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.

(Daily Kos)   If you think terminating a government program is all shiny budget-cut unicorns and colorful revenue-savings rainbows, you might want to read this   (dailykos.com) divider line 51
    More: Interesting, austerities, house science committee, Marshall Space Flight Center, fixed costs, Mr. Brooks, NASA Headquarters, reserve requirements, saves  
•       •       •

4922 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Feb 2014 at 2:52 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-02 11:51:53 AM
In Best Korea, when a program gets terminated the dogs get fed.
 
2014-02-02 12:03:26 PM
So, if I'm reading that correctly, the House Resolution doesn't actually change the funding for NASA programs, or give the House the power to cancel NASA programs, it just makes it so that in the event that NASA does cancel a program, the House has to approve funding to pay any money owed to contractors of that program.

I'm not really seeing a way that hurts NASA, and it may be incentive for contractors working with NASA to come in on time and under budget with their work so that they don't risk cost overruns and having their contract canceled and being left with no recourse if the House doesn't agree to pay the termination costs.
 
2014-02-02 12:19:12 PM

TuteTibiImperes: So, if I'm reading that correctly, the House Resolution doesn't actually change the funding for NASA programs, or give the House the power to cancel NASA programs, it just makes it so that in the event that NASA does cancel a program, the House has to approve funding to pay any money owed to contractors of that program.

I'm not really seeing a way that hurts NASA, and it may be incentive for contractors working with NASA to come in on time and under budget with their work so that they don't risk cost overruns and having their contract canceled and being left with no recourse if the House doesn't agree to pay the termination costs.


Its overly complicated to confuse and inflame the situation. Clicks and cash, clicks and cash.
 
2014-02-02 12:28:40 PM
<i>Mo Brooks (R-GA), whose district includes NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, the lead SLS integrator, says funds allocated each year for programs ought to be put to work on development rather than held in reserve to cover the theoretical cost of shutting down a canceled program. </i>

Mo Brooks is from Alabama. Even the article cited gets it right.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2014-02-02 12:37:30 PM

BooBoo23: <i>Mo Brooks (R-GA), whose district includes NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, the lead SLS integrator, says funds allocated each year for programs ought to be put to work on development rather than held in reserve to cover the theoretical cost of shutting down a canceled program. </i>

Mo Brooks is from Alabama. Even the article cited gets it right.


Think of the money we could save if we merged those two states.
 
2014-02-02 12:38:06 PM
No big contractor is going to accept a multi-year project that doesn't have some kind of early termination penalty. This is all pointless.
 
2014-02-02 01:03:46 PM
More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.
 
2014-02-02 01:40:38 PM
Things will be better when the Republicans take back the Senate this year
 
2014-02-02 02:05:06 PM

b2theory: Things will be better when the Republicans take back the Senate this year


img.fark.net
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-02 02:10:29 PM

flucto: No big contractor is going to accept a multi-year project that doesn't have some kind of early termination penalty. This is all pointless.


Sure they will, for two reasons:

One, they often don't have any other potential customers.

Two they can structure the uncertainly into their bids, by not ordering raw materials before they get the money to pay for them and such.
 
2014-02-02 02:38:15 PM
Look at the Daily Kommunist trying to justify government. DON'T TREAD ON MY HOVAROUND
 
2014-02-02 02:56:26 PM

flucto: No big contractor is going to accept a multi-year project that doesn't have some kind of early termination penalty. This is all pointless.


Yes, it's pointless to cancel programs if we're going to pay for them anyway. Why not get some research for our money?
 
2014-02-02 03:07:43 PM
So you're saying cutting a government program isn't a cut-and-dry money save? Weird.
 
2014-02-02 03:08:28 PM
A partisan blog-like group knows how government works. Uh-huh.
 
2014-02-02 03:11:47 PM
Contracting is hard.  There are people who specialize in that for a reason.
 
2014-02-02 03:12:49 PM
s27.postimg.org
 
2014-02-02 03:15:59 PM
There is nothing on this earth more difficult to kill than a government program. A stake to the heart, beheading, and incineration are not sufficient to do the job. You also need to nuke the site from orbit and salt the earth, then deposit the irradiated and salted soil in pressure-resistant steel casks and drop them into the Marianas Trench... and hope someone doesn't decide to retrieve the casks.
 
2014-02-02 03:28:10 PM

ClavellBCMI: There is nothing on this earth more difficult to kill than a government program. A stake to the heart, beheading, and incineration are not sufficient to do the job. You also need to nuke the site from orbit and salt the earth, then deposit the irradiated and salted soil in pressure-resistant steel casks and drop them into the Marianas Trench... and hope someone doesn't decide to retrieve the casks.


Difficulty in canceling programs is a good thing.  Oftentimes there are significant sunk costs before fruition, and a new administration coming in that doesn't favor a particular program and kills it before it can start to pay off would just lead to a lot of wasted money.

With NASA in particular, where it can take many years of design and research before a usable product is created, there's a danger that a lot of money will be spent for something that will never see the light of day if the administrations priorities change.

When President Obama canceled the Constellation program the millions NASA had already spent developing it was essentially wasted.  Now that SLS is starting to come together it would be a tragedy if whoever holds the checkbook next were to decide to kill it or change its course on a whim.

Ideally NASA's funding should be much greater, and it should be guaranteed for years into the future so that they can more effectively plan and develop knowing that their budget won't be pulled out from under them.
 
2014-02-02 03:32:46 PM

ClavellBCMI: There is nothing on this earth more difficult to kill than a government program. A stake to the heart, beheading, and incineration are not sufficient to do the job. You also need to nuke the site from orbit and salt the earth, then deposit the irradiated and salted soil in pressure-resistant steel casks and drop them into the Marianas Trench... and hope someone doesn't decide to retrieve the casks.


That's why the DHS and the PATRIOT Act were especially heinous.
 
2014-02-02 03:38:46 PM

vpb: flucto: No big contractor is going to accept a multi-year project that doesn't have some kind of early termination penalty. This is all pointless.

Sure they will, for two reasons:

One, they often don't have any other potential customers.

Two they can structure the uncertainly into their bids, by not ordering raw materials before they get the money to pay for them and such.


Umm, the cost of raw materials is a tiny fraction of any aerospace project. The biggest cost is the paperwork for planning. Software can be considered paperwork but the biggest cost of software is not the actual programming but the paperwork showing the software satisfies the planning.

Or maybe you believe all that unnecessary and contractors just buy some expensive alloys and bang together a rocket.
 
2014-02-02 03:56:06 PM
So it appears that DailyKos is arguing that we should never ever cut government spending where a bunch of contracts are involved. Like all of those porktacular military projects.

And also that we should never spend money up front for savings down the line.

Fark that.
 
2014-02-02 04:00:56 PM
Budget austerity give the puritans a feeling of moral satisfaction, but it's a lousy way to run an economy.
 
2014-02-02 04:04:22 PM
If you think terminating a government program is all shiny budget-cut unicorns and colorful revenue-savings rainbows, you might want to read this not be too bright
 
2014-02-02 04:05:44 PM

BMFPitt: So it appears that DailyKos is arguing that we should never ever cut government spending where a bunch of contracts are involved. Like all of those porktacular military projects.

And also that we should never spend money up front for savings down the line.

Fark that.


They seem to be suggesting that we should never start a program without knowing that it will be completed on-time and on-budget... which will never happen. Now, once it has been demonstrated that a government program is a complete and total waste of time and money, and serves no purpose other than to enrich the parties getting that government money, OK, kill it. NASA is NOT one of those departments. NASA *needs* a long lead time on a lot of their programs, simply to figure out if they can actually make their idea(s) work, much less to actually research, design, and build the hardware needed to make it work.
 
2014-02-02 04:11:27 PM

ClavellBCMI: BMFPitt: So it appears that DailyKos is arguing that we should never ever cut government spending where a bunch of contracts are involved. Like all of those porktacular military projects.

And also that we should never spend money up front for savings down the line.

Fark that.

They seem to be suggesting that we should never start a program without knowing that it will be completed on-time and on-budget... which will never happen. Now, once it has been demonstrated that a government program is a complete and total waste of time and money, and serves no purpose other than to enrich the parties getting that government money, OK, kill it. NASA is NOT one of those departments. NASA *needs* a long lead time on a lot of their programs, simply to figure out if they can actually make their idea(s) work, much less to actually research, design, and build the hardware needed to make it work.


No, what they're saying is that the organizations which design these programs should be the ones to budget and plan for possible termination costs should the program need to be canceled.  The HR they talk about removes that control from the organization and give it to Congress.

So, right now, if NASA were to start development of a new Mars Rover, they would set aside money to pay the contractors in the event that the program were canceled before fruition to make sure the contractor wasn't left was unpaid bills for their work.

If the HR were to be passed into an actual law they would no longer be able to do that, NASA would only be able to pay contractors for the actual development costs, and if the program were canceled Congress would have to vote on whether or not to pay any remaining bills, contract penalties, severances, etc.
 
2014-02-02 04:22:04 PM

enry: More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.


More mush from the party that thinks government spending can defy the laws of physics, math, and economics by virtue of being government spending.
 
2014-02-02 04:30:17 PM
The only people who ever thought that were the ones who thought government programs did nothing except benefit the government.
 
2014-02-02 04:32:30 PM

jjorsett: enry: More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.

More mush from the party that thinks government spending can defy the laws of physics, math, and economics by virtue of being government spending.


And I see my point is proven.
 
2014-02-02 04:39:57 PM

TuteTibiImperes: No, what they're saying is that the organizations which design these programs should be the ones to budget and plan for possible termination costs should the program need to be canceled.  The HR they talk about removes that control from the organization and give it to Congress.

So, right now, if NASA were to start development of a new Mars Rover, they would set aside money to pay the contractors in the event that the program were canceled before fruition to make sure the contractor wasn't left was unpaid bills for their work.

If the HR were to be passed into an actual law they would no longer be able to do that, NASA would only be able to pay contractors for the actual development costs, and if the program were canceled Congress would have to vote on whether or not to pay any remaining bills, contract penalties, severances, etc.


And the price of all contracts will just go up 50% to compensate.
 
2014-02-02 04:47:31 PM

enry: More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.


I always love it when they use that analogy because they always forget to mention the possibility of more revenue (in the form of a second job).
 
2014-02-02 04:51:51 PM

enry: More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.

 
2014-02-02 05:00:09 PM

Mrtraveler01: enry: More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.

I always love it when they use that analogy because they always forget to mention the possibility of more revenue (in the form of a second job).


That's because getting a second job in a household economy is like raising taxes in a national economy. As we all know, raising taxes destroys jobs. So taking a second job would actually destroy the job you just took and you'd be right back where you started.... having to cut spending.

Stoopid libs.
 
2014-02-02 05:02:06 PM

enry: More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.


Last year I sold my car. So I should expect to have my income permanently increased by $8000 because that's how much it went up last year! So now because my income is higher, I can take more time off from work since I'm running a surplus.
 
2014-02-02 05:03:08 PM
TuteTibiImperes: Difficulty in canceling programs is a good thing.  Oftentimes there are significant sunk costs before fruition, and a new administration coming in that doesn't favor a particular program and kills it before it can start to pay off would just lead to a lot of wasted money.

With NASA in particular, where it can take many years of design and research before a usable product is created, there's a danger that a lot of money will be spent for something that will never see the light of day if the administrations priorities change.

When President Obama canceled the Constellation program the millions NASA had already spent developing it was essentially wasted.  Now that SLS is starting to come together it would be a tragedy if whoever holds the checkbook next were to decide to kill it or change its course on a whim.


It's important to point out, though, that the initial Constellation cost estimates of $97M were pretty vague (PDF), and had ballooned to $150M by the time Obama ordered a review.  It also wasn't sufficiently funded early on, which led to costly delays. cite  Had the Bush Administration funded it properly to begin with (likely not possible because of that pesky Iraq war business), Obama might not have been in the position of having to decide to stop throwing good money after bad.


Ideally NASA's funding should be much greater, and it should be guaranteed for years into the future so that they can more effectively plan and develop knowing that their budget won't be pulled out from under them.

So much this. But it would require both White House and Congress to have a unified vision. I don't think it would happen short of a space-based threat.
 
2014-02-02 05:10:17 PM

Solutare: FTA: On a planet where resources are increasingly finite and population growth seems to know no bounds, a sane species would be piling cash into space faster than old Europe bled men and treasure into the New World centuries ago and for the same reasons. While we're at it, given the stakes, in a saner world zillionaires with a track record of spending money in space and on science for all humankind rather than sheltering it in offshore accounts for their own benefit, would be held up as the Edisons of our time, a role model for young people to admire and a challenge for fellow billionaires to match.

Thanks, conservatives, for killing us all.


It's a good thing QA isn't around to hear that. I think his head would explode with rage.
 
2014-02-02 05:13:43 PM

Lydia_C: TuteTibiImperes: Ideally NASA's funding should be much greater, and it should be guaranteed for years into the future so that they can more effectively plan and develop knowing that their budget won't be pulled out from under them.

So much this. But it would require both White House and Congress to have a unified vision. I don't think it would happen short of a space-based threat.



HA! Even then nothing would happen. Global warming is a threat and what is being done?
The GoP would simply tell us to buy more guns

s28.postimg.org
 
2014-02-02 05:18:37 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: enry: More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.

Last year I sold my car. So I should expect to have my income permanently increased by $8000 because that's how much it went up last year! So now because my income is higher, I can take more time off from work since I'm running a surplus.


Several years ago I got laid off and didn't find work until months after my unemployment ran out.  The only reasonable thing to do in order to keep a balanced budget was sell my car, sell my good suit, cancel my internet service, cancel my cell phone service, break my lease and be homeless.  It was the fiscally responsible thing to do.
 
2014-02-02 05:21:08 PM

Lydia_C: TuteTibiImperes: Difficulty in canceling programs is a good thing.  Oftentimes there are significant sunk costs before fruition, and a new administration coming in that doesn't favor a particular program and kills it before it can start to pay off would just lead to a lot of wasted money.

With NASA in particular, where it can take many years of design and research before a usable product is created, there's a danger that a lot of money will be spent for something that will never see the light of day if the administrations priorities change.

When President Obama canceled the Constellation program the millions NASA had already spent developing it was essentially wasted.  Now that SLS is starting to come together it would be a tragedy if whoever holds the checkbook next were to decide to kill it or change its course on a whim.

It's important to point out, though, that the initial Constellation cost estimates of $97M were pretty vague (PDF), and had ballooned to $150M by the time Obama ordered a review.  It also wasn't sufficiently funded early on, which led to costly delays. cite  Had the Bush Administration funded it properly to begin with (likely not possible because of that pesky Iraq war business), Obama might not have been in the position of having to decide to stop throwing good money after bad.


Ideally NASA's funding should be much greater, and it should be guaranteed for years into the future so that they can more effectively plan and develop knowing that their budget won't be pulled out from under them.

So much this. But it would require both White House and Congress to have a unified vision. I don't think it would happen short of a space-based threat.


I'm thinking this is more of what a space-based threat would bring to the political table.
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-02 05:21:45 PM
This is why I roll my eyes whenever someone mentions "no bid contracts", or "bloated project spending", or "government waste".

The money goes some part of the public, so by definition there is no such thing as "wasteful spending".
 
2014-02-02 05:41:39 PM
Gee, there's a whole lot of people here who never watched the old BBC show "Yes, Minister."

It's simple: if you want a government program to stay around forever (or at least until you retire), you structure the spending and payments in such a way that it becomes more expensive to kill the program than to continue it.

By picking an extreme example - NASA funding a long-term, complicated research program - they make it seem completely unreasonable to cancel anything, for any reason, forever.

"Hey, we're going to cancel that million dollar program you started to build a big new statue in the middle of town."
"You can't do that - we've already allocated the money and paid it out, with iron-clad contracts. It will cost 50% more to stop the project than to finish it."
"Oh, sorry."
(six months later)
"How's that statue coming?"
"Oh, we need another million dollars. For now."
 
2014-02-02 05:45:12 PM

super_grass: This is why I roll my eyes whenever someone mentions "no bid contracts", or "bloated project spending", or "government waste".

The money goes some part of the public, so by definition there is no such thing as "wasteful spending".


*ahem*
[steeples fingers]

If you are spending taxpayer money on welfare or public housing or unemployment benefits or other nonuseful projects to support those who do not work, that money is wasteful. If you are spending taxpayer money on a bridge in MY state, or environmentally questionable fuel recovery programs in MY state, or military hardware the military does not want in MY state, then those programs are not wasteful, because that benefits the workers and economy in MY state.

However, if you are spending federal tax money on a bridge in THAT person's state, I can show you how that bridge links two nonviable communities, a "bridge to nowhere" if you will; and the oil-recovery plans in THAT person's state is environmentally unsound and technologically untested, and the F-687 JDARN strike fighter is a waste of money and time because the Air Force already has six other planes like it and THAT Congressman only wants it to prop up pork in HIS state.

[clasps fingers]
[resumes seat]
 
2014-02-02 05:57:34 PM
As someone who works on a lot of Government contracts, I'm getting a kick.....

I can assure you, EVERY contract we sign has an "escape clause" for the government, if the winds of change decide to end a certain project.  Basically we'd be entitled to our costs spent on labor and materials to that point and we'd turn over whatever assets the government had paid for and we would walk away.  Expecting a Contractor to agree to let the government to pull the plug with zero responsibility would lead to much higher bids for work, and would probably be against Federal Contracting Code.  The project I am on now is tied up in court, because the hippies don't think we need the thing I'm building, so a judge could tell us to pack it up tomorrow.  That doesn't mean we are out of pocket, but it also doesn't mean the government is on the hook for the entire amount they've committed.

So yeah, if there's a project that just doesn't make fiscal sense to continue, pull the plug.  Bite the penalty and stop throwing good money after bad.
 
2014-02-02 07:27:32 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: I'm thinking this is more of what a space-based threat would bring to the political table.
[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]


How quickly they forget.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-02 07:31:57 PM

Crabs_Can_Polevault: Don't Troll Me Bro!: I'm thinking this is more of what a space-based threat would bring to the political table.
[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]

How quickly they forget.

[i.imgur.com image 640x960]


Jesus Tittyf*cking Christ.  I really want to yell FAKE at that, but it's par for the course anymore.  And how the hell would a meteor colliding with our atmosphere and exploding have anything to do with changes in our climate before the meteor even.... I just....  WTF is wrong with these people?
 
2014-02-02 08:02:16 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Jesus Tittyf*cking Christ.  I really want to yell FAKE at that, but it's par for the course anymore.  And how the hell would a meteor colliding with our atmosphere and exploding have anything to do with changes in our climate before the meteor even.... I just....  WTF is wrong with these people?


I wish I could tell you. I think the explanation would start with an utter and complete lack of understanding how the world, science, and objective reality work, then swerve into the realm of abnormal psychology and a delve into the subcategory of pathological hatreds (q.v. "Obama Derangement Syndrome"). To get a full explanation would be dangerous; imagine someone with Ph.D.s in both psychology and mathematics (focused on non-euclidian geometry). The resulting skill set would be not unlike Cthulhu Mythos; every point you take in that would lower your maximum possible sanity by an equivalent amount.

As for its authenticity, I do remember some threads about outrageous claims made about the Russian meteor (check January 2013) and I'm pretty sure that graphic emerged from that. Sadly, I'm also pretty sure that graphic is an actual thing.
 
2014-02-02 08:15:09 PM

jjorsett: enry: More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.

More mush from the party that thinks government spending can defy the laws of physics, math, and economics by virtue of being government spending.


image.blingee.com
 
2014-02-02 08:39:38 PM

Crabs_Can_Polevault: Don't Troll Me Bro!: I'm thinking this is more of what a space-based threat would bring to the political table.
[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]

How quickly they forget.

[i.imgur.com image 640x960]


That HAS to be a shoop. Fox news is not THAT desperate.
 
2014-02-02 09:01:10 PM

super_grass: That HAS to be a shoop. Fox news is not THAT desperate.


Uh yeah it is a photoshop....those are two images from 10 years apart.
 
2014-02-02 09:24:57 PM

SCUBA_Archer: super_grass: That HAS to be a shoop. Fox news is not THAT desperate.

Uh yeah it is a photoshop....those are two images from 10 years apart.


Well played.....
 
2014-02-03 07:26:16 AM
All the more reason to not start a new spending program in the first place
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report