Talk-Polywell.org

Pray the free market, but drink the government money.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD9F278H00

Lost in the moment is this irony: Shelby's anti-spending message is being delivered in a government-built museum to which he frequently steers public money. The admiring crowd is made up of people whose livelihood depends on federal aerospace programs that drive the local economy. And the main point of Shelby's speech is to assure them he's fighting to stop NASA budget cuts and keep the spigot in Washington flowing.

Cochran, while calling Democratic budgets "dangerous," has grabbed more than $2.5 billion in earmarks over the past three years, according to the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. That's more than any other member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, and it's almost as much as the $2.8 billion that Mississippi is receiving from President Barack Obama's much-criticized economic stimulus package. Shelby, who is coasting to re-election in November, isn't far behind with about $1 billion over the past three years.

Republicans are scum. And I mean that with all sincerity.

MSimon wrote:Republicans are scum. And I mean that with all sincerity.

True, but its is quite disgusting to see democrats bitching about republicans taking federal funding, as if only democratic districts have a right to spend taxpayer money. Those of us who pay taxes surely have the right to get back what was taken from us.

IntLibber wrote:Those of us who pay taxes surely have the right to get back what was taken from us.

Minus 30% for bureaucratic friction.

Two points.


1. Enlightened Hypocrisy.
2. Legitimate purpose.



Enlightened Hypocrisy is a term I coined years ago to describe a simple idea. The idea that you will not allow yourself to be put at a disadvantage just to be consistent with your principles.

My favorite example:

You're stuck in a lifeboat with a bunch of idiots. The store of food and water has been checked, and it's enough to last a week with careful rationing, which is what you think the group should do.

One idiot after another complains that they are hungry, and want their share of the food NOW! They are a majority, and will take the food by force if you don't acquiesce.

While the others greedily devour their shares, you consider rationing yours, as you advocated previously. The thought occurs to you, that when the others are finished and have nothing left, they will start to notice that you still have food.

Do you stand on principle and ration your food? Or do you Devour yours at the same pace as the others?

If you stand on principle, you won't even get your own share of the food, because it will be taken from you by the other idiots who lack self control.

If you eat at the same rate as the others, at least you will receive your full ration, and at least be of a comparative strength should you need to fight or flee the others.



The sensible thing to do is to be a hypocrite, knowing full well that you are going against your own principles, but knowing still that you must do this in order to avoid being put at a disadvantage. "Enlightened Hypocrisy."


2. Legitimate purpose.


Of all the things the National Government spends money on, the advancement of Space science may be regarded as a legitimate purpose, based on it's past usage for developing Strategic Nuclear Missiles, and it's many technological spin offs that have developed into military applications and technology.

The MOST legitimate purpose of the Government is to defend the nation. Scientific research and Development has long demonstrated it's utility to this purpose.

Enlightened Hypocrisy?
Maybe.
Legitimate purpose?
Definitely not!
Cost Plus contracts are bad news. Traditionaly they have resulted in budget overruns and programs that were cancelled(with no progress being made) because they were unsustainable.
One also has to emphasize that NASA got a budget INCREASE, but the Constellation government job creation programme would have still been undoable that way within a reasonable timeframe. It would have been at least 2017 until Ares1 would have flown. By that time it would have been without a destination because the ISS would have been dumped out of a lack of money (all the money would be spent on Constellation).
It was a pointless programme and senator Shelby knows that.
Besides if he practiced Enlightened Hypocrisy, then he sure went over board with it:

That's more than any other member of Congress, Republican or Democrat,

No, to the reps, free market is only OK, as long as it makes them money. Strangely enough these are things where a completely free market has been to everybodies disadvantage.
In regards to NASA however, the "old" way of doing things, clearly did not work and it is time to bring some CHANGE to this place. Some free market thinking will sure be helpful there (still plenty of other "cost plus" programmes there anyway).

Skipjack wrote:Enlightened Hypocrisy?
Maybe.
Legitimate purpose?
Definitely not!
Cost Plus contracts are bad news. Traditionaly they have resulted in budget overruns and programs that were cancelled(with no progress being made) because they were unsustainable.
One also has to emphasize that NASA got a budget INCREASE, but the Constellation government job creation programme would have still been undoable that way within a reasonable timeframe. It would have been at least 2017 until Ares1 would have flown. By that time it would have been without a destination because the ISS would have been dumped out of a lack of money (all the money would be spent on Constellation).
It was a pointless programme and senator Shelby knows that.
Besides if he practiced Enlightened Hypocrisy, then he sure went over board with it:

That's more than any other member of Congress, Republican or Democrat,

No, to the reps, free market is only OK, as long as it makes them money. Strangely enough these are things where a completely free market has been to everybodies disadvantage.
In regards to NASA however, the "old" way of doing things, clearly did not work and it is time to bring some CHANGE to this place. Some free market thinking will sure be helpful there (still plenty of other "cost plus" programmes there anyway).

I concur with that argument. NASA is a horrific waste of money.

Let me rephrase. The PURPOSE of NASA is legitimate. The Operation of NASA is crap.

Diogenes wrote: I concur with that argument. NASA is a horrific waste of money.

Let me rephrase. The PURPOSE of NASA is legitimate. The Operation of NASA is crap.

You should have stopped at your first statement. NASA has NEVER had a legitimate purpose.

NACA (National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics) had one at one time. But NASA was born for "bread and circuses" and has gone downhill since then.

Shrug. Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue. The real test will be whether they are willing to vote for a law against earmarks.

But what's missing from your post is the fact that the House GOP is forswearing earmarks this year. That's a serious statement with a real political cost in terms of lobbyist dollars.

Anyways, this is no worse than all the people who say they want higher taxes but only pay the required minimum themselves -- what they really mean is they want higher taxes for someone else. And half of the U.S. already doesn't pay any income tax at all.

KitemanSA wrote:

Diogenes wrote: I concur with that argument. NASA is a horrific waste of money.

Let me rephrase. The PURPOSE of NASA is legitimate. The Operation of NASA is crap.

You should have stopped at your first statement. NASA has NEVER had a legitimate purpose.

NACA (National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics) had one at one time. But NASA was born for "bread and circuses" and has gone downhill since then.

I suggest NASA's primary purpose (and the reason it had such a big budget in the 60s) was to demonstrate the technological capability of the United States and, by implication, our nuclear forces. We did not get into a nuclear war. To the extent that the race to the moon played a part, it was a bargain.

I agree NASA gone downhill since then. Partly, I think, because more leisurely schedules permit more wasteful acquisition programs (e.g. ensuring there is a supplier in every congressional district).

TallDave wrote:Shrug. Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue. The real test will be whether they are willing to vote for a law against earmarks.

But what's missing from your post is the fact that the House GOP is forswearing earmarks this year. That's a serious statement with a real political cost in terms of lobbyist dollars.

Anyways, this is no worse than all the people who say they want higher taxes but only pay the required minimum themselves -- what they really mean is they want higher taxes for someone else. And half of the U.S. already doesn't pay any income tax at all.

I keep saying this. (Most) Everyone is in favor of Slavery, as long as it constitutes someone else working for them.

Space transport should be in private hands. I am not so sure about the science. Space telescopes are not really a profitable enterprise. So I doubt that many private companies would be willing to invest into something like that. So that is one area where I see a good point for NASA.
Another is doing high potential yield- high risk research for space flight enabling tech. This tech should then be licenseable by private companies to build new, better space transport vehicles. With NASA freed from the cost of space flight development and operations, it should have plenty of money left for research like that. Heck, I could see NASA funding something like polywell. IMHO it would be the most suitable government organization for funding something like that (other than the DOE maybe)

Skipjack wrote:Space transport should be in private hands. I am not so sure about the science. Space telescopes are not really a profitable enterprise. So I doubt that many private companies would be willing to invest into something like that. So that is one area where I see a good point for NASA.
Another is doing high potential yield- high risk research for space flight enabling tech. This tech should then be licenseable by private companies to build new, better space transport vehicles. With NASA freed from the cost of space flight development and operations, it should have plenty of money left for research like that. Heck, I could see NASA funding something like polywell. IMHO it would be the most suitable government organization for funding something like that (other than the DOE maybe)

Again, a reasonable analysis. I concur.

I prefer my lunch NAKED.

Republicans are scum. And I mean that with all sincerity.

As are Democrats. Is it a case of the lesser of two evils, or a case of throw them all out?

J