Jobs

[Fade]

Not for you.

Obama to neuter NASA; Huntsville to return to farming!

 

[Glaucus]

I hate to see that, but what do you expect? The Afghan and needless Iraq invasions were so badly executed in the early stages that it'll cost way more to fix now. If they just focused on rebuilding Afghanistan the overall cost would have been far less and you'd have the cash to fly to the moon and back. Bush's economic policies leading up to the crunch didn't help much either. Listen, when you're finances are in ruin you can't exactly be planning trips to exotic getaways. Your government needs to tighten the belt. The party is over, welcome to the hangover.

And hey, shouldn't you as a conservative be happy to see a reduction in government spending. isn't that always what Republicans cry for? Why do you act surprised that decreased government spending might affect jobs? And if conservatives are so concerned about jobs and believe government spending is related to jobs, why did they make such a fuss when Obama spent cash like mad? Seems like he gets criticized for spending AND for not spending. Funny that.

 

[Fade]

George Bush's fault again huh?

Didn't read the article did you?

Obama is doing this so he can perpetuate climategate. No money savings there.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Coulda gone to the moon instead of fighting wars. Let's see, a trillion and a half bucks fighting (unprofitable) wars over 10 years - that would have funded NASA for 50 years at its current budget, or could have gone to the moon with change to spare. It's all about priorities.

Now that Obama has spent a trillion to prop up the banks, finding money to go to the moon would be a hard sell. If he authorized the kind of money they would actually need then you can bet that another Fade from some other part of the country would pop up and ask why Obama was wasting all the taxpayers money on rockets.

So long as the tax money is going into a man's pockets he's not too concerned about the spending (even though he doesn't like paying some of it back). It's just a problem if his tax money is going to pay someone else.

The plan to move more of the money into paying private industry should be popular with the right though it is usually a bad idea. We have seen historically that private industries that live on government contracts are even less efficient than state owned industries.

 

[ltstanfo]

...We have seen historically that private industries that live on government contracts are even less efficient than state owned industries.

Please tell me that was a troll and not a serious comment? :shock:

Can you give me some examples please?

With regard to Fade's original post, Obama talked a good talk during the election but as the saying goes, talk is cheap. There were rumblings about him at both Marshall (MSFC) and Houston (JSC) before he was elected. With his desired (if not yet officially announced) redirection for NASA, it should come as no surprise to anyone what his plans for the space program are (IMO).

Thanks,
Ltstanfo

 

[redrumloa]

George Bush's fault again huh?

Didn't read the article did you?

Obama is doing this so he can perpetuate climategate. No money savings there.

Yeah great, we don't need to go to the moon. It is much better to take that money and further fund the fake science of AGW :roll:

 

[Glaucus]

George Bush's fault again huh?

Didn't read the article did you?

Obama is doing this so he can perpetuate climategate. No money savings there.

Umm... NASA was part of the whole climate change movement, cutting it's funding weakens the movement not strengthen it. It seems you are completely incapable of thinking unless Limbaugh thinks it for you.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

...We have seen historically that private industries that live on government contracts are even less efficient than state owned industries.

Please tell me that was a troll and not a serious comment? :shock:

Can you give me some examples please?

Well, let's start with Haliburton for e.g.

 

[faethor]

...We have seen historically that private industries that live on government contracts are even less efficient than state owned industries.

Please tell me that was a troll and not a serious comment? :shock:

Can you give me some examples please?

GW Bush outsourced Tax Auditor jobs. There are now less auditors on the job, the costs per auditor employee to the government is more, and the amounts collected on tax audits is less per audit.

 

[ltstanfo]

...We have seen historically that private industries that live on government contracts are even less efficient than state owned industries.

Please tell me that was a troll and not a serious comment? :shock:

Can you give me some examples please?

Well, let's start with Haliburton for e.g.

OOPS! My bad. I mis-read your statement and subsequently misunderstood what you were saying. I was under the (incorrect) impression that you were trying to say that state owned / run industries were more efficient than private industry.

I was going to use Russia's (in)famous Avtovaz automaker and Aeroflot had I been correct in my understanding. Mea Culpa.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[redrumloa]

GW Bush outsourced Tax Auditor jobs. There are now less auditors on the job, the costs per auditor employee to the government is more, and the amounts collected on tax audits is less per audit.

Hmm, it must have been selective because locally I don't think they are outsourced. This is something I can actually verify.