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

Damien Valentine wrote:
> So let me see if I understand the conversation so far.
>
> PV: Even if an Obama administration cuts Constellation, it won't
> necessarily be the end of NASA.
> Dano: But it should be, because we can't afford to pay for guns and
> butter.  (Or "rockets and textbooks".)

Not what I said.  Unless by guns you mean the most expensive *war* in our 
nation's history.  They keep telling us we are at war...while they cut 
taxes...and ask no one but the folks in the military and their families to

sacrifice.  This is one of the sacrifices I see that are logical to
expect.

I adamantly feel we must have and fund a strong military.  I also see no 
reason why we can't afford to fund programs like "Constellation" or 
others...in peacetime.  I *never* suggested eliminating NASA altogether. 
Even while this war is being waged...just scaled back.

> Rhino, Derek Lyons, etc.: Yes, we can.  Even a NASA with all kinds of
> bells and whistles would come cheap, compared to the mind-boggling
> amounts spent routinely by the federal government for butter and
> textbooks.  (Never mind guns.)  Meanwhile, funneling the relatively
> small NASA budget into some other department would have virtually no
> effect.
> Dano (snip a lot of irrelevant ranting about Massachusetts and
> Iraq): ...You're wrong.
>
> Have I got this right?

No.  Not at all.  Thank you for the chance to clear it up for you.