And Yet Another Obama disaster: NASA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...WtH_print.html


Step 1: Kill mission to moon planned before 2020.
Step 2: Have no direct ability to send astronauts into space for 5 years.
Step 3: Tell head of NASA that part of his mission is Muslim outreach.

Lost in all of Obama's failures is this one, perhaps his biggest next to the economy. America has been dominant in space since the moon landing. Now, our astronauts will need to hitch rides on Russian craft for a few years (at least). We have few if any well-known public goals with our space program. NASA has fallen out of the public conscience. The President who says we need to make "investments" in green energy, social programs, failed stimulus and more...is unwilling to invest in the program which has probably provided more benefit to the American public in terms of technology than any other.

Now you've done it, President Obama. You've pissed off Neil Armstrong.

I don't think I agree with that. Space Travel is worthy national endeavor that produces a lot of benefits. There are certain things I think taxpayers should fund: Defense, K-12 Education, Transportation/Infrastructure and yes, Space Exploration.

Didn't claim that, but whatever.


You have made no comprehensible point whatsoever.


I don't know about the moon. But I think we can learn a lot just through the process of getting to Mars. I also think there is an almost intangible "because it's there" in terms of reason to explore space.


Apparently, though I'm not sure if you disagree with all of those, or just some.

You don't think the federal government should maintain the national infrastructure, particularly roads/bridges, etc?

So...you don't approve of the Interstate Highway System, then? Of course, that's not all fed funded, I don't think.



"Because it's there" was the second, less important reason (which is why I listed it second, incidentally). You ignored the first reason, which was that such a trip would have untold benefits in tech development (and who knows what else), discovery, etc. We're not there yet, but by 2020 I think we could be.

There is no rhetorical trick whatsoever. And by definition it wouldn't be a "trick" if it wasn't intentional. For my part, I don't think the system would have ever been built without government funding.

I don't know what I think of privatization here. My inclination is that I don't like it. I think there are certain functions government should perform, and that branching out into other areas is what has caused governments to consider privatizing roads in the first place. In other words, it's not being done for reasons you and I might happen to agree with. It's being done because governments are involved in too many other things they have no business in, causing lack of resources for things they arguably should be involved with.


There's plenty of money. That is not the problem.


THAT is the problem...or one of them.


Awesome, so a boatload of my taxes go away then, too? If we're going to pay as we go, then we better damn well pay as we go without paying taxes that go to roads.


Agreed.


You describe a serious problem with implementation here, problems. First, do we really want a bunch of privately owned companies owning our transportation system? Secondly, are we still going to have taxes that go to roads when they are privately owned? What about security concerns with non-domestic companies owning the roads (or hell...even domestic ones)?

In my own state (Commonwealth, technically) there has been talk about privatizing the PA Turnpike. I just don't like it. As I said, I think there are certain things government should be doing. Building and maintaining public infrastructure is one of them. When we can't do that anymore, it's a sign that government has gotten its tentacles into too many things, and is spending too much money on them. It's absurd to think that that CoPA can hand out cash assistance, but cannot fund and manage its roads. Of course, this might also be an argument that government can pretty much SUCK at doing anything...


Agreed.


I'm not arguing against private space travel and exploration. I just think it should be a national priority as well.


Indeed.




This statement really betrays a lot of your true thinking about not just transport, but politics, freedom and liberty as well. First, the implication is that it's inherently more moral and just to utilize public transport and live near one's place of employment. After all, it helps with the specter of global warming, suburban sprawl, etc--at least in your mind. From there, your affinity for central planning comes into play. This means that you applaud policies that encourage deteriorating roads and rising fuel costs to that people will be forced into the lifestyle of the planners' choosing. You want high fuel costs because it will force people to live near work and take public transit, not to mention alter their lifestyles. Our President obviously shares these goals to an extent.


That's a decent argument on its own. My question is what is preventing us from affording it (U.S. in particular)?

Something would have been built, that is for sure. I don't think it would have been a better system, but there is no way to tell.


Good luck with that! The tolls on many bridges were supposed to be reduced or eliminated once they were paid for. Look how that worked out.


Fair enough.


You don't think having say, a Chinese company that is essentially owned by the government owning our interstate system could present a few problems?



Yup.

I don't think there would have been incentive to build such a system of roads. And the system is a pretty amazing achievement.


That much is true. I still think there some things they should be involved in...we just seem to disagree on what some of those are.


I don't...I'm saying it's a big risk.