backtop

Print 180 comment(s) - last by B.. on Dec 5 at 3:15 PM

Wen Jiabao unveils the first image taken by Chang'e I  (Source: Xinhua)
The Chang'e I returns its first image

The Chinese space agency publicly unveiled the first image of the moon taken by a camera aboard the Chang'e 1 lunar probe.  Scientists will use the image to help create a three-dimensional stereo image of the entire moon, though possible release dates of the image remain unknown.  

During a presentation from the Beijing Aerospace Control Center, Premier Wen Jiabao described the image as an important step towards "the Chinese race's 1,000-year-old dream" of being able to explore the moon.  The black-and-white image shows an area of "about 460 kilometers in length and 280 km in width," and was located on one of the moon's highlands.

The images were collected on Nov. 20 and Nov. 21 and consisted of 19 total images that each covered 60 kilometers of surface.

"The Chinese nation is fully able to stand tall among the world's ranks of advanced nations," Jiabao said during the conference.  "It showcases eloquently that the Chinese people have the will, the ambition and the capability to compose more shining new chapters while ascending the science and technology summit."  

Chang'e I is expected to orbit the moon for one year while scanning its entire surface.

As most parties involved agree to officially declare there is no Asian space race, China, Japan and India all have high hopes for studying the moon.  The Japan Aerospace and Exploration Agency (JAXA) worked alongside the Japan Broadcasting Corporation to release moon pictures and videos taken by JAXA's SELENE orbiter.  South Korea is slowly becoming interested in further space exploration, with a lunar probe launch scheduled by 2020.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Despite my bitterness toward China...
By therealnickdanger on 11/29/2007 8:24:20 AM , Rating: 3
Space exploration is just too cool! I can only hope that the ever-expanding economy and scientific breakthroughs lead to a free society for her citizens.




RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 8:38:18 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that space exploration is great. But I still want the US to be investing as much, if not more, in space exploration than China. Unfortunately here in the US, things like giving money to lazy people who don't want to work is far more important than exploring our solar system or being better prepared for possible events like this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313561,00.html


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By mdogs444 on 11/29/2007 8:59:41 AM , Rating: 1
With you on that one FITCamaro. Tax dollars going to healthcare & education for illegal immigrants as well as for lazy people who dont want to get up off their butts....i can think of about 10 better things to invest the money in...but off the top of my head, 1. tax breaks, 2. space exploration, 3. increase military budget.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By TITAN1080 on 11/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By retrospooty on 11/29/2007 9:30:54 AM , Rating: 1
I second all of that.


By Clauzii on 11/29/2007 3:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, a lot of rockets uo in smoke down there..


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By mdogs444 on 11/29/2007 9:39:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Tax breaks are part of the problem with the current downturn in the economy. You sound like a bush supporter which means I can only assume you only want tax breaks for the rich, because that is exactly his stance.

Tax breaks have nothing to do with the state of the current economy. Tax breaks are not affecting oil prices, the housing market, etc. In fact, the unemployment rates and GDP growth have been quite excellent. So now the rich dont have as much a right to their own money as anyone else? Where in the constitution does it say that if you live in American and get successful, that you are responsible for the lazy asses who dont want to do anything? Get real, take your class warfare somewhere else.

quote:
2. I agree with money needed for space exploration, unfortunately there are far more pressing concerns that need to be dealt with. Health care is one of them, and even more importantly, our energy crisis, which is real.

Health care would not be as much of a concern if we werent paying the healthcare & educational bills for illegals who shouldnt be here in the first place. I dont think there are any people out there who get health insurance as apart of their daily jobs who would want to go on a government health care plan. Nothing is ever "free", and I for one, do not want to increase my taxes to pay someone elses health care.

quote:
3. So, 1.5 TRILLION for the Iraq and Afghan wars is still not enough??? because that is at least what it is expected to cost.

You obviously do not understand the difference between a war spending budget and a military defense budget.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By retrospooty on 11/29/2007 9:55:02 AM , Rating: 2
spoken like a true modern republican.

1. No one said the rich should pay more than their share, the point is they shouldn't get special tax breaks. The rich geting richer is not helping anyone but the rich, which are like 1% of the population.

2. Blaming illegals for our healthcare problem is such a cop-out its not even funny. We have a problem in this country, many of us cant afford healthcare and go without it in the richest country in the world... It is NOT because of illegals. Saying that just distracts from the problem. Turn your Fox news OFF man !

2. I think the point on the war is that we are spending far too much and its all a waste... I wont even get further into it as debating the war is a lost cause, just like the war itself. Thaks dubbya, nicely done.


By Ringold on 11/29/2007 11:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
Guess which class of people create jobs, likely the job you show up for every week? (Assuming you're not a government lackey)

Here's a hint. It isn't a blue collar guy with a high school diploma making $25,000 that's creating and sustaining the viability of your job.

Sarkozy has figured this out in advance of the American left; the primary consequence of keeping a few people from becoming rich is to make everyone else poor.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By rcc on 11/29/2007 12:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No one said the rich should pay more than their share,


Ah, but what exactly is their share? Is it "fair" for Joe, who makes $1M per year to pay more in tax than Sam, who makes $10k? If so, why. If we had a flat tax, he'd already be paying 100x more tax that Sam, But we don't, so Joe is paying considerably more than that. Less, of course, whatever tax shelters, etc. he can find.

Sam on the other hand, with the basic tax credits is paying very little tax. Any further tax break he got would be either damn small, or an actual credit.

quote:
Blaming illegals for our healthcare problem is such a cop-out its not even funny


This issue is very localized. I'm guessing you don't live anywhere near the border. In S. CA, our emergency rooms are choked with illegals that the hospitals are not not allowed to turn away. The go to emergency for that reason, urgent care, or a doctor, can require payment at the time of treatment.

If, as a healthcare paying, tax paying citizen, you've ever sat in an emergency room with child with a spiral break waiting for 4 hours for treatment, while the hospital staff wades through the sniffly noses and diaper rash of the illegals, you *might* understand his position a bit better.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 12:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sam on the other hand, with the basic tax credits is paying very little tax. Any further tax break he got would be either damn small, or an actual credit
And that's the point many people miss (and the mainstream media intentionally ignores when reporting on tax matters). When 5% of the people are paying half the taxes in the country, its essentially impossible to craft a tax break that doesn't benefit them.

The tax code has gotten to the point of penalizing achievement. If you get a good education and work hard, you're going to be hit up with a bill a hundred or more times higher than the guy who preferred to drop out of high school...even though he'll likely use 100X the social services you will. And yet you'll continually hear you're not "paying your fair share"?

When one thinks about, the old "head tax" was the fairest tax of all. If everyone is a citizen, equal in the eyes of the law, why shouldn't every *pay* the same amount towards running the country? Even a flat tax, where one makes 10X as much, and pays 10X as much is inherently unfair to those who make more.

But of course we don't even have a flat tax. We have a sliding scale, where those who make 10X as much pay 50 or even 100X the taxes. And still we're saying its not enough? Seriously, is truth not stranger than fiction?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Screwballl on 11/29/2007 12:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
The problem comes in when Joe X makes $1 million per year and pays 5% of his income to taxes and Joe Z makes $12 an hour and pays 20% of his income in taxes, where is the fairness?
We need a flat tax system in the US so everyone pays 20% regardless of income.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 12:37:42 PM , Rating: 3
You have your figures reversed. If one makes $12/hour, you're likely to be paying much less than 5% of your total earnings in federal income tax. A wage earner in the $1M/annum range is going to be paying well over 20%. Take for instance President Bush, who made $822K in 2003, and paid a rate of 28%.

Now, the truly mega-rich who aren't earning *wages* normally manage to shield much of their investment income, and pay a lower rate. Take for instance, John Kerry and his wife, who had a total worth of around $1 Billion that same year, but paid federal taxes equivalent to only a 12% rate.


By clovell on 11/29/2007 1:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad somebody threw down the numbers and set the record straight.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By B on 12/5/2007 2:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
Masher, your comments on John Kerry don't flow. Remember tax is based upon income, not net worth. If your statement is elluding to a 12% tax rate on net worth - thats entirely possible and probably too high. Is this 12% rate you are citing based upon his, Adjusted Gross Income, Taxable Income, net worth, or some other arbitrary number?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By rcc on 11/29/2007 12:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem comes in when Joe X makes $1 million per year and pays 5% of his income to taxes and Joe Z makes $12 an hour and pays 20% of his income in taxes, where is the fairness?


Man, you are so far out in left field it's not even funny. Did you read any of the figures bouncing around the thread? That makes nice retoric, but it's not the way the country works.

However, for the sake of arguement, in your example X is paying $50,000 (he's not, he's paying waaay more), and Z is paying $4,953.60. How is that fair? Particularly when Z is going to make far more use of social programs etc.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By ZeroGuardian on 11/29/2007 2:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, for the sake of arguement, in your example X is paying $50,000 (he's not, he's paying waaay more), and Z is paying $4,953.60. How is that fair? Particularly when Z is going to make far more use of social programs etc.


But see that is just it... A person making $12/hour for 40 hours a week is going to make approximately $25,000 a year. Now lets assume that this person ends up paying the $5,000 a year you stated. That means that they have $20,000 left for all the essentials plus whatever they can afford in entertainment. So lets say that yearly they end up spending $16,000 on essentials (home, car, utilities, food, etc.) That leaves $4,000 of disposable income, which doesn't leave a whole lot to work with if you wanting to be able to live a little. Now take the person making $1,000,000 a year, and lets say that he ends up paying the rediculous 50x amount that you stated totaling to $250,000 (which isn't anywhere close to realistic) but that still leaves the person making more money with $750,000. Thats a hell of a lot more disposable income if you compare that to the person making only $20,000. What does that mean? that means that this person can now place that money into the market and earn more money off of it which the other person cannot do. Now I'm not against people making more money and I believe that people who do get the education and work hard to earn that money should be able to live a more luxurious life style but that doesn't mean that they should pay a less percentage in taxes. Even with all the taxes they pay they are still WAY better off than the person making $25,000 a year.

But that is not even the biggest problem, the problem that the US has right now isn't necessarily taxes its SPENDING!!! We are wasting billions of dollars on this war, wasting billions more around the world instead of concentrating that money here where it is needed most. If we stopped this fruitless war and closed down 50% of the foreign bases we have around the world we could very easily cover the health and education problems of this nation.


By rcc on 11/29/2007 3:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Bear in mind I was using the other poster's example, which was flawed. I just wanted to point out that even with his stats, it wasn't "fair".

As for yours, I understand what you are saying, but we'll have to agree to disagree. For starters, the "rich" guy in your discussion will be paying a higher tax rate, and a higher tax. He doesn't get any more for it, less in fact, but he pays it anyway. Most of the "wealthy" in the country, or even the middle class, would love to see a flat tax implemented. I doubt it'll ever happen, but it would be more "fair" then the current system. And we could eliminate a few gazillion IRS/tax workers and tax attorneys.

quote:
If we stopped this fruitless war and closed down 50% of the foreign bases we have around the world we could very easily cover the health and education problems of this nation.


Regardless of opinions on the nature of the war in Iraq, the price tag for a nationwide health care system would dwarf the current defense budget, much less the cost of those bases. You are aware that the current budget for social programs is much larger than the defense budget, yes?


By Emryse on 11/29/2007 6:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What does that mean? that means that this person can now place that money into the market and earn more money off of it which the other person cannot do.


Nope, sorry. It's the $25k/year guy's choice to not take his $4k and invest it instead of "living a little". That's you're problem - you're seening entertainment as a "right" that everyone deserves - IT ISN'T.

If you're only making $20k net income and $16k of that is going to the essentials, then there is NO WAY you should be going out to the movies or eating out!!! You should be investing, saving, growing. However, that's not the American way.

Oh by the way - most rich people are rich, because they're wise in the way they spent their money. At some point, someone had to sacrifice, save, delay instant gratification, wait to spend, place entertainment on hold, or not "live a little" - even if now it's Paris Hilton who gets to reap the rewards, before she was an heiress, someone in her family worked really damn hard and didn't put their own entertainment first.

Oh - and one last thought for your very socialist point of view:

You can have only ONE of two choices in any society:

1. Everyone gets an equal opportunity and freedom to choose.

2. Everyone just gets equal, and no freedom.

Hint: your line of reasoning is leading the discerning mind to think you're in favor of the latter option.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Emryse on 11/29/2007 5:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The rich geting richer is not helping anyone but the rich, which are like 1% of the population.


Spoken like a true "I-have-no-clue-about-economics".

Every time the rich get richer means a job will be created or that money will be spent somewhere else. In case you hadn't thought about it this way: nobody is after money to never spend it - even if they don't spend it, it's their intention to let their grandkids, or pet dog, or somebody spend the money at some point.

In capitalism, profits are reinvested into new or greater efforts for an even greater return - your completely flawed logic assumes that money just gets locked up and never sees the light of day again; were that the case, there would no longer be an economy.

Rich people, more than anyone, want a healthy market full of jobs - taxes and lawsuits (by-and-large) are what cause job cuts, higher prices, and outsourced labor.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By alcalde on 11/29/2007 11:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
No, when the rich get richer, a job is not created and an angel doesn't get his wings. Often, what happens is that money is invested, and very often overseas where returns are higher, where it doesn't do this country any good. Give a person with an average income a little more money, and it gets spent - fixing that rattle in the car, getting that tooth taken care of that you couldn't afford to before, replacing the ratty 16 year old couch, etc. This money circulates, the economy does better, businesses and their owners make more money, and everyone is better off. It's trickle-up economics.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By BAFrayd on 11/30/2007 12:50:07 AM , Rating: 2
That has got to be one of the most ignorant comments I've seen in quite sometime.
What, exactly, does investment money do? It starts and sustains business and creates jobs (like yours).
BTW, rich folks also spend money on all the things you mentioned - only they usually spend more money doing it, and providing others with a source of income - something poor folks rarely do.
"Trickle-up" economics? What a comical concept. Since when does something come from nothing?


By nurbsenvi on 12/1/2007 10:59:52 AM , Rating: 2
sounding more and more like an egg and chicken argument


By Zoomer on 12/1/2007 4:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds like the "fair" sales tax exemptions on food, etc.

Let's see:
Truffles - $1000/lb
vs.
White Bulk Mushrooms - $3 / lb

Lobster, Fresh, Live - $12 / lb
Chicken, Dead, Frozen - $0.5 / lb

Organic xxx - $5 / lb
Don't get vegs - $0 / lb

Premium Wagyu beef - $50 / lb
Cheap generic cut - $3 / lb

Fresh haddock/whatever - $25 / lb
Frozen catfish - $3 / lb

How much would you "save" for each of these choices, assuming that the sales tax % is the same?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By TITAN1080 on 11/29/07, Rating: -1
By rcc on 11/29/2007 12:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Be scared, be very scared of the mexican illegal that empties your trash, and harvests your crops for a fraction of what it would cost if a 'true' American were to do it.


Well child, we aren't really afraid of him/her. But sometimes we do resent being required to pay for their healthcare, schooling, etc. OTOH, if they were actually paying paying for all the services they use, they couldn't afford to work for a fraction of the cost of a "true" American (your description, not mine).


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Nfarce on 11/29/2007 9:51:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
1. Tax breaks are part of the problem with the current downturn in the economy. You sound like a bush supporter which means I can only assume you only want tax breaks for the rich, because that is exactly his stance.


Uhm, only a socialist neo-Marxist lib would make such a stupid payment. Did you know that the top 1% of income earners pay 39% of all federal income tax revenue taken in? Or that the top 5% pay 60%? Or that the top 10% pay 70%? Or that the bottom 50% pay just 3%? Here's a clue: those who pay income tax will get a tax cut when said tax cuts come around. Anything less is nothing but pure old fashioned Karl Marx government confiscating and income redistribution handouts. Oh, and regarding tax cuts, they do increase the amount of revenue the government takes in. I know that concept is difficult for you neo-Stalinist libs to understand, so I won't even try to present facts reported in the news for you and from the CBO.

quote:
Americans need to wake up and realize that there are better sources of information than foxnews, cnn, and drudge...


LOL. What's a day without some liberal bitching about Drudge and Foxnews. Where do you get your "news" from there, ace, Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, and Daily Kos?

BTW lib: congress appropriates separate funding for wars, so you can't say that Iraq/Afghanistan have "robbed" the American people. Social(ist) funding is also separate from war funding. Quite amazing that 40 years ago LBJ's Great Society program was supposed to solve all this nation's problems with the poor and less fortunate you libs whine about so much, yet here they still are generation after generation.

PS: Bush is no Conservative Republican


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By retrospooty on 11/29/2007 9:58:23 AM , Rating: 1
pointing out that the top x percent pay x percent of the taxes is a great distracting argument.

Why dont you point out what percent of the money the top 1% make. The point is it should be fare. If the top 1% of income earners pay 39% of all federal income tax revenue taken in and they make more than 39% of the income, then your argumement is bunk. My guess is they do make alot more than 39%.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Nfarce on 11/29/2007 10:05:16 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why dont you point out what percent of the money the top 1% make.


I'll see your call and raise you. That's a typical socialist liberal response. The top 1% make up 17% of all income in the US; the top 5% make up 31% of all income; the top 10% make up 42% of all income.

You do the math on what aforementioned groups pay as a percentage of total income tax revenue taken in in my precious post and then come back and tell me that currently, the system is not "fair" enough. Go ahead. I need a laugh today, lib.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By quickk on 11/29/2007 10:45:39 AM , Rating: 1
No, the top 1% make up 45.4657% of all income in the US. You see, I can make up states too!


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By quickk on 11/29/2007 10:46:41 AM , Rating: 1
I mean stats... Anyway, my point is that you should state a few sources.


By Nfarce on 11/29/2007 12:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
my point is that you should state a few sources.


When it comes to liberals, facts don't matter. In any event, as others have mentioned those numbers can be taken straight from the IRS with a lot of math involved (I've done it before in a similar debate only to be ignored afterwards).

Anyway, here's your sign:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/341.html

Glad I could help educate someone.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By therealnickdanger on 11/29/2007 10:45:41 AM , Rating: 1
OK, NFarce, you are my new favorite DT poster. Your breath is wasted however. Liberals and facts blend about as well as oil and water.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By retrospooty on 11/29/2007 10:51:06 AM , Rating: 3
Try not to make too many assumptions like that... It makes you appear undereducated. If Nfarce's statistics are correct than I totally agree with him.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By therealnickdanger on 11/29/2007 11:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
I have seen those stats before as well as similar ones. I don't know what year he's quoting or if it's an average, since he didn't quote a source... All the data to calculate the stats yourself is available from the IRS's website. The percentages don't change very much year over year. The disparity is unsettling.

Here's a nice PDF if you really want to see for yourself:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff104.pdf


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By retrospooty on 11/29/2007 12:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
good source... thanks. But this appears to be personal income taxes...

What about corporations? They make more than any of us, including the richest 1%.

How are they taxed and what breaks are they being given? Just looking for facts...


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 12:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "What about corporations? They make more than any of us"

Don't fall into that trap. Corporations pass on their profits to their shareholders, thus you can't really tax a corporation....you're essentially just taxing its shareholders twice.

Corporate taxes are truly irrelevant to the picture. They're just another way to hide the true tax burden from the average Joe. (And yes, the average Joe indirectly pays corporate income taxes...if he has a pension plan, 401K, mutual fund, or any other such investment).


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Ringold on 11/29/2007 12:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
I just want to note, Masher, that we all pay part of the corporate taxes regardless of if we participate in the equity markets in the form of higher retail prices and reduced quantities supplied to the market from the higher opportunity cost that corporate taxes pose on corporations for doing business successfully. Plus, like you point out, most people are in the equity markets anyway with the retirement plans you noted.


By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 12:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we all pay part of the corporate taxes regardless of if we participate in the equity markets in the form of higher retail prices and reduced quantities supplied to the market from the higher opportunity cost
Absolutely right. I apologize for that omission.


By Nfarce on 11/29/2007 2:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget also that while corporations do get tax breaks, they get tax breaks for offering benefits to their employees like health care, pensions, retirement, continuing education, etc. That stuff ain't cheap, especially retirement and health care. Just ask GM. You won't hear the corporate tax cut whiners mention that little factoid or read about it in the industrial lamestream media complex like the New York Slimes.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Ringold on 11/29/2007 11:46:44 AM , Rating: 3
So you've become convinced of Reagan-era supply-side macroeconomic policy just like that?

Holy cow. The OP must have one of those Staples "Easy" buttons!


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By retrospooty on 11/29/2007 11:55:34 AM , Rating: 1
I wouldnt go as far as to say that, but above I had assumed that the rich are paying less perctage wise than middle class and apparently that was not correct.

I do still question the nature of this data, and are we talking the rich's personal income tax, or are we talking corporations? It seems that someone, somewhere is getting over on us.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By ted61 on 11/29/2007 12:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
The rich are paying much less as a percentage of income tax than the middle class.

Look at your pay statements for the last 20 years. Then look at the total taxes paid, including the hidden taxes like fica. Look at how much your total tax burden was before you could cross the ssn barrier and now. Once you cross the ssn barrier, you instantly drop 6.5% that is non-refundable from you tax rolls. Then look at all of the shelters you now have for the remaing cash. $25k per year to a 401k, $15k per year to a college fund and the list goes on.

The more money you have, the more places you have to put it where it is not taxed. A flat tax is the only fair way to go. Maybe they could just eliminate the income tax system and make everyone pay taxes on what they spend using a flat rate.


By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 1:11:08 PM , Rating: 3
> "The rich are paying much less as a percentage of income tax than the middle class....Look at your pay statements for the last 20 years"

Your argument seems to be that, merely by examining your own personal situation, you can instantly and accurately deduce that "the rich" are paying much less than you are?

That's quite a feat, I must admit.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By clovell on 11/29/2007 1:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
FICA is printed on every paycheck I get - right there in black and white - I don't need a decoder ring to find it. 401k contributions are taxed, too. Roth 401k contributions taxed-deferred, meaning you pay taxes on them later. I'm not sure about college funds, I've got another 15 years before I have to worry about that, but given your understanding of 401k's and FICA, I'd assume you're off the mark there, too.

So, if all your facts are wrong, I've got to conclude that so is your arguement.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By B on 12/5/2007 3:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
401(k) contributions are not subjected to income tax, they are however subjected to FICA taxes. The earnings in a 401(k) grow tax free. Distributions from a 401(k) are generally taxed.

Contributions to a Roth 401(k) are post tax contributions, meaning they are taxed. The earnings on contributed amounts are not taxed. The distributions from a Roth 401(k)are generally not taxed.

Also, wouldn't it be better to exercise foresight and think about saving for education needs now? Consider setting up a 529 plan.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Vanilla Thunder on 11/29/2007 11:34:46 AM , Rating: 3
When DT become so politically charged? All the hard line right wingers shouting about the "libs" and vice versa. It's pointless rhetoric that starts more arguements than it solves. Hop on over to www.gwbushyouthofamerica.com and post your love of the empowered wealthy there.

V.


By Ringold on 11/29/2007 12:01:20 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, what sparks the most argument is economic issues long since setttled inside the economic community, but much like evolution being settled among biologists yet refuted in certain parts of the Bible belt, various elements primarily of the left just don't buy it any more than an ordained evangelical minister buys evolution.

The jury is in on open economies, the jury is in on minimal but appropriate governance, the importance of property rights, and long since in on how supply and demand work. Tax policy can be debated, but even liberal economists I know of are presently calling for a tax cut. When someone mentions any of these things, though, out come the leftist activists screaming about George Bush, which has as much to do with believing the weight of economic evidence on markets and fiscal issues as does how cute puppies are and evolution.

I can see debating Iraq. Whatever. That's valid. God bless democracy. For people that study economics, though, ignorance is frustrating. It isn't necessarily peoples fault because they aren't taught much about it in High School and all they get is biased political information from parents and politicians. It's just an issue of education -- same as, I don't know, the Earth being a sphere.


By clovell on 11/29/2007 1:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Vanilla, I'm with you on this one. We've been going on 'Three Hour Tours' in just about every article this week.


By Symmetriad on 11/29/2007 3:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
I've been reading DT less and less recently because half the threads devolve into idiots grunting "YOU DAMNED LIBERALS/NEOCONS/COMMUNISTS/FASCISTS/ANARCHISTS/POT ATOES" at each other. Nobody seems to want to hold an intelligent debate without namecalling, ridiculous generalizations and condescension. And there appears to be no moderation whatsoever, so the individuals most prone to throwing the discussion onto this tiresome course never have any disincentive to do so.

I read DailyTech because I like to read daily news about technology, not so I can debate teenagers about how EEBIL the government/UN/liberals/neocons/insert-your-least-fa vorite-group-here are and be berated for disagreeing in a civil manner. If DT continues on the path to becoming "Vaguely-Technical Political Blogs," I'll just find my news elsewhere.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By retrospooty on 11/29/2007 10:49:11 AM , Rating: 3
If your numbers are correct, than I agree with you, no need to call me a socialist liberal, I am neither.

Got any link to info that backs up these numbers?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 11:30:02 AM , Rating: 3
> "If your numbers are correct, than I agree with you..."

Of coures his figures are correct; that's the entire basis of the US's "sliding" tax scale. As a percentage of income, the highest wage earners pay far more than anyone else.

The top 1% of wage earners make about 15% of the nation's income, yet they pay nearly a third of the nation's taxes. Half the nation's taxes are paid by only the top 5% of all earners.

The lowest 20% of wage earners pay *zero* taxes...actually, most pay negative taxes (the government pays them, in the form of "earned income" credits and other payments).


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By retrospooty on 11/29/2007 11:35:19 AM , Rating: 2
Then, I stand corrected. I was not aware of that... Like I said, since that is the case, I agree.

Fox news is still a joke though :P


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By sweetsauce on 11/29/2007 11:52:42 AM , Rating: 2
The only reason those numbers are so skewed is because of the bottom rung not paying any taxes. Don't be fooled by the statistics. If you take away the people who earn income and don't pay any taxes at all, those percentages completely change since you are removing millions of people from the equation. Im interrested in seeing those statistics.


By Sahrin on 11/29/2007 12:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
...Before you can remove a group from the population, you need to provide a justification for why they should be removed. The people who earn income but do not pay taxes do so BY DESIGN - and their non-payment is compensated for by the high payment of high income earners. Why should we throw them out of the quation to fit the data to your theory?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By rcc on 11/29/2007 12:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I'm not really sure what your point is here, but it looks like you are saying that we should disregard any data or inputs that don't agree with the result you want?

No thanks.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By sweetsauce on 11/29/2007 12:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
What im trying to say is pretty simple. I'll give you an example so theres no confusion. When you have 1 million people contributing 0 to income tax and are counted as part of the tax statistics, then you have one person paying $1 million a year on taxes, then the statistics become rather obsurd. Now when you apply that to our actual tax statistics, you can see how the top percentages could account for so much of the taxes paid when in reality they aren't really contributing that much to it. Percentage-wise, it looks like they are contributing a huge sum because so many are contributing nothing, but when you look at the actual dollar amount, its not that dry cut. The true problem is the percentage of people that pay no income tax.


By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 1:02:21 PM , Rating: 4
> "when in reality they aren't really contributing that much to it"

It's hard to make heads or tails out of such Gobbledygook, but you're incorrect in any case. The top 5% of wage earners pay over half of all taxes in the country. If you remove the millions of people who pay no taxes at all-- they still pay over half of all taxes.

Removing people who pay nothing doesn't change the amount anyone else pays. It also doesn't change the percentage they pay as a whole. It merely means that group of people who were 5% of the population increases to about 6.5%.

And you still haven't explained your justification for just "removing" the 20% of the nation who pays no taxes at all. Their zero burden is a large reason why the rest of us pay so much.


By Emryse on 11/29/2007 6:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why dont you point out what percent of the money the top 1% make. The point is it should be fare.


Wow - you are a socialist.

Guess what - in a capitalist economy how much someone makes ISN'T the point!!! You can make as much as you want to! You can make as little as you want to!!! It's all up to you!!!

Perfect example: under the current tax system, if I make more than $X dollars per year, I'll get taxed in a higher bracket which means I'll have to pay more in taxes.

There are certain points along the tax bracket scale where it would be better for me to NOT try and make more money, but stay pat so I don't have to pay more taxes. That certainly isn't stimulating the economy any.

As I've said before, you can only have 1 of 2 options:

1. Either people are free to make as much or little money as they personally choose to make.

-OR-

2. Everyone just gets paid exactly the same.

There is no viable third option.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By whalenapp81 on 11/29/07, Rating: 0
By Nfarce on 11/29/2007 10:26:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
and tax cuts don't make the government money, dumb@ss.


Einstein, read much?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_...

Now go back to Jon Stewart and Daily Kook, you neo-Marxist trash mouth lib.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Torched on 11/29/2007 9:56:50 AM , Rating: 4
1. Top 50% of wage earners pay 96.54% of all taxes. It stands to reason that a tax cut will not benefit those who pay no taxes.
2. Since when is health care an inalienable right that is provided by the federal government? Yes health care needs to be fixed but not by increasing the amount of government involved. Also there would be no energy crisis if the green lobby didn't exist. There is plenty of energy available in confines of our own soil, we don't have access to it though. What you meant to say was "environmental crisis" which is not settled science yet.
3. 1.5 trillion is too much for anything. Yet so often we see not only republicans at the defense lobbying pork barrel feeding trough, but also democrats and their spouses. I can say that Dwight Eisenhower did warn of the impending government induced military industrial complex. We have failed to heed his warning.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Ringold on 11/29/2007 12:08:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I can say that Dwight Eisenhower did warn of the impending government induced military industrial complex. We have failed to heed his warning.


There's a good documentry, of sorts; "Why We Fight". On the one hand, we can't raise a military overnight just when we need it any more; carriers and submarines take decades to design, plan, and build, and may even be impossible if all previous working experience were lost. On the other hand, we really do pay a massive price for the ability to defend ourselves and others. :\


By Nfarce on 11/29/2007 2:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
Rather ironic that he mentions Eisenhower and the military industrial complex (I hate that term). It was both Eisenhower and the military needs that created our interstate highway system to transport that evil hardware of the military industrial complex from one end of the nation to another starting in the 1950s.

quote:
we can't raise a military overnight just when we need it any more


Absolutely. I've said that here before. The first two years of WWII didn't see hardly any US victories because we were still designing and building ships, planes, etc. Hell in 1937 we still had fabric coated bi-planes on the tarmacs as front line aircraft! Today, the F/A-22 Raptor is just now going into service and it's development concept started in the mid-1980s to replace the F-15.

I just don't understand what they could be teaching in our schools these days to make younger people hate American power and prestige. Even though I didn't grow up in the 1960s with the hippy pacifism peace at all cost movement, I sure as hell feel like I'm in one now reading all the comments here and on other blogs.


By Torched on 11/29/2007 2:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
Its one thing to fight a smart war. Its a totally different thing to fight an expensive war then start nation building. As far as raising a military overnight, it's proven fact that the Clinton administration did dismantle a large part of our military during his terms. On the other hand there are more contractors than military personnel in Iraq at the moment. What happened to the "no nation building" policy President Bush staked out in his first term?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By rcc on 11/29/2007 6:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the other hand, we really do pay a massive price for the ability to defend ourselves and others. :\


But, we pay a small price to avoid the consequences of not doing so.


By Ringold on 11/29/2007 6:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
Valid point. Which is why, despite the costs, I don't vote differently. :P


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Misty Dingos on 11/29/2007 10:05:39 AM , Rating: 2
I hate to break your bleeding heart here but well I gotta. We are fast approaching a point where less than half the income makers in the USA will effectively pay income tax. What happens when more than half the workers in the country essentially pay nothing for the upkeep of the country? Well I will tell you. You get a privileged social class only it is people that don't pay income taxes. So who pays the taxes that run the country? The rich do. Not the poor. So if you are going to have a tax cut the only people that CAN benefit from it are who? The rich that’s right the rich.

Is it right? No. Should the rich be soaked for the upkeep of the country? No but neither should be the poor or the middle class (which is growing not shrinking) be walking away with out paying a dime. Everyone should pay their fair share and that is it. If you make $10,000 a year or $10 billion you should be taxed at the same rate. Class envy and class hatred are not anything but another type of hate crime.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By retrospooty on 11/29/2007 10:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
"If you make $10,000 a year or $10 billion you should be taxed at the same rate."

totally agreed... We need to get rid of the rediculous IRS rules and have a flat tax for everyone.

I am not sure what you mean by bleeding heart though, that sounds like a republican phrase and modern reps are typically the ones giving special tax breaks to the rich.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Sahrin on 11/29/2007 10:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
The IRS does not determine tax policy, it enforces that set by congress.

I disagree with the idea of a flat income tax - it places an unfairly heavy burden on those "starting out" - the government should always incentivize entreupeneurship (as this is the only effective engine of the economy). A VAT or national sales tax makes much more sense (a person pays only as much as they wish to spend, those who cannot afford an item are further discouraged from unwisely spending, while those who can afford not to care are paying the largest share because they don't).


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Ringold on 11/29/2007 12:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
The VAT still allows, like in Europe, a dual system of income redistribution and funky industrial policy by manipulating not just income and corporate taxes but now also the VAT.

All of which would be fixed by....

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Sahrin on 11/29/2007 12:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
The Fair Tax is a VAT tax (actually the VAT tax I was referring to).


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Ringold on 11/29/2007 12:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
Er.. No. A VAT, value added tax, is calculated and passed on based on the value added by the firm.

From Wiki: "It is levied on the added value that results from each exchange. It differs from a sales tax because a sales tax is levied on the total value of the exchange."

The FairTax is a flat rate national sales tax levied on everything in place of all current forms of taxation (the FairTax bill simultaneously implements the sales tax and repeals all other tax code), thereby doing what Wiki says, taxing based on total consumption/price of the transaction. It's rate is set not by the value added but rather the level economists project is needed in order to raise the revenue numbers desired by Congress; presently the revenue-neutral number for the FairTax is roughly 23%.

While I'm responding to a post of yours, though, I would like to say that you, sir, for a lack of a better term, win. Got a little mixed up on the difference in what Europe calls a VAT and what the FairTax does, but your other posts -- very nice.


By Sahrin on 11/29/2007 2:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
errr ... Sahrin = fail for the day, on fundamentally misunderstanding tax systems. Honorable mention for my Elmer award goes to...me.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By derubermensch1 on 11/29/2007 10:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
If a flat tax is implemented they should also get rid of the $90,000 social security tax cap where people who make over that amount stop paying social security tax. I'm not for complete redistribution of wealth or anything, it just does not seem fair. We have a friend in South Beach whose husband makes $300,000 a year and she looks forward to the time of year when that paycheck gets much bigger so she can buy $5000 hand bags, etc. If we go the flat tax route, then all playing fields must be leveled with no outs for the priveleged, and underpriveleged, alike.

Also, while universal healthcare may not be the answer, it does need significant reform. When my educated girlfriend has an abnormal medical condition but she can't see a doctor because she has to wait 90 days for health insurance to kick in at her job, that is a problem. COBRA is a joke and no less axpensive than trying to fund your own health insurance. $30 a month for me for Nexium, $40 for generic ultracet, $85 for tube of protopic, $75 for the last eye medication I had, and I actually have pretty good health insurance? Give me a break. I won't pretend to know the answer, there just has to be some level of reform.


By rcc on 11/29/2007 1:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If a flat tax is implemented they should also get rid of the $90,000 social security tax cap where people who make over that amount stop paying social security tax


Ok, however, if you remove that cap, are you going to remove the cap for what they get out of SS when they start drawing out of it? Which is unlikely anyway at that income level. : )

As I recall, this cap used to be around $50,000, so it's gone up a bit already.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By psychobriggsy on 11/29/2007 11:08:46 AM , Rating: 1
I agree that everyone should pay some tax, so they feel that they're contributing to the country they live in, even if in reality it is peanuts (100 million people == <5% of the tax income?).

Also I don't think that anyone should be penalised for being successful by having to pay more tax (nor should they be rewarded by paying less). However there is a certain threshold where you are punishing people by taxing them. $2000 to someone earning $10 000 (is it possible to earn that low full time?! In the UK 40 hours * 48 weeks * >£5 min wage is £10k, or $20k) is a lot more painful to that person than $200 000 for a person earning $1 000 000. Although the latter is still painful.

I'm also of the opinion that if you chose to not be educated at school by fucking around all the time then you should have to put up with a sucky life afterwards, having to work 80 hours a week to survive. People that spurn the opportunities given to them to be successful in life by society disgust me. Why should I be punished for working hard from the age of 5 upwards in order to have a decent job with decent hours and being able to live fairly comfortably?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By retrospooty on 11/29/2007 11:18:31 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, and we do have a work ethic problem in this country. Too many people are just too lazy. Many use welfare and keep having more and more kids to get more and more welfare, breeding a new generation of lazy asses that have the same mentality.

Welfare should be temporary for able bodied people, and involve the requirement to either work (set up social programs to help community like another poster said herre today), or go to school to get some skills to get off welfare. Programs like this have been set up in many communities and have worked very well... I dont understand why its not more widespread.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By rcc on 11/29/2007 1:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
You could also put them to appropriate work.

The PWA and WPA programs of the 30s did have their pluses.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Ringold on 11/29/2007 1:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Nearly every textbook I read for an economics class included a blurb about the emerging consensus that the New Deal extended and exacerbated the Great Depression. Feel free to Google it; there aren't many defenders of it still alive.


By rcc on 11/29/2007 4:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, haven't looked into them in say 30 years. The point being, if you are going to have people on the welfare rolls you might as well get something out of it. Who knows, a little OJT may be exactly what they need.

And, for the able bodied/minded, perhaps if they don't have all day to while away, maybe they'll decide it'd be better to get an actual job and earn more money. Since they'd have to work anyway.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Sahrin on 11/29/2007 10:15:48 AM , Rating: 5
You, for lack of a better term, fail. This has already been done by the poster above me, but I thought I'd take the time to pick apart this talking-point nonsense, just to drive the point home. It's fine to have an opinion, but having an opinion means that you've researched and understand what you are talking about - based solely on the justification for your positions (which I grant is near non-existant) I can see that you have the understanding of someone who's been told what to think; and I'm sorry to see you waste your intellect in such a manner.

1. Tax breaks are part of the problem with the current downturn in the economy. You sound like a bush supporter which means I can only assume you only want tax breaks for the rich, because that is exactly his stance.

Supporting tax cuts has nothing to do with supporting Bush - so that chain in your "reasoning" fails on that principle right there. There were tax cuts before Bush, and there will be after - being a Bush Supporter makes you a tax cut supporter, not vice versa. This is basic inductive reasoning. Furthermore, whether or not the tax cuts are good for the economy is debateable, what I can tell you is that the accessibility of capital (the "ease with which one can get money (loans)") is VERY good for the economy (see: every economic boom in history). Tax cuts take money out the hand of the government (a relatively low-yield and low-risk investor) and into the hands of consumers and enterprise (relatively high-yield and high-risk investors). Your apparent hatred of the wealthy aside, if you can find a reasonable counter to this economic principle you are welcome to continue the debate; elsewhile, please leave the discussion to those who consider reality in their opinions, and not just that which is spoon fed to them by politicians.

2. I agree with money needed for space exploration, unfortunately there are far more pressing concerns that need to be dealt with. Health care is one of them, and even more importantly, our energy crisis, which is real.

I filled my gas tank today for 47 dollars (2007 Toyota Camry, 17.5 gallon tank, I put a little more than 16 gallons in). I paid my electric bill yesterday (109 dollars) - the lowest it has been all year. At no point did I panic, nor did I riot, throw a fit or wet myself - or notice any indication of a crisis whatsoever. The market is the market - gas prices are high, and yes, it sucks. I had to eat at home this week to save money. I didn't kill me - and in truth the money I saved by not driving and not going out will enable me to spend more money on gas when I do my holiday driving next month (when gas prices are likely to be lower). You say there is an energy crisis, but I do not seen one sign of it. Maybe where you are they've turned the lights off and cars are dead in the streets? I'm confused.

As for health care, again, I ask the same question. I am not a "doctor" person (that is, I do not, under any circumstances, like to go see a doctor), however I have no trouble getting medical care if I desire it. Furthermore, it is against federal law for anyone to be denied health care for any reason. I'm not seeing the crisis. Is it expensive? Absolutely. We have the best health care in the world, and on top of that, we have GRADES of health care - we have "free" care, which gets you world-class emergency treatment when and if you need it for FREE (you may wait quite awhile, and you certainly will not get lots of "perks" like a private room or jello from the hospital kitchen - but that is a small trial when you are getting FREE life saving treatment), employer-supported care (where companies play 50% or more of the cost) and customer paid care (where the individual pays the full cost) - you aren't even obligated to pay anything. Again, I'm not seeing the crisis. Is there an epidemic of cholera or typhoid or consumption in your area? Are people being denied life-saving treatment? Perhaps you could provide some news articles so that I can learn more about the collapse of the US health care system that is currently underway.

3. So, 1.5 TRILLION for the Iraq and Afghan wars is still not enough??? because that is at least what it is expected to cost.

Your seque to this point is confusing. The war is expensive and inefficient. Yes. ... I don't seen the connection between it and space travel. Are you proposing cost-cuts for the war? Do you have a war-efficiency plan? This isn't a post about peace, it's about economics - war is good for the economy, if expensive. It may be abhorrent and horrible, but every war in the last 100 years has led to an economic boom - so I'm not sure why you're tying it into a post about economic crises.

Americans need to wake up and realize that there are better sources of information than foxnews, cnn, and drudge...

I get my news from NPR, BBC World Service and various blogs (Ars, for technology and domestic tech regs, etc). I'm not sure what the source of the information has to do with your perceived "problem with Americans" - especially when you are so clearly content to swallow the lie whole, just like those you accuse of taking opinons (and NOT information) from CNN, Fox and Drudge.

You've been awarded Sahrin's Elmer award for today. Congratulations. Now, stop FUDding.


By therealnickdanger on 11/29/2007 10:45:10 AM , Rating: 2
Owned.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By derubermensch1 on 11/29/2007 10:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
I dont really understadn this concept of FREE lifesaving treatment. I'm not a "bleeding heart liberal" or a "neocon" but what i do know is that when my mother had a heart attack (unexpected due to myriad misdiagnoses) it was so severe it required a a helicopter flight from Hartford to Philadelphia as that was the closest facility that could treat her condition. At the time, my father worked for the government, had really good insurance, and he still received a bill for $356,000 JUST for the helicopter. All told after the procedure our family owed $576,000, after insurance. As such my father had to declare bankruptcy, sell our house, and because his debt to income ratio was leveled off due the bankruptcy, i was unable to get financial aid from Boston College even though I had a 4.0 and was 3rd in my class with a 1375 on the SATs. So when you say there isn't a crisis, you should at least acknowledge that there are problems that need a remedy instead of assuming that since nothing serious has happened to you that everything is perfect.

I don't know what the answer is since my trust in the government is a little thin since they "lost" 10 years of my father's employment records when they moved an office back in the late 1960's which ultimately forced him to work 10 extra years to be elligible for he full retirement package. It's a sad day when you watch your father who went to Annapolis throw away his old uniform, sword, and medals because he has lost faith in his country he worked for, served, and solemnly defended.


By Sahrin on 11/29/2007 11:06:41 AM , Rating: 2
Heh, deruber - you are absolutely correct, I made a considerable error in stating that the treatment was "Free" - your family has made many sacrifices to pay for the life-saving health care your mother received. These are costs, huge ones, associated with health care - regardless of how you slice it.

That said, you mentioned your parents had to file for bankruptcy (essentially, have the government recognize and protect their inability to pay the medical bills) in response to the charges.

The hospitals/insurance companies knew how much the medical treatment/transportation would cost in advance of the procedure, and based on what you are saying, your family was clearly unable to pay the full amount of the cost. Thankfully, your mother received the care she needed, despite the fact that your family could not afford the care.

This was my point; that people have access to health care REGARDLESS of their ability to pay - NOT that it was free, I used irresponsible license in describing reality.

Thank you for pointing out my error, and my wishes are with your family.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 11:18:31 AM , Rating: 1
There are always instances like that. But the difference is, your family is a legal citizen of this country. Therefore, in my mind, you're entitled to the services that are here. Someone here illegally, to me, is not.

My sister also had a less serious but somewhat similar issue. She had her horse fall on her when she was riding and got thrown when something spooked the horse. They believed she was seriously hurt. As such, she had a medivac chopper take her to the hospital where she was checked out. It turned there were no broken bones or anything. Just some nasty bruises. Her riding helmet saved her life likely. Luckily since her and her husband are a small business but did not have health care, they applied for protection and the city small business protection agency (or whatever it was called) paid the expenses.

Hopefully your mom is ok. I agree that health care costs have gotten out of control. But really a lot of that has to do with the fact that bullshit malpractice suits have never been higher. As such, insurance is insanely expensive for hospitals. Then you add on that, the millions of illegal immigrants who never pay for health care. And you get high costs. The malpractice suits alone have driven every good heart and brain surgeon from the Orlando area. And hospitals all over California and other border states are closing from the huge illegal immigrant populations. Health care might be something that everyone needs, but it is a business. And when there's no return on an investment, no ones going to invest in it.

Raising taxes to pay for universal health care will just mean billions of wasted tax dollars and an even more pissed off middle class since we'll be the ones paying for it. And I'm in the middle class.


By derubermensch1 on 11/29/2007 11:54:36 AM , Rating: 1
Exactly, bullshit malpractice suits are killing the industry. No lawyer would even take ours since it wouldn't be an easy win. My mother was misdiagnosed for 3 years with "back problems" and in that time she had had 7 minor heart attacks that were chalked up to back issues. Even suggested she try accupuncture. Only after the big one did they find out what had really been going on. I don't mean to downplay the issue of illegals taking advantage of the system, but there are much bigger factors, such as malpractice, etc that are really driving the cost up. Those are the issues we need to tackle first since, like it or not, since it seems no party will take a hard stance on immigration and send those people back or give them amnesty and turn them into tax payers any time soon. I won't pretend to know the which of those two scenarios is the right one, it's just that it is more of a talking point in debates, etc with no solid plan to solve the problem in the near future. And even if there was a solid plan, it would take very long to implement. We should tackle the other healthcare issues first and be ready to deal with the illegal immigrant issue when the time comes. Thanks for everyone's condolences : )


By Emryse on 11/29/2007 5:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Tax breaks are part of the problem with the current downturn in the economy. You sound like a bush supporter which means I can only assume you only want tax breaks for the rich, because that is exactly his stance.


Totally wrong - taxes in their current state are the problem and the enabler of an inefficient government and poor economy. The United States Government will NEVER use a dollar better than private sector business. And for that matter, where do you think all of the jobs that get created come from - poor people? If we don't give back more of the money to the rich, they can't turn around and spend it on all sorts of ridiculous and frivolous things like fancy golf carts, yachts, and new $ MM houses. And guess what, all of those things take jobs; even if you factor in the jobs being sent overseas - tax cuts allow the creation of more jobs here at home too.

quote:
2. I agree with money needed for space exploration, unfortunately there are far more pressing concerns that need to be dealt with. Health care is one of them, and even more importantly, our energy crisis, which is real.


Health care and energy are a problem because we have a legal system that puts health are into a very insecure and need-to-over-insure-for-the-next-lawsuit position. Once again, the federal government will never do better for healthcare than private sector can, and we will all end up paying only more for government-run healthcare. Go over to the UK and you'll find that it's not all that you're cracking it up to be; and it's pretty funny that none (or at least almost none) of the elite or wealthy in England use the public healthcare system - should tell a lot (just like our own Congress opts out of Social Security).

quote:
3. So, 1.5 TRILLION for the Iraq and Afghan wars is still not enough??? because that is at least what it is expected to cost.


If the US does not win this war, her already shaky credibility as the super-power of the world will crumble. Stopping now would be a declaration not only that we were wrong (which we aren't), but that the lives already lost were a waste. And it doesn't matter what anyone says (like "Oh, no - we mourn the lost lives and appreciate their sacrifice... blaw, bla, blah...") because actions always speak louder than words - and people watch to see if we're putting our money where our mouth is. And yes, I know this is only fixing a problem we created 20 plus years ago anyways - but we still have to fix it, since clearly it isn't fixing itself.

quote:
Americans need to wake up and realize that there are better sources of information than foxnews, cnn, and drudge...


Other Americans need to wake up and realize that intake of news actually requires processing through logical thought, not swallowing a left or right wing stance hook, line, and sinker.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 9:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
You do realise if they are educated and healthy they can eventually contribute much better to your economy?

Of course not... your mind is closed.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By mdogs444 on 11/29/2007 9:40:56 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You do realise if they are educated and healthy they can eventually contribute much better to your economy?

You do realize that its not my responsibility to pay for someone to be educated and healthy when they are not a tax paying citizen?

Of course not, your a liberal pantywaist.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 9:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
So who paid for your education? or your parents, or your grandparents? Somewhere along the line someone else paid for it, whether you want to admit to that or not.

After being educated, they will become taxpayers - or is that beyond your comprehension?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 10:10:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So who paid for your education?


My parents paid for it from elementary school through high school. I paid for it for college. I got scholarship to take care of tuition. I got student loans to pay for room and board. I'm paying the loans back, not my parents. As far as my parents and grandparents education, yes they went to public school. But you know what, their parents paid taxes so they had a right to attend said schools. If you want to play that game, why should I have to pay for school taxes since I never used the public schools and neither will my kids?

quote:
After being educated, they will become taxpayers - or is that beyond your comprehension?


It is not the United States of America's job to educate the entire world. Or let anyone and everyone who wants to come to our country, do so. We have a legal process of becoming a citizen. If you want to become one and go through that process, fine. I support you.

The moment you cross our border illegally, you are a criminal. Pure and simple. You have no rights other than to be caught and sent home. You do not have a right to our education system, welfare system, healthcare system, etc. And if you are here illegally, why the hell should we just give you citizenship when you've already made it clear you'll break the law for your own gain and there's a huge list of people who followed the legal route and are waiting to become citizens? Are you better than them since you're already here? No. I've worked with people on work visa's from other countries. They have to go through hell to stay here legally and work. And you know what, they actually contribute to society. They actually put money into our economy.

I don't care how shitty it is in your country. If its that bad, make it better. Them coming here just brings their problems here. It does nothing to fix the problems there. And us allowing them to work here, just means they will forever come here until its just as bad here as it is there. Is that what you want? For us to be Mexico? Because that's the reality of the situation.

Immigration reform is simple. Secure the border. Enforce our employment laws with harsh penalties and jail time. Take away their ability to work, and they'll leave. Either that or turn to crime in which case we'll catch them and depending on the crime, either deport them or execute them.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 12:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
The moment you cross our border illegally, you are a criminal.

Can I assume your from native American lineage then?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By mdogs444 on 11/29/2007 1:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
Dont be a dumbass and start with events that took place before the declaration of independance and constitution were written.

you sound like an idiot making remarks like that.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 1:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
Dont be a dumbass and start with events that took place before the declaration of independance and constitution were written.

So the argument only becomes valid when it suits you?


By mdogs444 on 11/29/2007 2:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
No, the argument becomes valid when it affects every tax paying CITIZEN of the entire country.

All the citizens of this country are citizens legally - whether they were immigrants or born here, the point is that they achieved citizenship legally, not by draining an economy that they are not contributing to by means of federal taxes.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 1:05:30 PM , Rating: 3
> "Can I assume your from native American lineage then? "

Given that when the "native" Americans crossed over the land bridge from Asia, they didn't have passports in hand, I think your point is moot. A nation becomes such when it self-organizes and begins to recognize and enforce its borders.

The notion that anyone but a non native American is in the country illegally is nothing but touchy-feelie emotional hogwash.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 1:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
The notion that anyone but a non native American is in the country illegally is nothing but touchy-feelie emotional hogwash.

The idea that a country (a rich country) should be largely closed to immigrants and it should not support those that are in need is idiotic.

The USA is built on migrants, some of you would do well to remember that.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 1:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "The idea that a country (a rich country) should be largely closed to immigrants "

I don't hear anyone advocating that. It's illegal immigration that people are up in arms about. Every nation has both the right and the necessity to control its own borders.

Only someone truly blind doesn't recognize there's a problem at present. By some accounts, up to 25% of the population of Mexico is now working temporarily or permanently in the US. Our border guards are in a war zone, being shot at daily by drug runners, human traffickers, and even the Mexican army at times.

A certain level of immigration is healthy and to be desired. Rampant, illegal immigration risks breaking a nation apart. Look up the word "balkanization" sometime, particularly the history of the Balkan Republics which spawned it. Think it can't possibly happen in America? Think again.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 1:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
Only someone truly blind doesn't recognize there's a problem at present. By some accounts, up to 25% of the population of Mexico is now working temporarily or permanently in the US.

Yet some here seem to think removing them from the economy tomorrow would have a positive impact?!?!?!

The same people should know how services would just STOP dead if that happened!


By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 1:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "Yet some here seem to think removing them from the economy tomorrow would have a positive impact?!?!?!"

Ignoring the problem is what got us here in the first place. You seem to be advocating that we continue to ignore it, until illegal immigrants outnumber legal citizens. Hiding from the problem is only going to exacerbate it.

Obviously mass deportation of all illegals isn't feasible. But even more obviously, something needs to be done. The continued trafficking at the borders needs to be halted immediately. Those already in the country need to apply for residency, and those with criminal records returned to their home nations.


By rcc on 11/29/2007 2:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yet some here seem to think removing them from the economy tomorrow would have a positive impact?!?!?!

quote:
The same people should know how services would just STOP dead if that happened!


Services would not "just" stop. I'll grant you some temporary hiccups though. And prices would go up.

The problem is that the current situation creates artificial economies. Correcting it will shock the system and require adaptation until things settle out in a supportable way. Nothing will stop, we will create the answers necessary to solve the legitimate problems of the industries involved. Rather than band-aiding them with cheap, illegal labor.

It may well be that the companies involved end up recruiting in Mexico and getting *legal* work visas for the workers needed. At which point they'll be paid more, and expected to pay tax, etc.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 2:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Amongst other things, yes. I'm one generation late for getting scholarships. My moms side of the family has been in Texas since before it become the Republic of Texas.


By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 2:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
became*


By clovell on 11/29/2007 2:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By mdogs444 on 11/29/2007 1:02:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So who paid for your education? or your parents, or your grandparents? Somewhere along the line someone else paid for it, whether you want to admit to that or not.

No shit Sherlock, my parents paid my education out of their taxes - as they are tax paying CITIZENS.

quote:
After being educated, they will become taxpayers - or is that beyond your comprehension?

Going to school does not make you a citizen. Applying for citizenship and taking the appropriate courses of action make you a citizen. Else, you are illegal, and a drain on the real citizens and tax payers.

Get a real argument, fruitcake.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 1:22:25 PM , Rating: 1
No shit Sherlock, my parents paid my education out of their taxes - as they are tax paying CITIZENS.

And your grandparents, and their parents?

When you go back far enough, the state educated your ancestors. Live with it.

Going to school does not make you a citizen. Applying for citizenship and taking the appropriate courses of action make you a citizen. Else, you are illegal, and a drain on the real citizens and tax payers.


OK, say all illegal immigrants departed the USA tomorrow - what would happen to the government infrastructure?

Who would clean the streets, take away your garbage, make your food (I mean the processed stuff that ends up in supermarkets) etc etc etc. Whether you choose to admit it or not, they are now an integral part of the US economy, even though they do not pay direct taxes to govt.


By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 1:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "When you go back far enough, the state educated your ancestors. Live with it."

You apparently don't realize that the US public education system didn't arise until the middle of the 19th century, meaning your statement isn't true for the vast majority whose ancestors arrived before then.

And for those who emigrated after that, th majority began paying taxes as soon as they arrived, so your point is doubly moot.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By mdogs444 on 11/29/2007 1:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who would clean the streets, take away your garbage, make your food (I mean the processed stuff that ends up in supermarkets) etc etc etc. Whether you choose to admit it or not, they are now an integral part of the US economy, even though they do not pay direct taxes to govt.

If they were tax paying citizens, they wouldnt be able to live on the same income as they are now. Also, many of the illegals make their money here, and take it back to Mexico for their family. Thus, they really are a drain on our economy by not putting the money back into it.

quote:
OK, say all illegal immigrants departed the USA tomorrow - what would happen to the government infrastructure?

Well, technically nothing. Because there arent any illegal immigrants in our government. But if you want to know what would happen to society (which would have been the more appropriate answer), the majority of americans would be relieved and happier than they are today.

quote:
When you go back far enough, the state educated your ancestors. Live with it.

No, the state technically did not. Since the public school system has only been around a short time. However, the difference is not that the state pays for each person - but who is funding the state to pay for each person. Tax paying Citizens fund the states educational system - illegal immigrants do not. Its a free ride for them, on our dollar.


By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 3:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think people like him have difficulty grasping the concept of a world where the government doesn't give you things for free. That's the way it always has been for them so they think thats the way it always has been period. I mean, cave men had state funded schools right?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Nfarce on 11/29/2007 9:59:19 AM , Rating: 2
Let's give it up for Johnboy "Breck Girl" Edwards for his MANDATORY health care proposal! Got Nazi?

http://www.infowars.net/articles/september2007/030...


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By TITAN1080 on 11/29/07, Rating: -1
By Frallan on 11/29/2007 10:20:23 AM , Rating: 1
Unfortunatly that is to a large degree true...


By therealnickdanger on 11/29/2007 10:50:11 AM , Rating: 1
Um, no, it is on YOU to go ahead and prove it. The burden of proof is on you for making such an outrageous claim.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Sahrin on 11/29/2007 10:53:15 AM , Rating: 2
Since you didn't really make an argument, just regurgitated someone else's sensationalistic and childish "you're a poopy head" comment I can't "prove you wrong" - I can only prove the positive - that other regimes were worse.

Here's the quick list (these are just the tops, I'm not going to research it right now):

Stalin - Soviet Union (millions murdered, people sent to labor camps for having apolitical opinions (that means YOU, TITAN1080, how are things in the gulag? I don't think they had net acces for the prisoners, so your comparison fails right there)
Khmer Rouge - Cambodia (1.5 million killed for having an education, the entire population of the country was forced into "re-education camps" where apolitical opinions like yours were beaten out of them - how are things in the jungle, of New England - again, your comparison fails immediately)
Kim Jong-Il - DPKR (In many ways, the same as Stalinist Soviet Union, except they don't give lip service to helping the peasants - they just let them starve to death in the fields whil the country invests billions in counterfeit US dollars in a useless ICBM program)
Saud Royal Family - Saudi Arabia (Allows a Sunni majority to institute an ultra-fundamentalist social code that this past week sentenced a woman two 20 lashes in public for being gang-raped - I'm not even going to waste my time comparing her strife to yours under the Bush administration)
Saddam Hussein - Iraq (In an effort to consolidate political power, he ordered restrictions and violence against Kurds - his OWN COUNTRYMEN. In response, rather than waging all-out war against the Sunni and Shia Muslims to the South, they attempted to assasinate Saddam to put an end to the violence. The villages involved in the plot were quickly gassed, killing the conspirators and everyone within a fifty-block radius.)

I got to five without touching Africa, where tens of millions have been slaughtered in continuous and brutal ethnic wars.

Not only am I not moved to action by your comparison, it is sickening and ridiculous to make it - and anyone who was involved even tenuously with the governments above would be offended that you made it.

Thanks for your thoughts, Elmer.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 1:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
The House of Saud receives alot of necessarily military support from the US of A to maintain power.

Saddam Hussein obtained his power with alot of American (CIA) backing...

The (illegal) war in Iraq has resulted in around a million deaths (Lancet survey and John Hopkins Uni/Columbia Uni).

Do you really want to keep drawing comparisons. While GWB has not quite reached the same death counts as some of those you've named, it doesn't make it any better.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 1:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "Saddam Hussein obtained his power with alot of American (CIA) backing..."

Where do people get this nonsense. Hussein rose to power without any US assistance at all. Once he controlled Iraq, the US did grant him a small degree of assistance in the Iran/Iraq war, but it was nothing compared to what Russia, France, Germany, and many other nations granted him. And, unlike those other nations, the US withdrew its support when Iraq's human rights violations came to light.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 3:44:14 PM , Rating: 1
Where do people get this nonsense. Hussein rose to power without any US assistance at all.

That is very, very incorrect.

Here is a basic chronological order of things:

1. The old Iraq monarchy joined the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact in the mid 50s.

2. Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim overthrew the monarchy in 1958.

3. He withdrew from this pact in 1959 (putting the shits up the CIA).

4. The CIA immediately started funded the Ba'ath party with the intention of overthrowing Qasim.(there is speculation Hussein himself was to have assassinated Qasim in 1959 but fled to Eygpt)

5. Arif was installed as president in a Ba'ath/Army coup in 1963, Hussein returned as Ba'ath party secretary but was arrested and put in Jail (with the rest of the Ba'ath leaders) by Arif as they were a threat to his power.

6. Hussein escaped in 1967, subsequent a coup in 1968 by the Ba'ath party had al-Bakr as president with Hussein as vice president.

7. Hussein became president in 1979, just in time for the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988.

You still think that the USA had nothing to do with his rise to power? Get real.


By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 5:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "Here is a basic chronological order of things:"

A few corrections.

1. The link between the CIA and the Ba'ath rise to power in the 1960s is hypothetical and unproven.

2. Even if correct, saying the USA "helped Hussein to power" because he later took over the Ba'ath party is rather silly. Is France responsible for Hugo Chavez's rise to power, because the Napoleonic Wars allowed Venezuela to gain its independence?

What's known for sure is that the CIA (and the US itself) was attempting to *remove* Hussein from power as early as the mid-1980s, while the rest of the world stood idly by and watched him slaughter his own citizens.

3. Even if this hypothetical link had existed, the US support occurred under President Johnson, a Democrat, and thus the OP's attempts to link this all somehow to a criticism of Bush is doubly-incorrect.


By clovell on 11/29/2007 2:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
The US didn't sanction Hussein's incursion into Kuwait. Congress voted on the war; it was legal. Get over it.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Sahrin on 11/29/2007 2:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
I really shouldn't get into this, because it gets into political rhetoric in which I do not have a lot of interest, but I am not a Bush supporter and I am sick of people making those with a healthy respect for the facts out as Bushies.

The House of Saud receives alot of necessarily military support from the US of A to maintain power.

Correct. Britain under Chamberlain practiced what's called "appeasement" to Hitler prior to World War II, essentially allowing Hitler to conquer most of Eastern Europe with three guys in a fast car. I don't think you'd argue that Britain = Nazi Germany, however; nor would it be rational to. Context matters. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, it is the responsibility of a society to recognize its own strife and correct it. It is NOT the responsibility of the US to fix it for the citizens of Saudi Arabia - as horrifying as it is. We have to live in the world we create, and without fighting and killing everyone that doesn't respect freedom that will involve living in a world with ultra fundamentalists of all types (Religious, Communist, Fascist - any of them). I'm honestly not sure where I come down on the fence on this one - on the one hand, you want to say "the ends justify the means," (that is, peace in the world is facilitated by allowing the terrible opression of the Saudi people) on the other, fighting a war with the government of Saudi Arabia does not reverse or prevent public riots in which adulterers are stoned. That said, the comparison was of Nazi Germany to the United States - Nazi Germany did not "provide military support" to anyone. Supporting SA may be wrong, but it is clearly a notch above "declaring global war to satisfy territorialism." - If you honestly can't tell the difference between the two cases, I don't know what to tell you. Take a breather, read a history textbook.

Saddam Hussein obtained his power with alot of American (CIA) backing...

No one's entirely sure WHAT the CIA did or did not do in the 60's and 70's - but again, we are comparing Bush's presidency to Nazi Germany. Interesting tidbit if true (and I don't grant that it is) but irrelevant in the scope of the comparison.

The (illegal) war in Iraq has resulted in around a million deaths (Lancet survey and John Hopkins Uni/Columbia Uni).

You didn't tie this into the argument at all, most likely because it can't be directly compared to the slauighter of 11 million in the Holocaust, 50 million during Stalin's regime, or the no-qeustions-asked mass executions in Cambodia, Korea and Iraq nor the totalitarian oppression in Saudi Arabia.

You can disagree with the War in Principle (I certainly do) - however, 1 million war deaths in Iraq and the regimes we are talking about commiting genocide are two entirely different things. I'd even go out on a limb with you and say all wars are equal atrocities, but if one must (and we are being asked to by the comparison of Nazi Germany to Bush) rank them, there is no question that the regimes listed actions were far worse, and far closer to Nazi Germany than those of America under George W. Bush. Again, if you can't tell the difference, then please, get yourself some air. Aaron Sorkin quoted someone else (who I don't know) when he wrote "A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." I have found myself in the past to be in that category, and it is a frightening place to be, for you and the people around you.

Do you really want to keep drawing comparisons. While GWB has not quite reached the same death counts as some of those you've named, it doesn't make it any better.

I didn't draw any comparisons, another poster compared Bush's Administration to the Nazi Regime in Germany - to which I responded in the only way I could, given the lack of evidence for the comparison - by proving the positive.

I'm not a Bush fan, as I have said - but he is a democratically elected leader in a Federal Republic. There is a very clear difference between that situation, in which his lieadership MUST Be consented to by the people of the country, than to the regimes that have been mentioned. There is a DISTINCT difference between America today and any other regime it has been compared to in this thread.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 3:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
A few points I'll raise.

The Brits have been worse for hundreds of years than the Americans have been in the last 50, don't worry, your a long way off eclipsing them yet!

Nazi Germany provided copious amounts of military support to Fascist Franco in Spain in the 30s during the civil war there.

There are around 1 million dead as a result of the Bush administrations decisions. Whether they meant each and every death to occur or not is moot. An invasion without legal justification is a crime against humanity - hence a war crime (paraphrased from the Nuremberg court post WW2).

Hitler was leader of the largest elected party in Germany (1933 was it? - can check that date for you later if you want), while he did not have a majority of outright votes, the Nazis controlled the parliament, and Hitler manipulated events from there.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By mdogs444 on 11/29/2007 3:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
An invasion without legal justification is a crime against humanity - hence a war crime

Thats the point you are missing. It was legally justified by the United States congress - which voted to give the President the power to go to war.

In no way is this a crime on humanity....this isnt Rowanda. We are targeting a terrorist funding regime, who in fact did commit war crimes on its own people, as well as gassing the kurds, having rape rooms, murdering thousands and thousands of its own people.

You can disagree with the war all you want to, but the fact is you are not in Iraq to see what is going on, and you are not in position to make an educated statement about what is or is not going on with the war. All in all, its your problem if you want to be a "peace on earth" anti-war protester, but the fact is, there is nothing illegal about this war.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 3:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
It was legally justified by the United States congress

The invasions of Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Holland etc were "legally justified" by the Reichstag too...

We are targeting a terrorist funding regime

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The Iraqis under Saddam Hussein (SH) were no more involved with Al Qaeda than me or you!!!

as well as gassing the kurds

with american gas

the fact is you are not in Iraq to see what is going on

Coming from where I do, I don't have to be in iraq to know whats going on!


By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 5:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "as well as gassing the kurds...with american gas"

I seriously believe you're attempting to discredit yourself with such easily-disprovable accusations. Iraq's chemical weapons came from factories built by German firms. One such firm, Karl Kolb, was prosecuted in Germany for its role, going so far as having delivered complete turnkey factories built on Iraqi soil, and standing by for payment while its engineers verified the deadly efficacy of the final product for the Iraqi buyers.


By rcc on 11/29/2007 5:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Coming from where I do, I don't have to be in iraq to know whats going on!


Oh damn. We forgot to bow to your omniscience.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 3:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
The only dead the US government is responsible for is the extremists that our troops have killed and the small number of civilian deaths that have occurred due to the cowardice of said terrorists when they hide in buildings with civilians in them. You cannot fight a war with no accidental civilian casualties.

US troops go to EXTREME lengths to prevent civilian deaths. They have all but have to wait until a rain of bullets is upon them before they can fire on someone. I beg you to tell a Marine returning from Iraq that he/she bares some blame for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been murdered. Just be prepared for the @ss kicking that will follow.

The extremists are at fault for the deaths of our troops and the civilians they've killed. Not the US government or its troops. Given how long our troops have been in Iraq, the number of casualties for our troops is insanely low. It'd have been lower if we'd been able to send more troops sooner. Each one is a terrible loss as well.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 3:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
The only dead the US government is responsible for is the extremists that our troops have killed and the small number of civilian deaths

Rubbish. That was never used as excuses for all the deaths in other wars.

US troops go to EXTREME lengths to prevent civilian deaths.

Did Bill O'Reilly tell you that? Must be true then... FFS

I beg you to tell a Marine returning from Iraq that he/she bares some blame for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been murdered.

The vast majority of the blame lies with the people who sent them. But the excuse "just following orders" also went out the window at Nuremberg.


By mdogs444 on 11/29/2007 3:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
You are about as anti-american as anyone ive ever heard of. Youf mockery of the men and women who protect you and and protect your rights is downright disgusting. You make me absolutely sick.

I wish we could take one of the small islands of Hawaii, extradite all of you anti-american citizens (if we can even call you citizens), and drop you off on the island with no means of getting off of it. Then we'll just fly over once in a while and send down rations for you and your fellow mates. You can go ahead and built your own socialistic state with 100% support.


By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 4:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That was never used as excuses for all the deaths in other wars.


I'm not viewing it as an excuse. Making excuses implies you're doing something you shouldn't be. Our government should be killing extremists and minimizing civilian casualties. The innocent lives lost are always the fault of those who cause them. The US government is not causing Iraqi civilians to be murdered by extremists. Extremists are doing it because the Iraqi people don't believe as they do. Along your reasoning, the US government is also responsible for every murder here in the US.

quote:
US troops go to EXTREME lengths to prevent civilian deaths.


No US Marines and their parents who I work with tell me that.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Spivonious on 11/29/2007 9:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
Do you really think that the government should provide free education and free healthcare to everyone? Who's going to foot the bill?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 9:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
The taxpayer foots the bill.

The result is a stronger country for everyone.

The 'haves' in the states think they are so right - eventually it is going to come back to bite them in the balls. A widening income gap, and large increases in the amount of people below the poverty line help no-one in the long run.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 10:18:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The taxpayer foots the bill.


Yes that's happening now. It's working so well.

quote:
The 'haves'


So what are you? Are you a 'have not'? And so just because I made something of my life, went to college, got a good job, and make a decent living, I'm supposed to fully support those who don't? That's called socialism.

I don't know about you, but I like to work hard to earn a living, and actually keep some of it. I don't like getting punished for making a good living. I'm not saying I shouldn't pay more taxes than someone who makes less. But the percentage should be the same. And things like South Carolina's "property tax" on your car which varies by the value of your car shouldn't exist. It's nothing more than a tax on the rich. And it does nothing but encourage people not to spend money. Why do I want to buy a nice car when you're going to punish me for it?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By TITAN1080 on 11/29/07, Rating: -1
By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 11:07:24 AM , Rating: 4
I applaud you sir. Would, by chance, your father be Michael Moore?

Where do I say that saving money is bad? Nowhere. But people who actually have money to spend, can both spend money and save it. If I can save $500 a month and have money to spend on a nice car, is there something wrong with that?

Not even a quarter of China's people even participate in China's fast growing economy either.

And saying that spending benefits the rich is like saying the ability to see benefits those who aren't blind. Of course the rich benefit. They're rich. They have money to spend. Your problem is that you think "How dare they.". I think "More power to them." Not all people are rich are out to screw the little guy. In fact, 99.9% aren't. They've just made something of their life. How exactly is that wrong of them?

Now yes, I hate people who think they're better than others just because they have money as much as the next person. And that the rich often get away with things that the rest of us would be thrown in jail for. But that doesn't mean all rich people are that way.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 11:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
> "[China's] economy is the hottest the world has seen..."

The average Chinese still works 12-14 hour days at a salary of a few cents/hour. The nation's total GDP is less than that of the US, even though they have four times the population. This is your idea of a "hot" economy?

You've confused growth rate with overall size. A small economy can grow very quickly. That doesn't mean its superior.


By Sahrin on 11/29/2007 11:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
I second masher's point.

An economy exists to provide the constituents of the economy with a means to better their lives. If that is the standard of a good economy, to use "modern lingo" the US economy "frickin' rocks" and the Chinese economy is "t3h mega-phail." That isn't to say that the Chinese economy isn't getting better, nor is it failing to improve the lives of its citizens - but it's nowhere near as good as others in, say, the top 25 or so (by GDP).


By Spivonious on 11/29/2007 3:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if you pay taxes. It's not fun to see over 30% of my income going down the tubes each paycheck.

I went through a phase where I thought socialism was a good idea, but then I realized how expensive it would be. We'd all be paying at least 60% of our income in taxes to support this health care and education.

Right now I pay nothing for health care (employer pays it all) and nothing for school (since I've graduated and have no bills from it). You're asking me to pay out over $12000 a year for something that will "benefit the whole." I'd rather have that money to put into my house, or buy a car if mine breaks down, or go on a vacation every once in a while.

Do you want to have better education and healthcare? Work hard, be smart, and save your money. I guarantee that in a few years you'll consider yourself one of the "haves".

Widening income gap...? There will always be poor people who choose to spend their money as soon as they get it rather than save it. I lived on minimum wage for a year, so can anyone. There will always be arrogant multi-billionaires who inherited their money from their great-grandfather's hardwork and flaunt it around.

If you need help, don't look towards the government, look at yourself. If there's one thing I've learned in my life it's that there is no such thing as a free lunch.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By imaheadcase on 11/29/2007 9:57:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
With you on that one FITCamaro. Tax dollars going to healthcare & education for illegal immigrants as well as for lazy people who dont want to get up off their butts....i can think of about 10 better things to invest the money in...but off the top of my head, 1. tax breaks, 2. space exploration, 3. increase military budget.


Remove #3 cause thats just dumb if you also want 1 and 2.

Sadly the US relies on war spending to stay afloat. It has no interest in science anymore. Ever wonder why science is never included in president debates? Because they care less and actually think wars (re:Iraq) means something.

If wars mean something in a debate, then the US voters are just plain stupid. Maybe one reason why less than %1 of professionals actually vote...the smart ones always do see the future better than voters.

Sheeps vs wolfs. Always has been, always will be.


By Ringold on 11/29/2007 12:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
You'll have to prove that only 1% of "professionals" vote; my entire life experience to date suggests almost the polar opposite. I can't think of anybody I'd consider "professional" in my life that doesn't vote, yet I went to an inner city highschool where I know most would have no idea who, for example, the Secretary of Defense is at the moment, and while very few expressed interest in voting a lot of those that did merely voted along their parents party lines, based on who looked best or sounded nice, or some other odd metric. Meanwhile, the "professional" class of people I know are generally speaking all articulate in the policy issues involved in their selection of a candidate -- especially in the primaries, where there really is multiple choices for a given world view, unlike the general election.


By clovell on 11/29/2007 2:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say anyone who sees a problem and does nothing about it is plain stupid - like your 1% of professionals (which is crap, btw).

Iraq does mean something - forget how we got there, because the fact is we're there. We've got soldiers fighting over there, and the lives of US citizens who are fighting for our country is important to me.

The US has plenty of interest in science - go to a University - it could do you some good.


By Screwballl on 11/29/2007 10:07:27 AM , Rating: 2
That is exactly what is needed, cut off these lazy bastards that refuse to work and pump out more kids for more tax money and more food stamps.. meanwhile the real working lower to middle class suffers.
Anyone who says energy crisis must be a Gore butt boy because the only real crisis is in California and let them fruits figure out their own damn energy problem. One way would be ship back all the illegals living there, that would reduce usage around 30% right there. Not to mention the big drop in welfare money being paid out. the whole state and much of the US could do this and save billions of dollars yearly. Spend a few thousand to ship them out and save a few billion which could go towards strengthening armor on military vehicles, funding for new space vehicles and a work-for-welfare program where if they refuse to work, they don't get welfare.


By nunya on 11/29/2007 8:12:04 PM , Rating: 1
I gotta say education spending ranks way higher than those 3 as far as I'm concerned. Better educated and more well-rounded citizens ftw. Getting kids out of shitty homes also tops my list.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By retrospooty on 11/29/2007 9:30:07 AM , Rating: 2
If you watch the Science channel once in a while rather than Fox news (LOL @ Fox news...) you would know that Apophis chance of hitting Earth are even smaller on the 2nd time around, and scientists are already hard at work on creating methods to alter the course of it, or another if need be. The key is to get out there early, if an object was headed for Earth, and you could alter its course just a fraction of a percent early on it will miss us entirely. The last majorly devastating Asteroid that hit is was 65 million years ago and if you think about the timeline of our tech we will be safe.

1. Earth is 4.5 billion years old
2. That asteroid was 65 million years ago
3. Mankind has existed for 150,000 years
4. Written language (and thus history) has only been here appx 7000 years
5. electricity has been harnessed for 150 years
6. modern computers have existed for 20-30 years

What this obviously shows is that our technology is increasing at an incredible rate. Imagine where we will be in 100 years... 1,000 years... 10,000 years, and we likely have millions of years before we are in any real danger. We'll easily have the tech to deal with it when needed. It wont even be a worry.

I agree with you on the fact that welfare needs reform and should not be given to able bodied people that can work... Far too much abuse and incentive to have more children in a welfare situation (more kids=more money=more future adults that grew up in a bad situtaion).


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 9:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
If it weren't for the dark ages, we would already have colonized the solar system, and would be exploring deep space (other star systems) long ago.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 9:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and what is the average time between big impacts?
Is it even known?

I know we are over due a magnetic pole shift, and I think Yellowstone might be due an eruption shortly, but no idea about meteor impacts.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By retrospooty on 11/29/2007 9:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
Pole shifting and Yellowstore are fairly regular, asteroids are more random, although fewer and further between as time goes by.


By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 9:52:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yeap - the first 2 have undoubtedly got periodic time intervals, while a meteor impact (unless from one in a shower in wide orbit about the sun) is a much more random event.


By Ringold on 11/29/2007 12:46:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it weren't for the dark ages


You know, Rome actually had a very extensive network of factories utilizing the power of the Tiber river? That is, before the multiple invasions and destruction of Roman society. How many hundreds of years did it take for the industrial revolution to catch on again? Then to compound the problem, the dark ages you noted, where literacy was reduced to near zero. Sad.


By psychobriggsy on 11/29/2007 10:32:23 AM , Rating: 2
Unemployed Able-Bodied People should be put to work on community projects to collect their money. They might even learn some trades and skills whilst they are at it.

Whether that is redecorating military lodgings (in the UK the standard of these is appalling), keeping communal gardens tidy, picking litter, maintaining kerbsides, whatever - anything that you see every day and think "that's dirty, unkempt, etc" that there is no money to sort out, they can sort it out for their unemployment benefit.

As for paying for these people - it's better than losing the money to desperate thieves by being mugged, etc. And health is core to a modern nation, it's a function of society to care for its members - at least for anything serious (not cosmetic surgery, etc). Education is investing in the future. And as for immigration, it's always a big issue in the media but in reality it's nowhere near that bad (although immigration policies like those imagined in the Ali G film should be encouraged). Worry if the immigration stops - that means your country is not worth that effort any longer.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 11:44:35 AM , Rating: 2
> "What this obviously shows is that our technology is increasing at an incredible rate. Imagine where we will be in 100 years... 1,000 years"

You've forgotten one thing. Progress is not guaranteed. Indeed, throughout most of man's history, progress simply didn't exist...often it was even negative (contrast the Dark Ages to the Roman Empire, for instance).

We live in a time of rapid innovation because of a culture that values rationality and progress, and the belief that man has both the ability and the right to alter his environment to better suit himself. It's a wonderful time to live in...but historically, its a very rare occurrence.

Unfortunately, I see troubling signs that the social forces which have allowed such progress may soon be coming to an end. Between the rising tides of fundamentalism on one hand and quasi-religious environmentalism on the other, we may very well see another "dark ages" sometime in the next couple of centuries.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Sahrin on 11/29/2007 12:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
You've forgotten one thing. Progress is not guaranteed. Indeed, throughout most of man's history, progress simply didn't exist...often it was even negative (contrast the Dark Ages to the Roman Empire, for instance).

While I think you have a valid point, most of the fundamental advances that brought about the world we live in today (...very fundamental and basic, not the transistor) actually came about during the "Dark Ages" (The Compass, advanced mathematical theory, astronomical theory) in the Mayan, Muslim and Chinese Empires. Western Civilization was "down" - but the Eastern Roman Empire and then the Islamic Empires kept pace in innovation. This geographic seperation is much less likely to occur today, granted, but the dark ages are not a good historical precendent (as they were a strictly European phenomenon).


By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 12:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
> "the dark ages are not a good historical precendent (as they were a strictly European phenomenon). "

True, but *all* cultural phenomena were strictly regional at the time. It was unavoidable, given the limitations on communication and travel times.

However, today, a worldwide "Dark Ages" is most certainly possible, and it wouldn't take a nuclear war or a natural disaster to trigger it. Just the cultural abandonment of rationality and the devaluation of progress.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By sweetsauce on 11/29/2007 12:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
Funny you mention the dark ages... I fear the RELIGIOUS-nism more than i fear the enviromentalism. I guarantee you that religion has done more to curb technological development than any other thing in our history on this planet, and we still see it happening today. Faith shouldn't dictate policy, but in this country today it does.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 12:55:00 PM , Rating: 3
In third-world nations, fundamentalism (particularly the Islamic variety) is certainly holding back progress. In Europe and the US, however, its not (at present) a huge problem...its holding up work a bit in some of the biotech sciences, but that's about it.

Environmentalism, on the other hand, in the Western world is already far more destructive. It has been resposible for stymying progress on dozens of fronts -- nuclear power, genetic engineering and biotech, chemical engineering, large-scale construction projects, etc.

But much worse, it's also building a pathological, irrational culture in which people believe man's actions are unnatural; inherently evil and destructive, and that we have no right to modify the environment around us. There are *already* environmentalists who are sterilizing themselves to "help the environment", who believe we should tear down all the dam and bridge, tear up all the roads, and return to a stone age society, free to enjoy mother nature in her natural goodness.

Does every environmentalist believe this? No, but its the end result of the philosophy that nature is good and man's efforts to modify nature are inherently bad. And the culture is already assuming neo-religious overtones, with fanatical supporters willing to martyr themselves for the cause. What's the movement going to be like in 100 years? Truly frightening indeed.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Ringold on 11/29/2007 1:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
Masher, those who say natural selection, or perhaps free markets, don't actually exist in this day and age are completely wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/artic...

She doesn't contribute to the long term integrity of the human species, not to mention economy, so natural selection (or the invisible hand?!) has found a way to convince her to never breed, and therefore never indoctrinate a child in her own politics.


By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 1:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that belief in environmentalism is, like religion, not dependent on genetics. This woman will never breed offspring...but she may wind up convincing many others to share her viewpoint. The Dark Ages were a failure of culture, not simply an accident of history.

Ultimately, religious environmentalism may well bring about another Dark Age...at least in the US and Europe. If it happens, hopefully parts of Asia will keep the torch of knowledge burning.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Amiga500 on 11/29/2007 9:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
Are you really that insecure?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 10:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
Is it easy being that vague?


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By therealnickdanger on 11/29/2007 10:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 1:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the laugh nick. It's always the simple things that are the funniest. :)


By therealnickdanger on 11/29/2007 3:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
You are welcome. Thank you for not cowering in the face of FUD.


By 16nm on 11/29/2007 10:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I still want the US to be investing as much, if not more, in space exploration than China.


Why? I'd rather see us pay off our federal debt and get our economy back on track. The federal debt is like a noose around our economy's neck.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By Misty Dingos on 11/29/2007 2:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
I am fairly certain that you did not expect the reaction to your post to be so taxing.


RE: Despite my bitterness toward China...
By therealnickdanger on 11/29/2007 3:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
What I love is that only one post out of all of them even has anything to do with space exploration.


By Misty Dingos on 11/30/2007 7:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
It could have been worse. You could have posted something about China, space exploration, and global warming. Throw in Al Gore and George Bush and it would have crashed the site.


PR
By paydirt on 11/29/2007 8:25:21 AM , Rating: 2
PR.

"we're big enough to play with the cool kids."




RE: PR
By FITCamaro on 11/29/2007 9:06:05 AM , Rating: 2
Well actually unfortunately China is big enough to beat down the big kids since they outnumber us over 3-1. And thats just the US. Many European countries they outnumber 15-1 or a lot more. Heck even Russia is outnumbered about 8-1 to them.

But its ok. Not like they're a military threat to anyone...


RE: PR
By mdogs444 on 11/29/2007 9:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
Of course not...especially not with the potential for a billion man army.


Tax discussion and I missed it!
By Dfere on 11/29/2007 3:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hey,

While not related to the initial article, this was a good discussion of taxes and social policy. Long live the debate!

More seriously-a few overlooked points - high income individuals typically take advantage of capital gains- which would be around 15%, so it is hard for me to believe that 12% was Kerry's average tax rate!. Alternative minimum tax is a second tax policy which is effectively 20% for truly high income.

The rich should get richer, by inertia alone, if not, what would be the incentive to work harder? To say otherwise is socialism. This factor is only evil if it prevents lower income earners THE CHANCE to move up. Recent studies suggest more migration occurs than was previously thought to exist. A recent ten year study revealed that there was huge movement between income percentiles in a ten year period, even into upper income segments from lower income segments- based on a study of 620,000 tax returns. Older social studies of poverty previously suggested it took three generations to get from impoverished to upper upper class and three generations to fall down that far as well.

Additionally, last year the US took in more in FICA and Medicare than income tax. I think this is due to expansion of workers entering the wage market for the first time (post baby-boom -reduction increase) in a while. This is going to change the landscape of tax revenues while social security costs are going to rise with the initial retirement this year of boomers claiming social security. (1st one claimed benefits this year).

Lastly, In my own experience as a practicing CPA in one of the largest, poorest cities in the US, I can tell you that a lot of people who are in the bottom 20% Masher referenced, hide income. You cannot live off of that forever and still file tax returns, even with entitlements. In doing personal tax returns, I can tell you a fair percentage those incomes are self-employed, do work as a contractor or consultant, or are in cash industries like waitressing/dancing etc. Of self employed and self reported income - the IRS figures 1/2 the current tax gap is attributable to. I have talked to court child support administrators who claim that taxes are secondary to deliberate attempts to hide income from child support enforcement. (no cites on this one, sorry). I see many people who purport to claim little in taxes, but drive nice cars regularly.

Bottom line, the rich use tactics, while everyone else hides income when they can to avoid paying taxes and other responsibilities. Certainly there are individuals who are honest, but as a class, it is the middle class who cannot avoid taxes through these means as they do not take cash jobs and are not rich enough to employ too many tax techniques (except for self-employeds in this range).. You can argue many "economic" arguments about taxes, but they are basically social policy. True economic arguments about tax are more akin to Laffer Curver and tax collection issues, not who should pay for what. Times are changing with regard to the revenue landscape right when boomers will be cashing in. This needs to be kept in mind when discussing taxes as social policy.




RE: Tax discussion and I missed it!
By ted61 on 11/29/2007 8:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry dfere, we just like to argue for the fun of it. We go find facts that fit our side of the story and state it as fact. Now you had to ruin it as a CPA. How can we make up facts and argue against a professional?

The old rule for Dailytech is to never let facts get in the way of a good story. I imagine that rule is pretty firm for just about every forum.

I still say my taxes went down after I crossed the social security threshold.


Proof on conspiracy
By whoisnader on 11/29/2007 5:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well I hope the Chinese will be able to put to rest the conspiracy that the US did not work on the moon.

Either the orbiter will find the American flag and the LEM or it won't as it scans the entire moon's surface.

Although someone could start another conspiracy and say that the US paid China a lot of money to keep it quite if they don't find the flag ;-)




RE: Proof on conspiracy
By masher2 (blog) on 11/29/2007 5:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
> "Well I hope the Chinese will be able to put to rest the conspiracy that the US did not work on the moon."

Actually, that 'conspiracy' was put to rest about 4 minutes after it was first conceived. Anyone who still believes in it is long past being reached by facts or rational debate.


I think...
By Vim on 11/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: I think...
By Ringold on 11/29/2007 1:52:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
their outline for the MARS Manned Mission, so there!


I hearby announce my outline for my Alpha Centauri Manned Mission! BEHOLD!

2007: I receive 100 trillion dollars from private and government investors, as well as the entire Japanese nation to support development of my faster-than-light technology.
2020: With my FTL technology in place, henceforth named "jump drive", construction begins on my spaceship.
2040: I depart on my newly christened space ship in January and return with samples of orbiting asteroids.
2070: On an additional expedition with a recently completed Battlestar, I discover a post-industrial bipedal society, and my crew and I decide to conquer the planet and secede from the United Nations (the interstellar human government).

Now, just give me the 100 trillion and Japan, and I'll get right to work.

Seriously, NASA is in about the same boat. :P Lots of words, lots of ideas, no money.


Sad times
By Araxen on 11/29/2007 1:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's very sad times that China is catching up to us in space exploration.




RE: Sad times
By JonnyDough on 11/29/2007 3:55:38 PM , Rating: 1
Yawn. We had this photo decades ago.

~America


Why we are racing to the moon!
By MustangMike on 11/29/2007 6:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone is in a race to get back to the moon because of a rare type of helium called helum3. Here's some info on what it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
I know that wikipedia is not exactly a trusted source so I found a couple more
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_0006...
and
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/...

Why did I bring up Helium3 you ask?
Well take a look at this quote

"While still theoretical, nuclear fusion is touted as a safer, more sustainable way to generate nuclear energy: Fusion plants produce much less radioactive waste, especially if powered by helium-3. But experts say commercial-sized fusion reactors are at least 50 years away.

The isotope is extremely rare on Earth but abundant on the moon. Some experts estimate there a millions of tons in lunar soil -- and that a single Space-Shuttle load would power the entire United States for a year."

from
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72...

Also posted in this article is
"[Mining the moon for helium-3 has been discussed widely in space circles and international space conferences. Both China and Russia have stated their nations' interest in helium-3.

"We will provide the most reliable report on helium-3 to mankind," Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China's lunar program, told a Chinese newspaper. "Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first."]"

China beat us in emissions and has an extremely rapid growing economy they need the power desperately.

Where's the John F. Kennedy of our time and what about doing a moon shot program?

Oh and btw I love the politics debate going on so I joined just to say this.

I am neither republican nor democrat now, I have been in both parties through my years. There are things I like from both and things I hate from both. But if there's one thing that really drives me nuts about these political parties is that ppl forget WE ARE AMERICANS FIRST, (insert political party) SECOND! Insead we are told on both sides of the aisle that the other party is evil and they call each other names.

The one thing that makes this country great is the fact we have different opinions on subjects which allows us to have conversations. I don't see any need in calling each other childish names to get points across. If you can't have an intelligent conversation, while using your brain with common sense then don't speak at all. I'll say I have no problems looking at all sides of every issue and hearing every point and if what I believed was wrong I am willing to admit my faults and move on. But sometimes we get stubborn in our ways and refuse to see all sides of issues. Doesn't anyone ever remember making Pros and Cons charts in schools? Why is it we only see the pros column regardless if the cons outnumber the pros?

There I have said my peace.




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki