6 ms·

"only 250-300 million added to the budget" Yes research is important. Yes exploration is important. But at least show some respect for tax payers. Asking for

by lukevdp 16y ago

"only 250-300 million added to the budget" Yes research is important. Yes exploration is important. But at least show some respect for tax payers. Asking for 250 million is the equivalent of asking 3000 people to work for nothing for a year.

rimantas 16y ago
This may help with some perspective: http://billpetti.com/2010/04/16/visualizing-the-2011-us-budget/ http://billpetti.com/2010/04/16/visualizing-the-2011-us-budg...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
yock 16y ago
That's a little sensational, don't you think? Virtually every morsel of our federal budget can be put in the same terms, and many are orders of magnitude larger than this.
- lukevdp 16y ago
  Yes, fair points and I understand it's a tiny slice of a massive pie. Maybe I respect tax dollars too much, but I did get a somewhat annoyed reaction about the way spending tax dollars was so flippantly worded in the article
  - yock 16y ago
    You're ascribing a lot of authority to an article. It really bears no indication of the deliberation, or lack thereof, on the part of those setting the budget.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  In fact, I think that every single item on the federal budget should be put in exacly these terms. Every $1000 the government spends could in principle be returned to the tax payer from whom it was taken. If you can't say "this money is better spent on this government action than, say, a steel worker with a family who has 25% of his income taken as taxes", then it shouldn't be so spent. That said, I think asteroid deflection is easily worth the money.
loewenskind 16y ago
Are you aware how much the US spends on military? 0.7 trillion per year. I think these things could be paid for pretty easily.
- jimmyk 16y ago
  I don't see how the military budget is relevant to the complaint. If it is in fact worth it to spend 0.7 trillion on the military every year, that does not mean the government should be wasting money on other projects because they are relatively smaller. If it is not worth it, on the other hand, that does not justify wasting other money either. Projects should stand on their own merit and the money used to fund them should be treated very respectfully because it is taken from individuals who may not have wanted to give it up.
  - nooneelse 16y ago
    Defense against the hostile intent of other humans; defense against space rocks striking us at high velocity. I should think that how much we spend on one type of protection is relevant to how much we might should spend on another.
    - lukevdp 16y ago
      The spending shouldn't be related to each other. The spending should be related to the benefits associated with the spending.
lutorm 16y ago
Asking for 250 million is the equivalent of asking 3000 people to work for nothing for a year. That's not an honest analogy, because there are no 3000 people who will have to work for nothing. The only purpose of such a statement would be to frighten people into thinking "OMG I could be one of those people!" The correct question to ask tax payers is: This will cost 300 million over 10 years. That means each of us will have to pony up 10 cents per year over these 10 years to save us from fiery asteroid death. Do you think that's worth 10c?
- hugh3 16y ago
  Yes, I'm starting to wish that reporters would get into the habit of giving pricetags of government programs on a per-capita basis. People have a tendency to lose a sense of scale when millions and billions and trillions of dollars are involved, but they get it back as soon as comprehensible amounts of money are discussed. Examples: Asteroid hunting mission: $1 per capita. The new supercarrier USS Gerald Ford: $56 per capita. Medicare: $2,000 per capita, per year. 2010 budget deficit: $6000 per capita. And so forth. (Actually those numbers are based on a US population estimate of 250 million people, which is on the low side, but whatever.)
ceejayoz 16y ago
> But at least show some respect for tax payers. Asking for 250 million is the equivalent of asking 3000 people to work for nothing for a year. Work for nothing? Or work for social security, medical care, roads, etc.?

by lukevdp 16y ago

rimantas 16y ago

This may help with some perspective: http://billpetti.com/2010/04/16/visualizing-the-2011-us-budget/ http://billpetti.com/2010/04/16/visualizing-the-2011-us-budg...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

yock 16y ago

That's a little sensational, don't you think? Virtually every morsel of our federal budget can be put in the same terms, and many are orders of magnitude larger than this.

lukevdp 16y ago
Yes, fair points and I understand it's a tiny slice of a massive pie. Maybe I respect tax dollars too much, but I did get a somewhat annoyed reaction about the way spending tax dollars was so flippantly worded in the article
- yock 16y ago
  You're ascribing a lot of authority to an article. It really bears no indication of the deliberation, or lack thereof, on the part of those setting the budget.
jessriedel 16y ago
In fact, I think that every single item on the federal budget should be put in exacly these terms. Every $1000 the government spends could in principle be returned to the tax payer from whom it was taken. If you can't say "this money is better spent on this government action than, say, a steel worker with a family who has 25% of his income taken as taxes", then it shouldn't be so spent. That said, I think asteroid deflection is easily worth the money.

loewenskind 16y ago

Are you aware how much the US spends on military? 0.7 trillion per year. I think these things could be paid for pretty easily.

jimmyk 16y ago
I don't see how the military budget is relevant to the complaint. If it is in fact worth it to spend 0.7 trillion on the military every year, that does not mean the government should be wasting money on other projects because they are relatively smaller. If it is not worth it, on the other hand, that does not justify wasting other money either. Projects should stand on their own merit and the money used to fund them should be treated very respectfully because it is taken from individuals who may not have wanted to give it up.
- nooneelse 16y ago
  Defense against the hostile intent of other humans; defense against space rocks striking us at high velocity. I should think that how much we spend on one type of protection is relevant to how much we might should spend on another.
  - lukevdp 16y ago
    The spending shouldn't be related to each other. The spending should be related to the benefits associated with the spending.

lutorm 16y ago

Asking for 250 million is the equivalent of asking 3000 people to work for nothing for a year. That's not an honest analogy, because there are no 3000 people who will have to work for nothing. The only purpose of such a statement would be to frighten people into thinking "OMG I could be one of those people!" The correct question to ask tax payers is: This will cost 300 million over 10 years. That means each of us will have to pony up 10 cents per year over these 10 years to save us from fiery asteroid death. Do you think that's worth 10c?

hugh3 16y ago
Yes, I'm starting to wish that reporters would get into the habit of giving pricetags of government programs on a per-capita basis. People have a tendency to lose a sense of scale when millions and billions and trillions of dollars are involved, but they get it back as soon as comprehensible amounts of money are discussed. Examples: Asteroid hunting mission: $1 per capita. The new supercarrier USS Gerald Ford: $56 per capita. Medicare: $2,000 per capita, per year. 2010 budget deficit: $6000 per capita. And so forth. (Actually those numbers are based on a US population estimate of 250 million people, which is on the low side, but whatever.)

ceejayoz 16y ago

> But at least show some respect for tax payers. Asking for 250 million is the equivalent of asking 3000 people to work for nothing for a year. Work for nothing? Or work for social security, medical care, roads, etc.?