• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,041
Reaction score
33,367
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

By TODD HALVORSON • Florida Today • April
13, 2010
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - President Barack
Obama's plans for NASA could be "devastating"
to the U.S. human space flight program and
"destines our nation to become one of second-
or even third-rate stature," three legendary
American astronauts said Tuesday.
Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on
the moon. Jim Lovell was the commander of the
famous Apollo 13 flight - an aborted moon
mission. And Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan
remains the last human to walk on the lunar
surface.
Armstrong, who rarely makes public comments,
grew up in Wapakoneta, Ohio, and now lives in
Indian Hill.
In a statement e-mailed to longtime NBC space
correspondent Jay Barbree of Merritt Island, all
three took exception with Obama's plan to
cancel NASA's return-to-the-moon program,
dubbed Project Constellation.
Looks like the big gun has taken aim at Obama. Obama is a moron.
 
What is the purpose of putting another man on the moon?
 
If Armstrong wants to pay the cost of sending someone to the moon, then I would fully support Armstrong's position. However, when our deficit is as large as it is, I don't support sending someone to the moon, as it is not necessary for our survival.
 
That's right, I didn't want the Obamacare plan so I assumed we could use that money for this. I hope none of you are using any technology that came from the moon program.
 
What is accomplished by going to the moon? We should take that money and invest in solar power research, and other fuel alternatives.
 
See what happens with unbounded entitlements? Their share of the federal budget grows and grows and puts pressure on the cancellation of other programs. This is only going to get worse. NASA's budget is not outrageous and the benefits of establishing a moon base are significant. But because we are in a budget crunch we have cut it.

Entitlements make up 60% of our budget people. It is insane. Thanks a hell of a lot, FDR.
 
I'd rather see the money go to pay for healthcare, frankly. It's neat to go to the moon, but not particularly beneficial, and very expensive.
 
Healthcare is an ongoing entitlement expense. They should have never passed it if they didn't have a way to pay for it. Now we hear they are going to cannibalize other programs to pay for it? When does it stop? Idiots.
 
What is accomplished by going to the moon? We should take that money and invest in solar power research, and other fuel alternatives.
This is research money we're talking about, solar power on earth is on it's way because private industries are doing the research. The govt should be taking the risk on more lofty things, if you want the govt involved in research. Libetarians would argue to return the funds back to the people which is also a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Let me do a slight parody of certain of our posters...

"OH NO, Obama spends too much money."

"OH NO, Obama cut spending on a program I like."

Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. If you think spending is a problem, then spending cuts should be praised. If you think we cannot cut spending on this or that program, you bitching about spending is phony.
 
This is research money we're talking about, solar power on earth is on it's way because private industries are doing the research. The govt should be taking the risk on more lofty things, if you want the govt involved in research. Libetarians would argue to return the funds back to the people which is also a good idea.

Solar panels came from the space program.
 
Healthcare is an ongoing entitlement expense. They should have never passed it if they didn't have a way to pay for it. Now we hear they are going to cannibalize other programs to pay for it? When does it stop? Idiots.

Why do you have no faith at all in the private sector? Why do you not think that if their is a legitimate reason to return to the moon that someone out their in the private sector will pay to do it?
 
Let me do a slight parody of certain of our posters...

"OH NO, Obama spends too much money."

"OH NO, Obama cut spending on a program I like."

Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. If you think spending is a problem, then spending cuts should be praised. If you think we cannot cut spending on this or that program, you bitching about spending is phony.

It isn't quite like that. You have it all wrong.

"OH NO, Obama spends too much money on growing entitlements and ineffective recovery programs"

"OH NO, because he is spending money on those things, he is going to cut spending on a program I like"

"OH NO, he isn't going to reduce the crazy amount of money he is spending on his programs"

"Obama is an idiot."

I think spending is a problem, spending cuts on out of control programs should be praised. Concern about cutting spending on a healthy program instead should be condemned. I can still bitch about his spending.
 
Why do you have no faith at all in the private sector? Why do you not think that if their is a legitimate reason to return to the moon that someone out their in the private sector will pay to do it?

Your same argument is true of healthcare.

Going to the moon provides no immediate return on investment. It is made to be a government program, just like ARPAnet was or the original manned flight to the moon.
 
Your same argument is true of healthcare.

Going to the moon provides no immediate return on investment. It is made to be a government program, just like ARPAnet was or the original manned flight to the moon.

Right, as in the case with ARPAnet, we have more than primed the pump for the private sector to come in at this point.

Insuring those with significant preexisting conditions, the poor, and seniors never provides a return on investment. Hence the role for the public sector. On one hand, if you have had cancer, we can make sure that you can still get health coverage, on the other hand, we could go back to the moon again. Which do you think is a better use of public sector money?
 
Right, as in the case with ARPAnet, we have more than primed the pump for the private sector to come in at this point.

Insuring those with significant preexisting conditions, the poor, and seniors never provides a return on investment. Hence the role for the public sector. On one hand, if you have had cancer, we can make sure that you can still get health coverage, on the other hand, we could go back to the moon again. Which do you think is a better use of public sector money?

Going to the moon, and I would want a permanent base established.
 
Let me do a slight parody of certain of our posters...

"OH NO, Obama spends too much money."

"OH NO, Obama cut spending on a program I like."

Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. If you think spending is a problem, then spending cuts should be praised. If you think we cannot cut spending on this or that program, you bitching about spending is phony.

This is not exactly correct.

Again, it goes on the fallacy that the conservative position is no government spending, is anarchy, which its not.

The general conservative position is that there needs to be responsible, lowered Government spending but the government has a number of areas where its constitutionally or rationally bound to act.

While I agree with your premise to a point, it falls a bit hollow. Its not dishonest to complain about a Trillion dollars worth of spending on Stimulus or the passing of an entitlement program that will cost trillions of dollars as it goes for years and years and years, things you feel the government shouldn't be doing, but then turn around and have issue that in the midst of all this spending you cut something that...compared in scale to the things you're passing...is relatively small and inconsequential when it comes to the cost but is an endevour you think should be in the realm of the government.

To put another way....

It'd be like complaining at home when your spouse spends a $200 on a new wide screen monitor and also buys a $20 a month subscription to a video game, but then turning around and being upset when they stop spending $5 a month on the HBO channels that they don't watch much but you do and they try to tell you "see, I'm saving money". Yeah, but if you're just cutting everything you don't care about while spending 4 times as much you're not going to win any supporters or compliments off that. It just shows you're not doing it in earnest but simply doing it for show, and at the expenses of others only.

I agree we don't have any pertinent reason to simply GO to the moon. I do think if we had an established plan to set up a moon base it could be a benefit to our country for the research potential as we move further and further into this century as well as setting up the infastructure that could allow for the private sector to believably move into this field more thoroughly. I do think the scale of such a thing as NASA mixed with the exploration and information focus of it places it as one of the few things I think would make for a poor business model for the purposes of why it'd be useful. We worry about education and various things in this country and how it is decreasing, that our scientific minds are decreasing, yet we want to gimp a portion of this country that helps drive much of our scientific endevours.

If NASA cuts were part of a wide grouping of cuts and not over shadowed by two GIGANTIC spending bills then you'd likely not hear a peep from me. What I see though is a person that is spending in ways that make George Bush look like a rank amateur cutting a few token programs that will garner him some votes and thumping his chest about how fiscally responsable the administration is.
 
Last edited:
Heh, watching a post come in is such fun.

I tried to make my comments clear. Some conservative posters explain points like you do. Nothing wrong with that. Some(the more hysterical ones), simply bitch about the amount of spending. They are also usually the ones who point out that spending needs to be cut "across the board". Go that route, and then bitch when spending is cut cuz you like that program, and it comes across as nothing but partisan bitching. It was not meant to refer to all or even most conservatives.

Edited to add: I am a big fan of NASA. I am also a believer in balancing budgets when not in a recession. We did not balance the budget when times where good(post Clinton administration...and yes, I know the republican congress gets at least part of the credit), and that makes the recession spending particularly bad at this point, and something does need to be done about that spending. Cutting NASA, while not a happy thing to me, is still something worth doing. When times are better, revenue is up, spending overall down, I hope it is considered for an increase in budget to get these programs back on the road. But now is not a time we can afford it.
 
Last edited:
Going to the moon, and I would want a permanent base established.

For what, other than to say we did again?

Fiscal 2010 NASA had a 18.7 billion dollar budget.

The National Parks Service had a 2.7 billion dollar budget. The National Parks Service has been underfunded for years now. The budget for the entire Department of Interior, is 12 billion dollars, which manages 500 million acres of parks and wild lands, is still less than NASA, and it has been chronically underfunded for years now.

U.S. Department of the Interior - About the Department - Quick Facts

Should we do a better job preserving our national treasures for future generations, or build a base on the moon? If we are prioritizing here, what is more important?
 
Let me do a slight parody of certain of our posters...

"OH NO, Obama spends too much money."

"OH NO, Obama cut spending on a program I like."

Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. If you think spending is a problem, then spending cuts should be praised. If you think we cannot cut spending on this or that program, you bitching about spending is phony.

The flip side of that coin is if you support government spending on anything, then you should support the continued funding of the space program. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
 
For what, other than to say we did again?

Fiscal 2010 NASA had a 18.7 billion dollar budget.

The National Parks Service had a 2.7 billion dollar budget. The National Parks Service has been underfunded for years now. The budget for the entire Department of Interior, is 12 billion dollars, which manages 500 million acres of parks and wild lands, is still less than NASA, and it has been chronically underfunded for years now.

U.S. Department of the Interior - About the Department - Quick Facts

Should we do a better job preserving our national treasures for future generations, or build a base on the moon? If we are prioritizing here, what is more important?

Build a base on the moon. It will help us stage access to earth orbit and to exploration of the solar system beyond the moon.

If you want to increase funding to the Department of the Interior, you should have thought that through before passing another entitlement.
 
Last edited:
Build a base on the moon. It will help us stage access to earth orbit and to exploration of the solar system beyond the moon.

The solar system can be explored with robots.
 
I would happily keep NASA funded and bump up the NPS budget by a few million before I'd want the on going health care entitlement program whose expenses trump both of them.

I actually think the protection and maintaining of our national parks IS something the federal government is best suited to do as it is federal land and important to culture and history to maintain these areas.

I can't give you an either or with NASA and the Parks because I think both are reasonable government actions, plus the hypothetical falls through when you realize its NOT just one or the other on those but there's numerous other portions of the budget and government that could be looked at.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom