Romney-Ryan Release Space Policy Paper
RocketAcademy writes "The Romney-Ryan campaign has released a white paper on space policy, which observers find to be long on criticisms of the Obama Administration but short on specific recommendations. The policy promises 'a robust role for commercial space,' but it's clearly a supporting role: 'NASA will set the goals and lead the way in human space exploration.' When it comes to space, both parties put government ahead of private enterprise. Some see a parallel with the policies which are driving space companies out of California. Newt Gingrich, one of the few politicians who thinks seriously about space, says the policy is a step in the right direction but not enough."
What NASA needs is a specific goal (moon in this decade), and the money to achieve it, free of political constraints. None of this "No ATK, no $$$" garbage.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Romney thinks the windows in our space craft need to be able to open.. ya know, in case there is a fire and they need to let the smoke out.
Bottom line is, if you can't afford insurance, you have no business getting free health care financed by the rest of us. Find a free clinic.
And who pays for this "free" clinic?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no - and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous.
Clearly, Romney is an expert on these things, so I hope they take his input seriously in the design phase. We wouldn't want future astronauts dying from not being able to open their windows.
(yes, I know I'll be moderated down for this. but I've got karma to burn - even if I can't get oxygen at 30,000 feet to burn it with)
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Bottom line is, if you can't afford insurance, you have no business getting free health care financed by the rest of us. Find a free clinic.
And who pays for this "free" clinic?
Magic. Magic pays for everything. It's the new fiscal accounting model.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
We can blame ether side all we want, but the truth is that without a perceived threat there isn't any political power to throw to NASA. If their was a known killer asteroid that was going to hit in 10 years we'd put every penny of the defense budget towards stopping it. If North Korea were building a lunar station we'd do everything to get one up first. But without the credible threat of something like what USSR presented we have no motivation other than just "to do it". I'm sorry but as much as we like to think we do things just because we can we do things a lot faster when you're in fear for your life.
1:Science and innovation important, some how having nasa means our workforce is some how more scientifically educated and skilled. Which makes no sense because I thought education did that, not Nasa.
2: Space is important some how to a bunch of industries, despite the only real importance being research and satellite launching.
3:Military in space good, need to secure space against space terrorists. More money to defense contractors. Could be hostile aliens?
4:Nasa and our space program is like fancy armor in WoW, it is the international penis we can wave in the face of non-space faring countries. People respect space penis. Also private space penis is good too.
Restate all the above and say that the country needs clear and concise leadership etc.
pretentious quote by me. Who quotes themselves in their own policies? I do. I'm that awesome
Huge diatribe on how Obama is bad and stuff. Also commercial space stuff is good
January 27, 2012 Republican debate:
“I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, ‘You’re fired!’” -Mitt Romney
Calling for anything other than a minimal to nonexistent manned space program is hypocrisy for Mitt Romney.
Simple, Ryan has this one covered...
You just have to rob a bank to steal the money to pay for your health care. If you get away, you can now afford it. And if you get caught, no worries, the government will now pay for all of your health care, food, and lodgings anyway.
If he's going to be President of a country who's attitude on individual privacy can now be summed up as "if you didn't do anything wrong, what are you hiding?" then yes, I think it's very relevant.
Wow, Magic Johnson must pay a LOT of taxes to cover for medicare alone!
Tomorrow is another day...
Do you care to discuss this point using reason and logic, or it this just flamebait?
Honest question, it is worth discussing.
Intellectual honesty, or coward? Just asking,
I'd point out something about anonymous coward and finger pointing, but don't expect you have the grace to say, "Touché"
Sometimes it's just about having a little light hearted fun, after all this is a political thread. I don't expect anything in here to influence a vote, one way or the other.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Well yeah, they'll have insurance. These people aren't hopeless morons, and they love their children and what whats best for them. Indigent homeless are trickier, but you see a lot of working homeless families lining up around the block to get their non-emergent medical needs addressed. Under a
You forgot to call the President "hopey changey," or make a reference to the "democrat party." Minus two points.
Tort reform is a bit of a red herring. Orrin Hatch's Tort Reform proposals in '09 would have saved about $54 billion, which isn't chump change, but it would only reduce total national health spending by 0.5%. So we could claim that money on the table, but the limitations in Hatch's proposal specifically were extremely low, to the extent that they reduced pain and suffering awards to a slap on the wrist and would probably cause incidents of malpractice to increase.
State-by-state solutions are doomed in the US because of regulatory arbitrage. Employers and tax units in states with expensive programs can simply move their paper addresses to states with lower tax liability. Insurance companies can shop around for states that offer them the most favorable regulation (the ones with the least customer protections), and employers can play states off each other to obtain favorable tax treatment. States simply can't design their own programs when the employers within it can simply evade the costs of the system by filing paperwork, while enjoying all the benefits of the system by dumping their employees into the state public program. A state-by-state healthcare system in the US would end up looking a lot like the consumer credit card system in the US, which is to say, we'd all have whatever rights the North Dakota and Delaware legislature had agreed to, because they were the highest bidder for the health insurance company's business.
"States' Rights" has been keeping 60's-style state capitalism alive for decades, by giving employers a huge stick with which they can extract free services from a state government, guised under the threat of "killing jobs." An employer simply threatens to move unless they can stay tax-free, dumping the costs of roads, schools, police, and health care on everyone else.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
At least they are still alive, and not lying face down in a gutter. And of course those inadequate facilities are probably still costing taxpayers about 10x what providing basic insurance would...
Always amazing the stupid decisions people (politicians and voters) will make with emotion or spite over reason. Reminds me of the CA death penalty. 13 people have been executed since it was reinstated in 1978, at a cost of about $4B. And the process takes so long that over *80* death row inmates have died of other causes. So $200M a year has been wasted just to wait around for 90% of the inmates to die on their own, same as in life without parole.
That's correct. They skipped the "flip" part and just flopped.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Bottom line is, if you can't afford insurance, you have no business getting free health care financed by the rest of us. Find a free clinic.
And who pays for this "free" clinic?
WTF does this have to do with TFA about Romney and space? This is why I dont like reading /. anymore
"I don't want a president who looks like a game show host." - David Letterman
Thread drift is a hallowed part of /. history. From the time I joined after lurking for a while, thread drift has become a major feature of this atmosphere. To ensure you like it, next time you get mod points, use the Offtopic mod.
Most geeks have at least a touch of ADD. The original topic, which talked about a Space Program by the opposition candidates, was made after one of them wondered, in all seriousness, why you couldn't open windows on airliners. Any semblance of subsequent sanity is purely accidental.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The article's editorializing isn't really fair. No, Romney doesn't have a plan, but the goal of the article isn't to propose a space policy, but to bash Obama's. And it's true that space exploration has taken a hit during the Obama administration, but all the key events took place before his administration.
Bush, 2004: "Screw that space shuttle, boys, we're going back to the moon!"
NASA, 2004: "Cool! Just so you know, that's kind of expensive."
Bush, 2006: "Is a buck fifty enough?"
NASA, 2006: "No. And BTW, we're cancelling the shuttles like you asked."
Obama, 2009: "Umm, guys? Let's be honest here, going to the moon on a buck fifty isn't going to happen. We need a new plan for what to do with your buck fifty."
Congress, 2009: "What buck fifty?"
Obama, 2011: "Oh for fuck's sake."
I've talked to lots of NASA employees over the year. Lots of them are really pissed off at Washington politics. But the names that inspire curses are George Bush and Congress. Obama is rarely mentioned.
NASA's woes are a classic case of the Republican game plan:
1) When in power, make grand plans without sweating the details or the cost.
2) When out of power, block all solutions to the problems that arise from your grand plans.
3) When seeking power, blame the opposition for failing to solve the problems you caused.
What's that old saying? "I didn't protest when they left the liberal state. I didn't protest when they left the moderate state. Now they are leaving the country and leaving all the burdens on citizens. "
Maybe not a faithful quote but you might get the gist of it.
Corporations don't care about your values. They only care about the bottom line. That's how it is set up and probably how it should be. OTOH it's our job to hold them accountable. Part of that social contract is to make them contribute back to the community they have benefited from. The infrastructure, the subsidies, etc.
Laws and regulations enforce that contract. Without them corporations are bound to screw us over by their own rules.
The flip side is feast and famine. When the predator over hunts a territory he either moves on and fights his way into a new one or dies of starvation.
Civilization is supposed to moderate that cycle for us smart humans. Part of civilization is rules and regulation. Really that's all it is. Agreed upon self regulation to avoid feast and famine.
You are an ignorant person.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
The banking side of TARP is going to turn a profit.
Universal health care will decrease the cost of health care to the entire population, while increasing overall health. Arguing against it is short sighted and stupid.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me