• 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'

1984 said:
Well, damn, you see no evidence that NASA is not a luxury, therefore it must be true, expert that you are.

The private sector only does things that are profitable within a limited time frame. How much profit do you think there is in simply flying to the moon and back, or orbiting the moon for a week or two? Lots of cash to be made there!
Click to expand...

Let me just make sure I've got your argument right. The private sector is unwilling to pay for a space program because they can't make any money out of it. Since people obviously aren't willing to pay for it in the free market, you're advocating that the government take our money in the form of taxes to pay for something we wouldn't willingly pay for ourselves because the government "knows better."

You realize how very socialist that sounds, right?
 
Kelzie said:
Love Food, Inc (duh, I am a hippy!). One of my favorite movies.
Click to expand...

I did not know you were a hippy! Have you watched a movie where the woman is autistic but gets a college degree and works at a slaughterhouse to ensure that the cattle are killed more humanely, which so happens to increase the throughput of the slaughterhouse? Good movie...can't recall the name. Found it: Temple Grandin.

Regardless, I see no evidence to show that NASA is not a luxury. Why do you hold that opinion? Scientific research, while nice, is something that the private sector will pick up if it's necessary.
Click to expand...

Science is not a luxury. Space flight is not a luxury. They are necessary to us keeping our standard of living and position of pre-eminence in the world.

The private sector finds no profit in basic science or space flight. They would not be interested.
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
Why is it up for debate?
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, you weren't the final arbiter on what's "essential" and what is not. I don't know, maybe I missed your coronation or something...

If it was essential, that would mean people would pay for it and the private sector could take over R&D.
Click to expand...

In my humble opinion, manned space exploration is essential to the long term prosperity and security of the United States. The "long term" nature of such a venture prohibits profit-oriented models from effectively assuming the responsibility for space exploration.

Wait...are you saying that the market fails in this instance and the government should step in?! :shock:
Click to expand...

Yes, the free market has its limitations, or haven't you taken an economics course?

I wonder what would have happened if we left the A-bomb to the free market...

Are you sure you're not a liberal?
Click to expand...

Pretty damn sure.

You're arguing for a cut in one luxury to support another luxury. That's not only a liberal way of thinking, but a hypocritical liberal way of thinking. I mean, if you're going to be a liberal, at least own up to all of it.
Click to expand...

Name-calling and childish labeling is all you got. Is there someone with at least a cursory understanding of basic economics and science that I can discuss this issue with?
 
Kelzie said:
Let me just make sure I've got your argument right.
Click to expand...

I doubt it...

The private sector is unwilling to pay for a space program because they can't make any money out of it. Since people obviously aren't willing to pay for it in the free market, you're advocating that the government take our money in the form of taxes to pay for something we wouldn't willingly pay for ourselves because the government "knows better."

You realize how very socialist that sounds, right?
Click to expand...

You could make the exact same argument for the military.
 
reefedjib said:
I did not know you were a hippy! Have you watched a movie where the woman is autistic but gets a college degree and works at a slaughterhouse to ensure that the cattle are killed more humanely, which so happens to increase the throughput of the slaughterhouse? Good movie...can't recall the name.
Click to expand...

Haven't heard of it. I'm sure at some point netflix will recommend it to me.

reefedjib said:
Science is not a luxury. Space flight is not a luxury. They are necessary to us keeping our standard of living and position of pre-eminence in the world.

The private sector finds no profit in basic science or space flight. They would not be interested.
Click to expand...

Some science is not a luxury. That's why corporations have R&D departments. If people don't want to pay for the space program, who are you to tell them we need it?
 
1984 said:
Last time I checked, you weren't the final arbiter on what's "essential" and what is not. I don't know, maybe I missed your coronation or something....
Click to expand...

Given your misplaced hostility, I'm sure you understand why you didn't get the invitation.

In my humble opinion, manned space exploration is essential to the long term prosperity and security of the United States. The "long term" nature of such a venture prohibits profit-oriented models from effectively assuming the responsibility for space exploration.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure if the market agreed, it would be able to make a profit. Are you saying you know better than the market?

Yes, the free market has its limitations, or haven't you taken an economics course?

I wonder what would have happened if we left the A-bomb to the free market...
Click to expand...

So the market has its limitations when it's something you find important? What a convenient theory for you!


Name-calling and childish labeling is all you got. Is there someone with at least a cursory understanding of basic economics and science that I can discuss this issue with?
Click to expand...

I have an extremely good grasp of economic theory and how you're breaking the liberal free market theory (well, what you would call conservative economic theory), by insisting that the market doesn't know what it's doing and we should tax people because the government knows better.
 
Kelzie said:
Haven't heard of it. I'm sure at some point netflix will recommend it to me.
Click to expand...

I found it: Temple Grandin.

Some science is not a luxury. That's why corporations have R&D departments. If people don't want to pay for the space program, who are you to tell them we need it?
Click to expand...

The same is true of any other government spending. Some people may not like it, but their taxes are used to pay for it.

As an example, corporations did not pay for ARPAnet. This turned out to be a big commercial success. Government as incubator. Not all science and space exploration efforts result in commercial success. They are still necessary.
 
1984 said:
I doubt it...



You could make the exact same argument for the military.
Click to expand...

No you couldn't. Most people would pay money for a protectionist military at the very least. Proving that the free market is able to decide what is essential.
 
reefedjib said:
I found it: Temple Grandin.
Click to expand...

I'll have to take a look at it. Thanks!

reefedjib said:
The same is true of any other government spending. Some people may not like it, but their taxes are used to pay for it.

As an example, corporations did not pay for ARPAnet. This turned out to be a big commercial success. Government as incubator. Not all science and space exploration efforts result in commercial success. They are still necessary.
Click to expand...

That's not true of other government spending. For instance, health care exists in the free market. As do schools and a variety of other things the market has deemed as essential.
 
Kelzie said:
That's not true of other government spending. For instance, health care exists in the free market. As do schools and a variety of other things the market has deemed as essential.
Click to expand...

I miss your point. There are government programs for those things, as well as private replacements. In the case of healthcare, most people receiving public assistance do not search out private coverage. Most people receiving private coverage are excluded from public assistance. Schools have public schools for all or you can opt for private education as a true replacement (unlike healthcare).

In science AND in space exploration, there are public research (at public and private institutions - funded by public $$) as well as some private research. Lots in drugs, little in basic science. There would be very little basic science research if the government stopped funding it. The same is true of space exploration.

Like I said, drop the DEA, the FDA and the FCC. They are not necessary.
 
Kelzie said:
That's not true of other government spending. For instance, health care exists in the free market. As do schools and a variety of other things the market has deemed as essential.
Click to expand...

In addition, it was not the market deeming them essential, it was the market deeming them profitable.
 
Kelzie said:
Given your misplaced hostility, I'm sure you understand why you didn't get the invitation.
Click to expand...

You're the one who initiated hostilities when you attempted to label me as a liberal. I take that as an insult.

Well, I'm sure if the market agreed, it would be able to make a profit. Are you saying you know better than the market?
Click to expand...

I asked you earlier, how much profit there is in simply flying to the moon and back? Here's how you can figure it out...

Profit = total revenue - total cost.

Give me your "back of the napkin" estimate.

So the market has its limitations when it's something you find important? What a convenient theory for you!
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with me. The private sector has limitations; its called "market failure". Basic economics, really. It wasn't something I made up in order to win a silly internet argument.

I have an extremely good grasp of economic theory and how you're breaking the liberal free market theory (well, what you would call conservative economic theory), by insisting that the market doesn't know what it's doing and we should tax people because the government knows better.
Click to expand...

I never said the market "doesn't know what it's doing" or "the government knows better". Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

What I said was this: the private sector is incapable of financing manned space exploration, as they possess limited funds, and are profit-oriented.

Capiche?
 
reefedjib said:
I miss your point. There are government programs for those things, as well as private replacements. In the case of healthcare, most people receiving public assistance do not search out private coverage. Most people receiving private coverage are excluded from public assistance. Schools have public schools for all or you can opt for private education as a true replacement (unlike healthcare).

In science AND in space exploration, there are public research (at public and private institutions - funded by public $$) as well as some private research. Lots in drugs, little in basic science. There would be very little basic science research if the government stopped funding it. The same is true of space exploration.

Like I said, drop the DEA, the FDA and the FCC. They are not necessary.
Click to expand...

My point is you have to have a method of determining of something is necessary other than "cause I think it's important." Classical liberal economics (today's conservative economics) dictates that if it's not necessary, the free market won't provide for it. Which is why we see schools, health insurance, etc and why we would see private police and military forces if the government stopped providing it. But if the government stopped paying for a space program, the only way one would continue is if a private company could profit out of it. I think we both know that wouldn't happen because most people don't see a space program as worth their hard earned dollars. If they do, they'll pay for it. If most people wouldn't pay for it themselves, taking their tax dollars to pay for it is just socialism.
 
reefedjib said:
In addition, it was not the market deeming them essential, it was the market deeming them profitable.
Click to expand...

It's really the same thing. If it's essential, people will pay for it.
 
Kelzie said:
No you couldn't. Most people would pay money for a protectionist military at the very least. Proving that the free market is able to decide what is essential.
Click to expand...

You're just making an assumption, which proves nothing. You can't say for certain how many people would pay or how much they would pay or if it would be enough to fund "essential" functions of the military.

Either way, it doesn't have to be the military; it could be any government agency enumerated in the Constitution.

I consider NASA to be part of the military, anyway.
 
Kelzie said:
It's really the same thing. If it's essential, people will pay for it.
Click to expand...

Essential to what? The individual? The city? The state? The country? The region? The world? Humanity?
 
1984 said:
You're the one who initiated hostilities when you attempted to label me as a liberal. I take that as an insult.
Click to expand...

Well, that's your own problem. You're still not invited to my coronation.

I asked you earlier, how much profit there is in simply flying to the moon and back? Here's how you can figure it out...

Profit = total revenue - total cost.

Give me your "back of the napkin" estimate.
Click to expand...

Just floating a theory out there, maybe there's no profit to it because it doesn't produce anything. And if it doesn't produce anything that most people value, why would you force them to pay for it through their taxes?

It has nothing to do with me. The private sector has limitations; its called "market failure". Basic economics, really. It wasn't something I made up in order to win a silly internet argument.
Click to expand...

It does? So I can only assume you support a whole host of liberal policies, starting with cap and trade for carbon emissions.

I'm pretty sure conservatives think the market is perfect. Just FYI, before you get kicked out of the club.

I never said the market "doesn't know what it's doing" or "the government knows better". Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

So if the market does know what it's doing, why are you recommending we take money from people to fund something they wouldn't do on their own? I mean, shoot, while we're doing that, let's just pay for public health care while we're at it!

What I said was this: the private sector is incapable of financing manned space exploration, as they possess limited funds, and are profit-oriented.

Capiche?
Click to expand...

As long as you can handle the cognitive dissonance, sure.
 
1984 said:
You're just making an assumption, which proves nothing. You can't say for certain how many people would pay or how much they would pay or if it would be enough to fund "essential" functions of the military.

Either way, it doesn't have to be the military; it could be any government agency enumerated in the Constitution.

I consider NASA to be part of the military, anyway.
Click to expand...

And so are you.

You should let the military know they have a new branch. I'm sure they'd be amused.
 
1984 said:
Essential to what? The individual? The city? The state? The country? The region? The world? Humanity?
Click to expand...

All of the above. Are you saying people won't pay for services/goods they consider essential on any level?
 
Kelzie said:
Well, that's your own problem. You're still not invited to my coronation.
Click to expand...

Just setting the record straight, your majesty.

Just floating a theory out there, maybe there's no profit to it because it doesn't produce anything. And if it doesn't produce anything that most people value, why would you force them to pay for it through their taxes?
Click to expand...

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

It does? So I can only assume you support a whole host of liberal policies, starting with cap and trade for carbon emissions.
Click to expand...

Why would I support cap and trade for carbon emissions?

I'm pretty sure conservatives think the market is perfect. Just FYI, before you get kicked out of the club.
Click to expand...

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

So if the market does know what it's doing, why are you recommending we take money from people to fund something they wouldn't do on their own? I mean, shoot, while we're doing that, let's just pay for public health care while we're at it!
Click to expand...

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

As long as you can handle the cognitive dissonance, sure.
Click to expand...

Well, you know squat about economics and finance, but you're an expert at childish insults. Good for you...
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Obama is not cutting funding to NASA. In fact, he is INCREASING funding... by hugely expanding its climate program.

NASA never took any sort of large portion of the budget anyways. It in no way contradicts fiscal responsibility.

For the most part, people are criticizing spending that they see the government doing that individuals are capable of doing (health care, etc.). That's only true for the space program if a viable private market model emerges.
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
And so are you.

You should let the military know they have a new branch. I'm sure they'd be amused.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Kelzie said:
All of the above. Are you saying people won't pay for services/goods they consider essential on any level?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kelzie said:
My point is you have to have a method of determining of something is necessary other than "cause I think it's important." Classical liberal economics (today's conservative economics) dictates that if it's not necessary, the free market won't provide for it. Which is why we see schools, health insurance, etc and why we would see private police and military forces if the government stopped providing it. But if the government stopped paying for a space program, the only way one would continue is if a private company could profit out of it. I think we both know that wouldn't happen because most people don't see a space program as worth their hard earned dollars. If they do, they'll pay for it. If most people wouldn't pay for it themselves, taking their tax dollars to pay for it is just socialism.
Click to expand...

Kelzie said:
It's really the same thing. If it's essential, people will pay for it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
reefedjib said:
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.
Click to expand...

Conservatives aren't allowed to support any government spending without being hypocrites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom