9 ms·
It's refreshing that given everything else happening, Congress is still at least functional at this level. Should be noted that many of NASA's programs are sit
by geuis 1y ago
It's refreshing that given everything else happening, Congress is still at least functional at this level.
Should be noted that many of NASA's programs are situated in predominantly conservative areas of the country. Brings lots of jobs and resources to the local economies.
- BlackjackCF 1y agoI just wish Congress or the Supreme Court would show any teeth whatsoever. Right now most of the firings have been happening illegally, despite all of these programs already being budgeted for and funded.
- kelnos 1y agoIt's not about bravery. This is what Republican members of Congress want. This is what the conservatives in SCOTUS want.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoI'm not sure about that. It's what they vote for, but I'm not sure it's what they want. I think at least some of them are so fearful of being primaried that they do whatever they're told. For them, it is about bravery, or the lack thereof.
- Iwan-Zotow 1y agoNo, it is not With level of debt and borrowing, cannot afford more spending
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mindslight 1y agoIf the debt is a problem worth addressing, then why did the big ugly spending bill raise the debt by trillions of dollars?
- mousethatroared 1y agoPresumably the OP believes the BBB is stupid too?
- clipsy 1y agoWhy are you speaking for him? Surely he's capable of denouncing the BBB himself if he chooses to.
- mousethatroared 1y agoBecause "mindslight" didn't have an argument? He just threw a little non-sequitar tantrum assuming that OP was a Trumpist.
- readthenotes1 1y agoWarren Buffett had this line that we would have no budget deficits if it we're required that every Congress person who voted for such would be ineligible for re-election. Pushing the cost burden on subsequent generations is a cowardly way to deal with our financial problems. When Reagan entered office, the debt was less than $1T (about $3.5T in today's dollars). The #4 cost currently is paying off interest (not principle) on old debt.
- fn-mote 1y agoIt’s funny but economically wrong to ban deficits. I agree we are spending too much now, but the solution should not be to stop all spending. The problem is deeper than just a deficit.
- blitzar 1y agoWe should bring back surpluses in the good times. If you are the head of a country and you are proclaiming that the economy is "the greatest ever" then you should be running a balanced / surplus budget. If the economy is in the shitter you are perfectly entitled to run a deficit.
- Larrikin 1y agoSo why did Congress increase the deficit, they don't care so why should we cut back spending on actually good things.
- Iwan-Zotow 1y agointerests and idiots are everywhere
- lumost 1y agoThe US can easily afford its obligations. The problem is that the tax base has shifted into alternative forms of income such as dividends and cap gains which are taxed at lower rates. It’s a policy choice that these returns are not taxed at comparable rates to income. The trend of nation-wide capital returns vs income is telling.
- mousethatroared 1y agoI disagree. Instead of looking at where the tax revenues can come from, which I don't necessarily disagree consider what proportion of the nations economic activity is government spending. I consider govt spending/GDP a much better indicator of economic health. In fact, tertiary_sector/GDP is better still. The US government has too much presence in the economy and can't even provide health care and free tuition.
- lumost 1y agoThe issue here is that no one can agree on which portion of government spending is wasteful. It’s almost taken as a tautology that the government is wasteful. After 50 years of cost cutting and wage freezes, I tend to find it fanciful that individuals paid 1/4 of their private sector compensation to work on core civil infrastructure, national research priorities, and policy are somehow a bad deal for the American taxpayer at large. If anything, I’d imagine that the government could incentivize greater productivity by normalizing the pay scales. At a minimum, maintaining a public capability can often neutralize monopolistic pricing practices. Have you considered who the narrative of wasteful spending benefits? Even our narratives of tax increases never discuss tax increases on what is now the bulk of personal monetary gain.
- jpadkins 1y agoit's a straw man argument to say that the average civil servant is the beneficiary of the trillion dollar deficits. No one is making that argument. Very wealthy people, politicians, and corporations are the beneficiary of the government largess. > After 50 years of cost cutting and wage freezes It's hard to say the federal government has been cost cutting for 50 years when the budgets have been growing at exponential rates.
- KPGv2 1y ago> With level of debt and borrowing, cannot afford more spending It doesn't matter how much debt you have if taking on the debt raises your revenue by more than serving the interest payments. Imagine telling a corporation they can't borrow money at 3% to grow 15% because "debt is bad." Or telling someone who needs a car to get to work that they should go without a car (and thus not become employed) rather than taking on a car payment because "debt is bad." And on this front, the US has been doing great (but is currently shooting itself in the foot under the new administration)
- unethical_ban 1y agoWe could * Not cut taxes on the very wealthy by $4,000,000,000,000 over ten years * Not give $500,000,000,000 to military and police expansion in the immediate future * Not have one person dictating global trade policy with the US that impacts our relationships and competitiveness for the next 30 years NASA is not something we should skimp on.
- jpadkins 1y agoThe constitution clearly sets up one person as having sole control of foreign policy. There is a lot of wisdom in having a single vision / strategy when dealing with external entities. If you disagree, the constitution also has a clear process for updating it.
- unethical_ban 1y agoRead up on the responsibilities of the Senate again, please. They approve treaties. The president only has the power (allegedly) to do the tariffs moves he is doing based on a 1970s emergency powers act. Anyway, that was just one example of "ways to be fiscally responsible that don't involve cutting science research"
- Iwan-Zotow 1y agoWho are "we" kemosabe? BBB was proposed by freshly elected president to a freshly elected Congress, and it was passed and signed. I don't like it much, but people (yes, millions of americans) had spoken
- unethical_ban 1y ago"We" being the US government. I'm not arguing anything about its popularity, I'm arguing its wisdom. My point is that there are other ways to pretend to be fiscally responsible than to cut NASA funding.
- hello_moto 1y agoTax the wealth of your billionaires my dude. Their wealth grow unchecked depressing yours.
- insane_dreamer 1y agosure we can but instead we're giving a massive tax break to rich people and increasing the military budget by $150B
- Iwan-Zotow 1y agoWho are "we" kemosabe? BBB was proposed by freshly elected president to a freshly elected Congress, and it was passed and signed. I don't like it much, but people (yes, millions of americans) had spoken
- insane_dreamer 1y agook, fine: "they"
- somenameforme 1y agoExcept SLS/Orion should be cancelled. The SLS is pejoratively called the Senate Launch System, because it has no real place in the market yet is continuing to consume tens of billions of dollars. It was mostly obsoleted by Falcon Heavy years ago (SLS has been a black hole of funding since 2011), and its costs are completely ridiculous. You're looking at billions of dollars per launch if it ever is confidently flight ready. And mind you it's not some amazing technological marvel that's driving these ridiculous costs. It's essentially a really expensive refactoring of the Space Shuttle program to the point that it will be using the literally exact same rs-25 engines. And you already hit exactly on why they're not being cancelled - there's going to be a very short degree of separation between Congressmen and the people charging absurd costs for simple tech that's being used in this project. To me, this is perhaps the purest embodiment (and reason) for governmental dysfunction, at all levels. It's simple pork and corruption.
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 1y agoNeed some competition to commercial near-monopolization (in the pre-to-mid 2010s when it was funded), some other program, they already funded SLS (which was funded to carry way more payload than FH), let it play out, IMO. Also, not to say it isn't a time to start acting, if we are another decade out still adding funding to SLS with the current balance sheet, we have major issues. But $30B over 10Y isn't that crazy when we spend ~$900B a year (with much more in 2026) on defense.
- somenameforme 1y agoThis is the definition of throwing good money after bad. Even if SLS can be completed, it just has no purpose. The latest "estimates" (which means will likely be well below what actually happens) put the recurring per launch costs of SLS at $2.5 billion per launch, on top of the ongoing tens of billions in development costs. That's for a system that is aiming for an initial payload of 95k kg (to LEO). By contrast the Falcon Heavy costs $0.097 billion per launch and can send 57k kg to orbit. So in other words, 1 SLS launch will costs more than 25 Falcon Heavy launches, with a payload capacity that's 67% greater.
- giingyui 1y agoIf there is something Congress will always be functional for is increasing spending.
- IAmBroom 1y agoExcept this Congress is massively cutting spending on things like the Department of Education. This story is about a notable exception.
- kyo_gisors 1y ago[dead]