NASA - Moneyhole!

[GernBlansten]

Amazing.

With all the news about how the Tea Party's are making a point that our government is out of control and spending beyond its means and we need to limit the size and scope of the government....we still get lots of support for the government run space programs. Even though Obama wants to privatize it, like Bush wanted to with Social Security. You know, capitalism will ultimately pave the way to world dominance. Right?

 

I guess dreaming about Buck Rodgers can turn the most ardent fiscal conservative into a flaming socialist.

 

Are we living in bizarro world or what?

[Vicki]

Ah, yes, name calling. Always a fun game when nothing else comes to mind, eh?

 

Vicki

[JoeBob]

Cost of congress:

"For Financial Year 2008 $4,330,451,000 has been requested - an increase of 14% from 2007."

http://washminster.blogspot.com/2007/06/how-much-does-it-cost-to-run-congress.html

 

Cost of NASA:

"Its budget for the year 2008 was $17 billion. It makes up less than half a percent of the $3 trillion federal budget in the US. It takes up 35% of expenses for the entire scientific research costs in the US however."

http://www.tellmehowmuch.net/how-much-does-nasa-cost.html

 

NASA cost 4 times what congress costs. But since NASA is a net gain, and congress is a net loss; NASA is still the better value...

 

JoeBob

[GernBlansten]

Someone please remind me where in the US Constitution that NASA funding is authorized.

Why isn't the Tea Party protesting NASA?

[BadenP]

Gern, Gern, Gern,

 

If your hypothesis is correct then we are still in trouble and our economy is still weak and on the brink. We are no longer number one in the world economically, many of our major corporations are treading water to stay afloat and our financial institutions are in a very precarious position thanks in great part to the poor management of the Fed, FreddieMac and Fannie May. Foreclosures are still at record highs and our economy is still losing a great number of jobs as companies downsize to try and weather the storm. We as a country are manufacturing and producing less than fifty years or more years ago. So where is this great savior Capitalism that will save us?

 

The fact is that until we as a country once again start producing tangible things that people here and around the world really desire we will never gain our prior status in the world market economically with real growth and prosperity. The top economists in the world agree that the world economy is still in trouble, look at Greece, Sweden, and Ireland for example, we are not that far behind. Now back to topic, NASA in order to run their program needs to have a myriad of things made for them, rockets, electronic components, all the pieces that make up the shuttles and capsules and many many other related items in technology and science. If our companies are the benefactors of those contracts that brings a lot of money back into our economy and creates new jobs, allows companies to expand instead of downsize. The benefits of space exploration are both immediately benefical, and in the long term could bring us unimaginable rewards. So we as a people have a choice, we can bury our heads in the sand and hope things just get better by some miracle or we can be proactive and become forward thinkers and pull our economy out of the bottomless pit it is currently in.

[GernBlansten]

How is funding NASA any different than bailing out Wall Street or GM?

Seems like a government hand out to high tech companies.

Why is some socialism good, and other socialism bad?

[BadenP]

To quote an old movie line here Gern, "What we have here is a failure to communicate".

What I was trying to show in my post was how NASA staying in business creates a widespread boost in our economy by keeping a myriad of companies solvent which allows for company expansion and job creation instead of cuts and downsizing. Maybe companies like GE and others could be allowed to partially invest in these missions which use many of their products anyway, allowing for a joint venture, not totally corporately controlled that benefits both NASA and the GNP of our country.

 

That Gern is Capitalism, not socialism, used for good instead of corporate greed which got us into this economic mess in the first place.

[OldGreyEagle]

Gern, the motivation of the Tea Partiers is easy to understand.

 

After every election there is one side know as the winners, and there is another side known as the losers. From what I can tell the role of the losers is to moan,complain, and generally fret about everything that the winners do. Don't worry, its not a recent phenomenon, its been around since there have been elections.

 

Now, I can't say I wanted to have Obama as president, but he was elected and he is president. But not to think that there is some segment of the population who will never accept him does not consider the whole of political experience.

 

Those currently in power have a choice to make. They can ridicule, deride, insult and belittle those who lost and who demonstrate their ire, or they can try to understand why they think the way they do, or at the very least, they can respect their right to hold opposing views.

 

Think of how you would feel if your side lost an election, how would you want your opinions treated? And then extend that treatment to the current losers.

 

As politics tend to run in cycles, why wouldnt you want to treat the losers as you want to be treated when you are the loser as odds are, losing will happen, as will winning

 

and the beat goes on...

[GernBlansten]

I bring up the Tea Party because they are the most vocal critics of government spending we have right now. Lots of rally signs how socialism is destroying America.

Not one sign is targeting NASA in those rallies.

 

Yet, NASA is the crown jewel of socialism. Take public money (tax dollars), let the government decide how to spend it (and lots of it), and the rewards will come back to the people. Karl Marx would be proud.

 

And in a real twist of logic, Obama wants private institutions to take the lead on human space travel. Commercialize it. An avowed socialist embracing privatization. And conservative critics denouncing the move.

 

Bizzaro.

[BadenP]

Gern & OGE

 

Both of you ought to quit whatever you have been drinking or smoking cuz it shows in your posts. Both of which show almost a total lack of understanding concerning of how our economic and political systems really work. Your sad attempts at humor and misbranding of things that are just not true verifies that.

[JoeBob]

Gern:

NASA funding certainly meets the founders' criterion of being for 'the common good' a lot more closely than taking over the health care industry.

[Gonzo1]

Gern,

There are lots of things that happen that are not "in" the constitution.

 

Remember this about privatizing social security, GWB only wanted to allow you, if you wanted to participate, to privatize 2%. And that's if you wanted to participate.

 

 

[GernBlansten]

Are you all saying that NASA is not socialism?

[SSScout]

NASA is no more socialism than the National Parks, research into fertilizer, requiring safe automobiles and airplanes, regulating the EM spectrum, monitoring water quality, rescuing drowning crab fishermen, checking the cleanliness of hog farms, or requiring that elections at the county level be fair and honest. And only a couple of these things are directly directed by the USCon.

I think I'll go to the Webelos Weekend down the road and watch the Scouts burn some American flags. We are expecting a local TV film(video?) crew in attendance.

[GernBlansten]

All fine examples of socialism.