Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

Dayton Kitchens · 2008-01-04 18:38:58

I've heard somewhere, that Mike Huckabee has said he wants to double NASAs budget.

Now, assume he is only pandering to Florida to get votes there.

Assume he could never get a Democratic Congress to double NASAs budget.

What if he could get a 20% increase through?

That would be enough wouldn't it to keep a shuttle active to close the gap between 2010 and Orion as well as keep the Orion & Ares programs on schedule. Plus fund a couple of small unmanned missions.

Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Commodore · 2008-01-04 19:39:08

He's said he wants to return Hillary Clinton to Mars.

I can see him trying it. Depends on which way Congress goes. Of course this would be a good thing. He also wants to do away with the income tax in favor of a national sales tax, which would be good.

It's to bad he's a religious bigot.

cIclops · 2008-01-05 02:58:00

Double NASA's budget, what a crazy idea - where did that come from?

Terraformer · 2008-01-05 04:53:15

He's not areligous bigot. Maybe your one of those people who thinks it should be nessercery to be an atheist to get into the white house.

Mike Huckabee for President!

Dayton Kitchens · 2008-01-05 10:53:40

While alot of people don't like NASA for various reasons, no private organization or corporation is ever going to lead the way in exploration.

Commodore · 2008-01-06 17:43:04

He's not a religious bigot. Maybe your one of those people who thinks it should be neccircery to be an atheist to get into the white house.

Not at all.

His meteoric rise is due in large part to irrational fears, ignorance, and suspicions of the faith of one of his competitors. Something that any mature person who would seek to quell instead of stoke.

mexicodoug · 2008-01-27 02:41:16

Mr. Commodore,

There is no need to irrationally be insulting just because you have a different opinion than other posters. Personally I'm still on the fence regarding a preferred candidate and found your comment condescending and demeaning.

By the way, as this is a space forum, you should know better than to say his "meteoric rise" when we all know that meteoroids can only fall - they crash and burn...

I wish it were easy to get unbiased information on who really is the most PRO- and believable resource promising space exploration candidate. Frankly, religion doesn't matter in a president as long as he has acceptable morals. There is a separation of Church and State for a reason in government, and a president has little opportunity to do any religious harm as religion is a private matter that is important in personal lives, but not in an even handed government with checks and balances which will crucify anyone going over the line and the backlash would be exactly the opposite of such intentions, in my opinion..

Terraformer · 2008-01-27 07:25:53

Welcome to the forum!

Commodore · 2008-01-27 15:51:23

Mr. Commodore,
There is no need to irrationally be insulting just because you have a different opinion than other posters. Personally I'm still on the fence regarding a preferred candidate and found your comment condescending and demeaning.

My comments were directed solely at Huckabee and his devout brethren, and allude to a peculiar row in American theology and politics, one that most Americans are not and would have no particular reason to be familiar with.

I allude only because it would be extremely off topic in a space forum to go into anymore detail, but never the less is in my opinion a deal breaker. And given your comments above I suspect you would agree.

RobertDyck · 2008-01-28 00:58:52

Back in the year 2000, I noticed NASA's budget was $147 billion while the military budget was $288 billion. I said America could cut military spending by 10%, use half of that for tax cuts and the other half to double NASA's budget. That would direct tax dollars to something constructive rather than dropping bombs on people.

The 2008 budget includes $481.406 billion for the Department of Defence but a total of $717 billion for military/national security, including $145 billion for the "Global War on Terror" and $91 billion for non-Dept. of Defence spending. Non-military/national security spending is another $348 billion. It's rather easy to slash this.

Ronald Regan's "Star Wars" program caused an arms race with the Soviet Union. They couldn't afford that level of military spending. Some people think that was a deliberate strategy, others think it wasn't. The result was the Soviet Union economy wasn't as strong so their economy collapsed before the US, but the US economy couldn't afford to sustain that for ever either without eventually collapsing as well. Many economists panicked over the $3 trillion debt that Ronald Regan left, but George W. Bush has returned the US to extreme military spending. In August 2006 the US debt reached $8.4 trillion; using the exchange rate at the time that made the per-capital federal debt double Canada's. In August 2007 the US federal debt reached $9 trillion; triple what it was at the end of Ronald Regan's arms race. The US economy is now collapsing, it will completely collapse as thoroughly as the Soviet Union unless the budget is balanced and the federal government starts significant repayment of the federal debt.

Right now the US economy is under capitalized, due to the federal debt sucking-up all investment capital. The junk-mortgage crisis is only the first of many credit crunches to come. Fixing the economy requires cutting spending and not increasing taxes, so the deficit is replaced by debt repayment on the order of $100 billion to $150 billion per year. The US budget has discretionary and non-discretionary components. Cutting spending can only be done with discretionary spending. That requires slashing discretionary spending by $339 billion to $389 billion per year. The only way to do that is to slash military/national-security spending. Slashing that budget will accomplish the required goal.

cIclops · 2008-01-28 04:35:19

Many critics focus on the "unnecessary" military spending and ignore the other 70%+ of spending. For example spending on Social Security ($608B) is far more than Defense spending ($481B), Medicare ($386B) costs more than double what is spent on the War ($145B). Social security spending is 35 times the budget of NASA.

Commodore · 2008-01-28 08:45:04

Everyone focuses on the Federal budget, but often forgets there are 50 state governments, and countless local governmental bodies all of which are just as wasteful and contribute to the overall tax burden.

RobertDyck · 2008-01-28 11:24:05

According to the presidential budget request for 2008, total spending is $2.902 trillion. Of that $1,075 billion is discretionary, which must be approved by congress every year; remaining spending is automatic. Of discretionary spending, $717 billion is for military/national-security and $358 billion is for non-military/national-security. So military/national-security is 67% of discretionary spending; that's why.

http://www.thebudgetgraph.com

cIclops · 2008-01-28 11:37:31

So what's the total government spending including all state and local governments?

RobertDyck · 2008-01-28 22:21:31

I haven't found a simple summary of state and local government debt loads. By "local" I assume you mean both county and municipal. The problem may be more pervasive than I thought. However, don't let the federal government off the hook; don't let anything distract you for even a moment. The US federal government has to slash spending to not only balance its budget but start substantial debt reductions. If they don't, the US economy will collapse. Period.

Commodore · 2008-01-28 23:08:22

First off I have to challenge the labeling of military funding as "discretionary".

I know the New York state budget alone exceeds $100 billion. A huge problem is the state refusing to fund various mandates, thus passing them off onto the counties, so the real cost is probably much higher. The Feds do it to though.

The truth of the matter is that legislators this day in age do not represent the will of the people, but are none the less entrusted with extraordinary power over our wallets. They stay in power by toying with our emotions and selling us stuff we can't afford. They get away with it because we all work to hard too pay close enough attention, and because the Constitution as written and currently interpreted does not set clear roles a limits on what it can and can't spend money on.

cIclops · 2008-01-29 00:25:42

The US federal government has to slash spending to not only balance its budget but start substantial debt reductions. If they don't, the US economy will collapse. Period.

Pure alarmism. US government spending has been in and out of deficit for a long time, as has the spending of many governments. US government debt is not that unusual in terms of fraction of GDP. It's difficult to find any government that has a balanced budget without raising debt.

US budget surplus (red line) - the blue line shows the surplus as a fraction of GDP

Even though the US deficit is an enormous amount of money, in proportion to the size of the economy it's quite small, currently only -1.2%, better than many other industrial economies (Japan -2.6%, France -2.4%)

So far all these governments and economies have not only survived but have prospered to levels higher than at any time in History.

RobertDyck · 2008-01-29 07:05:48

It's difficult to find any government that has a balanced budget without raising debt.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Canada's deficit grew exponentially. In 1984 Brian Mulroney was elected Prime Minister on a platform of eliminating the deficit, reducing the debt, and reducing taxes. He had two full terms, both with a majority government, but what he did was the opposite: increased the deficit, doubled the debt, and increased taxes. He resigned prior to the 1993 election, the Progressive Conservative party new leader Kim Campbell said there is no way Canada could balance its budget before the year 2000. The result: not only did the Progressive Conservatives lose the 1993 election, they went from a majority to only electing two members to the house. By Canadian parliamentary rules any party with fewer than 12 elected members (5% of the seats) is not a party.

The Liberal party was elected in 1993. They reduced spending, the budget was balanced in 1997 and had a small surplus. The surplus grew to his maximum in 2000/01. (Canada's federal government fiscal year end is March 31.) Since then the surplus has fluctuated, but there has been a surplus every year since.

The PC party merged with the Reform party, becoming simply the Conservative party. They were elected in January 2006. They promised to control spending but their spending has been greater than the Liberals. They also introduced significant tax cuts during their mid-year fiscal update last fall. Now they're saying Canada can't afford anything more, they spent it all. The American economy is going into recession, since 80% of all Canadian exports go to the United States that will affect us, the only question is how much. We will see this year whether the Conservatives return us to deficit. If they do, you can expect they will lose the election.

You said "It's difficult to find any government that has a balanced budget without raising debt." First, if you raise debt it isn't a balanced budget. You should have said "without raising taxes." The Liberal government in Canada did balance the budget while reducing debt and reducing taxes. There's your example.

So far all these governments and economies have not only survived but have prospered to levels higher than at any time in History.

The US economy declined in the winter of 2000. The decline started as soon as George W. Bush was sworn-in. You can argue how and why, but it is a fact. The economy is now in major, major trouble. You can beat the drum and claim "We're #1!" but patriotism is not going to address the problem.

I challenge your graph. When did the US federal budget ever exceed $200 billion surplus? You have to limit it to just the federal government, not throw all sorts of crap in to hide the problem. But even if the graph were true, you can only look at the red line (deficit in dollars). Any ratio is again smoke and mirrors to hide what's going on. The red line on your graph shows the deficit since 2001 has exceeded all accumulated surplus between 1999 and 2001.

The US dollar has dropped. The Canadian dollar was worth 64.5¢ US in 2001, it's now at par. During last summer the Canadian dollar didn't rise at all vs the Euro, the US dollar fell. The junk mortgage crisis is only the first of many credit crises to come. The US economy is under capitalized. Unless the government pays off its debt, releasing funds to the capital investment market, there will be more credit crunches.

Commodore · 2008-01-29 08:34:04

The US economy declined in the winter of 2000. The decline started as soon as George W. Bush was sworn-in. You can argue how and why, but it is a fact. The economy is now in major, major trouble. You can beat the drum and claim "We're #1!" but patriotism is not going to address the problem.

Bush was not sworn in until January 2001. This downturn is not fundamentally different than that one, its based on wild speculation and overvalue of a particular industry. Then, it was the internet, this time its the housing market.

Which is not to say that there are not other factors that may not have existed then. The cost of fighting a war prolonged by political correctness certainly plays a role. As does the cost of energy. The fact that the housing market is attached to the banks does as well.

This does not change the fact that the sheer size and scope of government of all levels in increasingly become a grindstone on the neck of the American Economy. This will not change until government is Constitutionally limited to roles vital to national infrastucture, all levels work as one, and legislators are held responsible by their constituents.

cIclops · 2008-01-29 09:23:16

(Canada's federal government fiscal year end is March 31.) Since then the surplus has fluctuated, but there has been a surplus every year since.

Ok Canada, that's one. In deficit: US, Japan, Italy and let's add Mexico (-1.3%), that makes four.

You said "It's difficult to find any government that has a balanced budget without raising debt." First, if you raise debt it isn't a balanced budget.

That was just to be pedantic. All budgets balance, that's what accountants do, they just tack the debt on to make both sides equal. As the old joke goes: a mathematician will say 2+2 is 4, an engineer will say about 4.0, whereas an accountant will ask you what you want it to be.

I challenge your graph. When did the US federal budget ever exceed $200 billion surplus?

Wasn't that the Clinton "peace dividend" that he earned by inheriting the legacy of Bush41 and Regan and slashing military spending? Note that it didn't last long, about four years out of the last 25.

Anyone object if this topic is moved to Free Chat?

RobertDyck · 2008-01-30 05:18:57

Anyone object if this topic is moved to Free Chat?

Yes, I do. Dayton Kitchens started this thread with a discussion of Mike Huckabee promising to double NASA's budget. I showed how that could easily be accomplished. In the process, problems that caused the current economic problems in the US would be solved. This has always been one of the reasons to invest in NASA, to invest in knowledge that results in intelligent ways to improve the life of average Americans and improve the economy. Your proposal that the thread be moved off somewhere it will never be found is just evidence you don't want to accept reality. You don't want to accept the problems the economy has, and want to throw out distractions. You also don't want to accept a real measure that could help NASA.

Continuing on with the same old, same old, will result in current problems getting worse. We need people who can think. Those who think they can live on credit forever are people to eliminate. Those who think paying off debt is bad are people you don't want to control your tax dollars. Those who obsess about destruction, dropping bombs on people, shooting people, destroying infrastructure, are not people who will ever be able to build anything or even maintain what you have now.

A presidential candidate who promised to double NASA's budget is definitely someone to pay attention to.

cIclops · 2008-01-30 09:24:57

Anyone object if this topic is moved to Free Chat?
Yes, I do. Dayton Kitchens started this thread with a discussion of Mike Huckabee promising to double NASA's budget. I showed how that could easily be accomplished.

OK, it can stay here until it dies, then it's off to Free Chat.

Got a reference for Huckabee wanting to double NASA's budget? - that would be a memorable statement that surely would have made it into the media. Not even Guilliani went that far, and he's made the strongest statements to date.

There's a topic here about the primaries.

BTW my signature (just below this line) has been saying double NASA's budget for several months now, perhaps it confused Dayton

Mars_B4_Moon · 2008-02-11 04:04:01

Some quotes from him

Says Education is a state issue, not a federal issue
There is no way Iran will acquire nuclear weapons on my watch. But before I look parents in the eye to explain why I had to put their son’s or daughter’s life at risk in military action against Iran, I want to know that I have done everything possible to avoid that conflict
Sees the space program as being critical to the economics of North Alabama
There's a perception that the poultry industry knowingly and wantonly hires illegals. That's fundamentally not true. I would expect companies to take every step possible to ensure that their workers are legal, but no one can guarantee that people won't use fraudulent documents or lie.
Kyoto was a mistake, but "Earth in the Balance" is not
A young Arkansan asked Mike Huckabee what should be done about schools not teaching evolution properly. The former governor then advocated what the student has already said was against state standards...that schools should teach creationism because evolution's only a theory.
Supports Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling.
He lauded science experiments and space travel as necessities that provided the world with gems such as cell phones, digital cameras, heart catheterization and the miniaturization of technology.
Supports national drought policy, focusing on readiness
Says we are fighting against a perversion of the Muslim faith led by radical clerics who have convinced a growing number of adherents that their purpose on earth is to kill, dismember and destroy as many people as possible.
He does not believe in evolution.
Huckabee has not outlined clear positions on the federal funding of science.

cIclops · 2008-02-11 04:31:04

Some quotes from him
Says Education is a state issue, not a federal issue
<snip>

These are clearly not quotes from Huckabee.

There's almost nothing about space policy on Huckabee's website

Mars_B4_Moon · 2008-02-11 06:09:15

I didn't pull any of those quotes out of my a*ss

All of them are real

"Education state issue, not a federal issue"

http://spunkyhomeschool.blogspot.com/20 … art-3.html

Denies Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXajXz4DF1w

War with Iran seems to be a strong point with Huckabee as he says, "The bottom line is this: Iran is a regional threat to the balance of power in the Middle and Near East; Al Qaeda is an existential threat to the United States. I know we can't live with Al Qaeda, but there's a chance that we can live with a domesticated Iran. There is no way Iran will acquire nuclear weapons on my watch."

http://www.jbs.org/node/6394

If you're still in denial you can go google the rest of them

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2008-01-04 18:38:58

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#2 2008-01-04 19:39:08

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#3 2008-01-05 02:58:00

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#4 2008-01-05 04:53:15

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#5 2008-01-05 10:53:40

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#6 2008-01-06 17:43:04

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#7 2008-01-27 02:41:16

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#8 2008-01-27 07:25:53

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#9 2008-01-27 15:51:23

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#10 2008-01-28 00:58:52

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#11 2008-01-28 04:35:19

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#12 2008-01-28 08:45:04

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#13 2008-01-28 11:24:05

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#14 2008-01-28 11:37:31

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#15 2008-01-28 22:21:31

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#16 2008-01-28 23:08:22

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#17 2008-01-29 00:25:42

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#18 2008-01-29 07:05:48

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#19 2008-01-29 08:34:04

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#20 2008-01-29 09:23:16

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#21 2008-01-30 05:18:57

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#22 2008-01-30 09:24:57

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#23 2008-02-11 04:04:01

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#24 2008-02-11 04:31:04

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

#25 2008-02-11 06:09:15

Re: Mike Huckabee the most pro Space Program candidate?

Board footer