pacino wrote:i fail to see why private companies can't just build roads and charge us for their use

Werthless wrote:For the same reason that many cities are starting to rebel against hosting the Olympics. Hosting the Olympics, and having a program where we fly to the moon or to other planets, is not an effective use of public tax dollars. If rich people want to pay for it, be my guest.

pacino wrote:i'm not even sure why we elect representatives if we want them to simply step aside

CalvinBall wrote:

Werthless wrote:For the same reason that many cities are starting to rebel against hosting the Olympics. Hosting the Olympics, and having a program where we fly to the moon or to other planets, is not an effective use of public tax dollars. If rich people want to pay for it, be my guest.

dont think science and a bunch of sports provide the same value but go ahead.

pacino wrote:i long ago stopped bothering

CalvinBall wrote:really wish those european explorers did not decide to sail their boats across oceans and around the globe. really, what did it matter?

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:i fail to see why private companies can't just build roads and charge us for their use

They can, and often maintain the roads better than public entities. But the building of roads and public infrastructure usually means trampling property rights, which is something that government is very good at.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:i'm not even sure why we elect representatives if we want them to simply step aside

Outside of government spending money on national defense, everything else is "wasteful" in the economic sense. That doesn't mean they are not desirable, bring benefits to society, or improve the general welfare. But when the only justification for an action is that it improves the general welfare, that's how you know that werthless would likely oppose it.

Are you expecting these simple questions to lead to some "gotcha" insights?

Werthless wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

Werthless wrote:For the same reason that many cities are starting to rebel against hosting the Olympics. Hosting the Olympics, and having a program where we fly to the moon or to other planets, is not an effective use of public tax dollars. If rich people want to pay for it, be my guest.

dont think science and a bunch of sports provide the same value but go ahead.

Would you be in favor of the US spending $5 trillion dollars to set up a space station on Mars? I would not, and I suspect that you would not, either. Where we draw the line on legitimate and illegitimate/wasteful space spending is probably different, but we likely agree that there is a limit. I don't think we can simply say that all NASA spending is good, since NASA=science.

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:as noted earlier in this or the previous thread, the much reviled program that provided assistance to Solyndra is actually making a profit for the government while also supporting a burgeoning industry we are sorely in need of beefing up.

Government is not capable of picking winners and losers in the market. And even if it were, it has no business trying.

Fossil fuels are the fuel of choice..... until a cheaper fuel is found. And a cheaper fuel will be found by someone motivated to make a profit, not motivated to grab a government subsidy.

Oil companies have received extraordinary tax accommodations for generations. Please shut up.

Oil companies should not get a penny. But even absent tax breaks, I'd bet on oil over any alternative-energy that the Feds are throwing money at.

For more than 50 years, the NASA Technology Transfer Program[1] has connected NASA resources to private industry, referring to the commercial products as spin-offs. Well-known products that NASA claims as spin-offs include memory foam (originally named temper foam), freeze-dried food, firefighting equipment, emergency "space blankets", Dustbusters, cochlear implants, and now Speedo's LZR Racer swimsuits. NASA claims that there are over 1650 other spin-offs in the fields of computer technology, environment and agriculture, health and medicine, public safety, transportation, recreation, and industrial productivity. Contrary to common belief, NASA did not invent Tang, Velcro, or Teflon.[2]

TomatoPie wrote:Oil companies should not get a penny. But even absent tax breaks, I'd bet on oil over any alternative-energy that the Feds are throwing money at.

CalvinBall wrote:really wish those european explorers did not decide to sail their boats across oceans and around the globe. really, what did it matter?

Bucky wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:as noted earlier in this or the previous thread, the much reviled program that provided assistance to Solyndra is actually making a profit for the government while also supporting a burgeoning industry we are sorely in need of beefing up.

Government is not capable of picking winners and losers in the market. And even if it were, it has no business trying.

Fossil fuels are the fuel of choice..... until a cheaper fuel is found. And a cheaper fuel will be found by someone motivated to make a profit, not motivated to grab a government subsidy.

Oil companies have received extraordinary tax accommodations for generations. Please shut up.

Oil companies should not get a penny. But even absent tax breaks, I'd bet on oil over any alternative-energy that the Feds are throwing money at.

what do you mean by 'bet'?

Even if you don't believe in the detrimental environmental impact of fossil fuels (science, what is it good for), you can't deny that our reliance on them is bad for the U.S. economy. Even though we produce more than we consume, and we export more than we import, just this recent drop in prices should be enough evidence. OPEC has decided to maintain production levels in order to allow prices to drop in an attempt to thwart US production efforts. Can we agree that OPEC is the dominant force in controlling oil prices?? And that oil prices have a pretty direct effect on quality of life in the U.S.? And that we have gone to war many times over soley in defense of our oil suppliers?

Remove oil from the equation, and make the U.S. thrive on renewables, and you've fortified the quality of life for U.S. citizens, as well as arguably strengthening national security. I only say "arguably" because I'm sure the PTB will dream up other reasons to go to battle.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Werthless wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

Werthless wrote:For the same reason that many cities are starting to rebel against hosting the Olympics. Hosting the Olympics, and having a program where we fly to the moon or to other planets, is not an effective use of public tax dollars. If rich people want to pay for it, be my guest.

dont think science and a bunch of sports provide the same value but go ahead.

Would you be in favor of the US spending $5 trillion dollars to set up a space station on Mars? I would not, and I suspect that you would not, either. Where we draw the line on legitimate and illegitimate/wasteful space spending is probably different, but we likely agree that there is a limit. I don't think we can simply say that all NASA spending is good, since NASA=science.

Maybe. $5 trillion over what period?

I hate when Libertarians throw out space achievements as being government boondoggles. It's not just that the things that we learn about our universe are incredibly important, it's what we learn/develop in getting to those discoveries as well. Very rarely is that type of scientific investment an utter waste of money. Something as scientifically progressive as establishing a base on Mars would involve incredible scientific advancement that would improve life on Earth as well. For example, it would likely involve enormous leaps in energy efficiency.