Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired) NewsFlash US Air Force's X-51A Waverider Mach 5 test missile goes kablooey. Which can only mean one thing: Iran is years ahead of the US in photoshop expertise   (wired.com) divider line 165
    More: NewsFlash, air forces, Iran, rocket booster, hypersonic flight, intercontinental ballistic missiles, missiles, hypersonic speeds  
•       •       •

16803 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Aug 2012 at 3:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

165 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-15 04:33:14 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Meh, it's just a weapons platform. Don't we have enough ways to kill people at the moment?


This is so we can blow up the Big Cheese of HateAmerica, Inc. without putting any ground troops or even the pilot in danger. Thus by removing said America hating dirtbag we stand a greater chance of avoiding the necessity of sending in the ground pounders.

It won't always work but in the case of somebody like Wacky Macky Imadinnerjacket it just might work.
 
2012-08-15 04:35:07 PM  

The Bestest: ICBMs trigger the fear of a nuclear strike.. and retaliation.


in the old world order, sure. Today, we just tell Russia on the red line "hey, we're launching six conventional missiles at a target that's not you"

and honestly, we don't need anything as huge or complicated as a Minuteman III, just leave some spare rocket fuel in the thing to go boom at the end.

the only thing you save with an air-breathing missile is a the cost of carrying the oxidizer and extra reduction agent leading to even more weight. For commercial flight it is all about the economics. For military, who cares. rockets work and they go real fast and the left over fuel makes a big boom at the end. We could have rapid strike based on rockets up and going in five years with existing technology.

This is just more corporate welfare for the aviation industry. THEY would love a reliable hypersonic air-breathing jet.
 
2012-08-15 04:36:18 PM  

dbaggins: The military already has access to a hypersonic engine. it's called a "rocket" and we've been using them for decades. MinuteMan III travels at mach 25 and has a range of 8,000 miles. just put come fancy guidance on it and replace the nuke with regular explosives and you have your fast response precision ordinance already sitting there tested and ready.


As the article clearly states, that IS/was the backup plan, but we're trying to avoid ICBM's because other nations can detect their launch rather easily, and any time an ICBM goes up, everyone is going to assume it is a nuke, which is a dangerous situation.

We want long range missiles without the signature of a missile, thus the reason for fixing the missile with a scramjet and not a rocket.

/They should just stick NASA on this
 
2012-08-15 04:36:58 PM  

The Bestest: Feral_and_Preposterous: What? You can't stick a nuke on a cruise missile? First I've heard about that ...

The whole point of the program is to NOT use nukes.


My point was that the article says we couldn't retrofit ICBMs with conventional weapons because people will think we're launching a nuclear strike. Who's to say that people won't see these coming and think we've outfitted them with nukes? Granted, these would be a lot harder to see coming, but assuming people won't think they can carry nukes is asinine.
 
2012-08-15 04:38:35 PM  

dbaggins: The Bestest: ICBMs trigger the fear of a nuclear strike.. and retaliation.

in the old world order, sure. Today, we just tell Russia on the red line "hey, we're launching six conventional missiles at a target that's not you"

and honestly, we don't need anything as huge or complicated as a Minuteman III, just leave some spare rocket fuel in the thing to go boom at the end.

the only thing you save with an air-breathing missile is a the cost of carrying the oxidizer and extra reduction agent leading to even more weight. For commercial flight it is all about the economics. For military, who cares. rockets work and they go real fast and the left over fuel makes a big boom at the end. We could have rapid strike based on rockets up and going in five years with existing technology.

This is just more corporate welfare for the aviation industry. THEY would love a reliable hypersonic air-breathing jet.


There is no left-over fuel. The rocket stages are all gone by the time the warhead re-enters the atmosphere. It's a "ballistic" missile, which means it flys mostly an unpowered trajectory -- a big parabola with a boost on the front end and then a long coast.

One could probably get by with no explosive at all -- just have a big tungsten dart re-enter and hit the ground at mach-20 or whatever it ends up being. The kinetic energy alone would make a big "boom".
 
2012-08-15 04:39:52 PM  

jshine:

Here's a plan: set up a front company to sell AK rounds filled with high-explosive rather than smokeless powder in the areas prone to terrorism. See what kind of chamber pressure those old Soviet AKs or home-made Khyber Pass guns can handle during "training". ;-) The problem should solve itself in a few weeks, and cheaply.


It's been done before. Project Eldest Son
 
2012-08-15 04:40:48 PM  

The Bestest: Looks like I'm late to the thread, so I'll just toss a few things out there...

The point of this project is to have rapid global strike capability -without- the use of ICBMs. Rapid global strike allows the military to cut back on the REALLY expensive things like ships and long range bombers. Research here also has application towards civilian avionics as well, so yes, the R&D is worth it.


So the Navy and Air Force sabotaged the project? Makes sense.
 
2012-08-15 04:40:51 PM  

Feral_and_Preposterous: The Bestest: Feral_and_Preposterous: What? You can't stick a nuke on a cruise missile? First I've heard about that ...

The whole point of the program is to NOT use nukes.

My point was that the article says we couldn't retrofit ICBMs with conventional weapons because people will think we're launching a nuclear strike. Who's to say that people won't see these coming and think we've outfitted them with nukes? Granted, these would be a lot harder to see coming, but assuming people won't think they can carry nukes is asinine.


Exactly: payloads and delivery systems are pretty much independent. Any kind of missile can carry any kind of warhead. ...but most people are dumb, they don't' think that deeply.
 
2012-08-15 04:44:12 PM  

dbaggins: The military already has access to a hypersonic engine. it's called a "rocket" and we've been using them for decades...


Don't get me wrong: I loves me some rockets. I visited the Atlas Museum south of Tucson and felt like a five-year-old. For a peacenik, I have a deep and abiding love of military history.

Rockets are just a pain compared to jets. Ever notice how much co-ordination it takes to get a NASA rocket off the ground because of the pesky, protein-based cargo? A simple thunderstorm can push back the mission by days.

Meanwhile, jets take off all the time. Their fuel is a sizable factor cheaper and safer, their maintenance is... oh right, they can be MAINTAINED instead of burned up and tossed in the ocean.

If we can get jets to perform at rocket speeds and respond like jets, then we open a huge number of possibilities. Killin' folks faster is just the sexiest application (and let's face it, even a Buddhist on a vow of silence has the occasional murder dream that needs to be brushed away).

We've got a lot of aging satellites. Wouldn't be a lot easier to send a jet-like device as far up as we can (since it will still need atmosphere for wing surfaces and blade-based propulsion) and toss up nicer ones with tiny rockets?

It's not the be-all, end-all solution. It would reinvigorate the space program and maybe speed up puddle-jumping in a couple decades. Right now it means making hypsersonic transport LESS of an event, less of an expense, more dependable and more controllable.
 
2012-08-15 04:44:38 PM  

MylesHeartVodak: jshine:

Here's a plan: set up a front company to sell AK rounds filled with high-explosive rather than smokeless powder in the areas prone to terrorism. See what kind of chamber pressure those old Soviet AKs or home-made Khyber Pass guns can handle during "training". ;-) The problem should solve itself in a few weeks, and cheaply.

It's been done before. Project Eldest Son


Cool, wonder why it's not done more? ...or maybe it is, and is just kept under-wraps?
 
2012-08-15 04:46:33 PM  
Honestly, an incoming hypersonic air-breathing missile and a hypersonic rocket missile are going to look pretty similar to tracking equipment.

any hypersonic missile is still going to need a rocket boost phase before you light a scramjet.

so, rocket launch, extreme speed signature... That's already quacking an awful lot like a duck.

the only real difference is the sub-orbital phase. a rocket missile would be fastest by traveling mostly outside the atmosphere. A scramjet would stall if it went that high, and have to coast until re-entry.

but you can put a nuke on an atmosphere missile just as easily.

Perhaps the Air Force is really looking for hypersonic air-to-air missiles to push out their forward offense ? or a hypersonic fighter ? I don't know.
 
2012-08-15 04:57:53 PM  

pseydtonne: Meanwhile, jets take off all the time. Their fuel is a sizable factor cheaper and safer, their maintenance is... oh right, they can be MAINTAINED instead of burned up and tossed in the ocean.



we already have re-usable rocket planes. SpaceShipOne is a rocket based plane. no tossing it away. all "rocket" means is that you don't even try to use ambient air as your oxidizer. That's it.

Now I get to do my "don't get me wrong" aw shucks stuff

i designed a turbo/ram/scramjet hybrid engine when I was a mechanical engineer in Canada. I know why you would want to harvest the fantastic compression ratio of the incident shock wave to have an ultra-efficient jet engine (it is more about saving fuel than getting to Paris in an hour). But it is going to be monstrously unstable. You are no longer trying to harness a subsonic deflagration, but now you have an engine based on a marginally controled detonation (supersonic combustion). Rockets are designed to create detonations in a very controlled fashion.

does the military need it ? nope.

commercial hypersonic travel would be a boon though.
 
2012-08-15 05:01:31 PM  

pseydtonne: since it will still need atmosphere for wing surfaces and blade-based propulsion


Pedantic quibble: scramjets don't have blades.

dbaggins: Honestly, an incoming hypersonic air-breathing missile and a hypersonic rocket missile are going to look pretty similar to tracking equipment.


Pardon my simplification but it's not unlike the difference between a line drive and a pop-fly. The ballistic warhead has a very different trajectory than the scramjet would, as it must leave the atmosphere to get anywhere (rockets can't carry enough fuel to go more than a few hundred miles within the atmosphere, no matter how fast). A scramjet is a couple orders of magnitude more efficient when it comes to fuel use, since most of it's reaction mass is provided by the atmosphere it's flying through.

None of this really adds to the 'is it worth it' debate, but there's a significant difference between the two technologies and it's certainly not unlikely that they'd have different applications.
 
2012-08-15 05:04:51 PM  

dbaggins: Now I get to do my "don't get me wrong" aw shucks stuff

i designed a turbo/ram/scramjet hybrid engine when I was a mechanical engineer in Canada. I know why you would want to harvest the fantastic compression ratio of the incident shock wave to have an ultra-efficient jet engine (it is more about saving fuel than getting to Paris in an hour). But it is going to be monstrously unstable. You are no longer trying to harness a subsonic deflagration, but now you have an engine based on a marginally controlled detonation (supersonic combustion). Rockets are designed to create detonations in a very controlled fashion.


That's fascinating. I did not know how it worked and I thank you for those details. This makes the wave thing sound more like riding a sonic wave like a toboggan.
 
2012-08-15 05:05:15 PM  

alex10294: The problem with your argument is threefold. First, it's status quo bias. It assumes that the current tax rates are somehow "right" and that reductions are therefore "wrong".



I'll stop you there. I think current tax rates are not right and reductions are wrong. I think taxes should be higher, across the board, more for wealthy but middle class taxpayers can and should be eating more taxes too. That's what happens when your government sells you out for two wars and creates an economic bubble that requires government intervention. Guess what, you have to pay for them. That means cutting spending and increasing taxes. You can't get by on cutting spending alone, not without death spiraling the economy.

Second, it equates taking and giving. Guy paying 500k in taxes gets a break and now pays 480, vs another person who pays nothing and takes 20k in benifits (on top of the benefits the govt gives all of us- roads/etc). So one guy now pays 15 times his equally divided share instead of 16, while the other pays no share and gets support. (btw: to calculate your "fair share" of federal taxes, take the 3.6 trillion and divide it by the number of taxpayers (approx 100m). The answer is about 36,000/year. Do you pay your "fair" share?).

You should equate giving and taking - that's the whole farking problem, we take too little and we give too much. The goal should be deficit and debt reduction, to take more and give less.

Giving tax breaks is the same as taking more money and then just giving it right back to that individual. The people at the low end of the scale (and the elderly) should learn to deal with lower benefits - but the people at the top should learn to deal with higher taxes.

And yes I believe in a social safety net which provides some government support for old people and people at the bottom. I don't believe in a welfare state or a continual poverty cycle which is what we currently have, however the income and wealth gap is incredibly high compared to other nations. The wealth gap, offshoring, and the plight of the middle class is very real and needs to be addressed in gov't policy. Yes I do believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I believe in socialism. I am a socialist in that regard. Prove to me that socialism doesn't work again? Germany and France would like a word.

Third, it assumes that the money is better off with the government. It's usually not. Taxes inherently reduce economic activity. Whether or not our current tax rate is the correct one, it's on a curve from 100% tax, which would stop all investment and business, to 0% where taxes have no impact on business decisions. Tax incentives work because they reduce the disincentive taxes have on investment. Thats why when cities and states want development in some area, they do it (both liberal and conservative) by tax incentives. Obama says this every week as "keep the wind tax credit".

/thinks the current rates should be about where they are. Not lower at this point, so no, I'm not an arch conservative.


Not everything should be about economic activity. That's the problem with society. Completely unregulated business and wholesale privatization doesn't work. It destroys the environment, it destroys jobs and people, it places greed above the greater good of humanity. Unchecked capitalism is a nice theory, like Communism. I know you don't believe this, but government is intended to serve the people, as corrupt as government can be in places.

As for tax rates, I disagree, I think the current rates should be higher, at least short term, to address the deficit. And as I've said many times here and other places, the federal deficit creates a tax on everyone. When your dollar is worth less each year due to rising debt, your dollar doesn't go as far, and things become more expensive. At some point it might even hyperinflate which would be worse. You pay that tax when oil prices go up and up. You just don't call it a tax, you call it exchange rate. You can't cut government spending and spur the economy, just like you can't cut taxes and spur the economy. I agree, taxes between 0 and 100, but IMO the sweet spot between economic growth and deficit reduction requires a tax rate that is above where it exists right now.

People should learn to deal with less anyway. More taxes on the middle and upper class could be a good thing, consumption would go down but perhaps so would our trade deficit.

Besides, where's your data that cutting taxes will create more revenues or even create economic growth? From what I've seen many boom cycles came in times when the taxes on the highest earners were much higher. Frank I just think the taxcut lobby is just the same supply side BS that has continually been disproven by economists.

People in the US just need to learn to live with less. The American Dream isn't over, it just needs to be reworked. Not everyone is going to be able to afford daily Starbucks, an Escalade, and a McMansion. Math and science education needs to be much better. College education should be focused on the private sector and not meat grinding people interested in math and science into psychology majors. And not everyone deserves or needs to go to college - save that money and use it to fund business.
 
2012-08-15 05:05:35 PM  

Girion47: There really isn't any demand for hypersonic travel though. Otherwise the Concorde would have gotten a sequel


Problem with Concorde is that it wasn't cost-effective to operate. Not enough seats and too much maintenance.

Make a SST/HST that's not significantly more expensive to operate on a passenger/mile basis than subsonic widebody and the airlines will be all over it like white on rice.
 
2012-08-15 05:10:39 PM  

dbaggins: commercial hypersonic travel would be a boon though.


IMO, something that can make efficient use out of a modern-design turbo/ramjet hybrid has to come first. Bonus points to any company who can work out how to make it perform within a tolerable margin of a modern turbofan at subsonic speeds.

Mach 6 seems like a silly target for air travel when we can't do mach 2 in an economically/environmentally feasible manner.
 
2012-08-15 05:17:36 PM  

Girion47: That's great, can we quit wasting money on R&D now? We can blow anyone up at anytime, lets put that cash towards infrastructure, both roads and communications back home. Focusing on those two things will do far more damage towards our enemies than some super fast farking missile.


Not only does it employ people but I am guessing the X-51A is cheaper than building a high speed rail link from Madera to Fresno or from VIctorville to Vegas. Definitely cheaper that Boston's BIg Dig.

Even if it is not cheaper the technollgoical spinoffs will be more worthwhile.
 
2012-08-15 05:17:44 PM  

clyph: Girion47: There really isn't any demand for hypersonic travel though. Otherwise the Concorde would have gotten a sequel

Problem with Concorde is that it wasn't cost-effective to operate. Not enough seats and too much maintenance.

Make a SST/HST that's not significantly more expensive to operate on a passenger/mile basis than subsonic widebody and the airlines will be all over it like white on rice.


The reason the Concorde was not cost-effective was that it still used traditional turbo-jet engines. In this configuration you allow the ambient air to pass through the shocks outside the airplane in a controlled fashion based on the airplane shape. the air goes into the jet engine subsonic, then the jet engine accelerates the combustion products using a nozzle back up to supersonic speeds. This takes a LOT of fuel.

a scramjet can in theory give thrust to a hypersonic craft for an order of magnitude less fuel.

but, there are other engineering issues with them.
 
2012-08-15 05:19:47 PM  

bdub77: TofuTheAlmighty: Girion47: That's great, can we quit wasting money on R&D now? We can blow anyone up at anytime, lets put that cash towards infrastructure, both roads and communications back home. Focusing on those two things will do far more damage towards our enemies than some super fast farking missile.

Moron. Spending money on something other than defense contractors and tax cuts for rich people is socialism.

I asked my mom, who is really against welfare, what do people on welfare spend money on?

"Alcohol and cigarettes, and some food."
"Aren't most alcohol and cigarettes made here in the US?"
"Yes."
"What else do they spend money on. Rent?"
"Yes."
"Is that spent in the US?"
"Yes."
"What about utilities. Those are US utility companies too right?"
"Yes."
"OK. Now what about tax breaks for the wealthy? Isn't that welfare?"
"No."
"Couldn't you look at tax breaks for the wealthy as a subsidy to business owners, akin to welfare, where we are not taxing our rich enough in a time when we need revenues to close the deficit gap?"
"I suppose."
"And where are they reinvesting that money not collected?"
"Here, I suppose."
"But mostly global companies, China and India."
"Probably."
"So what's worse, giving government money to poor people who disproportionately spend the money on US goods and services, or not taking money from rich people who disproportionately spend the money on foreign investments?"

This is when she stopped talking.

For the record, I am in favor of getting rid of a lot of welfare spending over time (75% or so of it over 10-20 years) provided we replace the system with programs that encourage education, help people find jobs, and teach personal and financial responsibility. I am also in favor of getting rid of 75% of our defense spending over 10-20 years and similarly funding programs which move defense R&D money and technology into new business ventures.


It's not like I'm 100% against the private sector and want everything socialized. I'm just tired of the dogma that the free market fixes everything. Conservatives have spent 20 years at least saying, "Haw haw, gubmint gonna cum save ya? Gubmint gonna fix everything, right, libby?!" while having the exact same, utopian, unrealistic, and pie-eyed idealism about the private sector. Enough.
 
2012-08-15 05:21:50 PM  

The Bestest: dbaggins: The military already has access to a hypersonic engine. it's called a "rocket" and we've been using them for decades. MinuteMan III travels at mach 25 and has a range of 8,000 miles. just put come fancy guidance on it and replace the nuke with regular explosives and you have your fast response precision ordinance already sitting there tested and ready.

ICBMs trigger the fear of a nuclear strike.. and retaliation.


Also, a ballistic missile has to leave the atmosphere--that's what allows it to achieve those speeds. To attain suborbital altitudes means lots and LOTS of fuel to reach escape velocity.

The idea behind a hypersonic scramjet (as I understand it) is to allow for very high speeds without the need for a three-stage booster rocket.
 
2012-08-15 05:26:17 PM  

costermonger: Mach 6 seems like a silly target for air travel when we can't do mach 2 in an economically/environmentally feasible manner.


Our mach goes up to eleven. Which is one higher than everyone else.
 
2012-08-15 05:33:14 PM  

verbaltoxin: It's not like I'm 100% against the private sector and want everything socialized. I'm just tired of the dogma that the free market fixes everything. Conservatives have spent 20 years at least saying, "Haw haw, gubmint gonna cum save ya? Gubmint gonna fix everything, right, libby?!" while having the exact same, utopian, unrealistic, and pie-eyed idealism about the private sector. Enough.


In the end no one wants to take responsibility for their mistakes. Iraq/Afghan wars? Mistakes. Didn't save enough money and now need SS to retire at all? Mistake. Got a degree in liberal arts at the cost of $100,000 in student loans? Mistake. Bought a house too big for your wallet? Mistake. Started a business that sucks without a good business plan but taxes supposedly making it a losing proposition? Mistake. Got knocked up, quit school, and now you're on welfare money? Mistake. Voted a dipshiat Congressman into office? Mistake. Didn't teach your kid how to be self-sufficient and they now live in your basement? Mistake.

At some point people should start looking at themselves as the problem. I include myself in this.
 
2012-08-15 05:39:04 PM  
That X-15 picture appears to be Scott Crossfield who was NEVER in the AF and had left the Navy fifteen years before that picture was taken (at least).
 
2012-08-15 05:43:54 PM  
Girion47

That's great, can we quit wasting money on R&D now?

Why do liberals hate science?
 
2012-08-15 05:44:15 PM  
You have enough ordinance to break the world into tiny pieces, and a variety that allows you to do so in any way you choose and at any level of specificity. This really is just a waste.
 
2012-08-15 05:50:57 PM  

bdub77: verbaltoxin: It's not like I'm 100% against the private sector and want everything socialized. I'm just tired of the dogma that the free market fixes everything. Conservatives have spent 20 years at least saying, "Haw haw, gubmint gonna cum save ya? Gubmint gonna fix everything, right, libby?!" while having the exact same, utopian, unrealistic, and pie-eyed idealism about the private sector. Enough.

In the end no one wants to take responsibility for their mistakes. Iraq/Afghan wars? Mistakes. Didn't save enough money and now need SS to retire at all? Mistake. Got a degree in liberal arts at the cost of $100,000 in student loans? Mistake. Bought a house too big for your wallet? Mistake. Started a business that sucks without a good business plan but taxes supposedly making it a losing proposition? Mistake. Got knocked up, quit school, and now you're on welfare money? Mistake. Voted a dipshiat Congressman into office? Mistake. Didn't teach your kid how to be self-sufficient and they now live in your basement? Mistake.

At some point people should start looking at themselves as the problem. I include myself in this.


Some people--possibly yourself included--also need to stop thinking that ANYONE can see all future possibilities and plan accordingly regardless of the current situation. Decisions that seem perfectly rational at the time can be affected by things you could never imagine, or if you did, they seemed so unlikely it was worth the chance.

House too big for your wallet? Well, at the time when the buyer had a job and the housing market was a buyer's market, it seemed doable; then buyer gets laid off (why would you anticipate that?) and the market tanked (surprise!) and a tornado hit your town and half the residents had to relocate making buyer's property suddenly valueless--now the house that was affordable suddenly isn't, and that's really nobody's fault.

That degree in theater arts? Hey, you were young and figured you needed a degree, and you knew friends in IATSE who said they could get you a job when you graduated. And $500 a month to pay back your loans didn't seem that impossible (when you're 18, nothing is impossible) because you hadn't figured out yet that you needed $500 a month BEYOND what you were going to need to live on. That doesn't mean you were a fool, just young and naive.

In our haste to make EVERYTHING someone's fault (either someone else's or their own) we tend to forget that decisions aren't made in a vacuum, everyone has 20/20 hindsight, and sometimes things really do strike out of the blue that throw your careful plans into ruin. There's a balance that needs to be struck, even in assigning blame.
 
2012-08-15 05:51:20 PM  

rnatalie: That X-15 picture appears to be Scott Crossfield who was NEVER in the AF and had left the Navy fifteen years before that picture was taken (at least).


It's Pete Knight, not that I understand why it would matter if it was Crossfield.
 
2012-08-15 05:52:22 PM  

tomcatadam: You have enough ordinance to break the world into tiny pieces, and a variety that allows you to do so in any way you choose and at any level of specificity. This really is just a waste.


No, we still have to go over there to blow up the guy over there. This would allow us to not have to go over there and risk our people. It then is up to us civilians to not elect people looking for a fight and it's up to the guys over there to not try to pick a fight with us.
 
2012-08-15 05:59:27 PM  

OnlyM3: Girion47

That's great, can we quit wasting money on R&D now?
Why do liberals hate science?


Piss off.
 
2012-08-15 06:02:57 PM  
I know it's literally rocket science, but it sounds like they just readjusted the spoiler and gave it a tune up between tests 2 - 3.
 
2012-08-15 06:07:54 PM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7270214/78737637#c78737637" target="_blank">bdub77</a>:</b> <i>Besides, where's your data that cutting taxes will create more revenues or even create economic growth?</i>

Right Here

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a">US Government Revenue<a>

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248">US Employment Datat</a>

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.conference-board.org">Conference board economic database</a>

<b>JFK Tax Cuts</b>

From 1965 to 1968, total federal revenue rose by 30%, from $117 billion to $153.

Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

<b>The Reagan tax cuts</b> (counting the two tax increases that Reagan signed, taxes overall were still much lower in Reagan's last year than they were in his first year):
<b> "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth" President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers -1994</b>

From 1982 to 1989 federal revenue rose from $618 billion to $991 billion.

the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5%, a 10 percentage point increase. The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10% of taxpayers increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988.

The inflation rate declined from 10.4 percent in 1980 to 4.2 percent in 1988

Clinton Tax Cuts:

1997 , created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by28%. The reduction in the capital gains tax was especially helpful. In 1995, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and it doubled again in 1999.

Federal revenue grew at a slightly faster rate in the three years after the 1997 tax cuts than it did in the three years before them. From 1994 to 1996, total federal revenue grew by $200 billion, from $1.26 trillion to $1.45 trillion, an increase of 16%. From 1998 to 2000, total federal revenue grew by $300 billion, from $1.72 trillion to $2.02 trillion, an increase of 17%

<b>Bush Tax Cuts:</b>
From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

After the 2003 tax cuts, the rich paid a higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in the previous 40 years.. In 2007 the top 1% of taxpayers earned 22.8% of the nation's income, yet paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes, whereas in 2004 the top 1% paid 36.89% of all federal income taxes. So the percentage of income taxes paid by the top 1% went from 36.89% in 2004 to 40.4% in 2007. (Incidentally, this also means that in 2007 the top 1% paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95% paid.)

Total federal revenue grew at a faster rate during the three years following the Bush tax cuts than it did during the three Clinton boom years of 1998-2000. From 1998 to 2000, following Bill Clinton's 1997 tax cuts, total federal revenue rose $300 billion, from $1.72 trillion to $2.02 trillion, an increase of 17%. A very respectable, solid increase. But, from 2004 to 2006, total federal revenue rose $520 billion, from $1.88 trillion to $2.40 trillion, an increase of 27%. The rate of inflation for the two periods was very similar (2.55% vs. 2.98%). So, even adjusted for inflation, the revenue growth that followed Bush's tax cuts was considerably better than the revenue growth that occurred during the three most prosperous years of Clinton's presidency.

U.S. output expanded faster than in most advanced economies 2000-2008. The IMF reported that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). The US economy expanded by 19%. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.
 
2012-08-15 06:10:59 PM  

Gyrfalcon: House too big for your wallet? Well, at the time when the buyer had a job and the housing market was a buyer's market, it seemed doable; then buyer gets laid off (why would you anticipate that?) and the market tanked (surprise!) and a tornado hit your town and half the residents had to relocate making buyer's property suddenly valueless--now the house that was affordable suddenly isn't, and that's really nobody's fault.


The housing bubble was apparent to anyone not wearing rose-colored glasses years before it popped. I'm pretty sure my first "this is a bubble & will end poorly" conversation with the wife was back in 2002 or so. When it really was at its peak it was painful to watch...
 
2012-08-15 06:23:14 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: TheGhostofFarkPast: imnotadoctor: Why are we wasting money on a missile that can go Mach 5?

so we can kill people in huts faster. Plus its a great way to defend us against pissed off muslims who over take planes with box cutters. i heard mach 5 is the best way to defend against small knives.

Well,where else are we doing any hypersonic flight research? I'd like to fly to Japan someday and not have it take 15 hours.


I would like that too, but as the airlines that had the Concorde found out, they couldn't break even. The cost of fuel for supersonic speed is too high (twice as fast requires four times as much energy)

How much would you pay to cut 7 hours off of a 15 hour trip? $300 more? $500 more? How about $3000 more?
 
2012-08-15 06:24:01 PM  

Girion47: That's great, can we quit wasting money on R&D now? We can blow anyone up at anytime, lets put that cash towards infrastructure, both roads and communications back home. Focusing on those two things will do far more damage towards our enemies than some super fast farking missile.


Believe it or not, this is money towards infrastructure. Sure defense boom boom. Always fun to watch. But this is also the technology to reduce the cost to access low earth orbit. Which is where we park a lot of very expensive technology. Part of what makes it so expensive to park technology there is we have to bring our fuel with us. Scramjets mean we don't need to bring as much fuel, and since we need to spend less fuel to lift more fuel, we can lift more payload. This is one of the best investments we can make, even if one of the first applications will be blowing shiat up.
 
2012-08-15 06:43:56 PM  

OnlyM3: Girion47

That's great, can we quit wasting money on R&D now?
Why do liberals hate science?


fark you, don't call me liberal
 
2012-08-15 07:02:33 PM  
Erm, but aren't missile supposed to go kablooey?
 
2012-08-15 07:49:09 PM  

jshine: Gyrfalcon: House too big for your wallet? Well, at the time when the buyer had a job and the housing market was a buyer's market, it seemed doable; then buyer gets laid off (why would you anticipate that?) and the market tanked (surprise!) and a tornado hit your town and half the residents had to relocate making buyer's property suddenly valueless--now the house that was affordable suddenly isn't, and that's really nobody's fault.

The housing bubble was apparent to anyone not wearing rose-colored glasses years before it popped. I'm pretty sure my first "this is a bubble & will end poorly" conversation with the wife was back in 2002 or so. When it really was at its peak it was painful to watch...


By that argument, one would never buy a house until one could pay for it in full, in cash. A lot of people whose bubbles got popped were not in the subprime market; they were ordinary buyers with normal credit, decent jobs and no reason to believe THEY would be the ones who lost their homes when they couldn't make the payments. A bubble hurts everyone, not just those who were foolish enough to believe in it. Unless you think EVERYONE who bought a home between 2004-2008 was a starry-eyed dreamer with a $20K a year job and delusions of grandeur.
 
2012-08-15 07:49:17 PM  

StopLurkListen: I would like that too, but as the airlines that had the Concorde found out, they couldn't break even. The cost of fuel for supersonic speed is too high (twice as fast requires four times as much energy)

How much would you pay to cut 7 hours off of a 15 hour trip? $300 more? $500 more? How about $3000 more?


The whole point of a scramjet is to have this not be true. the physics of a scramjet make for far higher fuel efficiency. The Concorde used a traditional turbojet propulsion.

back of the envelope doodling, a scramjet can be 10 to 25 times more fuel efficient per pound of thrust. detailed engineering designs however are less awe-inspiring.

but you still get wave drag traveling supersonic, which has M^2 scaling. eventually wave drag dominates
 
2012-08-15 07:58:20 PM  

clyph: Make a SST/HST that's not significantly more expensive to operate on a passenger/mile basis than subsonic widebody and the airlines will be all over it like white on rice.


About that...

Not supersonic, but a shaved hair away from it. Cheap enough fuel economy to be feasible in a point-to-point model rather than hub-and-spoke, and was the precursor of many of the technologies later folded into the 787.

Cancelled due to low interest from carriers. (Although there are rumblings they may revive the program in some fashion).


/Agrees a hypersonic strike vehicle is kind of pointless
//At the same time, agrees that there are civilian applications galore for it, not the least of which is the potential of cheap orbital insertion for small payloads
 
2012-08-15 08:11:50 PM  

The Bestest: dbaggins: The military already has access to a hypersonic engine. it's called a "rocket" and we've been using them for decades. MinuteMan III travels at mach 25 and has a range of 8,000 miles. just put come fancy guidance on it and replace the nuke with regular explosives and you have your fast response precision ordinance already sitting there tested and ready.

ICBMs trigger the fear of a nuclear strike.. and retaliation.


The part I don't understand about this is that they think that changing the delivery system fixes this. Right now, intercontinental ballistic trajectories make people nervous about nukes. The only reason hypersonic airplanes don't make people nervous about nukes is because we've never built one whose purpose is delivering nukes. The second this happens, people will add "things going mach 5 toward us" to the list of things that trigger nuke fears.

The engine probably has all sorts of wonderful and useful applications, but I don't understand how they think this will help avoid retaliation.
 
2012-08-15 08:21:56 PM  

dbaggins: back of the envelope doodling, a scramjet can be 10 to 25 times more fuel efficient per pound of thrust


Back of the envelope, how many times more thrust do you need to push the same plane to mach 5 rather than 550mph?
 
2012-08-15 08:23:42 PM  

hdhale: arethereanybeernamesleft: hdhale: When you strip down the size of your military to the point that we have,

And by that you mean, to the largest and most expensive on earth, right?

Apparently you haven't been watching the budgets for the coming year.


Yes, I have, we're going from a military larger than the militaries of the rest of the world combined to a military almost as large as the rest of the world combined.

/you are trolling, right? please tell me you're trolling
 
2012-08-15 08:24:26 PM  

raygundan: The Bestest: dbaggins: The military already has access to a hypersonic engine. it's called a "rocket" and we've been using them for decades. MinuteMan III travels at mach 25 and has a range of 8,000 miles. just put come fancy guidance on it and replace the nuke with regular explosives and you have your fast response precision ordinance already sitting there tested and ready.

ICBMs trigger the fear of a nuclear strike.. and retaliation.

The part I don't understand about this is that they think that changing the delivery system fixes this. Right now, intercontinental ballistic trajectories make people nervous about nukes. The only reason hypersonic airplanes don't make people nervous about nukes is because we've never built one whose purpose is delivering nukes. The second this happens, people will add "things going mach 5 toward us" to the list of things that trigger nuke fears.

The engine probably has all sorts of wonderful and useful applications, but I don't understand how they think this will help avoid retaliation.


How many of those things that aren't nukes are there likely to be?
 
2012-08-15 08:26:20 PM  

hasty ambush: U.S. output expanded faster than in most advanced economies 2000-2008. The IMF reported that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). The US economy expanded by 19%. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.


What a bunch of cherrypicked BS. What happened from 2008-2010?

US output expanded 19% but then tanked after the bubble burst and people realized the profits weren't real.

Here's what it looks like:

media.zenfs.com

This is top marginal tax rate and GDP growth. There's no correlation between top tax rate and GDP growth. In fact it's slightly negative - that doesn't mean, btw that correlation = causation, that tax rates even have any impact on GDP growth - but if they did, you'd certainly have to explain it without bringing in additional variables. I've yet to see anyone make a strong argument that, for example, manufacturing moved out of this country because of taxation and that this caused GDP growth to slow. The movement of manufacturing out of the US matches with just about every post-industrial country in the world. If anything I'd guess that wage inequality caused manufacturing to move to lower cost countries, and that taxes on the wealthiest had little if any impact, especially when you consider that the people making most of the gains in income improvements over the past 30 years were the rich.

Here's one that shows debt vs tax rates:

farm3.static.flickr.com

This one's pretty simple. Lower taxes means higher debt and deficits.

Again, citing anecdotal, cherrypicked data doesn't mean that lowering taxes results in higher GDP over time. In years following tax cuts what we've seen is a staggering rise in government debt instead.

And as you can also see from the charts, the US economy grew through all changes in tax rates, so yes in all of those cases government revenues grew, because guess what the overall revenue pie hasn't changed from 20% pretty much the whole time. Even if we doubled income taxes on the wealthiest we aren't adding that much to the revenue anyway, maybe 1-2% more, which is why we need to increase taxes on the middle class AND the wealthy short term AND cut spending.

And as I've told many before, I am all for cutting government spending. Just not all at once like morons propose.
 
2012-08-15 08:30:37 PM  

hdhale: arethereanybeernamesleft: hdhale: When you strip down the size of your military to the point that we have,

And by that you mean, to the largest and most expensive on earth, right?

Apparently you haven't been watching the budgets for the coming year.


Apparently you haven't been watching the budgets for the coming year.
 
2012-08-15 08:50:54 PM  

Gyrfalcon: raygundan: The Bestest: dbaggins: The military already has access to a hypersonic engine. it's called a "rocket" and we've been using them for decades. MinuteMan III travels at mach 25 and has a range of 8,000 miles. just put come fancy guidance on it and replace the nuke with regular explosives and you have your fast response precision ordinance already sitting there tested and ready.

ICBMs trigger the fear of a nuclear strike.. and retaliation.

The part I don't understand about this is that they think that changing the delivery system fixes this. Right now, intercontinental ballistic trajectories make people nervous about nukes. The only reason hypersonic airplanes don't make people nervous about nukes is because we've never built one whose purpose is delivering nukes. The second this happens, people will add "things going mach 5 toward us" to the list of things that trigger nuke fears.

The engine probably has all sorts of wonderful and useful applications, but I don't understand how they think this will help avoid retaliation.

How many of those things that aren't nukes are there likely to be?


Bingo.

The claim is that somehow this won't trigger nuke fears like an ICBM. But we built it to haul nukes... how will this not trigger the same fears as an ICBM? It's not like this is going to look like a FedEx cargo jet on radar.
 
2012-08-15 08:54:34 PM  

bdub77: hasty ambush: U.S. output expanded faster than in most advanced economies 2000-2008. The IMF reported that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). The US economy expanded by 19%. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.

What a bunch of cherrypicked BS. What happened from 2008-2010?

US output expanded 19% but then tanked after the bubble burst and people realized the profits weren't real.

Here's what it looks like:

[media.zenfs.com image 700x468]

This is top marginal tax rate and GDP growth. There's no correlation between top tax rate and GDP growth. In fact it's slightly negative - that doesn't mean, btw that correlation = causation, that tax rates even have any impact on GDP growth - but if they did, you'd certainly have to explain it without bringing in additional variables. I've yet to see anyone make a strong argument that, for example, manufacturing moved out of this country because of taxation and that this caused GDP growth to slow. The movement of manufacturing out of the US matches with just about every post-industrial country in the world. If anything I'd guess that wage inequality caused manufacturing to move to lower cost countries, and that taxes on the wealthiest had little if any impact, especially when you consider that the people making most of the gains in income improvements over the past 30 years were the rich.

Here's one that shows debt vs tax rates:

[farm3.static.flickr.com image 457x333]

This one's pretty simple. Lower taxes means higher debt and deficits.

Again, citing anecdotal, cherrypicked data doesn't mean that lowering taxes results in higher GDP over time. In years following tax cuts what we've seen is a staggering rise in government debt instead.

And as you can also see from the charts, the US economy grew through all changes in tax rates, so ...


If by cherry picking you mean data covering 4 different Presidential administration,of both parties, then yes cherry picking.


With all your charts you cannot show where tax cuts caused a decrease in government revenue given that many tax cuts took place during recessions which was the real cause of any revenue reduction.
Deficits do not explode because government cuts taxes but because they spend too much.

If you are arguing that government spending is essential to economic recovery and expansion I would point you to Japan , its lost decade and half along with a national debt of about 200% of its GDP,

Japan even spent their government. better they we did. They built a lot of bridges and tunnels. We financed a failed green jobs progam, socially aware puppet shows, heated swimming pools in Hawaii and bailed out GM/UAW so they can build an assembly plant in Mexico.
 
2012-08-15 09:16:54 PM  
That's just want us to think.

/it went plaid.
 
2012-08-15 09:26:36 PM  

hasty ambush: If by cherry picking you mean data covering 4 different Presidential administration,of both parties, then yes cherry picking.


Yes cherry picking. Thank you. That's what it was.

With all your charts you cannot show where tax cuts caused a decrease in government revenue given that many tax cuts took place during recessions which was the real cause of any revenue reduction.
Deficits do not explode because government cuts taxes but because they spend too much.


Moving the goalposts are we? I wasn't exploring tax cuts vs governmental revenue (which increased regardless of tax rates), I was covering GDP vs tax rates. If GDP is not impacted by marginal tax rates then raising the tax rates should improve government revenues without impacting growth. That's logical. Of course we miss out on all the people cheating taxes or legally funneling money into tax havens overseas. The real marginal rate for the richest in this country has been around 20%, which is why we need to close the loopholes.

If you are arguing that government spending is essential to economic recovery and expansion I would point you to Japan , its lost decade and half along with a national debt of about 200% of its GDP,

And I would point you to something called the Great Depression. Japan was subject to an aging workforce which did not work in its favor.

Japan even spent their government. better they we did. They built a lot of bridges and tunnels. We financed a failed green jobs progam, socially aware puppet shows, heated swimming pools in Hawaii and bailed out GM/UAW so they can build an assembly plant in Mexico.

Completely irrelevant to the argument. Besides which you are once again cherry picking (the wrong) programs. The renewables industry in the US has gone up considerably since 2009. Wind doubled. Can I believe some monies went bust? Sure, like any investment some projects don't pan out. The bailout of GM/Chrysler/Ford saved countless UAW jobs, hardly anyone is arguing that, and with the auto industry bailout a ton of other manufacturing jobs in the US were saved. Entire supply chains and their workers were saved by not moving jobs overseas. As you might be aware, the US also spent lots of stimulus money on bridges tunnels and infrastructure. The government stimulus certainly created short term deficits but it also avoided economic stagnation and longer term depression.

Truth is 3-4 million jobs were saved by government reinvestment programs. But once again this is completely sidestepping your point about tax rates and revenues.

As for government spending and deficits, certainly we need to fix government spending. We need to begin cutting plenty of spending programs. But once again, that doesn't mean we shouldn't let the Bush tax cuts expire and tax rates to go up.

As far as 'Deficits do not explode because government cuts taxes but because they spend too much.'

Deficits can explode in two ways. They can explode because government cuts taxes too much, because they spend too much, or both. And they can be explosively reduced by increasing revenues AND decreasing spending. How is that difficult to understand?
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report