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

[respect]

Which basically proves what I've known about you since nearly the first time we interacted: you're a soulless Social Darwinist who would rather see resources thrown away than used to benefit people you don't like (ie, the poor).

The day of people like you is nearly over, and I can't wait to see your ideology tossed into the historical midden where it belongs.

LOL, market economies with welfare states aren't going to disappear anytime soon, I don't know why you would think they will or what you think they have to do with social Darwinism.

Interestingly enough, your ideology died with the USSR.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, nope. There'd be an accounting entry for the funds allocated, but it wouldn't be stuck in a bank account anywhere. The money'd be printed when it was needed.

[ETA: I never claimed there would be money sitting in a bank account somewhere. We're talking about NASA's budget, part of the federal budget.]

Not in Newt's proposals. Remember, he's advocating a balanced budget amendment.

Also, even under the status quo, you couldn't just invent an extra $10 billion added onto NASA's budget on an ad hoc basis. Is that what you think Newt is proposing?

Of course not. He means to take that $10 billion out of NASA's budget*. It would have to take away from existing budgeted programs and missions.

So again, it means Newt would be more "anti-space" than anything I've suggested.

*ETA: And again, this is assuming NASA still has a budget after Newt has reduced government revenues by $1.28 trillion in a single year and managed to balance the budget (making up another $1.3 trillion in current deficit spending) as promised.

 

[BenBurch]

Did MHaze just advocate PRINTING MONEY?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Stimulus?

• You mean of the sort where there's a payment only after a substantial accomplishment made?

• 
  
  First, let's not shift the burden of argumentation. It's your and Newt's claim that dramatically cutting taxes wouldn't so what the Tax Policy Center says it would.
  
  Second, what substantial accomplishment? What specifically would a prize be offered for? I thought you at one time argued in favor of a $10 billion prize offered for something that only costs $3 billion?
  
  I've pointed out that the model for this, the original X Prize, can't be said to have achieved any substantial accomplishment (other than it being a private company that achieved pretty much what the government had accomplished decades earlier). And that that prize wasn't even won for 9 years, and that it still hasn't achieved its broader goal of leading to commercial tourist spaceflight, much less profitable commercial tourist spaceflight.
  
  So what substantial accomplishment will we get in exchange for canceling or suspending more than half of what NASA currently does (including, I presume all of its current exploration efforts which comes to a grand total of $3.6 billion of its current budget)?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Did MHaze just advocate PRINTING MONEY?

He was just being silly (or grasping at straws).

There is no way that's what he thinks Newt was proposing.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Remember Newt's words were "I would want 10% of the NASA budget set aside for prize money."

He clearly meant to reduce NASA's current budget. However, he's showing his innumerancy (or at least ignorance of the size of NASA's budget), since he also said, in his example about how to achieve a manned flight to Mars (something he mentioned was once estimated to be a project that would cost $450 billion), offering a $10 billion prize.

So yet again, Newt is being inconsistent and self-contradictory.

But he clearly was talking about financing the prize by setting part of NASA's budget aside. So again, look at NASA current budget (which I cited and linked to earlier), and say which programs you want to cut.

Then how do you make the leap to saying that someone criticizing those cuts is "anti-space"?

(And I take it you intend to ignore my questions about which claims you've made that you are now abandoning? I would add to that list your accusing me of not relying on Newt's words from the transcript of this speech even after I'd quoted those words and linked to the entire transcript.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So haze's answers to the repeated question, where will the funding come for the government project Newt is proposing (a permanent base on the moon included the following attempts:

- arguing that he made no proposal of a government project,
- that he never promised a permanent base on the moon within 8 years,
- some arm-waving notion of government stimulus such that the NASA prize fund would be a profit center
- Newt was proposing we simply print up more currency on an ad hoc basis!

But these answers have all been throughly and easily refuted.

So he has yet to say where the funding will come to fulfill Newt's promises.

 

[mhaze]

Did MHaze just advocate PRINTING MONEY?

hehehehe. Just trying to state the matter correctly.

Just like saying when a social security check goes out it's at that exact instant that money is created. Before then it was a ledger entry, not a reality.

Joe thought, incorrectly, that the US Government could escrow funds. It's true that a set of rules for a prize might require them to do that, but I can't see why that would be done. Thus, they'd "print money".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

hehehehe. Just trying to state the matter correctly evade the problem of saying where the money for Newt's promises will come from.

Fix that for you.

Joe thought, incorrectly, that the US Government could escrow funds.

Rubbish.

I have pointed out correctly that Newt is proposing to take money away from current NASA projects (in Newt's own words "set aside") for this NASA prize fund.

I pointed it out in response to your unfair accusation that my attitude is "anti-space" when I am actually defending keeping this money for actual space exploration projects and missions that Newt would take it away from.

I have pointed out that Newt's claim that if no one claims the prize, it will have cost us nothing is false. Not only would that likely outcome fail to fulfill his promises, it would also result in a considerable opportunity cost.

 

[mhaze]

.....

I have pointed out correctly that Newt is proposing to take money away from current NASA projects (in Newt's own words "set aside") for this NASA prize fund......

Wow, that's brilliant!

I never would have thought that if Newt said he wanted to set aside 10% of NASA's budget for prizes that would mean ten pecent of NASA's budget would be taken away from other projects.

Did you think of that yourself?

Aw...

Hate to tell you this, Joe, but NASA's budget is set by Congress.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wow, that's brilliant!

I never would have thought that if Newt said he wanted to set aside 10% of NASA's budget for prizes that would mean ten pecent of NASA's budget would be taken away from other projects.

Did you think of that yourself?

Aw...

Cut the attitude, haze. A guy who is stupid enough to suggest that the NASA prize fund would be a profit center (and then backpedal furiously from that claim) doesn't get to be patronizing. [ETA: And I'm not suggesting you're not allowed to try. I'm saying you can't pull it off.]

You're still evading the question: where will that money come from?

Hate to tell you this, Joe, but NASA's budget is set by Congress.

So are tax laws.

I hate to tell you this, but these are indeed Newt's promises. Do I need to quote his words to you again?

So now is it your claim that Newt did not propose setting aside 10% of NASA budget (and somehow using that 10% to establish a $10 billion prize that is more than 50% of NASA's budget)?

Setting aside 10% (or $10 billion, depending on which of Newt's incompatible statements you choose to accept) from NASA's budget would require cutting spending in current NASA programs.

Remember, this is in response to your BS accusation that I am somehow "anti-space".

Would you cut funding to the Spitzer or Hubble telescopes? To the Kepler mission? I'm a big fan of these and other current NASA missions.

So, where is that $10 billion going to come from to offer prizes that will lead to fulfilling Newt's promises of a permanent base on the moon and a continuous propulsion Mars rocket within 8 years?

Shall I review again the list of your failed attempts at responding to this very straightforward question?

 

[mhaze]

Cut the attitude, haze. A guy who is stupid enough to suggest that the NASA prize fund would be a profit center (and then backpedal furiously from that claim) doesn't get to be patronizing. [ETA: And I'm not suggesting you're not allowed to try. I'm saying you can't pull it off.]

You're still evading the question: where will that money come from?



So are tax laws.

I hate to tell you this, but these are indeed Newt's promises. Do I need to quote his words to you again?

So now is it your claim that Newt did not propose setting aside 10% of NASA budget (and somehow using that 10% to establish a $10 billion prize that is more than 50% of NASA's budget)?

Setting aside 10% (or $10 billion, depending on which of Newt's incompatible statements you choose to accept) from NASA's budget would require cutting spending in current NASA programs.

Remember, this is in response to your BS accusation that I am somehow "anti-space".

Would you cut funding to the Spitzer or Hubble telescopes? To the Kepler mission? I'm a big fan of these and other current NASA missions.

So, where is that $10 billion going to come from to offer prizes that will lead to fulfilling Newt's promises of a permanent base on the moon and a continuous propulsion Mars rocket within 8 years?

Shall I review again the list of your failed attempts at responding to this very straightforward question?

It's total nonsense. I have no idea where you get the idea that you even HAVE an argument. Whatever a POTUS wanted to do, he would go to Congress and request it. The relevant committees would make recommendations. Period. Expand NASA budget, contract it, use part for prizes, add money for prizes, etc.

You don't even have an argument, Joe.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's total nonsense. I have no idea where you get the idea that you even HAVE an argument. Whatever a POTUS wanted to do, he would go to Congress and request it.

I understand that, but it's irrelevant. Newt has made these proposals. And budget proposals are usual fare for presidential campaign promises. The thing is, Newt's isn't workable. If Congress did everything Newt proposed, where would the money come from to fund his promised permanent moon base and continuous propulsion Mars rocket within 8 years?

The relevant committees would make recommendations. Period. Expand NASA budget, contract it, use part for prizes, add money for prizes, etc.

But where will that money come from? Newt's tax proposal will result in a decrease of $1.28 trillion in revenues in a single year. His balanced budget promise will mean he has to reduce spending by another $1.3 trillion.

So where will this $10 billion prize come from?

Even if we assume he's operating under the current tax plan (and not what he proposes), you'd still have to take that $10 billion away from currently budgeted NASA missions.

You don't even have an argument, Joe.

I don't claim to have an argument. I've just been refuting your many failed attempts at answering the simple question, where will the money come from to pay for Newt's campaign promises?

You still can't answer it. Go back in the thread and note that the majority of people pooh-poohed Newt's proposal because he gave no credible suggestion of where the money would come from.

It's been the primary question put to you this entire time. You've danced and weaved and tried to deny that Newt's proposing a government program, tried to deny that Newt promised the moon base, tried to claim the prize fund would be a profit center, and so on.

But you still can't answer the question.

ETA: This latest dodge, that Newt is promising something as part of his campaign to win the GOP nomination to run for POTUS that would be beyond the authority of the president to implement is certainly no defense of his ludicrous campaign promise.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

On a tangent, my brother (who is a rocket hobbyist) is acting as a consultant to a university group competing in NASA's University Student Launch Initiative. It's an annual rocket competition. There are a lot of particulars (has to get close to but not over 1 mile high, launch a payload that has to do certain things, lots of tracking requirements, and several different scale model tests, plus mountains of safety paperwork).

Best I can tell the competition costs are privately funded by a sponsor. I'm not sure if there is a cash prize involved, or it's just braggin' rights (trophies for overall winner, best rookie design, best vehicle design, best payload design, etc.)

 

[Chaos]

It's total nonsense. I have no idea where you get the idea that you even HAVE an argument. Whatever a POTUS wanted to do, he would go to Congress and request it. The relevant committees would make recommendations. Period. Expand NASA budget, contract it, use part for prizes, add money for prizes, etc.

You don't even have an argument, Joe.

Newt said he would make this happen. It´s been shown that he´s been spouting BS from start to finish. End of discussion.

But if a right-winger says it, it just has to be the Word of God to some, I guess...

 

[mhaze]

Newt said he would make this happen. It´s been shown that he´s been spouting BS from start to finish. End of discussion.

But if a right-winger says it, it just has to be the Word of God to some, I guess...

I do understand that to some in the left POTUS Is some all powerful Dictator. The Bamster method.

For those of us who still believe in the US Constitution, though, the job of the Congress is to produce a budget. So forgive me if I have trouble relating to some of the alien concepts of Bamster-worldians.

 

[Chaos]

I do understand that to some in the left POTUS Is some all powerful Dictator. The Bamster method.

For those of us who still believe in the US Constitution, though, the job of the Congress is to produce a budget. So forgive me if I have trouble relating to some of the alien concepts of Bamster-worldians.

How about adressing the topic of the thread? Newt Gingrich promised something that he, both by definition and from the facts at hand, cannot deliver, yet you lap it all up and attack anyone who disagrees.

 

[mhaze]

How about adressing the topic of the thread? Newt Gingrich promised something that he, both by definition and from the facts at hand, cannot deliver, yet you lap it all up and attack anyone who disagrees.

You mean that any promise made by a POTUS candidate involving money, has to be presented to Congress, and is subject to the process of budgeting therein?

What else is there to say?

The several ways that Newt's statements have been misrepresented, obviously. But what's with this "where's he going to get the money" stupidity? From a Congressional approval (or disapproval, as the case may be). Quite obviously.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You mean that any promise made by a POTUS candidate involving money, has to be presented to Congress, and is subject to the process of budgeting therein?

No, because the candidate isn't the POTUS. What we mean is that when a candidate makes a promise or submits a proposal as part of his platform, it should be subject to scrutiny at least to the broad general questions we've been asking. For example, where will the money come from to fund this promise?

I've merely been pointing out that Newt's promises are incompatible with his tax and budget proposal and not remotely realistic.

If you disagree, and choose to defend Newt's promises, then where will the money come from to fund it?

Pointing out that Congress would have to pass any budget bill is just another evasion on your part, haze.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I do understand that to some in the left POTUS Is some all powerful Dictator. The Bamster method.

For those of us who still believe in the US Constitution, though, the job of the Congress is to produce a budget. So forgive me if I have trouble relating to some of the alien concepts of Bamster-worldians.

Just more evasion. This is not a response to the question as to how Newt's proposed $10 billion program would be funded.


I've already shown that Newt's tax and budget proposal (his promise of a balanced budget, that is) are incompatible. If you accept Newt's platform, there won't even be money to fund much of existing government programs (to the tune of a $2.58 trillion shortfall).