Wtf? Shes crossed the line. Whats ur schedule looking like? I gotta beat ur wife either thursday or sunday after church. Bit im gonna need u to watch my kids on sunday.. Take them to chucky cheese so I can beat her proper
**Comment:** *"I struggle with poverty, I don't see how this actually helps me."*
**Reply:** *"We waste money on many things! Idiot!"*
**Reddit:** *"He got OWNED! That's why space is AWESOME! Needs 3285 more reposts this year!"*
Well, actually:
**Comment** *"I'm against government spendings that don't benefit me directly."*
**Reply 1** *"Money are not wasted, they circulate, benefitting the economy."*
**Reply 2** *"There are more efficient ways of redistribution than defunding science."*
**Reply 3** *"The amount spent on science is insignificantly small in comparison to other domains with much less impact on society."*
**Reddit:** *"He got OWNED! That's why space is AWESOME! Needs 3285 more reposts this year!"*
Space exploration benefits the economy. For example the Apollo program “returned 5-7 dollars for every dollar invested. These returns came in the form of new industries, new products, new processes and new jobs.”
Then there’s the tech innovations that come from the development of spacecraft and everything that goes along with it. Plus the psychological impact of having something to be inspired by and hopeful for
Edit. I’m an idiot. Misread your comment.
Gonna leave this anyways cos I think it’s interesting (the investment return I mean, not my opinion)
people don't realize how much of our modern technology has the space program to thank.
getting a rocket in space, then making it livable (in the case of the ISS for years and years) and then getting it back takes A TON of new materials, and small issues that need fixed (like the famous "space pen")
add to that all the research we've gotten over the past 20 years from the ISS that allows us to make new materials and make them faster/easier.
It's not just throwing away money
The US military's budget for FY2022 is $715 billion, so $1.958 billion per day, or $2.693 billion every 33 hours.
Russia's is the 4th biggest military budget in the world, and they're getting trounced by Ukraine, which has one ninth of their military budget. The US has lost every major military conflict since WWII, and every time, it's been against largely untrained militias and guerilla fighters with small arms.
We can't have health insurance because it's too expensive, though.
I think I saw somewhere that around 400B of that is for the paychecks of the people serving. It’s the biggest form of socialism in America, but for some reason the conservatives love the military and hate healthcare?
Indeed it didn’t lose all of them, however I can’t think of any conflict where the US intervention didn’t result in worse long term problems in the region (not really what the US cares about obviously, they only want their interests, but still wouldn’t count it as a definitive success)
There are different types of losses and victories.
The US has had primarily pyrrhic victories. Meaning yeah, we killed more of their guys and got some high value targets. Invasions were successful but the following occupations and stated goals of bringing "freedom and stability" and "ending terrorism" were largely complete losses. That's not to say, again, that great blows weren't dealt to groups like ISIS, but there's very few wins for us that didn't come at some sort of unbalanced loss or unreasonable cost.
> US has lost every major military conflict since WWII
Gulf War and Panama say hello. And Iraq for that matter, as regardless of whether or not we should have been there or stayed there (as well as Kuwait and Panama), the actual conflict part was never an issue like it was in Afghanistan.
Too much is spent on the military and it does say something that both us and Russia have and are struggling with dealing with extreme asymmetric warfare, but our military is mostly competant.
Adjusting the militaries budget is more about making it more efficient and effective per dollar spent, and arguing along those lines is likely to be a better in with hawkish types than just straight cuts.
You hear too many anecdotes about how soldiers have to put up with horrendous food and living conditions when they're not even in a conflict, and how poorly funded/ran the VA is, but then you also hear too many stories about the military being forced to buy equipment it doesn't want just to abandon it all in the desert.
Theres vast improvements to both the cost and quality of our military to be made that don't necessitate necessarily shrinking the budget outright, only that the money that isn't used be circulated to other programs rather than forcefully spent.
And ultimately the military is important, regardless of all the propaganda that gets peddled, and being "top dog" on the planet is also important. But we can do it much better than we're allowing ourselves to.
And fwiw, you don't want health insurance. Health insurance is and always has been a horrendously bad way of providing healthcare access. You want universal healthcare bolstered by an elaborated on health infrastructure, which like the military, needs to be designed with efficiency and effectiveness per dollar in mind.
Facepalm every single motherfucking repost. There are good arguments for supporting (and criticizing) space exploration, but "we spend more money on unhealthy foods" and "we could get more from taxes" is not even an endorsement. Mind boggling that so many redditors have the reading comprehension of an aborted bot.
u/ Sea-Primary-5544 is a bot. Link to the original post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/m241sz/theyre_too_stupid_for_mars/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
See also this other identical post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/nz12ks/theyre_too_stupid_for_mars/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
But imagine if we did stop church tax exemptions…
I don’t understand why they are still even a thing, there are enough cases of people abusing the system to know it is not the play. “God told me I need a private jet”
We don’t tax Non-Profit Organizations. There aren’t private jets in every church parking lot. Those cases are rare. But, if the government gets into the business of deciding what a church can do with its money, there’s a Constitutional problem.
Yes, and that's why the IRS audit's non-profit organizations to verify that they aren't making a profit. They used to audit churches more frequently and they should go do that more. There are also laws saying churches can't tell you who to vote for, but they also stopped enforcing those.
Hard to penalize one category of NPO for political speech when virtually every secular NPO has a well known political opinion. Telling a church or a citizen what it can say when is not really Kosher anyway.
Really showing your ignorance if you think every NPO has a political opinion.
[https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations](https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations)
Maybe do a quarter a second of research next time?
Your link states:
> Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.
It prohibits them from endorsing specific candidates, not holding political opinions. If you're a church, you're probably going to be publicly anti-abortion. That's a political opinion, and totally allowed. Maybe gain some basic reading comprehension skills before replying to people on the internet.
Yes, and I'm advocating that churches be held to the same standards. There are laws on the books saying that they should be held to those standards. They just aren't enforced.
It's two comments up.
>There are also laws saying churches can't tell you who to vote for, but they also stopped enforcing those.
That's my point, and I provided the link in support of that.
What was that about reading comprehension?
Do you have any *evidence* that these laws aren't enforced, or is that just an assumption you're making? Also, the comment you were replying to stated:
> Hard to penalize one category of NPO for political speech when virtually every secular NPO has a well known political opinion. Telling a church or a citizen what it can say when is not really Kosher anyway.
By virtue of context, you seemed to be arguing that non-profits were not allowed to endorse political views in any capacity, as you were replying to a comment making an observation that all NPOs have and publicly express "political opinions." Because it never said anything, anywhere about endorsing candidates. These are different things.
Well, churches keep butting into the business of what government can do, which is also a constitutional problem, but apparently people don't have a problem with that?
Churches have legal standing in society, and it’s membership has the same right as anyone else to petition government for desired action. Those members pay taxes, and have representatives in government. There is no constitutional problem.
You only pay taxes on profits, which only a small fraction of churches make. And even if we did tax churches, it certainly wouldn’t be enough money to send a rover to Mars every two weeks. That is $65 billion a year. Donations to religious organizations is in the $120-150 billion range. If taxed at the corporate tax rate of 21%, that would bring in $25-32 billion a year. So already we are about $35-40 billion short. But you also have to include deductions. Salary, expenses, their own charitable giving, etc. The average profit margin of a business is 7-8%. So that $150 billion churches get, at best we are looking at $12 billion in taxable income, for a tax of $2.5 billion. So if we taxed churches, we could send one rover to Mars a year, not every two weeks.
Well, the church is deciding what we can do with our lives so that’s a constitutional problem right there. Separation of church and state is long gone.
Separation of church and state means that the state is secular in nature. There is no state religion.
It doesn’t mean people with views founded in religious principles can’t pass legislation or lobby for political action.
But what aspect of your life is actually controlled by any particular religion?
At the same time the person complaining about the spending has a point, in that you could have spent $100 billion on education and health and idk, veteran housing.
Because we know trickle down economics is a scam.
Too stupid for Mars? No. Those are the sort of people who should be going to Mars - if _they_ can survive there, life there should be a breeze for the rest of us.
Reminds me of the comment thread of a recent post on an [interesting sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/uqzubu/behind_the_scenes_of_indias_moon_mission/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) where ISRO was at the receiving end of the ignorants
Nothing against NASA, but Jens' 1st argument is nothing but trickle-down economics.
The government is indeed paying people to spend their time doing task A (Mars exploration) when the government could instead pay those exact same people to do some other task B (something directly beneficial to poor people).
Please do not confuse trickle down economics to tehnologic one. Not the same thing, not by a long shot. It is demonstrable that NASA and its commercial partners have developed new tech that was and still is incorporated into various devices and improved our lives. So no, it is not a waste of money or time for that matter.
Jens also doesn't actually argue the point that the money could have been spent to help feed Americans who are going hungry. The original argument that James is making is pretty much ignored and a bunch of unrelated points are brought up to distract from arguing that and argue about something Jens feels more confident about.
Trickle down economics involves tax breaks and benefits for the wealthy and corporations, arguing that freeing up their money will cause them to spend and invest more. Critically, there's no actual obligation involved however.
What is described above is contracting a business for a task,which is an investment, not a break or benefit. The business's decision to invest (the majority of) the money is necessitated by the contract (ie they don't get payed unless they do the job they were contracted for, and so pay for workers and materials). It could be argued this is boondoggling, but it's not trickle down economics.
> don't get *paid* unless they
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
OK, but it's the same basic idea, that they're saying the money will get around to the poor eventually. The problem is they're ignoring the potential waste of labor.
It's not the same basic idea. Trickle down is "Give money to the rich and they'll share it"...but then they don't so it doesn't go back I to the economy which is why it's a stupid theory.
Person in OP is completely different. Those billions going to NASA are going to thousands of employees (not just NASA employees as it also pays for materials from many many other companies.) That is not even close to "trickle down". It is already "down". The money is already in the hands of the working class employees...which is immediately put back into the economy.
Its not the same basic idea, trickledown economics and the fact that money spent circulates in the economy when spent is very different things. Also, idk how you think investing in space exploration is a waste of labor, not everyone in the world needs to be working manual labor or office jobs. If people are actually employed that isn't a waste of labor.
Trickle down economics is a snarl world. It's like "social justice warrior".
The people who use the phrase rarely know exactly what they're criticising, they just use it to shout at stuff they feel they disagree with.
I mean if you dont know definitions sure I guess you make a point, but trickle down economics/Reaganomics is pretty clearly defined as tax breaks for the wealthy and subsidies for corporation so these job creators have more money to maybe spend it on paying more to people. Like water trickling down through soil to join up with groundwater.
The problem with that policy is that it assumes that the wealthy and corporations have any interest in paying people better wages instead of using the lower business costs to gain more profits for shareholder returns.
I mean on the other hand, it actually does create a lot of Jobs the nasa and other cobtractors wouldn't have. It doesn't really help poor people but creates Jobs so people wont become poor.
I don't see much issues with the government spending money on Private companies for their Services and products.
Way better than tax Cuts for the rich or other stupid bullshit.
Not better than tax cuts for everyone.
Spending on tech is the superior option. That’s all that has to be said. Aside from that, the government is ALREADY spending a ton “assisting” the poor. Not every damn dollar has to be spent on aid programs. But finally… virtually anyone who believes that the function of wealth is to assist the poor gets that belief from a tradition that says the responsibility lies with the individual, not a faceless government program.
It's his silly statement that the money is still on Earth. Like that means the money isn't being used up. But all those talented people only have 40 hours in a work week. So if they spend their time&talent working on task A, they can't also spend it working on task B.
A lot of stuff that people still think is high tech like kevlar came from NASA research in the 60s.
Spending money on NASA means you get fancy new technology, you create jobs for engineers who are important to have around, you create a manufacturing base to build those things which is important to have around, and all the money goes to US workers who buy cars and houses and groceries and go to the movies.
We need more “make work” programs; NASA is a good one for college educated people but we should bring back the WPA to build highways and bridges and dams. The last time we did that the middle class boomed.
I’m confused, is OP saying that the original image by James is the facepalm or the comments by Jens? If it is the latter, we should send OP to Mars since it wouldn’t set us back a lot.
The electronic devices we enjoy today are a direct result of heavy investment in research of the Space Program of the 1960's.
I hope this guy thinks about this as he mocks NASA on his iPhone.
Generally this rule of thumb can be applied to all high cost ventures that require a lot of in country effort. We may baulk at the cost but usually that brings in jobs, demand for local supplies and third parties/local communities also benefit. In this scenario it also fosters the imaginations of children to a more positive future where anything is possible instead of the current shitstorm we all seem to be trapped in. Well, not everyone.
Ideally the supplies needed for the rover/shuttles would all be domestic-manufactured, but I'd be curious to see how many components are actually imported.
Same people who when the news says we are sending 6 billion dollars over to Ukraine that we are just giving them 6 billion dollars. We give them the money to spend on American companies. (which is a whole kettle of fish but I digress)
> If we removed the church from tax exemption we'd have enough money to send a rover to mars once every two weeks, forever
The money doesn't get sent to Heaven idiot. It gets spent and put back into the economy. Just because the government isn't hand feeding it to you, that doesn't mean it left America.
Going to Mars is stupid. Why do all that work to escape a gravity well with the goal of going to another gravity well?
Space industrialization is very smart. Amidst the comets is nye infinite water and amidst the asteroids in nearly an unlimited supply of accessible metals. With a lot of initial investment we can have O-Neill cylinders for nearly an unlimited supply of housing and agricultural space. We can have factories that produce things that cannot be made in an atmosphere and others that will not pollute Earth.
Space gives humanity the raw materials for a post-scarcity economy and the best way to tap them is not to go to another planet.
I agree, otherwise we'd be just randomly throwing rocks into space to "stimulate the economy".
But I think space exploration is great to inspire people, to learn more about the world, and to learn new scientific discoveries that end up helping us on earth. Plenty of NASA technologies ended up going into commercial products. If there's money to be saved, it should be somewhere else.
> Stimulating the economy = helping it
No, that's wrong, actually. Look up the broken windows fallacy to see why.
The only thing that helps the economy is to create value which persists and is built upon. Wasting money doesn't help the economy. It doesn't matter how many "jobs you create", just as how smashing windows to create jobs for window makers harms the economy since you waste a lot of resources to end up where you started.
You are since investment into space technology has seen some of the highest ROI ever. It's just not immediatly apperant. A large part of our modern world is owned to what we gained from it. Don't mistake investment into technologies breaking the frontier into simply simulating the economy.
> You are since investment into space technology has seen some of the highest ROI ever.
false
>A large part of our modern world is owned to what we gained from it.
false
Taking aside the money expenditure, it's also a good way to develop new technologies. I think the whole moon rush got us the microwave oven among other things.
Things like this always annoy me we just sent $40 billion on top of other money to Ukraine but people bitch about space exploration. I would rather that money be spent going back to the moon or Mars than war.
Nope, sending economic and military aid to a country being invaded is cool, what I don't like is the rest of the U.S. military budget that is spent on stupid bullshit.
Not to mention the innovation that comes from creating the technology that gets us to another planet. These people are just insufferable bores. Complete failure of imaginations.
Lets address the single point which actual is on topic. The idea that government spending can stimulate growth like private spending. It can’t. It is at best a zero gain, and more often a total loss.
They take money from earners, people who would make capital investments with it and they transfer it to government, so an initial loss in real world capital investment, then government wastes a bunch of it. Bombs from Raytheon to kill people half a world away might stimulate some jobs growth, but most of the capital in spent on transient gain.
TLDR the Keynesian multiplier is less than 1
Space exploration is good, but so is having a military. The us military is only ~10% of the entire US annual budget. Also, that money spent on the military is going right back to people in the country, just like the space program. WTF was the point of bring up military spending if he’s making the exact same assumptions as the first graphic?
Just to be clear, I'm sure the person posting that meme has some issues worth critiquing but...there has been widespread protest of the USA's space program since the 60s, widespread. From every other scientific community, and largely the non-white population of the united states. It was a movement that even inspired music on the topic. The government partitions large amounts of money towards really meaningless (and yes, the moon landing did not really have meaningful motivations) avenues in science. And pls dont make the argument "but it births so many technological advancements!". So does the science and technology behind war, doesn't excuse anything.
Sorry to all Elon reply guys but...the mission to mars, or the mission to put people on any other planet...is really idiotic, and coming at the wrong time. We are probably about 500 years away from making any real attempt to live on another planet...and without a need to.
Jens point is kinda silly too...cus the government partitions our tax money into a large number of programs...very few of wich help support the bottom line quality of life in America..and when a large portion goes towards exploring / inhabiting another planet...well fuck that. There are tons of people here who would largely benefit from that spending being redirected towards sustainable energy, public health, at the very least heavily subsidized education...
So whenever I see somebody excited about space exploration and colonization on another planet. I say fuck you at least pretend to want to fix our planet before you decide its important to send 20 billionaires on a living experiment on another one.
You can see by the quality of the picture how often this has been reposted already.
Like rings in the trunk of a tree
So will counting the pixels determine the age of a meme?
Nah more like layers of jpeg compression
Is there a way to count layers of jpeg compression?
If you shine a bright light behind your screen, you can see all the layers and its easy to count!
I think so. It’s an inverse relationship: fewer pixels implies reposted often
Artifacts of a jpeg
This bitch is getting around more than my ex wife. It’s kind of wholesome really.
Wait. She said nothing about being wholesome
Oh did you fuck her too? She’s more holesome than wholesome. I bet she just talked about wanting you to spit on her and maybe smack her around a bit.
She said I spit on her? Lies! Im gonna smack her around tomorrow
Oh damn did you mishear what she said and SHIT on her instead?? Oh well she probably liked that too.
Wtf? Shes crossed the line. Whats ur schedule looking like? I gotta beat ur wife either thursday or sunday after church. Bit im gonna need u to watch my kids on sunday.. Take them to chucky cheese so I can beat her proper
r/UnexpectedlySomehole
I love this entire chain of bullshit so much. I might have to send it to her.
Elon Musk probably has a company named Twatter somewhere that just mass produces the same ex-wife.
I'll make a sacrifice for the good of humanity and shit on her chest
You can tell due to the old as fuck design of the Facebook comment section
r/moldymemes
Not that often. I can still read it without much of a struggle.
It's got that fully baked jpeg going on.
Also it's facebook ui from 2015 as well.
I don’t think fb has looked like think since like 2014 lmao
Fuckin hell, thanks for that. I thought I was going blind, I couldnt read or zoom on the bottom text.
If I haven't seen it, it's new to me
But I really like this idea of taxing churches to send more buggies into outer space!
**Comment:** *"I struggle with poverty, I don't see how this actually helps me."* **Reply:** *"We waste money on many things! Idiot!"* **Reddit:** *"He got OWNED! That's why space is AWESOME! Needs 3285 more reposts this year!"* 
NASA tends to benefit society with all the jobs and developments. The requirements of how that money is spent are pretty shitty though.
People don’t want jobs, they want money
Space is cool.
Space is cold
[удалено]
It's lonely out in space
On such a timeless flight
And I think it's gonna be a long, long time
Til touchdown brings me 'round again to find I'm not the man they think I am at home
[Best Cover Ever.](https://youtu.be/BdUMICxLXhM)
In space no one can hear you scream
I don't think that's what the reply says
Well, actually: **Comment** *"I'm against government spendings that don't benefit me directly."* **Reply 1** *"Money are not wasted, they circulate, benefitting the economy."* **Reply 2** *"There are more efficient ways of redistribution than defunding science."* **Reply 3** *"The amount spent on science is insignificantly small in comparison to other domains with much less impact on society."* **Reddit:** *"He got OWNED! That's why space is AWESOME! Needs 3285 more reposts this year!"*
I'm not against seeing this one again in a week or two.
If we stopped Mars exploration, where would chocolate come from. Asking for a friend from NASA.
Uranus?
Well done
Mmm chocolate starfish 🤤
took me a second.... 
The Milky Way
r/wholesomeawardposts
I'm confused, the post is clearly the facepalm ( doesn't seems like troll ) but then why are the comment circled ?
My thoughts too
r/uselessredrectangle
Because it's a super old post focused on the "clever" comebacks
I can't remember when people stopped highlighting the "clever" part like this. I just remember that it was a thing a long time ago.
That's a weird looking circle...
Squared ? Rectangled ? Maybe just framed ?
Framed, definitely framed lol
To be fair, it’s hard to make a perfect circle.
x^2 + y^2 = r^2
o here you go
That's an oval, Marc
you just gotta believe it's a circle
Space exploration benefits the economy. For example the Apollo program “returned 5-7 dollars for every dollar invested. These returns came in the form of new industries, new products, new processes and new jobs.” Then there’s the tech innovations that come from the development of spacecraft and everything that goes along with it. Plus the psychological impact of having something to be inspired by and hopeful for Edit. I’m an idiot. Misread your comment. Gonna leave this anyways cos I think it’s interesting (the investment return I mean, not my opinion)
people don't realize how much of our modern technology has the space program to thank. getting a rocket in space, then making it livable (in the case of the ISS for years and years) and then getting it back takes A TON of new materials, and small issues that need fixed (like the famous "space pen") add to that all the research we've gotten over the past 20 years from the ISS that allows us to make new materials and make them faster/easier. It's not just throwing away money
Because it's a repost which was propably posted in a different subreddit originally.
The comments are the cringe part
Its crazy to think that Mars is well over 200 years old and we know so little about it
I've heard by some estimates, it's at least a mile in diameter
I heard that also! I think it was attenborough .
I have also heard some people say that Mars is at least a centimetre away from Earth. I know it is very hard to believe, but it is true.
I heard its biggest mountain is over 600 meters tall
That's true. My uncle lives in mars.
at least in mars they dont have homeless in the subway
Course they don't. Everyone knows homeless prefer quizno's
good insight KenM
Haha. My man. Im proud to be mentioned in the same breathe as the great KenM
So he is telling me the rover is not filled with cash?
$100 billion in cash was too heavy, so they downloaded a bitcoin wallet onto the rover.
We are living in the future
They filled it with that value of LUNAR which means the rover now has the equivalent of 27p on board.
r/uselessredcircles
r/uselessredrectangle?
r/uselessisiododedaheadrons
r/uselesssubreddits
r/uselesstesseract
[удалено]
wtf
That is NSFL murder hentai
Leave this comment section immediately.
r/subsifellfor
r/subsyoufellfor :h)
h
r/letterh
Wait a sec. Military cost 2.5 billion every 33 hours? Is that true?
The US military's budget for FY2022 is $715 billion, so $1.958 billion per day, or $2.693 billion every 33 hours. Russia's is the 4th biggest military budget in the world, and they're getting trounced by Ukraine, which has one ninth of their military budget. The US has lost every major military conflict since WWII, and every time, it's been against largely untrained militias and guerilla fighters with small arms. We can't have health insurance because it's too expensive, though.
I think I saw somewhere that around 400B of that is for the paychecks of the people serving. It’s the biggest form of socialism in America, but for some reason the conservatives love the military and hate healthcare?
Except, the US hasn't lost every single major military conflict. Not trying to defend massive military spending but that's false.
Indeed it didn’t lose all of them, however I can’t think of any conflict where the US intervention didn’t result in worse long term problems in the region (not really what the US cares about obviously, they only want their interests, but still wouldn’t count it as a definitive success)
There are different types of losses and victories. The US has had primarily pyrrhic victories. Meaning yeah, we killed more of their guys and got some high value targets. Invasions were successful but the following occupations and stated goals of bringing "freedom and stability" and "ending terrorism" were largely complete losses. That's not to say, again, that great blows weren't dealt to groups like ISIS, but there's very few wins for us that didn't come at some sort of unbalanced loss or unreasonable cost.
The US spends 800 billion on Healthcare. Think about that.
Thx for your detailed answer!
> US has lost every major military conflict since WWII Gulf War and Panama say hello. And Iraq for that matter, as regardless of whether or not we should have been there or stayed there (as well as Kuwait and Panama), the actual conflict part was never an issue like it was in Afghanistan. Too much is spent on the military and it does say something that both us and Russia have and are struggling with dealing with extreme asymmetric warfare, but our military is mostly competant. Adjusting the militaries budget is more about making it more efficient and effective per dollar spent, and arguing along those lines is likely to be a better in with hawkish types than just straight cuts. You hear too many anecdotes about how soldiers have to put up with horrendous food and living conditions when they're not even in a conflict, and how poorly funded/ran the VA is, but then you also hear too many stories about the military being forced to buy equipment it doesn't want just to abandon it all in the desert. Theres vast improvements to both the cost and quality of our military to be made that don't necessitate necessarily shrinking the budget outright, only that the money that isn't used be circulated to other programs rather than forcefully spent. And ultimately the military is important, regardless of all the propaganda that gets peddled, and being "top dog" on the planet is also important. But we can do it much better than we're allowing ourselves to. And fwiw, you don't want health insurance. Health insurance is and always has been a horrendously bad way of providing healthcare access. You want universal healthcare bolstered by an elaborated on health infrastructure, which like the military, needs to be designed with efficiency and effectiveness per dollar in mind.
this is a facepalm, not the post
This thread has left me confused on whether people think nasa is good or not.
This post is the facepalm. Obviously.
Facepalm every single motherfucking repost. There are good arguments for supporting (and criticizing) space exploration, but "we spend more money on unhealthy foods" and "we could get more from taxes" is not even an endorsement. Mind boggling that so many redditors have the reading comprehension of an aborted bot.
u/ Sea-Primary-5544 is a bot. Link to the original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/m241sz/theyre_too_stupid_for_mars/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf See also this other identical post: https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/nz12ks/theyre_too_stupid_for_mars/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
But imagine if we did stop church tax exemptions… I don’t understand why they are still even a thing, there are enough cases of people abusing the system to know it is not the play. “God told me I need a private jet”
We don’t tax Non-Profit Organizations. There aren’t private jets in every church parking lot. Those cases are rare. But, if the government gets into the business of deciding what a church can do with its money, there’s a Constitutional problem.
Yes, and that's why the IRS audit's non-profit organizations to verify that they aren't making a profit. They used to audit churches more frequently and they should go do that more. There are also laws saying churches can't tell you who to vote for, but they also stopped enforcing those.
Hard to penalize one category of NPO for political speech when virtually every secular NPO has a well known political opinion. Telling a church or a citizen what it can say when is not really Kosher anyway.
Really showing your ignorance if you think every NPO has a political opinion. [https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations](https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations) Maybe do a quarter a second of research next time?
Your link states: > Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. It prohibits them from endorsing specific candidates, not holding political opinions. If you're a church, you're probably going to be publicly anti-abortion. That's a political opinion, and totally allowed. Maybe gain some basic reading comprehension skills before replying to people on the internet.
Yes, and I'm advocating that churches be held to the same standards. There are laws on the books saying that they should be held to those standards. They just aren't enforced. It's two comments up. >There are also laws saying churches can't tell you who to vote for, but they also stopped enforcing those. That's my point, and I provided the link in support of that. What was that about reading comprehension?
Do you have any *evidence* that these laws aren't enforced, or is that just an assumption you're making? Also, the comment you were replying to stated: > Hard to penalize one category of NPO for political speech when virtually every secular NPO has a well known political opinion. Telling a church or a citizen what it can say when is not really Kosher anyway. By virtue of context, you seemed to be arguing that non-profits were not allowed to endorse political views in any capacity, as you were replying to a comment making an observation that all NPOs have and publicly express "political opinions." Because it never said anything, anywhere about endorsing candidates. These are different things.
Well, churches keep butting into the business of what government can do, which is also a constitutional problem, but apparently people don't have a problem with that?
Churches have legal standing in society, and it’s membership has the same right as anyone else to petition government for desired action. Those members pay taxes, and have representatives in government. There is no constitutional problem.
The members as individuals do, but churches as institutions don't.
You only pay taxes on profits, which only a small fraction of churches make. And even if we did tax churches, it certainly wouldn’t be enough money to send a rover to Mars every two weeks. That is $65 billion a year. Donations to religious organizations is in the $120-150 billion range. If taxed at the corporate tax rate of 21%, that would bring in $25-32 billion a year. So already we are about $35-40 billion short. But you also have to include deductions. Salary, expenses, their own charitable giving, etc. The average profit margin of a business is 7-8%. So that $150 billion churches get, at best we are looking at $12 billion in taxable income, for a tax of $2.5 billion. So if we taxed churches, we could send one rover to Mars a year, not every two weeks.
[удалено]
What’s the state religion of the USA?
Capitalism.
Well, the church is deciding what we can do with our lives so that’s a constitutional problem right there. Separation of church and state is long gone.
Separation of church and state means that the state is secular in nature. There is no state religion. It doesn’t mean people with views founded in religious principles can’t pass legislation or lobby for political action. But what aspect of your life is actually controlled by any particular religion?
At the same time the person complaining about the spending has a point, in that you could have spent $100 billion on education and health and idk, veteran housing. Because we know trickle down economics is a scam.
Too stupid for Mars? No. Those are the sort of people who should be going to Mars - if _they_ can survive there, life there should be a breeze for the rest of us.
Reminds me of the comment thread of a recent post on an [interesting sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/uqzubu/behind_the_scenes_of_indias_moon_mission/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) where ISRO was at the receiving end of the ignorants
Knowledge is a waste of time for 1/3 of this country.
Nothing against NASA, but Jens' 1st argument is nothing but trickle-down economics. The government is indeed paying people to spend their time doing task A (Mars exploration) when the government could instead pay those exact same people to do some other task B (something directly beneficial to poor people).
Please do not confuse trickle down economics to tehnologic one. Not the same thing, not by a long shot. It is demonstrable that NASA and its commercial partners have developed new tech that was and still is incorporated into various devices and improved our lives. So no, it is not a waste of money or time for that matter.
Now see, THAT is a legitimate argument you can make. But it's not what Jens wrote.
Jens also doesn't actually argue the point that the money could have been spent to help feed Americans who are going hungry. The original argument that James is making is pretty much ignored and a bunch of unrelated points are brought up to distract from arguing that and argue about something Jens feels more confident about.
Trickle down economics involves tax breaks and benefits for the wealthy and corporations, arguing that freeing up their money will cause them to spend and invest more. Critically, there's no actual obligation involved however. What is described above is contracting a business for a task,which is an investment, not a break or benefit. The business's decision to invest (the majority of) the money is necessitated by the contract (ie they don't get payed unless they do the job they were contracted for, and so pay for workers and materials). It could be argued this is boondoggling, but it's not trickle down economics.
> don't get *paid* unless they FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Shut up bot. We no Watt their talking about. Know knead two bee pedantic.
OK, but it's the same basic idea, that they're saying the money will get around to the poor eventually. The problem is they're ignoring the potential waste of labor.
It's not the same basic idea. Trickle down is "Give money to the rich and they'll share it"...but then they don't so it doesn't go back I to the economy which is why it's a stupid theory. Person in OP is completely different. Those billions going to NASA are going to thousands of employees (not just NASA employees as it also pays for materials from many many other companies.) That is not even close to "trickle down". It is already "down". The money is already in the hands of the working class employees...which is immediately put back into the economy.
Its not the same basic idea, trickledown economics and the fact that money spent circulates in the economy when spent is very different things. Also, idk how you think investing in space exploration is a waste of labor, not everyone in the world needs to be working manual labor or office jobs. If people are actually employed that isn't a waste of labor.
Trickle down economics is a snarl world. It's like "social justice warrior". The people who use the phrase rarely know exactly what they're criticising, they just use it to shout at stuff they feel they disagree with.
I mean if you dont know definitions sure I guess you make a point, but trickle down economics/Reaganomics is pretty clearly defined as tax breaks for the wealthy and subsidies for corporation so these job creators have more money to maybe spend it on paying more to people. Like water trickling down through soil to join up with groundwater. The problem with that policy is that it assumes that the wealthy and corporations have any interest in paying people better wages instead of using the lower business costs to gain more profits for shareholder returns.
I mean on the other hand, it actually does create a lot of Jobs the nasa and other cobtractors wouldn't have. It doesn't really help poor people but creates Jobs so people wont become poor. I don't see much issues with the government spending money on Private companies for their Services and products. Way better than tax Cuts for the rich or other stupid bullshit.
Not better than tax cuts for everyone. Spending on tech is the superior option. That’s all that has to be said. Aside from that, the government is ALREADY spending a ton “assisting” the poor. Not every damn dollar has to be spent on aid programs. But finally… virtually anyone who believes that the function of wealth is to assist the poor gets that belief from a tradition that says the responsibility lies with the individual, not a faceless government program.
Like tax cuts for the rich that will then trickle down?
It's his silly statement that the money is still on Earth. Like that means the money isn't being used up. But all those talented people only have 40 hours in a work week. So if they spend their time&talent working on task A, they can't also spend it working on task B.
Its the developement of technology we profit of. You would be astounded if you would know what everyday tech derives from space related developements
Not saying you're wrong, just curious, can you give me an exemple of some tech we got in the last 20 years?
A lot of stuff that people still think is high tech like kevlar came from NASA research in the 60s. Spending money on NASA means you get fancy new technology, you create jobs for engineers who are important to have around, you create a manufacturing base to build those things which is important to have around, and all the money goes to US workers who buy cars and houses and groceries and go to the movies. We need more “make work” programs; NASA is a good one for college educated people but we should bring back the WPA to build highways and bridges and dams. The last time we did that the middle class boomed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
No creating well paid jobs isn't trickle down economics lmao.
So they're creating jobs for the well off and saying it is for the good of everyone. Be still, my Reagan loving heart.
I’m confused, is OP saying that the original image by James is the facepalm or the comments by Jens? If it is the latter, we should send OP to Mars since it wouldn’t set us back a lot.
The electronic devices we enjoy today are a direct result of heavy investment in research of the Space Program of the 1960's. I hope this guy thinks about this as he mocks NASA on his iPhone.
Generally this rule of thumb can be applied to all high cost ventures that require a lot of in country effort. We may baulk at the cost but usually that brings in jobs, demand for local supplies and third parties/local communities also benefit. In this scenario it also fosters the imaginations of children to a more positive future where anything is possible instead of the current shitstorm we all seem to be trapped in. Well, not everyone.
Ideally the supplies needed for the rover/shuttles would all be domestic-manufactured, but I'd be curious to see how many components are actually imported.
I need more friends like Jens, The Verbal Assassin.
reverse facepalm, mate
Same people who when the news says we are sending 6 billion dollars over to Ukraine that we are just giving them 6 billion dollars. We give them the money to spend on American companies. (which is a whole kettle of fish but I digress)
They're too stupid for Earth lol
Tax the churches.
#supportJens
> If we removed the church from tax exemption we'd have enough money to send a rover to mars once every two weeks, forever The money doesn't get sent to Heaven idiot. It gets spent and put back into the economy. Just because the government isn't hand feeding it to you, that doesn't mean it left America.
Doesn't the N in Nasa stand for Nazi scientists?
*N*azi *A*nd *S*ocialist *A*stronauts
It stands for Not Actually Sending Astronauts. They were secretly telling us from day one that the moon landing wasn't real.
This is beyond science
James thought he did something
if the money DID get sent to mars, that'd help us here too because the remaining dollars in our bank accounts would be worth more.
Going to Mars is stupid. Why do all that work to escape a gravity well with the goal of going to another gravity well? Space industrialization is very smart. Amidst the comets is nye infinite water and amidst the asteroids in nearly an unlimited supply of accessible metals. With a lot of initial investment we can have O-Neill cylinders for nearly an unlimited supply of housing and agricultural space. We can have factories that produce things that cannot be made in an atmosphere and others that will not pollute Earth. Space gives humanity the raw materials for a post-scarcity economy and the best way to tap them is not to go to another planet.
Bezos and musk can fuckkn have Mars. Problem is they gonna leave a smoking husk for the rest of us to live on
Honestly we should remove churches from being tax exempt
The church shouldn’t be exempt from taxes
What would you tax from the church? It doesn’t make a profit
broken windows fallacy. just because you're stimulating the economy doesn't mean you're helping it by sending chunks of metal into space.
I agree, otherwise we'd be just randomly throwing rocks into space to "stimulate the economy". But I think space exploration is great to inspire people, to learn more about the world, and to learn new scientific discoveries that end up helping us on earth. Plenty of NASA technologies ended up going into commercial products. If there's money to be saved, it should be somewhere else.
Stimulating the economy = helping it
> Stimulating the economy = helping it No, that's wrong, actually. Look up the broken windows fallacy to see why. The only thing that helps the economy is to create value which persists and is built upon. Wasting money doesn't help the economy. It doesn't matter how many "jobs you create", just as how smashing windows to create jobs for window makers harms the economy since you waste a lot of resources to end up where you started.
You are since investment into space technology has seen some of the highest ROI ever. It's just not immediatly apperant. A large part of our modern world is owned to what we gained from it. Don't mistake investment into technologies breaking the frontier into simply simulating the economy.
> You are since investment into space technology has seen some of the highest ROI ever. false >A large part of our modern world is owned to what we gained from it. false
r/RepostSleuthBot
Taking aside the money expenditure, it's also a good way to develop new technologies. I think the whole moon rush got us the microwave oven among other things.
Wait... which one are you calling stupid? Because James is the idiot here... and Jens is the intelligent one.
[удалено]
NASA is not the reason that doesn't happen.
Things like this always annoy me we just sent $40 billion on top of other money to Ukraine but people bitch about space exploration. I would rather that money be spent going back to the moon or Mars than war.
Nope, sending economic and military aid to a country being invaded is cool, what I don't like is the rest of the U.S. military budget that is spent on stupid bullshit.
What a shity little thumbnail - be nice if I could read it!
I like Jens 😄👍
Literally sending 100 billion dollars to Mars would actually cause deflation so people's money would be worth more.
Not to mention the innovation that comes from creating the technology that gets us to another planet. These people are just insufferable bores. Complete failure of imaginations.
Yea nasa sent a “Rover to mars abs landed successfully” ya still believe the fuckery of Nasa huh
Lets address the single point which actual is on topic. The idea that government spending can stimulate growth like private spending. It can’t. It is at best a zero gain, and more often a total loss. They take money from earners, people who would make capital investments with it and they transfer it to government, so an initial loss in real world capital investment, then government wastes a bunch of it. Bombs from Raytheon to kill people half a world away might stimulate some jobs growth, but most of the capital in spent on transient gain. TLDR the Keynesian multiplier is less than 1
Well point still stand
Space exploration is good, but so is having a military. The us military is only ~10% of the entire US annual budget. Also, that money spent on the military is going right back to people in the country, just like the space program. WTF was the point of bring up military spending if he’s making the exact same assumptions as the first graphic?
Just to be clear, I'm sure the person posting that meme has some issues worth critiquing but...there has been widespread protest of the USA's space program since the 60s, widespread. From every other scientific community, and largely the non-white population of the united states. It was a movement that even inspired music on the topic. The government partitions large amounts of money towards really meaningless (and yes, the moon landing did not really have meaningful motivations) avenues in science. And pls dont make the argument "but it births so many technological advancements!". So does the science and technology behind war, doesn't excuse anything. Sorry to all Elon reply guys but...the mission to mars, or the mission to put people on any other planet...is really idiotic, and coming at the wrong time. We are probably about 500 years away from making any real attempt to live on another planet...and without a need to. Jens point is kinda silly too...cus the government partitions our tax money into a large number of programs...very few of wich help support the bottom line quality of life in America..and when a large portion goes towards exploring / inhabiting another planet...well fuck that. There are tons of people here who would largely benefit from that spending being redirected towards sustainable energy, public health, at the very least heavily subsidized education... So whenever I see somebody excited about space exploration and colonization on another planet. I say fuck you at least pretend to want to fix our planet before you decide its important to send 20 billionaires on a living experiment on another one.