Word has leaked out that in its new budget, the Obama administration intends to terminate NASA’s planetary exploration program. The Mars Science Lab Curiosity, being readied on the pad, will be launched, as will the nearly completed small MAVEN orbiter scheduled for 2013, but that will be it. No further missions to anywhere are planned.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/26/obama-readies-to-blast-nasa/

A word as to what it is like. Congress starts the budget cycle with a resolution setting the outline giving the guidelines of how many dollars for each line item. The Executive then makes a proposal of what to do on the projects with those dollars or, if it does not like the distribution of dollars, proposes its own.

In the NASA case the proposal is to do something better with money not spent on planetary exploration.

The solution to it all is Congress being willing to give more money to NASA.

There are finite dollars and a need for finite*2 dollars. What would you do?

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

But generalizations are so much more fun <g>

If, in 10-20 years, we find the younger people of the group having morphed into something like the yippies of the 70s and 80s, your point will lhave been borne out. I, however, believe that at least some of them do not covet, but rather are against the excesses.

But then there is the ugly mix of class warfare where there is resentment against the upper classes (financially speaking) for having been successful.

If, in 10-20 years, we find the younger people of the group having morphed into something like the yippies of the 70s and 80s, your point will lhave been borne out. I, however, believe that at least some of them do not covet, but rather are against the excesses.

Heck, yeah, we're going to find out if "The Big Splat Theory" might be correct! GOOO NASA!

William, I'm not a flat taxer myself, but if you did have a flat tax, how about 25% for all income (including capital gains and dividends) over a base of say $40K to $50K which doesn't get taxed.

And then, in the guise of a flat tax being a good idea, a flat tax for Social Security (it is currently flat) EXCEPT, eliminate the top cut off (which makes the tax regressive).

You ask for a fair rate (equitable ? just ?) I would say 17% for all; rich or poor. No deductions except maybe for mortgage interest. Deductions were intended to promote the better good--but now they have run amok to accomodate every interest group and industry.

Right -- not 'cancel NASA' as some were suggesting -- and the cuts seem to be coming from the House -- DEFINITELY not Obama. But there is an approach of '' if bad, then Obama' that seems to operate for some partisans.

One issue here is that NASA has gotten a lot of the 'governmental waste' syndrome -- a $16B to $18B annual budget suggests that. I wonder if those numbers are actually getting decent developmental science bang for the buck.

$16 Billion, or $17.9 billion ...... Still a heck of a lot of money for NASA to continue.

To me, it is not so much the bail out money (I think that in large part that was necessary to stave off a worse melt down), but rather the lack of control attached to the money. As a result, you have those rather disgusting bonus payouts which pissed everyone off (except perhaps those who got the pay outs). You also had the financial institutions using the money to get better yields (ie chasing the market) rather than providing help for mainstreet (homes and businesses).

Only now are some of the banks moving from foreclosures to short sales -- which actually would have been a much better approach from the start.

Similarly, there was a bail out for GM and Ford -- I think in the over all scheme of things, THAT worked out OK -- but there were more strings attached there.

Most OWSers are correct in their abhorrence of the bailout money given to the big financial institutions. This is further exacerbated by the huge bonuses given to exec's of the failed and fraudulent financial firms and their links to the current administration.

To me, it is not so much the bail out money (I think that in large part that was necessary to stave off a worse melt down), but rather the lack of control attached to the money. As a result, you have those rather disgusting bonus payouts which pissed everyone off (except perhaps those who got the pay outs). You also had the financial institutions using the money to get better yields (ie chasing the market) rather than providing help for mainstreet (homes and businesses).

Only now are some of the banks moving from foreclosures to short sales -- which actually would have been a much better approach from the start.

Similarly, there was a bail out for GM and Ford -- I think in the over all scheme of things, THAT worked out OK -- but there were more strings attached there.

Most OWSers are correct in their abhorrence of the bailout money given to the big financial institutions. This is further exacerbated by the huge bonuses given to exec's of the failed and fraudulent financial firms and their links to the current administration.

Quite. But the fact remains the top 5% of all taxpayers pay 60% of all taxes.

Probably because they're earning 60% of the total income, sounds fair to me

The top rate is 34% of taxable income and 15% on long term capital gains. Many deductions will lower the percentage of actual payments to total income but as stated, the wealthy pay most of the taxes in the US while half of wage earners pay nothing. The wealthy would still pay the bulk of the taxes but, at least everyone will be paying something even if a wealthy baron is paying 100 times more than the local school marm. Still not equitable but more just than the current scheme I would say.

If the wealthy baron is paying 100 times more tax than the local school marm, then by inference he must be earning at least 100 times more gross and still taking home 100 times more after tax. If your saying the baron should only pay as much tax as the school marm, please define equitable ?

What is the cut off point below which no tax is paid ? Here it is $15k PA, if it is a similar amount in the US, that would mean that half the workforce is living below the poverty line and still dependant on some sort of welfare to survive.

The solution is probably to reform the income tax process so that all pay a flat rate, say 10% with no deductions allowed. That would be fair, but it will never happen, the pet lobbyists will see to that.

Quite. But the fact remains the top 5% of all taxpayers pay 60% of all taxes.

The top rate is 34% of taxable income and 15% on long term capital gains. Many deductions will lower the percentage of actual payments to total income but as stated, the wealthy pay most of the taxes in the US while half of wage earners pay nothing. The wealthy would still pay the bulk of the taxes but, at least everyone will be paying something even if a wealthy baron is paying 100 times more than the local school marm. Still not equitable but more just than the current scheme I would say.

You ask for a fair rate (equitable ? just ?) I would say 17% for all; rich or poor. No deductions except maybe for mortgage interest. Deductions were intended to promote the better good--but now they have run amok to accomodate every interest group and industry.

On Thursday, the Senate and House began negotiating the NASA budget for fiscal year 2012. The Senate version, passed earlier in the week, would provide $17.9 billion, including $1.5 billion for the planetary science division, which houses the Mars program. The Republican-led House wants to cut the agency budget to $16.8 billion.

$16 Billion, or $17.9 billion ...... Still a heck of a lot of money for NASA to continue.

Can I ask you, what do you think is a fair tax rate for someone earning less than $10 per hour and probably working less than a 40 hour week ?

It's a factor most people throwing that "50% of people don't pay tax at all" line around ignore. The 60% tax rate you claim that the top 5% pay is nominal only, by the time their high powered accountants get through their financial wizardry the the top 5% probably pay no tax either (afterall that's what they pay the high powered accountants for).

Some years ago it was revealed that Kerry Packer, a multi-billionaire, and at the time the richest man in Australia had a "taxable income" of less than $20,000 per year.

That's where the ire comes from, not the amount the top 5% earn but the financial shenanigans they use, which are not available to the average Joe, to avoid paying their fair share. Do you honestly think that anyone earning $50 million dollars per year is paying 30 million of it in tax ? I don't think you'd be that naive.

The solution is probably to reform the income tax process so that all pay a flat rate, say 10% with no deductions allowed. That would be fair, but it will never happen, the pet lobbyists will see to that.

T.A.

Well, it seems to me:

Most OWSers are correct in their abhorrence of the bailout money given to the big financial institutions. This is further exacerbated by the huge bonuses given to exec's of the failed and fraudulent financial firms and their links to the current administration. For instance: Fannie and Freddie getting 12 million in bonuses when they lost Billions this year and are asking for billions more in bailout money. Most consider these to be quasi-government agencies and blanch at the high pay for failure while many hard working upper class individuals are hard pressed to make $60,000 per year or to find any job at all.

But then there is the ugly mix of class warfare where there is resentment against the upper classes (financially speaking) for having been successful. There is the undercurrent that the richest should tapped further to fund the out of work. Obama gets the credit for this latter socialist malaise by his repeated nonsense that the rich should pay their fair share. All of this when the bottom 50% don't pay any income taxes at all. Loopholes in the tax code do allow some wealthy individuals and corporations to avoid paying significant percentages of income as taxes. But, the top 5% pay 60% of taxes here in the United States. I say to all of us in the lower brackets that we are the ones who aren't paying our fair share at the moment.

Since a wide gulf between the haves and have-nots is fodder for revolution, let's hope we get on to fiscal and economic policies that restore our financial engines at home and around the world before the real rioting starts.

It may have started that way, but once the Koch brothers got into the funding act, special interest lobbyists became a part of the process. Then, the Republican party decided to try to co-opt the TeaParty, the result was a TeaPublican dominated House and intense pressure on the remaining Republicans to 'go TeaPublican'.

At the same time, the Democratic Party, increasingly has 'gone Republican' in its role.

I figure that is one of the major reasons the OWS folks are out there. It is possible that some of the original Tea Party folks -- particularly the folks tired of corruption on both sides of the aisle -- might find that the OWS folks are closer to their views than the morphed TeaPublican folks.

The tea party is an amalgam of disaffected ultra-conservatives, a few religious fanatics, and people whom are tired of corruption on both sides of the aisle (Democrats and Republicans for those who don't follow US politics) via campaign contributions and special interest lobbyists.

On Thursday, the Senate and House began negotiating the NASA budget for fiscal year 2012. The Senate version, passed earlier in the week, would provide $17.9 billion, including $1.5 billion for the planetary science division, which houses the Mars program. The Republican-led House wants to cut the agency budget to $16.8 billion.

---

The tea party is an amalgam of disaffected ultra-conservatives, a few religious fanatics, and people whom are tired of corruption on both sides of the aisle (Democrats and Republicans for those who don't follow US politics) via campaign contributions and special interest lobbyists.

Throw in a few middle class, educated people whom are out of work and you do have the makings of a movement which might just spawn a third party. If the electoral college rules were changed to proportional voting in each State this could have traction. They would have to run a moderate conservative who has been a successful Governor--Chris Christie or the like.

Under the current two-party system the Tea party would probably siphon off enough votes from the Republicans to re-elect Obama. This is what happened when H Ross Perot ran a few years back. It handed the Election to Bill Clinton.

That would have been my read as well, but then the debt ceiling debate and for that matter all political process during the current session of Congress has struck me as very Teapublican. For that matter, the ABR (Anybody but Romney) traffic we see in the reality shows (the TeaPublican debates) suggests that in addition to the media, the Republican party is playing to that same crowd. I wish it were not so, as I see plenty of room for Republican *governance*, but the TeaParty sounds like a bunch of angry white men (with some women) who plan on 'reclaiming' America -- the America of the late 40's -- 1840's.

I think the popularity of "tea party" republicans is blown way out of proportion by the media try to make more out of little or something out of nothing It's too bad that TV news on the air time has to be sponsored by advertizing and therefore in the hunt for ratings. Dull factual reporting of the news doesn't attract most viewers and advertizers.

---

I think the popularity of "tea party" republicans is blown way out of proportion by the media try to make more out of little or something out of nothing It's too bad that TV news on the air time has to be sponsored by advertizing and therefore in the hunt for ratings. Dull factual reporting of the news doesn't attract most viewers and advertizers.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

For many in the US, it seems the distinction between socialism and communism gets blurred to make things easier for simpler minds to see, shall we say, black and white......

That being said, when you get down to it, neither New Labor (in the UK) nor the Democrats in the US are even close to classic socialism. Classic socialism seeks to nationalize all sorts of businesses. Democrats are VERY far from that -- their support of the car manufacturing business, or banks is far from nationalizing them. They are 'capitalists' as well, but to use a phrase coined by an old school Republican, they seek a kinder, gentler capitalism. That old school Republican probably is quite discomfited by the TeaPublicans who are running amok in the former Republican Party.

I just don't see the TeaPublicans making the point that NASA should get more funding -- *unless* it is part of the Defense Department. That is the ONLY agency TeaPublicans want to see get larger.

For me socialism, i like being a democrat in the US, or a member of the labour party in the UK.

But is interesting how thoughts can be different in the other side of the pond.

---

Socialism for Americans is where the government provides for all regardless of their efforts or inputs.

For an european like me that sounds like comunism in old USSR.

For me socialism, i like being a democrat in the US, or a member of the labour party in the UK.

But is interesting how thoughts can be different in the other side of the pond.

Still I strongly believe that in some research projects the cost is so High and the short run benefits are so litle that only the government can back it up.

Well I'm one person in the western hemisphere that basically agrees with your analysis of what socialism is. And also your justification for government sponsored exploration. My point was exactly that a totally privately funded space exploration program is not likely because the investors would be looking for a return on their investment and not just the satisfaction of having achieved something. When and if it ever becomes more economical to extract resources from another planet or moon or asteroid than it is to recover the same resources from the earth, private industry will provide the means to do so. But as long as space exploration remains a scientific endevour with the primary return being knowledge the various governments that remain foresighted will be footing the bulk of the bill.

Right now the only ventures that are likely to return a modest profit are sub orbital joy rides and possible visits to a LEO play pen where people with enough money can experience microgravity for a few minutes to several days.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.