- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 13,534
- Reaction score
- 1,000
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yes. Don't be doing the happy dance, I told you I'm not that kind of liberal.
Alright then! We agree Obama has made the wrong decision, yes?
A goal to strengthen America's advantages in space, namely to build an advantage in deep space exploration could have been articulated as the overriding mission. The President could have said:
1. America will become the leader in manned exploration beyond the lower earth orbit.
2. To get there, the U.S. will need to develop reliable and safe technology.
3. A critical ingredient will be a suitable rocket.
4. That rocket will be completed and used for its first trip within a decade.
5. Successful attainment of that step will provide a foundation for further progress.
The goal would have been specific. There would have been focus on a pivotal early step. A specific deadline for the early outcome would have been established. It would be clear that the outcome marked a step along a longer journey.
The speech did not contain such clarity. There is little doubt that the President is committed to manned space exploration. But setting a goal for leadership is a bolder pronouncement than affirming a commitment to manned space exploration.
With respect to the rocket, he declared, "And we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it." Although that is well-intended, it is far from a concrete commitment to success. After all, the troubled F-35 fighter jet has passed design and has been in the building phase for a number of years. To date, all the U.S. has to show for it is delays and cost-overruns.
A commitment to complete and launch the rocket would be much bolder. There would be the kind of sense of urgency that cannot exist under a more limited commitment to settle on a design and then to begin building the rocket.
In sum, the biggest issue concerns the lack of concrete outcomes. It is far easier to suggest that one will start a process than to pledge to complete it. There are abundant examples where an absence of commitments led to insufficient progress toward concrete outcomes. The rebuilding on the grounds of the World Trade Center offers another example. No commitments were made in terms of when the project would be completed. Today, almost a decade later, very little has been achieved except in the generation of a growing litany of excuses for the failures to date. Whether in the private sector or public sector, an emphasis on starting projects is far less effective in generating progress than an emphasis placed on concrete outcomes.
Then you agree, that Obama has made a stupid, stupid move here?
He hasn't cut spending, he just transfered it from space exploration to climate research. Did you already tell me which one you think is more important? I don't think you did...
I think you are not qualified to accuse Obama of making a stupid move.
so, you won't......Absolutely I would pay. In 2004, about 89 million Americans filed a tax return that had more than zero liability(1). That means each one of those Americans would only have to pay approximately $169 a person in order to pay for NASA's budget; I'd pay at least three times that amount if my tax burden wasn't already so large. That doesn't take into account revenues accrued from payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, excise taxes, customs and duties, and estate taxes.
As I said, NASA only accounts for a minuscule portion of our total budget outlays, but the point is moot, since Obama isn't even decreasing NASA's funding; he's just transferring it from space exploration to climate research. Which is more important to you?
(1) - The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow
HAHAHA!!!
I most certainly am qualified to make such an accusation, my Obama-loving friend.
The man is a complete dunce. In my estimation, he's made a wrong decision about once every week since he's been in office.
Since I'm not under an Obama-trance, I'm in the unique position of being able to point out his idiocy. You should try it! It feels great to think for yourself!
He is not a COMPLETE dunce....he doesn't measure up in that department, not nearly as much as GWB did....
What does Bush have to do with anything!? Are you sure you're in the right thread?
BHO's attacking one of the only programs that produces benefits for everyone. Awesome.
Absolutely I would pay. In 2004, about 89 million Americans filed a tax return that had more than zero liability(1). That means each one of those Americans would only have to pay approximately $169 a person in order to pay for NASA's budget; I'd pay at least three times that amount if my tax burden wasn't already so large.
That doesn't take into account revenues accrued from payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, excise taxes, customs and duties, and estate taxes.
As I said, NASA only accounts for a minuscule portion of our total budget outlays, but the point is moot, since Obama isn't even decreasing NASA's funding; he's just transferring it from space exploration to climate research. Which is more important to you?
(1) - The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow
What does Obama have to do with NASA? Congress allots the funding.
If you can blame Obama using ignorant terms like Dunce, surely others can bash your trance like worship of your favorite presidents.
Since climate change is set to wreak devestation on agriculture, research is necessary to develop possible coping strategies.
so you like Tang that much?
so you like Tang that much?
so, you won't......
Until I see actual proof that "climate change" will "wreak devestation" on anything, let alone agriculture, I will maintain the utter absurdity of Obama's agenda.
Climate change research!? Hilarious...
Florida tomatoes.
Fortunately policy is not contingent on your notions of absurdity.
While we're having NASA do climate-change research, perhaps we should ask the Department of Agriculture to do a study on urban sprawl. :roll:
NASA needs to be doing space travel. That's what it is for.
Am I supposed to know what the hell you're talking about!?
Due to unusually cold winter weather, 60% to 70% of Florida's tomato crop was destroyed, said Terence McElroy, a spokesman at the Florida Department of Agriculture. And because the sunshine state produces about 75% of U.S. tomatoes, prices across the country have spiked.
I'd like to know when our resident Obama-lovers are going to address the fact that NASA's budget hasn't even decreased, which would make their concerns about the budget perplexing, since it does nothing to address that fact.
Obama is increasing NASA's funding. He's just transferring the funding from space exploration to climate change. I suppose you liberals think research on climate change is more important than space exploration? C'mon! Tell me what you think, you damned rascals!
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?