Job Discussion Forums

[James_T_Kirk]

Looks like "King George" Dubya Bush is at it again . NASA, the U.S. space program, is making a comeback...looks like the U.S. is going back to the moon again, and this time on a permanent basis. While I should be thrilled about this (and, to be honest, part of me is a little excited about the idea of expanding the space program...after all, I am a starship captain ), I am wondering how the United States is going to pay for all this! Good thing the United States has nothing better to do with its money. After all, the USA is a utopia with universal health care and a flawless education system .

Here is a link to the story if you are interested. Below are some of the basics regarding this new space initiative:

BUSH SPACE INITIATIVE
�Spend $12 billion on new space exploration plan over next five years. $1bn will be new money, the rest reallocated from existing NASA programs.
�Retire shuttle program by 2010
�Develop new manned exploration vehicle
�Launch manned mission to moon between 2015 and 2020
�Build permanent lunar base as "stepping stone" for more ambitious missions
�Complete commitments to International Space Station by 2010
Source: White House

[dmb]

An honest question.

How much would $12 billion benefit the United States Of Iraq. How could that money be used to benefit the citizens there. How much would it cost to rebuild the infrastructure so that it was similiar to that of say ....Cleveland?

[denise]

How to pay for this? Hmmm... There are other oil-rich nations ripe for invasions...

Funny--I just watched an old X Files episode last night about NASA and its goings-on. Weird stuff, all that space exploration.

d

[johnslat]

Dear dmb,
To get Iraq today up to the level of Cleveland would require - oh, a minimum of at least $5. But don't you see - this is Dubya's "vision thing", an area his Dad was neither interested in "exploring" nor any good at.

"President George H. W. Bush once confessed that he was somewhat lacking in the "vision thing." His son's advisers don't have that problem: they have a powerful vision for America's future. In that future, we have recently learned, the occupant of the White House will have the right to imprison indefinitely anyone he chooses, including U.S. citizens, without any judicial process or review. But they are rather less interested in the reality thing."

This is simply a ploy to raise Dubya's stature and, as the "No Child Left Behind" baloney did in education, it's only purpose is to get a good press. Follow-up will be tiny or wholly absent. Considering how Dubya has managed to drive us at full speed back into debt:

"When taking office, President Bush inherited the strongest U.S. economy in history. In 2000, the economy had been expanding for nine years straight and unemployment hit a 30-year low at 3.9 percent, which included record low levels of unemployment for Hispanics and African-americans. In January 2001, the fiscal surplus was $127 billion and the projected budget surplus for the following ten years was a staggering $5.6 trillion.
To secure the future surplus, President Bush trimmed it by $1.3 trillion with his 2001 tax-cut, half of which went to the richest 1% of Americans. The $1.3 trillion tax-cut was the single largest factor that contributed to a declining projected surplus that was adjusted in March 2002 from $5.6 trillion to $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. Later in 2002, the projected surplus decreased to only $336 billion. By the end of 2002, the projected surplus was clearly gone and the federal government began running a deficit for the first time in four years. The deficit continues to increase with no end in site and will reduce the nation's ability to finance Social Security and Medicare, public schools, health care, infrastructure, and basic research. "

increased spending on space exploration seems, to me, at least, an extremely dumb thing to do. But then, if my prediction's correct, there'll BE no increased spending, anyway. It's all hype for the quick headline and the upcoming election.
Regards,
John

[dmb]

I take it that you will be voting for Dubya this year.
Seriously, was this one of the reasons that you left the Gulf? I've only been here 1.5 years. In that short time my salary has dropped by about 300 pounds sterling a month(because of the weak dollar) It's not the reason I will soon be leaving. But it doesn't encourage me to stay.

[johnslat]

Dear dmb,

"I take it that you will be voting for Dubya this year. "

I take it that's unmitigated irony. But no, I left Saudi Arabia, something I'd planned to do two years earlier, in 2001 - ah, let me rephrase that. I planned in 2001 to leave in 2003. Why? Well, I'd been in the Kingdom for 19 years by then (in 2003) and the thrill had worn off just a tad. Besides, I turned 60 (in 2003) and figured I'd better go back home, try to get a job and put something into my Social Security. Thanks to working overseas so much, my projected payment now - if I were to retire at 65 - would be about $500 a month, which would just about keep me in cigarettes.
Regards,
John

[ls650]

[johnslat]

Dear ls650,
I was about 24 when the first lunar landing took place, and I'll admit it thrilled me. Even back then, there were those who were against it, saying stuff such as - Why are we spending on this money on space when there's so much that needs to be done right here on Earth? At the time, I thought those people were "visionless". But you know - my thinking's changed. The stars aren't going anywhere, after all. The problem is - there's absolutely no guarantee that any money NOT spent on space would go to (what I consider) the right places: a national health plan, the environment, education and helping the needy. Nope, it'd almost certainly just get wasted on pork barrel projects and boondoggles such as the invasion of Iraq. However, since it's all just hype anyway, guess there's no point in debating it.
Regards,
John

[Laura C]

All I saw about this was a headline on yahoo -- 'george bush says blah blah blah by 2015'.

and I thought,

Well, why not say that? He's not going to be president by then, so why not go for the patriotic 'we are great' vote...

George, you're pretty thick, but the people who advise you are sneaky...

L