PDA

View Full Version : Some Tea Partiers love govt spending, so long as it's NASA




NYgs23
04-15-2010, 07:41 PM
NPR has the story here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126025832).

Small government conservatives...

On hypocrisy: "Some people might say this is in an entitlement program, but the space program provides so many more benefits....tons of technology....the high-paying jobs..."

On DC not buying the right jobs for us: "They're virtual jobs...It's gonna be engineers and stuff like that. It's not gonna help the day-to-day person that works at the Cape, making the Cape run."

On it taking a bunch of money: "When John Kennedy said 'We'll be on the moon in ten years,' we were. But it took a bunch of money."

ctiger2
04-15-2010, 07:42 PM
I heard this on the radio. Almost barfed. The lady I heard was just interested in keeping her high paying job. They said the Govt. needs to spend MORE money on them.

Imperial
04-15-2010, 07:50 PM
Imagine living around Houston. When I went to a county GOP convention the consensus was in favor of NASA expansion, not really reform.

MN Patriot
04-15-2010, 07:58 PM
I like Harry Browne's idea: would you be willing to give up your favorite government program if it meant you never had to pay income taxes again? A lot of us are techies, and are very interested in NASA. But suppose more private companies were involved in going into space. That would be even more interesting than a bumbling government bureaucracy.

justinc.1089
04-15-2010, 08:05 PM
If NASA hadn't of ever existed, a man would have walked on Mars ten years ago sent there by a private business.

RileyE104
04-15-2010, 08:06 PM
Wait.. I don't get this, are you guys for or against NASA?

I always thought Ron was for NASA.. He even signed something with a bunch of other Congressmen instructing the guy who runs things at NASA (forgot what he's called) directing him to not follow Obama's budget cut of NASA because it was an infringement on previous agreements that money which is already allocated to NASA can't be cut (or something like that)..

Also, isn't NASA like 1% of the Federal Budget? It seems to me like cutting NASA is as insignificant as complaining about Earmarks...

phill4paul
04-15-2010, 08:07 PM
Good God..were would we be without Velcro!

amy31416
04-15-2010, 08:10 PM
I like Harry Browne's idea: would you be willing to give up your favorite government program if it meant you never had to pay income taxes again? A lot of us are techies, and are very interested in NASA. But suppose more private companies were involved in going into space. That would be even more interesting than a bumbling government bureaucracy.

That is exactly where I am with NASA and with a few other gov't things. I'd give it up in a second to never pay income tax again. And guess what? I'd donate a crapload to the best, most-efficient company that took it over. Just as I'd donate directly to local libraries, the Smithsonian, etc.

They'd get far more from me that way, I guarantee it. But poor Blackwater wouldn't get squat. Waaaah. Let the neocons fund them.

justinc.1089
04-15-2010, 08:19 PM
Wait.. I don't get this, are you guys for or against NASA?

I always thought Ron was for NASA.. He even signed something with a bunch of other Congressmen instructing the guy who runs things at NASA (forgot what he's called) directing him to not follow Obama's budget cut of NASA because it was an infringement on previous agreements that money which is already allocated to NASA can't be cut (or something like that)..

Also, isn't NASA like 1% of the Federal Budget? It seems to me like cutting NASA is as insignificant as complaining about Earmarks...

I'm against it because its not necessary at all, just like 95% of government. And yes, it is 1% of the budget, and that would be an incredibly easy 1% of spending to cut out.

Private business can handle space stuff much more efficiently than the government can.

It sounds like Paul is for upholding some agreement that Obama is trying to go back on, not that Paul is for funding NASA. Even if Paul is for funding NASA, I'm not, so I would have a disagreement with him there. I don't know why Paul would think NASA needs to keep being funded though...

NYgs23
04-15-2010, 08:28 PM
Wait.. I don't get this, are you guys for or against NASA?

I always thought Ron was for NASA.. He even signed something with a bunch of other Congressmen instructing the guy who runs things at NASA (forgot what he's called) directing him to not follow Obama's budget cut of NASA because it was an infringement on previous agreements that money which is already allocated to NASA can't be cut (or something like that)..

Also, isn't NASA like 1% of the Federal Budget? It seems to me like cutting NASA is as insignificant as complaining about Earmarks...

I don't know what he signed or why, but I far as I'm concerned it's $18 billion of other peoples' money to send government employees into orbit. Ridiculous. Govt R&D is one of the easiest things to cut, IMO, since people aren't dependent on it the way they're dependent on welfare, highways, etc. It makes everyone poorer so that young college-educated geeks have something cool to read about. Besides, they'd have that anyway thanks to private enterprise. Of course, I'm willing to cut anything, anything at all. It's hypocritical to say, "Small government! Individual liberty! Well...except for my pet issues."

RileyE104
04-15-2010, 08:29 PM
I'm against it because its not necessary at all, just like 95% of government. And yes, it is 1% of the budget, and that would be an incredibly easy 1% of spending to cut out.

Private business can handle space stuff much more efficiently than the government can.

It sounds like Paul is for upholding some agreement that Obama is trying to go back on, not that Paul is for funding NASA. Even if Paul is for funding NASA, I'm not, so I would have a disagreement with him there. I don't know why Paul would think NASA needs to keep being funded though...

It should have started out as non-Government.

Now people like my dad and family are DEPENDENT on this Government Job. :(
Kind of like Social Security...

I still don't even know if my dad is sure or not if he'll still have a job by October.. He said he's trying to get on some other program now since the one he was working on was trashed by Obama.

papajohn56
04-15-2010, 08:29 PM
Honestly I think NASA and NSF are lowest on the list of what needs to go.

RileyE104
04-15-2010, 08:39 PM
Quick question.. Does NASA fall under the clause in the Constitution that says "to promote Science and Arts" or however it goes?

Lovecraftian4Paul
04-15-2010, 08:53 PM
I support some limited type of government space program at this point because I think it falls under national defense. Like it or not, there will be weapons in space shortly, if they're not there already. So, I have no problem with NASA or another program that seeks to keep our window into space open by keeping up with other countries.

I also think there will be a role for the military in space one day. Someone needs to ensure that private spaceships aren't robbed or attacked if there are other countries up there. Granted, this isn't the case today, but I think it isn't too far off in the future. I see it as being similar to the US Navy, which provides presence to deter other countries from going after our ships and occasionally attacks pirates, so that private business can conduct business at sea. Space, to me, is just a much vaster and stranger version of the ocean.

NYgs23
04-15-2010, 08:53 PM
Now people like my dad and family are DEPENDENT on this Government Job. :(
Kind of like Social Security...

Someone's going to be hurt no matter what is cut, yet government has to be cut. I'm a govt employee too; I don't like it, but it's the job I ended up landing. In a truly free market economy, there would be many more jobs, real wages would be higher, and people could keep their money. Almost everyone would be more prosperous. But the transition is unpleasant no matter how you do it.


Does NASA fall under the clause in the Constitution that says "to promote Science and Arts" or however it goes?

No. The full quote is, "The Congress shall have power...to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." It just gives them the constitutional authority to make patent and copyright laws. I'm against that too, but it is constitutional.

papajohn56
04-15-2010, 08:53 PM
Quick question.. Does NASA fall under the clause in the Constitution that says "to promote Science and Arts" or however it goes?

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

That'd be a good one to discuss.

silus
04-15-2010, 09:00 PM
Obama is just spending us into a grave and i'm completely against it. But do I hope he doesn't cut funds to any government program that employs my family, friends, former teachers, old classmates, and to anyone that was nice to me at one point.

tangent4ronpaul
04-15-2010, 09:06 PM
Good God..were would we be without Velcro!

Try without Integrated Circuits.

-t

NYgs23
04-15-2010, 09:13 PM
Try without Integrated Circuits.

The much-hyped NASA inventions are seen. But what is unseen (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html)?

tangent4ronpaul
04-15-2010, 09:13 PM
That is exactly where I am with NASA and with a few other gov't things. I'd give it up in a second to never pay income tax again. And guess what? I'd donate a crapload to the best, most-efficient company that took it over. Just as I'd donate directly to local libraries, the Smithsonian, etc.

They'd get far more from me that way, I guarantee it. But poor Blackwater wouldn't get squat. Waaaah. Let the neocons fund them.

I've always wanted to see a poll that asked: If taxes were voluntary, and you could direct the money, which programs and agencies would you donate to?

-t

phill4paul
04-15-2010, 09:16 PM
Try without Integrated Circuits.

-t

It took a shit load of forced monetary acquisition to put a man on the moon and say "Huh-fuckin-ra!" we'll make Velcro a public domain.

What are ya saying? Big government is good if it covers your particular angle?

Don't know -t. I ain't a fan of the space program. Do you really believe that it is a wise theft from individuals for the invention of Integrated Circuits?

IPSecure
04-15-2010, 09:20 PM
Long Live The Planetary Industrial Complex!

AuH20
04-15-2010, 09:22 PM
Isn't NASA the only department that actually "earns" it's way in the long run? I mean it's not an empty hole of subsidization like the DoD or DoE in which nothing tangible is produced or discovered?

specsaregood
04-15-2010, 09:25 PM
Good God..were would we be without Velcro!

Contrary to popular belief, velcro, tang and teflon ARE NOT a result of NASA inventions, only popularized by them.

Nasa even has a web page saying so:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tang.html


Are Tang, Teflon, and Velcro NASA spinoffs?
Tang, Teflon, and Velcro, are not spinoffs of the Space Program. General Foods developed Tang in 1957, and it has been on supermarket shelves since 1959. In 1962, when astronaut John Glenn performed eating experiments in orbit, Tang was selected for the menu, launching the powdered drink's heightened public awareness. NASA also raised the celebrity status of Teflon, a material invented for DuPont in 1938, when the Agency applied it to heat shields, space suits, and cargo hold liners. Velcro was used during the Apollo missions to anchor equipment for astronauts' convenience in zero gravity situations. Although it is a Swiss invention from the 1940s, it has since been associated with the Space Program.


So what exactly has NASA done for us?

tangent4ronpaul
04-15-2010, 09:27 PM
It took a shit load of forced monetary acquisition to put a man on the moon and say "Huh-fuckin-ra!" we'll make Velcro a public domain.

What are ya saying? Big government is good if it covers your particular angle?

Don't know -t. I ain't a fan of the space program. Do you really believe that it is a wise theft from individuals for the invention of Integrated Circuits?

Well, we wouldn't be having this discussion without them. (no computers/Internet)

At the same time, yes the space program is vital to national defense. The shuttle was largely designed by NRO to launch sats, and navigation, LD communication and precision targeting would not be happening without their contribution.

Disclaimer: I used to work for NASA as well as for a NASA contractor.

-t

silus
04-15-2010, 09:27 PM
Contrary to popular belief, velcro, tang and teflon ARE NOT a result of NASA inventions, only popularized by them.

Nasa even has a web page saying so:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tang.html


So what exactly has NASA done for us?

Zero-gravity shitters.

justinc.1089
04-15-2010, 09:29 PM
Isn't NASA the only department that actually "earns" it's way in the long run? I mean it's not an empty hole of subsidization like the DoD or DoE in which nothing tangible is produced or discovered?

I don't think NASA has lived up to the amount of money it receives at all. It has been getting a slice of the budget since it was first created for decades, and has given back relatively little in comparison to the money that has been given to it.

So no, NASA does not "earn" its way in the long run.

Besides, why FORCE people to pay for it, and not allow it to fail, when the free market can do so much better?

As for the concerns about space defense in the future, the government can buy spaceships from a private company and stick laser guns bought from another private company on them, and bam: space defense! Brought to you by private businesses.

Also, you should be willing to lose your own job if that is what it takes to gain our freedom from government. It is hypocritical to say you are not willing to cut spending that will hurt people you know, but be willing to cut spending that will hurt people you do not know. In the long run, cutting spending will not hurt anyone, it will help us all. I know tons of people very close to me depending on the government, but I will never stand on the side of the government because I want freedom.

specsaregood
04-15-2010, 09:31 PM
Zero-gravity shitters.

I must say, the idea of pooping upside down does sound appealling.

NYgs23
04-15-2010, 09:32 PM
Let's get it straight: it doesn't matter what NASA invented or didn't invent. No one can demonstrate that the money spent on their inventions wouldn't have been more efficiently spent in the marketplace. This is Opportunity Cost 101. But we can say that the marketplace is FAR, FAR, FAR more efficient at allocating scarce resources in ways that satisfy the desires of consumers than any govt agency, even the ones Hollywood makes cool movies about.

angelatc
04-15-2010, 09:34 PM
Well, we wouldn't be having this discussion without them. (no computers/Internet)

At the same time, yes the space program is vital to national defense. The shuttle was largely designed by NRO to launch sats, and navigation, LD communication and precision targeting would not be happening without their contribution.

Disclaimer: I used to work for NASA as well as for a NASA contractor.

-t

I don't think that we'd be living in caves if we didn't fund NASA, but I do agree that it could be justified under national defense.

JK/SEA
04-15-2010, 09:37 PM
I support some limited type of government space program at this point because I think it falls under national defense. Like it or not, there will be weapons in space shortly, if they're not there already. So, I have no problem with NASA or another program that seeks to keep our window into space open by keeping up with other countries.

I also think there will be a role for the military in space one day. Someone needs to ensure that private spaceships aren't robbed or attacked if there are other countries up there. Granted, this isn't the case today, but I think it isn't too far off in the future. I see it as being similar to the US Navy, which provides presence to deter other countries from going after our ships and occasionally attacks pirates, so that private business can conduct business at sea. Space, to me, is just a much vaster and stranger version of the ocean.

I agree with this. Money for NASA right off the top from Defense spending. If it means we have stop policing the world to do it...oh well....:D

Badger Paul
04-15-2010, 09:37 PM
": "Some people might say this is in an entitlement program, but the space program provides so many more benefits....tons of technology....the high-paying jobs..."

I hear that about farm subsidies too...

aravoth
04-15-2010, 09:37 PM
If NASA hadn't of ever existed, a man would have walked on Mars ten years ago sent there by a private business.

Bullshit, they would have done it 20 years ago

Badger Paul
04-15-2010, 09:43 PM
It not a question of worth, it's a question of asking others to take a cut except for you. You know, "what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." You can't credibly cut government when you are protecting your pet projects, because you'll compromise your beliefs first before you cut anything in order to stay elected.

tangent4ronpaul
04-15-2010, 09:44 PM
Contrary to popular belief, velcro, tang and teflon ARE NOT a result of NASA inventions, only popularized by them.

Nasa even has a web page saying so:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tang.html


So what exactly has NASA done for us?

Post 10:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213836&highlight=NASA

Post 1 & 2:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206553&highlight=NASA

I think there are more, but we've had this discussion before...

http://kostura.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/i_will_use_google_before_asking_dumb_que_311.jpg

-t

phill4paul
04-15-2010, 09:45 PM
Contrary to popular belief, velcro, tang and teflon ARE NOT a result of NASA inventions, only popularized by them.

Nasa even has a web page saying so:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tang.html


So what exactly has NASA done for us?

Noted and thank you.

.Tom
04-15-2010, 09:50 PM
All these huge government cons really get my blood boiling.

They claim to want less government and less socialism, but have no problem with the forced redistribution of wealth as long as it goes to the military or nasa or whatever else gives them a hard on.

Fucking hypocrites. Seriously, anything that's funded by theft doesn't deserve to be funded at all. You need to be against all government spending period, or you're just a giant hypocrite.

Pete_00
04-15-2010, 09:59 PM
18 billion/year for Nasa (and you DO get alot in return no matter what you say)

700 billion/year for defense

980 billion for all the wars since 2001 (direct cost, trillions in indirect cost)

(136 billion 2007 dollars for the Apollo program just as a curiosity)

And i dont recall the libertarian "revolution" being in place, if im not mistaken Reality is...Reality :eek:

An example of some libertarians trying to be most "harcore" around.

And what has NASA done? Gezzz thats some mighty "general culture" you guys have there regarding the importance of all kinds of satellites in our daily lifes and science/engineering in general. "Send government employees to space" lol...so harcore, so harcore...you will get the Rothbard prize one day :)

phill4paul
04-15-2010, 09:59 PM
Well, we wouldn't be having this discussion without them. (no computers/Internet)

At the same time, yes the space program is vital to national defense. The shuttle was largely designed by NRO to launch sats, and navigation, LD communication and precision targeting would not be happening without their contribution.

Disclaimer: I used to work for NASA as well as for a NASA contractor.

-t

OK well this seems to be your "thing" that allows you to support big government.

Others have their "thing" that you may be against, but, this is the "thing" that you agree with government on.

-t everyone of the accomplishments of the "space industry" could very well have been accomplished through free enterprise were it not for government intervention and ownership.

No one "thing" that the federal government claims ownership of is a good thing.

tangent4ronpaul
04-15-2010, 10:10 PM
Private space companies are not there yet. When one can get a few people in orbit, keep them there for a few weeks, dock with the space station and do things like fix sats - well, maybe defunding NASA would be an appropriate topic.

btwL renting seats from the Russians, besides making the country dependent is really dumb financially. The cost is 50 Mil a head for a round trip ticket. It costs 10 Thousand dollars per pound to put orbit payload via the shuttle. Do the math.

Also remember, space is the ultimate high ground - from a military perspective.

-t

justinc.1089
04-15-2010, 10:16 PM
Ok anyone on here arguing we should have NASA clearly does not understand why they are here, and why we oppose the government.

Government is by its nature, by what it is, an impediment and a barrier to the free market working correctly.

It distorts prices higher and lower than they should be.

It grants immunity to certain organizations so that they cannot fail. This would include businesses propped up by government, and government organizations themselves, which includes NASA.

And there are many other ways government interferes with free market functions.

If NASA had to compete with Space Business A, and NASA sucked, NASA would go bankrupt and be out of business while Space Business A would have more resources since it can use those resources more effectively. That means it would get MORE satellites up into space FASTER and get PEOPLE to the MOON and MARS FASTER.

But since NASA is a government organization, it is immune to failure. If it sucks, it will be given MORE money.

You MUST understand why a free market works better than a government, otherwise you will promote failure in many organizations/ businesses our society needs to succeed. Of course, in a free market, even if an organization/ business fails, another will take its place.

If I hated NASA and space exploration, I would want it to remain as it is, a government institution because I know that will impede its success and efficiency.

But I know how important space exploration is, and I find it interesting, so I want to encourage private business to pursue space exploration so that resources are used with maximum effiency, and so that if one business sucks it will fail, giving way to a better business than can handle exploring space better.

Last to the poster that said we would have been to Mars 20 years ago if space exploration had been privatized and NASA never had existed, you're probably right.;)

NYgs23
04-15-2010, 10:18 PM
Private space companies are not there yet. When one can get a few people in orbit, keep them there for a few weeks, dock with the space station and do things like fix sats - well, maybe defunding NASA would be an appropriate topic.

btwL renting seats from the Russians, besides making the country dependent is really dumb financially. The cost is 50 Mil a head for a round trip ticket. It costs 10 Thousand dollars per pound to put orbit payload via the shuttle. Do the math.

Also remember, space is the ultimate high ground - from a military perspective.

So we're still worried about "those people over there" invading the homeland? Defund NASA and give it people to start voluntary militias that'll do a much a better job defending their property than Imperial legions have ever done. People who make exceptions for forced wealth transfer have no basis to complain when someone takes their money to give it Goldman-Sachs or Halliburton.

Pete_00
04-15-2010, 10:23 PM
If NASA hadn't of ever existed, a man would have walked on Mars ten years ago sent there by a private business.

Yeah...they could even take the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus and Sasquatch on a Earth-Mars-Earth trip in 12 hours. And that if they used the obsolete privatly developed nuclear rocket engine because the "private market/total anarcho-capitalism" God would surely provided the Ion-Warp drive that could do the job in 1.3 hours or less.

NYgs23
04-15-2010, 10:25 PM
Yeah...they could even take the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus and Sasquatch on a Earth-Mars-Earth trip in 12 hours. And that if they used the obsolete privatly developed nuclear rocket engine because the "private market/total anarcho-capitalism" God would surely provided the Ion-Warp drive that could do the job in 1.3 hours or less.

The marketplace would send humans to Mars if and when it were efficient to do so according to the subjective preferences of individuals. It's a simple as that.

tangent4ronpaul
04-15-2010, 10:32 PM
A couple of points - do you think NASA makes their own rockets? They don't. Can private sat companies buy a launch vehicle and launch their sat without NASA's involvement (beyond coordination so there isn't anything that micht hit each other up there) - yes they can. Did your gvmt vs private sector argument just go down in flames?

Why do you disagree with Ron Paul? - he's voted to fund NASA, after all.

Government is supposed to have a limited purpose and scope - a couple of you sound like anarchists, not libertarians.

-t

phill4paul
04-15-2010, 10:39 PM
Private space companies are not there yet.

Because of monopoly.


Also remember, space is the ultimate high ground - from a military perspective.

I will concede that space should fall under the department of the Navy.

justinc.1089
04-15-2010, 10:43 PM
A couple of points - do you think NASA makes their own rockets? They don't. Can private sat companies buy a launch vehicle and launch their sat without NASA's involvement (beyond coordination so there isn't anything that micht hit each other up there) - yes they can. Did your gvmt vs private sector argument just go down in flames?

Why do you disagree with Ron Paul? - he's voted to fund NASA, after all.

Government is supposed to have a limited purpose and scope - a couple of you sound like anarchists, not libertarians.

-t

Even people that aren't remotely interested in politics will tell you NASA is like the first thing that could be dramatically toned down in funds if you're talking about reducing government spending. And they're right.

The government is needed to defend people's liberty, and nothing more.

We don't need the government for services and products, which includes space rockets and space trips. Why do we not need the government for goods and services? Because the free market provides them with greater efficiency.

That is fact. Go read about Austrian economics like Paul talks about all the time if you want to keep bringing him up. But honestly Paul is just one man anyway. One man doing great things, but still just a man. He can be wrong about things, and if Paul is for NASA I think he is wrong for wanting to force me to fund NASA spending millions just to send astronauts to the space station to laugh at their kool-aid floating in the air in front of them.

Btw, I am also not an anarcho-capitalist.

I really can't believe there are people on here that support NASA though. That is the easiest kind of spending to cut because there are not tons of people depending on NASA's funding compared to cutting spending on things like defense and welfare. Those are hard to cut because you have to gently get people off of the money they get from those things that they're depending on to live from. NASA on the other hand has very few people depending on it, and the satelites can be maintained by private companies.

NYgs23
04-15-2010, 10:48 PM
A couple of points - do you think NASA makes their own rockets? They don't. Can private sat companies buy a launch vehicle and launch their sat without NASA's involvement (beyond coordination so there isn't anything that micht hit each other up there) - yes they can. Did your gvmt vs private sector argument just go down in flames?

It sounds like you just said private companies can do things NASA can't.

There's nothing worthwhile that aggression (e.g. the state) can do that voluntary action can't do more efficiently, and even if there was, it wouldn't matter because aggression is always evil and the ends don't justify the means.



Why do you disagree with Ron Paul? - he's voted to fund NASA, after all.

What difference does it make what his position is? Are we not able to make up our own minds without appealing to an authority?

Still, if you're really interested in Ron Paul's position, the only thing I was able to find was a policy paper from 1988 (http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html). It says, "...this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid well deserved embarassment. American companies desperately need to get their satellites into space....NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development, twenty years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an extent that may well be irreparable....We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators."


a couple of you sound like anarchists, not libertarians.

I'm a person who believe in a fully voluntary society. Label it what you want; it doesn't matter to me.

justinc.1089
04-15-2010, 10:50 PM
Yeah...they could even take the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus and Sasquatch on a Earth-Mars-Earth trip in 12 hours. And that if they used the obsolete privatly developed nuclear rocket engine because the "private market/total anarcho-capitalism" God would surely provided the Ion-Warp drive that could do the job in 1.3 hours or less.

The private market/ total anarcho-capitalism God served us well compared to the authoritarian government God's service to other countries before our country began...

Its pretty funny you assumed I'm an anarcho-capitalist just because I stated the economic fact that private business could handle space exploration better than the government's NASA because I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I was just pointing out economic fact.

If you like NASA you should be all for private business getting into space exploration. I love space so I would love to see a stronger private space exploration industry. It would do much better than NASA has done.

tangent4ronpaul
04-15-2010, 10:58 PM
It sounds like you just said private companies can do things NASA can't.

What difference does it make what his position is? Are we not able to make up our own minds without appealing to an authority?

Still, if you're really interested in Ron Paul's position, the only thing I was able to find was a policy paper from 1988 (http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html). It says, "...this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid well deserved embarassment. American companies desperately need to get their satellites into space....NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development, twenty years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an extent that may well be irreparable....We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators."



I'm a person who believe in a fully voluntary society. Label it what you want; it doesn't matter to me.

NASA is actually transitioning to private companies and has been for years. They choose not to make their own rockets because it is more efficient to let Martin do it.

Well, this is a forum devoted to him...

and he has apparently changed his mind, - see post 35 in this thread and look at the second link.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
04-15-2010, 11:03 PM
The private market/ total anarcho-capitalism God served us well compared to the authoritarian government God's service to other countries before our country began...

Its pretty funny you assumed I'm an anarcho-capitalist just because I stated the economic fact that private business could handle space exploration better than the government's NASA because I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I was just pointing out economic fact.

If you like NASA you should be all for private business getting into space exploration. I love space so I would love to see a stronger private space exploration industry. It would do much better than NASA has done.

Sure I'd love to see private space companies make it. They aren't there yet. Now were are going to be buying seats on Russian rockets to get to the space station. Do you really think that is privately owned? If private industry could do it for less, why would we be buying seats from a foreign government?

-t

Brian4Liberty
04-15-2010, 11:03 PM
I am a realist. We can not have sacred cows in the budget. Everything must be cut. NASA has become bloated, inefficient, and somewhat incompetent.

Private enterprise would not have put a man on the moon. There is no profit.

The frustrating part is that the politicians will fund paper-pushing, completely non-productive jobs long after they get rid of areas that provide some benefit.

The neo-conservatives and war-mongers have been pushing for a long time to cut NASAs budget and divert it to war, the other waste of money. And it's such a surprise that Obama is going along with them. :rolleyes:

justinc.1089
04-15-2010, 11:05 PM
NASA is actually transitioning to private companies and has been for years. They choose not to make their own rockets because it is more efficient to let Martin do it.

Well, this is a forum devoted to him...

and he has apparently changed his mind, - see post 35 in this thread and look at the second link.

-t

And would it not be more efficient to let private business handle space exploration?

I think you're hung on Paul's position since he is pretty much the only person in the government we can trust to work towards our freedom. But if Paul really thinks we need NASA as it is now, he is wrong in my opinion. I really doubt thats his position anyway. I'm going to go look at the link.

NYgs23
04-15-2010, 11:12 PM
NASA is actually transitioning to private companies and has been for years.

Good. Another reason for Obama to slash their budget (actually, increase it by less then they wanted, but, hey, who's counting?)


They choose not to make their own rockets because it is more efficient to let Martin do it.

It's not really private in the market sense until private organizations are doing it without taxpayer loot. It's just a more hidden part of the state.


he has apparently changed his mind, - see post 35 in this thread and look at the second link.

If he did, he changed his mind to opposing NASA, since the paper was from 1988, while the funding the hit piece refers to was from "the late 1970s and early 1980s." Furthermore, he might have authorized the funding due to the defense functions within NASA without approving of NASA itself. Now I'm done arguing about Ron Paul's position. Whatever it is, it doesn't change my position.

tangent4ronpaul
04-15-2010, 11:14 PM
I am a realist. We can not have sacred cows in the budget. Everything must be cut. NASA has become bloated, inefficient, and somewhat incompetent.

NASA was massively downsized years ago. Their budget is a drop in the bucket.


Private enterprise would not have put a man on the moon. There is no profit.


No profit in space tourism?
No profit in lunar mining?
No profit in lunar manufacturing (think ultra high precision bearings)
No profit in a lunar launch platform where keeping most of your fuel for a long trip would be important.

You're joking - right?

One other thing. Remember Hubble's vision problem? That was private industries fuck up. A very expensive one to correct. NASA didn't have the technology to check that. No aerospace companies did. NRO was the only one and they didn't ask for help.

-t

Brian4Liberty
04-15-2010, 11:24 PM
No profit in space tourism?
No profit in lunar mining?
No profit in lunar manufacturing (think ultra high precision bearings)
No profit in a lunar launch platform where keeping most of your fuel for a long trip would be important.

You're joking - right?

One other thing. Remember Hubble's vision problem? That was private industries fuck up. A very expensive one to correct. NASA didn't have the technology to check that. No aerospace companies did. NRO was the only one and they didn't ask for help.

-t

I have worked in the aerospace industry. Testing the Hubble mirror before launch was fairly simple and straight forward. It was the government's decision not to check it to save a little money. That was an expensive gamble, and they lost.

Yes, I am serious about private industry and space. You seem to be leaving out expenses. Almost everything related to space has had expenses that exceeded any possible income. If it was profitable, private industry would be doing it.

BlutStein
04-15-2010, 11:35 PM
NASA is the one government program that has always given me problems with my political beliefs.

I believe in as little taxes as possible, if any, and I want a small and local government. But when I stop and think about all the amazing things NASA has given us I can't help but want to expand their budget. They are the only government product that has panned out on an average basis. If you google it you can find numerous pages that explain all the the technology spin off that NASA funding has given us which has better our everyday life and lead to new businesses.

My dream is to have space completely privatized but the fact is that we aren't there yet and with subjects like space exploration if you ever plan on getting something done you have to start now and while government funded exploration isn't ideal, it should be tolerated for the time being since it is currently happening and is an actual plus to humanity.

tangent4ronpaul
04-15-2010, 11:40 PM
I have worked in the aerospace industry. Testing the Hubble mirror before launch was fairly simple and straight forward. It was the government's decision not to check it to save a little money. That was an expensive gamble, and they lost.

Yes, I am serious about private industry and space. You seem to be leaving out expenses. Almost everything related to space has had expenses that exceeded any possible income. If it was profitable, private industry would be doing it.

Not what heard re: Hubble, though that was before I got into the industry.

low earth orbit is looking possible in a few years and a private company (Virgin?) plans to offer trips and brief "hotel" stays for something like 5 Million a person. People are making advanced reservations.

Microwave propulsion has been worked on for a while and isn't there yet. A beanstalk is still a dream. Either would be much less expensive.

Right now you can buy payload space on a rocket. It's popular w/ uni's for experiments.

As to privatization, would you be OK with a private company operating a "boomer"? What about the sat that tells, say a nuke tipped cruise missile where it is and what course corrections it should make? At what point does privatization become an incredibly BAD idea!

-t

Brian4Liberty
04-15-2010, 11:48 PM
Not what heard re: Hubble, though that was before I got into the industry.


I saw it before it was launched. I was working at the Lockheed site where it was undergoing final assembly. The whole thing was over-budget, especially the optics. That was why they cut corners and did not double check the mirror.

tangent4ronpaul
04-15-2010, 11:54 PM
I saw it before it was launched. I was working at the Lockheed site where it was undergoing final assembly. The whole thing was over-budget, especially the optics. That was why they cut corners and did not double check the mirror.

UGH! - though that is what you can expect from defense companies. Low bid and go over budget. :(

-t

justinc.1089
04-15-2010, 11:55 PM
Ugh I don't get how you guys can say government is inefficient and wasteful, and that forcing people to pay for something is wrong, but then say NASA is efficient and its ok to force people to pay for NASA. It sounds hypocritical to me too.

Military satelites could be made by private businesses for the military. Thats not a problem... NASA already uses some private businesses for some things.

As for whether or not we would have sent a man to the moon without NASA, we really don't know because the free market has not had a shot at space exploration yet. If it is something people want, then the free market will make it happen because people want it lol. And if they don't want it, it won't happen in the free market.

At the very least there would be money to be made in satelites though.

I'm really shocked there are people on here that really wouldn't want to radically downsize NASA or eliminate it entirely. I mean most people that disagree with us about cutting spending in other places do agree NASA's funding could be dramatically reduced...

phill4paul
04-15-2010, 11:59 PM
Sure I'd love to see private space companies make it. They aren't there yet.

-t

They are not there because of government intervention and regulation.

You worship an industry that should be held,rightfully, by private individuals.

-t being a member of these forums I would think that you would have realized that.

phill4paul
04-16-2010, 12:03 AM
Ugh I don't get how you guys can say government is inefficient and wasteful, and that forcing people to pay for something is wrong, but then say NASA is efficient and its ok to force people to pay for NASA. It sounds hypocritical to me too.

.

-t was employed by NASA. 'nuff said. Kinda like saying "I'm an ex SEAL and did work for the fed and the shit I did is so important that we need to steal from citizens so I can make some bread and I don't need to know who I have to kill to make the bread."

legion
04-16-2010, 12:05 AM
Ugh I don't get how you guys can say government is inefficient and wasteful, and that forcing people to pay for something is wrong, but then say NASA is efficient and its ok to force people to pay for NASA. It sounds hypocritical to me too.

Hypocritical, like Jefferson commissioning the Lewis and Clark expedition?

I don't get the hand waving ancap kids that think its possible to throw away the entire US government overnight. Even if Ron Paul was President tomorrow that wouldn't happen. Just because we are realists does not make us hypocrites.

justinc.1089
04-16-2010, 12:16 AM
Hypocritical, like Jefferson commissioning the Lewis and Clark expedition?

I don't get the hand waving ancap kids that think its possible to throw away the entire US government overnight. Even if Ron Paul was President tomorrow that wouldn't happen. Just because we are realists does not make us hypocrites.

I already said TWO OR THREE TIMES I'm not an an-cap. There will probably always be at least a small kind of state in a society.

That does not equate to NASA being a necessary function of government.

I also don't think Jefferson governed perfectly either. He had great ideas and philosophies, but his presidency fell short at times, with the Lewis and Clark expedition being one of those times. It should have been done, just a little differently than how it was handled.

As it compares to space exploration, the similarities are small if there even are any. If you have some point to make about the Lewis and Clark expedition in comparison to modern day space exploration I don't know what it is unless you say it. If its that Jefferson used the government to explore, meaning we should use the government to explore space today, I fail to follow the logic and reasoning behind that point since those are very different things. And since I don't think that was Jefferson's greatest decision either. (not that it was wrong, but more of the way it was handled)

NYgs23
04-16-2010, 12:23 AM
Hypocritical, like Jefferson commissioning the Lewis and Clark expedition?

Jefferson was a hypocrite for approving the Louisiana Purchase in the first place.


I don't get the hand waving ancap kids that think its possible to throw away the entire US government overnight.

Cutting NASA's budget is not "throwing away the entire US government overnight"! Problem is everyone wants their piece of the pie.

legion
04-16-2010, 12:27 AM
As it compares to space exploration, the similarities are small if there even are any. If you have some point to make about the Lewis and Clark expedition in comparison to modern day space exploration I don't know what it is unless you say it. If its that Jefferson used the government to explore, meaning we should use the government to explore space today, I fail to follow the logic and reasoning behind that point since those are very different things. And since I don't think that was Jefferson's greatest decision either. (not that it was wrong, but more of the way it was handled)
So the free market should have handled the Lewis and Clark expedition, too?

Brian4Liberty
04-16-2010, 12:31 AM
UGH! - though that is what you can expect from defense companies. Low bid and go over budget. :(

-t

Overschedule too. ;)

Perkin-Elmer was the sub that made the flawed mirror, not Lockheed.

NYgs23
04-16-2010, 12:48 AM
So the free market should have handled the Lewis and Clark expedition, too?

Thank goodness we have the government funding land exploration. Without a massive federal government we'd still be living in the Great Rift Valley in Africa.

Point #2: Given that the land was already occupied, some would characterize the expedition as the beginning of an aggressive invasion.

phill4paul
04-16-2010, 12:54 AM
So the free market should have handled the Lewis and Clark expedition, too?

Well, yeah. Welcome to the forums.

eOs
04-16-2010, 01:24 AM
I like Harry Browne's idea: would you be willing to give up your favorite government program if it meant you never had to pay income taxes again? A lot of us are techies, and are very interested in NASA. But suppose more private companies were involved in going into space. That would be even more interesting than a bumbling government bureaucracy.


How does a private company make a business out of going to space? I'm very interested in learning this business model...

silus
04-16-2010, 01:27 AM
Private industries do not need 50 years to duplicate a single feat. Yet NASA apparently needs 50 years to get back to the moon. That is the definition of wasteful.

phill4paul
04-16-2010, 01:31 AM
How does a private company make a business out of going to space? I'm very interested in learning this business model...

How does a private company enter any field? First it takes a vision. Second it takes investment capitol with the hopes of return on investment.

I don't understand your question e0s. The government created a monopoly of space exploration that lead to a monopoly on launching satellites.

Companies were more than happy to have taxpayers fund the investment capitol so that they could pay a pittance for putting their eyes in the sky.

silus
04-16-2010, 02:26 AM
How does a private company make a business out of going to space? I'm very interested in learning this business model...
Ask billionaire Richard Branson.

tangent4ronpaul
04-16-2010, 02:26 AM
Overschedule too. ;)

Perkin-Elmer was the sub that made the flawed mirror, not Lockheed.

eh? - I was pretty sure it was Ball Aerospace in Boulder Colorado.

-t
.

tremendoustie
04-16-2010, 02:31 AM
Wait.. I don't get this, are you guys for or against NASA?

I always thought Ron was for NASA.. He even signed something with a bunch of other Congressmen instructing the guy who runs things at NASA (forgot what he's called) directing him to not follow Obama's budget cut of NASA because it was an infringement on previous agreements that money which is already allocated to NASA can't be cut (or something like that)..

Also, isn't NASA like 1% of the Federal Budget? It seems to me like cutting NASA is as insignificant as complaining about Earmarks...

The government has no business extorting money from people to pay for space adventurism. It's blatantly immoral. If educational institutions, individuals, and others, want it, they will sponsor it -- and they'll get exactly what they want, not what some bureaucrat wants.

tremendoustie
04-16-2010, 02:34 AM
How does a private company make a business out of going to space? I'm very interested in learning this business model...

Here are a few off the top of my head.

1. Educational institutions pay for instrument time.
2. Space tourism (a-la virgin's spaceshipone and two)
3. Donors who like particular science or exploration -- they can be rewarded with exclusive glossy prints, even space rocks, etc.
4. Industries interested in zero gravity research, other scientific research
5. Industries interested in asteroid, planet mining.

tremendoustie
04-16-2010, 02:41 AM
-t was employed by NASA. 'nuff said. Kinda like saying "I'm an ex SEAL and did work for the fed and the shit I did is so important that we need to steal from citizens so I can make some bread and I don't need to know who I have to kill to make the bread."

I am employed by nasa (for now), and I would convert funding to voluntary contracts, ASAP. Government funding makes it an unaccountable, wasteful, ineffective behemoth. Private contracts mean accountability.

I am glad -t appreciates space science, as do I. I suggest he contributes his own money to that cause, and helps raise money from others who are interested, as well as industrial and educational institutions. I suggest he does not support extorting the money from his neighbors, at the point of a gun.

tremendoustie
04-16-2010, 02:44 AM
UGH! - though that is what you can expect from defense companies. Low bid and go over budget. :(

-t

You have no idea ...

BlackTerrel
04-16-2010, 02:45 AM
If NASA hadn't of ever existed, a man would have walked on Mars ten years ago sent there by a private business.

I doubt it. How much would it cost to go to Mars Vs. what kind of revenue would you gain by going to Mars?

dwdollar
04-16-2010, 02:56 AM
Honestly I think NASA and NSF are lowest on the list of what needs to go.

Same here. I'd much rather see the money go to science than bailing out banks, more entitlements, or more pointless wars. Apparently, some don't think so...

tremendoustie
04-16-2010, 03:00 AM
Same here. I'd much rather see the money go to science than bailing out banks, more entitlements, or more pointless wars. Apparently, some don't think so...

If Obama's on the phone offering to end the wars, bailouts, and entitlements, if we'll only let him keep NASA, then yes, I'd take that deal.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure we're allowed to oppose all of the above.

tangent4ronpaul
04-16-2010, 03:24 AM
I am employed by nasa (for now), and I would convert funding to voluntary contracts, ASAP. Government funding makes it an unaccountable, wasteful, ineffective behemoth. Private contracts mean accountability.

I am glad -t appreciates space science, as do I. I suggest he contributes his own money to that cause, and helps raise money from others who are interested, as well as industrial and educational institutions. I suggest he does not support extorting the money from his neighbors, at the point of a gun.

I would LOVE a system of voluntary taxation with people able to direct / donate money to agencies / programs of their liking.

I'm sure NASA would be rolling in cash! and agencies like the FCC, BATFE, CPSC, etc. would be scraping to buy a box of paperclips if we did it this way. "Democracy" in action! :D

Though since you feel that way about it, I'm sure everyone here would be happy to divide your paycheck - you know, if you wanted to return those stolen gains...

-t

dwdollar
04-16-2010, 04:00 AM
If Obama's on the phone offering to end the wars, bailouts, and entitlements, if we'll only let him keep NASA, then yes, I'd take that deal.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure we're allowed to oppose all of the above.

We have to be realistic. Cutting down NASA is very short-sided. Are we getting a tax cut if NASA is downsized? Of course not... So let's keep it in space exploration, and not let it go to useless slugs, banker mansions, and death drone research.

This is all academic, really. It assumes America is repairable, which it isn't. It's just a matter of time now...

LibertyBrews
04-16-2010, 04:50 AM
Space exploration isn't profitable for the moment because of the ridiculous high expenses with launching rockets from Earth instead of launching them from orbit above Earth.

Technologically speaking, NASA and government regulation is hampering most efforts to improve the cost-efficiency of space exploration.

There no doubt in my mind that space exploration would be best handled by private enterprises if only government would scale down regulation.

tremendoustie
04-16-2010, 08:37 AM
I would LOVE a system of voluntary taxation with people able to direct / donate money to agencies / programs of their liking.


Good to hear :)



I'm sure NASA would be rolling in cash! and agencies like the FCC, BATFE, CPSC, etc. would be scraping to buy a box of paperclips if we did it this way. "Democracy" in action! :D


Well, it would be freedom actually, not democracy per-se. And I can't see how any of the agencies you listed would survive, unless they were able to successfully morph into consumer protection groups, something like consumer reports or the better business bureau.



Though since you feel that way about it, I'm sure everyone here would be happy to divide your paycheck - you know, if you wanted to return those stolen gains...

-t

But then, that would be my labor taken with no compensation -- I'd have effectively donated my time in order to retrieve money for victims of taxation -- a donation of a magnitude I'm not currently in a position to make. Also, unlike many, I'm fairly junior, so I'm not overpaid relative to the market.

In any case, I don't want to be involved, so I'll be leaving soon. I want to be proud of my work, and to know that I am providing a service that someone truly wants or needs, and is willing to pay for. I've worked in industry too -- and it's night and day. There is at least 10X less wasted time and money in private industry -- and that may be a significant understatement.

tremendoustie
04-16-2010, 08:43 AM
We have to be realistic. Cutting down NASA is very short-sided. Are we getting a tax cut if NASA is downsized? Of course not... So let's keep it in space exploration, and not let it go to useless slugs, banker mansions, and death drone research.

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.



This is all academic, really. It assumes America is repairable, which it isn't. It's just a matter of time now...

That's a good point. I think peaceful state independence/secession is a more likely way out than reform at the federal level.

Matt Collins
07-11-2010, 07:45 PM
YouTube - Porker of The Month (June 2010): Sen. Richard Shelby, Who Made Pigs Fly in Outer Space! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojo3Kc3VNWM)

Zippyjuan
07-11-2010, 09:50 PM
One of the difficultes in trying to cut government spending is that one person's wasteful program is another person's important one. Legislators don't want to offend any potential voters so they don't cut any of them.

Inflation
07-12-2010, 03:54 PM
I support some limited type of government space program at this point because I think it falls under national defense. Like it or not, there will be weapons in space shortly, if they're not there already. So, I have no problem with NASA or another program that seeks to keep our window into space open by keeping up with other countries.

I also think there will be a role for the military in space one day. Someone needs to ensure that private spaceships aren't robbed or attacked if there are other countries up there. Granted, this isn't the case today, but I think it isn't too far off in the future. I see it as being similar to the US Navy, which provides presence to deter other countries from going after our ships and occasionally attacks pirates, so that private business can conduct business at sea. Space, to me, is just a much vaster and stranger version of the ocean.

This is all true.

The military role in space was obvious after Sputnik. Satellites and ICBMs travel through space. We need to be there to provide for national defense.

But nothing short of the immediate abolition of all States on the planet, and spontaneous creation of space-faring anarcho-syndicalist communes will satisfy the Black Flaggers.

Sucks to be them. Long live the Lunar-Industrial Complex!

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/political-pictures-moon-landing-finders-keepers.jpg

heavenlyboy34
07-12-2010, 03:56 PM
This is all true.

The military role in space was obvious after Sputnik. Satellites and ICBMs travel through space. We need to be there to provide for national defense.

But nothing short of the immediate abolition of all States on the planet, and spontaneous creation of space-faring anarcho-syndicalist communes will satisfy the Black Flaggers.

Sucks to be them. Long live the Lunar-Industrial Complex!

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/political-pictures-moon-landing-finders-keepers.jpg
I hope you're satirizing neocons...otherwise you're pretty creepy. :eek:

Inflation
07-12-2010, 05:29 PM
I hope you're satirizing neocons...otherwise you're pretty creepy. :eek:

Which of the following facts do you not believe, or wish to dispute?

A. The military role in space was obvious after Sputnik.

B. Satellites and ICBMs travel through space.

C. We need to be in space, to provide for national defense.

The tongue in cheek bits were there to satirize anarchists, because they reject the Constitutional duty of the US Fed Gov to protect us from foreign aggression.

At this point, there is a natural government monopoly in moon travel, due to high entry barriers (physical and legal), etc.

The idea that a bunch of nihilistic black flaggers could ever go to the moon is what I was making fun of.