Back To The Moon!

[Guest netslob]

what i don't get...Why? there's nothing up there. NOTHING. just a bunch of fuckin' rocks named after cartoon characters...that's about it.

 

why don't we try to fix THIS planet before we start fucking up OTHER planets.

[Guest SideFXs]

I'm just saying the idea of landing people on Mars in times like this is just asinine. I read one commentary mentioning the idea of private spaceflight instead of government-funded spaceflight. No idea where I found it, but it was on a more conservative site.

 

Now, wouldn't a desired financial restraint not come with the idea of sending people out into space again? because, last I checked, that's pretty expensive. But, I guess it's better to send people out to golf on Mars than to do anything in this country.

The money would be spent here, in America. The money that would be needed to get to the Moon and Mars, is channeled into our economy. It goes to American families and industry. The money does not disappear. into thin air. The product we get is a space craft. The NEW technology that will come from the effort to get to the Moon, then to Mars, will eventually flow into the private sector where it will benefit you and me.

 

For every 1 billion dollars spent by the government for this space program, 23 billion dollars will be generated by our economy, as revenue from new technology developed by the space program. Don't you realized the reason you are typing on your home computer is because computers were developed for use in the 1960’s effort to get to the Moon.! You can talk to people around the world, on your computer, because the technology that came from developing rocket boosters, to get our astronauts into Earth orbit, is used to launch communication satellites!

 

Since 1947 Social spending has grown 14 times faster than our economy!!! Social spending now consumes 58% of the total Federal Budget!! THINGS ARE AND HAVE BEEN DONE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

 

Its NEVER enough for you liberals and you never see the total picture. New technology means growth for our economy, which means more money for social programs.

[MrRant 0]

^

 

Someone that understands.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

Don't think we'll make money off this? I have 3 words for you

 

Moon Gift Shops

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

The thing about it is, which SideFXs post (while being pretty much right on the money, aside from the figures, I wouldn't mind seeing a source for that data) failed to mention, was that we spend about this |---| much on the space program in comparison with just about every other major public spending project.

[Guest El Satanico]

GW is attempting to turn the moon into a weapon of war. He will call it the death star.

[2GOLD 0]

GW is attempting to turn the moon into a weapon of war. He will call it the death star.

 

Nah, he still sits with his blanket over his head when those parts come on.

 

 

I can't wait till we get a better version of teflone, I've got lots of eggs to fry.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The money would be spent here, in America.  The money  that would be needed to get to the Moon and Mars,  is channeled into our economy.

We're pumping plenty into our economy. Defense spending, the new medicine initiative that effectively dumps money into the drug companies' pockets, more defense spending, drilling in the protected environmental locations to sell oil, Iraq reconstruction bids going to US companies, more defense spending, missile defense, and did I mention the defense spending?

[Guest FrigidSoul]

GW is attempting to turn the moon into a weapon of war. He will call it the death star.

After all of this he's going to start a new Ocean defense system by placing freakin' lasers on sharks heads

[MrRant 0]

GW is attempting to turn the moon into a weapon of war. He will call it the death star.

After all of this he's going to start a new Ocean defense system by placing freakin' lasers on sharks heads

Then the sharks can protect themselves from the Japanese.

[Guest SideFXs]

The thing about it is, which SideFXs post (while being pretty much right on the money, aside from the figures, I wouldn't mind seeing a source for that data) failed to mention, was that we spend about this |---| much on the space program in comparison with just about every other major public spending project.

The source for these numbers is from Michael Hodges' website. He is a believer in the FREE enterprise system, with as few restrictions (TAXES & REGULATIONS) from the Fed. Gov. as possible. His mentor is Dr. Milton Friedman.

 

Battle the libs with facts. They can't stand it!! And when they know they have lost the argument, they will resort to personal insults.

 

Notice the Federal Spending Trend chart on this page.

 

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/fed_budget.htm

 

"There is in the nature of government an impatience of control that disposes those invested with power to look with an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations. This has its origin in the love of power. Representatives of the people are not superior to the people themselves." Alexander Hamilton

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Battle the libs with facts. They can't stand it!! And when they know they have lost the argument, they will resort to personal insults.

I'm not insulting you. I'm saying we're spending a lot of money and now we're talking about an industry that requires billions of funding without having cut from anything else.

 

Bush didn't say he was cutting from other departments to fund this space announcement, and there's plenty to cut. A study that went up on the Drudge Report about six to eight months ago mentioned that the spending for the other departments in the government, when grouped together, have increased just as much as the defense department spending did!

 

If he announced a money source for this venture, either by cutting other resources or raising taxes, I would have believed him. He did not. From a logical financial perspective, I can only assume it's fluff.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

1) A space program has some many damn positive externalities that a private company wouldn't be able to capture better than the goverment, because benefits fall to all of America in the long-run because of new tech/research etc...

 

2)We spend a shitload on programs that the government has no economic benefit to provide...plain and simple.

 

3)Prior space program work created so many damn numerous innovations and techs that its nearly impossible to come up with a dollar amount figure on its impact...its called technology advancement

 

4) THERE WILL ALWAYS BE DOMESTIC PROBLEMS. OUR WORLD IS NOT PERFECT NOR WILL EVER BE...Don't use the imperfect world argument...its baseless...

 

5) Hoagland's a smart man.

 

/Government should provide that which has positive externalities that are difficult to capture on an individual basis if privatized. Good examples most economists can agree on are Defense, Transportation, a decent amount support for Education.

 

I highly encourage anyone who doesn't think this is a good idea to learn economics.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

in addition, the government could offer a prize to be payable in the future for any private organization to establish a permanent moon base, in between the amount that it would take the government to do it and what a private org can...a prize in the middle would be less cost to taxpayers and yet more profit for the org., effectively buying the base from the private org who likely would be able to do it cheaper and faster...and then thusly making a handsome profit from the buyout

[NoCalMike 0]

You GOTTA love the fact that Bush and Co. consider Solar/renewable sources of energy a "pipe dream" yet Bush just comes out with googly eyes one day and says, "folks, lets go to Mars" I mean seriously.......WTF.