Neil Armstrong: Obama killing off U.S. space program..

[midcan5]

It often surprizes me that republicans support NASA, it moves us into that area of mind in which everything you know is turned around and twisted into its opposite. Government can do nothing right, whoa hold on, not true you say. Government should only....whoa hold on not true, you say...the market will take care of that...whoa, hold on you say...in the end it demostrates to me the paucity of republican thought in modern America, add libertarian ideology to that too. Consider that if government can do this well, why can they not do healthcare well? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.

The book below is a must read.

"In 1929 Federal, state, and municipal governments accounted for about 8 percent of all economic activity in the United States. By the 1960s that figure was between 20 and 25 percent, far exceeding that in India, a socialist country. The National Science Foundation reckoned that federal funds were paying for 90 percent of research in aviation and space travel, 65 percent in electrical and electronic devices, 42 percent in Scientific Instruments, 31 percent in machinery, 28 percent in metal alloys, 24 percent in automobiles, and 20 percent in chemicals." William Manchester "The Glory and the Dream"

 

[Seawytch]

I'm a huge fan of the space program...always have been, but its my understanding that two unpaid for wars, unpaid for tax cuts and an unpaid for Medicare Part D program topped with Wall Street Greed and malfeasance has left this country in a bit of a pickle financially.

I mean, we're supposed to be on a budget right? Justify spending on NASA when the GnOP wants to cut Social Security and give coupons for old folks to purchase Medicare.

Come on Private Industry...time for you to take over without all that government welfare. Where is my commercial space flight?

Then why does this administration go on to add a big expense like Obamacare, if we are REALLY supposed to be going off of a budget?

Health care law won't rein in costs, study says - Washington Times
Medicare Actuary: Obamacare Will Triple the Growth Rate of Net Insurance Costs - Forbes
Obama concedes health care law won't control costs | Philip Klein | Columnists | Washington Examiner
Obamacare | The Weekly Standard

The Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit by $143 Billion between 2010-2019.

Additionally, customers are already seeing rate decreases and rebates as a result of the ACA.

California Health Insurer Will Issue Refunds

As federal health reforms take effect, Aetna proposes rate cuts

As to WHY the ACA was passed...that had to do with 50 million Americans without health insurance. It had to do with Health Insurance companies taking premiums from people for years and then kicking them off their health insurance when they got sick. It had to do with people not being able to even get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions...like rape.

 

[Unkotare]

It often surprizes me that republicans support NASA

I'm sure 'it often surprises' you that the little light comes on every time you open the fridge, idiot.

 

[Seawytch]

So, instead of being prudent with the budget, Obama ADDS more debt?

And, cuts the space program.

Added more debt to save the economy...just ask economists who almost universally agree about what the Stimulus did for us.

The President, I'm certain, did not want to HAVE TO bail the country out with a stimulus, but Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II left little choice. If he had a choice, I'm sure he would much rather be spending money on toys like rockets to the moon than saving us from a Depression.

Sorry, but if I have to choose between space exploration and grandma not eating cat food, I'll take Grandma not eating catfood.

The truth is we benefited enormously from our space program. Every aspect of life in the USA has been touched by what was learned from NASA. From health, to agriculture, to technology. NASA has thousands of patents they license and sell and while they do bring in revenue, that's negligible to what they bring in through their support of business and education.

The Space Review: Putting NASA’s budget in perspective

The 2007 budget allocates roughly $609 billion to defense, not including the budget for the Department of Homeland Security. This is nearly 38 times the amount of money spent on NASA. If you include funding for the Department of Homeland Security, defense spending adds up to $652.5 billion, which is more than 40 times NASA’s budget. While few question the need to maintain a strong military in an uncertain age, some might consider it excessive for the United States to spend more on its military than the next fifteen biggest defense spenders put together, especially as most of them are American allies. Furthermore, there certainly are a great number of military programs of questionable value, as well as many sound military programs whose price tags nevertheless raise eyebrows.

As one anecdotal example, consider that each B-2 stealth bomber cost the US taxpayer roughly $2.2 billion. Then consider that the New Horizons robotic mission to Pluto, which will answer fundamental questions about the solar system, was nearly canceled for lack of funds. The total cost of the New Horizons mission, including the launch vehicle, added up to $650 million. In other words, the New Horizons mission to Pluto cost less than a third the cost of a single B-2 bomber.

I agree 100% that the military should be cut before anything else. We really don't need planes that can't fly in the rain or the ability to blow up the planet six or seven times over.

What's the reality though? How likely are we to cut the military budget? Which lobbyists can hand over more buckets of cash to our bought and paid for legislature?

 

[Unkotare]

The military should be the LAST thing we consider cutting.

 

[Seawytch]

Obama has NOT cut NASA's budget.

In fact, it's higher than it ever was before.

Well bust my buttons!


2000 13,428
2001 14,095
2002 14,405
2003 14,610
2004 15,152
2005 15,602
2006 15,125
2007 15,861
2008 17,318
2009 17,782
2010 18,724
2011 19,000

Budget of NASA

 

[Seawytch]

Planetary science not dead, NASA official says

The reports of the "death" of NASA are greatly exaggerated...

 

[Full-Auto]

Obama has NOT cut NASA's budget.

In fact, it's higher than it ever was before.

Well bust my buttons!


2000 13,428
2001 14,095
2002 14,405
2003 14,610
2004 15,152
2005 15,602
2006 15,125
2007 15,861
2008 17,318
2009 17,782
2010 18,724
2011 19,000

Budget of NASA

It costs money to teach the middle east how to get into space. Then when we have Nasa studying its impact on the economy, It was not a waste of money to justify the money..............As a government agency we can pat ourselves on the back. You will love it.

 

[rightwinger]

Obama has NOT cut NASA's budget.

In fact, it's higher than it ever was before.

Well bust my buttons!


2000 13,428
2001 14,095
2002 14,405
2003 14,610
2004 15,152
2005 15,602
2006 15,125
2007 15,861
2008 17,318
2009 17,782
2010 18,724
2011 19,000

Budget of NASA

It costs money to teach the middle east how to get into space. Then when we have Nasa studying its impact on the economy, It was not a waste of money to justify the money..............As a government agency we can pat ourselves on the back. You will love it.

How much money has been spent on teaching the middle east how to get to space?

I'm sure you have the figure on the tip of your tongue

 

[Seawytch]

It costs money to teach the middle east how to get into space. Then when we have Nasa studying its impact on the economy, It was not a waste of money to justify the money..............As a government agency we can pat ourselves on the back. You will love it.

How much money has been spent on teaching the middle east how to get to space?

I'm sure you have the figure on the tip of your tongue

I'll be kind and give him a "jumping off" point:

NASA - Budget Documents, Strategic Plans and Performance Reports

 

[Si modo]

Added more debt to save the economy...just ask economists who almost universally agree about what the Stimulus did for us.

The President, I'm certain, did not want to HAVE TO bail the country out with a stimulus, but Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II left little choice. If he had a choice, I'm sure he would much rather be spending money on toys like rockets to the moon than saving us from a Depression.

Sorry, but if I have to choose between space exploration and grandma not eating cat food, I'll take Grandma not eating catfood.

The truth is we benefited enormously from our space program. Every aspect of life in the USA has been touched by what was learned from NASA. From health, to agriculture, to technology. NASA has thousands of patents they license and sell and while they do bring in revenue, that's negligible to what they bring in through their support of business and education.

The Space Review: Putting NASA’s budget in perspective

The 2007 budget allocates roughly $609 billion to defense, not including the budget for the Department of Homeland Security. This is nearly 38 times the amount of money spent on NASA. If you include funding for the Department of Homeland Security, defense spending adds up to $652.5 billion, which is more than 40 times NASA’s budget. While few question the need to maintain a strong military in an uncertain age, some might consider it excessive for the United States to spend more on its military than the next fifteen biggest defense spenders put together, especially as most of them are American allies. Furthermore, there certainly are a great number of military programs of questionable value, as well as many sound military programs whose price tags nevertheless raise eyebrows.

As one anecdotal example, consider that each B-2 stealth bomber cost the US taxpayer roughly $2.2 billion. Then consider that the New Horizons robotic mission to Pluto, which will answer fundamental questions about the solar system, was nearly canceled for lack of funds. The total cost of the New Horizons mission, including the launch vehicle, added up to $650 million. In other words, the New Horizons mission to Pluto cost less than a third the cost of a single B-2 bomber.

I agree 100% that the military should be cut before anything else. We really don't need planes that can't fly in the rain or the ability to blow up the planet six or seven times over.

What's the reality though? How likely are we to cut the military budget? Which lobbyists can hand over more buckets of cash to our bought and paid for legislature?

Of course you want to kill the military. Military related products and services are the USA's #1 export (other than debt).

Democrats hate trade surpluses along with science.

 

[American Horse]

It often surprizes me that republicans support NASA, it moves us into that area of mind in which everything you know is turned around and twisted into its opposite. Government can do nothing right, whoa hold on, not true you say. Government should only....whoa hold on not true, you say...the market will take care of that...whoa, hold on you say...in the end it demostrates to me the paucity of republican thought in modern America, add libertarian ideology to that too. Consider that if government can do this well, why can they not do healthcare well? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.
[ . . . ]

MC you have lots of misconceptions about conservatives as opposed to liberals. I actuially find among my friends (and living in a cosmopolitican university community I have both) that the conservatives definitely support the space program and NASA in greater numbers than do the liberals even the scientists among them.

The libs believe the money needs be spent here on their favorite programs. The conservatives see it (NASA and its programs), as quasi-military in scope.

 

[Si modo]

It often surprizes me that republicans support NASA, it moves us into that area of mind in which everything you know is turned around and twisted into its opposite. Government can do nothing right, whoa hold on, not true you say. Government should only....whoa hold on not true, you say...the market will take care of that...whoa, hold on you say...in the end it demostrates to me the paucity of republican thought in modern America, add libertarian ideology to that too. Consider that if government can do this well, why can they not do healthcare well? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.
[ . . . ]

MC you have lots of misconceptions about conservatives as opposed to liberals. I actuially find among my friends (and living in a cosmopolitican university community I have both) that the conservatives definitely support the space program and NASA in greater numbers than do the liberals even the scientists among them.

The libs believe the money needs be spent here on their favorite programs. The conservatives see it (NASA and its programs), as quasi-military in scope.

Exactly. The USA's science policy - keeping research strong in science - IS considered in the best interests of our national security. The entire idea of having science policy is based on that and started with Vannevar Bush's letter to FDR. He then wrote an entire report on the necessity of science policy in the USA to Truman after Truman vetoed the idea of the NSF.

Vannevar Bush was a great man.

One can read about the history of science policy and Vannevar Bush here. It's an interesting read and I recommend it.

 

[Full-Auto]

Well bust my buttons!


2000 13,428
2001 14,095
2002 14,405
2003 14,610
2004 15,152
2005 15,602
2006 15,125
2007 15,861
2008 17,318
2009 17,782
2010 18,724
2011 19,000

Budget of NASA

It costs money to teach the middle east how to get into space. Then when we have Nasa studying its impact on the economy, It was not a waste of money to justify the money..............As a government agency we can pat ourselves on the back. You will love it.

How much money has been spent on teaching the middle east how to get to space?

I'm sure you have the figure on the tip of your tongue

No Idea. I just recall certain members complaining of that plan being implemented. From nasa too. Who would have thought.

 

[rightwinger]

It costs money to teach the middle east how to get into space. Then when we have Nasa studying its impact on the economy, It was not a waste of money to justify the money..............As a government agency we can pat ourselves on the back. You will love it.

How much money has been spent on teaching the middle east how to get to space?

I'm sure you have the figure on the tip of your tongue

No Idea. I just recall certain members complaining of that plan being implemented. From nasa too. Who would have thought.

Pennies?

 

[Seawytch]

The truth is we benefited enormously from our space program. Every aspect of life in the USA has been touched by what was learned from NASA. From health, to agriculture, to technology. NASA has thousands of patents they license and sell and while they do bring in revenue, that's negligible to what they bring in through their support of business and education.

The Space Review: Putting NASA’s budget in perspective

The 2007 budget allocates roughly $609 billion to defense, not including the budget for the Department of Homeland Security. This is nearly 38 times the amount of money spent on NASA. If you include funding for the Department of Homeland Security, defense spending adds up to $652.5 billion, which is more than 40 times NASA’s budget. While few question the need to maintain a strong military in an uncertain age, some might consider it excessive for the United States to spend more on its military than the next fifteen biggest defense spenders put together, especially as most of them are American allies. Furthermore, there certainly are a great number of military programs of questionable value, as well as many sound military programs whose price tags nevertheless raise eyebrows.

As one anecdotal example, consider that each B-2 stealth bomber cost the US taxpayer roughly $2.2 billion. Then consider that the New Horizons robotic mission to Pluto, which will answer fundamental questions about the solar system, was nearly canceled for lack of funds. The total cost of the New Horizons mission, including the launch vehicle, added up to $650 million. In other words, the New Horizons mission to Pluto cost less than a third the cost of a single B-2 bomber.

I agree 100% that the military should be cut before anything else. We really don't need planes that can't fly in the rain or the ability to blow up the planet six or seven times over.

What's the reality though? How likely are we to cut the military budget? Which lobbyists can hand over more buckets of cash to our bought and paid for legislature?

Of course you want to kill the military. Military related products and services are the USA's #1 export (other than debt).

Democrats hate trade surpluses along with science.

Kill off the military? Emmy goes to you, Drama Queen. I never said "kill off" the military. I said cut military funding. We currently spend more than anyone.

We can afford to trim our military budget here and there.

I'd like America's primary export to be something besides war, thanks. How about we try to beat the Chinese at producing alternative energy solutions?

 

[Si modo]

I agree 100% that the military should be cut before anything else. We really don't need planes that can't fly in the rain or the ability to blow up the planet six or seven times over.

What's the reality though? How likely are we to cut the military budget? Which lobbyists can hand over more buckets of cash to our bought and paid for legislature?

Of course you want to kill the military. Military related products and services are the USA's #1 export (other than debt).

Democrats hate trade surpluses along with science.

Kill off the military? Emmy goes to you, Drama Queen. I never said "kill off" the military. I said cut military funding. We currently spend more than anyone.

We can afford to trim our military budget here and there.

I'd like America's primary export to be something besides war, thanks. How about we try to beat the Chinese at producing alternative energy solutions?

OK.

Of course you want to cut the military budget. Military related products and services are the USA's #1 export (other than debt).

Democrats hate trade surpluses along with science.

 

[Full-Auto]

How much money has been spent on teaching the middle east how to get to space?

I'm sure you have the figure on the tip of your tongue

No Idea. I just recall certain members complaining of that plan being implemented. From nasa too. Who would have thought.

Pennies?

On the dollar x billions.


Will 30 trillion in debt be a concern?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'm a huge fan of the space program...always have been, but its my understanding that two unpaid for wars, unpaid for tax cuts and an unpaid for Medicare Part D program topped with Wall Street Greed and malfeasance has left this country in a bit of a pickle financially.

I mean, we're supposed to be on a budget right? Justify spending on NASA when the GnOP wants to cut Social Security and give coupons for old folks to purchase Medicare.

Come on Private Industry...time for you to take over without all that government welfare. Where is my commercial space flight?

Then why does this administration go on to add a big expense like Obamacare, if we are REALLY supposed to be going off of a budget?

Health care law won't rein in costs, study says - Washington Times
Medicare Actuary: Obamacare Will Triple the Growth Rate of Net Insurance Costs - Forbes
Obama concedes health care law won't control costs | Philip Klein | Columnists | Washington Examiner
Obamacare | The Weekly Standard

The Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit by $143 Billion between 2010-2019.

Additionally, customers are already seeing rate decreases and rebates as a result of the ACA.

California Health Insurer Will Issue Refunds

As federal health reforms take effect, Aetna proposes rate cuts

As to WHY the ACA was passed...that had to do with 50 million Americans without health insurance. It had to do with Health Insurance companies taking premiums from people for years and then kicking them off their health insurance when they got sick. It had to do with people not being able to even get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions...like rape.

Try using CBO fingures that are a little more current. Also Health Care through the government will not be less expensive, a look at the Massachussetts Health Care system through STATE Government funding has already proven that.

The Massachusetts plan does not control costs.

The best guide to how President Obama's historic health-care legislation will reshape the nation's medical marketplace and fiscal future is the pioneering model in Massachusetts. The Bay State's reform program started in late 2006, and it shares virtually all the major features of the new federal plan.

When Massachusetts launched its reform program in 2006, it already had the highest medical costs in the nation. Today, the burden is still rising far faster than wages or inflation, from those already lofty levels. A report from that state attorney general in March -- remember, this is a Democratic administration -- asked rhetorically "Can we expect the existing health-care market in Massachusetts to successfully contain health-care costs?" The report concluded, "To date, the answer is an unequivocal 'no.
5 painful health-care lessons from Massachusetts - Jun. 15, 2010

Rising costs continue to pose a challenge for the state. A survey published by Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts Foundation in April found that per capita health care spending in Massachusetts is projected to nearly double by 2020.
Has Mitt Romney

So if we are on a budget, as you say, why add the burden of Obamacare to the Federal debt?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I agree 100% that the military should be cut before anything else. We really don't need planes that can't fly in the rain or the ability to blow up the planet six or seven times over.

What's the reality though? How likely are we to cut the military budget? Which lobbyists can hand over more buckets of cash to our bought and paid for legislature?

Of course you want to kill the military. Military related products and services are the USA's #1 export (other than debt).

Democrats hate trade surpluses along with science.

Kill off the military? Emmy goes to you, Drama Queen. I never said "kill off" the military. I said cut military funding. We currently spend more than anyone.

We can afford to trim our military budget here and there.

I'd like America's primary export to be something besides war, thanks. How about we try to beat the Chinese at producing alternative energy solutions?

The military only makes up 25% of the federal Governments expenditures. Looking at Government entitlements favored by the left: Health 24%, pensions 22%, Welfare 13%, they hold the bigger piece of the problem. If we drastically cut welfare (for example), and made it uncomfortable for people to remain poor, they might actually become productive members of society. The United States Constitution after all says the Government is "to promote (not "provide") the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local for 2011 - Charts Tables History