On Feb 11, 1:24*am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Feb 10, 6:20*pm, wrote:





On Feb 10, 8:57*pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Feb 10, 5:05*pm, wrote:

On Feb 10, 3:33*pm, Brian Tung wrote:

wsnell wrote:
Conservatives don't run up bills...that's why we are called
conservatives. *We don't lie either.

Well, see, the problem is, if you *do* lie, I can't trust your
assertion that you *don't* lie.

(Come on, really? *You don't have to rise to the bait with
yet one more "I, as a member of incredibly broad group X,
never do bad thing Y.")

True conservatives have no reason to lie, but unfortunately you among
so many others have been misled as to what conservatism really is in
America. *We vote for Republicans as the lesser of two evils, in an
attempt keep the worst of the collectivists at bay.

The government, as a whole, runs up bills. *It also lies. *(It
doesn't *always* lie, mind you; it also tells the truth
sometimes. *More's the pity--things would be a lot simpler
if it always lied.) *No different from people in general that
way. *What we do as voters is decide which group of
people tell lies and run up bills in less damaging fashion,
according to our lights.

So long as the typical voter gets something out of the deal, he
doesn't seem to care about the deficits. *Conservatives approach
governance and spending differently, ie they want less of it.

In my opinion, the real tragedy is that science funding is
so moribund that a strategic error such as the ISS (on the
whole--of course it has had some benefits) can wipe out
so many exciting plans. *

Government waste in other areas dwarfs any supposed waste on the ISS.
Consider the $53 billion for high speed passenger rail. *That's
probably $300 or more out of each taxpayer's pocket and they would
still have to buy tickets to ride the thing, assuming that it even
went someplace they wanted to go. * With that amount of cash I can buy
enough gasoline to drive myself and at least two friends thousands of
miles. *On our schedule.

Let's either spend that $53 billion on space and science, or not spend
it at all.

high speed rail vs ISS funding is basing a choice on a false premise,
as it is not an either or situation. *Maybe you need to consider
cutting defense spending, see below.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...org/pdfs/dod_s...

"Missouri Economic Impact Brief - US Department of Defense Contract
Spending
The United States Department of Defense
The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is made up of 17
agencies that awarded over $1.3 Trillion dollars in contracts between
2002 and 2006. Department of Defense contract spending increased over
27% between 2002 and 2003, and then remained relatively steady for the
following two years before increasing by 26% between 2005 and 2006. A
majority of this increase can be attributed to contracts awarded in
aircraft and other transportation. In 2006, the U.S. Department of
Defense awarded $311 Billion in contracts, compared to $163 Billion in
2001...."

We need defense spending, but should keep an eye on waste.

We do not need the government to subsidize passenger rail, all such
spending is a waste.

Space travel and exploration has scientific benefits and possible
defense benefits, so it should be funded, including a space station or
base.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

History has shown we need regulations to ensure good stewardship of
our precious natural resources. *Hiding behind a fake anti regulation
statement, steps on the conservative concept of land stewardship, as
business did not self correct with out regulation in place.

Another strawman.

As far as your comment about waste, you missed the boat, you seem to
be focused on a very small portion of spending,

$53 billion doesn't seem like a small amount of money to me? Does it
to you?

How about hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the "stimulus"
package? Ethanol subsidies?

Have you become so accustomed to this sort thing that it no longer
registers on your brain?

while ignoring such
things as no bid contracts awarded to haliburton. *Im glad you support
space travel, but arguing the concept of infrastructure investments
( 9 billion a year) vs funding for the next generation space vehicle
while you ignore the $700 billion yearly for defense costs,

Defense costs are necessary and called for by the US Constitution.
Many aspects of national defense are (and should be) classified, so
there is going to be some degree of secrecy. As with most things,
developing new weaponry is a trial and error process, so there is
bound to be some "waste."

is kind of
a big fat joke. *Defense spending grew at a ridiculous rate during the
bush administration (see the link i provided for a taste of reality),
but the cries from people like you were silent. *

Again defense spending is necessary, while rail subsidies, ethanol
subsidies, stimulus packages, etc., are not.

No, you dont get a
free pass to suddenly wake up to budgetary issues starting in 2008,

I never asked for "free pass," but you have to admit that as bad the
spending was before 2008, the Zero and the Dems took it to insane new
levels in starting 2008.

and your desire to claim your special place on the political spectrum
does not allow you to deny reality and rewrite history.

Your "political spectrum" only describes politicians and voters who
are in favor of a large and ever-increasing role of government in
every aspect of our lives.