Re: Space funding (was Re: Hillary needs to quit)

rhino wrote:
> "Dano" <janeanddano@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:hu-dnaOoJdmUg2HanZ2dnUVZ_tajnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> John Schilling wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:13:32 -0500, pv+usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (PV) wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Schilling <schillin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>>>> And you'd be right. Obama discussed delaying the Constellation
>>>>>> Project for five years, not shutting down NASA. *
>>>>>
>>>>> What did he say NASA was going to be doing during those five years
>>>>> instead of Constellation?
>>>
>>>> (groups trimmed, subject refocused)
>>>
>> <more trimming...back to the over-riding issue>
>>
>> "When more than 1 million students a year drop out of high school,
>> it's more than a problem, it's a catastrophe." - Colin Powell,
>> founding chairman of America's Promise Alliance, which issued a
>> re****t last Tuesday that says 17 of the 50 largest cities have high
>> school graduation rates below 50 percent. (from the Boston Globe,
>> April 5th - Quotes of Note) We can't afford to educate the next 
>> generation of NASA employees.  We
>> better figure out how to do that first.  It's about spending
>> priorities.
> That's the kind of reasoning that was employed in the early 70s to
> gut the space program. I well remember the claims that NASA had spent
> $25 billion and all the taxpayer got was "a bunch of moon rocks".
> That sort of remark, virtually unchallenged by NASA and those who
> could see the Big Picture, enabled politicians to gut the space
> program. And for what? Did they throw that money into better schools?
> What great things did that money accomplish once it wasn't being
> "wasted" on the space program?
> It's not a simple question of policy-makers choosing between schools
> and space.Tax money could do _both_ things: improve schools _and_
> fund NASA.

I will agree with you...once we extricate ourselves from the most costly
war 
in our nation's history!  I don't see that happening as quickly as I would

like, no matter who wins the next election.  Our tax dollars aren't (or 
shouldn't be anyway) unlimitted.

> Something as complex as a federal budget ALWAYS does many, many
> things. How many trillions of dollars are already spent on education?
> How much money does the government spend on space? How much money
> does the government spend on other things and what _are_ those other
> things? Once you've answered those questions, maybe you can tell me
> how the relative pittance spent on space is a waste of money given
> the much greater sums of money spent on other things, much of which
> shows weaker results than the space program.
> After all, if we can spend umpteen trillion dollars on education and
> students are still dropping out in droves, doesn't that tell you that
> education dollars are not being spent well? And if that's the case,
> maybe we should focus on spending that money more effectively, rather
> than diverting space program money to education and simply having
> even more money spent badly?

If you think the feds are wasting money on education...what makes you
think 
a bureaucracy like NASA doesn't as well?  Please show me where you find we

spend *trillions* on education.  This is the type of hyperbole that shows 
how flawed your viewpoint really is.  Beyond ridiculous...that's idiotic.