Wondering where the money is coming from for our three wars, including the over $1 billion for the latest war in Libya? Well, as we spend billions on the wars (including one for an oil-rich nation which has refused to re-pay any of the costs), the White House is slashing domestic programs. A good comparison is that the cost to date of the Libyan war is basically what Congress is about to cut from the budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The cuts from Congress are above those asked by the Administration. Trillions of cuts are being worked out in light of budget shortfalls.
Hundreds of millions will be cut from the Joint Polar Satellite System, a reorganized satellite system and hundreds of millions more will be cut from NOAA’s Operations, Research and Facilities budget. NOAA is already a lean organization with an expanding mission. Other countries are increasing oceanic and weather monitoring to protect lives and property. However, with yet another war launched by President Obama, we can hardly be tossing away money on the environment and science while tossing cruise missiles at Tripoli.
Source: Science Mag
kderosa,
Are you forgetting the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 that repealed parts of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933?
@Elaine,
I alluded to those other issues. I don’t dispute that they made the problem worse. However. Without the initial government intrusion and the private sector’s understanding that they would be bailed out when things went pear shaped, we would not be in the mess we are in today. The government created some very bad incentives for private industry to misbehave, knowing there would be no consequences for their behavior.
Also, the entire financial industry is highly regulated, but it is poorly done. CDOs aren’t bad in and of themselves. They work fine in other industries. The problem was that in the home mortgage industry the collateral was worth crap.
OS, of course no one disputes DARPA’s involvement with the Internet. What we dispute is your outlandish claim that NASA funded the IC.
Tomahawks…and NGI…
Center for Constitutional Rights
July 6, 2011 Fact Sheet
http://uncoverthetruth.org/wp-content/uploads/7-6-11-Scomm-NGI-Fact-Sheet.pdf
SECURE COMMUNITIES AND
NEXT GENERATION IDENTIFICATION:
The FBI’s “Big Brother” Surveillance Agenda
Excerpt:
NGI is a form of extreme “Big Brother” surveillance and introduces a new system of policing
The government’s past unsuccessful plan to issue national IDs was met with forceful opposition. NGI is the FBI’s back-door attempt to advance its agenda to increase surveillance. With NGI, the FBI is distorting existing laws and systems to intrude into the lives of every-day people and offend the
ideals of freedom, privacy and democracy that we think we can take for granted.
NGI, through S-Comm and its other components, turnslocal police into federal officers, potentially exposing us all to intrusive surveillance and tracking, to be targeted by government programs that
we may not even know about. (end excerpt)
We didnt say that government didnt create the Internet, we just said it would have been created when private industry was ready and we also said that it took private industry to make it what it is today.
kderosa,
What you write about was only one of the multiple causes of the financial meltdown. Read about AIG, Goldman Sachs, Countrywide, Credit Default Swaps, Collateralized Debt Obligations, etc. If it had not been for ethically challenged and greedy businessman–some who bet against their own investors–we wouldn’t have had to bail out the billionaires on Wall Street.
Some of the financial instruments/securities created by the quants and other Wall Street wizards were not well regulated–if regulated at all.
that emerging industrial countries go through a process of industrialization.
Blouise, thanks for the boost. I know this stuff way better than the teabagger trolls because I was there. My first job out of undergraduate school was working in the engineering department of the contractor building Titan II launch facilities. And my best friend in high school went to MIT, where the key secret for the internet was unlocked in his dorm room: the idea that the best–and probably only way–to send massive amounts of digital information over a phone line was to do it using ‘packets.’ Obviously, two college kids in the 1950s did not have the wherewithal to create the Internet, but they did help get ARPANET off the ground–with Federal funds.
The notion was too far-fetched for industry.
kderosa:
and lets not forget the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates artificially low.
@Elaine,
That bad idea was, with the best of intentions, the government forcing banks to lend money to people with little capital and/or credit to increase home ownership among the poor. There were many misdeeds that resulted, but the root cause was misquided government intervention in the home finance market, a market that was and remains highly regulated.
Roco,
“the same was true in American cities many years ago. We burn coal now and have gotten rid of a good deal of waste products which used to be released into the air.”
What’s the point you’re attempting to make?
BTW, we have a coal-burning plant that has been producing electricity not far from where I live for decades. I never encountered the level of coal soot in my area that I did when I was traveling in China–not in the 1950s…or 1960s…or 1970s.
Roco,
“Most people who make money create wealth from an idea. No one is harmed, but depending on the idea many people could be put to work.”
Unfortunately, some people in this country made lots of money off bad ideas. Ideas that were good for them–but bad for nearly everyone else. That’s why we had a near meltdown of our economy in 2008. Lots of Americans lost tons of money that they had invested for their retirements–and lots of pension funds lost bigtime. Nothing was produced. No jobs were created. A small number of already wealthy people got even wealthier. And we, the taxpayers, bailed out the banks and investment companies that these greedy folks nearly bankrupted.
Elaine:
the same was true in American cities many years ago. We burn coal now and have gotten rid of a good deal of waste products which used to be released into the air.
GeneH:
Enjoy your evening, I dont know but I think between the 2 of us, we got our point across pretty well.
If we arent worth the effort, you and others and are sure expending your energy answering our posts.
And the profits thing, you dont have a right to harm another person. If you think a person making money takes from someone who cannot make money you would be wrong. Most people who make money create wealth from an idea. No one is harmed, but depending on the idea many people could be put to work.
Why do you hate people so much? Especially the poor and minorities?
Night, night, GeneH
For someone who claims he doesn’t take our comments the least bit seriously, you sure act like you do.
Roco,
“I doubt they care too much about green technology except as some sort of economic weapon. They have huge coal reserves and like nuclear power. Their idea of green is a high efficiency fusion reactor.”
When I spent time in the People’s Republic of China back in the mid 1990s, I saw for myself the effect that the burning of coal had on the environment there. When I arrived in Beijing, I noticed how everything was covered with a layer of soot. The cream-colored shoes I was wearing got discolored quickly on my first walk in the city. I saw people wearing surgical-type masks on their faces as they walked down the streets or rode on their bicycles. The Chinese may have more than one reason for pursuing green technologies.
Suggestion Box:
Law School Class of 2010 Starting Pay Fell 20% as Jobs Eroded, Study Finds
More than 50% of graduates either failed to find a job, or had to settle for temporary / part-time work. Looks like another crop of politicians in the making.
Really, Roco.
I got the impression you are a militant supporter of private profits no matter how the acquisition of said profits harms others. It must have been several things you’ve said.
kderosa,
I won’t let your idea of facts get in my way any more than I’ll let your inability to understand that partisanship requires a party affiliation get in my way. Thanks for your concern though.
I’m going to let you two play with yourselves for now. I have other reading to do. Just remember, I’ve seen you two in action and as a result I don’t take either of yours comments seriously in the slightest. What differentiates me from the other posters here though is I’m not going to napalm you. As amusing as others find it (and as funny as it was to read), quite frankly, I’m not sure you two are worth the effort of napalm.
Enjoy your evening.
@GeneH
I do understand that partisanship requires a party and consequently an accusation of partisanship requires a party affiliation?
The only problem is Roco only accused you generally of being a partisan and didn’t bring up any party affiliation at all. He softpedalled it, for your benefit.
So that was a fail on your part.
But you keep on digging, you smart fella.
Gene H:
Partisan:
1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
I am a militant supporter of human liberty and freedom. Guilty as charged.