Government Dependence

[mrsleeve]

No. Nothing like climate change and Muslim relations though

[rwh11385]

No. Nothing like climate change and Muslim relations though

Seriously,dude. Red herring much?

[mar1t1me]

So......

Wall Street, and the big banks which neither create nor manufacturer any tangible items, play games which result in their further enrichment, but lead to economic meltdowns. These same banks, freed from the need to offer loans to businesses for revenue by the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act, now refuse to extend credit to small businesses, which are the biggest employers in the country. Because access to growth capital is curtailed, businesses cannot grow, and thus, cannot hire. The threat of unemployment results in lower consumer confidence, lower demand for consumer products and the resultant layoffs, thus even higher unemployment numbers.

So who's really at fault here? Are we really surprised the numbers forced into looking to their government for relief? The over-hyped Obama phone (not an Obama program actually, as it originated in the '90s) aside, and constant focus on the numbers of welfare abusers and unions as somehow solely being the reasons the system is strained are distractions.

Still waiting for some accountability here.

[Farbin Kaiber]

The over-hyped Obama phone (not an Obama program actually, as it originated in the '90s) aside...

It actually originated in 1984 with Regan, but was for landlines, and the cellphone addition was in 2008 under Bush II, but was not brought into widespread knowledge/circulation until the Obama Administration.

[mrsleeve]

Seriously,dude. Red herring much?

actually statements from the O man and the head of NASA them selves using the same urgency inducing pretext as used in your quotes............ Circa 2009-2010 IIRC

[rwh11385]

actually statements from the O man and the head of NASA them selves using the same urgency inducing pretext as used in your quotes............ Circa 2009-2010 IIRC

What?

What does Muslim relations have to do with missions on the far side of the moon?

[mrsleeve]

No really sure, I assume it could be to get money from them............................

A few days ago, in Cairo, Bolden told Al Jazeera that when he became the NASA administrator, President Obama charged him with three things: "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering — science, math and engineering."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/07/white-house-nasa-defend-comments-about-nasa-outreach-to-muslim-world-criticized-by-conservatives/

Earlier in 2010 NASA gets an additional 2.4 billion in NEW budget resources for Climate Change.

And now the White House has unveiled plans to give NASA's Earth science programs $2.4 billion in new money over the next five years. That's an increase of more than 60 percent.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125507009

Priorities can and have changed. It seems I consed that, the point was that the O mans mission for NASA changes every 6-18 months. So while right now for his 2012 Campaign it seems a Kennedy like, What can you do, space program was needed to help win over those of us that think NASA is important.

Whats is NASA's mission going to change to by this time next year and do with all the new funding, I got it Obama Garmin's for everyone.

[BraveUlysses]

[mrsleeve]

Heeter, My initial comment down this tangent was mostly tongue in cheek, I kinda figured you would have gathered the sarcasm, but now I am committed lol

[rwh11385]

No really sure, I assume it could be to get money from them............................

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...conservatives/

Wow. Typical commentary from Fox News attacking the concept of not hating Muslims, but NASA/Obama they are right that we need to inspire future scientists globally if we are to combine efforts instead of financing it solely by us.

Bolden said his mission to the Muslim world is a “matter of trying to reach out and try to get the best of all worlds.” No nation will make it to Mars on its own, he said.

I think it was more of a motion to get more international involvement. I've seen no mention of budget for anything - just diplomacy. But the media typically blows things out of proportion?? (As do those who watch or read it)

Earlier in 2010 NASA gets an additional 2.4 billion in NEW budget resources for Climate Change.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125507009

Priorities can and have changed. It seems I consed that, the point was that the O mans mission for NASA changes every 6-18 months. So while right now for his 2012 Campaign it seems a Kennedy like, What can you do, space program was needed to help win over those of us that think NASA is important.

Whats is NASA's mission going to change to by this time next year and do with all the new funding, I got it Obama Garmin's for everyone.

Thanks for finally posting sources, but have you actually cared to ever look at the NASA budget? I know it is challenging, but perhaps consider putting things into context.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_%20Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf

I'm not sure since when priority has been determined by something that is a ~2.5% increase of the overall budget. ($2.4B increase over 5 years, annual budget of ~$20B) They mislead you to think that 60% is a large number, but it's not compared to the overall budget.

Even at $2.3B for all of Earth Science in FY2015, that is only 10.9% of NASA's total budget.

Exploration at ~25%
Space operations at ~20%
Planetary science/Astrophysics/Heliophysics at a combined 17%

So by your logic, 11% is a higher priority than 45%? (And that would assume that all of Earth Science is climate-related)

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/nasa-budget/ - when cuts were made

“We were not on a sustainable path back to the moon’s surface,” Bolden said.

And the new plans are to go past the moon - not on it.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/obama.space/index.html

Armstrong's crewmate, Buzz Aldrin, supported Obama, saying NASA needs to explore new frontiers, not retrace 40-year-old footsteps.

But unlike what a lot of Republicans said, it wasn't the end to manned spaceflight but rather a focus on growing commercial abilities. Shouldn't competition and private industry be seen fondly??

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013101058.html

Obama's budget, according to a background briefing by an administration official on Sunday, will call for spending $6 billion over five years to develop a commercial spacecraft that could taxi astronauts into low Earth orbit. Going commercial with a human crew would represent a dramatic change in the way NASA does business. Instead of NASA owning the spacecraft and overseeing every nut and bolt of its design and construction, a private company would design and build the spacecraft with NASA looking over its shoulder.


John Gedmark, executive director of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, said the critics underestimate the maturity of the commercial sector.

"The Defense Department began using commercial rockets a long time ago to launch priceless national security satellites, that our troops' lives depend on. If the Pentagon can trust private industry with this responsibility, we think NASA can, too," Gedmark said.

You could be like Rick Perry and complain about NASA's downfall of having astronauts hitch rides to the ISS... or could see that SpaceX has a commercial contract for transportation of goods already and looking beyond that to colonizing Mars.

Encouraging private industry to innovate instead of having the government monopolize it worked. Who would have guessed that Republicans would still be attacking that??

[mrsleeve]

^

See my last post before this one

[rwh11385]

Heeter, My initial comment down this tangent was mostly tongue in cheek, I kinda figured you would have gathered the sarcasm, but now I am committed lol

^

See my last post before this one

So you are committed still? Or was enough to back it up with sources? Oh well - as much as people attacking climate research funding, it has not changed the majority of focus for NASA.

Just posted today: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/syst...indtunnel.html

At NASA facilities around the country, engineers are developing America's first exploration-class rocket since the Saturn V launched astronauts to the moon. The Space Launch System (SLS) will provide an entirely new capability for science and human exploration beyond Earth's orbit to destinations such as an asteroid and eventually Mars. To enable some of these new capabilities, members of the Aeroelasticity Branch of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. tested a ten-foot-long buffet model of the Space Launch System in Langley's Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT).

"This is a critical milestone for the design of the vehicle," said Langley research engineer, Dave Piatak.

Data retrieved will help prepare SLS for its first mission in 2017, Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1), which will deliver an uncrewed Orion spacecraft to lunar orbit to check out the vehicle's systems.

But before SLS's first flight, the safety vehicle must be demonstrated through analysis and testing. An important step in ensuring a safe flight to orbit is buffet wind-tunnel testing to help determine launch vehicle structural margins.

To do this, a wind-tunnel model is put through its paces at transonic and low supersonic speeds reaching up to Mach 1.2. Testing aerodynamics at these speeds is essential to understanding the structural interaction to the flow field around the vehicle and determining loads on the flight vehicle.

After completing EM-1, SLS will perform its second mission in 2021, Exploration Mission-2, launching Orion with its first crew of astronauts to demonstrate orbit around the moon.

[smooth]

your thinking of Unemployment, which right now is kinda a hybrid. Your initial 26 weeks (the standard UE claim) is paid out by you and your employer while your working. The 4 or 5 levels of extensions that are out there that take you up to 99 weeks well yeah thats not and there for paid for more so by the tax payer

We are not talking about U/E we are talking about straight up welfare, Food and cash on your EBT, Section 8 subsidized housing, govt provided land line (good) / Obama Phone(bad) ect.....

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.[1] Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we have come to know it."[2]
PRWORA instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which became effective July 1, 1997. TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which had been in effect since 1935 and supplanted the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program (JOBS) of 1988. The law was heralded as a "reassertion of America's work ethic" by the US Chamber of Commerce, largely in response to the bill's workfare component. TANF was reauthorized in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

PRWORA proposed TANF as AFDC’s replacement. The Congressional findings in PRWORA highlighted dependency, out-of-wedlock birth, and intergenerational poverty as the main contributors to a faulty system.[24] In instituting a block grant program, PRWORA granted states the ability to design their own systems, as long as states met a set of basic federal requirements. The bill's primary requirements and effects included the following:

Ending welfare as an entitlement program;
Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births.
Enhancing enforcement of child support.

In granting states wider latitude for designing their own programs, some states have decided to place additional requirements on recipients. Although the law placed a time limit for benefits supported by federal funds of no more than two consecutive years and no more than a collective total of five years over a lifetime, some states have enacted briefer limits. All states, however, allowed exceptions to avoid punishing children because their parents have gone over their respective time limits[citation needed]. Federal requirements have ensured some measure of uniformity across states, but the block grant approach has led individual states to distribute federal money in different ways. Certain states more actively encourage education; others use the money to help fund private enterprises helping job seekers.

The legislation also greatly limited funds available for unmarried parents under 18 and restricted any funding to immigrants (legal or illegal).[4] Some state programs emphasized a shift towards work with names such as "Wisconsin Works" and "WorkFirst." Between 1997 and 2000, enormous numbers of the poor have left or been terminated from the program, with a national drop of 53% in total recipients.[25]

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

[mrsleeve]

Hey I am all for nasa and am of the mind set the heavy lift/maned program should neever have been phased out, or additional resources should have been commisioned when a replacment for the shuttle program was not going to be ready in time.

[evandael]

christ can't you people give it a rest?