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

On Apr 23, 7:26 am, "Dano" <janeandd...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Not what I said.  Unless by guns you mean the most expensive *war* in
our
> nation's history.

Yes, that is what I meant.  For further information on the phrase
"guns vs. butter", I recommend:
www.answers.com/topic/guns-versus-butter-model.
Please note that "this model does not typically correlate well with
free market economies", and seems to have been taken seriously only by
the governments of Nazi Germany and Communist China.  (Though if I
remember correctly, it was also associated with our Vietnam era.)

> 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.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood.  (Apparently it wasn't very clear to
Rhino, Mr. Lyons, etc. either.)

So, okay, you just want to "scale back" NASA, during periods of
military conflict.  Exactly what level of scaling back would you
consider sufficient?  I remind you that the NASA budget for FY 2007
was about $17 billion: approximately 4% of the Department of Defense
budget, 48% of the Department of Homeland Security budget, 46% of the
Department of Veterans Affairs budget, and (since somebody around here
brought it up) 26% of the Department of Education budget.  (See
www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/agencies.html;
if you feel the Post is inaccurate here, please show us how.
Extrapolating future spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
won't work, unless you also extrapolate future spending for the rest
of the federal government.)

Once you have defined exactly how far back NASA should be scaled,
please inform us what kinds of missions NASA should be expected to
fulfill on your new budget.  The following might serve as a rough
guide to your estimate:
www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/feb/HQ_06056_Budget_Statement.html.

Since NASA's contribution is unlikely to make much difference on its
own -- even if the entire agency is scrapped, and all $17 billion are
funneled into Homeland Security or Veterans Affairs, where it's enough
money to actually do some good -- please tell us which other
departments and agencies should be scaled back (or cut) to accomodate
the wars we find ourselves in.  May I suggest the Departments of
Commerce, Labor, the Treasury and the Interior, and the Environmental
Protection Agency, all of which are on budgets comparable to NASA?  If
no other departments and agencies should be cut, please explain why
NASA should be singled out.

I would also like to know what your definition of "peacetime" is,
since there hasn't been an administration which abstained from
military action since Carter.  Please define what level of casualties
-- or spending, if you prefer -- demands the "scaling back" option
toward civilian departments.

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

You're welcome!