Split - Politics of space exploration

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
You never know, there may be more to Bush's plan than meets the eye.

The Chinese are making inroads into space.

You make an interesting observation and certainly one I'd never considered. It's possible that this "space race" is as driven by geopolitical considerations as the last one. Come to think of it, the Bush plan sounds like quite a departure from the efforts of the last 10-15 years, with its decidedly international character. This plan looks a lot more like the space program of the 1960s -- with the US going it alone.

 

[Thanatoast]

To be both constructive and cynical at the same time: Bush is proposing to spend 1/187th on this program of what he has already spent on Iraq.

One billion dollars in the federal budget is a rounding error. If I'm not mistaken, much of the money will come from ditching the space shuttle and the ISS.

In all honesty, liberals should support this on principle. But principle and politics have little to do with eachother sometimes. In this case, if the Dems allow Bush to advance this initiative and look impressive, it will hurt their standings among the people, and they (and we) will be subject to more rule by Republicans who don't actually care about getting to Mars, they just want the political stature gained from proposing it.

It's all a giant political game, so traditional values of scientific inquiriy and fiscal resposibility do not apply. In the long run, Democrats must fight this proposal to keep from losing influence with the populace so that they can regain control of the government. But it's difficult to fight this fight, so, they're basically screwed, unless they get lucky.

I am in the same unenviable position of wanting to go to Mars, and not wanting Bush to get any credit for it. I will fight this proposal on totally cynical terms, not on merits. The current administration doesn't deserve the stature, so we should ditch it.

 

[McToast]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I

Yes. If you cannot afford health care, then you do not deserve health care, and if it just so happens that you die because of the lack of it, yes, you deserve to die.

You are disgusting and despicable. You should apply for a job with the Bush Administration.

 

[mactastic]

I think the reason this debate got sidetracked into the issue of health care (and spending priorities in general) is precisely because we all agree that space should be explored. Heck, I've been advocating a boost in NASA funding for a long time now. It would go a long way towards boosting the interest in science and math among the youth again, an area we are not as strong in as we could be. But there are other issues tied up in spending priorities.

 

[2jaded2care]

Originally posted by Thanatoast


In all honesty, liberals should support this on principle. But principle and politics have little to do with eachother sometimes. In this case, if the Dems allow Bush to advance this initiative and look impressive, it will hurt their standings among the people, and they (and we) will be subject to more rule by Republicans who don't actually care about getting to Mars, they just want the political stature gained from proposing it.

It's all a giant political game, so traditional values of scientific inquiriy and fiscal resposibility do not apply. In the long run, Democrats must fight this proposal to keep from losing influence with the populace so that they can regain control of the government. But it's difficult to fight this fight, so, they're basically screwed, unless they get lucky.

I am in the same unenviable position of wanting to go to Mars, and not wanting Bush to get any credit for it. I will fight this proposal on totally cynical terms, not on merits. The current administration doesn't deserve the stature, so we should ditch it.

Well, at least you're honest about it, and you're not alone in your thinking if the polls are to be believed.

I understand your logic, but I disagree with it. Myself, as I said, I would support it regardless of who was President. And, if I were a NASA or aerospace employee or employee's family member, I would kind of resent the political opposition. (What are the chances of it getting past the Reps if it's not a Rep Pres proposing it?)

I would think that this would be one instance where everyone (well, okay, the Dems) could claim bipartisanship and both sides could claim victory. Or, they could at least just bottleneck it to force healthcare legislation forward...

I think we should just admit that the deficit is here to stay, and either one side spends the money or both do.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Thank you for your honesty.

That said, it's an utterly despicable and inhuman stance.

I couldn't agree more. I was stunned to see this opinion actually stated explicitly...

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
we have really gotten off space have we not?...

Yes, coming late to this thread I've found this rather disheartening.

...I still think the most important thing we can do concerning Space is to find the best way to get there. Scramjets, Nuclear power, Ion drives Elevators whatever but until we can break Gravity we will be pissing a lot of money away that can change lives. A better goal would to be develope antigravity. once this is done we can do anything go anywhere.

While to some extent I agree, something must be said for just getting there.

As for developing antigravity, that's science fiction. There is nothing even in theoretical physics that gets anywhere close to such a concept...

Now, there are some theoretical ideas that would reduce the cost of boosting out of Earth's gravity well, but we're still decades away from them.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

you may think its science fiction but somebody is doing it allready and it aint us. we will discover antigravity and like somebody said it may take 100 years.It just goes to show that Govt cant hardly do crap unless there is a military race( China) then all of a sudden they wake up. Nasa needs money i agree but i will also say that Nasa is a big beauracratic quasi military blind orginazation that cant see past its nose. chunks falling off the shuttle and the managers never thought a chunk could hit the leading edge of the wing?? who is running Nasa? politicians or engineers and pilots? i think we know the answer. they still need to clean that house if you ask me.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Durandal7
Of course we have, people don't know how to deal with this situation.

Liberals know that they should support the pursit of science but automatically detest anything Bush says or does regardless of content.

While I am a liberal, I don't detest what Bush has said. I'm simply suspicious. Indeed, I do note that his plan is only costing an additional $1Billion while he's in office (if he gets reelected). After that the price tag is necessarily going to sky-rocket (). So, Bush is going to get the glory for this project and not face the real price...

Conservatives know that they should automatically agree with Bush but be opposed to increases in Government spending.

Unfortunately, from what I've seen this tends to be true. However, my grandfather-in-law (who is a conservative and a Bush supporter) thinks that this is a terrible plan and the whole manned space program should be mothballed. (I avoid talking with him on this topic).

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
To be both constructive and cynical at the same time: Bush is proposing to spend 1/187th on this program of what he has already spent on Iraq.

One billion dollars in the federal budget is a rounding error. If I'm not mistaken, much of the money will come from ditching the space shuttle and the ISS.

Just as a point of order, the ISS and the shuttle are not being abandon. The shuttle fleet will remain in service until the ISS is complete, then, after more than twenty years of service, they will be retired until the next generation of spacecraft is ready.

As an interesting idea, I've heard a bit about the fact that the shuttle is the only craft capable today to help keep the ISS in orbit. So, what happens when the shuttles are retired? Well, what if one of the shuttles was left in orbit, docked to the ISS specifically for the purpose of boosting it when necessary. Also, perhaps it could be used as an orbital taxi, ferrying repair crews from the ISS to damaged satalites.

In all honesty, liberals should support this on principle. But principle and politics have little to do with eachother sometimes. In this case, if the Dems allow Bush to advance this initiative and look impressive, it will hurt their standings among the people, and they (and we) will be subject to more rule by Republicans who don't actually care about getting to Mars, they just want the political stature gained from proposing it.

As made apparent by the fact that Bush's regime won't see any of the real cost of this program (long term).

... In the long run, Democrats must fight this proposal to keep from losing influence with the populace so that they can regain control of the government....

I don't think that I agree with you here. By this argument, everything must be partisan politics. I honestly don't think that it is so...

I am in the same unenviable position of wanting to go to Mars, and not wanting Bush to get any credit for it. I will fight this proposal on totally cynical terms, not on merits. The current administration doesn't deserve the stature, so we should ditch it.

Well, I think that there are honest reasons to criticize this proposal based on its merits. Further, even if Bush were to get some credit for this, I think that it's in the best interest of our country and our world, in the long run (far longer than any credit will benefit Bush or the Republican Party) to really get back out into space in a big way. I'm just afraid that opposition to this proposal will have the same effect that the opposition to GHWB's proposal back in 1989 lead to the stagnation of the manned space program for 15 years. If we see another such stagnation, we might not see a man on the moon again for decades to come, and possibily not in our lifetime.

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by McToast
You are disgusting and despicable. You should apply for a job with the Bush Administration.

Well... you are disgusting and despicable for advocating theft of private property from your fellow citizens and using government to impose your will on them.

In my scenario, some people get health care, some people don't, but no one gets their will imposed on the other. Mine respects the 5th Amendment.

In your scenario, everyone gets health care, but some people pay for the rest, and they get the threat of jail time, or death if they don't comply. Yours starts us down the slippery slope of mob rule.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
you may think its science fiction but somebody is doing it allready and it aint us...

Uh, who?

I don't 'think' it's science fiction, I know it is. I'm a graduate student in Physics, and I know a little bit about gravity. Talk of UFOs and other nonsense doesn't phase me. Should me some real evidence of anti-gravity and I'll discuss it.

If, perhaps, your talking about the expansion of the universe, it's believed that that's due to the presence of dark energy, which is repulsive like similar poles of a magnet are. This has nothing to do with gravity, though, and wouldn't help us much with the prospects of getting out of Earth's gravity well.

For that matter, even if such a thing as anti-gravity were discovered and we could harness it, it would still be highly expensive to use as a means of getting something out of Earth's gravity well. This is simply a matter of conservation of energy, and the need to overcome the potential energy of the Earth's gravity well. If you're arguing against this, then you're arguing that the laws of physics, as every physicist knows them, are wrong at a fundamental level.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Not this argument again. You just stay out of our airports and off of our highway, ok?

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
I think the reason this debate got sidetracked into the issue of health care (and spending priorities in general) is precisely because we all agree that space should be explored. Heck, I've been advocating a boost in NASA funding for a long time now. It would go a long way towards boosting the interest in science and math among the youth again, an area we are not as strong in as we could be. But there are other issues tied up in spending priorities.

To get this debate back on track, and to pacify the NATIONAL HEALTHCARE people, I think the democratic way to do this are checkboxes on everyone's income tax returns, like the checkbox for contributing to the presidental campaign matching funds. One checkbox says check here if you want part of your income taxes to go towards providing everyone with health care. Another checkbox says to check here if you want part of your income taxes to go towards the space exploration missions.

This way, the ones that want to pay for national healthcare do, and the ones that want space exploration do.

And we can avoid having one side call the other side names. (And look at who started the name calling... sure wasn't the 'heartless' conservative/constitutionalist.)

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Frohickey
...Yours starts us down the slippery slope of mob rule.

And you're starts us down the slippery slope toward anarchy. Might makes right. Everyone for themselves.

I think that there has to be a balance. We are a community and we take care of each other. That means that some people are inconvenienced, but it means that, as a whole, we are all better off.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Frohickey
This way, the ones that want to pay for national healthcare do, and the ones that want space exploration do.

The flaw with this argument is that there is no consideration as to where money needs to go. To take this to an extreme, imagine adding the checkbox 'don't spend any of my taxes, simply return them to me'. How quickly would the US government run out of money?

There has to be someone to take care of budgetting. Unfortunately, that's what Congress and the President are for...

 

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
To get this debate back on track, and to pacify the NATIONAL HEALTHCARE people,

You mean, like BOB DOLE?

 

[Frohickey]

Bob Dole just wanted cheap viagra.

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
And you're starts us down the slippery slope toward anarchy. Might makes right. Everyone for themselves.

I think that there has to be a balance. We are a community and we take care of each other. That means that some people are inconvenienced, but it means that, as a whole, we are all better off.

Anarchy? Might makes right? I just want the choice to spend my money the way I see fit. What is wrong with that? How would you like it when I tell you that you have to give me a $100 a month, no strings attached?

I could be convinced to your way of thinking if we repealed the 5th Amendment. Care to start a campaign to get the 5th Amendment repealed, once thats done, I'll be the first to sign up to your national health care boondoggle.

 

[McToast]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Anarchy? Might makes right? I just want the choice to spend my money the way I see fit. What is wrong with that? How would you like it when I tell you that you have to give me a $100 a month, no strings attached?

I could be convinced to your way of thinking if we repealed the 5th Amendment. Care to start a campaign to get the 5th Amendment repealed, once thats done, I'll be the first to sign up to your national health care boondoggle.

You're not a conservative, you're a libertarian.

NEWSFLASH: Your taxes pay for the roads and highways you use and (through property taxes) firestations and police and schools already, as well as many other things.

Did I call you a name? YES and you deserved it. You don't even deserve to be called human. Words cannot even express the depth and breadth of disgust I have for you. Others on here can be politically correct, but I won't be. You're a sick sick sick individual.

 

[2jaded2care]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
The flaw with this argument is that there is no consideration as to where money needs to go. To take this to an extreme, imagine adding the checkbox 'don't spend any of my taxes, simply return them to me'. How quickly would the US government run out of money?

There has to be someone to take care of budgetting. Unfortunately, that's what Congress and the President are for...

Have to agree with Snowy_River here. Yeah, I don't like where some of my money goes. But how many checkboxes would there be? Why one for space exploration but not for, say, free B&D apparatus for seniors? I'm sure there are many Dems and others who would rather not have funded our Iraq adventure... Seems this would create even more of a mess than we already have, if that's possible, IMHO.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Anarchy? Might makes right? I just want the choice to spend my money the way I see fit. What is wrong with that?

anarchy
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

By saying that you don't want to contribute to the government (i.e. pay taxes) you're saying you don't want a government. Thus, anarchy.

I know that I'm taking what you're saying to an extreme, but, as I said above, this is the slippery slope, and, IMO, you're several steps down that slope.

If you don't like what the elected officials are spending your taxes on, then elect other officials. If you can't then you're in a minority and either need to live with it, or move to a different country.

 

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Care to start a campaign to get the 5th Amendment repealed

See: Drug War; War on Terror

McToast, the reason (I can only really speak for myself, of course) we try to be politcally correct is that name-calling and insults gets threads shut down. See: NRA Madness, last page.

Orignally posted by Frohickey
How would you like it when I tell you that you have to give me a $100 a month, no strings attached?

Except that's not how the system works. I wouldn't be directly handing you a hundred bucks a month no strings attached. My tax money would be divvied up and part of it would go to pay your medical expenses should you be unable to do it yourself. If my money goes towards war in Iraq, or keeping Americans healthy, I'm choosing keeping Americans healthly. Note: I do not support the reform bill recently passed that enriches insurance and drug companies.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I think that there has to be a balance. We are a community and we take care of each other. That means that some people are inconvenienced, but it means that, as a whole, we are all better off.

While I do agree that there does need to be a balance, why is it that the rich are always the ones who take on the burden?

I find it quite funny that whenever someone proposes a tax cut, the democrats call it a tax cut for the rich.

Here are the current income tax brackets:
Tax Income
15% $0 - $25,750
28% $25,750 - $62,450
31% $62,450 -$130,250
36% $130,250 - $283,150
40% $283,150 and up

doesn't it make sense that if you are cutting taxes, that when 3% of tax is relieved, that the top (rich) bracket saves the most money? democrats seem to forget this. more like ignore.

[edited out stuff not pertaining to my point]

so- my point is, who is it that must be inconvenienced? is it the person who has worked their ass of to achieve success? (money does not magically land in rich people's hands) my guess is that this is what you are asking for. i find it interesting that democrats are not interested in the poor to ever be inconvenienced. to them, it seems that people are poor because there are rich people out there. not that poor people have jobs because a rich person was able to create them.

plus, with a national hc system, these percentages MUST be raised. Should we raise each one 1.5% (per insured person)?

Well, that would be $300 in "insurance" costs for a poor ($20,000 income) person.
It would mean $4,275 in "insurance" costs for the lowest part ($285,000) of the top bracket. (I think these numbers go beyond an inconvenience, $4,275 is way more than any sane person would ever pay for health insurance.)
even for a middle, $50,000 income person, this tax hike is $750. ($150 more per person than what the might have previously been paying.)

this is why this would never fly. people end up paying more money. (example: my gf pays $600 a year for her employer provided hc.) the only people that benefit from such a program are the poor. there is no few inconvenienced, the majority are inconvenienced.

plus, what do we do with the tens of thousands of out of work insurance agents, adjusters, custodians at the company...? the government scan not hire each person.

(hope my calculations are correct )

 

[mactastic]

Sigh... Income tax is not the complete tax burden. Sadly this comes up time and again.