NASA funding

[wstrucke]

What is RP's position on this?


This is only based on video interviews I've seen, so I don't know if he still thinks this... but he basically doesn't think the gov't should be funding basic research (he would dissolve NASA and other federal science institutions). He thinks all of that stuff should be private and market driven, but that's a huge mistake because private entities only invest in
what appears to be profitable. Some of our greatest discoveries came from federally funded scientists simply investigating something because it was interesting and not because it could generate income. If we took that away,
the country would see a huge dip in science/engineering/tech standing and all the economic benefits of that.

Also:


well ron paul doesn't accept evolution, even though there is evidence. On stem cell research he is against stem cell research using government funding, he doesn't believe climate change is a threat right now

I'm going to do some research but I was wondering if anyone knows off hand? These are to respond to critique's on facebook which is where we're likely to gain the most internet support.

[IndianaPolitico]

I heard that he supports some funding for NASA, but he wants to move it back under the military.

[brushfire]

We're tapped anyway. How would any other president fund NASA? Print more money?

[wstrucke]

We're tapped anyway. How would any other president fund NASA? Print more money?

I agree with this sentiment, but people want concrete answers. Ron Paul is very straightforward on his position with various federal departments -- Abolish the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the Dept of Education, the EPA, etc... Would he keep NASA or scuttle it? If he kept it, would would it look like in an ideal world? That's what people want to hear. There is nothing on his campaign site about NASA or federal research funding, though my suspicion is that he would be opposed to it.

I think it's a valid argument to say that the selective funding by the federal government of various technologies forced the leap necessary to take something that is otherwise prohibitively expensive and make it a reality (i.e. landing on the moon) -- private enterprise can do it, but there are certain things that are completely out of the realm of cost to benefit ratio to invest in, which is where the government has historically picked up the slack. This isn't a point of contention so much for me, in that I recognize that the fiscal, economic, and defense policy we've been under for the last hundred years is destroying the country (making any points about funding research, etc... moot), but not everyone is so easily swayed. We need to build a consensus to hit a critical mass of support to make this Presidential election a reality -- that comes from quickly and succinctly addressing these valid concerns.

[afwjam]

Nasa is obsolete. It was a counter to the soviets and we won. The private industry is now moving much faster then Nasa ever would. Let Space X and Virgin galactic go from here. Though Ron Paul personally does not worry about Global warming, he is pro tax credits for alternative energy. Those of us who do worry about the environment can effect much more efficient change through a private organization.

[wstrucke]

Thanks!

[w2992]

The person who writes the texas republican party platform is employed by nasa. She even said "NASA is my baby thats why im here!" Nasa and other military industrial business also employ most precinct chairs. It is dificult to elect new precinct chairs because the republican party pays for and controls the electronic voting machines.

[specsaregood]

but that's a huge mistake because private entities only invest in what appears to be profitable. Some of our greatest discoveries came from federally funded scientists simply investigating something because it was interesting and not because it could generate income."


Such as? Lets see a list.

[wstrucke]

Such as? Lets see a list.

Are you asking me? That's a quote from a quote from facebook. The point is, what is the answer?

[afwjam]

Are you asking me? That's a quote from a quote from facebook. The point is, what is the answer?

Apple is the answer. Government could never match private industry.

[specsaregood]

Are you asking me? That's a quote from a quote from facebook. The point is, what is the answer?

I'm asking whomever. I guess the FB person didn't provide a list?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

It's a shame it basically died. If we kept funding space programs we'd probably have people living in space colonies already, because the ISS.

[tremendoustie]

It's a shame it basically died. If we kept funding space programs we'd probably have people living in space colonies already, because the ISS.

That'd be more likely if we cut funding to all the massive federal boondoggles like NASA, then cut taxes and red tape, so Non-coercive industry would have a chance to put more money into basic r&d.

I've worked at NASA. The level of waste there would blow your mind.