Democratic Socialism - WTF?

[DGS49]

The recent IPO of Spacex and resulting inflation of the paper wealth of Elon Musk has figuratively set fire to the hair on the heads of our Democratic Socialists - mainly, of course, Bernie and Senator Warren. The blogosphere (or whatever it's called these days) is burning up with fretting that, "If only he were taxed like everyone else..." or "If Musk were forced to pay his FAIR SHARE..."

It would end world poverty, eliminate communicable diseases, house the homeless...take your pick.

But there is a hole in all of this talk, and it is this: Democratic Socialism is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. That august document envisions a government that works for the COMMON GOOD, and not for the benefit of any individuals. Specifically, the "powers" of Congress are detailed in Article I, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment states clearly that the powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States and the people (private sector). None of the powers of Congress facilitates the provision of individual benefits. Accordingly, the Federal government has no "power" to spend our money on food, housing, education, or healthcare for the general public. (The States and local governments can do what they want).

OBVIOUSLY, the Federal courts and the Democrats in Congress violated this principle massively, gaining supporters in the general public by giving them FREE MONEY AND STUFF in exchange for their votes. But at some point it has to come to a head. What is needed is a test case. Maybe it will be some guaranteed household income law; one can only hope.

If that mayor in NYC wants to implement "democratic socialism" in New York, he is free to do so. But the Feds cannot. This is not my opinion, it is fact.

 

[Moonglow]

Space X exists on taxpayer dollars.

 

[Eman623]

Space X exists on taxpayer dollars.

It exists because it can move a kilo of matter into space far cheaper than NASA can.

Taxpayer dollars well spent.

 

[Moonglow]

It exists because it can move a kilo of matter into space far cheaper than NASA can.

Taxpayer dollars well spent.

NASA divested its operations to the private industry during Oblama.

The Obama administration fundamentally shifted NASA's model by ending the Space Shuttle program and transitioning low-Earth orbit operations to private industry through the Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo programs. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The administration effectively "rented" transport services from commercial companies rather than owning and operating the spacecraft itself. Key details include: [1]

• Commercial Cargo: Initiated under the George W. Bush administration and expanded under Obama, NASA contracted companies like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences to deliver supplies to the International Space Station (ISS). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Commercial Crew: In 2010, the administration cancelled the moon-bound Constellation program. Instead, NASA invested billions in private companies to design and build spacecraft capable of carrying astronauts to the ISS. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• The Transition: This divestment allowed NASA to stop building its own launch vehicles for low-Earth orbit and instead focus its resources on deep-space exploration and building the Space Launch System (SLS) for missions to the Moon and Mars. [1, 2, 3]

Today, this public-private model remains the backbone of NASA's low-Earth orbit operations, managed by the NASA Commercial Crew Program. [1, 2, 3]

 

[Eman623]

NASA divested its operations to the private industry during Oblama.

The Obama administration fundamentally shifted NASA's model by ending the Space Shuttle program and transitioning low-Earth orbit operations to private industry through the Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo programs. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The administration effectively "rented" transport services from commercial companies rather than owning and operating the spacecraft itself. Key details include: [1]

• Commercial Cargo: Initiated under the George W. Bush administration and expanded under Obama, NASA contracted companies like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences to deliver supplies to the International Space Station (ISS). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Commercial Crew: In 2010, the administration cancelled the moon-bound Constellation program. Instead, NASA invested billions in private companies to design and build spacecraft capable of carrying astronauts to the ISS. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• The Transition: This divestment allowed NASA to stop building its own launch vehicles for low-Earth orbit and instead focus its resources on deep-space exploration and building the Space Launch System (SLS) for missions to the Moon and Mars. [1, 2, 3]

Today, this public-private model remains the backbone of NASA's low-Earth orbit operations, managed by the NASA Commercial Crew Program. [1, 2, 3]

So it's like Solyndra, except it's successful and not a pissoff of a half billion dollars.

Good to know.

 

[Moonglow]

So it's like Solyndra, except it's successful and not a pissoff of a half billion dollars.

Good to know.

Solyndra was part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

 

[Votto]

The recent IPO of Spacex and resulting inflation of the paper wealth of Elon Musk has figuratively set fire to the hair on the heads of our Democratic Socialists - mainly, of course, Bernie and Senator Warren. The blogosphere (or whatever it's called these days) is burning up with fretting that, "If only he were taxed like everyone else..." or "If Musk were forced to pay his FAIR SHARE..."

It would end world poverty, eliminate communicable diseases, house the homeless...take your pick.

But there is a hole in all of this talk, and it is this: Democratic Socialism is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. That august document envisions a government that works for the COMMON GOOD, and not for the benefit of any individuals. Specifically, the "powers" of Congress are detailed in Article I, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment states clearly that the powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States and the people (private sector). None of the powers of Congress facilitates the provision of individual benefits. Accordingly, the Federal government has no "power" to spend our money on food, housing, education, or healthcare for the general public. (The States and local governments can do what they want).

OBVIOUSLY, the Federal courts and the Democrats in Congress violated this principle massively, gaining supporters in the general public by giving them FREE MONEY AND STUFF in exchange for their votes. But at some point it has to come to a head. What is needed is a test case. Maybe it will be some guaranteed household income law; one can only hope.

If that crazy bastard in NYC wants to implement "democratic socialism" in New York, he is free to do so. But the Feds cannot. This is not my opinion, it is fact.

The DNC just wants more money in taxes for their fraudulent schemes like their "Learing Centers" for Somalians or high-speed rails in California.

Sure, they give crumbs to the poor to keep their legitimacy and make everyone ashamed for questioning it.

And at the end of the day, they end up spending a thousand times more than the taxes they take in anyway, which adds to the inflation which is the cruelest of taxes

All the DNC does is virtue signal, like caring about slavery. They spend all their time crying over slavery that happened hundreds of years ago about people long dead, but not one word about the fact that there is now more slavery in the world today than at any other time in human history, but not one word about how to stop it.

Charlatans one and all!!!

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The recent IPO of Spacex and resulting inflation of the paper wealth of Elon Musk has figuratively set fire to the hair on the heads of our Democratic Socialists - mainly, of course, Bernie and Senator Warren. The blogosphere (or whatever it's called these days) is burning up with fretting that, "If only he were taxed like everyone else..." or "If Musk were forced to pay his FAIR SHARE..."

It would end world poverty, eliminate communicable diseases, house the homeless...take your pick.

But there is a hole in all of this talk, and it is this: Democratic Socialism is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. That august document envisions a government that works for the COMMON GOOD, and not for the benefit of any individuals. Specifically, the "powers" of Congress are detailed in Article I, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment states clearly that the powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States and the people (private sector). None of the powers of Congress facilitates the provision of individual benefits. Accordingly, the Federal government has no "power" to spend our money on food, housing, education, or healthcare for the general public. (The States and local governments can do what they want).

OBVIOUSLY, the Federal courts and the Democrats in Congress violated this principle massively, gaining supporters in the general public by giving them FREE MONEY AND STUFF in exchange for their votes. But at some point it has to come to a head. What is needed is a test case. Maybe it will be some guaranteed household income law; one can only hope.

If that crazy bastard in NYC wants to implement "democratic socialism" in New York, he is free to do so. But the Feds cannot. This is not my opinion, it is fact.

But that’s only relative to constitutional law. And constitutional law is subject to the interpretations of democrat judges.

 

[22lcidw]

NASA divested its operations to the private industry during Oblama.

The Obama administration fundamentally shifted NASA's model by ending the Space Shuttle program and transitioning low-Earth orbit operations to private industry through the Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo programs. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The administration effectively "rented" transport services from commercial companies rather than owning and operating the spacecraft itself. Key details include: [1]

• Commercial Cargo: Initiated under the George W. Bush administration and expanded under Obama, NASA contracted companies like SpaceX and Orbital Sciences to deliver supplies to the International Space Station (ISS). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Commercial Crew: In 2010, the administration cancelled the moon-bound Constellation program. Instead, NASA invested billions in private companies to design and build spacecraft capable of carrying astronauts to the ISS. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• The Transition: This divestment allowed NASA to stop building its own launch vehicles for low-Earth orbit and instead focus its resources on deep-space exploration and building the Space Launch System (SLS) for missions to the Moon and Mars. [1, 2, 3]

Today, this public-private model remains the backbone of NASA's low-Earth orbit operations, managed by the NASA Commercial Crew Program. [1, 2, 3]

The Space Launch System is over four billion dollars a launch for the first four missions. They may get it down to two billion dollars a launch. The only thing reusable is the Orion Capsule up to several times. When this started, it was supposed to e three hundred million dollars a launch. So, into low earth it would be cheap also. Two corporate interests were given contracts to build low earth orbit capsules. Space X and Boeing. And Boeing was given a lot more money to do so. Musk saved our asses in low earth orbit. NASA and Boeing are DEI centric with the good mingled with the not so good. The Space Shuttle was supposed to be cheap, and it was not. Each shuttle with a turnaround time of two weeks. It was an incredible vehicle that was a white elephant.

 

[Eman623]

Solyndra was part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Oh, I get it. You're doing the D-R thing.

Whatever.

The Obama administration gave Solyndra $535 million in 2009. It was a debacle that hurt Obama.

SpaceX got $22 billion in performance contracts from the government. That's great, but that's not the only reason why Musk is a trillionaire. He also got Dem administrations to subsidize his EVs. I remember when the D side thought that was a good thing.

 

[Dante]

The recent IPO of Spacex and resulting inflation of the paper wealth of Elon Musk has figuratively set fire to the hair on the heads of our Democratic Socialists - mainly, of course, Bernie and Senator Warren. The blogosphere (or whatever it's called these days) is burning up with fretting that, "If only he were taxed like everyone else..." or "If Musk were forced to pay his FAIR SHARE..."

It would end world poverty, eliminate communicable diseases, house the homeless...take your pick.

But there is a hole in all of this talk, and it is this: Democratic Socialism is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. That august document envisions a government that works for the COMMON GOOD, and not for the benefit of any individuals. Specifically, the "powers" of Congress are detailed in Article I, Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment states clearly that the powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States and the people (private sector). None of the powers of Congress facilitates the provision of individual benefits. Accordingly, the Federal government has no "power" to spend our money on food, housing, education, or healthcare for the general public. (The States and local governments can do what they want).

OBVIOUSLY, the Federal courts and the Democrats in Congress violated this principle massively, gaining supporters in the general public by giving them FREE MONEY AND STUFF in exchange for their votes. But at some point it has to come to a head. What is needed is a test case. Maybe it will be some guaranteed household income law; one can only hope.

If that crazy bastard in NYC wants to implement "democratic socialism" in New York, he is free to do so. But the Feds cannot. This is not my opinion, it is fact.

This does not belong in the Constitution Board

 

[Dante]

Space X exists on taxpayer dollars.

This OP guy is such a weirdo it's incredible.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]