Quote from: Jim on 11/06/2014 01:54 pmMany false and wrong conclusions and statements in the above. Please give precise statements and links to support your claim in detail.
Many false and wrong conclusions and statements in the above.
I was alive during the sixties. Taxes were much higher, and people did not complain about it. As a result Apollo was paid for with current revenues. The US is still severely in deficit and there is no possibility of a tax increase to pay for it. Consequently any budget increase for NASA would require additional borrowing. If you know of any possible source of the additional funding that will be necessary to fund a meaningful program of human exploration of the moon and Mars with SLS/Orion technology, please don't keep it a secret. I don't think this is general politics, and this thread seems to be attracting more interest than any others.
Quote from: docmordrid on 11/05/2014 12:50 pmOne thing that may matter is Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, who is now Majority Leader in the House and is likely to replace Boehner as Speaker. Musk is one of his contributors. He also represents Antellope Valley and has been a big fan of commercial space companies like XCOR, Masten, etc. I got to meet him briefly after Masten won the NGLLC back in 2009. His district doesn't include Palmdale, but does include Edwards. But most of the aerospace companies he interacts with are of a more commercial flavor than most. Hopefully he has bandwidth to pay attention to what they have to say if he becomes Speaker--space won't be a priority issue, but at least commercial space will likely have more of a connection with him.~Jon
One thing that may matter is Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, who is now Majority Leader in the House and is likely to replace Boehner as Speaker. Musk is one of his contributors.
How does this relate to space? Economic growth brings larger government revenues and corporate tax reform is necessary to spur this growth. Corporate tax reform should be a priority but I doubt that Obama and Congress will find a way to compromise on this issue.
The U.S. corporate tax rate (35%-40%) is higher than just about all other OECD countries and makes it hard for U.S. companies to compete internationally.
Quote from: yg1968 on 11/06/2014 05:49 pmThe U.S. corporate tax rate (35%-40%) is higher than just about all other OECD countries and makes it hard for U.S. companies to compete internationally.It's true that the headline US corporate tax rate is unusually high, but, according to the GAO, the effective corporate tax rate is quite a bit lower, because of numerous deductions and the like. It's also the case the corporations in the US are paying a much smaller share of the federal government's total tax take now than in previous decades (you can look it up on OMB's website).None of this is to say that the US corporate tax code doesn't need overhauling -- it may well do. It's just that the 35% rate itself isn't the problem. I don't know a lot about US corporate taxes, but the fact that a blatantly faulty argument (the 35% rate) is so often trotted out as proof that US corporate taxes are too high makes me suspicious that US corporations are actually not over-taxed, especially in light of their declining share of total US tax burden.PS I do not mean to imply, yg1968, that you are being deceptive in mentioning the 35% rate -- it is, after, widely talked about. I'm just suggesting that under scrutiny it does not hold up as evidence that the tax code is unreasonably burdensome on US corporations, and some corporate interests may disingenuous in highlighting it.
Colorado's incoming Senator Cory Garnder teamed up with Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama and Mike Coffman of Colorado in accusing SpaceX of having sufferred "an epidemic of anomalies" in its launches last July (letter attached). To my mind, this was misleading and melodramatic. He doesn't sound very newspace-friendly.
I'm on the left, too, and I support human space flight. Always have. But we're outliers. Most people on the left do not support space; it's not even on their radar.
All it will take to change the calculus of Space flight is boots on the ground (the Moon) that are not wearing a US flag. Then we can talk about what budgets become available as China, or Russia starts occupying what we just visited.
Quote from: CraigLieb on 11/12/2014 08:07 pmAll it will take to change the calculus of Space flight is boots on the ground (the Moon) that are not wearing a US flag. Then we can talk about what budgets become available as China, or Russia starts occupying what we just visited.That wouldn't change a thing. The US doesn't own the Moon anymore than they own Antarctica.
I would like to suggest another two-fold explanation, which is that the success of Apollo posed a threat to the conservative worldview that Big Government cannot achieve great things; while, paradoxically, it reinforced the opposite belief on the left that government was capable of solving major problems and should therefore redirect its full resources in an “Apollo-style” effort to solve pressing social problems.
I submit that NASA's post-Apollo problems aren’t the fault of incompetent or short-sighted administrators...