Neil Armstrong blasts Obama.

[gsvol]

when proven wrong... go to insults, lol.... I love it!!!!

You've never even proven a wad of snot boy and rest assured I'm not here to wipe your nose either.

If you could pull your nose out of from betwixt Barry's buttocks for a minute and look in the mirror you would see the brown on it.

You can bet your sweet bippy that Obama's space policy is stupid at best and traitorous at worst, I lean toward the latter in my accessment.

Diverting important spy satelites and support personel to count polar bear populations is as inane as it gets.

 

[paul1454]

I mean, shouldn't the outcry be just stop the NASA program since it's a government program???

An argument can be made that research is a "public good." This means that those not paying for the research may benefit directly from it, and these free riders cannot be excluded so that they have to pay if they want the benefit. (It is like a drive in movie theater with no fence barrier, people that sit just outside the drive-in can benefit from the movie without paying. Or national defense, people could benefit from the defense paid by others without paying a dime.) However, the public good theory is a slippery slope and there is not a consensus as to whether research falls in this definition.


Nevertheless, assuming research is a public good, the market will under-produce research because people won't pay for something when they can receive its benefits for free. For this reason, a strong argument exists that funding NASA research is within the proper function of a government.

 

[T-TownVol]

oh please.............. when somebody already has millions upon millions in their bank account, voting with your pocketbook does very little. The bosses are still gonna do what they want because they already have more than enough money to last several lifetimes.

you do realize that the only way BHO's plans for this country work is if he can keep enough people thinking the way you do......without class envy, BHO is toast

 

[Cash Vallin]

An argument can be made that research is a "public good." This means that those not paying for the research may benefit directly from it, and these free riders cannot be excluded so that they have to pay if they want the benefit. (It is like a drive in movie theater with no fence barrier, people that sit just outside the drive-in can benefit from the movie without paying. Or national defense, people could benefit from the defense paid by others without paying a dime.) However, the public good theory is a slippery slope and there is not a consensus as to whether research falls in this definition.


Nevertheless, assuming research is a public good, the market will under-produce research because people won't pay for something when they can receive its benefits for free. For this reason, a strong argument exists that funding NASA research is within the proper function of a government.

And again, thanks for proving my point... When a government program has a perceived value, you couldn't care less how much they spend.... When that value goes away in your eyes, the government all of a sudden becomes bad.

It's just hypocritical

 

[Cash Vallin]

you do realize that the only way BHO's plans for this country work is if he can keep enough people thinking the way you do......without class envy, BHO is toast

Without the poor, this whole country is toast... Seriously, have McDonald's, Wal-Mart really any private sector job try to succeed without the poor. You'll then see how much money the rich will truly have. It won't be much, because nobody will be doing the job (the poor) that gives the bosses (the rich) the money.

 

[paul1454]

And again, thanks for proving my point... When a government program has a perceived value, you couldn't care less how much they spend.... When that value goes away in your eyes, the government all of a sudden becomes bad.

It's just hypocritical

Not hypocritical at all. You have to understand that not all goverment involvement is good for the country. I believe govermnent should only intervene when the market fails to maximize benefits to society (market failure such as externalities, monopolies, etc.). You seem to attack this by implying it is wrong to limit government intervention only to situations where it can make society better off. So you take the position that it is the government's job to make society worse off? Your arguments lose me sometimes.

Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[paul1454]

Double post.

 

[BigPapaVol]

at least with the government, i can vote them out of office. it doesn't work that way in the private sector.

This is stupid. You can boycott products and stores. You can badmouth a label and take out ads. There is a real consequence for private companies that screw stakeholders. There isn't for a government.

You wanna go through all of the advances I our world and walk me through the gov't driven ones.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BeecherVol]

Without the poor, this whole country is toast... Seriously, have McDonald's, Wal-Mart really any private sector job try to succeed without the poor. You'll then see how much money the rich will truly have. It won't be much, because nobody will be doing the job (the poor) that gives the bosses (the rich) the money.

So the poor made the rich, rich?

Interesting concept.

Who made the poor, poor?
Let me guess, the rich.

 

[MG1968]

Without the poor, this whole country is toast... Seriously, have McDonald's, Wal-Mart really any private sector job try to succeed without the poor. You'll then see how much money the rich will truly have. It won't be much, because nobody will be doing the job (the poor) that gives the bosses (the rich) the money.

there is simply no way you're a married adult with children. Your posts indicate a naivete that only manifests itself with post-pubescent, first year college students that only know how to regurgitate the bilge water offered them by their parents and college professors.

 

[BeecherVol]

It kinda gets back to "I am owed something that is not mine, and the government should make me equal by taking it from someone else, and giving it to me."

 

[droski]

Without the poor, this whole country is toast... Seriously, have McDonald's, Wal-Mart really any private sector job try to succeed without the poor. You'll then see how much money the rich will truly have. It won't be much, because nobody will be doing the job (the poor) that gives the bosses (the rich) the money.

I suggest you go to Europe and shop at their megamarts and then tell me how the worlds lowest prices for food and clothing somehow is screwing the poor.
Posted via VolNation Mobile