Do we stop waisting money sending people into outerspace, or do we look after the people living on earth, like our homeless, healthcare, education etc. ******************************************************** ******************************************************** 02-01-03, 05:20 PM Matiqua The amount of money poured into the space program and research of space yearly is equivalent to the amount of money poured into the weapons department daily in the U.S. thanks to the gov't. If you want to take money away for people down here than take iyt out of the weapons department. By the way, you spelt wasting wrong.
02-01-03, 06:33 PM JohnGalt According to the Congressional Research Service, the federal government has spent $5.4 trillion (in constant dollars) on federal means-tested poverty programs since 1960. Yet the poverty rate is higher today than it was in 1965, when the War on Poverty was started. This is just poverty programs, not any other social programs!
Currently the government is spending almost $400 billion (about two-thirds of it federal dollars) on federal antipoverty programs each year.
The Department of Education’s Budget was $43 billion in 2000. And yet:
And for what? A dismal failure of a system that regularly churns out kids who can’t read, write or do basic math (let alone the math and science that would allow them to get jobs in the space industry!)
Throwing more money at the failing education system has not worked and will not work. In fact, private schools turn out better-educated and more civil students for a fraction of the cost of government schools.
However, NASA’s entire budget is only 14.4 billion dollars! Anti-poverty programs get more than 28 times that amount!
And all the government social programs have been a dismal failure, with more people in poverty and in a worse position education-wise than before they started! At least with the space program we get results such as:
A better understanding of our Earth, solar system, and universe (not that kids in government school are ever taught any of it!)
Satellites that aid weather forecasting and global communication
New or better materials and medical discoveries
Jobs: the space program supports nearly one million jobs and creates $40 billion in annual exports
Granted, the government shouldn’t be running the space program, just as it shouldn’t be running any of the social programs. In a free society, the private sector would take on all those tasks—and run them better (and cheaper) Than the government does. (Thankfully, private space programs are starting up!)
But if we are going to start trimming some money from useless government programs (which should be done), then we need to start with the failing social programs.
Matiqua: Your numbers are way off. The military gets way more than NASA! And besides a military is one of the few legitimate purposes for a government to run and operate. One of the reasons the Sept. 11 terrorists so easily carried out their attacks was because the government was too busy running thousands of programs (such as anti-poverty social programs, education programs, healthcare programs, and yes, even the space program!) and other things that it had no business doing, taking its mind off its much more important role of protecting the nation from attack.
02-02-03, 08:59 AM methos JohnGalt - please reread Matiqua's numbers. I think you missed the words *yearly* and *daily*.
02-02-03, 10:01 AM JohnGalt Oops! You're right I did miss that! Red Face Sorry Matiqua! 02-06-03, 01:11 PM
SeattleRon space exploration may save us one day. I believe it should go on. Sure there are risks, but Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus took risks and they made progress. I think it's a worthwhile cause, but I tihnk it should become more Star Trek like, send a crew into space to really explore and see what the hell is out there.
02-06-03, 02:37 PM honilov Ron, I can't see how space exploration could save us, in any way. I believe it's the reverse. If we keep messing around up there, it will probably destroy us. Whatever is up there need to stay. If there is life up there, do we want it coming down here messing with us? I sure don't. Of course if someone wanted to personally go into space, then they should fund their own way, and not the government. The government think there is life up there, so I guess they don't realize that there's enough life down here to deal with. To me, it's a waste of money.
02-06-03, 02:55 PM Matiqua S'ok JohnGalt,
One day the we humans may well destroy our own planet with nuclear weapons, if I'm not mistaken the U.S. built a nuclear bomb while they were at war with Russia, that nuclear bomb had enough power to destroy all the life on Earth. Also there is the ever present danger of an asteroid such as I think it was Doomsday98 or something like that. It was supposed to hit in 2034 or a date very near to that. It was eventually determined that it would miss but not by very much. The knowledge of space is important if we are to attempt colonization one day. This could save us from natural disasters or ourselves one day if our planet is destroyed. Look what happened to the Dinosaurs, they died because of an Earth disater or asteroid/comet. Was this what you were trying to say SR?
Honilov, i disagree with you on this matter, we have no proof that there is any life elsewhere in the Universe, it is likely but not proven and it would take hundreds of thousnads of years for them to reach us. 4.6 light years at the earliest and that is only if they have light speed technology. Voyager 1 is the fastest thing humans have created and it travels at 89 000 miles an hour, not even close to the speed of light. It took extremely long to reach neptune in 1989, several years and if that is the fastest the extra-terrestrials can go than expect not to see them for another 500 lifetimes. What would you rather they spend the money on? Weapons, war, destruction? The reason the Columbia disintegrated is because of too small a budget, if you ask me NASA is doing an amazing kob on the little amount of money they do receive.
If the budget for space exploration and the weapons budget were put into wealth as people than the space budget is in poverty while the weapons are in huge mansions. We don't need all this money in the weapons department, what do we need that much money ion that department for anyway? Reduce the weapons budget and that allows more money for space exploration and healthcare. The U.S. could become a peacekeeping nation like Canada instead of just going to war every decade or so. I know that Canada is not entirely innocent however, just look at what we did to Japanese citizens in World War II.
JohnGalt, how could anyone have expected the terrorist attacks on 9/11? The gov't received a warning but didn't act upon it! We were warned but didn't believe the warning, the military is well prepared as we have seen with the quick demise of the terrorist forces although Osama Bin Laden is still lurking out there.
[This message was edited by Matiqua on 02-06-03 at 03:06 PM.]
02-06-03, 03:14 PM methos Matiqua - the US never built a bomb powerful enoughg to destroy all life on earth, but we do have enough individual bombs to destroy all the life on earth if all the bombs were used (in fact, I think that at least at one point we had enough to do the job several times over).
02-06-03, 03:23 PM Matiqua
quote:Originally posted by methos5000: Matiqua - the US never built a bomb powerful enoughg to destroy all life on earth, but we do have enough individual bombs to destroy all the life on earth if all the bombs were used (in fact, I think that at least at one point we had enough to do the job several times over).
Ah, my mistake, I think it was a nuclear missile but I'm not sure. I heard it on Popular Mechanics for Kids (PMK)
02-06-03, 03:29 PM honilov Matiqua, I agree that we do not have proof that there is life up there, but that is exactly what they are trying to do, find proof.
If there is life up there, how do you know that it would take hundreds of years for them to reach us? They could be up there making space schuttles just like us. They would probably leave us alone, if we leave them alone, but when we meet face to face, it might destroy all life.
This is just my opinion though, I imagine the majority agrees with you. All we can do is state our opinion, because the government doesn't give a hoot about what you are I think. Agree?
02-06-03, 03:41 PM Matiqua The reason I believe it will take that long is beacuse the second closest star (the first is the sun) is 4.6 light years away, nothing we have created comes even close to the sapeed of light, if it did than it would still take 4.6 years to get there. The gov't is not just looking for intelligent life forms, they look for evidence on all things from the Big Bang to the possibilities of how the moon formed, why there are so many asteroids between Mars and Jupiter, why Venus now suffers from a greenhouse effect (making it the hottest planet in our solar system), to whether satellites of Saturn ever hosted life before, the possibilities of colonizing another planet and why Saturn has such glamorous rings while Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune do not. Also, technically the gov't does care what we think because a)the U.S. and Russia are the only countries that send shuttles into space b) some experiments thought up by kids were taken aboard in the last mission.
02-06-03, 04:17 PM JohnGalt Matiqua brings up one very good point about the possibility of an asteroid hitting Earth.
There are plenty of "planet killer" asteroids out there. And if one of them ever struck Earth, forget all about those tiny, pitiful, insignificant nuclear weapons. Because no nuke can even compare to the destructive power of the right (or wrong!) asteroid hitting Earth! Because just one planet killer asteroid could very well wipe out all life on Earth—AGAIN! After all, it’s happened before!
That alone is reason enough to fund a multinational space program with the sole purpose of defending Earth from asteroid strikes. That would be a legitimate government function of a particular space program. Too bad we aren’t doing that! All other space explorations, from SETI to commercial satellite launches to putting a man on Mars should be privatized.
BTW, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the 2004 budget in the United States is as follows. In Billions of dollars, and from the highest to the lowest:
Health and Human Services: $537.7 (The most money of any federal agency!) Social Security: $532.3 Treasury: $392.3 Defense/Military: 379.6 Education: $61.4 Office of Personnel Management: $60.9 Labor: $56.2 Transportation: $54.2 Defense/Civil Pros: $44.7 Housing and Urban Development: $35.0 Veterans’ Affairs: $28.1 Homeland Security: $27.6 Justice: $22.6 Energy: $21.2 Agriculture: $19.5 NASA: $15.5 (16th on the list in terms of budgeted money)
So yes, some trimming does need to take place. But to say not enough is spent on social services is to not know the true numbers! There are lots of other federal boondoggles that can have the equilvalant of hundreds of NASA budgets trimmed from them! NASA is a drop in the bucket! But if run properly (with the right mission of protecting Earth from asteroids), it could be the one that could save all life on Earth.
02-06-03, 04:36 PM honilov Okay, I guess I'm dealing with the past and present, instead of the future. So maybe now, I'll try to connect the dots, and form the circle.
02-06-03, 04:54 PM JohnGalt
quote:Originally posted by Matiqua: JohnGalt, how could anyone have expected the terrorist attacks on 9/11?
Because al-Queda and bin Laden had already declared war on the United States.
Because al-Queda had already attacked the World Trade Center back in ’93 with the intent of brining down both towers back then.
Because captured al-Queda laptop computers (back in the 1990s) had detailed plans of hijacking American planes and flying them into high profile U.S. buildings.
Because some FBI agents were suspicious about the disproportional high number of Muslim men from nations with known terrorist ties, taking flight lessons (but not wanting to learn how to take off or land!)
But the government didn’t have time to follow up on any of those signs (and probably hundreds of others!) because the government was too busy!
They were too busy handing out Social Security payments. The government was too busy handing out welfare checks. The government was too busy handing out food stamps. They were too busy listening to people complain that they didn’t get the job they wanted or that their current job doesn’t pay them what they think it should. The government was too busy building housing. The government was too busy meddling in the business affairs of large and small companies. The government was too busy building schools that don’t teach and can’t even begin to compete with private schools. The government was too busy running transportation systems that can’t compete with the private sector. The government was too busy delivering mail (at a slower rate and higher price than private carriers.) The government was too busy waging a war on drugs. The government was too busy meddling in the peaceful, voluntary, private affairs of every citizen in this nation. And, yes, the government was too busy building and launching Space Shuttles when the private sector could launch them cheaper and with a better safety record.
When the government has that much stuff on its plate, then no wonder 19 hijackers were so easily able to enter the country illegally; take flight lessons even though red flags abounded; board the planes with dozens of weapons; kill people on the planes with hardly anyone fighting back (because the government had constantly told people to never fight back against a criminal!) and carry out their attacks. And whenit was all over--the government gave two of the dead hijackers their Visas! Mad
My point is that the government’s number one (and most important) duty is to protect its citizens from invasion or attack. But the United States government, and its $2 trillion (with a ”T”) budget is so involved in tens of thousands of things that it should not be involved with that we were easy prey for the hijackers. If the government stayed lean and focused on its very few responsibilities as spelled out in the Constitution, then maybe, just maybe, September 11 would have turned out much nicer and the hijackers would have failed.
Quoting from Larry Elder’s fantastic book, Showdown:
On September 11, 2001, government failed.
As nineteen terrorists hijacked four commercial planes, President George W. Bush sat reading to schoolchildren at Booker Elementary School in Florida. Nice photo op. But the scene serves as a microcosm for “what went wrong.”
On that day, government failed to do its job—national defense—while the president performed a task outside of his job description—education. A government exists, first and foremost to ensure the safety of its citizens.
Why, on September 11, did government fail? Our welfare-state-driven Congress spends its time and money on federal education programs, federal involvement in health care, federal involvement in retirement benefits—all function citizens can and should handle themselves. The tragedy of September 11 demands that Americans rethink their relationship with their government. Why does the government spend so much of its $2 trillion budget on matters outside the federal government’s job description?
[/QUOTE]Originally posted by Matiqua: The gov't received a warning _but didn't act upon it!_[/QUOTE]
Exactly! Smile But boy howdy, the government had time to act upon tens of thousands of other things that it has no business acting on in the first place. And that's my point.
quote:Originally posted by Matiqua: ...the military is well prepared as we have seen with the quick demise of the terrorist forces although Osama Bin Laden is still lurking out there.
Yeah, he's lurking in about ten thousand tiny pieces that the worms have already digested! He's dead and gone in my opinion. That's not to say there's not someone else out there who has already taken his place. But bin Laden is dead and most likely died by being blown to bits as he cowered in some cave! Smile Smile Smile Smile 02-06-03, 07:36 PM Matiqua
quote:Originally posted by JohnGalt:
quote:Originally posted by Matiqua: ...the military is well prepared as we have seen with the quick demise of the terrorist forces although Osama Bin Laden is still lurking out there.
Yeah, he's lurking in about ten thousand tiny pieces that the worms have already digested! He's dead and gone in my opinion. That's not to say there's not someone else out there who has already taken his place. But bin Laden is dead and most likely died by being blown to bits as he cowered in some cave! Smile Smile Smile Smile
Not that thats a bad thing! Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile
02-07-03, 12:36 AM SeattleRon If people in the past decided that exploring the oceans and stuff was a waste of time we'd all be stuck in china and still think the earth was flat and the moon was made of cheese. Exploring = progress. Progress takes time, it may not happen in our lifetime that we discover another form of life, but it could happen. We should further the space program, its a worthy cause.
02-07-03, 08:10 AM Elexina Butter: I don't think that the space program is a waste of money, especially considering how little money the program actually receives in comparison to other programs (as others have posted).
I think that space exploration is a human interest, now that it's more of a collaboration than a competition. It is interesting and educational to explore yet-undiscovered boundaries.
I think that the space program is one of the most successful programs our country has -even in light of the recent tragedy. After all, the war on drugs is not working, the war on guns is not working, the push for education and against poverty are not working... And it's certainly not for want of money! I would say it's mismanagement and corruption. Meanwhile, NASA continues to push forward.
I think that when the first Bush was president, he proudly announced that the world had reduced its nuclear arsenal so that now we can only destroy the planet three times over instead of seven. Great.
The earth is bombarded by space debris every day, though most of it is vaporized before hitting the ground. It is entirely possible, though, that a 'global killer' asteroid could hit the earth. Continued exploration of space can help us discover and predict these asteroids in the hopes of preventing such an occurrence. Of course, as Billy Bob says, "begging your pardon but it's a big @$$ sky."
John, I'm actually surprised that Homeland Security is that low on the list! Smile ...Seriously, maybe you should run for an office. You seem to have it more together than most!
02-07-03, 07:02 PM honilov Have we started exploring below the earth yet, I mean below the water and oil, to see if there's life down there? Or are we afraid of who's lurking down there?
There is a difference between exploring things here on earth, like oceans, than trying to go to another planet. If we belonged up there, I believe God would have put us up there.
What's next, will we try to make it all the way up to heaven? If so, we will never make it this way.
Is there anyone here on AP that wants to be the next one to go up there? If so, you have my support.
02-07-03, 07:08 PM methos honiluv said, "If we belonged up there, I believe God would have put us up there."
sounds a lot like "if god wanted us to fly, he'd have given us wings." or for that matter, why couldn't we make a similar argument about boats? That would certainly put a damper on the exploration of the oceans that you imply you support.
02-07-03, 08:13 PM EBknowsBUBBA Sending people into outerspace When thinking about the space program, I have to think about a whole universe of discovery out there. What all is really out there.
Perhaps I had watched too many episodes of Star Trek in my younger years. But much of the future, the space program is considered a big part.
Another thing many people don't think about is the spill over from the space program. Technological advancements developed in the course of space program research that have been introduced into the rest of the world. Computer technology and medical technology just to name a couple of things. Some things we might not have developed had it not been for the space program.
02-11-03, 08:11 AM Katanya2000 Actually, Honilov, even though space exploration is ONE of the goals of the space program, that's not all BY FAR. The people that died on the Columbia were not explorers. They were researchers. Experiments are conducted in space which can not be done anywhere else because the key factor is the fact that they are able to observe and learn how certain things react without gravity. The studies done on the space station have many possible medical and technological impacts on our lives. If the space program dies, so does the research which may one day provide the key to unlocking the cure to many of the terrible diseases which ravage the earth.
02-21-03, 12:57 AM SeattleRon I'd pay money to go to outer space. Hopefully in my lifetime they offer tours for the public of like the moon and stuff. I'd so love to go. I hope the space program continues. Its a beautiful thing for us to explore outer space. I believe there is intelligent life out there somewhere and I believe if we find it we could benefit. Watch the movie Contact Honilov, maybe you'll change your mind about the whole thing.
02-21-03, 09:23 AM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by EBknowsBUBBA: Technological advancements developed in the course of space program research that have been introduced into the rest of the world.
Yeah, just look at Tang! (j/k, I really do agree with you.) Smile
quote:Originally posted by SeattleRon: Watch the movie Contact Honilov, maybe you'll change your mind about the whole thing.
Better yet, read the book. It's even more fascinating.
02-22-03, 02:22 AM Wildflower63 Couldn't it also be said that is why we have brains?
02-22-03, 03:39 PM honilov Wildflower, I don't understand your question? What part are you referring to? I must admit, my brain is not working in a manner to understand what you mean. Frown
02-22-03, 06:25 PM soaringhorse As far as the brain goes, I wonder sometimes if that's a good thing or not. You see we are always contradicting things. The reason this thing happened to the shuttle was human error. If the computers had been sending warnings, and a human chose to ignore this then, shame on them! I am so angry this happened! I just think the people who sit back and make the decisions whether to red flag the problem that occurred should be gotten rid of. We do not need those kind of errors! So what this does is set us back again in space exploration, we better get our stuff together next time. I mean really, you would think the emails would've have been taken seriously. So what did they do? Stick their head in the sand and choose to let it happen? Man, the guilt should really get to them.
02-22-03, 08:50 PM Wildflower63 I work in the health care system. This sort of mistake is completely unacceptable. Nurses are supposed to do five checks before giving a Tylenol or any other oral drug. Giving blood is very time consuming. You have to double check information with the lab and get signatures of both parties that checked the orders against the patient and lab result for the blood. You have to do it all again with another RN. You check again before hanging.
Why didn't someone catch this? I'm sure there is a medical team for transplant surgery. Not one single person noticed something wrong? This is too serious to be lax with making sure the smallest detail has been gone over. I'm not to forgiving on this one.
02-22-03, 09:00 PM Wildflower63 Honiluv, I guess that I could have phrased my answer a little better. Apparently the question post was originated from something you said. "If god wanted us to fly, he'd have given us wings."
Maybe God gave us brains instead of wings. Who really knows what God wants from us? What is the purpose of our existance, if any. The number of supreme being faith beliefs are so vast, how do we decipher this information to even make a spiritual choice?
I have absolutely no answers to any of these questions. Sometimes I feel like I'm missing something, but I don't know exactly what it is. I think good from bad, right from wrong is an inherent human idea in all of us. It's such a simple concept. We don't live up to it and I couldn't care less how many days anyone goes to church. It's something to strive for your whole life, be a better person.
Maybe you can enlighten me. You appear to have strong spiritual beliefs. Enlightment is the abolishment of ignorance.
02-23-03, 08:51 AM methos Wildflower - judging from your last post, i think you may have mistaken my reply at the top of page 2 for the original question.
02-23-03, 02:10 PM Wildflower63 You are ablsoutely right. Smack me for skim reading AGAIN!! Sorry about that one Honiluv. No wonder you didn't know what I was talking about.
Am I imagining things or did the original question post show up at the top of each page at some point? I thought it did. That one threw me.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
AnswerPool.com 
