What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

cIclops · 2007-05-12 04:15:16

FOX News wants to know what you would ask the Republican presidential candidates when they debate in Columbia, S.C., on Tuesday, May 15.

Suggestion: Are you willing to fully fund NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration?

Here's a chance to raise the awareness of space - go for it everybody!!

Martian Republic · 2007-05-12 16:53:47

What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?
FOX News wants to know what you would ask the Republican presidential candidates when they debate in Columbia, S.C., on Tuesday, May 15.
Suggestion: Are you willing to fully fund NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration?
Here's a chance to raise the awareness of space - go for it everybody!!

Actually, I would like to ask at least two question and they would be.

What is you stand on Federalizing the Federal Reserve?

After the Federal Reserve been re-organized into a US National Bank, would you support the rebuilding of the United States an expanded NASA space mission to both the moon and Mars?

Larry,

cIclops · 2007-05-12 19:19:28

Ask the second one Larry, the whole idea is to get space on the agenda!

X · 2007-05-15 00:19:25

I think there's a word missing or misspelled in the second part of his second question, or I just stink at reading comprehension. Could someone explain it to me?

X · 2007-05-15 22:12:04

Did they answer any? I fell asleep and didn't wake up until there was only about 30 minutes left.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-05-16 04:35:32

Did they answer any?

I think they were only there to talk about abortion, war, muslims/israelis and gay-marriage

EuroLauncher · 2007-11-15 03:05:21

try again ?!

http://www.youtube.com/debates

Turn your question into a video and you could
see it broadcast and answered on live TV!

Martian Republic · 2007-11-15 18:35:21

Ask the second one Larry, the whole idea is to get space on the agenda!

No, I would ask both question and in that order. Without the Federal Reserve being re-organized into a Third National Bank, there would be enough money or generated credit to finance a real aggressive space program.

Then and only thin could you come up with the kind of space program that we all would like to see. Without the US Federal Government having control over the money supply, they would be able to do absolutely nothing along the lines of what we would like to see them doing. I suppose that the only way that I am going to show were I am coming from is to post my own subject of "How do you Build a Physical Economy?". It will be a brief history lesson of about a 100 year time period of Abraham Lincoln to FDR.

Larry,

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-15 22:08:00

Oh please, what difference does it make what you call the Federal Reserve? If you changed its name and called it the "Third National Bank" it would still go on doing what its doing, and it would make no difference. Or is it the Feds relative independence from the Federal Goverment that you object to. Would you really want your "Third National Bank" taking direct orders from either the President or the Congress? Would you want the Federal government writing each citizen a check for one million dollars every year? Gee, I guess everyone would be rich then and no one need ever work again.

Printing money and distributing it far and wide does not make people richer, it just devalues the currency. I don't see that as any kind of solution, do you?

Martian Republic · 2007-11-16 17:38:49

Oh please, what difference does it make what you call the Federal Reserve? If you changed its name and called it the "Third National Bank" it would still go on doing what its doing, and it would make no difference. Or is it the Feds relative independence from the Federal Goverment that you object to. Would you really want your "Third National Bank" taking direct orders from either the President or the Congress? Would you want the Federal government writing each citizen a check for one million dollars every year? Gee, I guess everyone would be rich then and no one need ever work again.
Printing money and distributing it far and wide does not make people richer, it just devalues the currency. I don't see that as any kind of solution, do you?

There more to it than just a name change From a Federal Reserve System to the Third National Bank or having the Treasury Department issue that credit with Treasury Notes. It who controlling the right to generate credit that I am interested in. In a Federal Reserve System, it a Quasi Private Banking System with very limited Government intervention. Actually, the Federal Reserve System is controlled by an international Private Banking System with most of it shares owned by European Private Banks. What we have is a private bank acting like a Central Bank of the United States with a Government Charter to promote the interest of other private banks. The National Bank System or the Treasury Notes are completely and totally Federally owned Banking System or Credit Generated by the US Government. Both system or should I say all three system have to generate credit, but it who getting that credit and what there using it for that I am interested in. I the private Central Bank or the Federal Reserve System, that credit that they generated is loaned into the economy and then they charge interest for the rest of us to borrow there credit that they generated out of thin air. They basically enrich themselves at our expense by having that power to generate credit and then charge everybody else to use there credit. But, when the Federal Government has that power to generate credit, then they get first use of that newly generated credit. Of US Government past history, there were two forms or ways that the US Government generated credit. The first way was the First and Second National Bank System under Hamilton and the Treasury Notes under Lincoln, FDR and John F. Kennedy. Hamilton used that generated credit to finance the Build up of the United States. He had what he called self-extinguishing debt. It worked by giving it say a 20 year note to build some important infrastructure like say the Eire Canal or something like that, which was another government project. Instead of rolling it over like most debt is, it is aloud to disintegrate to Zero value and that the end of it. Then there is the Treasury note that Abraham Lincoln Generated which was what the Green Back Dollars was based on. It was a Treasury Note from the Treasury Department that was being used as money. When FDR needed Credit to build his projects, instead of going to those private bankers that would charge interest to loan FDR credit that they generated out of thin air, FDR generated his own credit by giving the Treasury Department the right to generate Credit. Those major projects that FDR built under his Administration were financed by Treasury Notes and Not Federal Reserve Notes, even though the Federal Reserve Act was signed in 1913 and this was after 1929 stock market crash when FDR became President of the United States.

You should learn American History!

Larry,

Commodore · 2007-11-21 09:34:49

IF you were honestly considering it, DON"T VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA!!!

Rxke · 2007-11-22 03:01:39

How do you know this is true? He cites no sources whatsoever....

:?

Commodore · 2007-11-22 11:16:47

The Hill: Obama unveils education proposal

Overall, Obama’s proposal would spend $18 billion per year on early education and K-12 education, including for teacher training and retention. Obama highlighted a variety of offsets to pay for the funding, including delaying the NASA Constellation program for five years.
A spokesman for the Republican National Committee (RNC) criticized the NASA cut.
“It is ironic that Barack Obama’s plan to help our children reach for the stars is financed in part by slashing a program that helps us learn about those very same stars,” said Danny Diaz, RNC spokesman.

MSNBC: OBAMA'S EDUCATION ROLLOUT

Though Obama called for a renewed investment in math and science education, his plan would actually pull money from the federal government's greatest investments and achievements in math and science. Obama would delay funding for the NASA Constellation program for five years, though he would maintain the $500 million in funding the program would receive for its manufacturing and technology base, in order to help fund his education policy. The campaign did not say how much money delaying the program would provide.

The feed back from one of Obama's supporters says it all:

This is what I called leadership. Obama seems to be the only candidate that gets it. Education is the bead rock of every nation.
If you are still undecided you had better jump in before the train lives you behind.
Obama all the way; his ad was even impeccable.
Check it out.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/chancesad
Bee (Sent Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:03 PM)

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-22 21:16:39

It is strange that big spending Democrats all seem to have no trouble cutting NASA to pay for something, and for everything else, they raise taxes. Where have all the JFK Democrats gone? The $18 billion would pay for increases in teachers salaries mostly, they'd continue to teach the same subjects, and in certain subject they'll teach that the United States is a rotten country that dropped their manned space program in the face of competition with the Chinese and also to pay for their nice pay raises, and "by the way, sonny, you better forget about your dream of ever being an Astronaut, why don't you consider becoming a Unionized government paid buerocrat instead, don't ever thing you can ever become rich either because taxes are too high."

I tell you the Democrats hate this country! They'll do anything to undermine its greatness, they'll try to undercut the war and our winning of it, and undercut any chance of our planting any of our flags on alien worlds, and any astronauts we do will will fly as guests on Chinese or Euro-Russian spacecraft, because they don't want Americans to have any of their own accomplishments in space! The Republicans are the only patriotic force left, the Democrats only want the political power of our government so they can do favors for their constituents and friends without making this country great. Personally, I think they should move to Canada so they can despise this country without being a part of it, the hard part is getting Americans not to vote for them.

Rxke · 2007-11-23 01:48:47

Ok, thanks for the links.

Hmmm... Would delaying the program not cost money too? Standing army of workers and al that?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-23 16:26:44

Yes it would, but they look at it in terms of cutting the annual budget. Having a standing Army of Workers is cheaper than having those same workers do something, this will cost spare parts and materials, but standing armies of workers only get paid salaries, and the Democrats are happy to pay people money for doing nothing. Doing nothing doesn't require a particular skills set, so therefore anyone can have these jobs, including political cronies that are good for nothing but screaming the loudest at the last rally.

Martian Republic · 2007-11-24 08:42:48

Yes it would, but they look at it in terms of cutting the annual budget. Having a standing Army of Workers is cheaper than having those same workers do something, this will cost spare parts and materials, but standing armies of workers only get paid salaries, and the Democrats are happy to pay people money for doing nothing. Doing nothing doesn't require a particular skills set, so therefore anyone can have these jobs, including political cronies that are good for nothing but screaming the loudest at the last rally.

The Republican take the reverse strategy of laying people off and then out source it overseas. That doesn't work either, we are still shutting down the productive sector of the United States which will make our money worthless.

We need a third choice of government generated credit that will finance major project that promote the build up of the US Physical Economy in farming, manufacturing and mining to generate physical wealth internally. That way we create a productive tax base to finance and build an aggressive space program to putting permanent colonies on the moon and mars. So neither party is doing what best for the American People nor are they supporting a space policy that we all want to see happen. There no point in just complaining about the Democrats and there shortfall which are many, but the Republicans are just as guilty as the Democrats are at sabotaging the space program. The go about sabotaging the space program from different directions, that all.

Larry,

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-24 09:09:27

Yes it would, but they look at it in terms of cutting the annual budget. Having a standing Army of Workers is cheaper than having those same workers do something, this will cost spare parts and materials, but standing armies of workers only get paid salaries, and the Democrats are happy to pay people money for doing nothing. Doing nothing doesn't require a particular skills set, so therefore anyone can have these jobs, including political cronies that are good for nothing but screaming the loudest at the last rally.
The Republican take the reverse strategy of laying people off and then out source it overseas. That doesn't work either, we are still shutting down the productive sector of the United States which will make our money worthless.

Not rocket technology they wouldn't! The Republicans would be just as likely to outsource F22 production to the Chinese. Defense related technology is generally not outsourced. Anyway its a fools errand to try to reduce unemployment by the government spending money. Government always consumes more productivity than it produces, that is why I say the government should award prizes to private companies that do space missions, because they will do them most efficiently and politics doesn't enter the equation about who gets what jobs. I don't care who gets what jobs so long as the jobs get done. The problem with labor economists is that they look at the economy upsidedown, they measure the economy by how many jobs get created rather than by what jobs get done. Just because someone has a job, doesn't mean its a productive one. The government creates alot of unproductive jobs, jobs that deal with red tape for instance rather than just eliminating the red tape in the first place. I'd rather people had jobs that mattered to the economy rather than just pushing pencils.

Commodore · 2007-11-29 09:03:14

Well, we might just have to vote Huckabee in 08:
Cnn Political Tracker

November 29, 2007
Huckabee floats idea of sending Hillary Clinton to space

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee would be happy to see Sen. Hillary Clinton go into space.
(CNN) — Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee outlined one special plan he'd consider for NASA's exploration of space.
"Maybe Hillary can be on the first rocket to Mars," he said, referring to the Democratic presidential frontrunner.
The Republican presidential candidate responded to a question asking if more money would be put into space exploration. His witty response about Clinton generated cheers from the St. Petersburg audience and followed his description of the earthly benefits of NASA's programs.
"Whether it's the medical technologies that saved many of our lives and the lives of our families, it's the direct result from the space program," he said. "We need to put more money into space and technology exploration."
The question, posed by Steve Nielson of Denver, Colorado, asked if the candidates would commit to sending Americans to Mars by the year 2020.
Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado disagreed with Huckabee's promise and would not commit to sending anyone to Mars because, "We can't afford some things, and going to Mars is one of them."
– CNN's Adam P. Levy

Terraformer · 2007-11-29 09:43:15

Don't send Hillary Clinton, it'll lower the average intelligence of Mars.

It sounds like Tom Tancredo hasn't checked the budget and how NASA fits in.

Commodore · 2007-11-29 10:11:35

Tancredo is a single issue runner: the border fence. Beyond that he I don't think he pays much attention to anything.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-05-12 04:15:16

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#2 2007-05-12 16:53:47

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#3 2007-05-12 19:19:28

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#4 2007-05-15 00:19:25

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#5 2007-05-15 22:12:04

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#6 2007-05-16 04:35:32

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#7 2007-11-15 03:05:21

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#8 2007-11-15 18:35:21

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#9 2007-11-15 22:08:00

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#10 2007-11-16 17:38:49

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#11 2007-11-21 09:34:49

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#12 2007-11-22 03:01:39

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#13 2007-11-22 11:16:47

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#14 2007-11-22 21:16:39

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#15 2007-11-23 01:48:47

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#16 2007-11-23 16:26:44

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#17 2007-11-24 08:42:48

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#18 2007-11-24 09:09:27

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#19 2007-11-29 09:03:14

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#20 2007-11-29 09:43:15

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

#21 2007-11-29 10:11:35

Re: What Would You Ask GOP 2008 Presidential Candidates?

Board footer