Skip to comments.
Going to Mars but losing my vote
Modesto Bee ^
| 1.24.04
| Greedy Geezer
Posted on 01/24/2004 12:25:32 PM PST by ambrose
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:56:14 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
It's more than a little bit upsetting to hear supposedly responsible people, including President Bush, talk about expanding the presence of humans into space. Space projects cost huge sums of money, and money is the real subject of this letter.
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: greedygeezers; mars; martians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
1
posted on
01/24/2004 12:25:33 PM PST
by
ambrose
To: CasearianDaoist
ping.
2
posted on
01/24/2004 12:26:45 PM PST
by
ambrose
To: ambrose
Both Howard Dean and John Edwards are looking better and better He lost me here. Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat running who is even worth a thought.
3
posted on
01/24/2004 12:28:51 PM PST
by
Huck
(Was that offensive? I hope that wasn't offensive.)
To: ambrose
The same old same old. Get a new generation going on this challenge. and we won't need SSI. So short sighted. You would think that boomers would want to leave something behind for the next generation.
To: Huck
Just another of the sheep who cares more about cheap pills than doing something great and leaving a legacy for future generations. Sickening.
5
posted on
01/24/2004 12:30:34 PM PST
by
ambrose
To: ambrose
It's never about the betterment of the human race. It's always me, me, me.
6
posted on
01/24/2004 12:31:29 PM PST
by
WinOne4TheGipper
(The Democrats: an innovative bunch. Every time you think they've hit bottom, they find new lows.)
To: ambrose
Actually, the President's space policy is rather lacking in boldness and did not call for much new money. The best thing he did, phasing out the shuttle by 2010, was a cutback.
This letter illustrates that there are a lot of swing voters out there. Ann Coulter says they are dumber than a toaster, but I guess some of them are capable of writing a letter.
To: ambrose
Damn!
A 5% increase in a NASA budget that is terribly underfunded sure get's a lot of negative press.
8
posted on
01/24/2004 12:31:40 PM PST
by
Cold Heat
("It is easier for an ass to succeed in that trade than any other." [Samuel Clemens, on lawyers])
To: ambrose
Its called "blowing the lid off the mason jar" (tip of the hat to Marshall T. Savage).
9
posted on
01/24/2004 12:33:09 PM PST
by
marron
To: ambrose
And yet your forget about the Great bill we are leaving our kids and grandkids. Debt service currently takes 15-20% of the entire budget and growing the goverment isn't helping. Do we really wish to stick our kids with a debt that take 35-45% of the yearly budget to service?
Do we need to go to space? Yes we do.
Do we need to grow goverment? No we don't.
Why isn't goverment getting smaller? We control both houses and the white house.
10
posted on
01/24/2004 12:36:04 PM PST
by
DMCA
(TITLE 17 Chapter 1 Sec 107)
To: DMCA
All businesses incur debt. Debt is fine when it is down payment or investment for the future. Space exploration is an investment for a future generations.
Cheap pills for geezers is not an investment. It is money down the rathole.
11
posted on
01/24/2004 12:38:57 PM PST
by
ambrose
To: ambrose
Going to Mars is only the culmination of what President Bush wants to do. It's the exploration of science that causes great innovations and new ideas. Look back at what President Kennedy caused when we went to the moon and all of the new inventions that great step created. This is what President Bush wants. The creative mind pushed to its limits.
12
posted on
01/24/2004 12:38:59 PM PST
by
wattsup
(wattsup)
To: wattsup; ambrose
Poverty is always going to be with us because poverty is relative. And poverty owes as much to individual character as it does to any broader societal anomaly.
As long as people are people, in other words, you will have poor people. This doesn't mean you don't provide a safety net, its that the safety net catches you on the way down but then you have to climb back up.
Just as a rising tide lifts all boats, even small ones, the growth in technology re-defines the baseline of what we consider poverty. In some countries poverty means you build your own house out of materials you scavenge yourself. In the US, poverty means you have a color TV, a $5 dollar Casio watch better than anything John D. Rockefeller could have bought, and medical help better than Queen Victoria or FDR could have dreamed of, once you wait your turn in the line for the gunshot victims to go first. Being poor in America means you have to go to the library to go on-line with the other homeless people surfing the net.
13
posted on
01/24/2004 12:54:27 PM PST
by
marron
To: ambrose
Social Security system is supposed to be going broke Hell, Bush wants to send SS $ to Mexico! There are numerous proposals Bush has made that, in general and in my view, hurt this country and I too am on the fence re my support for his reelection. I will never vote for a Democrat but the person who touts unwavering support for the Constitution is my kinda politician.
To: ambrose
The key here is to integrate the Moon/ Mars initiative with the immigration policy...
To: ambrose
If you read my post you will see that I agree. I just think the total size of the goverment should shrink AND we should go to space. As a matter of fact I think we should do more in regards to space like offer a 500,000,000 Million reward to the first company that can cut by 90% the cost per pound to LEO.
16
posted on
01/24/2004 1:02:06 PM PST
by
DMCA
(TITLE 17 Chapter 1 Sec 107)
To: Steve Eisenberg
17
posted on
01/24/2004 1:27:41 PM PST
by
raybbr
To: ambrose
>>Cheap pills for geezers is not an investment. It is money down the rathole.<<
As one who is fast approaching the "old geezer" stage of life, I have to totally agree with your economic assessment. Pills may add some quality to the end of an individual's life, but one must doubt if that quality of life is worth saving if by saving it hope is decreased for future generations.
Muleteam1
To: ambrose
Basically, he wants the government to spend money only where he thinks it should. No thanks, Bush is only giving a push to NASA and not spending that much more money. NASA's budget is chump change compared to the overall budget. Maybe if he would just forgoe his free pills program for a year, the deficit really would be affected, but getting rid of NASA is a drop in the bucket.
19
posted on
01/24/2004 1:43:56 PM PST
by
Brett66
(<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com">miserable failure</a>)
To: DMCA
With the exploration of space we open up the possibility of inventions, discoveries (example: minerals) that may pay for the national debt in a short period of time. We can do this or we can let the Europeans, Japanese, or Chinese do it.
20
posted on
01/24/2004 1:51:17 PM PST
by
breakem
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson