Newt promises a permanent moonbase by the end of his second term

[mhaze]

And that makes it any less of an insane idea?

And this coming from someone who claims to be "fiscally conservative", who, as Joe and others have pointed out, would spend billions of dollars that the gov't doesn't have (and won't have if his cocamame tax proposals were passed) on a "feel good" project like a moonbase in the face of crushing deprivation on the part of millions of Americans.

Muldor. I hate to tell you this, but your marxist, take stuff away at point of gun, give it to the selected crony, arguments actually make more sense that Joe's. Even though, of course, your collectivist vision only results in gangster government keeping all the goodies, and mass starvation. Your arguments don't my my kind of sense, they make a Stalinist, Maoist type of sense. But that's better than no sense at all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

....Asking where he will get the $10 billion.....

Is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard.

Why?

You are aware that Newt is running on a platform that includes a call for a balanced budget amendment?

You accused me of being "anti-space" even though what Newt's proposing would effectively defund all space exploration projects (and more than half of NASA's overall current budget). And again, that's assuming he were able to fund the government at current levels, even though, as I've shown his proposals would require $2.5 trillion in spending cuts (in a single year)!

I predict you will continue to evade this central and pertinent question with a bunch of confused rhetoric that will further display your ignorance (such as your recently displayed ignorance of reductio ad absurdum).

 

[mhaze]

Why?

You are aware that Newt is running on a platform that includes a call for a balanced budget amendment?

You accused me of being "anti-space" even though what Newt's proposing would effectively defund all space exploration projects (and more than half of NASA's overall current budget). .....

Yep, that's exactly what I'm talking about as being ridiculous. You can't say, because you have not a clue, what some future NASA budget might be. So, yeah, you are making things up. You are picking a past budget number and illogically applying Newt's proposed spending to that. And you are not even doing that rationally, since he proposed 10% of NASA's budget going to prizes.

Oh, and the balanced budget amendment is irrelevant, due to the length of time procedurally such things take.

I'm not sure how much longer you want to continue this conversation. Your facts and opinions, and logical constructions on this matter, are far, far more specious than several of the other conversations we've had.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yep, that's exactly what I'm talking about as being ridiculous. You can't say, because you have not a clue, what some future NASA budget might be.

Yes I can. I've even linked to current and proposed future NASA budgets.

See this: http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

And what I'm doing is talking about how Newt's proposals would compare to the current budget anyway.

So, yeah, you are making things up.

You're lying yet again, haze.

You are picking a past budget number and illogically applying Newt's proposed spending to that. And you are not even doing that rationally, since he proposed 10% of NASA's budget going to prizes.

This is precisely the way federal budgets (and NASA's budget) are discussed. We talk about them in terms of existing budgets. I've made it entirely clear that that's what I'm doing, so you can't claim I'm being ambiguous. The Tax Policy Center, as I've pointed out, does it the same way by speaking of the effect of Newt's tax proposal compared to current federal revenues.

And the $10 billion is rational because even though Newt spoke of setting aside 10% of NASA's budget for prizes, he also spoke of a $10 billion prize. You can't blame me that Newt's math doesn't make a bit of sense.

Or are you now suggesting that Newt is proposing to increase NASA's budget from its current ~$20 billion level to 5 times that size in order to get $10 billion when he sets aside 10% of the budget? If so, the same question I've been asking applies: where will the money come from?

Oh, and the balanced budget amendment is irrelevant, due to the length of time procedurally such things take.

Trouble is, it's one of Newt's promises. It's one of his platform planks:

"7. Balance the budget by growing the economy, controlling spending, implementing money saving reforms, and replacing destructive policies and regulatory agencies with new approaches." Linky.

So any time he makes a spending proposal, it is entirely appropriate and relevant to ask where the money will come from.

But I'm glad at least you're dropping the silly dodge of saying that since the budget is Congress' duty, we can't or shouldn't challenge the feasibility of Newt's proposals!

Your facts and opinions, and logical constructions on this matter, are far, far more specious than several of the other conversations we've had.

Riiii---iiight! This from the guy who said that the NASA prize fund would be a profit center! This from the guy who denied that what Newt is proposing is a government project! This from the guy who denied that Newt even promised a permanent base on the moon within 8 years!

This from the guy who claimed that reductio ad absurdum is "a class of logical error"!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You can't say, because you have not a clue, what some future NASA budget might be.

I would also add that many (if not all) of NASA's exploration missions are multi-year. I can indeed say that those funding needs will be there in future years. Either that, or you will have to de-fund those missions, as I've been saying.

It makes perfect sense to talk about future NASA budget in terms of the current budget.

 

[mhaze]

I would also add that many (if not all) of NASA's exploration missions are multi-year. I can indeed say that those funding needs will be there in future years. Either that, or you will have to de-fund those missions, as I've been saying.

It makes perfect sense to talk about future NASA budget in terms of the current budget.

Sure. FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

But consider. I have a different point of view. If I got into the POTUS position, I'd be making all kinds of structural changes. Your view wouldn't matter one bit. Various worthless cherished programs of the left would go bye bye- bey. Stuff like NASA budget would be expanded. Etc. So you really don't have to lecture anyone about how much the future is going to be like the past. You've got NO argument based on the real world.

Nothing at all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sure. FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

Nope. This is the standard and conventional way we discuss public budgets in the U.S.

But consider. I have a different point of view. If I got into the POTUS position, I'd be making all kinds of structural changes. Your view wouldn't matter one bit. Various worthless cherished programs of the left would go bye bye- bey.

No. The president doesn't have that authority. But I'm glad to hear you admit that what Newt is proposing would require defunding current space exploration missions.

Stuff like NASA budget would be expanded.

Given Newt's tax and budget proposals, where would that extra money come from?

Etc. So you really don't have to lecture anyone about how much the future is going to be like the past. You've got NO argument based on the real world.

Nothing at all.

Again, it makes perfect sense to discuss the effect on the budget that Newt's proposals would have in terms of the current budget. His tax proposal would shrink revenues immensely. His balanced budget proposal would require a similarly drastic cut in spending.

His promise of a permanent base on the moon and a continuous propulsion Mars rocket within 8 years is inconsistent with his fiscal proposals. Asking how he would pay for the program or programs he is proposing is perfectly legitimate.

And your rejection of discussing a future budget proposal in terms of the current budget doesn't absolve Newt of the burden of saying how he would fund his proposals anyway. You could completely ignore the current budget and discuss Newt's budget on its own terms. (Though this would be difficult, because Newt's proposals are pretty generally made in terms of the current budget.)

 

[mhaze]

.... a continuous propulsion Mars rocket within 8 years is inconsistent with his fiscal proposals....

You mean, the continuous propulsion rocket that's already being developed and being tested? The one that's scheduled for two tests in 2012 on the space station?

So this is what, yet another thing that you are talking about that you don't know anything about?

Program Code.

Start:
Put Foot in Mouth.
Go to Start.

 

[mhaze]

....You could completely ignore the current budget and discuss Newt's budget on its own terms.....

Better yet, I could tell you how I would do it. I can't tell you how someone else would do it, obviously.

I note that regular mail in the US post office generates 50% revenue excess over cost, while junk mail - typically catalogs - generates a growing shortfall.

2010, the Post office lost over 8b and it is growing.

Here's My Plan:

1) cut out the junk mail entirely. 100%, no exceptions. Let that business go to UPS or other carriers.
2) Reduce the 1st class mail rate.
3) everyone's happy except the Post Office that we fixed the post office, and we save >8B per year.
4) use the money to fund a moon prize.

Win Win Win.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You mean, the continuous propulsion rocket that's already being developed and being tested? The one that's scheduled for two tests in 2012 on the space station?

So now your response to the question of how Newt would fund his campaign promises is to claim that he's not promising anything we don't already have?

Again, his speech makes it clear that he's not talking about timid enterprises. I would define a promise of achieving something we've already achieve to be extremely timid.

Shall I re-list your series of failed responses to the primary challenge to Newt's promises?

So this is what, yet another thing that you are talking about that you don't know anything about?

Program Code.

Start:
Put Foot in Mouth.
Go to Start.

I repeat:


Riiii---iiight! This from the guy who said that the NASA prize fund would be a profit center! This from the guy who denied that what Newt is proposing is a government project! This from the guy who denied that Newt even promised a permanent base on the moon within 8 years!

This from the guy who claimed that reductio ad absurdum is "a class of logical error"!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Better yet, I could tell you how I would do it. I can't tell you how someone else would do it, obviously.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. You're in a thread whose topic is on some of Newt's campaign promises. Are you now admitting that Newt's promises are undefensible?

I note that regular mail in the US post office generates 50% revenue excess over cost, while junk mail - typically catalogs - generates a growing shortfall.

2010, the Post office lost over 8b and it is growing.

Here's My Plan:

1) cut out the junk mail entirely. 100%, no exceptions. Let that business go to UPS or other carriers.
2) Reduce the 1st class mail rate.
3) everyone's happy except the Post Office that we fixed the post office, and we save >8B per year.
4) use the money to fund a moon prize.

Win Win Win.

Your math skills are weak, haze. Even if you could do what you claim, -$8 billion plus $8 billion comes out to zero.

It does not result in $8 billion you now have.

Remember, Newt's promising a balanced budget. I assume he has to "fix" the USPS and every other aspect of the federal government that loses money. Indeed, as I've shown, Newt's tax/budget proposal would require trimming a total of over $2.5 trillion from the current budget. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that your plan would would work, you've got another $2.5 trillion to make up (the actual trimming figure would be $2.58 trillion, but I've been truncating the figure from the Tax Policy Center of the revenue losses) in a single year.

 

[mhaze]

OK, now we're getting somewhere. You're in a thread whose topic is on some of Newt's campaign promises. Are you now admitting that Newt's promises are undefensible?



Your math skills are weak, haze. Even if you could do what you claim, -$8 billion plus $8 billion comes out to zero.

It does not result in $8 billion you now have. .....

Wait, you mean if I saved 8B in one place, I can't spend it in another?

Methinks Joe-the-Juggler needs to be on Team Bamster. They need to hear this kind of stuff more often.