Author Topic: McCain to limit "Discretionary Spending"...affect to NASA/Cx?  (Read 10401 times)

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1

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?  

 

Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
"...the elimination of pork barrel spending...". Hmmmm, bye bye NASA. ;p

Seriously though, from the article I don't think cutting NASA funding is on the horizon. I suspect it's one of those statements which is deliberately non-specific so that people can read whatever they like into it. I'm sure he has a few specific examples in mind, but I wouldn't expect NASA to be at the top of that list (at least not until Ares I either flies or fails).

I must say, I think the whole fuel tax holiday is a bit populist though.
John

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
By his wording (and I may be misinterpreting), it sounds like he's saying that discretionary programs that seem to cost too much can expect a cut back. Honestly, I don't know that this will much affect NASA (beyond a slight loss due to the funding freeze), as NASA's budget decisions tend to be much, much more scrutinised than many other agencies (because it's higher profile), and thus somewhat less porky. Lower-profile agencies, like HUD, Treasury, etc, that are not used to having their budgets contested might have more to worry about (maybe)...

Or, it's just another generic but ultimately empty campaign promise...

Simon ;)

Offline DfwRevolution

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Somewhere in that ex-fighter pilot's brain I believe there is a love for things that are loud and go fast ;)

In all seriousness, while McCain will not be the "knight in shining armor" that provides firm leadership to our space exploration programs a la JFK, I also doubt he has any interest in starting a budget battle with Congress over the space program. At this time, I think there are just easier targets for budget cuts than NASA.

Offline Maverick

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Newcastle, England - UK
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 33
That 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.

Offline space.anonymous

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
If McCain won the White House and held all discretionary spending flat during FY 2010, it would delay the IOC for Ares I/Orion by at least one year, from 2015 to 2016.  The budgets for those projects, especially Ares I, are still ramping up in FY 2010.  If the budgets for Ares I/Orion cannot ramp up as planned in FY 2010, the work has to be spread out over more years, resulting in a schedule delay.

And if a McCain White House undertakes an across-the-board review of all discretionary programs as part of the FY 2010 budget process, there's also the likelihood that the many technical problems being reported today in the Constellation Program will result in cuts, deferments, restructurings, or terminations to some or all Constellation projects.

Not saying whether any of this is good or bad, or right or wrong... just that it is.

FWIW...

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
madscientist197 - 16/4/2008  9:58 AM

"...the elimination of pork barrel spending...". Hmmmm, bye bye NASA. ;p


I think the elimination of pork barrel spending is a very good thing and NASA's budget will not fall into this category.  Recently I saw a list of some of the items funded that would fall into this category and these earmarks are a drain on real resources.  The really sad thing is that when totaled up, it was equivalent to or slightly more than the entire NASA budget.

As for McCain, I think it will be interesting to see who is VP choice will be.  I think it's a strong possibility it could be Govenor Crist of Florida.  Also, whoever is the VP candidate or nominee of either party, Florida will be a battleground state and saying you are planning on devestating a good portion of central Florida's economy would not be wise.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
DIRECT might avoid the budget problem.

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
McCain's objective seems to me to get rid of earmarks and pork to return to budgetary discipline. There is a lot of pork in NASA's budget. Something like $3 billion from 2001 to 2006 was for things that had nothing to do with NASA's core programs, it was for pork projects that our esteemed elected officials tacked on to NASA's budget or earmarked that NASA had to spend part of their budget on them.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-06-11-nasa-pork_x.htm

I support McCain on that decision. If it means NASA gets a budget freeze for FY10, so be it. Somebody has to get rid of the pork in the Federal Budget. At least McCain is trying. I still think he's the best candidate for space supporters right now, with Obama appearing very hostile and Clinton going whichever way the wind blows, as usual.

Offline soldeed

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 213
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Well 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.
The Exodus is behind schedule

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Quote
DfwRevolution - 16/4/2008  10:00 PM

Somewhere in that ex-fighter pilot's brain I believe there is a love for things that are loud and go fast ;)

Except for trains!  Senator McCain has long been advocating a shutdown of Amtrak, which I think is a shame.  The rest of the civilized world, meanwhile, is investing heavily in modern high speed rail.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Quote
tnphysics - 16/4/2008  10:12 PM

DIRECT might avoid the budget problem.

Our budget has always been planned around a freeze to NASA's current discretionary budget.

McCain's plan to freeze federal spending at 2008 levels wouldn't hurt us.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

  • Guest
Quote
soldeed - 17/4/2008  6:58 AM

Well 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.

What about Obi-Wan?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Quote
soldeed - 17/4/2008  7:58 AM

Well 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.

Incorrect, without NASA, Space-X, T-Space, etc don't have customers

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1

Quote
Maverick - 16/4/2008  7:05 PM

That 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.

lol, nice try.  couldn't be further from the mark.  

i love how asking an open question "what do you think of this" turns into a "desperate attempt to discredit".  

ah, politics.  

if you think i am misinterpreting, then say that.  such are the beauties of the english language.  

"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?

(the other type of spending, mandatory, is spending authorized by "permanent" law...think social security, medicare)

here, c-span defines it real simple: http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/discspen.htm

Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline Jason Davies

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 75
"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  :)

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Actually, I find it interesting that everyone is so ready to pounce on one candidate or another.  McCain has said he want to eliminate pork-barrel spending.  Is no one outraged that this year that spending totaled to or slightly more than the entire NASA budget????
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
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  :)

uh...if he says "limit discretionary spending"

and i am telling you that NASA falls into that bucket (discretionary spending), and a "limit" could affect Cx...

how is this OT?  sorry, i don't follow.
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Everyone.  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.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
OV-106 - 17/4/2008  9:23 AM

Everyone.  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.

Agree NASA is not "pork".

Anxious/nervous that a freeze at 08 levels would negatively impact Cx plans.  That is all.  

Originally started this thread to essentially ask other folks 2 questions:

1 - is this how you interpret what was said/wrote (i.e. limit discretionary = an across the board limit, "pork" or not)
2 - how does this impact your view of the candidate(s) (i.e. does this mccain better/worse than 6mo ago?)

perhaps i should stick with bullet points and numbers when i write, i tend to confound with too much language  ;)
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
Jason Davies - 17/4/2008  4:59 PM

Then this thread should be deleted as off topic  :)

The mods will make such calls on thread deletions, thanks very much  :bleh:

We're having a crazy day today, so I hope everyone's getting it out of their system.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
It 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.  Freezing spending in FY10 will not necissarily be a bad thing either for NASA.  The federal financial bleeding has to begin to stop somewhere and assuming the current plan, shuttle stands down in 2010 automatically meaning NASA gets all the same money it did in FY09 ("the freezing") and the shuttle budget is still diverted to CxP.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Quote
OV-106 - 17/4/2008  11:40 AM

It 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.  

I reluctantly agree.  I don't think my job would be in direct jeopardy if, say, Obama got elected and cut NASA.  But my vote is going to be based upon broader things.  My life is affected by things like the war and the economy, and I will be basing my vote on those issues more than simply the narrow one of space.

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
California had a budget freeze when the gubernator took over, there was plenty of squealing from the piggies, but life went on pretty much as usual.

I'm rather shocked though that any of the candidates would target NASA rather than complete boondoggles like synfuel subsidies.  That and their idea of PAYGO is to cancel the war and transfer the war spending (which is outside the budget) to social programs (bring it into the non-discretionary budget).  Essentially converting a transient budget increase/deficit into a permanent one.

I also like how in the debate last night both of them said they wouldn't raise taxes on 'people' earning under 200k.  Then immediately turn around and say they'll just tax carbon, imports, capital gains, alcohol, tobacco and firearms.  After all none of that is 'people earning under 200k'.

Offline Tergenev

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Bean is correct in his definition of discretionary spending. NASA is definitely in that bucket. However, what a presidential candidate means when he throws around terms like that is anyone's guess.

Jim wrote in reply to another post:
     >>soldeed - 17/4/2008 7:58 AM
     >>Well 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.
   >Incorrect, without NASA, Space-X, T-Space, etc don't have customers

Typical 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.

The 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Quote
Tergenev - 17/4/2008  3:06 PM

Typical 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.

.

Typical lack of knowledge and nuspace koolade.  

Most commercial satellites are outside the performance range of the group you specified.  NASA is the largest customer of the Delta II class.  No NASA, Delta II class LV.    
International customers already have their means to the ISS, they are the Progress, ATV and HTV.  

Don't make me laugh: "They might even have more in the long run than they will in a world with NASA"  


Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
Jim - 17/4/2008  1:00 PM
Typical lack of knowledge and nuspace koolade.  

without commenting on the actual subject of the post(s)...

the nuspace koolade term has just found a permanent home in my vocabulary.  :)
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
Tergenev - 17/4/2008  12:06 PM

The 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.

man...that $100B is Constellation's *entire* budget through 2020 (NOA = ~99B)

we could buy a lot of Lander's for that dough!  heck, we could operate Shuttle in parallel with Orion/Ares.  just for giggles.  

alas, you are correct, war spending does not just get transferred into another bucket when the "war" goes "away".  or at least, it sure as heck should NOT just get transferred and made permanent.  talk about a broken fiscal policy.  might as well just mortgage the white house and the hill...

although i agree with mccain that we'll be in iraq for many,  many years (as we are in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc)...i worry that this country sometimes acts like a 16yr old girl in high school with her first credit card (OOOH!! new shoes!!)
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Tergenev - 17/4/2008  12:06 PM
The 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.
I'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. Both congress and this admin seem to be coming around to the view that the US should stop shoveling funds into Iraq for rebuilding of infrastructure, so even with no changes in policy between Bush admin and a McCain admin, the costs would likely reduce. The war hurts over the long-term by adding to the deficits and ultimately increasing the interest on the debt that we pay each year (already over 8% of the budget). The bigger risk would be if somebody both pulled-out-of-Iraq AND rather than not spending the money, shifted the funds into a permanent entitlement program like nationalized health care (which would NEVER reduce and would become a permanent structural issue no longer in the "discretionary" column). BTW: I am not a fan of a long-term presence there.

Maybe 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. The irrationality of the scheme is best illustrated by the fact that the pentagon is in the discretionary side of the budget.

BTW: The Iraq issue is a wonderful bit to use on members of congress: "Why can't we give a one-time 4 billion dollar boost to NASA to narrow the gap, minimize American use of Russian rockets, and support American science and technology, when we CAN spend 100 billion per year in Iraq, which sits upon an OCEAN of $100+/barrel oil?"

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Quote
MrTim - 17/4/2008  9:55 PM

Maybe 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.
JRF

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Quote
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)

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

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Quote
MrTim - 18/4/2008  4:55 AM
I'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)
I 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.
Quote
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.
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?

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
The reason for bases in Germany is that 15 years ago that was the border to the USSR, and after spending all the money to build up bases, airstrips, hospitals and many service-people that live there, they continue to use it as a logistical hub to this day because they need such hubs somewhere.   Such bases also do have a calming effect on the region, which is obviously what the goals of permanent bases in Iraq would be.  That's at least as far as the local governments go, the people living there would resent it as they have bases is Saudi Arabia and Lebanon...  Not everyone will be happy, but if we pull out 100% from the region, we'd be basically be doing what the terrorists have demanded of us - and since terrorism is a methodology rather than an entity, the only way to beat it is to show that we will not allow that methodology to succeed against us. When possible do the opposite of what terrorists want, at the very least not react at all, but absolutely never act such that the terrorists can view their methods as proving successful.  It was very disturbing to me that Spain played into the terrorists hands with their election after the bombings there.

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Jorge - 17/4/2008  8:09 PM
Quote
MrTim - 17/4/2008  9:55 PM
Maybe 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.
Of 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.

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Analyst - 17/4/2008  11:33 PM
Quote
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)
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
Ok, I see that an obviously less than thorough exposition of the geopolitical and global economic implications of what was a minor aside to a posting about McCain got more attention than the actual substance of the post, so I guess I must now spend paragraphs on exposition (sigh)...

1. Germany and South Korea (as examples) clearly do not need foreign aid from the U.S. for their general economies or societies. There are, however, communities there that benefit from the presence of our bases. American diplomats, who ought to be able to persuade people to like us based upon reasoned discussion of common goals and/or principles, far too often find it easier to simply make people like us by sprinkling some cash about (or not closing bases when they are no longer needed for purely military reasons)

2. There was a time when people thought the US needed an armed presence in Germany, for example, to make sure the country did not arise again as a military power hostile to the interests of the US and Germany's neighbors. That time has passed, and I for one, respect the current generation of Germans enough to say "I don't think we have to stay there to make sure they behave"

3. Yes, having bases in places like Germany made it easier to wage the cold war, and facilitate the projection of American military power into other places where our interests are at stake. However, it could be argued that the Europeans could have been trusted to provide more of their own defenses during the cold war and we ought to have been able to simply be visiting allies on their bases as needed. (we WERE supposedly ALLIES during that period, right?) As for current force projection, or (as in the case or Ramstein) transport of materiel and care of wounded troops, is it really the case that we must have American bases on German soil? Can we not, as good friends and allies, simply lease space on their bases when we need it?

4. Are the South Koreans so worried about the North and so unable to defend themselves that we must be there to protect them? A sizable portion of their population seems to be always trying to re-unite with the North and seems to want us to leave. The American troops in Korea DO provide a trip-wire function (being in harm's way, meaning some would fight and die in any invasion by the North, thereby making it politically easier for a US president to get the American people to support war on the penninsula to defend the South) the truth of the matter is that we have enough strategic air and naval power to deal with North Korea (should it ever attack to the south) without having to place US troops there.

I could go on, and we could have an extended debate about the value of any number of US bases in other countries, but the I only mentioned it as a way of noting that I was not a big fan of McCain's notion of US presence in Iraq like that in countries like Korea & Germany, while pointing out that I felt it unfair for somebody to equate those plans (in cost) with any plan for ongoing warfighting. Please let's get the thread back to McCain...

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
pippin - 18/4/2008  1:14 AM
I 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.
Been there, done that. I suggest you try to recognise an obviously over-simplified aside in parenthesis. BTW: you do not have to have bases in somebody else's country in order to ship materiel through it... it they are such good friends and allies, you should be able to make temporary arrangements on an as-needed basis. (unless you are afraid they will not help you when you need the help...)

Quote
pippin - 18/4/2008  1:14 AM
Quote
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.
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?
No, American troops are not fighting for fun. McCain, however, made his statement about a long-term presence in Iraq in a particular CONTEXT. He said that he did not see TIME as the issue so much as CASUALTIES and conditions. He said that the length of time that the US had a presence in Iraq was not critical to him, that it could go for a hundred years, IF it was a presence like in Germany or Korea where the troops were not in combat (i.e. the presumption was that the Iraqis would end-up with a civilized society like the Germans and South Koreans have and that the fighting there would end as it did in Germany and Korea). YOU may choose to presume that the people of Iraq are philosophically or genetically incapable of being civil, but McCain is giving them the benefit of the doubt. His statement about being in Iraq for a prolonged period was framed entirely within the context of a peace there, as anybody who saw the speech rather than listening to Obama's distorted version (to be charitable to Obama) of it would know. I can't believe I'm actually having to defend McCain here... (sigh)


Offline Chris Bergin

Let's keep it on NASA, and not other issues.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Quote
MrTim - 19/4/2008  6:45 AM
Of 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.

Well, there's a big difference in here, and that matters to NASA funding. Wealth-transfer may be something that is bad for the people who have wealth taken away from them (and I know what I'm talking about, looking at OUR federal budget I'm paying for at least one other person and I'm not counting pensions into that, just direct allocation)
BUT
on an economic scale it does not hurt as much. It's just money that now belongs to somebody else. He will spend it and therefore it will be used to create wealth.
Opposed to that, state consumption typically not only takes the (tax) money needed to build stuff, but also the resources consumed in that process. Military spending is an especially bad business case in that sense since conquests came out of fashion.

Now for NASA spending, that's somewhere in between. Going to the moon for the sake of it is just consumption, there is no direct value in this. However, on the way you develop lots of technologies that may have commercial and economic value, if you do research up there you increase knowledge about the world which will enable other technological developments that generate economic growth. In this sense, it's an investment.

Now what you have to do - and I agree that you have to do that to all kinds of government spending - is decide what it is you want to accomplish (go to the moon, spark new development, do research, develop certain technologies, enable businesses etc.) and how much it is worth for you.
And developing a space program by defining where and to whom how much money should be spent and then let's see what kind of a program comes out of this may not be the most efficient way to invest your money...

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Quote
Jorge - 17/4/2008  8:09 PM

Quote
MrTim - 17/4/2008  9:55 PM

Maybe 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.

I certainly don't see the point of attempting to move NASA into non-discretionary spending. Congress would probably block it anyway.  I certainly would not see the point of reducing NASA to a pony delivery service.

Going on, I wonder what's the concern about McCain's words? Suppose as a result of his promise, he did reduce the NASA budget. This would coincide with an across the board decrease in spending. As has been mentioned in the Obama thread, we need to consider what else the candidat does. Just because someone decreases NASA spending (or whatever sacred cow) doesn't mean that they aren't a good candidate.
Karl Hallowell

Offline Frediiiie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
(Dupilicate thread and badly represented - Edit - James)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Quote
Frediiiie - 21/4/2008  6:39 AM

I 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.

Incorrect.   Calm down, you are blowing this way of proportion..  This is old news.  The cargo version of the Orion was canceled long ago and the Ares flight rate to the ISS was never 4 to 6 a year.   There is still is a requirement for 2-4 Orion missions a year.  The only "change" is that the Progress won't be used for US cargo for the gap.  

COTS D is not a given.  "meets" NASA needs means it would have to meet NASA safety requirements and human rating.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1