Skip to comments.
Bush's Moon Mission Called Bold, Wasteful
CNS News ^
| 1/12/04
| Susan Jones
Posted on 01/12/2004 6:17:33 AM PST by truthandlife
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
To: truthandlife
I'd rather have a tax cut.
2
posted on
01/12/2004 6:18:47 AM PST
by
billorites
(freepo ergo sum)
To: truthandlife
With such a big defisit, and lifelong preoccupation with the Moslem terrorists war, we need to waste more money on space like we need a hoens in our heads!
To: truthandlife
I'd rather have more defense spending.
4
posted on
01/12/2004 6:20:21 AM PST
by
samtheman
To: All
Rank |
Location |
Receipts |
Donors/Avg |
Freepers/Avg |
Monthlies |
19 |
Wisconsin |
566.00
|
16
|
35.38
|
245
|
2.31
|
173.00
|
11
|
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
5
posted on
01/12/2004 6:20:38 AM PST
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: billorites
I'd rather have a tax cut.I'd rather see the unemployment rate go down, which will drive the economy up and then you can have your tax cut...hence, I think it is a great idea. If you just stop and think about how much technology that we use in everyday life that has come from the space program, it boggles the mind. Look at the Velcro manufacturing business, for one example.
To: truthandlife
Yeah, why explore space, take the next step away from our tiny planet, or provide an impetus to our economy and technology when we can instead give those dollars to the welfare state?
7
posted on
01/12/2004 6:39:02 AM PST
by
theDentist
(If I must choose between funding Welfare and Mars, I choose Mars.)
To: truthandlife
John F. Kennedy:
Gave us a tax cut
Ratcheted up the Vietnam War
Pushed for social programs
Challenged the US to put a man on the moon.
He is a God. Bush is a wasteful, disengaged moron. Repeat until you believe.
8
posted on
01/12/2004 6:46:48 AM PST
by
ClearCase_guy
(France delenda est)
To: truthandlife
This is idiotic. Our country is disintegrating and W wants to go to the Moon. Fantastic!
If Bush only wants to keep busy on things that haven't mattered in 30 years, someone please tell him not to run in '04.
9
posted on
01/12/2004 6:53:54 AM PST
by
Vision
(Always Faithful)
To: theDentist
Yeah, why explore space, take the next step away from our tiny planet, or provide an impetus to our economy and technology when we can instead give those dollars to the welfare state?If we go into space, somehow we will end up giving welfare to the space aliens. Either way, we lose.
10
posted on
01/12/2004 6:54:42 AM PST
by
Fresh Wind
(All hail Elantra, Amazon queen of planet Tiburon!)
To: ravingnutter
Look at the Velcro manufacturing business, for one example.You're gonna have to explain this to me (how it was the result of space exploration).
George de Mestral, a Swiss inventor, got the idea from studying burrs that got stuck in his dogs fur. Velcro was patented in 1955. It was dependant on Nylon, developed back in 1937.
11
posted on
01/12/2004 7:08:43 AM PST
by
templar
To: samtheman
Weaponization of space is only a matter of time--and the Chinese are already developing this avenue. If we could place a military base on the moon it would give us tremendous advantage at some point in the future.
To: truthandlife
A space program like this will have to start from scratch and work its way up (no pun intended). It won't be a trillion dollars it first year or even the first five years. Total cost is likely to be spread over years if not decades. So all these weenies would rather give money away than work for something to benefit the whole country?
If we don't start now, where will we be in ten years? Renting space from the Chinese on their missions?
13
posted on
01/12/2004 7:52:35 AM PST
by
CPOSharky
(Every dollar spent on space is spent right here on EARTH creating jobs and businesses.)
To: binreadin
Comparing the cost-effectiveness of putting weapons on the moon compared to putting them in orbit around the earth (not to mention their military effectiveness) is like comparing the cost effectiveness of putting aluminum siding on your home and gold-plating your home. The aluminim will work just fine, and will cost 1/1billionth.
To: samtheman
In thirty years there will be weapons and surveillance programs developed that we can't even dream of now. At this point, it isn't valid to compare cost effectiveness. I'm not willing to leave the exploration of space to the Russians and Chinese.
To: truthandlife
I'd rather farm it out to the private sector. If we have to conquer the far reaches of the final frontier, let Boeing take the lead for a change.
16
posted on
01/12/2004 8:25:53 AM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
All your waning gibbbous are belong to us.
17
posted on
01/12/2004 8:33:09 AM PST
by
Consort
To: truthandlife
Bush is just testing the waters of public opinion. This looks good, forward looking, bold thinking, etc, etc. However - this is years off. If public opinion to this isn't favorable on the whole, this will probably quietly fade off the front page - especially considering how short the American people's memories are.
To: truthandlife
There is fuel on the moon for starters.We can mine the moon. I think a missle base on the moon is a great idea. We can ship all of our toxic waste up there too. It can be the stepping stone to other planets.It is a good thing for America psychologically and a bad thing for terrorist, let them ponder, while they duct tape nails to a stick of dynamite to kill an innocent stranger, Americans are traveling to other planets. It is the direction for the future, to explore the unknown ,go where no man has gone, ect.
19
posted on
01/12/2004 9:20:28 AM PST
by
Frankss
Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities... "In the past three years, what were multi-trillion dollar budget surpluses projected for the coming decade have turned into multi-trillion dollar budget deficits," he said in a press release. Greenstein said President Bush must explain where the money for his space initiative will come from: "Will he agree to scale back some of the munificent and very costly tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?" Greenstein asked.
What I want to know is, why are there not laws mandating that non-gov'tal political shilling organizations aren't required to have "Ad hoc Non-Governmental" as a prefix to their names? And who pays Greenstein's bills?
Trillion dollar budget deficits? What a ridiculous claim. The total budget is north of a trillion, compared with the few hundred billion it was under JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, when the $20 billion Apollo program rec'd much of its funding. Infrastructure for a moon program won't have to be built from scratch.
The US has no direction in space, apart from maintaining the expensive ($500 per launch and turnaround) STS (space shuttle) so that (eventually, when that resumes flying) large pieces of the ISS (international space station, meaning that the Russians use it) can be delivered and installed, and eventually (within 15 years) the whole structure can be decommissioned and dumped into the Pacific.
The US should build a heavy lift capability that is much cheaper, and that means so-called expendible boosters like the old Saturn V. Anything the US does in space (space station, Mars missions, probe missions to the planets and beyond) will require a heavy lift capability. The US also should build a lunar station, on the "dark side", for radiotelescopy. -- 'Civ
People seem to forget -- as they do with military spending -- that the money spent mostly (or entirely) stays in the US. In the case of the Pentagon, we don't roll up $50 bills and shoot them into the crania of the enemy. The bullet makers are people working in the US. Same goes for the space program.
No, I don't work in either the aerospace or defense industry.
The tax cut was nice, but to
really do it right, the rates should be left alone and the personal exemption raised to $20,000. Everyone who pays income taxes now would still get a tax cut, but it would fall disproportionately on those of us who don't make a lot. Supposedly the rich folks pay 96 per cent of income taxes, so the total "cost" to the gov't would be less 4 per cent of receipts.
20
posted on
01/12/2004 9:20:50 AM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(To da Moon, Alice!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson