US Officially Out of the Space Program

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, unlimited deficit spending certainly works out well for the economy

I have no clue why you think this is my argument, you ****ing ****.

Congress can and does make independent spending decisions (independent of other decisions). The decision is between space program and no space prgoram. Not between space program and some other unspecified program. The budgetary constraint is extraordinarily weak insofar as Congressional behaviour is concerned. Twit.

[David Floyd]

KH, if you believe that scientific advancement is a benefit, then the space program has by definition been beneficial. Layer onto the fact that our knowledge of the universe has been immeasurably advanced with the numerous practical technological advances, and I don't see how you can serious argue that the space program has not been beneficial.

[KrazyHorse]

I think it's probably obvious that I'm not a Libertarian, at least not in the same sense that Berzerker, for example, is.

I think it's pretty obvious that you're not a libertarian at all, and are in fact just a completely intellectually dishonest person.

[David Floyd]

Congress can and does make independent spending decisions (independent of other decisions). The decision is between space program and no space prgoram. Not between space program and some other unspecified program. The budgetary constraint is extraordinarily weak insofar as Congressional behaviour is concerned. Twit.

Yes, that's why making budgetary arguments - as Imran did - is beside the point. Believe it or not, I've responded to people besides you here.

Additionally, in an objective sense, it makes sense to spend money where we get a return on that money. The space program, historically, has been one such area.

[David Floyd]

I think it's pretty obvious that you're not a libertarian at all

You mean, obvious besides the fact I just ****ing said so?

[KrazyHorse]

KH, if you believe that scientific advancement is a benefit, then the space program has by definition been beneficial. Layer onto the fact that our knowledge of the universe has been immeasurably advanced with the numerous practical technological advances, and I don't see how you can serious argue that the space program has not been beneficial.

Are you for real? Is this supposed to be an actual justification? It works equally well for all other government spending.



"If you believe that education is..."
"If you believe that health care is..."

[KrazyHorse]

You mean, obvious besides the fact I just ****ing said so?

"at least not in the sense..."

You're just somebody who likes to take a "principled" position against gov't spending until the spending happens to go to something you like.

[KrazyHorse]

DF's arguments so far:

1) We waste other money too, so wasting money on space is okay...in fact, not just okay, but extremely desirable

2) Look! Here's a list of some stuff that's been spun off from the space program. Therefore, the money we spent was justified

3) Science, *****es! SCIENCE!!!!!!

[David Floyd]

Are you for real? Is this supposed to be an actual justification? It works equally well for all other government spending.

It sure does. But what you're leaving out is that there have been significant tangible benefits to the space program, unlike, say, the War on Drugs.

You're just somebody who likes to take a "principled" position against gov't spending until the spending happens to go to something you like.

You're building up strawmen again. Of course I'm against government spending when I disagree with it. Isn't that a truism? I could say the same about anyone. I think government spending on the space program is more justified than spending on health care or education or poverty or drugs, due to what I perceive as a history of success and practical results and benefits. You clearly disagree. Simple as that. It doesn't make me intellectually dishonest - it just means we disagree. Unfortunately, you are choosing to insult me rather than discuss. That's fine, I can take it. It just makes you look stupid.

[David Floyd]

1) We waste other money too, so wasting money on space is okay...in fact, not just okay, but extremely desirable

2) Look! Here's a list of some stuff that's been spun off from the space program. Therefore, the money we spent was justified

3) Science, *****es! SCIENCE!!!!!!

Actually, that's pretty close. We're spending money anyway, and at least the space program has given us practical benefits. Not only that, but the advancement of science tends to bring benefits in general.

What is there in that argument to disagree with?

[DanS]

We are inhibited in doing interesting things in space because of the prohibitively expensive way that we run our space program. There is no law of physics that says that space programs are to be so expensive.

The money that we spend is about 1/3rd to 1/4th as efficient as the Soviet space program. Just think about what that means. And weep. The only way that we won the space race is by spending the Soviets under -- basically, the gov't spending money on worthless stuff instead of taxpayers spending money on what they think is worthwhile.

Spending $x billion on big rockets run by the gov't will not change the system. Instead of creating this massive Apollo Program Mark II, we should spend our time and resources fostering a sustainable commercial ecosystem that eventually will get us to Mars. NASA can play a part in this regard, but the commercial players need to step up. We shouldn't be looking at NASA to lead on this.

It's hard to turn away from a command-and-control program with necessarily clear goals and set timelines. This difficulty has been playing out for 2 or 3 decades.

[KrazyHorse]

But what you're leaving out is that there have been significant tangible benefits to the space program, unlike, say, the War on Drugs.

Okay, BAM.

The WoD has locked up a bunch of people who might otherwise have been committing crimes with identifiable victims. How's that for a justification? Seems to be about as strong as whatever you've posted so far in terms of justifying the space program.

It doesn't make me intellectually dishonest - it just means we disagree.

No, it makes you intellectually dishonest, given your previous posts on government spending. Unless you've changed your mind since then?

[KrazyHorse]

David, perhaps you should go play with the other kindergarten children.

[David Floyd]

DanS,

We are inhibited in doing interesting things in space because of the prohibitively expensive way that we run our space program.

The money that we spend is about 1/3rd to 1/4th as efficient as the Soviet space program. Just think about what that means. And weep. The only way that we won the space race is because we spent the Soviets under.

Instead of creating this massive Apollo Program Mark II, we should spend our time and resources fostering a sustainable commercial ecosystem that eventually will get us to Mars.

Absolutely, 100% agreed. My point is not that we should spend money inefficiently, my point is that we should not STOP spending money on the space program.

KH,

The WoD has locked up a bunch of people who might otherwise have been committing crimes with identifiable victims. How's that for a justification? Seems to be about as strong as whatever you've posted so far in terms of justifying the space program.

Except that you are making an assumption; that being, people in prison for victimless crimes would have committed crimes later. Then, you are equating that with something that has a PRACTICAL benefit - for example, MRI scans or GPS.

No, it makes you intellectually dishonest, given your previous posts on government spending. Unless you've changed your mind since then?

If you're talking about my ultra-Libertarian stance of a few years back, absolutely. Theories which sound nice don't usually stand up in the real world.

Are you saying it's impossible that over the years I have changed my mind on certain things?

[David Floyd]

David, perhaps you should go play with the other kindergarten children.

Perhaps you should go play hide and go **** yourself.