Obamination: Obama wants to cut NASA to finance education

[Doctor Rock]

Does anyone know if Obama is still considering slashing funds for NASA to pay for his education plan. It sounds acceptable at first because "it's for the children", but recall that he has plans to simultaneously expand the military, not to mention the continued interventions in South America, Africa, East Asia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama Pits Human Space Exploration Against Education

Could you confirm this?  It sounds like such a boneheaded thing to do!  Is Obama pulling a Bush?  If it's true, man, I will feel the urge to bash Obama.  And then you'll have to move this to the Obamination isles.

[matthew]

Could you confirm this?

That is why I was asking. I believe others here pay far more attention to NASA than I do.

[Doctor Rock]

Could you confirm this?

That is why I was asking. I believe others here pay far more attention to NASA than I do.

I'll check the planetary society page.

[bebopbalogna]

it might sound like a boneheaded idea if you're canadian. and i say that because i have no idea what your schools are like.  but apparently you have no idea how horrible our education system has become.  kids can't count money or tell time.  in high school.  and teachers get paid less than garbage collectors.  i totally support suspending the use of the billions of dollars it takes to shoot some metal into the sky to confirm things we already know for a while to give our kids a better chance to succeed.  idiocracy was not that unrealistic. i work in schools every week. those kids are not learning anything. an entire class of fifth graders had no idea what a compass (a tool used to make circles) is.   i don't think we'll have any astronauts in this generation if nothing changes.

[Doctor Rock]

Well, seems to be true.  I must say that cutting NASA in the name of education while keeping funding for the military at the current level is contemptible.  There's no other word for it. 

[bebopbalogna]

i don't know where this is coming from, because all the speeches i've seen, he's mentioned how contemptible it is to be spending the billions we are in iraq when we could be spending it on education and health care.   then again it's just speeches, right?  apparently there are websites out there that know the truth.

[Doctor Rock]

it might sound like a boneheaded idea if you're canadian. and i say that because i have no idea what your schools are like.  but apparently you have no idea how horrible our education system has become.  kids can't count money or tell time.  in high school.  and teachers get paid less than garbage collectors.  i totally support suspending the use of the billions of dollars it takes to shoot some metal into the sky to confirm things we already know for a while to give our kids a better chance to succeed.  idiocracy was not that unrealistic. i work in schools every week. those kids are not learning anything. an entire class of fifth graders had no idea what a compass (a tool used to make circles) is.   i don't think we'll have any astronauts in this generation if nothing changes.

NASA presently costs 17 billion dollars.  The department of education costs $56 billion, but the vast majority of its duties are covered by the states.  US defence costs close to 500 billion, which, by the way, is more than all the other countries of the world combined.  NASA's funding is a drop in the bucket, and cutting NASA a bit will not make a dent in your education problems.  It might even make them worse, as the manned spaced program was, for a long time, one of the greatest motivators for getting kids interested in science and technology.

[Doctor Rock]

i don't know where this is coming from, because all the speeches i've seen, he's mentioned how contemptible it is to be spending the billions we are in iraq when we could be spending it on education and health care.   then again it's just speeches, right?  apparently there are websites out there that know the truth.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_nasa_plan_gets_little_p.php

[Doctor Rock]

Maybe Obama is just pandering, but fuck, we criticise that idiot McCain for pandering to the wingnuts, I don't see why we should leave Obama off the hook for doing the same thing.  I would still vote for Obama, lesser of two evils and all that. 

[bebopbalogna]

i wasn't talking about the NASA thing.  i knew about that. i'm talkin about the presumption that he's going to expand (meaning COSTS OF) the military.  i haven't seen him mentioning spending more on military, other than the benefits for veterans.  which is a good thing, by the way.

[Just Some Girl]

Candidates on the Issues.


There was actually a really great/helpful Obama vs/ McCain chart in the Globe and Mail on Saturday, but it's not in their online edition. That I can tell, anyway. But again, that's not saying much.

[bebopbalogna]

i understand that he's mentioned increasing the number of troops we have ready.  as well as expanding their duties to include more humanitarian and diplomatic missions.  but it is presumptuous to assume that means he will be spending more money.  there are countries with larger armies than america, but they aren't spending more money than us.  it all depends on how the money is spent.  nobody is gonna get elected president of the united states in a post 9-11 world saying we should shrink the military. of course he's pandering. but he's also mentioned how much money we're wasting on a daily basis in iraq.

[Doctor Rock]

i understand that he's mentioned increasing the number of troops we have ready.  as well as expanding their duties to include more humanitarian and diplomatic missions.  but it is presumptuous to assume that means he will be spending more money.  there are countries with larger armies than america, but they aren't spending more money than us.  it all depends on how the money is spent.  nobody is gonna get elected president of the united states in a post 9-11 world saying we should shrink the military. of course he's pandering. but he's also mentioned how much money we're wasting on a daily basis in iraq.

When you mean larger army, do you mean numerically larger?  May I remind you that the Iraqi army was actually numerically much larger than the US forces that took on them?  Numbers don't mean shit in modern warfare.  And your military isn't just large: your military is obscenely large!  According to wikipedia, the 2005 U.S. military budget was almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined and is over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority). 

The US army is a remnant of the cold war.  Most of it's weapons and tactics were developed to fight regular armies, not for counterinsurgency or police actions.  Why do you think they are presently failing so miserably in Iraq, after so easily disposing of the Iraqi army?  You can't fight terrorism with large tanks, heavy bombers, aircraft carriers and large numbers of nukes.  Most of the US armed forces are useless for the kind of actions needed to fight terrorism.  Police forces and intelligence gathering capabilities are much more effective. 

The sole purpose of your large  military is insuring US hegemony.  Your politicians have used the fear of terrorism as a justification for keeping your bloated, largely useless, military.   I believe that the overkill spending on your military is in part responsible for your financial inability to adequately meet the problems of your cities and your educational requirements.  In a time when infrastructure needed replacement, when there were increasing educational and social needs, your government was simultaneously cutting back taxes and over investing in nonproductive economic activity (i.e. the military).  As a result, most western countries, which have spent a much smaller portion of their budget on their military, presently have better living standards than the US.   40 years ago, it was the other way around.

[Doctor Rock]

By the way, criticising Obama is not the same as urging you to vote for McCain.  I would still vote for Obama, if I could, for lack of a better choice.  But accepting Obama uncritically would be the dem equivalent of being a dittohead.  Your country sure doesn't need more of those.