Social Security / Medicare need to reduce benefits and increase taxation. Let's start with the easy one; social security taxes. Make every dollar of income be taxed for social security. If you make over $150k (pick a number, I don't care where it is), then 100% of your social security is taxed as income. Or maybe tax it a little more.
Cut the federal government. (mini-doge, for lack of a better term). Stop the growth in the budget of each department. Pull back 10%; done sanely by assessing what the department is doing, what it is required to do, and what it doesn't need to do.
Cut the military. Do we need both a land based and sea based nuclear deterrent? Get rid of 1 of them. Cut active duty strength 10%. Stop ridiculous projects like "B-52 Re-engine and Radar update". (So, I am going to put money into my 1950 ford, when I can buy a 2026 model (B21) at a reasonable price... this is absurd)
Raise taxes. Not a lot, but raise them. Bring in more revenue. You don't have to eat the rich, just reach a little deeper into their pockets. (also, I don't care how you define rich. Pick a number)
Do all of these in a moderate amount, and you will be OK. The yearly deficit will shrink, and some of the outstanding bonds will be paid. It doesn't have to be fixed in a year; a 20 year plan, executed, is fine.
You can fix a deficit by reducing spending or increasing income.
Things like not cutting taxes when or letting tax cuts expire would help.
Ending programs can help, but not when it's done in unconstitutional ways that result in court expense, the program being reinstated, and backpay for no work. I'm sure some programs have fraud and waste, too; but the fiscally optimal amount of fraud and waste is not usually 0%.
Related: government shutdowns are also a big waste of money. You can blame those on whoever you like, but having them regularly is not fiscally responsible.
Well, how much did DOGE cut? If you're dependent on something like DOGE, it's hopeless, because as a method of cutting the federal budget, DOGE didn't work.
Where does all the wealth come from? I remeber, as a small boy, i learned Bill Gates was the richest man on earth with 8bn$. Today, Alon is ~120x that much. Where did all this came from?
"Money printer" is usually used negatively by right wingers to argue against debt driven social spending. The point missing in economics and politics is, that this money printer never stopped and it doesnt work for the many but for privileged elites. The superficial right wing response is just a reminder, whos in charge of their world view and fiscal policy.
The distortion of the public debate is reflected in your lopsided stance too, that you think you need DOGE to tackle the problem by cutting spending. There is another way.
Think about it this way, you have a money source, thus you should have a money sink, otherwise it migho get out of hand [1]. What could such a sink be? (i know you know it too.)
Yeah I guess I should correct and say that I do use an HP 50G emulator on my iPhone cuz I like RPN.
But even still, the iPhone can do many things and is many times more capable, and you can buy a used iPhone 12 that works fine for about the same price as one of these calculators.
Also, one of the major (unique?) UX innovations of the physical HP48 (c. 1990) was that it could beam apps and data to other calculators over serial IR or RS-232 with a computer. (A DIY computer interface cable could be fashioned from Sony CD-ROM analog audio cable.) Furthermore, the IR LED on the HP48G(X) was so bright, it could be software-controlled as a very long range TV universal remote, and there was a learning universal remote app that could learn codes from physical remotes by reading from the IR receiver. It would take fast and ubiquitous wireless networking (WiFi, BT, and cellular) c. 2003 before the app store concept would arrive generally for smartphones and other devices.
My brand new Pixel phone several years back, I was so excited it was IP68. Took some photos splashing around in water, not more than a foot or two. It died in minutes.
I was not arguing about the hazards of space travel. Of course it is hazardous. I dislike the article because his conclusion is more dangerous to society than any hazardous activity: "something is dangerous therefore nobody should do it." And he makes no arguments to support this conclusion.
“As far as human space travel goes, it’s probably best that it stays in the realm of science fiction, at least for the foreseeable future.”
And no arguments for that conclusion? C’mon: radiation, the effects of microgravity on human bodies, none of which we have good solutions for…yet. The author argues that we don’t have good solutions, and probably won’t within their lifetime. If you’ve got counter-arguments, let’s hear them, but calling the TFA’s sound arguments “pearl clutching” isn’t productive.
The counter argument is this: if the chance of dying is 2% to make a historic mission, then people should be able to make that choice. What's your counterargument to this statement?
As for your hazards
Microgravity can be counteracted with a centrifugal living environment.
Radiation can not be mitigated effectively yet other than throwing mass at the problem. But if someone wants to launch enough mass that's on them.
Don’t need one, it’s an opinion piece, with plenty of facts to back it up. You’ve proposed solutions that don’t yet exist. When those solutions are viable, maybe it’s not such a bad idea. But at the moment it would appear that such a journey has low odds of ending well. If Musk wants to burn cash, and has willing participants, go for it. But with my tax dollars? Yeah, you’re going to have to do better than a lick, prayer, and a hearty “good luck!”
You could literally have made exactly the same argument about the moon landing in 1969! And people actually did, some were truly against it. Way too expensive, near impossible, lethal, pointless, all the arguments were used.
