NASA: Still Unconstitutional After all These Years

Today, 20 July 09, marks the fortieth anniversary of the first moon landing. Be prepared for a lot of American triumphalism. While I agree with our friend Tom Piatak that those were better times and American triumphalism sure beats PC American self flagellation, it is important to remember that NASA was and still is an unconstitutional expenditure. Federal funding of space exploration for space exploration’s sake, or for the advancement of science, or just to say we beat the Russians, or whatever, is not constitutionally authorized. You could make the case that a space program that is intended for defensive purposes, such as SDI, is authorized, but otherwise NASA should be scrapped.

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=3542

I don't myself see any signs of fascism in the official goals and ideals of the Republican Party itself. I find that most people who accuse them of fascism, are dong the same game that the right wing posters here do, by choosing to INTERPRET isolated statements and actions of the GOP to mean that they are secretly Fascist, simply because some of the words and phrases and silly tricks they pull are the same.

Maybe the people pushing the Fascism thing are performing a bit of ironic art, and I'm missing it. I don't argue that way myself, it's too confusing, and more than that, I've never seen that it has worked to make the other side stop and think. If anything, it convinces them that they are making headway.

Actually, from my point of view the wildly off course has been the same 'off course' that lead to the OP.

Every time it's been brought up, by anyone, publicly.

This same crap happens. I'm sorry but, do they teach this in a class somewhere? If someone mentions the dirty word turn the argument into a fallacy by refusing to acknowledge the premise and attack any and every aspect of the person?

logic reversal. A correct statement of the form "if P then Q" gets turned into "Q therefore P".
For example,

"All cats die; Socrates died; therefore Socrates was a cat."

Another example: "If the earth orbits the sun, then the nearer stars will show an apparent annual shift in position relative to more distant stars (stellar parallax). Observations show conclusively that this parallax shift does occur. This proves that the earth orbits the sun." In reality, it proves that Q [the parallax] is consistent with P [orbiting the sun]. But it might also be consistent with some other theory. (Other theories did exist. They are now dead, because although they were consistent with a few facts, they were not consistent with all the facts.)

Any question to your beliefs automatically triggers your "WHITE DEVIL" trigger.

it means being equal under the law. Not social justice. Social justice is inequality under the law.

Okay great. And what do all of these require to become the fascist state you seem to think is on the horizon if a republican walks into the room?

It requires a controlling central government with a very strong and controlling authoritive leader.

We were doing well for quite some time. This was until the 60's and 70's.

if people want Obama out of office its because they don't like the direction he is taking this country and his policies...

wanting him out of office is not different than all you BUSH haters who wanted him out of OFFICE applying your thinking you wanted AMERICA to fail under BUSH?

Can we drop the communist/socialist label and just lump it into what it really is? Collectivism.

Rebuilding Middle Class Security
1.Putting Americans Back to Work
2.The Middle Class Bargain
3.Cutting Waste, Reducing the Deficit, Asking All to Pay Their Fair Share
4.Economy Built to Last

America Works When Everyone Plays by the Same Rules
1.Wall Street Reform
2.21st Century Government: Transparent and Accountable
3.Lobbying Reform and Campaign Finance Reform

Greater Together
1.Strengthening the American Community
2.Protecting Rights and Freedoms
3.Ensuring Safety and Quality of Life

Stronger in the World, Safer and More Secure At Home
1.Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq
2.Disrupting, Dismantling, and Defeating Al-Qaeda
3.Responsibly Ending the War in Afghanistan
4.Preventing the Spread and Use of Nuclear Weapons
5.Countering Emerging Threats
6.Strengthening Alliances, Expanding Partnerships, and Reinvigorating International Institutions
7.Promoting Global Prosperity and Development
8.Maintaining the Strongest Military in the World
9.Advancing Universal Values

Preamble
Restoring the American Dream:Rebuilding the Economy and Creating Jobs
We The People: A Restoration of Constitutional Government
America’s Natural Resources: Energy, Agriculture and the Environment
Reforming Government to Serve the People
Renewing American Values to Build Healthy Families, Great Schools and Safe Neighborhoods
American Exceptionalism
The Platform Committee

Nice list. Not sure what you think of it. Not sure if you associate any of it with things that have been occurring before you were born. Not sure if you really give a crap. How is it different? And why exactly is it unfair, illogical, or misrepresentative to compare this with socialist platform?

And why exactly is it unfair, illogical, or misrepresentative to compare this with socialist platform?

Rebuilding Middle Class Security
1.Putting Americans Back to Work
2.The Middle Class Bargain
3.Cutting Waste, Reducing the Deficit, Asking All to Pay Their Fair Share
4.Economy Built to Last


America Works When Everyone Plays by the Same Rules
1.Wall Street Reform
2.21st Century Government: Transparent and Accountable
3.Lobbying Reform and Campaign Finance Reform


Greater Together
1.Strengthening the American Community
2.Protecting Rights and Freedoms
3.Ensuring Safety and Quality of Life


Stronger in the World, Safer and More Secure At Home
1.Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq
2.Disrupting, Dismantling, and Defeating Al-Qaeda
3.Responsibly Ending the War in Afghanistan
4.Preventing the Spread and Use of Nuclear Weapons
5.Countering Emerging Threats
6.Strengthening Alliances, Expanding Partnerships, and Reinvigorating International Institutions
7.Promoting Global Prosperity and Development
8.Maintaining the Strongest Military in the World
9.Advancing Universal Values

I am doing everything I possibly can to tiptoe around your rules.

What are you referencing?

Is it a concern that any explanation of the platform aligns almost entirely with the socialist platform? Does that somehow diminish the integrity? Why? It is either true or not true and if it is true then how is not discussing it, "intellectually honest" Same with if it is not true. If it is not true then there should be the ability to discuss it and provide a clear distinction above and beyond 2 positions.

Never said it opposed it.

Oh, before I get accused of being blatantly dishonest in the direction I am leading... Yes, the most likely result of this is that the democratic party is in full agreement with nearly all of the socialist platform so the comparison between democrats and socialists is entirely valid for nearly all arguments of politics and economics.

Outside of means of production what about all the other platform positions.

In order to even get close we need a workable definition of the democratic party platform.

So, they (SPUSA) emphasize that it is not merely the government that owns the means of production, but the society as a whole.

Imagine all industry being like the Alaskan oil business-- that is what SPUSA wants, not the Democratic party.

Production For Use, Not For Profit

Despite the fact that modern socialists prefer the welfare state over nationalized production due to the failure of that model?

We don't even know what socialism actually means in this discussion because everybody has a different take on it.

I'm asking to describe what differentiates them more completely then wholly owned means of production. The modern socialist doesn't advocate for this much any more either. It advocates for welfare state.

Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools.

The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth.

That's the problem with trying to play a game with other people's words. By choosing to allow yourself to twist the meanings of others to suit your prejudices...

What needs to occur is actual expansion. How do you propose real expansion and wealth creation occur?

In an analysis of the presidential diary and newspaper reports, the Government Accountability Institute found that Mr Obama has spent 976 hours since his January 2009 election on holiday and playing golf. In contrast, he has only spent 474.4 hours in economic meetings...

Keep trying. Context. It helps frame concepts.

This is why democrats suck at the economy. They think they can control it but can only restrict it.

This just in from the “It Couldn’t Possibly Get Any Worse” Department: The first wave of checks from the bungled foreclosure abuse settlement landed in mailboxes around the country this week, but when people tried to cash them, a number of them bounced. I don’t know about you, but if someone who worked for me screwed up something like a $3.6 billion payout, I’d fire them.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/government-agency-fine-itself-060115554.html

www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/02/wall-street-political-insiders-quake-in-their-guccis-about-coming-expose/

Protection and increasing cash rather then investing.
Consolidation of industries to increasingly larger and larger companies.
Lack of hiring despite the high unemployment which should decrease wages. (employers market)

Please show how generally raising taxes will correct these problems.

Because the "cash in hand" is not widespread. The environment sucks. Money that is growing is basically self insurance. There is no appetite for risk.

When I have been part of budget planning meetings during down times there are objectives to "meet numbers." Most of the time these numbers are quite often made up to meet an irrational goal to present a good picture of growth. That good picture of growth is what the executives are looking for. The general idea is to improve "the bottom line." What is the bottom line... Profit. During "better times" the meetings are not a whole lot different. However, there is almost a default expectation of "taking advantage" and projections are aimed higher then just presenting a 'good picture.' They are aimed at presenting a 'great picture.'

No where in my example did I say they should be hiring again. I am saying they won't.

So, why do taxes directly impact wages, employement, and growth when they are clearly so distinct from taxes...

To make up that 3% in avg salary 102 people need to go. That will then lower the expenses

How do we look now. Great!

I understand now why liberals think taxes have no impact.

Taxes have a direct impact on employment and wages.

You are doing a good job helping me establish what I already knew.

So, because businesses don't pay employees with revenue that has already been taxed, employee salaries are
a tax credit, not part of the tax burden. Per your example, each dollar paid to an employee is 39 cents less paid
in taxes. Yes, you are missing out on 61 cents profit, but look at it this way: for every dollar you pay your
hopefully trusty employees, that is 39 cents less you have to pay the untrustworthy government!

You can move the taxes post expenses if you want but it will not significantly change the result. Taxes have a direct impact on expense vs profit and the employee loses when rates go up.

a) The order of the tax doesn't matter, it's still theft.
b) It was just an example, it wasn't supposed to prove my point.
or
c) You are all leftists who want to destroy the economy and tear down the country.

Just because you refuse to consider alternative views does not make you the sane one.

For that matter a system that lowers percentage as your income goes up with the upper middle being the top of a wave curve but at which point would the top would be and where the limits are... variable.

Oh, and most importantly... Having success does not make you a bad person. In fact, we need more successful people. Not less. It isn't shameful to perform well or to do well. It isn't bad to use your skills and provide services that have a market value higher than someone else.

It isn't bad or a lower value to society to be happy with a family and a day job that doesn't make you rich beyond your dreams.

what an infantile dissection of the post...

1% of your income compared to 1% of a corporation is nowhere near equal, fair, nor comparable in any rational sense.

A consistent percentage is nowhere near fair?

And the absurd reduction of reason award goes to ^ You misrepresented everything.

10% of 100 is 10. You can't change that. Fair has nothing to do with it. 50% of nothing is nothing. Is that fair? 97% of 100 is 97. Is that fair? 1% of 100... is that fair? It means nothing because 100 has no meaning. Is it a cat? It's yearly net worth. How is that in any way fair to determine a single % across the board to determine contribution to government services? It's the government services growth that is the problem skewing percentage value.

Well, now it starts looking like those 0 tax paid people are quite possibly on corporate welfare programs and are kind of in trouble. I see EA and AMD on that list and I know they are hurting.

In fact from that tax-rate-paid listing it seems that there are actually companies paying very high tax rates. Many of those companies are doing quite well...

top 50% pays over 97% of all taxes. the next 50% pays under 3%? I don't even know how to describe "Fair" in this model.

There is no reason to keep harping on fairness.

I still don't see how that makes it fair.

1% of your income compared to 1% of a corporation is nowhere near equal, fair, nor comparable in any rational sense.

Funny how you guys can't stop bashing Bush...

ISRAEL HAS KILLED ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE "*FEWER*" civilians in over 65 years.. than the USA has in a mere 8 years in Iraq/Afghanistan, 2001-2009

far fewer than the Allies killed in Germany or Italy, 1943-1945 or in Japan in a similar period

like, about 1/1000th as many, despite being directly threatened by next-door neighbors

yes there have been deaths (in the single digits , adding up to the low hundreds over 50 years) when militants fire rockets & mortars into Israel from populated areas, hoping that decency will prevent Israel from striking back, but they can take only so much

That was my point and only my point and specifically related to how horrible it was to have abandoned those that believed in us. Believed in the US willingness to support freedom. They were lied to by people like you and the administration. They got no support and they still don't have it.