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

Mac Breck wrote:
> Dano wrote:
>>
>> It all adds up.  You have to start somewhere.
>
> Yes, but you don't *START* with a relatively small budget like NASA's.
> They (politicians like Obama) go there because NASA looks like an easy
> target, *BECAUSE* there are soooo many people who think solely short
> term and close to home.
>

Relative to *what*?

>
>> And I'm certainly *not*
>> suggesting we *only* cut the funding of NASA.  I'm not even
>> proposing...nor is Obama that we disband the entire program...just
>> delay this specific, very expensive one.
>
> Hasn't NASA had its budget cut in the past, probably several times?
>

I honestly don't know.  This seems to be *your* binky.  You tell me.

>
>> We ARE fighting a war you
>> know.  In case you missed every daily paper for several freaking
>> years!  End *that* first and let's talk.
>
> That's a bit of a strawman.  It's not an either/or situation.  NASA's
> funding is not dependant upon the ending of the war.  The NASA budget
> and the war don't make up the entire budget.
>

I know NASA's is "relatively" small.  I think you need to pull your head
out 
of the stars for a second if you can't recognize the size, impact and cost

of this war.  You're the big "science" guy...the math should not give you 
such a problem.  You could start by googling the federal deficit and it's 
increase during thse war years.  We are going very deeply into debt...much

of it held by our good friends the Chinese.

<snip>

>> Unfortunately, it's not done.  Private enterprise could be much more
>> cost effective...even profitable.

>Business thinks short term, too.  Nobody wants to take the risk.  A
>government agency has to pave the way.

We won't even think long term about our mundane affairs here on
earth...like 
health care...education...our infrastructure, you know, our roads and 
bridges, like the one that collapsed in Minnesota last summer.  Do you 
realize how many of those are lacking in the funds to repair them?  How
many 
pennies a day to "fix" all of that?

>>
>>> So, profit is a better motivator than survival?
>>
>>

>>If you're talking imminent survival it might be...

>If we were talking imminent survival, you can kiss your butt goodbye,
>'cause were all as good as dead.

Really?  Then why are we even having this conversation.  That might be the

dumbest thing you've said.

>
>
> If NASA's budget is up to op****tunistic politicians, bean counters and
> voters like you, they might as well close up shop right now, because
> pretty soon, they won't be able to afford coffee.

If you don't care about all the other things these "beans" are needed for,

then I agree.  Close up.  Might as well anyway since you don't even think 
we're going to survive.  **** it.  Let's all just get high and watch 
Battlestar Galactica!