Presidential Election: 2012

[Liquid]

No, I reckon he really is just that moronic. And hypocritical. And a liar. And a sufferer of delusions grandeur.

 

[Dennisch]

No, I reckon he really is just that moronic. And hypocritical. And a liar. And a sufferer of delusions grandeur.

He would make an excellent President.

 

[Liquid]

An honest question, given that video of a FOX News team approving Ron Paul:

If Santorum, Romney and Gingrich are essentianly the same, who is the favourite amongst the conservatives and the tea party? It's already been brought up of course, but the longer the similar candidates fight each other, the less time they have for and the worse their overall campaign will be.

 

[Dennisch]

Anyone googled Santorum yet?

"santorum (san-TOR-um) n.
1. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter
that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex. "

 

[Liquid]

Yeah, I think a gay rights group held a poll to decide what his surname can mean because he's a vehement homophobe.

 

[Dennisch]

Pretty funny, one might say.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Pretty accurate too!

 

[DK]

Newt's moon station will cost money;

I think he's been listening to a bit too much Frank Sinatra...

 

[Dapper]

What a bunch of baffoons.
The entire budget for NASA over it's entire 50 year life span cost less than what we spend in Afghanistan in one month. Can another freakin idiot say we don't have enough money and believe it?

Facts are any Ron Paul supporter's worst dream, less specifically republicans. Reality gets in the way of ideology.

 

[Liquid]

NASA's entire budget since 1958 is four hundred and seventy two billion, seven hundred and fifty three million dollars.

$472 753 000 000

And that's in nominal dollars.

That's an awful lot for a flag on a rock you haven't been to since the early 70s. How much will it cost to get a proper, permanent base there within 8 years? Do we, the human race, have the technology for continuous sustainability on a satellite that has no natural resources? I doubt it.

It just can't be done.

Quick update shows that in 2007 real terms, the total, cumulative budget for NASA is eight hundred and six billion eight hundred and eighty million.

$806 880 000 000

 

[ChaosStar79]

Facts are any Ron Paul supporter's worst dream, less specifically republicans. Reality gets in the way of ideology.

Pretty funny statement from the guy ignores almost every fact that anyone posts in rebuttal to one of your strawman arguments.

 

[Famine]

The US DoD spent $685bn in 2010 - $57bn a month across all spending and not just in Afghanistan. NASA costs that much in the last five years - the cost of the ISS alone to the US government is $25bn (of the $160bn total cost). The Shuttle program, inflation adjusted, has cost $200bn, with each launch costing $500m.

The cost of constructing, building and supplying a moonbase could easily run into trillions (of course the Russians and the ESA may help) - just getting some guys there once at today's money would cost $100bn and the GAO have put the entirety of NASA's lunar program up to 2025 at $250bn. Not only "less than what we spend in Afghanistan in one month" but "five times more than what the entire US military spends in one month"... Of course for more detailed and more accurate numbers you'll want to speak to Danoff. Or not.


Incidentally, would that be the military budget Ron Paul wants to slash before you start considering trillion-dollar moon bases? Imagine if there were some joined up thinking going on there.

 

[Dapper]

Pretty funny statement from the guy ignores almost every fact that anyone posts in rebuttal to one of your strawman arguments.

Prove it.

At Mazdaprice- I messed up. NASA total 50 year budget is less than the bank bailout. We spend several billion per month in war, totaling over a trillion dollars since 2000.

That is enough money even by famine's account. And that is only counting 11 years of wasted republican money.

 

[Liquid]

At Mazdaprice- I messes up. NASA total 50 year budget is less than the bank bailout. We spend several billion per month in war, totaling over a trillion dollars since 2000.

Perhaps I did mess my figures up, but the point is still valid. Close to a trillion dollars and all you've got is a flag up there and haven't been back since the early seventies.

Famine improved on what I was trying to convey and his figures are certainly food for thought. It would easily take more than a trillion to do what Gingrich is proposing, and does the US have a spare $1,000,000,000? No it doesn not.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Prove it.

At Mazdaprice- I messes up. NASA total 50 year budget is less than the bank bailout. We spend several billion per month in war, totaling over a trillion dollars since 2000.

Re-read most of the rebuttals people have posted to your comments, including the one where I posted evidence of foreign aid being stolen and then you continue ignoring it. Just a quick one off the top of my head. 👍

 

[Dapper]

Re-read most of the rebuttals people have posted to your comments, including the one where I posted evidence of foreign aid being stolen and then you continue ignoring it. Just a quick one off the top of my head. 👍

What page?

 

[Joel]

I don't understand how the military budget has anything to do with Ron Paul anyway. The first thing he's pledged to do is bring all the troops home as soon as possible, saving the military billions.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

What page?

Every page 👍

 

[Sam48]

I don't understand how the military budget has anything to do with Ron Paul anyway. The first thing he's pledged to do is bring all the troops home as soon as possible, saving the military billions.

He plans to cut a trillion dollars of spending in his first year. To accomplish this, he must cut military spending by bringing the troops home. It's pretty much a win win.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Every page 👍

+1

 

[Jubby]

He plans to cut a trillion dollars of spending in his first year. To accomplish this, he must cut military spending by bringing the troops home. It's pretty much a win win.

To make it a full win-win, we need to give these gents and ladies jobs. My idea; keep them in the military, and have them work on the infrastructure of the US. Sure, it'll cost money... not as much as the wars, though. I hope one of the candidates think of that when they decide what they'll do for the troops after the full "pull-out".

 

[Joel]

He plans to cut a trillion dollars of spending in his first year. To accomplish this, he must cut military spending by bringing the troops home. It's pretty much a win win.

What I mean is I don't understand how Dapper is ragging on Ron Paul supporters, and then talking about how the military budget is massive, when Paul's first order of business would be to bring the troops home.

 

[Dapper]

What I mean is I don't understand how Dapper is ragging on Ron Paul supporters, and then talking about how the military budget is massive, when Paul's first order of business would be to bring the troops home.

Sadly, the cost of war is not part of the DoD budget.

I posted evidence of foreign aid being stolen and then you continue ignoring it.

It wasn't relevant to the conversation. Theft is not a reason to not help.

 

[Sam48]

To make it a full win-win, we need to give these gents and ladies jobs.

I think before a job they need an education since the majority of troops only have a high school diploma to show for. I believe the government issued tuition to troops that came home after WWII. I'm not sure if that was the best idea, nor do I know if that would work well today.

 

[Jubby]

I think before a job they need an education since the majority of troops only have a high school diploma to show for. I believe the government issued tuition to troops that came home after WWII. I'm not sure if that was the best idea, nor do I know if that would work well today.

I'd rather pay taxes for their jobs than their education. They already have the GI bill, so they can use their new job to supplement that(forgive me if I'm mistaken about this benefit). They can put food on their plates and a place for their family with a job. I think the basics come before post-secondary education. A higher education doesn't ensure anyone a job anyways.

 

[FoolKiller]

To make it a full win-win, we need to give these gents and ladies jobs. My idea; keep them in the military, and have them work on the infrastructure of the US. Sure, it'll cost money... not as much as the wars, though. I hope one of the candidates think of that when they decide what they'll do for the troops after the full "pull-out".

Take into account that outside of war time the contracted term of service is four years, that the reason why people who can't get into college sign up is that they can get specialized training, that the draw down would not be immediate, and that a number of them are guardsmen or reservists who have jobs at home and you may likely not have an issue. The real numbers would need to be tallied to prove this, but I don't think this would be a major issue. In fact, a lot could possibly be dealt with via attrition.

Edit: Regarding the moon base. Why? Exploration is safer and cheaper when automated, and there is nothing of known value on the moon. The only known value a moon base has is as a launching point for a manned mission to another planet, and at this point that is better off left to rovers.

 

[Liquid]

Don't servicepeople learn a simple trade while with the army? Like mechanical repair, for example? I could be mistaken, but if that's the case, then people would at least have some area to work in upon returning home.

 

[GTsail]

I'd rather pay taxes for their jobs than their education. They already have the GI bill, so they can use their new job to supplement that(forgive me if I'm mistaken about this benefit). They can put food on their plates and a place for their family with a job. I think the basics come before post-secondary education. A higher education doesn't ensure anyone a job anyways.

Since WWII, the US GI bill has provided funds for both post-secondary education and living expenses for veterans.

These veterans benefits were increased post 9/11 to provide additional incentives to enlisting soldiers (the GI bill was updated/enhanced).

It is extremely unlikely that we would reduce these benefits to our soldiers.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Tornado]

Don't servicepeople learn a simple trade while with the army? Like mechanical repair, for example? I could be mistaken, but if that's the case, then people would at least have some area to work in upon returning home.

I think that depends on what they do while they are serving.

 

[Joel]

Sadly, the cost of war is not part of the DoD budget.

But what does that have to do with Ron Paul? Obama, Gingrich, Romney and Santorum won't change a thing, and with any of those 4 it's almost a matter of time until there's a war with Iran. Paul is the only candidate who is actually going to lower the military spending, his plan is to get the troops home as soon as possible, and cut military spending. Do you have a problem with that or something?