Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Corbulo2526 OP t1_j1jwnpr wrote

The bill provides $26.3 billion for the U.S. Space Force, which is nearly $1.7 billion more than the Pentagon requested and more than NASA's $25.4 billion budget.

63

Million2026 t1_j1k4rk3 wrote

Replying to TardisReality (#1,046,249)

This is great news for space. Like it or not, the US will never increase NASAs budget too far above what it is now. But for military applications money is unlimited. So basically instead of the $20 billion the US government used to spend on space, it’s now spending $50 billion a year!

17

Tommyblockhead20 t1_j1kif1j wrote

Replying to TardisReality (#1,046,517)

Question: do you have a smartphone? If so, have you ever used a feature that uses location, like maps, local weather, or photo locations? Guess what organization is in charge of that location data getting to your phone?

It’s not NASA. It’s the one you just called useless. The space force specifically. That’s just one example of the things the military does that benefits you. We can certainly debate exactly how much the military and NASA should be getting, but it’s just wrong to say the military budget I completely useless.

4

MacrosBlack16 t1_j1krvi2 wrote

So this is where that money for student debt relief is going instead?

1

RuinousRubric t1_j1kugg3 wrote

Replying to Rynox2000 (#1,049,080)

The Space Force operates the various military satellites. So GPS, military communications, missile warning/tracking, military weather satellites, etc. They also do a lot of work for the National Reconnaissance Office, which is the organization running all of our spy satellites. They search for and track objects in Earth orbit and make the data publicly available. They run space-related military facilities.

So no space battleships (yet, anyways), but they do handle a lot of infrastructure which is invaluable to both the US military and the civilian world.

6

Joelmale t1_j1kxtg2 wrote

Replying to Corbulo2526 (#1,046,429)

Yes but Space Force just does what the Air Force used to do except now they add in additional “staff” overhead. Really it just costs more to have a separate service do it. This needs a really good relook.

−5

Corbulo2526 OP t1_j1kxw6a wrote

Replying to Joelmale (#1,050,356)

You can say the exact same thing about the Army and Air Force having done the same thing. But you don’t see any serious arguments for trying to merge the Air Force back into the Army.

8

Joelmale t1_j1kydmu wrote

Replying to Corbulo2526 (#1,050,364)

You could except we don’t fight in space and have signed a treaty saying we won’t weaponize it. Space is a domain just as air is but air is a warfighting domain, I think we should be exploring/discovering space not conquering it. When we look at ways the US could spend on space I just don’t think the DoD is the best way to do it. ‘Merica and all that

−7

Joelmale t1_j1kyto9 wrote

Replying to Corbulo2526 (#1,050,447)

You are right it was an agreement to not place WMDs in space so an over simplification, and even at that not really binding. Countries will do what countries will do. Still doesn’t change my take… stupid way to spend money :D

−2

RuinousRubric t1_j1l34h7 wrote

Replying to cons_suck_balls (#1,050,214)

Literally the same groups, it's just that they've been put into their own branch like how the Air Force was split off from the Army after WW2. Mostly just means that they aren't stuck playing second fiddle to entrenched interests in the Air Force.

10

slax03 t1_j1l60l0 wrote

Replying to anurodhp (#1,048,996)

You know that both of these things can be true right? It's fair to say that there's always money for war and believing helping Ukraine is absolutely necessary.

9

JimBeam823 t1_j1lyn2z wrote

When then Xaraxians come, it will be money well spent.

7

sporksable t1_j1m02h6 wrote

Replying to Dark-Myst (#1,047,727)

Last estimate is universal care in the US would cost about 4 Trillion 1.5 Trillion a year more than what we spend now on healthcare (which is substantial). You'd need 4.5 1.5 DoD budgets to cover that, and I ran out of fingers and toes counting how many space force budgets.

3

anurodhp t1_j1m0fly wrote

Replying to slax03 (#1,051,390)

Have you looked at how Western Europe unilaterally disarmed and now is entirely dependent on the us?

The help ukraine is getting now is technology and techniques developed in peacetime. Things like he poster above would consider wasteful. Tech doesn’t develop overnight. It takes years or decades (usually in peace)

1

StevenK71 t1_j1m12iu wrote

I think we will see a militarized version of Starship in a couple of years.

1

pugofthewildfrontier t1_j1m2qc0 wrote

Replying to sporksable (#1,054,557)

Gonna need to see your estimate that shows universal health care (not public option) would cost 8-9 trillion per year, since we’re already above 4 trillion per year.

A recent study by Yale epidemiologists found that Medicare for All would save around 68,000 lives a year while reducing U.S. health care spending by around 13%, or $450 billion a year.

Medicare for All spending would be approximately $37.8 trillion between 2017 and 2026, according to a study by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. That amounts to about $5 trillion in savings over that time. These savings would come from reducing administrative costs and allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices.

Other studies by think tanks and government agencies have analyzed single-payer proposals at the state and federal levels. Most found Medicare for All would reduce our total health care spending.

Even a study by the Koch-funded Mercatus Center found that Medicare for All would save around $2 trillion over a 10-year period.

https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check-medicare-for-all-would-save-the-u-s-trillions-public-option-would-leave-millions-uninsured-not-garner-savings/

1

sporksable t1_j1mb4ft wrote

Replying to pugofthewildfrontier (#1,054,928)

I was wrong, it was about 1.5 Trillion/yr over present spending, an average of 3 Trillion a year (we spend about 1.5 trillion already to cover around half of residents, so that jives fairly well). Which is substantially less than 4 trillion/yr.

The fact remains, though, that DoD budgets, even with the bloated one we have right now, doesn't begin to cover the expenses accrued under the M4A proposals. And that also does not take into account the fact that purely medicare (without medicaid, CHIPS, Tricare, IHS etc) is responsible for more than half of the deficit we have right now (with social security making up the rest). FedGov runs a surplus without these mandatory programs.

But that is getting in the weeds a little bit. Point is, the entire DoD budget doesn't begin to cover M4A. There would need to be substantially more offset.

Oh, and the Mercatus Center study is a really poor one to use, since the author himself states that cost savings are unrealistic. It pretty much assumes that providers will take a 40% cut to reimbursement rates with no knock-on effects.

To be clear here, I'm not saying that M4A or universal healthcare is a bad thing. But I am saying that "stop buying bullets, buy bandages" isn't a realistic way to look at healthcare policy, or paying for universal care.

2

sporksable t1_j1mbo1h wrote

Replying to Sufficient_Matter585 (#1,056,067)

Actually that cost figure assumes present medicare rates, which are 70% of private insurance reembursement.

Health policy is extremely complex, and there are trade offs for everything. But I do not believe it's realistic to assume providers will take a 30% reduction in payments and not have that have knock-on effects through the industry. Again, trade offs.

9

sporksable t1_j1mdanw wrote

Replying to Dark-Myst (#1,056,132)

People smarter than you or I have crunched the numbers. The costs assume present Medicare reimbursement rates, which are already around 60-70% of private insurance rates. Naturally, such a reduction would have knock on effects. If you wanted to reimburse more to better cover that gap, costs would probably increase.

1

Kamakaziturtle t1_j1mx0d8 wrote

Replying to TardisReality (#1,046,249)

No they couldn’t, they do very different things.

The space force has effectively existed for decades now under the air force, operating our military satellites, gps, as well as identifying potential threats. NASA doesn’t do all that, they are more about space research and travel.

All that happened is the groups working on this got big enough to warrant them getting their own branch.

2

Kamakaziturtle t1_j1mxcm6 wrote

Replying to TardisReality (#1,046,517)

Other way around. Having all military branches in a single organization would be a nightmare and inefficient to properly manage. Splitting groups off when they get big enough aids in organization and makes sense both from a management and financial level

3

bojackhoreman t1_j1n9vqo wrote

Replying to sporksable (#1,054,557)

The EU spends about 11% of its GDP on healthcare for 447M people at 16.6 trillion GDP. US gdp is at 22 trillion at 332M people. Equivalent cost would be between 1.4 -2.4 trillion for universal healthcare which is nearly half of what Americans pay now at 4.3 trillion.

1

FanaticEgalitarian t1_j1nh71x wrote

only 1.7 bil? What are they gonna do, buy new government issue mousepads?

1