Obama's Evolving Stance On NASA 941
mknewman writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting a change in Obama's stance on NASA, saying his position on space exploration continued to evolve Sunday as the Illinois Democrat endorsed a congressional plan to add $2 billion to NASA's budget and agreed to back at least one more space shuttle mission."
Re:Oh noes! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here' an Idea (Score:5, Informative)
Let's Put our Astronauts in Shuttles that don't use fuel and go green!
The exhaust of the main engines of the space shuttle is water.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:2, Informative)
If you vote Libertarian, aren't you already voting against the incumbent?
There aren't Libertarian candidates running for all offices. So, if there's no Libertarian candidate, I vote against the incumbent, and if the incumbent is running unchallenged, I abstain.
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Informative)
I'd rather take a candidate that'll tell me the honest truth, even if it isn't popular. Setting a timeline for withdrawl pretty much tells Iran/Al Qaida/whoever else "just lay low for a year and a half, then you'll have free rein." It's naive foreign policy.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Informative)
He finds ways to justify all sorts of unconstitutional, unnecessary spending of the American tax payer's dollar (like his proposed $80B/year for international poverty), so why not NASA?
And how much has Bush spent on his initiatives for Africa, like AIDS reduction?
Fighting global poverty doesn't seem to be limited to Democratic Administrations and for that we can be thankful -- for all his other faults, GWB has actually done a few good things with his Africa policies.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Informative)
OPEC supplies 53.8% of our oil imports (a little over 5.25 million barrels per day out of a little over 20 million barrels per day used).
The rest of our imports (the other 5 or so million barrels per day) come from countries like Mexico and Canada.
If people bothered to look up the numbers instead of just ASSUMING every damn thing, they would see that it isn't that difficult to fathom that in 10 years, if we cared to try, we could replace a QUARTER (not the 100% naysayers seem to want to believe) of our Oil with alternatives.
Such as T. Boone Pickens plan which ould eventually replace 38% of current oil consumption with Natural Gas.
That would be more than enough to NEVER have to buy another barrel of Oil from OPEC.
OPEC being the countries that, generally, may not have our best interests at heart.
Obama's plan is a hell of a lot better than McCain's that basically wants to drill off shore to MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER, but won't actually help things at all (at most, 200,000 barrels a day, versus replacing 5 MILLION BARRELS a day with Obama.)
People, it's simple math.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/us-imports-of-o.html [greencarcongress.com]
Re:Iraq vs. Going to the moon. (Score:3, Informative)
Apollo total cost: $135 billion (2005 dollars) [wikipedia.org].
Iraq invasion and occupation: originally budgeted in 2003 at $74 billion, reached some $600 billion [bbc.co.uk] in 2008, and will probably pass a trillion by the time the US gets out even if everyone starts running for the exits right now. And since it's all been done on credit, factor in interest on the repayments. Then the medical costs of all the crippled soldiers. Then the knock-on effects of destabilising the Middle East, inflating the price of oil, and devaluing the dollar... you're looking at ridiculous money.
Re:How about a vision for space (Score:3, Informative)
Orbital solar plants are really only cost-effective if you can mine the materials from asteroids in near earth orbits. Launching them from factories on the moon might be feasible, since it is possible to extract silicon fairly easily from lunar regolith if you have a source of energy, such as some solar panels deployed already (of course, the two-weeks long nights would pose a problem for this). If you can fab the panels on the moon, you could launch them with an electromagnetic accelerator.
It's something that would need a huge amount of capital investment, however, which is not something the US economy is currently in a position to provide. The manufacturing spin-offs from having fully automated semiconductor plants on the moon would probably help the US trade deficit a lot though...
Re:I like Obama subjectively but... (Score:1, Informative)
Every couple of weeks the ideas change.
Citation needed. Other than his position on NASA, which changed months ago (this is only a minor evolution in his most recent position), I can't think of any specific examples to support your claim (not that they don't exist, I just can't think of any). Can you?
How quickly you forget his broken promise on accepting public funds for his campaign. Oh sure, he had all sorts of good reasons for reneging . . . but none of those reasons where unknown when he made the vow. In short, he blatantly lied.
Here's a few others for you Obama worshipers to chew on:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html
A little tip: All these candidates are no the same side -- and it isn't yours.
Re: since you worked at NASA ..... (Score:3, Informative)
I mean, the obvious issue that comes to most people's minds was the shuttle explosion, apparently caused by poor engineering decisions, and subsequent cover-ups of them.
That was entirely caused by a budget cut between 2001 and 2002. There was a well funded program to permanently solve the problem that caused that accident, but NASA decided that since it had never had catastrophic consequences before, it would, along with the majority of other programs, have its solution canceled. The mistake, I suppose, was in choosing to cut that program, but without he massive funding cuts that occurred that year, I don't think NASA would have lost that shuttle.
Re:Iraq vs. Going to the moon. (Score:4, Informative)
What's the old saying? "Anyone can make a mistake, but it takes an act of Congress to really screw up."
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Informative)
a) wasn't all that plausible to begin with and
b) happened over a decade ago
with an insanely costly, unpopular war that has ruined the US economy and US standing abroad and killed tens of thousands of innocent people might just be a tad on the extreme side, no?
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:3, Informative)
If you're just talking Income Tax, the percentage goes up by income, period, subject to deductions.
TOTAL taxes may differ, but you're comparing apples and oranges, and also not considering state differentials. . .
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Informative)
IMHO, it makes no difference who a sitting or former president is related to or what party he belongs to. When a foreign government attempts to assassinate one, they gotta go. It's a shame so many of people are such big pussies that they will let true acts of war slide by.
No. What's a shame is that so many people will let the fear of being called a pussy goad them into doing something ultimately stupid and self-destructive.
Reminds me of Bush telling the Iraqi insurgents to "Bring it on". Despite appearances on occasion, geopolitics and war are not the high school locker room or the WCW. There are consequences for your actions, and those are what matter. Failing to consider them because only a "pussy" lets consequences stop them is dumb. You can take every reason given for the Iraq war put together, and it was not worth the damage. Just to retaliate for that assassination attempt? Absolutely not.
Also, you probably don't want that little rule about removing governments that try to assassinate the heads of others to apply in both directions.
Re:I like Obama subjectively but... (Score:4, Informative)
As to Obama's changes, while he is not bothered by the hobgoblins of the mind, where is McCain seems to live it.
Re:In Defense of Obama... (Score:3, Informative)
Speaking from the UK, I recognise nothing left wing or hardcore liberal about Obama. Lots of centre-right stuff, but nothing remotely left.
The US' centre of political gravity is WAY off base.
Re:Russia/USA is not a real problem. Yet. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:5, Informative)
The argument is that a wealthy person can afford to pay a greater share, since their basic needs can be met with a much smaller slice of their income than a poor person.
If a person makes 100,000 dollars a year, and is taxed at a rate of 25%, then they still have 75,000 dollars to support their lifestyle, whereas a person making 10,000 dollars would have only 7,500 dollars left if taxed at the same rate.
In short, it's a much bigger deal when you have less money. Every bit is important.
The argument isn't that rich people use more or less services, but that the burden should be shared equally, and a flat tax puts a heavier weight on people who make less.
There is also the argument that it is better to tax the poor less, because that is more efficient than having to provide government programs to support them...It's the same argument that we use for making people who don't have children pay taxes to support public schools. Even though they're getting no direct benefit from supporting the schools, they're reaping indirect benefits from a more educated population.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, if the ENTIRE COUNTRY did these LITTLE things, we could WITHOUT A DOUBT save the same amount of Oil McCain's 'Day Dream' of offshore drilling MIGHT produce 10 YEARS from now.
Please provide STATISTICS to prove your POSITION.
http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml [fueleconomy.gov]
Again, it's simple math.
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:5, Informative)
When your tax rates get so high you're starting to cause your most productive workers to leave the country?
That's a red herring and you know it. The fact is, the absolute tax rate matters not a whit. What matters is America's relative tax rate as compared with the rest of the industrialized world. And, as far as I can tell, America still has the lowest overall tax rates in the West.
If I'm a worker, and I think America's tax rates are too much, where am I going to emigrate to?
Re:What pisses me off about NASA and welfare. (Score:1, Informative)
This seems like a reasonable proposal. But don't think it goes far enough. I think it's just too modest [wikipedia.org].
Re:Taxing the rich more (Score:3, Informative)
The short, short version is that consumption taxes (sales taxes and the like) tend to be regressive, and so a progressive income tax helps balance that out. The reason is that the more you earn, the less you spend, when expressed as a proportion of your wage. If Person B makes 10x as much as Person A, they're unlikely to buy 10x as expensive a car, nor are they likely to use 10x as much gasoline.
In fact, the more you earn, the more likely you are to invest your additional earnings back into the economy. This makes your wealth more dependent on the functioning and stability of the economy and on the infrastructure. That's where things like highways, military, police, firemen, regulatory agencies, etc. all come in. Thus, it makes sense for higher earners to pay a higher marginal rate, since they benefit more from the government's services.
If you think about it, even social services such as health care, Social Security and welfare benefit the wealthy, since it stabilizes society and provides a more stable business climate.
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:2, Informative)
Why the hell do your "companies" go out of business exactly one year after they become profitable?
Thats how ponzi schemes work dude. Didn't you notice the guy is a dittohead?
Re:Russia/USA is not a real problem. Yet. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's end the ruse (Score:3, Informative)
Further rumours and conspiracy theories about this technological terror; Google will reveal more fantastical speculation than you can possibly imagine :-)
Re:Obama Should Love NASA (Score:2, Informative)
We have 100% of our total petroleum needs (20 million barrels a day) sitting right here, in the Continental US. And we have that supply rate for 270 YEARS. And at $40 per barrel.
.
It's called oil shale. In 10 years the US could not only produce every drop of oil it needs on a daily basis, but export over 8 million barrels a day to other countries. And do it for nearly 3 centuries.
What's stopping this? It's not the Governors or State Assemblies of Utah and Wyoming. It's the Democrats in Congress who insist on maintaining the prohibition on oil shale production.
You need to talk to Governor Bill Ritter of the Great State of Colorado.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/GovRitter/GOVR/1216720881519 [colorado.gov]
He has GONE ON THE record to say that Oil Shale mining is "Premature" simply because we don't have the slightest clue what type of environmental impact it will have.
I'm not talking about some possible Global Warming related impact a decade from now, I'm talking about a local disruption that might rob people of drinking water. This in a area that is already looking at droughts because of Snow droughts the last couple of years.
You see, there's a reason why this so called "Gold Mine" isn't being mined (despite what Fox/CNN/MSNBC might have told you). Because we don't have the SLIGHTEST F__CKING CLUE what the long term effects on the surrounding areas might be.
A lot of these areas depend on TOURISM to make money. Very few tourists want to see a pockmarked Mountain.
Maybe if you lived there, you would understand.
P.S. I might also draw your attention to:
http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20080610.cfm [wilderness.org]