Some Tea Partiers love govt spending, so long as it's NASA

[NYgs23]

NPR has the story here.

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]

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]

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]

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]

If NASA hadn't of ever existed, a man would have walked on Mars ten years ago sent there by a private business.

 

[RileyE104]

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]

Good God..were would we be without Velcro!

 

[amy31416]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Honestly I think NASA and NSF are lowest on the list of what needs to go.

 

[RileyE104]

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

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Good God..were would we be without Velcro!

Try without Integrated Circuits.

-t

 

[NYgs23]

Try without Integrated Circuits.

The much-hyped NASA inventions are seen. But what is unseen?

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

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