Massive job cuts in space program likely

[flashl]

Source: Yahoo

MIAMI - More than 8,000 NASA contractor jobs in the nation's manned space program could be eliminated after the space shuttle program is shut down in 2010, the agency said Tuesday.

The number of civil servants is expected to remain roughly the same, but dramatic job cuts are possible among private contractors as NASA transitions to the Constellation program, which is developing the next-generation vehicle and rockets to go to the moon and later to Mars.

...

NASA acknowledged job losses could fluctuate depending on who's occupying the White House next year and their support for space exploration.

The bleakest forecast was issued for the flagship Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Fla., where just 1,600 to 2,300 employees were expected to remain in 2011, a cut of up to 80 percent from its current 8,000 workers. The Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans was forecast to lose as many as 1,300 of its 1,900 jobs.

YN

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_sc/shuttle_job_cuts;_ylt=A0WTcXTgafNHlMcA5B2s0NUE

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. that's cool. because we are building

another HUGE TRIDENT submarine, at about a billion per. Just the thing needed to fight Al Qaida in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Must be one of those special mountain submarines.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Here's what the Trident is for...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203874.html

Hypersonic Cruise Missile: America's New Global Strike Weapon

The mission: Attack anywhere in the world in less than an hour. But is the Pentagon's bold program a critical new weapon for hitting elusive targets, or a good way to set off a nuclear war?

By Noah Shachtman
Diagrams by Kakofonia
Published in the January 2007 issue.

A tip sets the plan in motion — a whispered warning of a North Korean nuclear launch, or of a shipment of biotoxins bound for a Hezbollah stronghold in Lebanon. Word races through the American intelligence network until it reaches U.S. Strategic Command headquarters, the Pentagon and, eventually, the White House. In the Pacific, a nuclear-powered Ohio class submarine surfaces, ready for the president's command to launch.

When the order comes, the sub shoots a 65-ton Trident II ballistic missile into the sky. Within 2 minutes, the missile is traveling at more than 20,000 ft. per second. Up and over the oceans and out of the atmosphere it soars for thousands of miles. At the top of its parabola, hanging in space, the Trident's four warheads separate and begin their screaming descent down toward the planet. Traveling as fast as 13,000 mph, the warheads are filled with scored tungsten rods with twice the strength of steel. Just above the target, the warheads detonate, showering the area with thousands of rods-each one up to 12 times as destructive as a .50-caliber bullet. Anything within 3000 sq. ft. of this whirling, metallic storm is obliterated.

If Pentagon strategists get their way, there will be no place on the planet to hide from such an assault. The plan is part of a program — in slow development since the 1990s, and now quickly coalescing in military circles — called Prompt Global Strike. It will begin with modified Tridents. But eventually, Prompt Global Strike could encompass new generations of aircraft and armaments five times faster than anything in the current American arsenal. One candidate: the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, which is designed to hit Mach 5 — roughly 3600 mph. The goal, according to the U.S. Strategic Command's deputy commander Lt. Gen. C. Robert Kehler, is "to strike virtually anywhere on the face of the Earth within 60 minutes."

The question is whether such an attack can be deployed without triggering World War III: Those tungsten-armed Tridents look, and fly, exactly like the deadliest weapons in the American nuclear arsenal.

...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

22. geez. they can even find, then enter hidden caves in

the mountains of Pakistan? wow. talk about smart bombs.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. Yeah, boys and their toys

Someone opened the cash spigots; all of the wild dreams of the past few decades are getting funded.

[sudopod]

64. $30 billion dollars for Bear Stearns, no problem

$15 billion to conquer the stars? You nasty big-spending liberals need to get your heads out of the clouds.

also, sarcasm.

also, tears.

[Red Zelda]

2. Dump the ENTIRE space program

It is a monumental waste of money.

[cap]

3. talk to the farmers who use satellite data to manage their crops

there have been new industries spawned by technologies developed for space. New metals, new batteries, new materials, and there's always TANG. Weather forecasting relies heavily on satellite technologies.

We would not know what we know about global warming without satellite data and pictures.

The Chinese are planning to put a man on the moon. We are stripping our programs.

[Red Zelda]

6. Oooh ... Chinese on the moon

I wonder if they'll find a new source of energy there or Klingons or a place to build new sneaker factories. It's their loss that they would waste so much capital for the benefit of a few.
Insanity.

[Duppers]

48. no

you're insane!

[Occulus]

67. Isn't lunar helium considered a potential power source for some hypothetical fusion reactor designs?

Helium-3, that would be.

[cap]

81. no... what they are building is the infrastructure

for highly reliable space and ballistic systems. Think nuclear weapons. If you can do man-rated systems, you have the infrastructure for precision targeting. That's what the Chinese are up to.

[Solon]

4. NASA's budget for this year is 17.3 billion dollars, out of 1.114 trillion dollars...

which is the total discretionary budget, it doesn't include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other welfare programs, nor the interest on the national debt. Which means that NASA's budget takes up about 1.6% of the discretionary budget(rounded up). Considering how much they accomplish on such a budget, with the rovers on Mars, the probes to Saturn, the Moon, Jupiter, the planned Constellation program, etc. I think they are probably one of the most efficient government programs we have, for all that they do and continue to do on such a small budget, I don't see what's so "monumental" about their so called waste of money.

[flashl]

5. Soon we'll need a save 'Spirit' campaign.

[Red Zelda]

7. How much they accomplish???

Sorry. They've accomplished nothing besides bring home a few moon rocks. We have so many more pressing concerns here, and it wholly laughable that anyone considers Earth-to-moon as "space exploration." Money is far better spent on the Hubble and science education and a thousand more things.

[Solon]

8. They've accomplished more than the GWOT or the DOD...

and they have almost 60 times NASA's budget. Also, you don't consider the rovers on Mars, the Cassini Probe, the lander to Titan, nor the many other satellites, probes, and yes, even other types of space telescopes accomplishments? Isn't all that science education?

[Red Zelda]

10. Not good enough

Education about the basics of our biosphere, OUR world, this life, this ecosystem, our impact, religion's insanity, etc. is what is most badly needed. I don't need to know Io has volcanoes or Europa might have frozen foraminafera in its dark abyss. It's fascinating, sure, but not as important as what we need on Earth.

[TheModernTerrorist]

12. you DO know

that none of that would've been possible without our space program, right?

[girl gone mad]

14. Why do you have to cut NASA to do any of that?

There are plenty of other budget cuts that we could make to fund the type of research you personally prefer.

I happen to think that studying other planets does help us learn about our own planet. It would be foolish for us to discontinue that research. At some point extraterrestrial colonization will likely become necessary for the survival of our species.

[Solon]

16. You bring up some good points, people seem to forget that without...

knowledge attained through the study of planets similar enough to ours, and even some moons(Titan), we wouldn't end up with a better understanding of the Earth itself.

[Solon]

15. And NASA helps in that too, you do know they actually have departments...

that focus on EARTH sciences, don't you? Besides, what has NASA done that PREVENTS any of those things?

[Solon]

17. First, I would hazard a guess and say it will never be good enough for you...

and second, you are creating a false dichotomy, just because we do one, doesn't mean we can't do the other as well. Considering how SMALL NASA's budget actually is, apparently its not money problems that prevent us from doing any of those things you mentioned. In fact, the only thing preventing such things is GWOT and all the costs associated with that.

[Duppers]

49. yep and have a look-see

http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/nasacity/landing.htm


And here's an article and a plug for a technique for accessing tissue necrosis in burn patients, spearheaded and patented by my hubby:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020086382_2002139385.pdf

[Occulus]

70. This ecosystem includes the entire solar system

Earth does not exist within a closed system. In case you didn't notice, an entire paradigm of life on this planet was obliterated- probably more than once- by great big rocks coming in from space. For the very very first time ever on this planet, a creature has arisen- us- who is capable not only of perceiving the threat- itself, a first- but to actually consider doing something about it.

everything you are valuing over space exploration depends upon us not getting wiped out by something from space. We need to explore space, not only to identify those threats, but to eventually find another place to live. To that end, these missions represent practice baby-steps, developing and deploying and gaining experience with the early versions of the tools we most certainly will need if we ever do find another habitable world, and a way to get there.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Clearly, you haven't been paying attention lately

Have you run into any data regarding "Global Warming?"
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/

Do these graphs look familiar?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Partly, they're derived from satellite data.


Have you seen images like these:http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html

Did you think they were taken by someone standing on a ladder?


http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20071217/

NASA Climate Change 'Peacemakers' Aided Nobel Effort

Dec. 17, 2007

It's not every day that a NASA scientist can wake up and think, "Hey, I did something for world peace." But on Monday, Dec. 10, many NASA Earth scientists did exactly that.

In Oslo, Norway, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee presented the shared 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and to representatives of a United Nations panel that has spent two decades assessing Earth's changing climate and predicting where it is headed. Hundreds of NASA scientists, including some from JPL, contributed to the United Nations effort, working with thousands of their colleagues from more than 150 countries.

...

As the First IPCC Assessment was reported in 1990, NASA built on a history of Earth remote sensing to develop and deploy the Earth Observing Satellite system to determine the extent, causes and regional consequences of global climate change. In the recent Fourth Assessment, scientists were informed by more than eight years of systematic, global observations of the Earth system. Satellite measurements have revealed fundamental changes in Earth's climate, including temperatures and rainfall, ice extent and properties, and sea levels as well as physical, chemical, and ecological impacts of climate change. NASA satellite measurements contributed immeasurably to enable the IPCC's strongest conclusions thus far.

"NASA is best known for its cutting-edge satellite instruments and global measurements of Earth from space, but we contribute a lot more than that to climate change science," says Michael Gunson, acting chief scientist in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) Earth Science and Technology office, Pasadena, Calif. "NASA's role extends far beyond space-based measurements into the research to build our understanding of climate change, enabling the critical work of the IPCC."

...

[DS1]

26. Your total and unwavering ignorance is amusing

thanks for the chuckle

[Bill McBlueState]

28. who do you think built, launched, and maintains Hubble?

And who do you think runs the Center for Astronomy Education?

Learn something about what NASA does before you go around criticizing it.

[darue]

53. either we get off this rock or humanity will perish, sooner or later

the time to develop the capability is now

[mitchum]

56. Don't forget Tang and Space Food Sticks!

I agree with you about the space program being a monumental waste of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Just a cold war era pissing contest

[Occulus]

71. Without NASA your PC would probably be substantially less powerful than it is

and you almost certainly wouldn't be posting on a forum that looks anything at all like this. As a species, without NASA, we would probably not have such clear evidence of climate change, and we probably wouldn't be able to gather as detailed weather data as we do now. We also wouldn't likely know about the exact timing of solar flares.

As to how much your opinion actually matters on the subject in the grand scheme of this, this picture:



represents a section of sky about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. All sorts of stuff is "out there", whether you like it or not, and it behooves us to know as much about our environment as possible. One big rock, or comet, or planetoid, and it's over for us unless we can avoid it somehow.

[OKIsItJustMe]

75. NASA Works with computers?

Wow! Can I find any examples of practical stuff they’ve done?

[OKIsItJustMe]

74. Hmmm... did someone say "Spinoff?"

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

[sudopod]

66. Ignorant poster is ignorant.

Enjoy a short list of the most obvious benefits:

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/benefits_of_space_program.html

The meek shall inherit the earth, the rest of us are going to the stars.

[mackdaddy]

20. Why, that is almost 10 DAYS of spending in Iraq!

We can't waste our resources on silly things like space exploration, basic science research or new technology.

Just look at all of the benefits we will be getting from being in Iraq for the next 100 years.

We have to plan for the future!

[MilesColtrane]

80. Hey, it's not like that oil is going to jump out of the ground into our cars,

and all those brown people are going to bomb themselves.

Let's put that money where we really need it.

Scianse iz hard innyhow.

[Political Heretic]

24. Put that 17.3 billion dollars a year into fighting child poverty in the United States

As long as we have millions of families living below the poverty line in the richest country in the history of the world, it is a national scandal that we devote so much money shooting things into space.

I'm for scientific exploration two, but not until our priorities are fixed.

[Bill McBlueState]

29. NASA's a source of jobs

And creating jobs is one commonly accepted means of fighting poverty.

[Political Heretic]

34. Yeah, lot of poor people getting jobs at NASA are there?

NASA employees are not exactly in a low demand market where job placement is difficult.

By contrast, jobs created by NASA have precisely zero connection to people living in poverty.

As I said before, we can and should certainly both pursue scientific discovery and social welfare. But until we do both, social welfare and the immediate needs of real human beings is a priority.

[Bill McBlueState]

37. Of course there's a connection to people living in poverty

Poor people can be engineers or scientists. I know plenty of smart and talented poor people.

[Political Heretic]

39. Getting jobs at NASA?

no.

[whopis01]

40. Most of the jobs lost are not from NASA.

They are contractor jobs.

This includes everyone from engineers and administrators to cooks and servers in the cafeterias.

[Political Heretic]

42. Okay lets take a step back

First of all, I'm sorry but people in TANF are not getting jobs at NASA, contracted to NASA or anywhere near NASA. But even if you dispute that, let's take a step back for a second.

The larger argument, that NASA produces jobs, thus it is part of the poverty solution is a bit weak. The number of jobs it creates affecting poverty is unequivocally small for the money spend on NASA, most of which does not - under any rationalization - go to employment but rather to technology.

I am not saying that in a perfect world there should be no NASA. We should revolutionize our priorities away from corporate welfare and the military-industrial complex and toward social development and scientific discovery. However, at the same time, it remains true that the 17 billion dollars spend on NASA is not equivalent to spending on social development. However way you try to spin the data, the impact NASA has on social welfare, poverty and even jobs is minimal, given its size and scope. At the same time, the same 17billion dollars could fund significant social welfare programs, like the expansion of SCHIP for example, which would benefit millions of children.

AGAIN I'm not saying it should be either / or - the money needed for SCHIP should come out of money spent on corporate welfare and the military complex, and the NASA budget, as far as I'm concerned, could be increased in a perfect system. But my point is for right now, when I look at a budget that includes 17 billion for NASA and not enough for child poverty for example, I don't approve.

[whopis01]

51. You are missing the bigger picture

I was never claiming that NASA was "part of the poverty solution". I was pointing out that when they talk about jobs being lost as NASA, it hits more people than just the highly trained, well-paid workers.

You are taking a very simple view of a very complex set of issues. Out of the whole spectrum of government spending, you pick two items (the space program and child poverty) and then say we need to prioritize. When you look at it that way, it is obvious that the money is not being well spent. However, that is a very incomplete picture.

There are short term problems and there are long term problems (and everything else in between). Child poverty is an immediate problem. The space program helps address much longer term issues. Both need to be addressed.

If you saw that a large amount of money was being spent on homeless shelters for men, and not enough being spent on child poverty would you claim that we shouldn't spend the money on homeless shelters for men? I realize that is a bit of a ridiculous example, but when you only pick two items out of all of the spending, it isn't a realistic discussion.

Instead of creating a false competition between child poverty aid and the space program, why not look at the bigger picture. I think if you even add in just one more factor, it starts becoming a lot clearer. If we take one (albeit a very big one), we could say this:

We are spending 2 billion dollars a week on the Iraq war. Why can't we that money and spend it on preventing child poverty? That's 104 billion a year. We could put 85 billion into child poverty and fix that problem and then just go ahead and double NASA's budget with what is left over while we are at it.

The real point of what I am trying to say is this:
The money being spent on NASA is not the cause of the problem. Address the real issue.

[Occulus]

72. Wow. If I replace 'NASA' with 'war', your post makes sense to me.

But that's an 'if and only if' equation.

[RamblingRose]

63. I grew up in the huge city of Titusville, FL where almost the entire population is dependent

upon the space industry. A job lost is a job lost, whether it is a contractor or NASA employee, because they are all intertwined. My mom was a single parent and worked for McGregor and Werner (NASA contractor) in printing and documentation, until she was laid off in 1983. Prior to this my mom and I lived comfortably, but after her layoff we slipped into poverty. I remember my mom telling me to answer the phone and say she wasn't there because the creditors were calling non-stop. However, thanks to many government programs like JTPA, the free lunch program, Pell grant, and others, we made it through and I was able to go to college. This was a big life lesson for me and I credit it to the person I am today.

If these jobs are cut you end up putting more people in poverty in an area where jobs are already very scarce, and yes, many have a low education level.

I don't think you have to choose between NASA funding and fighting child poverty.

Sorry, this is a subject that hits very close to home for me.

RR

[Manifestor_of_Light]

78. I know lots of unemployed techies.

Long term unemployed programmers, mathematicians, physicists, engineers.

They've applied at NASA umpteen times and got no response.

It's too bad the bastards in Washington killed the Superconducting Supercollider in Waxahachie. That would have put generations of physicists and programmers to work.

Short-sighted asshole politicians. :cry:

[mitchum]

57. But...but...but...NASA provided jobs for "ex" Nazis!

Won't you think of the poor death machine veterans?

[dysfunctional press]

58. BULLSHIT. do you think nasa hires rocket scientists to clean/maintain their facilities?

is it the double ph.d. scientists who do the actual nuts-and-bolts manufacturing and assembling of ALL the components and driving the trucks/forklifts/etc. used to transport them?

and on and on...

and of course all the highly paid people at the facilities don't spend ANY of their money in the local communities around the facilities where they work, do they...? (but where DO they buy their groceries and clothing?)

i'm sorry, but the statement you made was entirely ignorant of reality.

[Solon]

30. Why can't we do both?

NASA cost 1.6 percent of the budget, and devoting ALL of that to fight poverty isn't going to do nearly as much as cutting the MILITARY budget. NASA isn't only a source of jobs, but they fund research and development, ON EARTH, from speculative to practical. You don't abandon such a source for research just because we have social problems, we can multi-task here, its not an either/or option.

[Political Heretic]

33. We can do both, but until we do, poverty is a priority.

If we do both, great. But as long as we aren't I don't support NASA spending over social welfare.

[Solon]

36. "NASA spending over social welfare"

When has that ever been the choice? As far as I can tell, every time social welfare spending has been reduced, its the Military that takes the money, not NASA, so aren't you creating a false dichotomy?

[Political Heretic]

38. I don't think so. I think we are just looking at it from different perspectives.

I am looking at the matter from a large top-down overview of spending.

The correct choice would be to reprioritize spending away from corporate welfare and the military industrial complex and instead invest that money into social development and science.

But I live in the real world, where that doesn't happen. And I'm saying that as long as we are neglecting the issue of poverty in America, I personally don't support NASA spending. That's not the same as suggesting it is nasa spending that is taking away money from social development - it is military spending and corporate welfare that are taking away from both.

So I'm talking about a personal position of prioritization, not seeing NASA and social development programs as directly competing with each other. My point is more that our priorities are totally out of whack. We'll spend money annually on NASA, but not fund SCHIP - at least not without a massive fight.

[Solon]

41. SCHIP is actually in the non-discretionary budget...

Money that, theoretically, can't be reduced. In addition to that, the fact is that the military industrial complex is a problem, the only reason why NASA's budget would be cut, due to your "realism" is because of the anti-intellectualism that is far too pervasive in this country. The fact is that all of NASA's budget could be used to fight poverty, and it will barely make a dent to solve the problem. Then what's the next "realistic" program to cut?

[Political Heretic]

43. Yes, but its expansion or inflation related spending increases are still debated

...which is what I'm talking about.

It's actually untrue that 17 billion dollars would barely make a dent in poverty. In fact it would make a dramatic impact.

No one usually wants to read long, complex things, but you can see this for an example.

http://www.urban.org/publications/411450.html

You'll have to look at the full report. It is a quantitative research study, taking recommendations for the Center for American Progress' Task Force on Poverty and determining how much impact it would have and how much money it would cost.

The impact of these programs combine effect millions and millions of people, and many of them create a revenue shortfall of just a couple billion a piece which would need to be made up from somewhere. 17 billion would go a long way.

Again, I'm not saying that money should come from NASA. But you're dead wrong about 17 billion not making a dent. People don't understand how LITTLE we spend on social development and how comparatively LITTLE it costs to aggressively fight poverty.

[Solon]

45. I think the fact of the matter is that it really depends on who is in office...

When its Democrats, they raise the military budget, keep NASA's the same, or decrease it, and then spend the money on some social programs that are usually a day late and a dollar short, and still end up giving the lion's share of the money to the rich and corporations.

When its Republicans, they raise the military budget, keep NASA's the same or decrease it, while saying "We're going back to the Moon, We're going to Mars, etc., then also cut social programs, and then give the money to the rich and corporations.

[Political Heretic]

50. AGREED.

Seems like a good end to the exchange. :toast:

[darue]

54. how about you spend abnother 20 billion 'fighting child poverty'?

what will you do with that 20 billion anyway to fight child poverty? send kids free money in the mail each month?

[MidwestTransplant]

44. I am all for NASA but what's the big deal about returning to the moon 40 years later?

Bush announced the program as a triumph. I see it as him saying: "see we can be as good as we were once again."

[Solon]

46. Not for the reasons Bush wants to...

By the way, he's the SECOND Bush to say this shit, its called an "unfunded mandate" just like NCLB. NASA's budget hasn't increased dramatically because he said this, so I'm not really surprised that he hasn't bothered to fund it.

As far as reasons to go to the Moon, there's one primary reason we could want to go back, to mine Helium-3, which is a "cleaner" fuel for fusion power plants. Its an isotope of Helium that isn't found on Earth. I'm not saying its practical, yet, but about 6 tons of the stuff could power California for a year, and it wouldn't have as many problems with radioactivity that deuterium-tritium, or deuterium-deuterium fusion reactions would have.

[madrchsod]

27. no it is`t and never will be

[Acadia Blue]

59. Better invest the money in the Iraquie money pit

[sudopod]

65. Why not cut the $500 billion dollar defense budget first

Or maybe get our $30 billion back from Bear Stearns.

Or maybe cut those $17 billion dollar tax exemptions from Big Oil.

The space program does worlds of good for a relatively small investment.

[Crowman1979]

9. We need a space program!

There are many problems in this world that have been and can be solve by way of space exploration and technology. Especially if we could extract minerals from other planets and meteors and dispose of unrecyclable waste in the Sun. If anything, funding for the research space, medicinal and scientific advancements should be doubled. While the defense budget should be cut in half, if not more.

[Political Heretic]

25. Not before we address poverty in the United States.

We do need a space program. But it is a national scandal that we spend 17 billion a year on space exploration and hotly, fiercely contest SCHIP which cost 5 billion, and continue to have working families in the United States living below the poverty line. (A line which, by the way, inaccurately calculates what constitutes "poverty" in American downward, and has not been adjusted for inflation or anything else since the 1950s.)

It's scandalous that we fight foreign wars, spend multi-billions of dollars on excessively expensive military super-weapons, spend as much as every other major industrial country in the world combined on the military, subsidize a multi-trillion dollar corporate industry with welfare and yes, have a space program while we trail the west of the industrialized world in key indicators of poverty



http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig_08.html

[Bill McBlueState]

31. it's interesting

that you need to conflate spending on astronomical research with

*fighting foreign wars
*spending multi-billions of dollars on excessively expensive military super-weapons
*spending as much as every other major industrial country in the world combined on the military
*subsidizing a multi-trillion dollar corporate industry with welfare

and then show a big graph about military spending

in order to make your argument against astronomy. I bet a lot of people support astronomy spending and oppose the other items in your list.

[Political Heretic]

35. It's not a point against astronomy. In fact you've missed the point entirely.

The point was that our spending priorities are totally out of whack. If they weren't there would be plenty of revenue for both astronomy and social welfare.

We can and should do both. But as long as we AREN'T I'll continue to demand that if we social welfare be prioritized over astronomical discovery.

[whopis01]

52. How do you figure that the poverty line has not been adjusted since the 50s?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov1.html


The current poverty threshold is well above the average income of the 50s.

[Political Heretic]

76. Because it hasn't been - not really:

If you have time, you should read the full statement.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/pdf/greenberg_testimony.pdf

In a broad sense, the current thresholds are often viewed as being the levels of income
that families need in order to meet their most basic needs. However, the actual dollar
figure for the current thresholds is essentially an arbitrary figure: it reflects an early-
1960s calculation of the cost of a low cost food plan designed for temporary or
emergency use when funds are low, multiplied by three because food represented about
one-third of a family budget in 1955, and then essentially adjusted only for changes in the
consumer price index. Since that time, there have been dramatic changes in family
budgets and living standards that are not reflected in the measure. As such, there is no
real justification for the current thresholds other than they continue a historical series and
there is not agreement on what should replace them.

Since the poverty line has only been adjusted to reflect changes in prices since the 1960s,
it has fallen over time in relation to family median income. The poverty threshold for a
family of four was about 49 percent of median income for a family of four in 1959; it was
28.4 percent of median income for a family of four in 2005. Thus, having income below
the poverty line now means that a family is much further from the mainstream than was
the case in earlier decades. Notably, international comparisons often measure poverty in
relation to 50 percent of median income. In the United Kingdom’s commitment to end
child poverty by 2020, a principal measure is the share of children in families below 60
percent of median income.

[darue]

55. you address poverty with a national industrial policy, not by killing nessesary delopment

this kind of either/or thinking is so 1970's - it's a specious argument, we've never lacked the fund to 'fight poverty' we lack the political will and the votes to do it.

[Political Heretic]

77. You and I are in agrement.

That's not my point.

[Norrin Radd]

11. Dump corporate welfare.

[jpak]

13. So much for Bush's Invasion of Mars

:evilgrin:

[YDogg]

18. my thoughts exactly

[Bill McBlueState]

32. science educators have a lot of work to do

I make my living from a NASA grant to study how the solar system formed by observing distant young stars.

It's clear from some of the responses in this thread that science educators (myself included) need to do a better job of informing people what NASA actually does, and why astronomy research is a good thing for the US to spend a little money on.

[Solon]

47. You're just a freeloading Geek!

:sarcasm:

OK, how many planetary nebula have you discovered, and do you have pictures, I need pictures dammit! :)

[KamaAina]

60. And the Kammie Award for Most Creative Way to Screw New Orleans goes to...

NASA!!! (wild applause)

The Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans was forecast to lose as many as 1,300 of its 1,900 jobs.

It is not "near" New Orleans, geniuses, it is IN hard-hit New Orleans East. It is also one of the few industrial facilities in the immediate area. A Folger's coffee plant is nearby, there's the Avondale Shipyard a few miles out of town, and then there are a number of oil refineries in the vicinity. But that's about it. After that, there's not much above the level of slinging gumbo to tourists (those few that are aware the city still exists) for tips. :grr:

[sudopod]

68. PROTIP

NASA wasn't "the decider" here.

You get three guesses as to who was.

[KamaAina]

73. That decider is ineligible for the coveted Kammie

because he's been elevated* to the Kammie Hall of Shame.

And what in the world is PROTIP? :shrug:

[sudopod]

79. You never read Gamepro? :D

Sorry if I'm injecting a bit too much random Internetese into the conversation. ;)

[formercia]

61. What? Bush gang can't go to Mars and search for their lizard

ancestors? :rofl:

[Phoonzang]

62. I swear the responses in this thread

threaten send me into a violent frenzy. I guess being a small-minded, imagination-less, Luddite isn't exclusive to one political party. I suppose I can be assured that the space program won't be canceled no matter how many human-suicidists want it to be. If it is, at least other countries appear to be taking up and ensuring the future of the human race.

[sudopod]

69. You run into them everywhere.

They're usually the people who are 30 and still "aren't good at fractions." :p

[cap]

82. You're right

People can not understand what the Earth Observation Satellite system means for their day-to-day lives. Or NOAA for weather. Or GPS for navigation. You could not have ships deliver stuff around the world without the information on weather, tides, currents, water temperature. This is planned with satellite data. Farmers use satellite weather forecasting to determine when and how to plant their crops. Urban planners use it to understand the ground conditions for the types of roads and buildings they wish to design.

People object to basic research about volcanos. What is basic research about the volcanos leads to new discoveries about minerals, how chemicals react under extreme conditions. You need basic research in order to develop the next thing. These arent questions that the likes of you or I ponder on a day to day basis; but somebody is gathering basic data that gets formulated into new theories about how the world works. Commercially oriented scientists take these new facts and theories and start looking at how these apply to our every day lives.

[kuratowa]

83. Basic Human Nature

People always seem to quibble about they don;t understand -

Take your job, for instance, do you ever rail about someone that you have no real idea what they do and complain they make too much money, without having the facts?

Happens all the time.