Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lunar Base Foe Romney Endorsed By Lunar Base Supporters

Posted by timothy on from the let's-just-howl-at-each-other-instead dept.

MarkWhittington writes "Mitt Romney has infamously suggested that the idea of lunar colonies is 'zany' and has ridiculed Newt Gingrich's idea of building a lunar base by 2020. However Romney has been endorsed by a group of aerospace heavyweights, including Apollo moonwalker Gene Cernan and former NASA administrator Mike Griffin, many of whom have previously supported the idea of lunar bases."

6 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. Deficits deficits deficits by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Informative

    Funny how "Deficits don't matter" (Dick Cheney) once the Republicans want to do something.

    1. Re:Deficits deficits deficits by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Informative

      Now, just to be clear on this: When Dick Cheney said that, they had already ballooned the deficit by trillions of dollars. He wasn't talking about "small deficits".

  2. Funding by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Will we be raising taxes to pay for all of this cool space stuff, or just putting it on the credit card as usual?

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  3. Re:I despise Newt... by Beelzebud · · Score: 3, Informative

    A lunar base would be great, but don't kid yourself into thinking Newt thought of it. Notice he only said this in Florida, where NASA is located...

  4. Re:*Cricket cricket* by RajivSLK · · Score: 3, Informative

    Your tax reasoning is flawed and so is CNNs. 80% of ALL Americans paid 13.3% in FICA taxes alone (yes the employer portion is a tax too -- hiding it on the employer side doesn't make it zero). Why do you guys never count FICA? It's a tax that the working poor pay. I continually hear reports like "50% of americans pay no income taxes at all!". As a Canadian I think "How can this be?" and then I realize that you guys are just bad at accounting / math.

  5. Government deficit and debt is a red herring by Nicolai+Haehnle · · Score: 5, Informative

    To anybody who reads the parent: yes, those debt numbers sound impressive. However, ultimately they are just the necessary counter-part to giving the private sector the monetary assets that it desires. This was understood a long time ago, see e.g. here. More recently, Modern Monetary Theory economists have been pushing the same point. If you haven't yet, I recommend you set aside some time to read introductory explanations e.g. here and here and here.

    The bottom line is this: targeting a specific size of the budget is bad policy. The budget will be whatever it has to be to match the behaviour of the private sector. Artificial austerity, as is being proposed these days, is coercion of the private sector to go against its natural behaviour, even when that natural behaviour is benign. In other words, austerity actually means an oppressive and draconian government. Deal with it.