (US is about 3-6% and the EU is 10-14%) and more poverty.

4) The Space industry has given us so much that we take for granted today. Crazy people today attribute items like "fiber-optics" and "lunchables" to "stolen alien technology". The reality is much more obvious.

www.sti.nasa.gov...

The publication has been going on for 28 years, and has published each year, 40-50 technologies in direct result of NASA and the NASA budget of meager proportions.

Now here's another thing I think would be far more beneficial.

Say, we cut the Welfare spending and all that crap from 400 billion dollars to zero...and move it ALL to NASA (we'll just be extreme for now...in reality I'd have it more like 100 billion a year for NASA).

Here's what I'd think would happen.

First the agenda would be to make useful, Space...so to perfect space travel, to perfect inter-planetary space travel, and to have a continued presence on the Moon, Mars, around Mars, and possibly around Venus.

And in high Earth Orbit.

Along with continuation of the ISS.

But this would be a nationalistic venture, no contracting outside the US, or support from other nations, or other nation's Astronauts going to our facilities on other worlds. Or even to our high-Earth-orbit station.

Now, the venture would be large, requiring MASSIVE amounts of workers.

So, here's how I think it will benefit our poorer people.

The problem with them is the wage-base is so pathetic. They do mainly bull-schiesse jobs that are not really necessar but just exist because some person out there is willing to spend money on them. Or more-likely, they can't find a job and live off welfare because they are single mothers with 4 kids or some such thing.

So NASA's direct employees would increase greatly...and the indirect employees through private contracts would just explode. A million or more would go from a lower level of work to a higher level.

The over-qualified technicians will become researchers for the contracted companies.

The over-qualified laborers would become the technicians.

The over-qualified fast-food resturant workers and waiters who can be skilled laborers but can't find work, now can find work since the over-qualified people above them moved up in the industrial ladder.

And that leaves all those job-less mothers with jobs as waitresses and what not, the less skilled service jobs.

So basically by creating a whole new necessity for higher-tech jobs, you free up employment opportunities in lower-tech jobs as over-qualified individuals move up the ladder to work to get the USA to become the first true, permanent inter-planetary empire.

I guess my idea is a lot like the trickle-down theory of economics, which has been proven to work durin Reagan's term and is working during Bush's...the only problem with that is a necessity for a vast cut in spending with the vast cut in taxes.

This method you don't necessarily need to cut taxes to still help the people near the bottom.

It's a trickle-down theory of labor.

Just redirect funds so the central (federal) government is not being more socialist, rather it is performing its function of the Constitution to "promote the sciences" and vast amounts of tax money go to the private sector.

So as you can see, both realistically (Spinoff publication) and theoretically (trickle down labor) spending MORE money in NASA, and less in social programs, will actually benefit society more than said social programs.

The argument to stay on earth and fix our problems like unemployment and poverty is debunked in this thread.

NASA created 400,000 jobs during the 60s with a budget less than half of what I'm talking about (100 billion dollars) in today's money. And with the trickle down labor theory (so far I'm the only person I know who has thought of that...and I gave it that name if someone else has thought of it...tell me lol. I have a habit of discovering things on my own, such as certain aspects of Special Relativity and String Theory...only to discover that it's already been thought up) that is 400,000 more jobs in total, and so currently Unemployed people and unskilled workers can now find jobs.

Basically the theory is that by creating high-tech jobs, you in a sense create unskilled jobs as well, thus benefiting the WHOLE of society.

So by massive spending on NASA, you in turn benefit the poor by giving them a better chance in making their own money.

Ok...I'm done speaking for now, time for comments.




posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
so, are you crazy, many of us need government health care, social security, wellfare, etc, like myself, not because we're lazy but because we cant afford the care, equipment or anything we need to live, get therapy, etc, most of these programs are crap as it is so right now we're barely covered, your idea sucks and doesnt consider people like me who need that money.

your idea would ruin far more lives than it could help(ie: those who cant work or can only work for a few years or are retired).

if you can figure out a way to adapt your idea so it avoids being a problem for people in this position it might benefit and work as u suggest.

[edit on 14-6-2004 by namehere]



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 03:53 AM
link   
namehere if you read carefully what I said (and you should because I think so freaking much that most of it is between the lines) you would have noticed that I said 100 billion would go to NASA and that would leave 300 billion for health care and social programs.

That 100 billion would be sufficient to create about 1 million jobs in America. It'd actually be a little more to cover personel costs.

Now, with that 300 billion, the first thing that should be done, is getting people who don't NEED the money...off the programs. Most of the Welfare and Health Care money goes to people who don't need it at all. Reasons are numerous but the main reasons are:

1) Some people who live below the poverty line don't consider themselves poor and so don't care.

2) The poverty line is not ajusted for local costs of living, you can own a house and car in the deep south for 15,000 dollars, you couldn't even buy a car for that much in LA.

3) Many of the old people sucking off the social programs own their own house and have few expenses there-by getting by on far less money than $17,000 a year.

The list goes on...

Basically, and this is just an estimate, but the goal of welfare, health care and other government assistance could be taken care of with far less than 400 billion dollars, in fact it could be done probably with less than 100 billion dollars.

The first thing I was taught when studying Health and Welfare Policy (one of my majors is Political Science) is that the current Health and Welfare system steals from the poor and gives to the middle class.

Why? Because the middle class is the largest voting bloc...

I'm sure that comes as a surprise to you, it did to me. Surely America is more efficient than having a government assistance program that basically steals from the rich and gives to the poor.

But it does...main reasons are the taxations in certain respects (sales tax etc. Social Security Tax) and the lack of most of the benefits going to those who really need it, say yourself for instance.

The reason there is no obvious out-cry, is because through much effort, the truly needy can get the services provided by Goverment assistance.

It is not discrimenatory, it is just inefficient because for a large amount of that ear-marked money, they do no back-ground checks.

One of my professors ran numerous tests of that, where he and his colleagues basically went around filling out the paper work as if they were poor, single parents and even some times, claiming they were a different race than they obviously were, and they would get government assistance.

So reading between the lines of what I say (guess it's kinda difficult since most don't exactly study public policy lol) the end result of my plan with NASA would be more along these lines:

1) Redirect the inefficient portions of the government assistance to NASA and make sure as best as possible that the goverment assistance goes to the needy and not the middle class.

2) Redirect enough funds to accomplish two goals:
A) Make America an inter-planetary nation.
B) Make America the undisputed leader in technologies.
C) Give the people of America a large and close realization of why education matters.
D) Create 1 million new private sector jobs and 100,000 public sector jobs to fulfill A-C by expanding America into space.

3) Pertaining to D of 2, the increase of high-tech jobs will have a theoretical trickle-down effect creating jobs even at the lower sectors helping to reduce unemployment.

The over-all benefits are astounding with this plan. In concert it could probably make America the best place in the world to live even in its worst places. Emphasis on education will matter as a realization that you can work to do something great is close at hand. Jobs will be created for American not for other nations because other nations can not help us in Space, we help them. New technologies will aid our economic growth and probably conservation of resources and so forth. The fact that the government assistance would be made more efficient and the saved money from that is used to fund NASA would mean that basically it's a win/win situation.

Thanks for bringing up the government assistance, I was under the impression my post was clear enough to eventually show that it would not leave those who can't afford medical care and such stranded. I have yet thought of any way possible to lower health costs so it looks like we are stuck with government assitance in that area.

But your "crazy" and "idea sucks" part of your post though almost made me retaliate back at you, but I think explaination is better at this point.

If you can not see how good the space program could be to America the way I've presented it now...then surely there's something wrong with you...


I suppose you could do similar things with boosting military budgets (WW2) or such, but military has no purpose on such a massive scale as that anymore so the only real feasible remaining sector to create massive jobs without going socialist, is NASA. (That is without having public works projects like in the 1930s). World War 2 employed a lot of people in the private sector to build the weapons of war...we should do the same now to build the tools of exploration.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:16 AM
link   
"NO FREE LAUNCH"

FreeMason,

Your plan, I hope that you don't mind that I came up with a catch phrase.


I like the idea, and there would be many details to work out.

Let's see, a certain percentage of those recieving govt Assistance,
are actually EMPLOYABLE. These are candidates for training, in all aspects
of supporting NASA projects on a larger scale. Some might actually agree
to better their lives.

Janitors, Scientists, Truck drivers, Lab assistants, you name it.

These folks are already recieving money from the govt.
Maybe the govt can get something in return.

And your figures, I know they were examples. Who says you can't start smaller, or bigger?



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Ha ha ha good stuff. FreeMason, if you can succeed even in isolating the


inefficient portions of the government assistance


in practice rather than theory (and I'm not disputing that they exist, mind you) then I say we give you all of that money for the first year.

I wish to add to this plan:

With our newly found space capabilities, we should proceed post-haste to launch welfare moochers, prison delinquents, old people who are destroying social security, and sick people who are assaulting medicare, into space. People who are or look like terrorists to follow. Everyone, give your metal tools and kitchen utensils to the government for scrap metal, and prepare for our great leap forward!



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
HeirToBokassa something tells me you haven't a faintest notion what is wrong with the Health and Welfare system in America or why it isn't being fixed when it is so easy to simply have the checks in place.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
But your "crazy" and "idea sucks" part of your post though almost made me retaliate back at you, but I think explaination is better at this point.

If you can not see how good the space program could be to America the way I've presented it now...then surely there's something wrong with you...


hmm, well obviously i didnt understand you too well in the first post, that was a better explination in the second post, sorry about that, it was 2 am or so.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join