Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Luminite2

Nasa Politics Disads

Recommended Posts

So, I was prepping out some answers to Ptx for Nats, and I came upon an interesting realization. Most Politics disads say that Obama loses PC, or certain key Congresspeople get angry, when the plan passes through Congress. However, I don't see why those bills have to go through Congress.

NASA is a part of the executive branch, and it's an independent agency that reports directly to the President. The only time that legislation deals with NASA is for funding; while Congress will sometimes appropriate additional funds and say that they have to go toward X program, most of the specifics of what NASA does with its money is not mandated by specific legislation. When coupled with the fact that, under normal means, NASA's budget is frozen at $18.7 billion for five years, it seems to me that most plans don't even need to go through Congress, as long as they don't involve other countries, private corporations, or other governmental actors. If this is true, then I draw two conclusions about plans that meet those criteria:

1. Most Politics disads don't link, at all.

2. XO CP's are arguably within normal means.

 

Am I missing something crucial here? Again, I realize that there are certainly a good number of plans that still link, but is it not reasonable to conclude that a good number don't? I'd appreciate input from anybody with more familiarity with the organizational structure of NASA, or Ptx in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order for NASA to actually do the plan, not something else, it needs to be directed. Unless you claim mind-fiat of Obama or the NASA directors the plan probably will not happen. Therefore, it has to go through Congress in order to guarantee the plan happens, which is where normal fiat comes in.

 

As for normal means, if you do not expressly say ~"funding allocation" in the plan text it would force NASA to redirect its funding from another project into your plan. That risks linking into a tradeoff disadvantage.

 

In summation, funding and tradeoff are both opportunities to incite anger in Congress and get a unpopular link, but very few plans have a direct link to the politics disadvantage.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you claim mind-fiat of Obama or the NASA directors the plan probably will not happen.

 

Why can't this happen? It seems just as valid to me as any other instance of action by a specified subagency of the USFG. I like OSPEC, but since most people don't this seems fine.

 

As for normal means, if you do not expressly say ~"funding allocation" in the plan text it would force NASA to redirect its funding from another project into your plan. That risks linking into a tradeoff disadvantage.

 

This is at least debatable. I think that "normal means" arguments are total crap because there are 10 million different cards with different ideas of what "normal means" really is.

 

In summation, funding and tradeoff are both opportunities to incite anger in Congress and get a unpopular link, but very few plans have a direct link to the politics disadvantage.

 

Passage based politics links are all bad because they justify passage based solvency arguments and in some forms are logically indistinguishable from them.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...