- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,762
- Reaction score
- 1,619
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Of course, I forgot to mention: federal taxes will go down with no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid to worry about.
Well...okay. Have you written the President yet? :mrgreen: I'm also a big fan of taxes going up.
Its amusing to note that Obama and Armstrong are about as opposite a pair you could imagine in America
one is a hero, got to where he was purely on his own merit, and truly was the best of the best
the other is a fraud, second rate and hates America:mrgreen:
What do you have against Armstong? :mrgreen:
Christ man. Do you have to reply to every sentence?
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.
Indeed. God bless compound interest. Joking aside, if it was vitally needed, it would be produced from the market.
So not going there and you know what I meant.
Damn you sensible conservatives.
Oh, an MBA. Explains your high and mighty attitude.:mrgreen:
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?
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.
Indeed. Microbrew or are you one of "those" conservatives?
Yeah. I'll make sure I cut you in when I do so.
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.
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.
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.
Its amusing to note that Obama and Armstrong are about as opposite a pair you could imagine in America
one is a hero, got to where he was purely on his own merit, and truly was the best of the best
the other is a fraud, second rate and hates America:mrgreen:
You don't have to either.
Did you even bother to read through the spin-off article I provided? If you're not going to make a serious effort to learn from others, then what's the point of this discussion? It's a very interesting read, and very informative, at least set aside some time to give it a serious perusal.
Moreover, you're neglecting the time aspect of these innovations. Wouldn't you rather have ventricular pumps sooner rather than later? I know people waiting for heart transplants do, but I guess they don't matter?
What do you mean by "vitally needed"? No one really "needs" indoor plumbing, or computer technology, or any number of things we use on a daily basis. They may not be "vitally needed" but they are certainly "vitally important".
Also, are you making this argument as a devil's advocate, or as a serious proponent of the free market? Because if it's the former, you can stop right now, since I'm not one of these "free-market = God" conservatives you seem intent on smiting.
Why can't I just cut spending elsewhere? Is that not an option?
Here's 167 million we can use right off the bat...
National Endowment for the Arts Appropriations History
You asserted the "luxury" of space exploration, and I said it was up for debate, but you exercised your imperial powers.
If I seem to recall...
I can appreciate all beers. I'm multifaceted.
That's a very narrow view on something that is extremely complex and far-reaching; in the long term, manned space exploration is "vital" to our society's prosperity and security. We can't sacrifice every long term goal just because we have short term problems right now. Americans act like society is just the hardest thing ever; they're always complaining about something that's literally trivial to billions of other people.
Ughh, my Civic got a flat! Call the Feds!
I'm more of a Star Wars guy, anyway.
Capitalism is just private property rights and wage labor. Socialism is the radical overthrow of the bourgeois and government by the proletariat. I don't advocate for the radical overthrow of anyone, so I'm not going to admit I support "socialist" programs. Young people!
...umm. No, not really. I figured the parts you pulled out were enough to go by. However I totally trust you that there were lots and lots of scientific discoveries by NASA that are completely outshadowed by the millions of scientific discoveries from private sources.
Of course they matter. And according to the free market, if they're willing to pay enough, corporations will pay for R&D for the products they want.
I'm like...95% sure we had indoor plumbing before we went to the moon. And I pay for my vitally important thing. Like my Kindle. Shelled out close to $300 for it. Vitally important. If the space program came up with something as vitally important as that, I'm sure it would find a market.
I already told you I'm a pinko-commie liberal and a hippy to boot. What do you think?
Because that wasn't the option. Though I'm tempted to allow you to cut that just out of spite. That crap is why there's so much...crap in museums today.
Your rational seems to be that it has provided a large number of scientific advances and promises many more, true?
I appreciate all beer too. I sneer at beer-flavored water though. It's my imperialist nature.
Not every long term goal. I say we start at the bare bones and work our way up. Since you're growing on me, I'll throw a couple hundred million towards space exploration.
Nerd.
Indeed, that is what socialism is. A socialist program though is when the government steps in for the free market. Like public health care.
People of indeterminate age. :mrgreen:
So which of us here are willing to be taxed an extra 5% of our income for a "space tax"?
or for any of their pet programs?
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.
So you like big government spending? Then let me call you out as a fake Conservative. Money is tight right now, and the key to the space program is working smarter, and not having the only goal being to put men on the moon again. Been there, done that, and decades ahead of everybody else. At this time, we have the ability to continue our robotic exploration programs, and learn much more than spending untold billions for image building. Face it - We once had a surplus, thanks to Newt Gingrich, and now we have a huge debt. Every program is going to have to be cut back, but that doesn't mean that NASA is going to be second fiddle to any other nation's program. It will be leaner and meaner, because that is how it must be, with the crushing debt America is now facing.
So, in the end, NASA workers are about to be laid off. OK, that is business. If you are deep in the red, you lay off and cut back. Let the NASA workers find work in the private sector, and stop sucking off the government tit. Isn't that what you would tell any other government worker? If it isn't, then you are not Conservative in the least, but just another big government addict who plays at being one.
Whatever happened to the GOP saying that we should shrink the government down to a size that would fit in a bathtub, and then drown it? How is that working out for you? It goes to show that we are not defined by what we say, but by what we do. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck, Mr. Liberal in Conservative clothing.
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 decision by the Obama administration to gut NASA’s manned flight program does more than jeopardize the long term goals of solar system exploration, the cancellation of the space shuttles replacement will effectively leave the United States reliant upon the Soviet Union to grant us access to low earth orbit. As a member of the Armed Services Committee I am very concerned with that possibility, and as an American I am disappointed by the prospect.
Maybe it's a prediction.While reading up on this debate, I found this gem from a Republican...
Akin Against Ceding Low Earth Orbit Capabilities to Russians
Bold Italic and underline is my doing.. If the website is not the same as above then he changed it.
How can anyone take this guy seriously now lol.
Its amusing to note that Obama and Armstrong are about as opposite a pair you could imagine in America
one is a hero, got to where he was purely on his own merit, and truly was the best of the best
the other is a fraud, second rate and hates America:mrgreen:
TD screwed the sentence structure up on that one. :dohI take offense to your slandering of Neil Armstrong, he is not a fraud, he really did land on the moon.
Maybe it's a prediction.
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.
While reading up on this debate, I found this gem from a Republican...
Akin Against Ceding Low Earth Orbit Capabilities to Russians
Bold Italic and underline is my doing.. If the website is not the same as above then he changed it.
How can anyone take this guy seriously now lol.
I see your point that there is no inspired goal challenging us to reach for the stars. It is kind of limp, isn't it.
On the other hand, I have to credit the fact that we are continuing work into Orion, a heavy lift rocket and a continued focus on manned exploration and not just earth observation. Maybe I am being distracted by the hype, when the actual budget is stripping all the auxiliary tasks from Project Constellation to focus on earth observation for global warming. That would be disappointing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?