Obama's Evolving Stance On NASA

mknewman writes "The Houston Chronicle is reporting a change in Obama's stance on NASA, saying his position on space exploration continued to evolve Sunday as the Illinois Democrat endorsed a congressional plan to add $2 billion to NASA's budget and agreed to back at least one more space shuttle mission."

Comments

Obama Should Love NASA

[Apple Acolyte]

He finds ways to justify all sorts of unconstitutional, unnecessary spending of the American tax payer's dollar (like his proposed $80B/year for international poverty), so why not NASA?

Re:Obama Should Love NASA

[MJMullinII]

I see. So you're comfortable with voting for a thinly-veiled Socialist radical. Good for you, douche-bag. Yes, the Republicans have an atrocious spending record, but you're a fool if you think they're no better than your beloved Spendocrats who think they are divinely entitled to the money taken from citizens. The two worst presidents of all time were LBJ and FDR - FDR for starting the American social welfare state and LBJ for greatly expanding it.

So says the "Anonymous Coward".

Re:Obama Should Love NASA

[Apple Acolyte]

If you're going to spend on the poor at all, spend predominately on Americans. Helping out other countries is fine, but the American president's primary and overriding obligation is to the well-being and betterment of America. Invest in areas of the economy that will produce jobs for Americans. Better yet, lower taxes across the board, get federal spending in line and allow the people to keep more of their hard earned money so that they can create jobs, invest and generally take better care of their own lives. That's what a responsible candidate for the presidency would advocate. But B.H.O. wants to be president of the world - that's the problem. His politics are better suited to the socialist regimes of old Europe. Perhaps he should be running for office over there instead.

Re:Obama Should Love NASA

[MJMullinII]

Oh, how cute I was labeled a "Troll" because I pointed out that the poster didn't have the courage of his convictions.

Getting to Social Security, you tell me ONE THING wrong with making sure people have something when they retire.

I'm so sick of these 20 YEAR OLDS bitching because they are asked to contribute a fingernail slice of their income to help those who came before them.

That is as selfish an snobbish as those (not that I'm accusing you of this, BTW) who scream they'd go to Canada before being Drafted.

NO ONE has any sense of DUTY or RESPONSIBILITY now days.

Re:Obama Should Love NASA

[tha_mink]

Finally, I'd like to note that all the sources I see say that Obama has called for the US to eliminate its oil dependence in 10 years, but he hasn't promised it will be so. I read it like JFK's call to get to the moon before 1970. It's a goal for the nation, and maybe we'll make it, but it seems unlikely (like the moon landing did, not that I think we'll actually make it this time around).

But JFK had a plan, Oboma has a "vision". Talk is cheap.

Re:Obama Should Love NASA

[iminplaya]

Maybe you should take a closer look at Woodrow Wilson and his ponzi scan they call "income tax". His support of the American Protective League, the draft, federal drug prohibition, eugenics, sticking his nose into the Middle East, etc etc etc.

Re:Obama Should Love NASA

[Poppa]

Democrats aren't heavy spenders? Take a look at the Washington state economy, where the Democrats control everything. We have the largest gas tax in the nation and state spending has gone through the roof! We are having record deficits now; we had a budget surplus when she started.

2 years ago our liberal Governor took credit for how well our economy was going. She can now take credit for trashing it.

The problem with the Republicans is that they controlled everything and let the power go to their head. I firmly believe we cannot let one party control everything like we did before. Washington state is a perfect example what will happen if the Democrats control everything.

The Democratic Congress's approval rating is lower than Bush's! And you want to give them *more* power?!!!

Re:Obama Should Love NASA

[LynnwoodRooster]

OK, so let Colorado prohibit oil shale development. Let Utah and Wyoming go. But no, the Slavery Party in control of Congress (aka Democrats) refuse to allow exploration, testing, development or production.

.
Awfully hard to get the SLIGHTEST F_UCKING CLUE if you're prohibited from even trying... But it makes great sound bites for your extremist base!

Re:Obama Should Love NASA

[LynnwoodRooster]

I see, so we should increase taxes on businesses right now so we can further hamper the economy? Is that the plan?

.
Seriously, between worry about recession or worrying about excess inflation, I don't know a single economist who would choose the former.

and the tax cuts affected the rich and big companies more than the small and poor, so the oil companies were the beneficiaries

Actually, this is false. Just like with the person income tax cuts the President Bush instituted. Percentage-wise, those on the BOTTOM end got more cuts. More people now pay ZERO income tax than did before the tax cuts. Sure, Mr. CEO is now paying 33% personal income tax on his million, rather than 39%, saving himself $60,000. But at the bottom end, you're paying 10% rather than 15%. And last time I checked, a 15% cut in tax rates (the top rate) is less than a 34% cut in tax rates (the bottom rate).

Evolving...

[Illbay]

...is Obama-speak for "the focus group results just came in the mail, honey."

yes, but does it run linux?

[alsta]

First, Obama was absolutely certain that he would serve the State of Illinois better if he remained a State legislator, but then he had a change of heart. When Sen. Fitzgerald decided to not run, the Illinois Republican Party ran Jack Ryan. Obama ran against him and it turned out that Mr. Ryan had been at a porn club with his super hot wife Jeri Ryan. Reprehensible as this was, the Illinois Republican Party next mustered the colossal failure of a candidate Alan Keyes. Obama in no small part had the dysfunctional Illinois Republican Party to thank for his political success thus far.

Next he said that he under no circumstances would run for president. He felt he would serve the State of Illinois better if he remained the Jr. Senator of Illinois. Then he had a change of heart.

Now he ran for president in hotly contested primaries. During this time he had a number of bright ideas for the liberal base. He had a number of changes of heart during this time, but he finally clinched the presumptive nomination.

A number of things have happened from illegal immigration and marijuana policy to DC vs Heller. All of which he has managed to have a change of heart about.

I am not surprised that he has yet another change of heart with regard to NASA.

Re:What pisses me off about NASA and welfare.

[D.McGuiggin]

"Just because *you* might not need welfare doesn't mean it's not required by society."

No, that I need it has nothing to do with the fact that it's not needed, it wouldn't be needed even if I needed it.

"Jesus christ I'm amazed someone has to spell it out to you, but then you seem like an American Republican, so I guess I shouldn't be that shocked."

Yes, and you're a proven moron, so none of us are shocked that you're too stupid to see an alternative to a system that was broken when it was implemented, is still broken, and will always be broken.

"Though I bet you're going to tell me you're a Libertarian, which you think is something different from republican."

By "you" you mean "the dictionary" right? Or are you incapable of reading the definition of a word that large?

"Insanity: you have it."

Funny, it seems like it's YOU is is saying "do them same thing (with some stupid, ineffective little tweaks) and hope it does something different" which seems to be the popular definition of insanity these days.

Welfare isn't necessary. Calling people names becasue your political bent means you support a shitty program that will never work will NEVER change that welfare is a joke, and so are your "points" and "views" on this subject.

PS, the only reason you think your ideas aren't totally moronic is because you're fucking stoned all the time. Your inevitable response to my post (because you can't help replying when you've been proven wrong) won't change THAT either.