Social Question

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

Does Obama want to destroy NASA because it is one of the only government programs that pays for itself?

Asked by malevolentbutticklish (2137 points ) March 7th, 2010

Government programs normally lose money… NASA more than pays for itself through technological gains. Why does Obama want to destroy it?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

294 Answers

Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

mammal: As posted, your answer does not address the question.

jrpowell's avatar

Now you get to prove that NASA pays for itself. And proving that Obama wants to destroy it would be nice.

The_Idler's avatar

Who says Obama wants to destroy it?

Cruiser's avatar

NASA is costly and if you haven’t noticed our country is broke and can ill afford to spend the money on this program the way we have in the past. The space shuttle is an aging fleet of space craft and we new rides. Obama is cutting NASA loose so private enterprise will know the government will stay out of the way so they can invest in and develop new technologies they can make a profit doing.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

johnpowell: I have to prove this? Are people really this ignorant?!?! Integrated circuits (common modern computer chips) came out of the space program. Now I guess I have to prove that computers improve our lives and productivity…. that we wouldn’t all have more money without them.

Obama has reduced the space budget by a larger amount than any president in recent history while spending more money than any president ever. That counts as destroying it.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

Cruiser: Obama has spent more money than ANY PRESIDENT EVER. When we are living at a time when the president can spend more money than anyone ever how is there no money for space?

Cruiser's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish If you actually read my answer you will see the reason why.

davidbetterman's avatar

I didn’t know that Obama wants to destroy NASA. Where did you hear this?

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

davidbetterman: The Bush administration had given NASA a large budget increase by promising to go back to the moon. (Where we should be and later Mars.) Obama destroyed that.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

Cruiser: Obama doesn’t want the government out of the way. There are more regulations under Obama than ever.

jrpowell's avatar

Did Intel pay NASA for the chip design? I still think your claim is not well-founded. But NASA did give us TANG and Velcro. That isn’t something to sneeze at.

jrpowell's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish :: Because Bush wanted to put a missile shield on the moon.

jrpowell's avatar

“Obama doesn’t want the government out of the way. There are more regulations under Obama than ever.” Once again. Proof would be nice.

davidbetterman's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish

There was only so much money to go around. Obama needs most of it to wage the criminally insane wars in which we presently find ourselves involved.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

davidbetterman: Then why doesn’t he need all the money we spend on illegal aliens? There is plenty of money for the tens of millions of illegal aliens and their anchor babies. He wants to spend even more on them.

jrpowell's avatar

Oh my… Glen Beck is on Fluther. Where is my chalkboard?

davidbetterman's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish
Are you talking about welfare? Do you have any idea how much money has been cut from welfare programs so as to fund the aforementioned criminally insane wars we are presently fighting?

The_Idler's avatar

@davidbetterman He’s obviously an American conservative. You could’ve left it at “Do you have any idea?”

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

davidbetterman: You didn’t answer the question. Why doesn’t he need the money we are spending on illegal aliens? We could stop spending this money any time we wanted.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

The_Idler, johnpowell: I am glad that you don’t have any real responses… just insults. Maybe you will evaluate that you would rather be on the side of the facts instead of the side of the insults.

jrpowell's avatar

What money do we spend on illegal aliens? Post some fucking numbers. I would love to see them.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

davidbetterman: you too with the insult-only fact free comments? How can I carry on such a conversation?

jrpowell's avatar

Fact-free? You are spouting talking points from the RNC. You are the bullshit machine.

jrpowell's avatar

Back your claims up.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

Educating the children of illegal immigrants cost JUST THE STATE OF CA $7.7 billion each year. This means responsible, respectable parents cannot have children because they do not feel fiscally able due to the high taxes they pay for these illegal immigrant children.

davidbetterman's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish
The only fact free comments around here are yours.

“How can I carry on such a conversation?”

There is no conversing with you.

dpworkin's avatar

I’m pretty sure it’s because he was actually born in Kenya, he is an Islamofascist, his middle name is Hussein, he’s not really a Christian, he’s an Arab, his mom isn’t really his mom, he’s a Socialist, he’s a Nazi, he’s a Communist, he wants to disarm us and take away our 2nd Amendment rights, he wants to kill your grandma (but first he wants to fuck her, get her pregnant, and make her have a late-term abortion) and NASA is the only thing standing between Obama and his plan to be Emperor of the New One-World Jew State.

jrpowell's avatar

“respectable parents cannot have children because they do not feel fiscally able due to the high taxes they pay for these illegal immigrant children.”

Congrats. This might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. I’m done with you. Go back to your tea-party.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

davidbetterman: “The only fact free comments around here are yours.” <== then you didn’t read the others.

Lve's avatar

Let’s for a moment assume you are making a correct claim (and yes, facts to back up your claim are necessary). ‘Obama destroys NASA’ Why, WHY?
My answer would be: he needs money for more important things such as, dunno, health care, battling unemployment, education, just to name a few.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

johnpowell: You do not believe responsible parents put off having kids when they do not feel fiscally able? Didn’t a large portion of the 7.7 BILLION come from just such parents who sacrificed their own family to pay irresponsible illegal aliens?

ragingloli's avatar

There is a simple solution. Make those illegal immigrants american citizen and make them pay taxes. After all there are already 300 million descendants of illegal immigrants who stole the land of real americans and who pillaged and defiled their land. A few more million will not hurt.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

Lve: “more important things such as” illegal aliens and welfare

Lve's avatar

BTW, what do you have against illegal aliens, they are people too you know.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

ragingloli: We didn’t steal there land. The Indians rolled over and gave it to us. A few of them fought but they were easily killed. Now Europe is rolling over and just giving its land to the Muslims. It is sad to see that we did not learn from history. Want to be as big a loser as the Indians… simply repeat their policies.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

lve: Yes, they are people, like all criminals.

ragingloli's avatar

“Now Europe is rolling over and just giving its land to the Muslims.”
What a load of crap.

“The Indians rolled over and gave it to us.”
So when a large group of heavily armed thieves enters a house, and the intimidated family stands back and watches in terror as the thieves take away their possessions, it suddenly is not theft because they did not fight against them?
It is theft, and your appeal to ‘might makes right’ does not change one tine bit.
Your entire nation is founded on ‘illegal immigration’ + genocide and then people like you come and complain about impoverished people doing the same, just without the genocide part.
Your kind truly disgusts me.

dpworkin's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish It’s very amusing to see the words “learn” and “history” in your posts.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

ragingloli: Load of crap? In Norway, what percentage of children born today are born Muslim?

jrpowell's avatar

This is a beautiful train-wreck.

jrpowell's avatar

We get it.. You hate brown people.

Lve's avatar

What is with the aversion against welfare? People that are going through a rough time and need some assistance to get back on their feet, should be able to get it. If it were up to all you selfish conservatives, there would be even more people sleeping in their car and dumpster diving to get some food.

Response moderated
dpworkin's avatar

But @johnpowell you have to admit he has a wonderfully apt username.

CMaz's avatar

“NASA more than pays for itself through technological gains.”

If that is true, then there is no need for government funding.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

Lve: welfare is the ultimate proof of you get more of what you pay for. I don’t want to see us turn into a country of people perpetually “unlucky”. I want a country of productive winners.

Fyrius's avatar

Protip: if someone seriously considers abolishing something that has an obvious advantage, then I think it would be safe to go out on a limb and assume that that advantage is probably not the reason why they want to abolish it. Because no matter how poorly you understand your political adversaries, they don’t do things just for the sake of not making sense.

Thus, even though I know next to bugger all about the intricacies of American politics, I think I can answer your question on the basis of elementary common sense with a heartfelt ”of course not.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

ChazMaz: This would be true only if the money NASA brought in through increased productivity was returned to it. This is not the case (except for increased productivity does increase tax revenue).

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

Fyrius: While it is nice to believe that all politicians have hearts of gold and never wish to do anything wrong even if we assume good intentions it is not enough. The future is at stake here and the correct decisions must be made or we, and our children, will all suffer.

Lve's avatar

Your view of reality is completely wrong. People that at some point in their lives receive welfare are not losers. Life is not black and white. You are either still very young and don’t have enough life experience to realize this, or you are just a hopeless case beyond rescue.

CMaz's avatar

“only if the money NASA brought in through increased productivity was returned to it.”

Too bad business does not work that way. Money is best spent on thing that give a direct return. Space travel is not one of them.

It is time to transfer that “returned increased productivity” to the private sector to make.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

Lve: People who don’t have savings and instead rely on the government whenever something goes wrong in their life are losers. They need TV, cable, smokes, a new car, new clothes, etc… everything but to save money.

mrentropy's avatar

@johnpowell Tang, possibly, but not Velcro. That was invented by a Swiss fellow who decided to take a look at how grass burrs got stuck to his clothing. Back in the late 40s, early 50s.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

ChazMaz: If you believe this about returns being DIRECT then you believe that most every Obama program is a mistake.

jrpowell's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish :: Are you ever going to back-up the shit you spew?

kevbo's avatar

Why are you arguing over who owns a smokescreen?

How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landing

jrpowell's avatar

So this is what it looks like when the right falls apart. I didn’t think I would see it. The Black man pissed you off that much.

CMaz's avatar

“that most every Obama program is a mistake.”

Obama is a mistake. But, we are not talking about “every” deal. We are talking about NASA.

MANNED space exploration is too costly, at this time. And has not accomplished much is the past 30 years.

Money best spent here on earth.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

ChazMaz: If manned space exploration has underperformed recently we need to look at why. We have failed to push the envelope. It is this pushing of the envelope which we need to reap the full benefits. This is why Bush’s program to return the Moon and later Mars were so important.

jrpowell's avatar

“This is why Bush’s program to return the Moon and later Mars were so important.” WTF?

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

kevbo: We did land on the moon. In this case it is you who must prove that we didn’t not me who must prove that we did.

jrpowell's avatar

This must be a troll.

Fyrius's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish
If there was anything in that reply that was actually related to what I said, I can’t find it.
And if you honestly believe there are politicians who deliberately do wrong things for the sake of doing something wrong, just because they’re evil, then I suggest you get away from Fox News for a week or so.
Here’s a rule of thumb for you: honest mistakes are much more common than bad intentions.

As a side note, I’m not even taking a stance on American politics here. I’m only pointing out blatant failures to apply common sense.

jrpowell's avatar

Nobody is this stupid.

kevbo's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish, unfortunately, believing Bush was serious is quite naive.

In fact, believing we have failed to progress in 40 years is also naive.

Lve's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish There always will be people that take advantage of the system. That doesn’t mean the system should altogether disappear. I am not a christian myself, but I do believe in helping others that are not as well off as me. If that means I have to pay some taxes so that a decent welfare system is in place, I am happy to do so. Like my grandfather used to say, it won’t take the food out of my mouth.

jrpowell's avatar

Amen. Lve.

kevbo's avatar

It’s not that we didn’t get there. It’s that we hid the technology that got us there with a pretend mission.

rangerr's avatar

What the hell is even happening here? God damn.

gemiwing's avatar

You guys are arguing with a plate of noodles. This pleases me.

Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

gemiwing: It is actually a plate of JellyFish ready to be eaten.

rangerr's avatar

@johnpowell You? Subtle?

jrpowell's avatar

Sometimes.

gemiwing's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish Rubbish. You’re a plate of noodles. Jellies leave a better taste.

RandomMrdan's avatar

I think the real problem here is @malevolentbutticklish must work for NASA, and is worried to be unemployed soon, and collecting unemployment.

But yeah… I think someone needs to lay off the Fox News just a tad.

CMaz's avatar

“If manned space exploration has under performed recently we need to look at why.”

Do your homework.
Tell you what, your next home, build in the middle of the ocean and make it out of gold.
Your argument for it is it is a good location to catch fish?
Bottom line. it is too costly and in the end justifies nothing more then a materialistic goal.

I mean do what you wish with your own money. I would rather see it (my money too) spent on terra firma.

rangerr's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish Pics or it didn’t happen.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

LVE: You may help people who are not as well off as yourself… but do not confiscate my money to do so. In fact, liberals give FAR LESS to charity than conservatives. So it appears they do not wish to help those less fortunate as much as conservatives.

filmfann's avatar

<—- walks in with a mop and a bucket, and deeply sighs while looking at this mess.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

RandomMrdan: I do not work for NASA. I have no hidden agenda or motives. These concerns are the concerns of every citizen who wants greatness for his country.

shrubbery's avatar

[mod says]: Flame off, folks. Refrain from personal attacks. Anything off topic will be removed.

RandomMrdan's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish I’m not at all concerned about this whole NASA situation.

And what hard numbers do you have to support your claim about charities?

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

Fyrius: Unfortunately some politicians DELIBERATELY do wrong things. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/21/jefferson.search/index.html

Lve's avatar

Your answer is neither here nor there. Charity has nothing to do with it. Welfare programs are paid with tax money. You pay taxes, I pay taxes. Without them, the country would fall apart.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

RandomMrdan: How else do you explain those numbers?

ragingloli's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish
Considering that only 2 percent of norwegians are muslim, not a lot.
I could not find any specific numbers but here is the math I did based on the numbers I found:

birthrate norwegians : 1.8
average birthrate ethnic non-norwegians: 2.7, 1.5 times of ethnic norwegians
Islam in norway: 2%
Births in Norway: 58000

X=muslim
Y=nonmuslim

58000= X+Y
X=0.02Y x 1.5
58000= 0.02Y x 1.5 + Y
58000=1.03 Y
Y=56310.68
X=58000 – 56310.68
X=1689.32

percentual: 2.9%

As I said, not a lot.

Response moderated
RandomMrdan's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish so what you’re saying is that since a red state was above average in donating, then conservatives donate more? You know liberal people live in those red states too right?

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

RandomMrda: Less of them live in Red States. That is why the Red States are red. The less liberals who live somewhere the more donating goes on there yet you claim liberals donate more.

RandomMrdan's avatar

@malevolentbuttlish

Red states are red because more people voted republican, do you have any numbers to support the claim, or just assumptions?

And I never claimed liberals donated more, if you actually read my answers.

jrpowell's avatar

The Red states get a lot more federal money then they give.

jrpowell's avatar

The south is a welfare state.

filmfann's avatar

1) NASA is very expensive. Improvements in technology flow from NASA, but the cashflow from that doesn’t go directy back to the Government. It takes years of taxes to come close, and has no guaranteed return.
2) The Moon is rife with Helium-3, a molicule that can be used in Fusion. However, we currently don’t have fusion technology, so farming it has no guranteed return.
3) Bush began scaling back NASA, and his cut-backs resulted in the Columbia disaster, which he used to cut NASA spending even more. This did not begin with Obama.
4) The education of illegal immigrant children will produce a much higher return on investment. Smart people are much more productive than illiterate ones.
5) Bush spent more money than any president ever, not Obama, and even then, much of the bailout money has been returned to the government.

I think it is a mistake to scale back NASA funding, but I understand why he is doing it.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

RandomMrdan: Red States don’t get more federal money. That is false because the money goes to holding down the price of food (which Red States export to Blue States).

jrpowell's avatar

Hahaha.. WTF are you talking about?

RandomMrdan's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish did you not see the source that @johnpowell provided? He provides you actual numbers, which you have continued to fail to do, and then you claim what we give you is false.

Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

filmfann: Bush wanted to cut back the shuttle program. This is a good idea because we don’t get the benefits from it that we would from the Moon/Mars missions. Unfortunately we don’t have another vehicle to take its place so we need to keep the shuttle funded until one is developed.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
dpworkin's avatar

Wait, we’ve covered farm subsidies before getting to fiat currency? Come on, what kind of conspiracy thread is this?

jrpowell's avatar

That was a Colbert joke. If you don’t get it you need too.

Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

Gas Taxes are HIGH. They are often 40 cents per gallon. Yet the red state/blue state link doesn’t attribute Alaska and Texas for bringing in that federal money through the energy these states supply the rest of the nation.

Response moderated
Response moderated
shilolo's avatar

Mr. Bush also cut NIH funding both directly and indirectly (by virtue of spending the national treasure on two wars). Considering that the NIH budget is only ~29 billion (less than 1% of the total budget), these cuts, from 2006–2009 were severe (and drove many bright scientists to close their labs…good work). Biomedical research, along with computer related advances are the two engines driving the US economy (not NASA, for all it’s “glory”). So, if you want to point some fingers, start squarely at the doorstep of one George W. Bush.

Edit: Thanks @pdworkin for the heads up.

filmfann's avatar

@shilolo You’re blaming Bush 41 for not pulling out sooner?

Response moderated
dpworkin's avatar

@shilolo merely added an excrescent “H” to 43’s name. It happens.

ETpro's avatar

Where on Earth did you come up with the idea that NASA pays for itself, or that Obama wants to destroy it? That’s pure propagandistic political drivel!

shilolo's avatar

@filmfann If only I were that witty, and Bush 41 were that “smart”.

filmfann's avatar

@dpworkin “excrescent” Good word!

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

shilolo: My favorite is the $300,000.00 the NIH spent on “LATINO MEN AND DEPRESSION” trying to figure out how to give access to illegal immigrants who are “underutilization” health-care dollars due to “barriers”.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

ETpro: I have already talked about how NASA pays for itself above. If you wish to dispute some aspect of my claim or offer other proof please do so.

filmfann's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish I disputed your claim above, and you haven’t addressed it.

shilolo's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish I’m not really going to argue with you, but would you please find the grant that specified the goal of this study was to give access to illegal immigrants? You do know that there are an ample number of Latino American citizens, just as there are Americans of African origins, Native Americans and Caucasians. Perhaps the goal of that study was to encourage those who don’t seek mental health from coming forward, since mental health issues are prevalent across the population, and are a significant source of morbidity.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

filmfann: The education of illegal alien children will not produce nearly the positive return on investment of expelling them. The rate of return relative to expelling them is negative.

Response moderated
CMaz's avatar

I am sure in my life I have inspired someone or individuals. That have helped, in one way or another to enhance the way they now live.

Where is my check?

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

shilolo: Of course they didn’t use the word illegal… but why would they need to? They are happy to leave it at Hispanic. If they weren’t talking about illegal then they could have easily limited it to citizens—but they didn’t.

ragingloli's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish
“My favorite is the $300,000.00 the NIH spent on “LATINO MEN AND DEPRESSION” trying to figure out how to give access to illegal immigrants who are “underutilization” health-care dollars due to “barriers”.”

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/top-stories/study-shows-men-inclined-to-neglect-aid-for-depression-1.1999259

The study is about the behaviour of latino men in general, a follow up on a study done on men in general. Not about illegal immigrants.
Of course, you seem to assume that all latinos are illegal immigrants, just like the standard racist assumes that all blacks are criminals.

Oh, and it was only 200.000

Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

shilolo: It was $298,434 according to the NIH’s own records.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

MY GOD. Did they do one for $200,000 and then another for $298,434??!?!?!

dpworkin's avatar

If we don’t gather social metrics, we can’t do ameliorative work. $300,000 is a very trivial sum.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

$298,434 isn’t a trivial sum to waste because of illegals. The ameliorative work for the citizens would have been to expel them.

shilolo's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish Honestly, you need to educate yourself on how grants are given. One research group cannot expect to perform a legitimate study with huge populations. Scientists have long known that in clinical research, asking a focused research question is #1 an easier way to get funding and #2 much easier to accomplish. There are hundreds of grants focused on native americans, or women, or men with prostate cancer, or elderly black diabetics, or people with rare cancers. One cannot do a study on every person, looking at every issue. It’s impossible.

Of course, parroting standard right wing talking points might make you feel better, but they aren’t really useful in an intellectual debate. This, amongst many other reasons, is why Republicans and right wingers are suffering. They cannot have an intelligent debate, but devolve into mudslinging and talking points that only the ignorant can understand.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

We are doing the OPPOSITE of ameliorative work .. we are making life worse for our citizens by encouraging these criminals.

ragingloli's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish
”$298,434 isn’t a trivial sum to waste because of illegals.”
Again, the study was not about illegal immigrants. Stop repeating lies.

dpworkin's avatar

$300,000 is less than one hour’s rounding error in the Federal budget. If you don’t know that why should we take anything else you say seriously?

penguinboi's avatar

Boy, is this a liberal playground or what? Let’s all attack Bush and defend Obama by whatever means necessary! Even if it means i’ll have to make myself look like an ignorant retard! @johnpowell, gotta love your creative responses. You make me proud to be a user on Fluther now. (100% sarcasm here)

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

shilolo: We don’t need to spend money doing studies on how to improve the lives of illegal aliens. If you want to improve the lives of criminals expel the illegals so they will have more space in the jails and prisons.

jrpowell's avatar

B-2 Bomber..

Program cost US$44.75 billion (projected through 2004)

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

dpworkin: Of course you should take me seriously. Your answer makes it sound like that is the only money ever wasted on such things. If so, I wouldn’t complain about it. I WISH it was only $300,000.00

filmfann's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish You don’t seem to want to address my points, or those of others, so I guess this is just feeding a troll.
I will stop following this thread.

ETpro's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish As much as I admire the contribution to society that NASA makes, you would have a VERY difficult time proving that it pays for itself. DARPA may come closer in fact, having given us the Internet.

I will be happy to dispute your claims. NASA did not invent the integrated cirtuit. That honor belongs to two independent researchers, Jack Kilby working for Texas Instruments and Robert Noyce working for Fairchild Semiconductor. See this.

As far as the computer goes, Charles Babbage gets credit for that innovation back in 1812.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

filmfann: I don’t want to address people’s points!?!?!? What have I been doing here for a very long time. If five people can answer faster than one I cannot simply ask for four others to assist me.

dpworkin's avatar

@ETpro Let us give a gentle shout-out to Alan Turing.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

filmfann: I did address a couple of your points such as the illegal immigrant children and didn’t hear back further from you.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
ragingloli's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish
It is apparent that you do not.
First you claim that muslims are overrunning Europe. I destroyed that claim with my post about the 2% muslim population in norway and the 2.9% muslim part of norways births.
You ignored it.

Then you claimed that a study was about illegal immigrants. We exposed this lie.
You ignored it.

You claimed that red states do not get more federal funding than they pay in taxes.
We destroyed that claim with actual data.
You ignored it.

And when you make claims you fail to back them up.

shilolo's avatar

Hey, speaking of research, has anyone seen this interesting map? It highlights the fattest and leanest states in the country. Any one want to hazard a guess where the fattest states are? Maybe we should stop studying obesity too? The poorest, fattest, reddest states which get more federal dollars but contribute the least in federal taxes are also the ones sucking up more medical dollars owing to the diseases associated with obesity. Is it unamerican to wish for the red states to secede-?

jrpowell's avatar

The RED states are the fattest?

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

ragingloli: The next part of our conversation is where I ask about Muslim immigration and then finally what year Norway becomes majority Muslim—which in fact is Muslims overrunning Europe.

Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

shilolo: Unlike liberals, I support the rights of an individuals to own their own bodies and not have their food intake government controlled.

Response moderated
Response moderated
shilolo's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish Absolutely! Those same individual body owners should therefore suffer the consequences of their bad decisions and not expect anyone to bail them out, medically speaking. I accept your offer.

Response moderated
Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

shilolo: They don’t want to be bailed out. They want government out of healthcare. Liberals want government bailing people out healthcare wise, not the Red States.

CMaz's avatar

“I support the rights of an individuals to own their own bodies”
Right!
Going back to NASA. You do not own NASA. We the people do.

Response moderated
shilolo's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish You do realize that if the government gets out of healthcare, that the obese and unhealthy (red staters) will not be able to get health insurance, right? Those companies will rightfully determine that the obese are a financial drain, and reject them outright as having a pre-existing condition. Once again, another example of the Republicans using a bait and switch to get people to vote against their best interests.

Response moderated
Response moderated
liminal's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish with sincerity I am curious to know how you research information (For example, things your read, listen to, study etc…) I am not asking you to defend anything I am just interested in looking over the sources of your information.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

ChazMaz: That is correct. I (quite obviously) am not the sole owner of NASA. I do not understand where you are going with this. I am entitled to my opinion of NASA even if I am not sole owner. I am a stakeholder.

ETpro's avatar

This question and the ensuing ‘debate’ it has sparked highlights what I see as a growing threat to the survival of the USA. There is a wide and growing gap between Americans who live in a universe based on facts, and those living in a universe based solely on ideology where facts can be controlled as desired by spin. It is very worrisome how rapidly the ideology based universe is growing. Talk about being overrun, how long till the USA is overrun by the flat earthers, McCarthyists and tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists?

jrpowell's avatar

I have tons of stock in Apple. I know how it works. I can’t just walk in and and grab a iPad.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

ETpro: The ones here who believe they are entitled to their own facts don’t include myself. Others have said that I am using multiple accounts, the NASA moon landing was faked, that grants for Latino Men were not aimed at illegal aliens, etc.

CMaz's avatar

“based solely on ideology where facts can be controlled as desired by spin. ”
When did that not happen?

But, GA.

liminal's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish I am interested in responding to your question, yet I have not heard about Obama wanting to destroy NASA, I really want to look at the data myself, so I can respond to the issues at hand.

ragingloli's avatar

“The next part of our conversation is where I ask about Muslim immigration and then finally what year Norway becomes majority Muslim”

This is impossible to predict because birth rates change, immigration rates change and data on religious composition of immigration is extremely lacking.
And even if the majority of Europe becomes muslim in 200 years, what makes you think that they are inevitably going to install sharia law?
Most muslims are not radicals and want to integrate with their host country and just live their lives. There is no reason to think that muslim generations descending from immigrants will not become less and less religious over time, just like their christian counter parts.
For example, Cem Özdemir, son of a muslim immigrant family, is himself muslim, and is leader of the German Green Party, which is a left wing party.
There is no reason to think that the muslim population would not eventually identify with the ideals of their host country over time.
In all sincerety, your feeble attempts at fearmongering are pathetic.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

liminal: I have spent 100% of my time here either doing research or answering questions. I do not believe my research is incorrect but it is limited by available time. The data needed to address the posted question is that Obama killed the moon/mars mission which is a destruction of NASA as many see it.

ragingloli's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish
“The ones here who believe they are entitled to their own facts don’t include myself.”
No of course not~
You just continue to spout the same lies that we have refuted ages ago with actual hard data.

Response moderated
liminal's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish I am not questioning that you haven’t researched. I am mostly curious about what are the source/s of your research. I am off to look up the information aboaut the moon/mars mission cancelation.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

liminal:

Nasa reduced to ‘pipe dreams’ as Obama cancels Moon flights

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7011322.ece

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

ragingloli: I have not lied about anything, nor would I. I do not believe it would further my goals and it’s wrong. Please consider what I have said here.

shilolo's avatar

Can the right wingers stick to a meme please? If Obama spends, he’s spending too much. If he cuts, he’s not spending enough? Which is it? Could it be that this whole problem stems from the fact that NASA is based on Texas and Florida?

Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

shilolo: Our country needs to drastically cut spending. NASA brings in money so cutting NASA is penny wise, pound foolish.

Response moderated
jrpowell's avatar

You still need to prove that NASA brings in money. If you are worried about the deficit you need to bitch about the military.

ragingloli's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish
The only way any Space organisation brings in money, be it ESA or NASA, is by launching commercial satellites into orbit for money. Which is something they can and will continue to do without a manned moon or mars mission.

“You think the study must explicitly state this for it to be true?” No. This may be tautological, but it must be true to be true. And you have not shown any piece of evidence whatsoever supporting your assertion and until you do so and present some evidence, other than your hatred for immigrants, your assertion is essentially worthless, especially considering the fact that there never was any reason for the study to conceal any intention of studying illegal immigrants.

ETpro's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish If you put an @ symbol in fron of the user ID you are responding to, the system will turn it into a link, making it much easier to follow discussion threads.

I include the ‘moon landing was faked” set in the list of conspiracy theorist. The funny part is most of these people insist that government is utterly incompetent and makes a terrible mess of everything it touches, then go right on to claim that the government is behind this and that massive, secret plot which they pulled off flawlessly with hundreds of thousands of people involved yet all keeping the whole thing secret. But as to grants to Latino aliens, nope. It may happen by accident, but there is no secret program to give taxpayer money to illegal aliens.

@ChazMaz “based solely on ideology where facts can be controlled as desired by spin. ”
When did that not happen?

It hasn’t happened, but that is in the fact based universe which has no impact on the thinking of those inhabiting the ideology based universe.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Dog's avatar

[Mod Says:] All quips that are off- topic since the prior [Mod Says:] was placed will be removed. Stick to the topic or move on.

Further deliberate violation of the [mod says:] is strongly discouraged.

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

Ummm… what?
Is this about NASA or is this about “I hate Obama”?
Oh yeah your question is one giant flaw. NASA doesnt pay for itself and Obama doesnt want to destroy it.

As an aside, I highly discourage home schooling. The results just aren’t very good.
Oooo I’m an exhibitionist now!

Why are you guys feeding the troll?

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
liminal's avatar

Maybe they didn’t want their secret let out.

liminal's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish I have read the article you suggested as well as this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8489097.stm.

Honesty necessitates that I acknowledge that reading these two articles in no way makes me an authority on NASA, the politics at hand (let alone the issues at hand), or Obama’s intentions.

From what I read it seems, to me, that Obama is suggesting the end of one of NASA’s programs and the re-directing of funds towards the furtherance of space technology (both within and outside of NASA). Technology that will make NASA a stronger program. I read that the NASA folks are not foreseeing the demise of NASA and are moving forward with some viably fascinating technology.

I also read that some in congress suggest the loss of jobs due to the redistribution of funds and asking NASA to stop a program will block progress. Yet it is not clear to me why they think progress would be blocked rather than redirected. I would like to read some more explanation on why Dr Mike Griffin thinks that Obama’s suggestion of re-direction is equivelant to Nixon’s cancellation of the Apollo program.

Maybe I am not reading critically enough, but I don’t discern any intentions to disseminate NASA or even any potential that NASA can be obliterated. Which makes me think that the direct answer to your question is no.

AstroChuck's avatar

To answer the original question, no.

There. Now am I on topic?

Lightlyseared's avatar

Surely the IRS is the only government program that pays for itself.

tinyfaery's avatar

Whoa. What did I miss?

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

Obama hasn’t colonized Mars yet, therefore he is a failure.

Blondesjon's avatar

@tinyfaery . . . obama and glenn beck hate astronauts.

liminal's avatar

@tinyfaery maybe even more than illegal immigrants and recipients of welfare.

jonsblond's avatar

@Blondesjon Glenn Beck raped an astronaut. Get your facts straight!

tinyfaery's avatar

Aww, man.

XOIIO's avatar

Holy crap lots of modded answers.

Ummm NASA costs billions of dollars each year, for little results, and Obama isn’t trying to destroy it, it’s just that the contract to fund NASA is over in a couple years cant remember when

I support NASA, but it doesn’t seem to be doing much.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@Lightlyseared: The IRS does NOT pay for itself and is only a drain on the American people. It is a very wasteful program. A lot of paperwork is done with no real gains. I think you are confusing taxes collected with true productivity.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@XOIIO: NASA wants to do a lot. They want to take us back to the Moon, then Mars, and possibly establish bases but Obama killed all that.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@Captain_Fantasy: Obama is going to make sure we don’t colonize Mars, therefore, yes, he is a failure in that regards. Colonizing Mars is exactly the type of space-goal that would lead to real productivity growth and technological innovation. It is challenging, yet new and entirely possible. It would capture the American spirit of exploration and adventure.

ETpro's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish There you go. Much better. :—)

SuperMouse's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish you are nothing if not tenacious.

Show me a balance statement that shows in black and white how exactly NASA has paid for itself. I would also be interested in seeing the the amazing things our nation has gained because of the work NASA has done. Show me where it says the study you discussed about Hispanic men was focused on illegal aliens. Show me something that says Europe will soon have a Muslim majority. Show me. Use facts to back up a single one of your right wing, tea party, knee jerk, misleading statements and we will be ready for a discussion. Until then go back to Fox News and worship at your Bill O’Reilly shrine.

liminal's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish actually Nasa chief Charlie Bolden says in response to this budget change suggestion that “Nasa will accelerate and enhance its support for the commercial spaceflight industry to make travel to low-Earth orbit and beyond more accessible and more affordable,” (referring to the article I mentioned earlier: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8489097.stm)

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@SuperMouse: Please view this video. I believe it says it better than I could and is only a few minutes long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@liminal: I am a big fan of commercial space flight but making a change to commercial can’t be the only strategy. It is a good side strategy, but that basket isn’t ready to accept all of our eggs.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@tinyfaery: Are your ambitions are so miniature as to not include Mars as a possibility? Using Nuclear such as the original Orion project we could have been there decades ago.

Response moderated
SuperMouse's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish what is your goal for this thread? Do you want everyone to suddenly come around to your way of thinking and increase Rupert Murdoch’s bottom line? What exactly is your goal?

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@SuperMouse: My goal with you was to respond to your doubts. Did you view the video? There has not been enough minutes between my post and now so it would appear impossible that you viewed it in that time frame.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

Yes. It is my goal that some will come around to my way of thinking as I have tried very hard to favor the factually correct views instead of the politically correct or “nice” views. I know others won’t. If I am wrong on some fact I also hope to be corrected but I will not allow myself to be corrected by popular opinion alone. I don’t believe things because of the “bandwagon” effect or insults. I believe them when they are accurate.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@tinyfaery: Hopefully the Chinese, Indians, and Russians will change your mind about what is possible even if I cannot.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@tinyfaery: Try reading “Project Orion” by Dyson if you have any doubts about what nuclear propulsion has to offer.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@liminal: and I don’t see us transitioning to commercial so much as abandoning our goals. Where is the commercial contract to put men on Mars, the Moon, or a Moon/Mars base?

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@liminal: The comment about “one program” misses the fact that the manned space flight program is historically the biggest thing NASA has done through Apollo. The Moon/Mars missions were about to be the second big NASA achievement but they were nixed. Robotic missions are important (and perhaps even as important as the shuttle program) but we forget how important Apollo was and how important the mission to Mars (with the Moon again on the way) will be.

filmfann's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish don’t worry about the Chinese. Their birthrate has been really low for over 25 years, so by your source’s theory, they are no longer relevent.

SuperMouse's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish I have not viewed the video, though upon clicking on it, it does seem to have an agenda. If your goal is indeed to have us come around to your way of thinking and “favor the factually correct views” it might behoove you to supply some of the facts of which you are speaking.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@filmfann: what you say about the Chinese and their low birth rate is a good observation but it doesn’t make them irrelevant when placed side by side with us because we also have a low birth rate. There will also be a period of time before it catches up to them and it is going to catch up to us a lot sooner.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@SuperMouse: Why not take the few minutes to view the video. You asked for me to give you something which shows Europe is headed Muslim. I did give it to you and you won’t view it despite its short length.

ragingloli's avatar

the chinese low birth rate is due to their government mandated “one family, one child” policy. they would just have to repeal it to cause a surge in the yellow overlord population

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@ragingloli: The one child per family policy was the problem but it is unclear if the birth rate would increase to prior rates if they removed the policy at this point. I don’t know many Chinese women who desire many kids.

The_Idler's avatar

That video just made up those numbers.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

The_Idler: Muslims have a LOT of kids. In Yemen there are EIGHT! per family. These are not made up numbers. I was in Europe as a child and again as an adult and there was a big change. The rate of change is amazing if you leave for a few years and then look again. It appears more slow or not at all if you are there the entire time.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@ragingloli: I would like to clarify my response to say I don’t know many HAN women that want a lot of kids.

ragingloli's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish
The majority of chinese are rural, farmers, etc. And farmer families need workers. children are the best and cheapest option for them to get workers on the field. A big family means more productivity. The birthrate would certainly increase.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@ragingloli: There may be some increase but not to nearly what it was. Farming is changing (even in China) and manual child labor isn’t nearly as helpful as it once was.

The_Idler's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish I know the fucking situation in Europe with immigration and Islamification, it is a very important issue to me, but the point remains:
That video just made up those numbers.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@The_Idler: Would you like to share your own numbers?

The_Idler's avatar

Why didn’t it have any references? They’re the ones with the agenda…

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@The_Idler: At least one other poster here does not believe that there is Islamification occurring in Europe. At least you admit that. If you want to say it is happening at half or twice the rate the end result is the same.

Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

Research I finally found time for responding to a previous post:

—Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Response moderated
SuperMouse's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish I cannot listen to that with sound at this moment, but even without the sound, and reading about the poster, I am not convinced there is no agenda there.

Response moderated
SuperMouse's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish seriously? You expect me to believe that George Will is going to have an objective opinion on that subject?

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@SuperMouse @ragingloli: Some videos have as an agenda teaching you which mushrooms are safe to eat. Some tell you about how to be a defensive driver. The video has an agenda. It wishes to show you that Islamification is occurring in Europe.

The_Idler's avatar

Yeah, but it lies.

It just lies.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@The_Idler: The response video says that different people will be on the land that is now Europe in 100 years time. Does the response video also lie?

The_Idler's avatar

Ain’t watched it yet, but what is your point? Your video has made up stats.

Check them yourself. If you’re interested in truth, that is.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@The_Idler: SuperMouse wants to dispute that Islamification is occurring. Do you have a better link / facts for SuperMouse?

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

SuperMouse said: “Show me something that says Europe will soon have a Muslim majority. Show me.” and I did. If someone else has something better I am all ears.

Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@rangerr: you said “Pics or it didn’t happen” but what do you mean? Pics of what?

Blondesjon's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish . . . Before I can properly answer this question I have to ask you a question of my own.

Why is this so important?

NASA is not going to be destryoed and Obama has proven time and time again over the year and a half that he is incapable of setting any kind of plan into motion, let alone the dismantling of our nation’s space program.

SuperMouse's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish here is some information on the video you asked me to watch. Here is another link from Snopes that debunks most of the information as well.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@Blondesjon: You mention that Obama has proven time and time again that he is incapable. Like a sand castle it is a lot harder to build one than to run up and kick it down. Obama is capable of this kind of destructive influence even if he could never get anything built on time and on budget.

Blondesjon's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish . . . NASA is not a sandcastle and the President (no matter who he is at the time) does not have the kind of power you seem to believe he does.

I know when I was in school we had to learn all of this to graduate 8th grade. Perhaps in your case a refresher course on the basic “checks and balances” principle of governmental power is in order.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@Blondesjon: Democrats run both the senate and house so unless there is a coup within his own party he can do pretty much whatever he wants.

Blondesjon's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish . . . Refer to my previous statement. I’ll believe he can do what he wants when I see him actually accomplish something.

liminal's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish I agree with you that manned space flight is significant. It seems clear to me that the leaders of NASA think the current program, as it is, is not efficiently moving manned space exploration forward. It seems that Bolden (A NASA Administrator) believes that NASA was living an illusion. I point to this article: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/83473-nasa-chief-says-mars-is-goal-lawmakers-express-doubt. The article quotes Bolden as saying “Its not a radical depart from anything, it’s just a change in our [strategy] to get [to Mars].”

Just_some_guy's avatar

OK I have tried to read all of these answers, but it just isn’t happening. So I’ll come into the argument well armed with my ignorance. I do not believe that any president would want to hurt NASA. They basically had the choice of places to get more money to for the military, and for the wars we were waging. The economy also needed help bad so they decided that it would be more acceptable to take from NASA. I don’t like cutting NASA budget. NASA no doubt comes up with some interesting military and intelligence technology. Which in turn keeps us able to keep many attempted attacks against us from coming to fruition. We couldn’t take a lot from the programs that keep down and out citizens from starving or freezing to death. So, NASA took a hit. It is easy to say hey why did you do that. It is also easy to point fingers. Remember tho hindsight is 20/20.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Brian1946's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish

“The IRS does NOT pay for itself and is only a drain on the American people. It is a very wasteful program.”

Then how would you propose collecting the money to fund NASA?

Just_some_guy's avatar

@Brian1946 Tax collectors on horses?

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@Brian1946: The collection of taxes should be in a way which is not wasteful or burdensome. A flat sales tax with no exceptions would fit this bill.

SuperMouse's avatar

@Brian1946 maybe NASA could collect money on behalf of the IRS! They can collect a fee and make themselves profitable! Bonus: Send tax cheats to the moon!

Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@liminal: I have read your second article. NASA was not living an illusion. Here is the fallacy. The NASA budget didn’t yet include the funds for the mission Bush outlined. If Obama/Congress had followed through with the mission as he should have then those founds would have been allocated. Instead the PR line is that the mission was a “hallucination” because it could not be accomplished on the current budget. OF COURSE IT COULDN’T BE ACCOMPLISHED ON THE CURRENT BUDGET. Since the mission was already outlined and in progress not allocating these funds was in effect a budget cut. Like the super-conducting super collider we spent a whole lot of money to dig a hole and filled it in. Then we declared the whole thing a fantasy when the reality is that it could have been very very real.

Brian1946's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish

“A flat sales tax with no exceptions would fit this bill.”

How would you propose collecting the money earmarked for sales taxes paid to the merchants that receive it?
Would those merchants be asked to donate that money to NASA on a voluntary basis?

Response moderated
malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@Brian1946: Collecting sales tax is comparatively low-burden low-accounting low-legal-risk. If all revenue was collected through sales tax alone the rest of the tax apparatus (which is the vast bulk of the IRS) would no longer need to be funded. This would make America’s tax collection system one of (if not the) most efficient tax collection systems in the world as measured by a Tax Collected to Cost ratio.

CMaz's avatar

Sometimes you have to cut your losses.

talljasperman's avatar

to cut the national debt from a group that doesn’t really need the money.

liminal's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish are you saying that Obama want’s to destroy NASA because he 1) disagrees with the previous administration’s assessment and 2) believes his current assessment is better suited for America’s needs today and in the future?

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@liminal:
If by, “he 1) disagrees with the previous administration’s assessment”, you intend to say he would hate to see a successful reinvigorated again NASA successfully fulfilling Bush’s Moon/Mars dreams (*and I don’t think that is what you intend to say) then yes. 2) Obama doesn’t care about America’s needs in the future. He is selling our children’s future for questionable short term gains.

liminal's avatar

Certainly, Obama could be lying about caring for America’s needs, people do all the time. Yet, I haven’t seen anything that convinces me that he doesn’t and it definitely won’t happen by pointing me to an initiative created by an administration that was front and center to one of America’s roughest economic failures.

Personally, given what I have read so far, I am willing to forgo the immediate satiation of sentimentality that manned American space exploration meets. I can find delight in other countries discoveries for now, for surely space exploration is for the good of humanity and not national glory. Given that NASA itself believes that the suggested refocus will lead to American manned space exploration I am willing to be patient while our country finds the best way of recovery during tricky economic times.

Transparently speaking, it is here that I end my participation in responding to the question at hand. I have a sneaky feeling that a potential storm of moralizing will be ushering in a Circulus in demonstrando and I most certainly don’t have the energy for such.

mattbrowne's avatar

Many people know that I’m a staunch space advocate. But equally important is the principle: first things first. There’s an old famous Chinese proverb which says ‘Dig the well before you are thirsty.’ All the governments in the world had to react to deal with the financial crisis to prevent even greater “thirst”. And it also means we have to use what we got. In terms of the proverb we’re talking spades and shovels. Space exploration is what machine drilling would be for the ancient well diggers.

Nobody wants to destroy NASA. We are talking about delays.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@liminal: Thank you for your input. I believe manned space flight would be good for the economic recovery as one of the long list of reasons it is the right choice. Other countries entering space does not make our failure acceptable, it highlights it.

malevolentbutticklish's avatar

@mattbrowne: I believe manned space flight would be good for the economic recovery as one of the long list of reasons it is the right choice.

ETpro's avatar

@malevolentbutticklish I agree withyour positions in the 2 comments above. My problem with the original question is that ist was a sweeping polemic unsupported by any facts. Obama clearly hasn’t done anything to indicate he wishes to destroy NASA. And while it is possible that NASA technology has produced enough economic benefit to pay for the cost of the agency, proving that would be a massive exercise in economics that nobody has undertaken.

It’s far more arguable that manned space flight is vital to US national defense and to our technoligical and scientific development. There is a strong push-back arising on both sides of the congressional isle against the manned space cutbacks and outsourcing proposals of the Administration. It’s not clear how much of that is borne of legitimate concern about the issues and how much of desire to preserve lucrative federal spending in each congressman’s district and/or state. Time will tell who wins and why they fought so hard.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther