Comments on: Post, Tribune weigh in on proposed policy

By: Kirsten Tynan

Kirsten Tynan — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:28:49 +0000

“A new initiative will create new jobs, it’s just a question of how many people and where.”

How do you know that?

By: Phil Smith

Phil Smith — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:57:18 +0000

No. A new initiative will create new jobs, it’s just a question of how many people and where. Consider that the Apollo Program emploed 30,000 people at the peak. Once the program was over, most of these people were out of work. Also, these thousands of employees (government and mostly contractors) need a place to stay and other services. Cocoa Beach, FL, for example, essentially dried up when Apollo concluded, but sprung back when Shuttle geared up. When the Shuttle program experiences an accident, the community really hurts.

By: Kirsten

Kirsten — Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:16:16 +0000

“Actually, a Moon-Mars initiative has at least one very real, and very practical, result: MORE JOBS.”

How do you figure that it will result in more jobs as opposed to fewer or merely different jobs? The money to pay for this doesn’t come from nowhere. It comes out of someone’s pocket which means he has less to spend on other things. With less to spend on other things, there is less need for people to make or do those other things. Given that the government wastes plenty of the money that it collects, is it not conceivable that a Moon-Mars initiative could result in a net loss of jobs?

By: Phil Smith

Phil Smith — Mon, 12 Jan 2004 12:59:24 +0000

Actually, a Moon-Mars initiative has at least one very real, and very practical, result: MORE JOBS.

I would also argue that AIDS initiatives, while important, are receiving much more attention than other, more deadly diseases such as malaria, heart diesease, cancer, and mental illnesses.

The ongoing issue is balance. The United States should strive to do all things, each at an appropriate level, not just a few at the expense of many. Consider that we successfully landed on the Moon from 1969-1972 not once, but six times during a period of great cultural unrest and a pointless war. That is an example of doing a profound thing at the worst possible time in terms of domestic (but not foreign) policy. Nevertheless, it got done. Imagine the possibilites if all things were addressed adequately…