The Candidates On NASA

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:08:49 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, NASA (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Space Shuttle Endeavor lifts off Tuesday.

In a little reported difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that was highlighted Friday in Wyoming , Obama said he proposes cutting NASA's budget to fund things like education, while Hillary has a plan to strengthen it.

2:40 p.m. A question about the space program is next. “Why are you pitting the space program against education?”

Obama says he wants to defer the program “because we’re not producing enough engineers to support the space program.” He said he grew up in the ‘60s and remembered the days when the space program captured the public’s imagination.

Including his. “I grew up on Star Trek,” he said. “I believe in the Final Frontier.”

Another reporter had more:

Obama said he does not agree with the way the space program is now being run and thinks funding should be trimmed until the mission is clearer.

"NASA has lost focus and is no longer associated with inspiration," he said. "I don't think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn't even pass for news anymore."

The Denver Post said,

[Obama] told one fan of the space program that he does plan to cut some parts the NASA budget, partly to finance education programs.

Here's Hillary's plan on NASA.

Pursuing an ambitious 21st century Space Exploration Program, by implementing a balanced strategy of robust human spaceflight, expanded robotic spaceflight, and enhanced space science activities.

Developing a comprehensive space-based Earth Sciences agenda, including full funding for NASA’s Earth Sciences program and a space-based Climate Change Initiative that will help us secure the scientific knowledge we need to combat global warming.

Promoting American leadership in aeronautics by reversing funding cuts to NASA’s and FAA’s aeronautics R&D budget.

Obama's intent to defer the Constellation program is in his $18 billion education plan.

This difference between them may get more attention if there's a re-vote in Florida. NASA is pretty big there.

< Primary Attacks, General Election Attacks | Is It Sexist To Point Out . . . >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Candidates On NASA | 54 comments (54 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Just think, in a few years all our shuttles (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:12:11 PM EST

will be retired and we will be paying the Russians billions of dollars to fly our people to the space shuttle that we funded.

Is it a coincidence (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by reynwrap582 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:21:25 PM EST

That I'm drinking Tang right when this was posted? (for the record, I usually only use Tang to clean my dishwasher, but I had no other beverages in the house and straight tapwater here tastes awful)...

This has me steamed, though. I'm sorry if the space program isn't 'inspirational' enough, but that has a lot more to do with the fact that NASA can't get funding to do anything big anymore. I thought the point of NASA was to do research that really can't be effectively done privately (no private corporation is going to be able to afford building a massive space lab or going to the moon or Mars). Yeah, it's ridiculously expensive, and yeah, it might not be cost-effective all the time...but the fact of the matter is, at some point, it has to be done.

I wasn't around in the 60s, but I get the feeling that it wasn't NASA's job to inspire, that was left up to the media and the politicians, the engineers were just trying to get some people on a big rock.

The inspiration (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by badger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:54:16 PM EST

came first and foremost from the President (JFK) who some people pretend Obama resembles. If NASA isn't "inspirational" enough, that's a failure of leadership,and continuing to fail at leadership, which seems to be Obama's chosen course on this issue, isn't a remedy.

As to "not enough engineers to support" a space program, that has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've heard from anyone. This isn't a "chicken and egg" problem - it's pretty clear to me which comes first.

You get people to go into science or engineering because there are interesting challenges to take on and maybe a certain amount of glamour or societal excitement about discovery, innovation and technology. No one with any sense is going to wait until some critical mass of technical talent miraculously appears before taking on a challenge.

Instead, you state the challenge, establish serious programs to meet it, and if you can't find qualified people, you establish the educational programs and incentives to create a talent pool.

Which was exactly the US response to Sputnik - I ended up in engineering because the US in the 50s emphasized math and science eduecation to create a technology workforce and sponsored research and programs to employ those people, and in the process created new techonologies and industries in the private sector at the same time.

Obama clearly has zero understanding of techonology, its role in the economy, or the preconditions necessary for a technological society. That was obvious a few weeks ago when I read most of what's on his website on the subject - his initiatives amount to not much more than "information technology" as a solution to everything. It takes a little more than fancy software to do space exploration, cure cancer, or make advances in fields like electronics, genetics, materials or physics. This just reaffirms that both he and his advisors are clueless, and that's a serious concern to me.

(And BTW - Tang was used in the space program, and used the space program in its advertising, but it predates the space program and was developed independently. Your computer, on the other hand, would probably not exist without the electronics tech - miniturization, mfg tech, etc - that grew out of the space and military programs of the the time.)

[ Parent ]

Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by reynwrap582 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:13:32 PM EST

but tang tastes better.

[ Parent ]

JFK nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by chemoelectric on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:58:43 PM EST

The Apollo program was inspired by a Cold War. JFK was the first head Cold Warrior of the Space Age, so he got to deliver the speech. Get to the moon, the ages-old goal, before the Soviet Union does. Success achieved, inspiration gone.

(As far as I am concerned, JFK was no JFK. His inaugural speech was IMO a bad one. The famous climactic line was but a false dichotomy, an abuse of the listener's brain that JFK should have been ashamed to spit out. Franklin Roosevelt was a real JFK; inspiring people to fear paralyzing fear was exactly the right thing. Obama hasn't had an opportunity yet to be a real JFK, and I don't know if he would be, but he has at least tried to immunize people against right-wing abuse of the word "liberal" (an immunization process misconstrued by many).)

[ Parent ]

: OK - you don't like JFK (none / 0) (#34)
by badger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:00:10 PM EST

and in fact it's historically correct that the impetus for the space program was in place before 1961, and in fact before Sputnik - there's even evidence we let the USSR launch Sputnik first for political reasons. And the educational and research efforts I mentioned above were also in place before 1961.
However, that doesn't change the fact that JFK set the goal ("by the end of the decade", which we beat by two years, although in 1961 it seemed pretty ambitious). It also doesn't change the fact the JFK (and LBJ) spent political capital to create the space program (and created political capital from the space program as well). At the time it was fairly obvious to me that the effort was pretty tightly intertwined with Presidential leadership.
The point isn't that JFK sat down and did the trajectory physics and drew the blueprints - the point is he exercised leadership and made political choices that allowed capable people to do those things. This is about leadership, and by his quote above, Obama is abrogating that role.
And whether you think JFK was a good President or not (I think not, in strictly political terms), JFK was extremely skilled in establishing leadership and engendering what goes by "hope" and "change" in this campaign - whether NASA, the Peace Corps, steel prices or later civil rights.
Whether his ideas were original or met with your approval isn't an especially interesting dimension of the conversation.

[ Parent ]

Amen! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by mg7505 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:59:00 PM EST

As a math/science person myself (more on the bio/chem side of things...) I have a loathing for funding cuts -- I have seen many a colleague end promising careers in academia etc because of NIH cuts under Bush, and DO NOT want to see a repeat performance by a Democrat, of all people!

If anyone is curious about why keeping government-funded space exploration is vital, check out this article (bad formatting, but good points).

[ Parent ]

: Too Much Resignation (none / 0) (#39)
by Athena on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:53:58 PM EST

Hear, hear. Why would Obama resign himself to a paucity of engineers as a reason to diss NASA? That's hardly the stuff of hope. I agree with Hillary's take on this issue.

[ Parent ]

Demand (none / 0) (#50)
by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:36:18 AM EST

There has to be a demand for engineers in part to get engineers. How cutting the need for engineers is helpful in producing engineers is beyond me. Obama sure does think supply side.

But for Obama and his Milton Friedman Memorial economics team it all fits right in. After all, strident support for 'free' trade means we won't be manufacturing anything anyway so we won't need no stinkin' engineers.

That begs another question: What does Obama think people will be educated to do? Empty bedpans maybe.

[ Parent ]

A few things to consider... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:32:38 PM EST

In addition to the obvious role NASA can play in climate change research. There actually are a lot of unemployed engineers. Most of them are older who could be retrained because one of the problems is that they were trained on old technologies. Also, part of NASA's budget does include a large number of K-12 initiatives, and of all the science agencies have probably been the most supportive of education. Each mission includes an education and outreach component. Any science teacher can tell you how helpful these are in encouraging kids to keep studying science. They also support an AAAS program called Entry Point places science and engineering students with disabilities as interns and often hires them to work at NASA once they have completed their studies. So I would hope that if NASA's budget is cut to support education that it isn't these very programs that end up suffering. I could also go on and on about all of the technologies that we use everyday that were first developed by NASA.

Frankly, I think NASA is suffering from what all the agencies are suffering from at this point...Bush incompetence and cronyism.

Yes, K12 teachers loooove NASA (none / 0) (#13)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:45:30 PM EST

as its programs extend across the country and mean field trips by the hundreds of kids to these education programs as well as marvelous packets, videos, etc., into the schools and more -- all much appreciated by science teachers hit by budget cuts.

I forgot that and ought not have done so, as I have friends who are K12 teachers and praise the programs, and my own kids looooved the field trips.

NASA may be up there with motherhood and apple pie.

[ Parent ]

: My father-in-law worked for NASA in the early (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Angel on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:11:35 PM EST

days (1960's, retired after 35 years of NASA and early Air Force), and my husband had a part-time job at NASA during college. The best man at our wedding and his wife both worked at NASA their entire careers. Lots of people don't understand that NASA isn't just about sending people up in space for a little look-see expedition. The contributions of NASA on our society are far too many to mention in a single post. But we need to realize that a lot of medical information, technological improvements on many fronts, global warming information, etc., are the result of their research. To not fund NASA and just let it die would be a tragedy for our country.

[ Parent ]

Mars... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by AlladinsLamp on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:43:45 PM EST

I'm out of work, in part, because Bush would not sign a one-half percent increase ($190 million) in the NASA budget to fund some 200+ research programs related to the manned Mars mission.

The other part is a cut of $500 million to cancer biology research at the NIH.

NASA is inspirational (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by proudliberaldem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:44:12 PM EST

My mom is a math teacher and speaks often of how watching the moon landing inspired her and how, in particular, the space race helped spur funding for advanced math classes in her public school.

Thanks for the tip! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by NJDem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:52:34 PM EST

Just blame it on me :)

And didn't Sen John Glenn go back to space for gerontology research? This is particularly important as American's are staying alive longer and longer. I just don't get an argument against funding science--not after 8 years of Bush.

I don't think BO's NASA policies will help in FL either.

the more obama opens his mouth, the (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:06:20 PM EST

more my red flag antennae goes off. obama, you just lost texas, california and alabama. that is if you ever had them. next!

the amount of pr the usa gets that is positive can't even be bought for the small amount we spend on nasa. i can't believe this guy. please!

Clinton talked about this before the FL primary (none / 0) (#40)
by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:11:34 PM EST

Clinton talked about backing NASA right before the FL primary. As a FL resident, I believe it was one of the reasons she won, and will do so again in the re-vote, if it happens.

[ Parent ]

: thanks for your comment. (none / 0) (#42)
by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:19:02 PM EST

i am from houston and we here are also proud of nasa.
in fact the usa and the world are proud of space exploration. i just keep looking at obama and wonder what could he be thinking.

[ Parent ]

This is another... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Oje on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:29:26 PM EST

In a growing list of make or break policy positions for me, NASA is one more issue that the Obama campaign or media refuse to acknowledge as a substantive difference.

I wrote before that Obama's platform is just a hodge podge of oppositional planks to legislation from the past twenty years. His "postpartisan" rhetoric is the consummate expression of his platform. At heart, he does not seem to have a political philosophy or holistic vision of the kind of America he wants to create--he just wants to trim fat from the past thirty years.

NASA is a case in point. As badger says, if Obama does not see the deep connections between executive branch leadership, education, technology, scientific discovery, and the economy benefits of the four in tandem, then I question his overall grasp of this issue. This is really the best that the "creative class" can do?

Not transcendent (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Practically Lactating on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:48:20 PM EST

As badger says, if Obama does not see the deep connections between executive branch leadership, education, technology, scientific discovery, and the economy benefits of the four in tandem, then I question his overall grasp of this issue.

So much for inspiration and transcendence. Shortsighted, yes.

If departing from the "old ways" means throwing out all the great things out with the proverbial bathwater, I am not interested.

[ Parent ]

ok, i'll say it. obama acts like he just (none / 0) (#43)
by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:25:50 PM EST

doesn't have a clue. he doesn't see why he should put aside a small amount of campaigning to do his job in washington. he doesn't seem to get american history with the 60 and 70s. he appears to diss the older generation. he disses clinton and compliments reagan. he doesn't want florida or michigan to get their fair votes. nasa is a waste of time? he wants insurance at the table on health care long before he even has one. he doesn't seem to get foreign policy or nafta.

so tell, what is there to vote for here? i really am wondering. giving a good speech isn't enough.

[ Parent ]

Obama's Milton Friedman Memorial Economics Team (none / 0) (#51)
by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:53:11 AM EST

Look in part at his economic team which consists of 'free' market, 'free' trade conservative ideologues.

Months ago I thought that his reconcilation, unity, reach across-the-aisle rhetoric was just schtick.

Since January it's clear that it isn't schtick, he really does want to compromise with Republicans and blur the difference between the parties.

No wonder Al From and the DLC loves him so much.

So as the Conservative Movement wrecks itself on the shoals of history Obama's here to rescue the Movement and its mission.

[ Parent ]

: obama won't win the ge. if he is the (none / 0) (#54)
by hellothere on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:07:30 AM EST

candidate, of course, i hope he will win over mccain. but i don't see it. the democratic leadership is just a major disappointment. the republicans must have a lot of behind the scenes laughs at them.

[ Parent ]

The "creative class" (none / 0) (#27)
by badger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:50:11 PM EST

Where do they think the GIS data comes from for the map on their Volvo's dashboard that's lets them find the nearest Starbucks?

How will they survive without it?

[ Parent ]

NASA, like most science (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:48:02 PM EST

programs need to be expanded, not shrunk. This position of Obama's is very disappointing. I recently worked at NASA, KSC as a contractor (to united space alliance) and was very sad to see the lack of budget they had and to see many programs falling by the wayside. The Bush administration has been a disaster for NASA. The shuttle program is about to end and what will replace it is on thin ice. My opinion is that NASA is at a crossroads and in crisis. What happens over the next few years will re-make it or break it.

Some may argue that it's time to move all of this space exploration to the private sector. But there is far too much general science that needs to be developed for that in my opinion. And as others have argued, NASA is a real boon for education. The ed materials from NASA are just excellent.

Just one space geek's opinion.

This is shortsighted, at best (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by dianem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:54:11 PM EST

Cutting back on space exploration because we don't have enough engineers is like cutting back on medical care because we don't have enough doctors. The way to get more engineers is to promote space exploration, encouraging more kids to become engineers. Some of them will end up at NASA, but others will find other areas of engineering more rewarding and move into those fields. How many children excel at school because they hope to someday become a plumber or an accountant? Now, how many kids work their butts off because they dream of someday becoming an astronaut?

yup, lets close some hospitals (none / 0) (#44)
by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:29:32 PM EST

in small rural areas because we don't have enough doctors. the primary goal should be to expand the american people. this guy is supposed to be about expansion, new hope, etc. but i don't see it.

[ Parent ]

: Yes, are we only supposed to "hope" (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:48:45 AM EST

that he means what he says about more educational opportunities? About funding for college? So make some of it funding for engineering degrees. Duh.

[ Parent ]

No Demand, No Job (none / 0) (#52)
by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:56:47 AM EST

Apparently, in Obama's world, students can aspire to be unemployed engineers.

Brilliant.

[ Parent ]

Why give it away? (none / 0) (#2)
by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:12:11 PM EST

Such a simplistic view of NASA.

There is a wonderful West Wing (none / 0) (#4)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:25:22 PM EST

on this. Obama ought to catch it in reruns and see how Josiah Bartlet spoke about our space effort -- and exactly on the point of its effect on education.

See also 1957, Sputnik, "Can Johnny Read" headlines . . . as of course, whether Jane could read didn't come up then. Oh, won't this be such an opportunity for Clinton to tell the story again of when she wanted to grow up to be an astronaut, hmmmmm?

NASA and education (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by teachermom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:42:16 PM EST

The launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union was the biggest stimulus to science education this country ever had.

[ Parent ]

Yep, somebody remembers (none / 0) (#15)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:46:57 PM EST

as after all, it was only half a century ago. Ancient history, nothing to teach us today, teachermom. We must wipe blank our memory boards and get on board.:-)

[ Parent ]

But how did you know that? (none / 0) (#16)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:49:32 PM EST

...Aren't you a low information voter like me? ;-)

[ Parent ]

: Shhh. Don't let on that we (none / 0) (#47)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:44:33 AM EST

are literate, maybe even read a magazine or two at the time (I can picture the Time magazine "Can Johnny Read?" cover to this day).
We get all of our information from tv. When we're flipping channels between American Idol and reruns of the Beverly Hillbillies. If we spread that rumor, then lots and lots of the other candidate's millions will be spent on advertising on channels that my cats watch.

[ Parent ]

Tang to clean a dishwasher? (none / 0) (#5)
by NJDem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:28:06 PM EST

Please elaborate! It's about Tang--isn't that on-topic enough :)

: yes...very...on-topic.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by reynwrap582 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:42:03 PM EST

I don't know what it is about the Tang, maybe the citric acid or whatever's in it, but 1/4 of a big can ($2 worth) tossed in an empty dishwasher and run on a cycle (sometimes 2 if you see any left-over orange water) seems to get rid of all the scummy white stuff better than those wax-plugged bottles they sell for $6 a pop...
I'm gonna go hide from BTD now.

[ Parent ]

Military Spending (none / 0) (#6)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:28:24 PM EST

Romantic idealism aside, NASA is first cousins with the military.

This move seems consistent with both candidates position on military spending (not that I believe BHO would cut spending as he promises). The Military Industry is giving more money to HRC than even McCain. She is has always been very strong on defense spending.

NASA gets a pittance compared to the military (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by jerry on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:45:55 PM EST

NASA's budget is a pittance. It's 17B for 2009. The defense budget for 2009 is more like 541B, and I believe that doesn't include Iraq.

I can't seem to quickly google to figures, but data from here: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities seems to reverse into a 460B figure for all domestic discretionary spending, making NASA just 3.5% of domestic discretionary spending.

I'd like to see NASA's budget increased so as to let NASA simultaneously work on both manned and unmanned programs, right now the two viciously compete for dollars.

I think that would be the good thing to do for the country in terms of science, inspiration, and even trade.

If NASA wanted to take some of their funds and sponsor X prizes or buy COTS rockets, that would be good too.

[ Parent ]

: OK (none / 0) (#28)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:50:29 PM EST

Military spending for NASA now comes out of the DOD. So HRC's call for increasing the NASA budget has no military overtones.
On the other hand the $17 billion figure for NASA only represents money spent on non military applications. The total budget is actually larger because they also receive money from DOD. Not sure what the number.

[ Parent ]
: Doesn't Include Iraq (none / 0) (#53)
by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:07:08 AM EST

You're right it doesn't include Iraq which is appropriated separately as a supplemental. Nor does it include funding for the Dept of Energy to maintain our nuclear weapons. Nor does it include funding for Veterans Affairs which will be taking care of Iraq vets for decades to come.
The $460 billion is Pentagon only.
The number is closer to three quarters of a trillion. Serious money.

[ Parent ]

Popularity (none / 0) (#12)
by waldenpond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:45:10 PM EST

I'm sick enough of the Presidential race as popularity contest. Now cut NASA because not enough people watch it on teevee? We don't have enough science graduates to compete in the scientific arenas so cut them? I am not that interested in space exploration though I love the imagery we get, but the developments achieved are applicable to so many other areas.

BTW... isn't Tang just a fancy name for koooool-aid?

a leader doesn't talk like that! (none / 0) (#19)
by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:03:03 PM EST

period!

I'm a fan of space exploration (none / 0) (#24)
by chemoelectric on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:39:33 PM EST

I'm generally a fan of space exploration, but the manned program has been so awful since the end of the Apollo program that I don't see a point in funding at least that part of it.

Unmanned space exploration and aerospace research are another matter.

My opinion: Suppose you want to send people to Mars. Under current conditions, hardly anyone cares enough to spend the money and effort to devise a mission in which the astronauts will survive. If it were tried, the crappy equipment and procedures would result in a dead crew, because it is a very serious technological challenge, requiring nothing but the best. Better not to make believe we can do anything challenging with our cheapskate nonchalance; better to spend that money on other research and development.

: don't judge by old 60's shuttles (none / 0) (#29)
by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:55:38 PM EST

The shuttle technology was developed in the 60's and 70's, and even used to include some 50's technology. But those older systems have been traded out over the years. so what's in the shuttles now is much newer and better. But even with that, I wouldn't judge what is being developed and and what can be developed now based on the old shuttle technology. If we want to send men to mars, I think we can do it. Even with some really difficult problems.
Having said that, I am a really big fan of unmanned exploration as well as closer to home exploration (space stations, moon, asteroids, etc.). So I wouldn't mind a mars mission being lower priority than other activities.

[ Parent ]

I am (none / 0) (#31)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:40:18 PM EST

big fan of technology. My job is technology.

But we need to find SOME things to cut otherwise we are no different than the Republicans.

From what I have read the space shuttle is still not terribly cost-effective for throwing junk up into space. And unless a serious effort is made to build something in the space, what is the point?

Wait a second that sounded like (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:57:13 PM EST

Republican talk to me. We must find something to cut? So we cut into NASA were the Republican Administration is been cutting and dicing by attrition and worse? WOW

[ Parent ]

Nice attack (none / 0) (#35)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:04:46 PM EST

I was banned for a day for similar remarks.

So you think the Democrats should not be fiscally responsible at all, huh? Implement a bunch of new programs but don't cut anything because someone is benefiting from that spending?

If being fiscally responsible is a Republican trait, then perhaps I am a Republican.

[ Parent ]

: Not when you talk about cutting NASA (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:18:10 PM EST

as opposed to 100's of other programs. Besides cutting funds does not translate to fiscal responsibility using fund wisely and curtailing corruption and waste is fiscal responsibility. If you say lets first evaluate every program before increasing funding then you are being Fiscally Responsible when you say oh lets cuts funds you are just being Political.

[ Parent ]

If we end the wars at trillions per year (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:47:20 AM EST

we could probably afford to start a colony on Mars and even give every one of our pioneers a 3-bathroom bungalow there. With a hot tub. (Martian joke.)

[ Parent ]

Did you ever consider (none / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:05:59 PM EST

that both sides could mutually support some things?

Or must you oppose every thing?

[ Parent ]

: What in the world (none / 0) (#37)
by flyerhawk on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:09:10 PM EST

are you talking about?

[ Parent ]

let me just say this. on talk left (none / 0) (#45)
by hellothere on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:33:31 PM EST

we discuss nafta, nasa, various aspects of the campaign, criminal cases, drug laws and it is done in a civil very interesting manner.

i just don't see this on the internet anymore. it is like a dinner discussion with a group of friends quite often.

NY Times has an article (none / 0) (#46)
by Practically Lactating on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:48:12 PM EST

about a possible arms race in space, which I think is interesting in light of Obama's comments.

The White House, on the other hand, opposes a treaty proscribing space weaponry; Mr. Bush's press secretary, Dana M. Perino, says it would be unenforceable, noting that even a benign object put in orbit could become a weapon if it rammed another satellite.
A new American president could reverse that attitude, but he or she would have to go up against the generals and admirals, contractors, lawmakers and others who strongly support the goal of keeping American superiority in space. The reason they cite is that the United States depends more than any other country on space for its national security. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that an M1-A1 tank couldn't drive around the block in Iraq without them.
And so, research continues on how to protect American satellites and deny the wartime use of satellites to potential enemies -- including work on lasers and whiz-bang stuff like cylinders of hardened material that could be hurled from space to targets on the ground. "Rods from God," those are called.