Page 5 of 35 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 349

Thread: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    To me, going to the moon, at this point in time, is akin to taking a round the world trip on your credit card right before you declare bankruptcy.

  2. #42
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I take issue with this. The scientists, administrators, astronauts etc all earn good salaries and pay back into the economy. The fabricators and equipment manufacturers likewise. These are good jobs that NASA spending is supporting. We don't want all of our deficit spending to support road crews and McDonald's do we?
    I agree that these people contribute I think there talents can be better utilized at this point in time though than going to the moon again.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    I agree that these people contribute I think there talents can be better utilized at this point in time though than going to the moon again.
    What would you have them do? They are especially trained for the space program.

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    What would you have them do? They are especially trained for the space program.
    I'd present them with other projects applicable to their back ground.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    What would you have them do? They are especially trained for the space program.
    So, just because some people are highly trained in a specialized field, the government must keep them employed at taxpayer expense?

    There are plenty of private companies launching satellites. If more complex space operations show economic promise, investors will back them.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    I'd present them with other projects applicable to their back ground.
    They aren't hiring.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-23-11 @ 10:06 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,827

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    They aren't hiring.
    Then they'd better get in a retraining program, just like thousands of former factory workers have had to do...

  8. #48
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,147

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    All of you doubting the benefits of the space program have no idea the variety of advances and products produced by the space program, do you?
    the spin offs from the space program are many. i was one of those who heeded JFK's call to pursue a career in engineering after sputnik. NASA is consistently the highest rated agency in government to work for in surveys of federal employees. all of that to say i support advancements in space, but recognize that any program NASA undertakes needs to have a credible, defined mission. i cannot identify one for project constellation. but change my mind; explain what it was
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Entitlements are so wonderful for this country. Help the people who can't help themselves is fine. Help the people who could otherwise help themselves (rich old people) is wrong. Put out of work some of our finest engineers doing truly original and explorative work is a crime.

  10. #50
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    What is the purpose of putting another man on the moon?
    IMO, Armstrong's concerns touch on a fundamental issue that extends beyond the space program, namely what should be the appropriate balance between fiscal expenditures that are largely expenses (no future benefit) vs. those that are largely investments (have long-term benefits)?

    While it might be tempting for policy makers to embrace expenditures that have little future value (near-term bias is an attribute of human nature), especially as such programs typically have their own fairly sizable constituencies, sound policy should also take into consideration net long-term benefits. For example, what would be the implications for the U.S. if let's say another nation gains a qualitative edge in alternative energy? How about if another nation becomes the leader in space/space-related technologies? Either outcome would do more than impact U.S. living standards/growth vis-a-vis those other states. There would also be fiscal and national security implications.

    In the context of the nation's fiscal challenges, investments on education, science, etc., are not the reason the nation is facing those challenges. Seeking better performance with respect to those investments is, of course, prudent. However, the core problem of structural deficits lies with the tax code/mandatory spending programs. Hence, if the nation is to address its structural fiscal deficits, it needs to focus on the source of the problem. Trimming investments that are not the source of the problem won't accomplish much. However, such moves could cede potentially sizable long-term benefits. Reduced competitiveness in tomorrow's growth industries could translate into reduced economic growth. In turn, that would mean fewer jobs created, lower incomes, less tax revenue, etc., than would otherwise be the case. In short, the nation could wind up saving very little in the short-term (and that misplaced focus could actually delay the necessary task of addressing the cause of the nation's fiscal imbalances) all the while sacrificing long-term benefits.

    In fact, in its recent report on fiscal consolidation, the International Monetary Fund advised that nations reducing expenditures avoid disproportionately cutting investments that have long-term benefit. Instead, the IMF advised that countries focus on the causes of their primary structural deficits.

Page 5 of 35 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •