Obama aims to ax moon mission

[Genx87]

Stop talking to your butt which doubtlessly is the only only that knows to who the annointed one refers. I don't myself speak mystical right wingeese.

That doesnt make any sense. Run it through your crackpipe translator and get back to me with the results.

 

[Genx87]

I guess we can say Obama is even one step closer to Bush in now that he also is anti-science? Apparently BHO will annouce billions for a Tampa to Orlando train tomorrow, but keep NASA funded? Nah! BHO can promise other countries billions in cap and tax.. but fund NASA? Nah! BHO can continue to run illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but fund NASA? Nah!

This man is a complete disgrace to this nation. I wonder how many people would seriously vote GWB over him at this point.. I don't know if its 50% but I bet its damn close.

If he is paying for high speed trains that explains the token tossing out 25 billion\year in savings in a fraction of the budget. This administration is poor at their diversion attempts. The script is the same nearly every time.

 

[woolfe9999]

Pretty much this. I hate to see this, but with unemployment pushing eleven percent and entitlements inflated like Tiger Woods' libido, a program like this just doesn't make sense. We have to face facts - we are no longer a nation that has the financial strength or, in all likelihood, the scientific base to accomplish a mission of this sort. Big showy projects like this are now the realm of China and India. Anyway, I highly doubt that NASA is up to the engineering required for a repeat of Apollo.

As to who caused this, the problem dates back to the Carter era. That means we've had eight additional years of Democratic presidents, twelve years of Republican presidents, eight years of a Democratic Congress, and twelve years of a Republican Congress with an opportunity and an obligation to fix this, and instead it's been made worse at every step along the way. Just as Reagan's earned income credit turned into a welfare program, the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac concept started out good. Then Carter used a little bit of it to help low income people buy homes. We were doing well, so we could afford to dip a little lower and lift up those people. It was bumped up regularly over the years by both parties until it was bat-shit crazy, and at the same time we systematically destroyed the protections in place to keep a mortgage sector collapse from causing an investment sector crash. American politicians do not think long term because we do not reward them for thinking long term; we crave short-term benefits, what a politician promises to not take from us and what he promises to take from others and give to us. As Wolf so eloquently said, the problem is us, the American people. Until we can cut the programs we like, we're never even going to slow down our rate of descent no matter who is president or who controls Congress. /soapbox

Well said.

I would add this specific point - we need to stop crying about taxes, at least until the deficit situation gets fixed. This business of every politician, which now includes dems like Obama, campaigning on tax cuts when we are over $10 trillion in debt is ludicrous. Yet every politician now has to campaign on a tax cut platform or they can't get elected. It's voter bribery - elect me and I'll pay you - nevermind that we cannot afford to do so.

The truth of this situation is plain. It isn't ideological. It's just math. It's these four things: taxes, military spending, medicare, social security. And it really has to be all four or else there is too large a hit in one area. If it's all tax increases, then the tax increases will crush us. If it's Medicare of SS, then seniors will take a crushing hit. If it's all defense, it will weaken us too much. So it has to be all four. There are no sacred cows. This is math.

My main criticism of Obama - who I like in some respects - is that he doesn't have the balls to do what every other politician doesn't have the balls to do. He should should have viewed his Presidency as a single term from the outset and not given a damn about being re-elected. And he should have said to the American people - sorry guys, but I am going to have to raise your taxes, if not right now, then certainly after the economy is well into recovery. And that means not only the rich, but the middle class. And sorry, I will have to cut Medicare and SS, and that will HURT seniors. And sorry, I am going to cut defense, and yes this will weaken our military to some extent. But those are the breaks, because we have no choice. Or maybe it isn't so much a criticism, because he couldn't have even been elected if he had campaigned on that platform, and he couldn't adopt it suddenly after election or it would have been a bait and switch. The irony is that a politician who will do what we need him to do is not electable in this country. Given that this is the state of affairs, the majority of us have no moral ground to stand on when they complain about deficits, because it's our own damn fault.

- wolf

 

[nobodyknows]

Had he known what he was doing and have people other than Rumsfield and Bremer telling him what to do... Iraq could have been on its own for 5 years now at least. But really... expensive as the Iraq war is.. there are more factors leading to a $3 trillion total deficit this year and next.

Of course there were, and it was the Presidents job to know what was going on. He led us down the path to the slaughter house telling us the whole time what the economy needed to make it's "soft landoing" wqas more tax cuts.

Now the tightie righties are up in arms over the deficit, so Obama cuts the moon mission. I'd say that was a very good cut to start with. Now lets one up the GOP and raise taxes on those tht can afford it. See how long they scream about the deficit. If spending money while reducing taxes was a good idea the perhaps we should cut spending while raising taxes. That's what the GOP seems to want, isn't it? I say let's give it to them

Besides,what do we possibly need more moon rocks for?

 

[nobodyknows]

So, were you cheering on Obama when he delegated everything to Congress, who duly went on to raise the cap on the deficit and continued to spend like there was no tomorrow? But, when it comes to basic research, the president wants to hear nothing of it. This president sucks.

If you thinlk you're mad now just wait 7 years. ROFL!!

 

[Red Dawn]

Please. What 'catastrophic' mess are you talking about? Dear G-d don't say 'financial crisis' cause that mess started with Clinton. Even so, going along with you, then why would he try to spend trillions more on healthcare without doing anything about the deficit until after the election in Massachusetts? Take off your blinders and get off the president's cock. It's bad for your health to be choking on so much...

You're such an idiot as your post confirms. Of course it was a catastrophic mess and it still is, one that nobody would be able to solve in a year. Of course that doesn't stop hysterical little bitches like you from throwing a hissy fit and demanding he step down. Hell after you posted that thread about admiring the Nazi Party anything you say has zero credibility anyway.

One major negative about the Internet is that sniveling little punks like you finally have to opportunity to be heard instead of suffering in silence like your type did before the "Net".

 

[werepossum]

Well said.

I would add this specific point - we need to stop crying about taxes, at least until the deficit situation gets fixed. This business of every politician, which now includes dems like Obama, campaigning on tax cuts when we are over $10 trillion in debt is ludicrous. Yet every politician now has to campaign on a tax cut platform or they can't get elected. It's voter bribery - elect me and I'll pay you - nevermind that we cannot afford to do so.

The truth of this situation is plain. It isn't ideological. It's just math. It's these four things: taxes, military spending, medicare, social security. And it really has to be all four or else there is too large a hit in one area. If it's all tax increases, then the tax increases will crush us. If it's Medicare of SS, then seniors will take a crushing hit. If it's all defense, it will weaken us too much. So it has to be all four. There are no sacred cows. This is math.

My main criticism of Obama - who I like in some respects - is that he doesn't have the balls to do what every other politician doesn't have the balls to do. He should should have viewed his Presidency as a single term from the outset and not given a damn about being re-elected. And he should have said to the American people - sorry guys, but I am going to have to raise your taxes, if not right now, then certainly after the economy is well into recovery. And that means not only the rich, but the middle class. And sorry, I will have to cut Medicare and SS, and that will HURT seniors. And sorry, I am going to cut defense, and yes this will weaken our military to some extent. But those are the breaks, because we have no choice. Or maybe it isn't so much a criticism, because he couldn't have even been elected if he had campaigned on that platform, and he couldn't adopt it suddenly after election or it would have been a bait and switch. The irony is that a politician who will do what we need him to do is not electable in this country. Given that this is the state of affairs, the majority of us have no moral ground to stand on when they complain about deficits, because it's our own damn fault.

- wolf

The problem with raising taxes is that the more you move from the productive part of an economy to the non-productive part, the less there is to generate that tax base. If you have 'X' trillion dollars and remove 10% in taxes, you now have to get that same revenue (plus some, baseline spending you know) from 90% of 'X'. Money spent by government has a really hard time improving productivity, so you end up chasing a declining asset and have to continuously increase the effective tax rate. Conversely, the problem with tax cuts is that the Fed is very sensitive to inflation, being bankers, so if the economy starts heating up the Fed slows it down with increased interest rates. That makes it very hard to recoup the lost tax revenue from growth. It's hard to properly evaluate Bush's tax cuts because of 9/11, but I suspect the days of tax cut-driven economic booms are over for good. If for no other reason, the fact that so much of our consumption enriches other countries makes tax cuts much less effective, as we're stimulating money going to other nations.

I really like the FairTax, but no way in hell are politicians (of either party) going to vote away their major power, to punish and reward via the tax code. Failing that, much as I hate tax hikes on principle I think you are probably right, we're going to have to have them. If a tax cut winds up more heavily cutting imported consumer goods - which seems likely - then I could make the case that a net productivity gain for the country could well result. Our standard of living will go down, but most of us buy things we could just as happily live without anyway.

I can't believe I just agreed a tax hike would be a good thing, but - you make a very good case for it. Oh what troubled times are these, when even a shrubber is not safe.

 

[StageLeft]

Most of us here have asked for government to cut back. Of course along with this is pain. You can't always have benefits for the other guy cut back. It doesn't work like that. Somewhere, sometime, you'll feel it, too. So if you're a person who's asked for huge government reductions you must realize that you would never agree with everything cut.

 

[Moonbeam]

That doesnt make any sense. Run it through your crackpipe translator and get back to me with the results.

Try this: Who the fuck is the annointed one?

 

[DrPizza]

Good. I'm glad the moon mission is canceled. It was nothing more than a public relations type of project. It really would do little to further our knowledge. Why did we go there in the first place in the 60's? What was the purpose back then? Simple: to get there before Russia - it made us look good and them look bad. Was anything else gained? Yes, we figured out that the moon isn't made of cheese.

Now, a lot of people want us to return to the moon. What for?
"because if some meteor is going to become crashed into us, we need someplace for everyone to go. Or, we could start bases on the moon to help reduce the population on Earth."
Bummer. But wrong. The international space station which is merely a few miles from the earth (173) can barely keep a half dozen humans alive. We will never, at least not for a long long long time be using other places in the solar system to decrease the population on earth. Quite simply, the population grows here more than 10,000 times faster than we'd ever be able to remove people from this rock. Now, consider the energy costs and materials costs just to get a half dozen people to the moon - the space shuttle doesn't even come close to geosynchronous orbit of our satellites; 200 miles compared to 22,200 miles. That's less than 1% of the altitude. Imagine the size of the rocket boosters to get something the size of the shuttle to the moon, over 200,000 miles away.

We just don't have the technology, nor would such a trip to the moon do anything to develop such technology to get there better. And, there's nothing to do there. Oh, right. We could build a base to launch things from. That way, we could launch stuff from the earth, land on the moon. Hang out for a few days, then re-launch it. Absolutely brilliant.

I say *raise* NASA's budget to 25 billion, and have them start doing some science that would truly help humanity, rather than these huge projects that just waste the lion's share of their resources. All over the world, including this forum, people are arguing about global warming. All NASA has to do is stick a satellite or two at the right spot to watch the Earth, and that question could be settled once and for all.

Is going to the moon the right thing to do ever? Sure, it would be nice to see humans start populating the rest of the solar system & galaxy eventually. That's probably our destiny. But there's a certain order in technology that would better suit us: better development of solar power - far more efficient solar cells. A space elevator. If you understand what a space elevator is, you should realize that the first country to build one will essentially own space.

 

[LegendKiller]

I find this to be a huge joke. He wants NASA's main mission to be concentration on earth sciences and global warming????

 

[Red Dawn]

I guess we can say Obama is even one step closer to Bush in now that he also is anti-science? Apparently BHO will annouce billions for a Tampa to Orlando train tomorrow, but keep NASA funded? Nah! BHO can promise other countries billions in cap and tax.. but fund NASA? Nah! BHO can continue to run illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but fund NASA? Nah!

This man is a complete disgrace to this nation. I wonder how many people would seriously vote GWB over him at this point.. I don't know if its 50% but I bet its damn close.

While your wondering how about wandering how many people would vote for Bill Clinton over them all?

Aside from you nonsensical trolling about illegal wars being Obama's legacy, I'd like the hear why he thinks building that High Speed Train , if true, is a good investment and the Moon Mission isn't.

 

[DrPizza]

I find this to be a huge joke. He wants NASA's main mission to be concentration on earth sciences and global warming????

Who, me? I'm merely echoing the thoughts of many in the scientific community. Human space exploration is an outdated concept. But, you want more ideas for missions beyond earth? How about sending more probes (two Mars rovers have been wildly successful) to other destinations in the solar system? How about some of the water oceans of the moons of Saturn & Jupiter? The discovery of life forms other than those that have evolved on Earth elsewhere in our solar system would be heralded as probably the greatest discovery of the millenium.

 

[woolfe9999]

The problem with raising taxes is that the more you move from the productive part of an economy to the non-productive part, the less there is to generate that tax base. If you have 'X' trillion dollars and remove 10% in taxes, you now have to get that same revenue (plus some, baseline spending you know) from 90% of 'X'. Money spent by government has a really hard time improving productivity, so you end up chasing a declining asset and have to continuously increase the effective tax rate. Conversely, the problem with tax cuts is that the Fed is very sensitive to inflation, being bankers, so if the economy starts heating up the Fed slows it down with increased interest rates. That makes it very hard to recoup the lost tax revenue from growth. It's hard to properly evaluate Bush's tax cuts because of 9/11, but I suspect the days of tax cut-driven economic booms are over for good. If for no other reason, the fact that so much of our consumption enriches other countries makes tax cuts much less effective, as we're stimulating money going to other nations.

I really like the FairTax, but no way in hell are politicians (of either party) going to vote away their major power, to punish and reward via the tax code. Failing that, much as I hate tax hikes on principle I think you are probably right, we're going to have to have them. If a tax cut winds up more heavily cutting imported consumer goods - which seems likely - then I could make the case that a net productivity gain for the country could well result. Our standard of living will go down, but most of us buy things we could just as happily live without anyway.

I can't believe I just agreed a tax hike would be a good thing, but - you make a very good case for it. Oh what troubled times are these, when even a shrubber is not safe.

As clarification, I am not talking about increasing taxes to pay for more government spending, which is what you mean when you say moving money from the productive part to the less productive part. I am talking about a tax hike to pay off our creditors, while at the same time very large spending cuts. Bring spending down to the level of our current tax revenue, but increase taxes temporarily to pay off debt. This is not tax and spend. It is tax and cut. Whether tax and spend is a viable concept depends on what you think about government spending versus private sector spending, but that whole argument is moot right now. Once we balance our books, then we can decide how big we want government to be. What we can't have ever again is the cut and spend policies that got us here to begin with.

The issue of big government versus small government is more the ideological issue than the math issue, and I'm afraid that the two get conflated too often. You can have your books in order with big or small government, regardless of the merits or lack thereof of either approach. Or you may NOT have your books in order, in which case that needs to get fixed before anything else can really be addressed. Hell, we can't even fight this recession properly right now, whether the approach is tax cuts, spending, or some combination of the two. It's ridiculous.

- wolf

 

[Bateluer]

So, will the next flag to be planted on the Moon be the Chinese flag, the Indian flag, or the EU flag?

This angers me.

 

[sandorski]

First of all, Bush never delegated anything to Congress. He told them exactly what to do and they followed accordingly. Second, Bush wanted to go to Mars but Obama cannot afford the Moon?

Difference between a lockstep Party and a more Open Party.

Truthfully, Bush couldn't really Afford it either, but now that the Economy is in the crapper it is much further from being Affordable.

 

[UberNeuman]

So, will the next flag to be planted on the Moon be the Chinese flag, the Indian flag, or the EU flag?

This angers me.

Me too. In fact it's time to quit fucking around on this.

The time is here and now.

It must be done and can be done.

We must blow up the moon.

\a U.S. Moon, or no moon at all!

 

[Genx87]

Try this: Who the fuck is the annointed one?

You must live in a cave. Turn on the TV tonight and get a clue.

 

[Dari]

You're such an idiot as your post confirms. Of course it was a catastrophic mess and it still is, one that nobody would be able to solve in a year. Of course that doesn't stop hysterical little bitches like you from throwing a hissy fit and demanding he step down. Hell after you posted that thread about admiring the Nazi Party anything you say has zero credibility anyway.

One major negative about the Internet is that sniveling little punks like you finally have to opportunity to be heard instead of suffering in silence like your type did before the "Net".

You're a fucking joke if you really believe that the financial crisis is Bush's fault. Also, you think your lie about me supporting the Nazi Party is any more credible the more time passes? It isn't. Funny, assholes like you wouldn't dare say such things if you weren't so anonymous. I'd sue you out of your trailer home and Burger King 'dinners'.

 

[Genx87]

Who, me? I'm merely echoing the thoughts of many in the scientific community. Human space exploration is an outdated concept. But, you want more ideas for missions beyond earth? How about sending more probes (two Mars rovers have been wildly successful) to other destinations in the solar system? How about some of the water oceans of the moons of Saturn & Jupiter? The discovery of life forms other than those that have evolved on Earth elsewhere in our solar system would be heralded as probably the greatest discovery of the millenium.

Try in the history of humanity.

 

[Red Dawn]

So, will the next flag to be planted on the Moon be the Chinese flag, the Indian flag, or the EU flag?

This angers me.

Or maybe we'll have to work with others to get there. Setting foot there is a great accomplishment but if we can't afford to do anything afterwards what good is it. On the other hand if we work with other nations in a concerted effort the odds of being able to accomplish something not only good for us but for Mankind is an endeavor worth doing.

 

[nobodyknows]

You must live in a cave. Turn on the TV tonight and get a clue.

I don't think Moonie watches FOX.

 

[nobodyknows]

So, will the next flag to be planted on the Moon be the Chinese flag, the Indian flag, or the EU flag?

This angers me.

Some day you will get over it. Maybe even be thankful that cooler heads prevailed.

 

[Red Dawn]

You're a fucking joke if you really believe that the financial crisis is Bush's fault. Also, you think your lie about me supporting the Nazi Party is any more credible the more time passes? It isn't. Funny, assholes like you wouldn't dare say such things if you weren't so anonymous. I'd sue you out of your trailer home and Burger King 'dinners'.

Hey you said it with your own words
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2023262&highlight=

BTW it's a Duplex and the meals are home cooked and healthy and not only would I say them, I'd help you find your house after you wandered off in the middle of the afternoon..

 

[rudder]

Of course there were, and it was the Presidents job to know what was going on. He led us down the path to the slaughter house telling us the whole time what the economy needed to make it's "soft landoing" wqas more tax cuts.

Now the tightie righties are up in arms over the deficit, so Obama cuts the moon mission. I'd say that was a very good cut to start with. Now lets one up the GOP and raise taxes on those tht can afford it. See how long they scream about the deficit. If spending money while reducing taxes was a good idea the perhaps we should cut spending while raising taxes. That's what the GOP seems to want, isn't it? I say let's give it to them

Besides,what do we possibly need more moon rocks for?

Helium-3? To see if it is indeed abundant on the moon. One would think that all the leftwing enviromentalists that think nuclear is a problem, solar takes up too much space, wind is too noisy and kills birds... that researching a potential energy source that contains a low level of radiation and produces no air or water pollution would be a good thing.

And as far as raising taxes on the wealthy goes... how is that working out for New York state? And yeh everyone should be up in arms about the deficit... 3X the last administrations largest deficit and about the same is projected for quite some time. But this is old news.