• 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'

Kelzie said:
I obviously know very little about what goes on at NASA, but let me get this straight. They destroyed the technology that allowed us to land on the moon because it was competing with a different shuttle?
Click to expand...

Yup...... politics.
 
I believe what happened is that Obama redirected funds towards the space program and gave NASA a massive tithe to the church of anthropogenic global warming. He is having research why humans definitely cause the earth's fever.
 
Crunch said:
Yup...... politics.
Click to expand...

Damn. Just...damn. That is quite frankly the most assinine thing I have ever heard. I mean if it's interfering with new research so much, just BOX IT UP! Why do we give them tax dollars to destroy research that our tax dollars pay for?
 
Kelzie said:
Wait...how did we lose technology?
Click to expand...

We lose technology all the time, it's really quite simple. People who work on the system don't write everything down. But the majority of what we previously used to get to the moon has been disassembled and sold off. In the end, it was made obsolete or forgotten. We don't have the technology at this point to go back, we'd have to remake the entire lander. It's not like we couldn't, but it's more like "what's the point?".
 
There once was a day, not that long ago when Americans took pride in being the world leader in science, technology and the adnacements of exploration and science.

When exactly did that die?
 
Goobieman said:
There once was a day, not that long ago when Americans took pride in being the world leader in science, technology and the adnacements of exploration and science.

When exactly did that die?
Click to expand...

I just do not understand your mindset. While I haven't seen any of your posts on the deficit, I do recall that you are fiscally conservative and strongly support fiscal reponsibility.

Space research, like almost all research is a luxury. When we're running a massive deficit, it is time to cut the luxuries, no matter how good they make us look.
 
Goobieman said:
There once was a day, not that long ago when Americans took pride in being the world leader in science, technology and the adnacements of exploration and science.

When exactly did that die?
Click to expand...

Oh, we are the world leader in science and technology. It's our main export. But there are many facets of science and technology and that doesn't revolve having some manned space program. There is plenty of science to study on earth, plenty of technology to develop on earth. There is little reason at this point to take money away from all that and throw it at a manned space program; which is what it would take in order to conceivably have a functioning manned space program.
 
Kelzie said:
I just do not understand your mindset. While I haven't seen any of your posts on the deficit, I do recall that you are fiscally conservative and strongly support fiscal reponsibility.
Click to expand...
This is true, but not really relevant -- if this sort of this were a priority, like it used to be, then spending on something less of a priority could be cut to fund it.

Space research, like almost all research is a luxury.
Click to expand...
So are entitlements, and in that, I agree that it is time to cut the luxuries, no matter how good they make us look (or feel).

And, really, its not even a matter of looking good -- expanding our technological base through our own efforts is far better than waiting for others to do it and then paying them to let us use it.
 
WillRockwell said:
Ah, to be able to simplify issues to the point that thought is uneccesary....

I believe I'll wait for Obama's Canaveral speech to weigh in on this, except to say that Bush's half-assed plan for NASA derailed real progress, which now has to be made up somehow. A seamless progression of manned orbital vehicles should have been anticipated and budgeted in the early 2000's, instead we have the shuttle retiring with nothing to follow it.
Click to expand...
Sorry we can't meet your requirements. :shrug:
 
Goobieman said:
This is true, but not really relevant -- if this sort of this were a priority, like it used to be, then spending on something less of a priority could be cut to fund it.


So are entitlements, and in that, I agree that it is time to cut the luxuries, no matter how good they make us look (or feel).

And, really, its not even a matter of looking good -- expanding our technological base through our own efforts is far better than waiting for others to do it and then paying them to let us use it.
Click to expand...

But what you're saying kinda seems to be "Entitlements are wrong when we're running a deficit, but if there are entitlements that I don't agree with, I want there to be entitlements I do."

I mean, it seems to be a very natural position to take, but that's the type of thinking that leads to an even worse deficit.
 
Everybody would like a High paying gubment Job. We can't afford to throw money into space, when people are loosing their homes here. time to tighten our belts and prioritize.
 
Kelzie said:
But what you're saying kinda seems to be "Entitlements are wrong when we're running a deficit, but if there are entitlements that I don't agree with, I want there to be entitlements I do."
Click to expand...
No... I'm not.

I merely reponded to -your- distractive argument that space exploration was a luxury. If you were honest in your assessment that luxuries need to be cut in the times of high defeicits, then you's agree that these cuts need toi apply to entitlements. I dod not see that agreement in your response.

In any case, none of that speaks to the validity and usefulness of the space program in and of itself, nor to my response that if leadership in science and technology were a priority, like it used to be, then spending on something less of a priority could be cut to fund it.
 
Moon said:
So shortsighted. The Atlantic Ocean was "downright inhospitable" until the technology was developed to overcome it. Now it's routine. :doh

When a species grows to the point that it can no longer feed itself, moving to a better area IS a matter of species survival.
Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges. Have a good day... :2wave:
 
Well, personally I'm skeptical of a space program that doesn't include a Kennedy-esque vision, but from what I hear the 10 billion being spent on the Constellation program was going down the hole. Besides, we don't need to go back to the Moon. We need to get to the moons of Mars or Mars itself.
 
Goobieman said:
No... I'm not.

I merely reponded to -your- distractive argument that space exploration was a luxury. If you were honest in your assessment that luxuries need to be cut in the times of high defeicits, then you's agree that these cuts need toi apply to entitlements. I dod not see that agreement in your response.

In any case, none of that speaks to the validity and usefulness of the space program in and of itself, nor to my response that if leadership in science and technology were a priority, like it used to be, then spending on something less of a priority could be cut to fund it.
Click to expand...

First off, in a discussion of cutting space exploration funding, how in the world is is an argument that space exploration is a luxury that isn't needed when we're running a deficit "distractive." I can't think of anything more on topic.

Second, if you don't see that agreement, you're just not looking.

Kelzie said:
When we're running a massive deficit, it is time to cut the luxuries
Click to expand...

Kelzie said:
]A lot of things are important. That doesn't mean they're vital. When we're running a deficit, be it national or personal, only vital expenses should be included in your budget. When we start running a surplus again, that's when we can start bringing the "important" stuff back on line.

At least, that's how fiscal responsibility seems to me.
Click to expand...

Kelzie said:
]It's a lot like personal finances. It really sucks when you have a hot investment tip and no liquid assets to invest. That doesn't mean you charge it on your credit card.

I agree with you that space exploration is an important field. I do not agree that it is so vital it should be "charged" to the nation's credit card.
Click to expand...

I quite, quite clearly believe the only the necessities need to be paid for at this point. The importance of space research is subjective. The importance is say, paying for our military hopefully is not.
 
Just so it is clear, the issue about entitlement spending is not so much about eliminating the entitlement programs, but in placing priority on fixing them. Elimination of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is not politically or socially feasible. No serious political leader entertains the idea of eliminating them.

Having said that, credible fiscal consolidation will require that the imbalances associated with those programs be addressed. Those three programs are the principal driver of the nation's long-term fiscal imbalances. "Almost all of the projected growth in federal spending other than interest payments on the debt comes from growth in spending on the three largest entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security," the CBO noted in its most recent long-term budget outlook.

Social Security offers the "easiest" fix: raise the age limit for full benefits and then peg that limit to changes in life expectancy, restructure benefits, and increase the payroll tax. The transition could be greatly faciliated if the retirement age were raised 3 years (between now and 2020--the 3 year figure is something the IMF has mentioned; the IMF provided no timeline over which to raise the age limit), then pegged to changes in life expectancy, and the annual change in Social Security payments was pegged at the inflation rate less 1% (which would allow the passage of time to reduce benefits in real terms).

Fixing Medicaid and Medicare will require basic health reform that brings an end to the excessive cost growth problem (chronic increase in national health expenditures at a multiple of GDP). Very difficult decisions will be required to achieve such health reform. Nonetheless, it is those two programs that are at the heart of the mandatory spending challenge. CBO explained:

By CBO's estimates, the increase in spending for Medicare and Medicaid as a share of GDP will account for 80 percent of spending increases for the three largest entitlement programs [Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security] between now and 2035 and 90 percent of spending growth between now and 2080. Thus, reducing overall government spending relative to what would occur under current fiscal policy would require fundamental changes in the trajectory of federal health spending. Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for federal fiscal policy.
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
Second, if you don't see that agreement, you're just not looking.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

And in that case, my initial response remains -- if we found it important enough, we could/would cut someting else to fund it.
 
Goobieman said:
Fair enough.

And in that case, my initial response remains -- if we found it important enough, we could/would cut someting else to fund it.
Click to expand...

Well of course! The same could be said about public health care though. :lol:
 
To be fair, about Obama's plan, isn't moving to commercially built spacecraft a good idea? It seems to me the cost of that policy is that we can't have a clear Kennedy-esque vision.
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
Space research, like almost all research is a luxury. When we're running a massive deficit, it is time to cut the luxuries, no matter how good they make us look.
Click to expand...

The problem with that argument is, we are not cutting NASA's budget..... it is increasing and is going to be mostly the Global Warming Propaganda arm of this administration.
 
Crunch said:
The problem with that argument is, we are not cutting NASA's budget..... it is increasing and is going to be mostly the Global Warming Propaganda arm of this administration.
Click to expand...

Global warming propaganda...my beliefs on global warming aside, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If our government was an individual, they'd have a balloon loan, their house would be 50% underwater and they'd owe 35k in credit card debt that they've already taken an equity line of credit to pay off once. Plus, you know, they'd feel completely entitled to eat out once a week and take a two vacations a year to Vegas because they've "earned" it. :sinking:
 
The problem with that argument is, we are not cutting NASA's budget..... it is increasing and is going to be mostly the Global Warming Propaganda arm of this administration.
Today 01:02 PM
Click to expand...

The idea that we were cutting the space program because Obama was looking to siphon funds from other programs to finance his own policies is false.

This isn't about global warming either.

This is about what is best for the future of the space program. I think the general idea is that the NASA apparatus is too incompetent and political to carry on long term projects. We're trying to do Kennedy things with no Cold War; like trying to finish your essay when the due date is a month away.

Commercial companies have to struggle for their survival and for profit. NASA lacks that incentive. So, instead of working on shuttles that can get us to the moon, they are going to focus on more specialized technological development (like propulsion; turn the Mars gap from three months to a few days).

Until now, NASA was responsible for general space exploration (putting ships into orbit) and developing such technologies. Now they only have to do the latter.
 
Last edited:
our space program has always been a manifestation of american EXCEPTIONALISM

thus, obama must cut it

didn't his own science czar, mr holdren, the man who co-wrote a textbook advocating forced abortions and sterilization to control population growth, just declare last week to a group of students at the american association for the advancement of science that "we cannot expect to be #1 forever?"

and that such slippage on the part of the greatest nation in the history of the world is "not purely bad?"

CNSNews.com - White House Science ?Czar? Tells Students: U.S. Can?t Expect to Be Number One in Science and Technology Forever

these guys in this white house actually believe this stuff, they're really that far out there

instead of demanding excellence and leadership from american endeavors, this white house BOWS to the leader of COMMUNIST CHINA

the juxtaposition of those 2 images, the sci-czar conceding and the obtuse obama bowing, says it all

so does the contrast between the BOW to HU and the infamous PHOTO of the DALAI LAMA having to step over onion rinds and banana peels to exit his white house interview

Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected

the sci-guy's text pretty clearly spelled it all out:

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren and two co-authors wrote. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses of overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”
Click to expand...

american EXCEPTIONALISM is seen as chauvinism

and must be DE-DEVELOPED

really, really weird

the most RADICAL leadership america has ever suffered

(thank goodness it's so incompetent)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom