Split - Politics of space exploration

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacRumorSkeptic, Jan 8, 2004.

  1. MacRumorSkeptic macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Location:
    Southern California
    #1
    Where is the Constitutional authority to spend U.S. tax dollars on this?
     
  2. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #2
    You missed the point IMO. It was to make ligh the George Jr. is trying to do things that his father wasn't able to. Unless George Jr. wins in 2004, then he may never be able to even push the Space agenda. Otherwise he will only have captured "the man that tried to kill my daddy".

    We need a stronger USA and World economy to accomplish such a grand promgram IMO. Remember the amount of money that was spent by the space program to get us to the moon in 1969.

    While the advances in day to day technology was great, I don't think that we are in the same place to be able to achieve that success. Kennedy won both the Electorial college and the popular vote. By most counts Kennedy was a populist that gained the support of people through thought and deed. It can be said that Kennedy looked to gain a positive world opinion.

    There was not a clear mandate for Bush The current administartion has thumbed their noses at nations that did not support them in Iraq. The ideas being pushed by the administartion are not new. They are policies from teh Regan and GHWB eras. Poeple today are worried more about terrorists and their mortgages than getting aman to the moon or Mars. If George W. can show a threat to the moon or Mars by Isamic extreemists, then maybe the people will be behind him.

    For me I would rather see that money spent on better health care for all citizens. I would rather see better the wages of legal residents so that companies DON'T have to import "slave" labor through imigration loopholes. I would rather see it go to debt reduction.

    Don't get me wrong. I would love to live to see men on the moon again. But not before issues at home are taken care of first.
     
  3. peterjhill macrumors 65816

    peterjhill

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #3
    Oh, people are excited about space. We were finally able to get a probe to the surface of Mars in one piece after a bunch of problems with missions after Pathfinder. Maybe the White House can use this for political gain. Yeah, let's try to appeal to smart people and sci-fi geeks.

    Sorry George, it won't work.

    I have been listening to Al Franken's latest book. I got it from Audible. Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them. It is excellent. I highly recommend it.

    http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=3170606

    I think the audiobook is probably better than the real book, since it is read by the author and he includes audio snippets of the people he is quoting, instead of reading the quotes himself. It really gives a lot of insight into the right wing propaganda machine.

    Oh, and before someone says that this is offtopic, I think that it is right on the mark. George Bush does not have a grand vision of space travel, he only wants four more years in office and sees this as a way to get it. Just like his efforts to spin his unfunded "No child left behind" initiative that he used extensively in the 2000 election. Yes, he is my president, but he is still a jerk in my opinion.
     
  4. superfunkomatic macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Location:
    calgary, ab canada
    #4
    i think i'm missing something here. mixed up priorities perhaps in the Bush regime. they have the highest unemployment rate of any presidency, the highest debtload of any presidency, they are spending hundreds of millions on the war in Iraq (which has apparently been over for sometime?!), a growing lower-middle class and growing lower class (working poor). maybe sending a mission to mars isn't the highest priority.
     
  5. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #5
    Whoa. Talk about revisionist history.

    Electoral College, select 1960 and see for yourself.

    Nixon could have done an AlGore and disputed the results, but he did not. Please do more research.

    Kennedy only served one term, not a full term either. After his death, the number of people claiming to have voted for him should have made the 1960 election a landslide instead of the close election it really was.
     
  6. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #6
    Pay for your own health care. Get a job.

    As to better wages... what has decades of pumping up the minimum wage given us? Jobs being exported. Coincidence?
     
  7. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #7
    Frohickey-
    Your link and statements do nothing to dispute his statement that Kennedy "won both the Electorial college and the popular vote".

    What exactly are you trying to argue?
     
  8. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #8
    Disputes his characterization that Kennedy was popular, eh?
     
  9. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #9
    Maybe not at the election, but it seems to me that Chip's point was that he gained popularity during his presidency ("By most counts Kennedy was a populist that gained the support of people through thought and deed.").

    Post some stats showing he was unpopular right before he was assassinated and you'll have a point.
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    I am self-employed and run a successful small business, yet health care costs are eating me alive. Once again, you provide more evidence that you are missing a vital organ. I suggest you get a heart.
     
  11. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #11
    What does me having a heart have to do with you stealing money from my wallet to pay for YOUR health care?

    Take care of yourself, I'll take care of myself. Maybe I have an old grandma that I don't want going off into a old folks home, and that would take a sizeable chunk of MY money that you think should go to YOU for YOUR health care.

    How would you like if it I said that you should sell your successful small business so that I can keep my grandma at home wtih a nursing staff?
     
  12. idkew macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #12
    i truely do not think that we (the people) should be directly paying for all space exploration. i like the rovers going to mars a lot, but i also think there is room for private organizations going into space when they please (with some restrictions, just as private air travel is semi-free). i am not sure what the restrictions are at the moment, but my understanding is that space is a fairly closed space. ;)

    I would love to be able to drop a few grand to be able to go into space for a night or two. the only way this is possible, is to let private space travel happen.

    i read in a recent pop sci that while NASA charges less for a 3rd party to put a satallie in orbit, it actually costs them more than a higher bidding private company. NASA prefers to lose money in a launch then let a different company get the business. kinda like m$ft (ok, i had to do it.) this type of activity by NASA, i believe, will prevent private space travel from occuring.

    but, I also want to see us go to the moon again. i want a man on mars.

    i also do not put any credibility in the "lets do X here before we go to mars." like i said before, we would not have gotten, as a race, where we are today by solving every single little problem before tackling a larger goal.

    would we have a G5 if apple was focusing solely to get the 68040 line of chips and computers in every single hosehold, no matter what their income was? obviously the answer is no. everyone can't be a millionaire. and conversly, there can't not be any millionaires.
     
  13. idkew macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #13
    unless you want to stop healthcare innovation, healthcare is going to cost you. wether you pay out of your pocket, or you employer pays and in turn pays you less, you pay for it.

    which situation would you rather be faced with: blindness due to a potentially cureable/fixable situation, but with more cash in your pocket? or sight restored, but a little poorer? i choose sight.

    right now, i have no health insurance. i am not blaming the government, i am not blaming the doctors. i am blaming myself b/c i have no job. i don't expect people whom i do not know to take care of me. i am responcible for myself, not the government.
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Oh was that your wallet I've been stealing from? Pardon me.:p

    By that logic, you've been stealing from ME every time you drive on the public roads, fly on a plane, turn on your electricity or water, visit a public library, and any of a host of other ventures that are funded in any part by taxpayer funds. So lets hear your calls for every road in America to be a toll road, lets banish public libraries, and by all means pay what it ACTUALLY costs to fly on an airplane. I'm sure you'll be at the front of that line. You seem to see health care as the only way money is 'stolen' from you, and you seem to pay little attention to the many corporate giveaways and subsidies that enable your comfortable lifestyle.

    Oh I'm sure you'd like to pay the private fire department for their services before they put the fire at your house out. (What's that you say? Your wallet is IN the house? Sorry, no money, no water!)
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    Yeah, there's nothing wrong with the health care system. Just say that three times and click your heals, and we'll all be back in Kansas before you know it.
     
  16. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #16
    Lets not make this a pissing contest but keep things in perspective. before blowing 87 billion and more in Iraq i would have said lets do it but now that we see bush lied on WMD's and we are in a big hole with spending i would rather we get a Healthcare system in place and free up all those businesses from this burden. right now a big chunk of money never makes it to the patient or the medical care provider because its in the hands of the insurance companies. who does this help? my wife and i pay a lot to these companies and i have not been sick in years nor her. Do i want to open space? you bet! before we have all these grand dreams we first need a better way to space rather then huge chemical rockets from the days of Apollo. first things first. A health care package for every American and then lets build a Great Space transportation system otherwise its a rehash of what we have allready done.
     
  17. idkew macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #17
    You use poor examples to make your point.

    The reason roads are tax payer funded is because this is the only solution. It is not possible to have roads only funded by private citizens larger than a driveway or private drive in a neighborhood. Roads, by there very nature, are to be used by everyone. It is porhibitively expensive to place a tool booth on every single corner of every single road in every single city...

    Once again, water and electricity are funded and contorlled by the government because there is not room for the infrastructure for many different small companies in every town. Now, if you want to pump your own water or make your own electricity, you are more than legally welcome to, it is just easier and less expensive to go with the governemt one. Besides, the gov does not subsidise my water, gas and electric, it subsidises those whoc an not afford it.

    Airlines are being helped by the gov due to an act of war. This has little to do with healthcare. If you really think about it, you do get free healthcare when it comes to war, join the army and fight.

    Public Libraries are around because of a simple reason, they are not profitable. The only provate libraries I can think of are college libraraies, which are necessary to colleges. Without a public library, we would not have any besides colleges and universities, which are only available to a select few.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    Hey, if you want to buy the land and build your own roads, you are legally welcome to. And yes, the government does subsidize YOUR water and gas and electricity in the form of tax incentives to those industries. When the airlines were going belly up, who footed the bill? And let me tell you, it wasn't soley because of 9/11, the airlines were getting hit hard before then. Who's going to help the electric industry 'modernize' those lines that caused last years blackout? That's right, you and I. And who paid for the industries failure to maintain the lines they do have? Right again.

    We're not arguing that the roads (or health care) aren't meant to be used by everyone. But the roads are subsidized by the government precisely because it is impractical to have everyone pay for what they use. Think about it. If you live in a small town and you walk to most of your destinations, you are paying for those who live in the LA or SF area who put 100+ miles on their cars each and every day. I'm comparing that to Frohickey's argument that we should only pay for what we use in terms of health care benefits. Plus we are getting the benefit of economy of scale. If you only need a few gallons of water a day, would you rather throw in your money with the general public and get a deal, or would you rather pay the price of what a couple of gallons of water costs to extract (I'll give you a hint, installing a well or aquaduct to bring you around 200 gallons a day costs significantly more on a per-gallon basis than an aquaduct or well that is bringing in hundreds of thousands of gallons a day.) So why not apply that logic to health care if he is so willing to apply it to things like roadways and waterways etc.

    And even you admit that public libraries are there soley because they benefit society at large.
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    Yea, verily. But I always appreciate the candor of conservatives who will actually admit to believing that 42.5 million working Americans have no access to health care because they don't deserve it. Maybe that statement should be made a plank of the Republican party platform. And the chances of that ever happening are ___?
     
  20. 2jaded2care macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #20
    (I gotta stay away from these forums...)

    I wouldn't care if it was Conan the Barbarian as President grabbing at political straws, if any President's gonna propose serious space exploration, I'm for it. (Of course, some of you think that's exactly the case here.) ;)

    Yes, health care in this country is a serious mess. So fix the problem, don't punish other government initiatives because we can't agree on how to fix this. If we wait for that, nothing else will ever get done.

    No, it isn't exactly fiscally responsible. When has that ever stopped government before? If we don't spend the money here, it'll get spent somewhere else. Neither party is averse to spending money, they just want it to go where it'll profit them the most.

    Yes, I would prefer that private enterprise step up to the plate here. Maybe it will happen.

    I do think that the fringe benefits would be worth it in the long run. I think we are using the tools which came about much faster because of the early days of the space program... And if it gets kids interested in science again, what's so bad about that?

    It's very depressing to me to think that in a thousand years we'll still be stuck on this rock, waiting for the eventual planet-killer...
     
  21. idkew macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #21
    besides some minor differences (gov subsidies for mod. elec.), you just re-worded what i said. i don't get your point.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    My point is that health care would be better served, and cheaper overall, if we could eliminate the HMO's and get a deal by pooling our resources LIKE WE DO WITH MANY OTHER INDUSTRIES. Is that clear enough?

    Frohickey is arguing that it is stealing from him to make him pay for my health care. My point is that he doesn't consider it stealing when a traveling salesman puts 60,000 miles on his car while I only put 12,000 on mine yet we both pay the same amount for said roads.
     
  23. 2jaded2care macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #23
    Lighten up and try to have a nice weekend, everybody!:)

    Or is that too much to ask?
     
  24. idkew macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #24
    you do realize that insurance does exactly what you are speaking of, don't you? that is why you pay monthly instead of only when you need insurance. the company takes a risk (you) and sometimes their gamble wins, sometimes it loses. Premiums are based on the amount of risk.

    The only difference between insurance, and what i can gather you want, since you can't seem to stay calm and make a coherrent response, is that in your method of heathcare administration, everyone gets healthcare, no matter if yhey pay in or not. is that what you mean? the rich pay for the poor? is it right/fair for the haves to be legally forced to care for the have nots/people who don't want to work?

    [edit] now don't get me wrong. the current system has problems. hmo's do need to go. but, nationalizing the system is not going to fix it. there is no wat that i would accept waiting sever days/weeks to get a procedute done, as is the case in other national systems (canada).

    the canadians I have spoken with very much dislike their system. these are not rich millionaires. they are regular people. also, with a nationalized healthcare system, the brightest people will no longer be drawn to a medium paying profession (medicaine). They will instead go to high paying, private areas. maybe you don't, but i want the best and the brightest people when dealing with my life, and my eventual children's lives.
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    Pardon me if you don't find me coherent. Most people do.

    You do realize that you are already paying more for the uninsured to go to the emergency room for treatment that could be taken care of at a doctors office if they could go there, but emergency rooms can't refuse patients. So the uninsured call an ambulance and the cost goes through the roof. And yes, everyone should get healthcare. I see that as a basic right. Perhaps you don't and that is your opinion and fine with me. Is it ok with you that car insurance is mandatory for drivers? And by the way, the bulk of the uninsured in this country are not the 'lazy unemployed' that you keep insinuating. Most are working people who can't afford it on their own and their jobs don't offer it. I don't even care if the most basic coverage is offered to everyone with better coverage for those who can afford it, but it makes me sick to think that there are 'uninsurable' people out there who work just as hard as you or I but have a pre-existing condition that makes them a liability for an insurance company, so they are simply turned down. In other words, the insurance companies are interested in insuring those who need it least. I think that sucks.
     

Share This Page