Political posterizing redux.

[Gerald McGrew]

Oh, and the first example your website gave for "wasteful stimulus spending" wasn't at all accurate.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/may/ ... er-at-col/

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, and the first example your website gave for "wasteful stimulus spending" wasn't at all accurate.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/may/ ... er-at-col/

Don't try facts, we've done that.

[Randydeluxe]

[Coito ergo sum]

motivator902d7f4ef8fe6d4946804d63acbdabcd060b9a07.jpg

Wait - Obama has the same policies that Bush has? Fuck, where all the change at?

[Coito ergo sum]

CES,

I think it comes down to one question to you: Do you think a Romney-Ryan administration would keep NASA funding at current levels, or possibly even increase its funding (i.e. to restore what Obama cut)?

I don't know for sure, nor do you, as they haven't been clear on what they would do. It certainly isn't a priority for them, but it hasn't been a priority for Obama. They won't restore Constellation, but the reality is that had Obama not canceled it, we would be less than five years away from the Moon. It can't be restored now, because it has been gathering dust for 3 years.

I think both parties are short sighted on space because the average voter thinks it is a waste of money - both parties.

But, Obama canceled Constellation, and killed manned space flight for the US. He pretended that he was giving up the Moon, but preparing for bigger and better things, manned missions to Mars and asteroids - but that was just empty rhetoric.

You're avoiding proving the assertion you made. You were simply wrong when you say that Obama just canceled "one program." He ended manned space flight for the US and passed the baton. And, then you said Romney/Ryan will do worse. You've not proved that they would. All we have to go on right now is what Obama did, which is repulsive (IMO) relative to manned space flight and NASA in general.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, and the first example your website gave for "wasteful stimulus spending" wasn't at all accurate.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/may/ ... er-at-col/

"My website" was a detailed article in USAToday, and your website does not show to be incorrect at all. The money was used exactly for the purpose set forth in the USAToday article.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Coito ergo sum]

The tax cuts got us out of the 2000 recession.
I don't subscribe to the notion that "Bush did 9/11"
As outlined well by C. Hitchens, the Iraq War was a long overdue war.
We have record deficits now, higher than under Bush.
The spike in terrorism was going on throughout the 1990s.
Gasoline prices? Really? February 2009, they were like $1.79 a gallon and now it's $3.79 a gallon. LOL
Home values? What's changed? Record foreclosures in 2011, and 2012 looking to break that record....
Record job creation in foreign countries? Where do you think most of Obama's "Green Jobs" went?
Worst unemployment since 1929? Unemployment is much worse now than under Bush. We've never had it so bad.
There are more drones above American cities spying on American citizens, and Obama executes American citizens without arrest or trial, or even charge.
As for increasingly dysfunctional economy, the recovery is worse than the recession! This is the single worst recovery since the Great Depression. General, the vibrancy of the recovery is proportional to the steepness of the decline in the first place. Here, we have basically a flat-lining economy.

Who needs memories of Bush. We have our own horror story unfolding right now...

[Gerald McGrew]

I don't know for sure, nor do you, as they haven't been clear on what they would do.

I didn't ask you what you knew Romney-Ryan would do to the NASA budget, I asked if you think they'll maintain (or even increase) NASA's budget. If your only answer is, "I dunno", again I'll allow that to speak for itself.

You're avoiding proving the assertion you made.

LOL! Picking nits much? My entire point in this thread was about you first complaining about Obama cancelling the Constellation Program, while throwing your support behind Romney-Ryan, who by any estimates based on the scarce budgetary information they've given us, would be even worse for NASA's budget. Now, if you want to try and play the pedantic game where you attempt to shift the debate to "But you said 'program'", again, that speaks for itself.

You were simply wrong when you say that Obama just canceled "one program." He ended manned space flight for the US and passed the baton.

Obama cancelled the Constellation Program.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/ ... n-program/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05372.html

And yes, it is a "program": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program

And, then you said Romney/Ryan will do worse. You've not proved that they would.

So you really are arguing that given the information we have on Romney-Ryan's plans for the federal budget, NASA funding will remain the same or increase? That's fucking hilarious.

All we have to go on right now is what Obama did, which is repulsive (IMO) relative to manned space flight and NASA in general.

Um...no. We have the Ryan budget, which Romney endorsed and said he would sign. Ah, but let's ignore that and spend our time bitching about Obama.

"My website" was a detailed article in USAToday, and your website does not show to be incorrect at all.

WTF is wrong with you? First, your link was to "Business Insider" (with a sub-link to Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) website), not USA Today. Second, the article claimed that the USFS "had no plans to open" the visitor center where the windows were replaced. It's open now, and in large part due to the windows being replaced. The article you linked to was wrong. Get over it.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't know for sure, nor do you, as they haven't been clear on what they would do.

I didn't ask you what you knew Romney-Ryan would do to the NASA budget, I asked if you think they'll maintain (or even increase) NASA's budget. If your only answer is, "I dunno", again I'll allow that to speak for itself.

Oh, I "think" (as in suspect or suppose) that they will keep the NASA budget roughly the same.

You're avoiding proving the assertion you made.

LOL! Picking nits much? My entire point in this thread was about you first complaining about Obama cancelling the Constellation Program, while throwing your support behind Romney-Ryan, who by any estimates based on the scarce budgetary information they've given us, would be even worse for NASA's budget. Now, if you want to try and play the pedantic game where you attempt to shift the debate to "But you said 'program'", again, that speaks for itself.

You're dodging. Obama canceled manned space flight for the US when he canceled Constellation. We don't have a manned space program for Ryan and Romney to cancel.

You disingenuously moan about how under Ryan's budget there will be deficit spending and so all of NASA's budget is therefore unaffordable. What "speaks for itself" is the fact that you don't seem to care that we are $1.3 trillion in the hole this year, and that, therefore, all of NASA's budget this year, and last year, and the year before that, is all borrowed money.

I know Obama's view on manned space flight. He's against it, and he proved that in 2009, and with his complete inaction ever since. We have uncertainty over Romney/Ryan's view on it. While Romney is not a big proponent of it, and said something to the effect of "it will have to wait" during the Republican primaries, I will take uncertainty over Obama's proven antipathy.

Moreover, all I've really said, ultimately, is that there are plenty more wasteful and nonproductive uses of borrowed funds that we could cut first. Don't you agree with that? Or, are you suggesting that NASA is the biggest waste of money in the federal budget? If you are, then we'll just have to disagree on that.

You were simply wrong when you say that Obama just canceled "one program." He ended manned space flight for the US and passed the baton.

Obama cancelled the Constellation Program.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/ ... n-program/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05372.html

And yes, it is a "program": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program

Yep, along with any hope of a manned Mars mission or anything else, along with the program to build a Moon base at Clavius crater. He destroyed manned space flight for the United States for the foreseeable future.

Do you think that was a good thing to do?

And, then you said Romney/Ryan will do worse. You've not proved that they would.

So you really are arguing that given the information we have on Romney-Ryan's plans for the federal budget, NASA funding will remain the same or increase? That's fucking hilarious.

Why not? There will be deficit spending under Romney's presidency, won't there?

Or, are you making the ludicrous claim that spending $1.3 trillion in deficit spending under Obama is responsible, and reasonable, but that it is just out of the question that even $1 of deficit spending will be spent under Romney? That's essentially your argument. You claim that Ryan's budget is so ridiculous because it doesn't provide for paying for everything. Well, news flash, pal, a $1.3 trillion deficit means that Obama isn't paying for everything, not by a long shot.

All we have to go on right now is what Obama did, which is repulsive (IMO) relative to manned space flight and NASA in general.

Um...no. We have the Ryan budget, which Romney endorsed and said he would sign. Ah, but let's ignore that and spend our time bitching about Obama.

The Ryan budget doesn't say that NASA will be cut. You assume that it will be cut, because based on the Ryan budget there will be a deficit still. Your argument is balls out ridiculous on its face, because nobody is claiming to be able to balance the budget next year. There will still be a NASA.

"My website" was a detailed article in USAToday, and your website does not show to be incorrect at all.

WTF is wrong with you? First, your link was to "Business Insider" (with a sub-link to Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) website), not USA Today. Second, the article claimed that the USFS "had no plans to open" the visitor center where the windows were replaced. It's open now, and in large part due to the windows being replaced. The article you linked to was wrong. Get over it.

Oops. You're right, it was business insider. Sorry. But, the point is not that there were no plans to open. The point is that spending Stimulus dollars on that project at all is less valuable than manned fucking space flight. What the fuck is wrong with YOU? You think that spending money on these pet projects is more important than getting back to the moon and building a moon base?

Well, I suppose you're free to think that. But, nitpicking about whether there were "plans" to reopen it is stupid. That isn't the point. The point is the project is not worth as much as NASA.

Moreover, the fact that it is open now is not inconsistent with the fact that there were, prior to the repairs, then no plans to open it. Both are true. There were no plans to open it. After the repairs, things changed. It's still a program I'd rather see cut than NASA.

[Ian]

The tax cuts got us out of the 2000 recession.

Hogwash. The 2000 recession was nothing more than a re-adjustment from the tech bubble. And even if that nonsense about tax cuts coming to the rescue were true, why did they stay in place? And why did the economy do so well during the Clinton years despite higher taxes?

I don't subscribe to the notion that "Bush did 9/11"

I don't think anyone here does. I also don't think that was the point of that line.

As outlined well by C. Hitchens, the Iraq War was a long overdue war.

You're really going to defend the Iraq War to your grave, aren't you? That's just sad. And, frankly, a little sick.

We have record deficits now, higher than under Bush.

Thankfully, now that the recession (which kinda had something to do with the drop in revenue, dontcha think?) is over, rolling back the absurd tax cuts will help to fix that.

The spike in terrorism was going on throughout the 1990s.

And Dubya certainly didn't do it any favors by invading Iraq.

Gasoline prices? Really? February 2009, they were like $1.79 a gallon and now it's $3.79 a gallon. LOL

Feb 2009? You mean in the middle of the recession when oil prices plummeted to their lowest? Jeez, who on this forum do you think is so dumb that they won't see through that?

Home values? What's changed? Record foreclosures in 2011, and 2012 looking to break that record....

No, home values and construction are on the upswing. And this time, I hope, without the huge bubble which developed between 2001 and 2007.

Record job creation in foreign countries? Where do you think most of Obama's "Green Jobs" went?

Quite a few have sprung up here. What do you suppose will happen to "green jobs" under Romney? With any luck the market will simply keep pushing the technologies, no thanks to the White House.

Worst unemployment since 1929? Unemployment is much worse now than under Bush. We've never had it so bad.

Utter fantasy. The recession finally hit bottom in spring 2009, and the economy (including employment, in case you haven't noticed) has been climbing up since. More than 4 million private sector jobs created since then, and tens of thousands of government jobs lost. I would also argue that the brief recession of the early 1980s was worse - unemployment was high, but back then so were interest rates and inflation. So why is this one taking longer to climb out of? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the recession started in the financial sector and the housing market; the engine of recovery, and the assets which define most peoples' net worth. A quick recovery couldn't have been possible under any President in history.

There are more drones above American cities spying on American citizens, and Obama executes American citizens without arrest or trial, or even charge.

Kiss my ass. You know that's a ludicrous argument. If you don't, then you're not as smart as I thought.

As for increasingly dysfunctional economy, the recovery is worse than the recession! This is the single worst recovery since the Great Depression. General, the vibrancy of the recovery is proportional to the steepness of the decline in the first place. Here, we have basically a flat-lining economy.

How on earth is a recovery worse than a recession? Jeez, you criticize us for being so indignant as to deduce that Republicans have a warped sense of reality... then you say things like that and expect people to think they make any sense?

[Gerald McGrew]

CES,

I think this boils down to the two of us disagreeing over the following:

Your position is that Obama ending the Constellation Program (and thus manned space flight) was a grave mistake. You believe a Romney-Ryan administration would maintain NASA funding at its current levels, but likely not restore the Constellation Program. To illustrate your complaint, you cite examples of federal funding that you consider to be less of a priority than the Constellation Program.

My position is that a Romney-Ryan administration would be even worse for NASA (and its advocates) due to the budgetary targets and goals they've outlined. Specifically, given that Romney-Ryan have proposed to: 1) reduce federal revenues (by cutting taxes on the wealthy, eliminating capital gains and corporate taxes), 2) maintain/increase defense spending, 3) cap federal spending at 15% of GDP, 4) reduce the deficit, and 5) pay down the debt, that logically sets the stage for major reductions in all discretionary federal spending, NASA included. There's simply no other way to accomplish their goals given those facts. IMO, arguing otherwise is either incredibly naive, or delusional.

Now, as to whether manned space flight should be restored (or shouldn't have been cut in the first place), I'm somewhat on the fence on that. I suppose it comes down to how we would pay for it. If it was offset by cuts to defense, I'd be all for it. If it was offset by cutting education, health care, environmental, or other things I consider to be essential, I'd have to let it go. And if it was paid for by deficit spending, I'm not sure it's a luxury we can afford right now ("right now" being the key words there).

But I'm still baffled at someone who complains about federal budget cuts while supporting Romney-Ryan. Seems rather bizarre to me.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Gawdzilla Sama]