DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The minor portion used to haul "post" (postage) is paid for by "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises". The majority of the traffic, non post, pays for their portion by way of a separate tax on fuel.
APP - Report: NASA can't keep up with killer asteroids
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
its simple common sense when you consider that a private entity does it's research to make a profit, where the government absconds money from the citizenry to create what they need with little regard to the cost.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
That is not an argument.
Could you explain to me why it's common sense instead of simply labeling it so? Provide some evidence, maybe?
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
You cannot rely on private research alone. Common sense tells you that. 
Private research funds what it thinks can be profitable. You'll never see a private research firm building a Hubbell telescope, yet the material we've gotten from Hubbell has been invaluable in expanding our understanding of the universe. Government funded research has a huge place in modern science.
Private research funds what it thinks can be profitable. You'll never see a private research firm building a Hubbell telescope, yet the material we've gotten from Hubbell has been invaluable in expanding our understanding of the universe. Government funded research has a huge place in modern science.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Saying we couldn't live without any of them is a vast stretch. It would be politically unpopular to do away with them. That is by no means the same thing.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I think it would have effects beyond being politically unpopular.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
maybe you could see through your marxist blinders, but try this one for now.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5966
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Cato is a poor source, but I'll check it out.
Epicurus
Reasonable
They were in some respects. The post office provision being one, as you pointed out. The provision for public education being another.
Calling something socialist is no different than calling it orange. It is a factual observation devoid of positive or negative connotation. The connotations only come from the moral and political implications you attach to the word.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
All the examples provided are for pharmaceutical remedies.
Did a private corporation discover gravity?
Did a private corporation discover gravity?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Without the public research conducted by Newton at the University of Oxford we wouldn't be half the society we are today.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
And the federal government does not "crowd out" private investment. Research is not a zero-sum game.
Wow, this thread demonstrates with perfect clarity the absolute hypocrisy, and total lack of any consistent ideological foundation of movement conservatives.
The only time I ever hear Cons whining about the "limitations" of the enumerated powers, is when tax dollars are spent on the welfare of the american people. Healthcare, food stamps, social security.
But, in a horrific display of bad tap dancing, now everything from the National Parks, to the National Weather Service, to NASA scientific research, is deemed appropriate federal expenditures in the name of "national security".
Man, why don't you just give up talking about the "limitations" of the enumerated tax and spend powers. This is the most broad interpretation of the national defense clause I've ever heard. Virtually anything can be defined as national security. Some "limited" government. LOL.
Man this thread was funny.
Let's face it. Cons are totally inconsistent.
The only time I ever hear Cons whining about the "limitations" of the enumerated powers, is when tax dollars are spent on the welfare of the american people. Healthcare, food stamps, social security.
But, in a horrific display of bad tap dancing, now everything from the National Parks, to the National Weather Service, to NASA scientific research, is deemed appropriate federal expenditures in the name of "national security".
Man, why don't you just give up talking about the "limitations" of the enumerated tax and spend powers. This is the most broad interpretation of the national defense clause I've ever heard. Virtually anything can be defined as national security. Some "limited" government. LOL.
Man this thread was funny.
Let's face it. Cons are totally inconsistent.
Well, at least on that Cons were for once, consistent. They proposed a constitutional amendment denying gay americans the right to enter into a marriage contract.
I'm still trying to figure out how the creation of Yellow Stone Park, or the U.S. Geological Survey are related to National Security.
I guess I could claim that health care is a national security issue, and cons would have to give up using the discredited enumerated powers argument.
I never said it was appropriate, I said it was how the SCOTUS ruled on National Parks, oddly enough.
However, the space race is definitely a national security issue. Now you I expect to be disingenuous that way, unlike ib1 who pretends that he is "disappointed" in others.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Umm excuse me? I was perfectly consistent. In fact I called out Damocles for not being consistent.
You are quite the selective reader.
Again explain my "inconsistency" you are making no sense. I have been very consistent. I believe that the government is given the authority for national defense, and that there are obvious human and natural threats from that arena. It is definitely, IMO, a solid national defense arena.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Damocles why are you being obtuse? As much as I hate to ever agree with Cypress on anything he did point out the remarkable footwork you have to perform to be able to justify NASA on the grounds of national security.
You take a broader interpretation and I take a narrower interpretation. You probably see mine as restrictive, while I see yours as inconsistent or stretched beyond recognition. By stretching the national security power that far you basically do open up the door for people like him to claim that healthcare is a national security issue. It is a comparable stretch.
You take a broader interpretation and I take a narrower interpretation. You probably see mine as restrictive, while I see yours as inconsistent or stretched beyond recognition. By stretching the national security power that far you basically do open up the door for people like him to claim that healthcare is a national security issue. It is a comparable stretch.
*sigh* I am not being "obtuse" I am being very direct. Straight line path here.
There is no way to make it any more of a direct path. It is equivalent to "there is a threat of nuclear weapons, therefore it is national security to either defend or create your own", I can't make any more direct path. You can argue against the research portions and other parts of it being outside that boundary, but there is a direct national security mission.
And no, health care for all is far more of a stretch, we provide health care to our military because a healthy military is a mission of national defense. One can argue the need for a standing army, but one cannot pretend that keeping soldiers healthy isn't a mission of national defense.
Each of these are straight and direct lines. It's like saying a Navy is unnecessary. It is just a different venue where attacks can come from whether by intel gathering, targeting, or even direct attacks on satellites... (ever see the "tests" done by other nations using missiles to destroy something in space?)