• 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'

Conservatives aren't allowed to support any government spending without being hypocrites.

I am not a conservative. I am a Whig.
 
For the love. How did we end up with so many seperate posts to each other?

Just setting the record straight, your majesty.

Well. As long as you continue being respectful, you can come to the after party. :2wave:

Okay then. I suspect you won't have any problems eliminating the technological innovations of NASA from your life and everyone else's, since they don't produce anything of worth.

First, you can throw out pretty much anything that uses microprocessors or wireless technology.

Next, you can walk to your local hospital and start ripping off prosthetic limbs. Once you're done with that, visit the folks awaiting a heart transplant and remove their ventricle pumps.

You know what, just read this and tell me which innovations you're willing to go without...

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2009/pdf/spinoff2009.pdf

You're confusing me with the market. I personally am a pinko-commie, liberal, hippy Democrat. I am all for taxing the crap out of you to pay for programs you don't want. Though I used to be a Libertarian, so it's pretty easy to bat for the other team.

If these innovations were important enough, the private sector would have come up with them eventually.

Why would I support cap and trade for carbon emissions?

It is widely accepted that pollution is a market failure. Or do you only care about certain market failures?

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Just FYI, before you look foolish.

You're partially right. Republicans/conservatives are supposed to believe in the free market. Unfortunately, the current representation of conservatives seems to only believe in the free market when it suits big business or their own wallets. A shame really.

The market failure isn't from a lack of knowledge, it's from a lack of funding and profit motive.

That is not a market failure. That is how the market is supposed to work. You obviously know about economic theory, so I'm not going to explain the laws of supply and demand to you. Suffice it to say, if the market refuses to produce something, it is not a failure. That item is just not in demand. I've seen no evidence yet to support your belief that the space program is so necessary we need to force the public to pay for it.

Well, you know squat about economics and finance, but you're an expert at childish insults. Good for you...

Okay, I can see how you're still chafing from the liberal comment. Seeing as how I'm a liberal, you can't possibly think that I meant it as an insult. Like if you told me I'm truely a conservative at heart, I wouldn't be all "ew, blech." I'd take it in the spirit it was given. You should try it. It's much more fulfilling to the ego to decide to be complimented. For example, you just called me childish. I'll take that to mean I am caref ree and easy to get along with.

Oh and accounting major with a minor in finance. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's incorrect information.

Well, maybe you can inform the CIA and the NSA that NASA will no longer be putting their spy satellites into orbit. You can also inform the Air Force that any future collaboration with NASA will no longer be necessary. And don't forget to tell China and Russia that space is never to be weaponized. I'm sure we can trust them...

I'm sure we can too, that's why I'm invested in both. There's that finance background. Economic ties are much harder to sever than military, but that's a different thread.

Not only am I saying they won't, I am saying they would even kill and maim one another for simply being a different color or religion. Humans have this funny habit of acting violently and selfishly and irrationally.

That humans act selfishly is the basis for the free market theory of economics. You still haven't really responded to my question. Why do you think we should ignore the free market's decision that a space program does not have enough demand to turn a profit, and instead rely on the government forcing tax dollars to pay for it.

I would also like you to admit you support a socialist program.
 
Last edited:
I think many people would pay for a space program. It does deliver essential benefits, but those are long-term and not easily definable for the market to invest.

The government does do essential funding of non-marketable activities. I would include the military, as big as it is, in this category. Ditto the State Department. Ditto basic science research. These are things we should continue to fund at the government level. That means collecting taxes to pay for it. In no way does this resemble socialism.

It is most certainly socialism, it's just people have such a nasty association with the word, they don't want to believe they can support it. Socialism is essentially a state managed economy. A socialist program is one in which the state steps in to manage some part of the economy, ie public health care, public schools, etc. Like it or not, a military can be provided in a free market. The state providing it instead is a socialist program. I personally don't have a problem with that and in fact would agree with you that it is essential, but as mentioned to 1984, I'm a pinko-commie Democrat.
 
Conservatives aren't allowed to support any government spending without being hypocrites.
Where did you get that silly notion? :lol:
 
It is most certainly socialism, it's just people have such a nasty association with the word, they don't want to believe they can support it. Socialism is essentially a state managed economy. A socialist program is one in which the state steps in to manage some part of the economy, ie public health care, public schools, etc. Like it or not, a military can be provided in a free market. The state providing it instead is a socialist program. I personally don't have a problem with that and in fact would agree with you that it is essential, but as mentioned to 1984, I'm a pinko-commie Democrat.

The difference is between a state-owned business, which is not socialism, and a state-owned economy, which is. Either way, I am a Whig and so I don't have a problem with some moderate state spending and programs. :)
 
The difference is between a state-owned business, which is not socialism, and a state-owned economy, which is. Either way, I am a Whig and so I don't have a problem with some moderate state spending and programs. :)

A program can be socialist without the entire state being socialist. Public health care will not make the US a socialist country, but that doesn't make it any less of a socialist program.
 
A program can be socialist without the entire state being socialist. Public health care will not make the US a socialist country, but that doesn't make it any less of a socialist program.

Ok, your right. So they are socialist. I do think that there are essential, necessary programs that are not profitable and government should collect taxes to pay for them. I think of them in terms of community needs, for the good of the community. I include many programs, though not all that we have, including military, foreign aid and diplomacy, healthcare for the old, sick and poor, space and science and art and regulatory agencies for much. Entitlements is a bit much - we used to rely on family and charity to provide. We need a better mix there.
 
Ok, your right. So they are socialist. I do think that there are essential, necessary programs that are not profitable and government should collect taxes to pay for them. I think of them in terms of community needs, for the good of the community. I include many programs, though not all that we have, including military, foreign aid and diplomacy, healthcare for the old, sick and poor, space and science and art and regulatory agencies for much. Entitlements is a bit much - we used to rely on family and charity to provide. We need a better mix there.

Which is why I'm not a libertarian anymore. Like so many things in life, the economy works best with a blend of socialist and capitalist features.

The problem with yanking entitlements is we've encouraged a large amount of elderly Americans to think of them as, if not entirely, at least a large chunk of their retirement. It's a little cruel to pull the rug out from under their feet at this point. I am not entirely opposed to telling the younger generations they're on their own, but then what do we do when people don't save for old age? Let them starve on the street?

I don't know. I'm saving for an early retirement. On one hand I don't see how it's my problem is someone else doesn't. But on the other hand there are a lot of practical problems.

But I am totally down with funding the sciences. Once we're out of this deficit. ;)
 
Which is why I'm not a libertarian anymore. Like so many things in life, the economy works best with a blend of socialist and capitalist features.

Yeah, but watch out for who is deciding the right blend. Enter corporate donors, special interests, and corrupt politicians.

The problem with yanking entitlements is we've encouraged a large amount of elderly Americans to think of them as, if not entirely, at least a large chunk of their retirement. It's a little cruel to pull the rug out from under their feet at this point. I am not entirely opposed to telling the younger generations they're on their own, but then what do we do when people don't save for old age? Let them starve on the street?

Social Security: the least of our entitlement worries. It is frustrating that those who can afford retirement on their own are collecting SS. I would cut them out first of all. The rest have had promises and they count on it. My parents count on it so they can take a long trip every year to somewhere interesting. Before FDR we didn't have it. How did we care for our elders then? They lived with us. We need to go back to that model and have families care for the elderly.

Medicare/Medicaid: This is a tough one and evidently the more costly and growing of the entitlements. Since we are talking socialism, lemme briefly tell you my solution. At the state/local level (where-ever the optimal savings for administration and staffing occurs) we create Co-ops, so they are not government run. We fund the co-ops with state and local taxes. Taxes will go up. The co-ops provide medical care for the old, the sick (pre-existing conditions) and the poor. Medicare and Medicaid are closed down. The co-ops will hire their own staff (admin, nurses, doctors) and buy their own facilities (clinics, urgent care, pharmacies, hospitals). Costs are contained based on the employment and facility ownership. They can serve X number of people in T amount of time. The latest drugs are not always used to save money. No choice of doctors in this system. You may be able to buy supplementals for the latest drugs and doctor choice.

I don't know. I'm saving for an early retirement. On one hand I don't see how it's my problem is someone else doesn't. But on the other hand there are a lot of practical problems.

I am screwed on retirement.

But I am totally down with funding the sciences. Once we're out of this deficit. ;)

Yeah, like Crippler said, why are you hating on the sciences? ;)
 
Link


Looks like the big gun has taken aim at Obama. Obama is a moron.

Obama wants our country to have the first man on mars. We have already been to the moon, remember? Been there, done that.

Talk about right wing sophistry. :roll:
 
Well. As long as you continue being respectful, you can come to the after party. :2wave:

Pass. I think I'll just drink to JFK's newly dead legacy instead.

You're confusing me with the market. I personally am a pinko-commie, liberal, hippy Democrat. I am all for taxing the crap out of you to pay for programs you don't want. Though I used to be a Libertarian, so it's pretty easy to bat for the other team.

That's swell. So, which innovations are you willing to go without? Just checking...

If these innovations were important enough, the private sector would have come up with them eventually.

Time is a precious resource.

It is widely accepted that pollution is a market failure. Or do you only care about certain market failures?

CO2 is not pollution.

You're partially right. Republicans/conservatives are supposed to believe in the free market. Unfortunately, the current representation of conservatives seems to only believe in the free market when it suits big business or their own wallets. A shame really.

Look, I was prompted to choose a "lean" so I picked "slightly conservative". Don't read too much into it...

Either way, I'm pretty sure that most sensible Republicans and conservatives understand the limitations of the free market. There are certain things it is ill equipped to handle; the military, police protection, courts, manned space exploration, etc.

That is not a market failure. That is how the market is supposed to work. You obviously know about economic theory, so I'm not going to explain the laws of supply and demand to you.

No need to explain. I minored in economics and finance and have my MBA.

Suffice it to say, if the market refuses to produce something, it is not a failure.

That item is just not in demand.

Market failure is an inefficient allocation of goods and services. I consider space exploration essential to the long term prosperity and security of the United States, as do many others, which would suggest there is "demand" for it, and since the market cannot efficiently allocate goods and services to that end, I, along with others, would consider it a market failure. You can disagree with whether or not it's truly "essential", but that is another argument entirely.

That item is just not in demand. I've seen no evidence yet to support your belief that the space program is so necessary we need to force the public to pay for it.

You're the one who asserted your opinion as fact (space exploration is a "luxury", isn't essential). I, on the other hand, merely offered my humble opinion. If you want to discuss the necessity of the space program with me, then do so without the arrogant presumption that your opinion is the only valid one...majesty.

Okay, I can see how you're still chafing from the liberal comment. Seeing as how I'm a liberal, you can't possibly think that I meant it as an insult. Like if you told me I'm truely a conservative at heart, I wouldn't be all "ew, blech." I'd take it in the spirit it was given. You should try it. It's much more fulfilling to the ego to decide to be complimented. For example, you just called me childish. I'll take that to mean I am caref ree and easy to get along with.

It's kind of hard to be chafed when you're drinking a beer on your porch.

Oh and accounting major with a minor in finance. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's incorrect information.

Maybe you can use some of that financial expertise to turn manned space exploration into a profitable venture.

I'm sure we can too, that's why I'm invested in both. There's that finance background. Economic ties are much harder to sever than military, but that's a different thread.

I think you missed the point. Space is literally the "final frontier". Eventually, it will be heavily weaponized and subject to intense militarization. I'm of the opinion that the United States should be on the forefront of such efforts, as opposed to some other, less ethical country.

That humans act selfishly is the basis for the free market theory of economics. You still haven't really responded to my question. Why do you think we should ignore the free market's decision that a space program does not have enough demand to turn a profit, and instead rely on the government forcing tax dollars to pay for it.

Because I'm of the opinion that manned space exploration is essential to the long term prosperity and security of the United States of America.

I would also like you to admit you support a socialist program.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the revolutionary overthrow of our government by the proletariat. Perhaps I was asleep...
 
But I am totally down with funding the sciences. Once we're out of this deficit. ;)

NASA's entire budget in FY 2009 only accounted for approximately 1% of the deficit, and half a percent of the entire Federal budget. Your concern over the deficit is, forgive me, laughable.

Never mind that Obama didn't even decrease NASA's budget; he just shifted the funding from space exploration to climate research. I'm sure you consider that "essential".
 
Personally, when it comes to science and technology, I tend to listen to the experts:

when you have Gene Cernan, Neil Armstrong, and Jim Lovell, and a whole bunch of NASA scientists telling you that Constellation is an important program and that cancelling it will be devastating, I'll take their word over that of some Washington bozos any day.

Armstrong and other astronauts expressed concerns over the past few days that scrapping the moon program would have deep consequences in terms of America's standing in the world. They wrote an open letter to Obama voicing their concerns.

Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell, who signed the letter with Armstrong, told Fox News he believes Obama's plan is "short-sighted."

"We're going to be a third-rate nation. China and Russia are going to be premier," he said.

FOXNews.com - Obama Details Revised NASA Vision

Hey, even Obama said so, before he was elected:


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IQVZmHnJQ&feature=related"]YouTube- Save Constellation[/nomedia]

:thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Personally, when it comes to science and technology, I tend to listen to the experts:

when you have Gene Cernan, Neal Armstrong, and Jim Lovell, and a whole bunch of NASA scientists telling you that Constellation is an important program and that cancelling it will be devastating, I'll take their word over that of some Washington bozos any day.



Hey, even Obama said so, before he was elected:


YouTube- Save Constellation

:thumbs:

but you won't heed the concerns of Buzz Aldrin ... only the other astronauts

so, please tell us what the benefit of continuing the constellation program would be
 
but you won't heed the concerns of Buzz Aldrin ... only the other astronauts

so, please tell us what the benefit of continuing the constellation program would be


I think Buzz Aldrin made some valid points. I just don't see why killing the only actual rocket that works and sitting around and waiting for someone else to invent a better rocket in some unknown point in the future is a more logical way to go about sending people to space.

It doesn't make sense to me, that's all. And I really think this video explains the benefits of continuing the Constellation program a lot better than I can:

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IQVZmHnJQ&feature=related"]YouTube- Save Constellation[/nomedia]

:thumbs:
 
Today, President Obama unveiled his new strategy for the U.S. space program In his remarks, President Obama declared:

We start by increasing NASA’s budget by $6 billion over the next five years…

And we will extend the life of the International Space Station likely by more than five years, while actually using it for its intended purpose: conducting advanced research that can help improve the daily lives of people here on Earth, as well as testing and improving upon our capabilities in space…

…we will build on the good work already done on the Orion crew capsule. I’ve directed Charlie Bolden to immediately begin developing a rescue vehicle using this technology, so we are not forced to rely on foreign providers if it becomes necessary to quickly bring our people home from the International Space Station. And this Orion effort will be part of the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions…

Next, we will invest more than $3 billion to conduct research on an advanced “heavy lift rocket” -- a vehicle to efficiently send into orbit the crew capsules, propulsion systems, and large quantities of supplies needed to reach deep space. In developing this new vehicle, we will not only look at revising or modifying older models; we want to look at new designs, new materials, new technologies that will transform not just where we can go but what we can do when we get there. And we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it…

And by 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space. So we’ll start -- we’ll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it.


What one received was a hodge-podge of initiatives but no unifying big goal. Instead of a bold commitment to be achieved within a decade, one received an expression of belief that the U.S. could send humans in orbit around Mars a quarter century from now and land there afterward.

The contrast between the mission President Kennedy advanced and that laid out by President Obama could not be sharper. Perhaps it was the challenging geopolitical environment and strengthening Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union that created an opportunity for bold leadership that President Kennedy seized.

At the time of President Kennedy’s notable speech of 1961 in which he committed the nation to landing a man on the moon, the U.S. was still reeling from the Soviets having taken the early lead in exploring the frontier of space with their 1957 Sputnik mission.

This time around, the U.S. is not confronted with a similarly urgent challenge. It remains the leader in a broad range of space technologies and capabilities. The U.S. has been drifting for more than a decade, even as a slowly growing number of nations embarked on their own space programs. During that decade of drift, the qualitative U.S. edge has been eroding. Yet, perhaps because the pace of erosion in the U.S. edge has been slow and progress to date among the other nations has consisted largely of their covering ground already forged by the U.S., the relative decline in the U.S. position has been beyond the detection of the nation’s policy makers. As a result, even as the White House has changed hands, there remained strong continuity in a policy paralysis that has been nourished by a strong bias toward complacency, not to mention pain of the recent severe recession. In that context, the nation’s leaders seemingly have succumbed to the temptation to try to market the ordinary as boldness.

When President Kennedy committed the nation to landing on the moon, his speech demonstrated the hallmarks of genuine leadership. He offered a concise goal. He fit that goal into the larger national and human narrative. He set a specific deadline. He noted the enormity of the challenge and pledged that the nation would do what it took to succeed. Kennedy declared:

I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there...

Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.


In terms of financial resources, the $531 million President Kennedy committed for FY 1962 was the equivalent of $3.8 billion in a single year in today’s money. The $7 billion to $9 billion for the following five years was the equivalent of $50.95 billion to $65.51 billion in today’s money. That was an aggressive statement that President Kennedy was serious about achieving the goal he set forth. In other words, as far as the President was concerned, failure was not an option for the United States.

The new approach unveiled earlier today was no “leap.” Instead, it was strikingly minimalist in nature. And that characteristic is quite troubling. The new approach won’t fire the national imagination and it, more than likely, won’t lead to a man's walking on Mars, even a quarter-century from now. Worse, it sends a troubling signal to the world about a potentially growing lack of American vitality.

Ultimately, a nation that limits its horizons, narrows its vision, and is largely content with maintaining or slowly expanding an existing position, is a nation that is destined to lose its leadership. It is states that expand their horizons, greatly enlarge their visions, and are restless with the present and hungry to pursue and shape their own futures that get ahead.

The President need not have renewed the Constellation Program if he felt there were better alternatives. No single project is indispensable. But his choosing to take a course that is far from bold and worse, one with no overarching purpose is not a commitment to continued leadership in space. It may well be closer to the kind of “half way” commitment that President Kennedy suggested would not be worth pursuing.

If the U.S. is so weary that it must reduce its horizons, temper its dreams, and forego the prospect of pushing the frontiers of progress, it truly is a sad day. Hopefully, NASA will be able to make the most of the very limited mandate it has been given.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how committing to build the hardware to take us to the outer planets is "tempering the dream". Bush's programs would not get us to Mars and would not set the stage for the habitat and propulsion systems necessary to take the next big step. Getting to the moon was easy, what Obama is doing is the first step to the stars.
 
Poor JFK. Probably rolling in his grave...

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g25G1M4EXrQ"]YouTube- We Choose to go to the Moon[/nomedia]
 
Christ man. Do you have to reply to every sentence?

Pass. I think I'll just drink to JFK's newly dead legacy instead.

That's swell. So, which innovations are you willing to go without? Just checking...

I don't need a prosthetic limb, so...Seriously, you can't assume we would have to do without any of them. For all we know, some corporation would have developed these technologies if the government didn't.

Time is a precious resource.

Indeed. God bless compound interest. Joking aside, if it was vitally needed, it would be produced from the market.


CO2 is not pollution.

So not going there and you know what I meant.

Look, I was prompted to choose a "lean" so I picked "slightly conservative". Don't read too much into it...

Either way, I'm pretty sure that most sensible Republicans and conservatives understand the limitations of the free market. There are certain things it is ill equipped to handle; the military, police protection, courts, manned space exploration, etc.

Damn you sensible conservatives.

No need to explain. I minored in economics and finance and have my MBA.

Oh, an MBA. Explains your high and mighty attitude.:mrgreen:

Market failure is an inefficient allocation of goods and services. I consider space exploration essential to the long term prosperity and security of the United States, as do many others, which would suggest there is "demand" for it, and since the market cannot efficiently allocate goods and services to that end, I, along with others, would consider it a market failure. You can disagree with whether or not it's truly "essential", but that is another argument entirely.

I'm not sure if it's really another argument. If the choice was run a deficit or pay for a space program, what would you choose?

You're the one who asserted your opinion as fact (space exploration is a "luxury", isn't essential). I, on the other hand, merely offered my humble opinion. If you want to discuss the necessity of the space program with me, then do so without the arrogant presumption that your opinion is the only valid one...majesty.

When did you offer your humble opinion? I don't remember that happening. And at first I thought your deference was a sign of respect, but I'm starting to sense some sarcasm. Could just be me.

It's kind of hard to be chafed when you're drinking a beer on your porch.

Indeed. Microbrew or are you one of "those" conservatives?

Maybe you can use some of that financial expertise to turn manned space exploration into a profitable venture.

Yeah. I'll make sure I cut you in when I do so.

I think you missed the point. Space is literally the "final frontier". Eventually, it will be heavily weaponized and subject to intense militarization. I'm of the opinion that the United States should be on the forefront of such efforts, as opposed to some other, less ethical country.

Mmm...nah. I mean really, other than some chest-puffery, the only organizations we really have to worry about are terrorists. I don't see them getting to space any time soon. Like him or hate him, Obama is mending ties with Russia and China, the only possible threats we have on that frontier.

Totally knew you were a Treky, by the way.

Because I'm of the opinion that manned space exploration is essential to the long term prosperity and security of the United States of America.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the revolutionary overthrow of our government by the proletariat. Perhaps I was asleep...

A socialist program does not a socialist government make. Public health care is hella socialist. I would still consider the US capitalist, even after we passed it.
 
I don't see how committing to build the hardware to take us to the outer planets is "tempering the dream". Bush's programs would not get us to Mars and would not set the stage for the habitat and propulsion systems necessary to take the next big step. Getting to the moon was easy, what Obama is doing is the first step to the stars.

First step to the stars!? Can I have some of your Koolaid?
 
I don't see how committing to build the hardware to take us to the outer planets is "tempering the dream". Bush's programs would not get us to Mars and would not set the stage for the habitat and propulsion systems necessary to take the next big step. Getting to the moon was easy, what Obama is doing is the first step to the stars.

Perhaps the largest problem is that the speech contained no unifying goal. Its timelines were so distant that they will not inspire the kind of urgency that transformed President Kennedy's vision into reality.

Moreover, at the time President Kennedy made his commitment, numerous technologies and capablities necessary for a successful landing on the moon and return to earth had yet to be developed. I would like to think that today, nearly 50 years later, America's technological prowess and innovative capabilities are beyond those when the U.S. committed to landing on the moon in a decade (and achieved it in less time). Articulating a belief, which is vastly different from making a commitment, that man will orbit Mars in the 2030s and land there afterward is not exactly a ringing endorsement of America's ability to master complex problems and develop new technologies over a demanding timeframe.

One should bear in mind that the successful Manhattan and Apollo projects were extremely bold, had demanding timelines, and pushed the frontiers of technology and knowledge. In contrast, the incrementalist approach following the 1970s oil crises has led the U.S. to stand in place when it comes to energy. Today's speech does not follow in the bold footsteps of the Manhattan and Apollo Projects. It does not represent a meaningful departure from the drift that has gripped the nation's space program under multiple Administrations.
 
Yeah, but watch out for who is deciding the right blend. Enter corporate donors, special interests, and corrupt politicians.

Well duh. I used to be a starry-eyed poly sci major. Until I realized nothing is ever, ever going to change.

Social Security: the least of our entitlement worries. It is frustrating that those who can afford retirement on their own are collecting SS. I would cut them out first of all. The rest have had promises and they count on it. My parents count on it so they can take a long trip every year to somewhere interesting. Before FDR we didn't have it. How did we care for our elders then? They lived with us. We need to go back to that model and have families care for the elderly.

I actually really believe that too. Partially cause my mom is so cool my sister and I are already fighting over who she get's to live with. But I also think America has grown dangerously out of touch with family and community.

Medicare/Medicaid: This is a tough one and evidently the more costly and growing of the entitlements. Since we are talking socialism, lemme briefly tell you my solution. At the state/local level (where-ever the optimal savings for administration and staffing occurs) we create Co-ops, so they are not government run. We fund the co-ops with state and local taxes. Taxes will go up. The co-ops provide medical care for the old, the sick (pre-existing conditions) and the poor. Medicare and Medicaid are closed down. The co-ops will hire their own staff (admin, nurses, doctors) and buy their own facilities (clinics, urgent care, pharmacies, hospitals). Costs are contained based on the employment and facility ownership. They can serve X number of people in T amount of time. The latest drugs are not always used to save money. No choice of doctors in this system. You may be able to buy supplementals for the latest drugs and doctor choice.

Well...okay. Have you written the President yet? :mrgreen: I'm also a big fan of taxes going up.

I am screwed on retirement.

I'm glad I started young, it helps. A bad economy also helps.

Yeah, like Crippler said, why are you hating on the sciences? ;)

Mostly to be a pain in the ass. Plus it amuses me to see conservatives admit they support socialist policies, since I converted from libertarianism myself. Kinda a hobby I guess...
 
NASA's entire budget in FY 2009 only accounted for approximately 1% of the deficit, and half a percent of the entire Federal budget. Your concern over the deficit is, forgive me, laughable.

Never mind that Obama didn't even decrease NASA's budget; he just shifted the funding from space exploration to climate research. I'm sure you consider that "essential".

Nope. Shocked?

I don't blame you for thinking I'm one of "those" liberals though. Climate research is a luxury too. And a concern over the deficit should not be laughable. If I spent more than I made each month, I would consider a book, even an educational one on say, space, to be a frivolous expenditure.
 
Back
Top Bottom