Wonder how Romney would answer question. Involves science and spending. Cost is 2.5 billion.
Remember that politicians don't care about how much money is spent. They care about who gets that money. Giving money to scientists is a complete waste of resources. How does science affect our everyday lives? That money would be better spent occupying worthless countries like Iraq and bailing out banks that are too inept to function without the government. If the government cared about limiting spending they would copy Iceland's strategy about massive debt problems:When we handle bailouts and stimulus in the trillions, the cost to mars is LESS than pennies.
hough only a tiny country of 320,000, Iceland made international headlines in 2008 when its banks defaulted on $85 billion, exemplifying the dangers of financial deregulation. But this year, Icelands economy will outgrow the euro area and the developed world on average.
And as difficult as it may be for conservatives here in the U.S. to stomach, at least some of the credit for Icelands expeditious recovery is due to its astonishing debt relief agreement.
Since the end of 2008, Icelands state-controlled banks have forgiven loans for more than a quarter of the population, a total equivalent to 13 percent of its annual gross domestic product. Despite shrinking 6.7 percent in 2009, Icelands economy is projected to expand 2.4 percent this year and next, compared with 0.2 percent in the euro area. And while Icelands recovery does not provide a complete parallel to U.S. economic woes, the islands nascent success does demonstrate how loan forgiveness can help reignite a struggling economy. According to Icelandic economist Thorolfur Matthiasson:
The lesson to be learned from Icelands crisis is that if other countries think its necessary to write down debts, they should look at how successful the [forgiveness of debt exceeding] 110 percent [of home values] agreement was here. Its the broadest agreement thats been undertaken.
The sum of all of these penny programs is over a trillion bucks a year. The total expenditures are over $10,000 per year for every man, woman, and child in the US. Not pennies. I'm not saying that the space program needs to go - only your way of thinking. You're not alone in thinking this way. I'm afraid it's the norm rather than the exception and a major contributor to the current state of affairs.When we handle bailouts and stimulus in the trillions, the cost to mars is LESS than pennies.
Conclusion: London is retarded. Install T3 high speed internet across the entire city? Nonsense. Let's host a bunch of stupid games that do absolutely nothing to improve the speed of porn downloading.The London Olympics cost around $14 billion...the Mars lander is a bargain.
Wonder how Romney would answer question. Involves science and spending. Cost is 2.5 billion. Won't comment on mission itself enough info in the news.
The sum of all of these penny programs is over a trillion bucks a year. The total expenditures are over $10,000 per year for every man, woman, and child in the US. Not pennies. I'm not saying that the space program needs to go - only your way of thinking. You're not alone in thinking this way. I'm afraid it's the norm rather than the exception and a major contributor to the current state of affairs.
Obama is a Douche for killing the space program and pretty much destroying NASA.
The sum of all of these penny programs is over a trillion bucks a year. The total expenditures are over $10,000 per year for every man, woman, and child in the US. Not pennies. I'm not saying that the space program needs to go - only your way of thinking. You're not alone in thinking this way. I'm afraid it's the norm rather than the exception and a major contributor to the current state of affairs.
Death by beheading or death by a thousand papercuts. Right now, we are going for both I think. I don't think anyone has the political will to really do anything about either at the moment.I'd rather tackle the bigger issues that are bankrupting us. Wars, stimulus, welfare, taxes.
Let us say we send a Mars rover twice a decade. $5 billion / 10 years. In that same time frame we easily incur $10 trillion in debt. At these figures our deficit spending alone could pay for 2,000 mars missions.
Agreed on all counts.I usually stay out of P&N (more accurately, refrain from commenting and leave when the dumb piles up too much) but this is a good comment.
If our elected officials looked at how to compose a proper budget and went from there, things would be a lot better.
What is our income?
What do we want spend money on, and what does each cost? Rank these in importance.
Make the two meet. Should be excess for savings (or paying down debt) and a bit in reserve for emergencies.
If it's not important enough, it doesn't make the cut. If it doesn't seem important enough at it's present price, can you cut it back enough?
Anyways, I would vote Independent-Worth It.