Bob Clark

“But, aside from that, there are no barriers to NASA getting more money?”

The point was to show Matt that school lunch programs don’t have to be cut to raise NASA’s budget – Congress can raise it anytime they want. But again to Matt’s argument about using the SLS, Congress so far has had no interest in providing NASA with more money, so it is not the inability of Congress to cut school lunch programs that is keeping the SLS from doing the wonderful things he thinks it should be doing.

“nuclear-powered zombies”

It’s likely they will be the next fad on TV…

“NASA doesn’t get more money because Congress isn’t interested in giving NASA more money”

But, aside from that, there are no barriers to NASA getting more money? Make up your mind. I’d have to say that the fact that Congress doesn’t want to give NASA more money is a pretty strong barrier. But I’ll consider your case rested.

As to guessing what people might advocate, darn, I was just about to advocate nuclear-powered zombies! That might change the minds of Congress, ya think?

“If you think there are no barriers to NASA getting a hefty increase, you’re hallucinating.”

Alright, this sentence shows that you really don’t know what I’m saying, and what I stand for. I normally enjoy your perspectives, and even agree with most, but you are completely off on this particular thread.

For instance, I said:

“My point is that NASA doesn’t get more money because Congress isn’t interested in giving NASA more money, not because there aren’t lots of places to cut the budget in order to keep a balanced budget and increase NASA’s meager budget.”

I rest my case.

Then you also said:

“I never said you did. Geez. Just read the words. What I asked you to do was NOT to give me any drivel about inspiration…”

Oh, so that’s how we should operate now, you want us all to guess what everyone is going to advocate for before they actually say it?

Well in that case, DO NOT give me any drivel about “replacing U.S. astronauts with nuclear-powered zombies”!

Fifty years of NASA history and it still can’t figure out what human space flight is really for. Until it does, the barriers to increasing NASA’s budget to do it will be insurmountable. If you think there are no barriers to NASA getting a hefty increase, you’re hallucinating. There are no barriers to me being President of the U.S. or to me running a touchdown against the Seahawks. In fact, there are no barriers to Congress writing me a check for $16B.

This thread started out with simplistic musings about where NASA could get large amounts of money. Of course, those musings didn’t dare make any presumptions about why one would want to give NASA huge amounts of money.

“When have I ever said that? You must be confusing me with someone else…”

I never said you did. Geez. Just read the words. What I asked you to do was NOT to give me any drivel about inspiration, which is what people often do when they are challenged about the value of doing “cool stuff.” Chill, please.

“But the nation doesn’t want to pay for “more NASA”.”

As I’ve said, and which has been the whole point I was making with Matt.

“So increasing NASA’s budget is not in the cards…”

You are over analyzing the example I used. It was only to show that there are no barriers to increasing NASA’s budget. I don’t advocate off-budget funding for anything.

“What NASA is about right now is doing cool stuff and paying people to do it. That’s not a national need, and don’t give me any drivel about “inspiration”.”

When have I ever said that? You must be confusing me with someone else…

Look, I see a value to spending taxpayer money on science and technology, and NASA is just part of that. As I’ve stated MANY times, I’m fine with keeping NASA’s budget at it’s present level.

“On that part, I suppose we agree.”

In general we do agree on a lot.

The Iraq war wasn’t a matter of “Let’s bump up funding for the DoD!!!” It was a matter of protecting the nation. Well, it was sold that way.

So we can blather about how the nation can pay for an ambitious program of human space flight. The question isn’t how the money gets routed. The question is affordability, and that question is about value. The nation sees no great value in ambitious programs for human space flight. It sees jobs, and it sees some measure of exceptionalism in that we need to do JUST ENOUGH to be better than everyone else. But that’s it. That’s where the firm line is drawn.

On that part, I suppose we agree. I’ll look forward to that federally funded giant roller coaster!

“Yep, if the President and Congress agree that building the worlds largest roller coaster is a good idea or needed for some “National Imperative”, there is nothing holding them back from doing it. You bet.”

Which has been my whole point.

“But they don’t agree on that.”

Something else I said.

“That the U.S. government can fiscally underwrite a war is of little relevance here.”

That they can do it “off budget” reinforces my point that increasing NASA’s budget is not dependent on cutting something else currently in the budget.

Matt thinks that all we need to do is cut farm subsidies or child lunch programs, or whatever, and the money will magically flow to NASA.

My point is that NASA doesn’t get more money because Congress isn’t interested in giving NASA more money, not because there aren’t lots of places to cut the budget in order to keep a balanced budget and increase NASA’s meager budget.

He probably believes this fiction because that’s the only way he can believe that there isn’t yet an identified and funded need for the SLS. If Congress wanted the SLS to do something, they would find the money for it somewhere. As we all know, that has yet to happen.

I’m afraid not. You said …

“they can spend however much money they want on whatever they want.”

I said

“there is no rigid amount of spending that Congress can authorize.”

Authorization is NOT spending. Get that straight. Big difference. If you’re a contractor, and Congress writes you a check cashable from an authorization bill, you might as well be white-washing fences.

Yep, if the President and Congress agree that building the worlds largest roller coaster is a good idea or needed for some “National Imperative”, there is nothing holding them back from doing it. You bet. But they don’t agree on that. Got any other good ideas?

That the U.S. government can fiscally underwrite a war is of little relevance here. By the way, the Iraq war largely did not get funded by cutting other programs. It was funded by supplemental appropriations billed to the national debt (mostly Treasury Bonds sold to foreigners.) It was also a pretty cheap war, as wars go, amounting to about 1% of the GDP. So yes, we could, in principle, fund an increase to NASA by selling bonds to other nations.

The reason that NASA’s budget has not been increased by cutting other programs is, duh, because those other programs are more important to the nation than NASA. Get over it.