As reported on NW (sorry for the regurgitation).http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/15/893281.aspx “‘Discretionary spending’ is a term people throw around a lot in Washington, while actual discretion is seldom exercised,” McCain said. “Instead, every program comes with a built-in assumption that it should go on forever, and its budget increase forever. My administration will change that way of thinking.”
I know a lot of folks (personally, and via reading these forums) have been supporting McCain as an alternative to supporting Obama or Clinton. For the space folks, a primary reason to support McCain instead of Obama or Clinton was his "perceived" support of NASA and the "Space Program" in general.
Myself, I was on the fence, but this certainly changes the playing field a bit. McCain's "idea", although respectable, could have significant negative consequences for NASA and the program I support. Anyone else reading this and shaking their head?..Thoughts?
madscientist197 - 16/4/2008 9:58 AM"...the elimination of pork barrel spending...". Hmmmm, bye bye NASA. ;p
DfwRevolution - 16/4/2008 10:00 PMSomewhere in that ex-fighter pilot's brain I believe there is a love for things that are loud and go fast
tnphysics - 16/4/2008 10:12 PMDIRECT might avoid the budget problem.
soldeed - 17/4/2008 6:58 AMWell I guess whoever gets in the white house, we're screwed. Hillary will cut, Obama will cut, McCain will freeze. Dark days ahead. Go Space-X, T-Space, Scaled, ect. You are our only hope.
soldeed - 17/4/2008 7:58 AMWell I guess whoever gets in the white house, we're screwed. Hillary will cut, Obama will cut, McCain will freeze. Dark days ahead. Go Space-X, T-Space, Scaled, ect. You are our only hope.
Maverick - 16/4/2008 7:05 PMThat first post is a desperate attempt to discredit McCain on the NASA debate, where there's absolutely NO reference towards NASA.Obama on the otherhand makes no such mistake, and says he'll destroy NASA in black and white.
Jason Davies - 17/4/2008 8:59 AM"NO reference towards NASA"...well really, there is no reference toward ANY specific agency or department. there is, however, a specific reference to discretionary spending. discretionary spending, just so that you are aware, could be defined as - "optional spending for a project/prog/agency that Congress reviews annually". guess who falls into that bucket?"Then this thread should be deleted as off topic
OV-106 - 17/4/2008 9:23 AMEveryone. There should be no doubt that NASA clearly falls in the disretionary spending category. It is not essential for society to function without it or defense of this nation. It along with other programs would experience a freeze. It is NOT, however, pork barrell. Do not confuse the two.
Jason Davies - 17/4/2008 4:59 PMThen this thread should be deleted as off topic
OV-106 - 17/4/2008 11:40 AMIt doesn't affect my view of the candidates one way or the other. I do believe this nation is facing some issues that will require some tough decisions. While obviously I'm more than a fan of NASA and believe we can afford an increased budget with the level of economic return that is gained, I am not so blind as to see there are not other issues out there that may take a higher priority.
Tergenev - 17/4/2008 3:06 PMTypical Jim oversimplification and overstatement. Without NASA, Space-X and T-Space (etc.) would be missing one major customer. But not all customers are directly dependent on US fiscal policy. Bigelow isn't. Commercial satellite customers aren't (at least, not all of them.) There is still the possibility of international customers for logistical flights to ISS. There are others. Again, IF these companies can demonstrate launch capabilities at even somewhat above their admittedly optimistically-estimated prices, they will have customers in a world without NASA. In fact, they might even have more in the long run than they will in a world with NASA..
Jim - 17/4/2008 1:00 PMTypical lack of knowledge and nuspace koolade.
Tergenev - 17/4/2008 12:06 PMThe bottom line on McCain and NASA funding . . . he supports a long-range US presence in Iraq, which is costing about >$100B per year. That's an entire lunar outpost budget . . .EVERY YEAR. If he sticks to that plan, and he seems to be tying his horse to that bandwagon pretty firmly, we aren't going to be able to afford much of anything else that isn't absolutely necessary.
MrTim - 17/4/2008 9:55 PMMaybe spaceflight supporters should find a way to move NASA from the discretionary part of the budget to the non-discretionary part. The distinction is a political fiction anyway which permits programs in the one column to grow every year on autopilot without challenge, while leaving other programs to beg for money every year.
MrTim - 18/4/2008 4:55 AM... our troops in Germany, Korea, etc. (no longer needed to keep the peace, now mainly a veiled form of financial aid)
MrTim - 18/4/2008 4:55 AMI'm not a big fan of the war (mismanaged aftermath), McCain (too many reasons to list), our troops in Germany, Korea, etc. (no longer needed to keep the peace, now mainly a veiled form of financial aid)
but a little reality is in order here with regard to McCain and Iraq. He has said he supports a long-term presence in Iraq (like in Germany and Korea) and not a long-term combat mission. A non-combat presence would likely cost less than a combat presence.
Jorge - 17/4/2008 8:09 PMQuoteMrTim - 17/4/2008 9:55 PMMaybe spaceflight supporters should find a way to move NASA from the discretionary part of the budget to the non-discretionary part. The distinction is a political fiction anyway which permits programs in the one column to grow every year on autopilot without challenge, while leaving other programs to beg for money every year.I had to read this twice before I fully grasped what you're proposing. This is a joke, right? Please tell me I'm just not getting the joke, and that uneasy feeling in my stomach will go away. Every other mandatory (what you call "non-discretionary") program consists entirely of direct payments to individuals. Those individuals then vote to sustain the program. That's how those programs become mandatory and how they stay mandatory. The bulk of the "mandatory" money goes to Social Security and Medicare. Bottom line is, everybody gets old someday - or at least hopes to live long enough to get old someday - and old people vote. They vote a lot. NASA will never become part of that category, unless spaceflight supporters promised everyone a pony.
Analyst - 17/4/2008 11:33 PMQuoteMrTim - 18/4/2008 4:55 AM... our troops in Germany, Korea, etc. (no longer needed to keep the peace, now mainly a veiled form of financial aid) Well, I can't speak for Korea, but in Germany we don't need any financial aid from the US. Some local economies would suffer (in the short term) if the US closes its bases in Germany, but we would live on, trust me. For the whole German economy US military spending has no impact. Anyway, if the reason for the US presence is really financial aid, you would long be gone ... you would have never come here actually.Analyst
pippin - 18/4/2008 1:14 AMI suggest you visit one of those countries before making such ridiculous statements. And buying a globe could also help. I also don't know about Korea, but I DO know that the US have no chance to go into Iraq without their European presence. It's called "Logistics" and is quite vital for military operations.
pippin - 18/4/2008 1:14 AMQuotebut a little reality is in order here with regard to McCain and Iraq. He has said he supports a long-term presence in Iraq (like in Germany and Korea) and not a long-term combat mission. A non-combat presence would likely cost less than a combat presence. Sure it does. So McCain will go in and declare "war is over, we don't fight no more" and everything is fine? Peace and unity in Iraq... So you are suggesting the American soldiers are fighting there for FUN now?
MrTim - 19/4/2008 6:45 AMOf course it was a joke. But people in the US need to wake-up and see the mess we have created. I do not think ANY part of the budget should be "mandatory"; it should all have to justify itself every couple of years. If NASA ever WERE to get moved to that part of the budget, it would be doomed to failure. As government becomes more and more of a Robin Hood style wealth-transferring entity, all other parts of the government shrink in comparison. We already spend far more on give-aways to non-productive people than we do on the national defense. Someday something has to give. Sometimes, we who pay the bills need to ask questions and question assumptions.
Frediiiie - 21/4/2008 6:39 AMI want to draw posters attention to a major shift in NASA policy that is going on right now.NASA has stated that all ISS resupply will be by COTS.This means 4 of 6 Ares flights a year will never happen. The ISS flights Ares was going to do will be done by a commercial contractor. SpaceX, Orbital, LM, or whoever wants to put their hand up and bid for the job.