For whatever its worth, I wish the military could somehow be subject to ‘freemarket forces’ to limit its size and calculated risks that the government take in a military action or operation.

The naysayers often speak as if the country’s social problems would be solved if only we took the money given to NASA and devoted it to social programs. Does anyone seriously believe that increasing spending on social programs from $1.581 trillion to $1.597 trillion would make any appreciable difference?

In 2008, out of the 500,000 Americans who lost their jobs, 50% were recruiters (HR people). NASA did not invent the transistor.

Does anyone remember Star Wars project? We were supposed to be able to blast down nuclear missiles with our satellites during the Cold War. What came of it?

All these space missions, what came of it? Tang? Hot and stuffy temperpedic mattresses? Wow, let’s keep wasting tons of money for these unnecessary inventions. You people are seriously rediculous if you think NASA or the 25% expenditure of the federal budget the DOD approves every year serves a purpose.

Who are we at war with? Seems like no one to me, especially when you have a country full of unmotivated people looking for a handout stuck watching Jersey Shore re-runs. Where you have a complete circus of politics with characters like Palin and Trump who are considered to be presidential candidates at some point.

The only use NASA could provide is letting me shove one of their rockets up every Americans tight, pretentious, ignorant ass.

NASA: $19 Billion or 0.6% of our federal budget.

The USSR failed as a direct result of 20 years of strategic overstretch, and too much of a proportion of it’s GNP sunk into a defense industry that was, like all defense industries everywhere, essentially parasitic upon the economy as a whole. Let’s not follow in their footsteps.

In terms of morals (which should have absolutely nothing to do with law anyways and neither should religion, since both are very subjective, something law should never be), which seems more morally praiseworthy?

Funding a peaceful, internationally beneficial science research and discovery program like NASA, or funding three wars (that we started) and more bombs, ammo and nukes (and guns and warplanes and ships, etc.) than we will ever be able to use, ever?

I think it is obvious which is more wasteful in terms of cost vs. societal benefit ratio.

Same thing with education. I can never understand why it is the first thing to be cut, even though it is an investment in our future. You think there is going to be a great war in the future? Unlikely, given the interconnectedness of the current global market.

Military power is not the future of staying on top in the modern world. The future is education. The weapons of the future will be the skill sets of our workers, not bombs.

Look at the rate in which India and China are pumping out skilled workers. And this is just the beginning. We need to start pouring funding into education, and NOW. That is, if we want to stay on top. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

Also, NASA forces some international cooperation. The ISS would be a total failure if any one country backs out in the middle of a mission. We have people up there, and it’s risky to just back out.

“I’m not trying to twist anything you’re saying”

That is exactly what you’ve done. Connor never said “forceful tyrant”. And . . . whatever.

You’re so far out there, I’m not even going to try.

I agree with Jesse. I know the original intent of NASA was not as a defensive arm of the military. But that is how I see the current role of NASA. Yes, there are the pretty showboaty things such as pictures from Hubble, etc. But one primary use of NASA is sattelite work. Sattelites are invaluable as a reconnaissance tool.

Of course, this is a double edged sword since it can be used by government to spy on its own citizens — bad.

Another major function of NASA is development of space propulsion. This is useful for design of ICBMs and other military devices that need to go into high orbit.

I think I could agree with you on the wastefulness. But the military in general is pretty wasteful. Even if it is an enumerated power and it is a justified function of goverment, it is still government and will lose efficiency as such.

But keep in mind one thing: Salaries. A relative works for NASA. I told him I was interested in some of the jobs he was mentioning NASA had open. He thought I was qualified and forwarded my name.

Then I found out what the jobs paid. I would have taken a 30% drop in pay for a roughly equivalent job in the private sector. Whatever waste is going on, it isn’t in the salary of its employees.

To give you some perspective, the army has contracted with a company that has developed transparent aluminium. Yes, like in Star Trek–albiet with some qualifying differences. The price tag? $10 per square inch. Compare that to $4 / sq in for high impact bullet proof glass or 14 cents/sq in for 1″ thick steel plate. Keep in mind that the $10 / sq inch doesn’t cover additional coatings that are required to give it optimal performance.

Things like this come up in military expenses. The military wastes an awful lot. But because it serves a valuable purpose, and it is a justifiable government function, we put accept it.

This also reminds me of Ron Paul’s interview on Google. He was asked if he thought the NSF should be disbanded since it was not an enumerated power of the federal government.

His response: “In a perfect world, yes. But I tend to think of it as a lesser evil.”

There’s bad and there’s really bad. Given the justifications for NASA vs. the negative points you bring up, I tend to think of it as a lesser evil.

“I never gave the Lord any authority. In fact, as Creator, he can require of me whatever He wishes, and I am compelled to either obey or suffer the consequences.”

“As our Creator, God can command anything He wishes of us.”

Which is where you called God a forceful tyrant.

Everything else I said is in the scriptures and is the Gospel. Sorry for baffling you. I’m not trying to ‘twist’ anything you’re saying. Instead, you seem to be taking what I’m saying as some kind of attack – I’m not trying to ‘slam you with your words’. I’ve never considered studying and trying to understand the Gospel to be an act of frivolity. But you’re right, neither of us is learning anything here. Catch ya later.

Um, false. The 1/3 of God’s children who chose not to follow Him were banished under God’s authority. Even though they did not want to comply with His plan, they still had to act under His law and recognize His authority. Our choices do not determine God’s authority over us.

The rest of your comment baffles me, and I’m not sure I’m even going to attempt to respond. You claim that my understanding of the gospel is flawed and go off on a theological diatribe, which has nothing to do with the subject of this post. You choose not to respond to my response to you, but instead continue to nitpick a few items and attempt to twist them so as to try to disprove me on something. As just one example, your presume that the “benevolent, loving dictator” I referenced was God the Father, and then attempt to show why I am wrong. But I never said it was God the Father. This same thing happened in your previous comment when you accused me of calling God a forceful tyrant, when I had done no such thing.

I’m scratching my head here, wondering why you are putting words in my mouth and then trying to slam me with them. I think we both have better things to do with our time than engage in such frivolity.

But you need to quit thinking about politics (only for a minute, I promise) and think about what a Republic actually is.

The Law is the Law. You gave God authority over you, under the law, when you chose to sustain Him in the pre-existence. If you had not then you would be with the other 1/3 of the host. Do you really need a scripture reference for that? If so, maybe you should turn in your seminary certificate. :)

God does not force you to obey him, He never has. You had every opportunity to abandon Him and go your own way once before, as you do now. He does not, can not, issue a law that is unnatural or does not follow the order He is bound by. Given that we have the potential to become Gods, what is it that you think we are here to learn / be tested on? He has been through the same tests and only achieved His position after having been proven with the same test we are currently undergoing. The laws we are given by Him are not new or unique laws, they are The Law. Natural Law has Natural Consequence, we are as bound to them as He is.

Furthermore, if God is to be equated to a dictator (which He is Not.) you would be incorrect to attach Loving and Benevolent to Him – while He indeed is those, God’s role is Justice. Christ’s role is Loving, Benevolent MERCY. God cannot show or have any prejudice based on Love under the Law, the Atonement is necessary for that.

There is Order in all things under God. All process of Order is duplicated from the top down. In Conference we sustain the leaders and are given the opportunity to oppose. In Stake meetings, Ward Meetings and so on this is duplicated. Just as it duplicates DOWN, it is duplicated UP.

Again, quit thinking about Politics and think about the actual Gospel, in its entirety and what it is – and think about a Republic and what it is.

Where have I attributed force and tyrant-like behavior to God? I’ve simply said that He has given commandments, and I can either obey or not. He is all-powerful and has authority to give such commandments. His power was not delegated to Him, nor is it enumerated by His subjects.

You actually did give the Lord authority when you CHOSE to follow Him…

Care to provide a scripture for that? The Lord has authority whether or not I choose to obey Him. Or are you really suggesting that God has no authority over atheists?

You apparently completely mis-understand the Gospel, the nature of God and our purpose on earth.

Wow, really? I guess I’ll turn in my seminary certificate. That was a waste of time!

Really, Phil, what’s with the wild interpretation of what I’m saying here? I’m not saying that the Lord is forcing me to do what He says. I’m simply saying that He has the authority to command it in the first place. After all, that’s what we call His instructions to His children: commandments.

The Gospel IS a Republic in its purest most un-corrupted form.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a political or even theological institution. Rather, it is a codified set of laws, commandments, and instructions on how to return to God’s presence.

If you’re referring to the Church and/or the kingdom of God, then I would counter that it is far from a Republic. We don’t vote for leaders, but rather give our sustaining consent to those who have been appointed by those already in “power”. While it might have Republican elements, one can’t overlook the fact that at the core it is a monarchy with a benevolent, loving dictator. :)

“I never gave the Lord any authority. In fact, as Creator, he can require of me whatever He wishes, and I am compelled to either obey or suffer the consequences.”

“As our Creator, God can command anything He wishes of us.”

Both of these statements are COMPLETELY false.

You actually did give the Lord authority when you CHOSE to follow Him, both in the pre-existence and in this life. He cannot require of you whatever He wishes and you are not compelled to obey. The Lord must follow the Law of Equality AND the Law of Free Agency. God CANNOT command anything He wishes of us, ever. You apparently completely mis-understand the Gospel, the nature of God and our purpose on earth.

What I find most ironic is that your constantly push for a pure Republic. The Gospel IS a Republic in its purest most un-corrupted form. Yet you make these statements of God and His Republic. If that is how you feel about Him then I think you need to re-think whether you want to continue pushing for a Federal Republic.

What hubris it is to believe that we should forego the health, education, and well being of earth’s CURRENT inhabitants, in the interest of someone’s jingoistic (the “space race” did, after all, escalate only to “beat” the former USSR after they launched Sputnik) vision of being The Conqueror of The Universe. What a WA$TE of precious resources, and what folly!

Let’s Shut it Down, Send all the Rocket Scientists off to work on something worthwhile, and spend 17 BILLION on CNG, Wind, Tide and Solar energy to fuel the planet. Then, when mankind has cured hunger, disease, and housing ills, let PRIVATE enterprise (THE X-Project Ring a BELL?) advance the cause of conquering as-yet unknown galaxies.

For now, NASA’s research positively changes aspects of daily life. For example, the smoke detector, responsible for saving countless people, was initially a piece of NASA technology implemented on a 1970’s spacecraft. From this, we can conclude that other NASA innovations will inevitably stimulate drastic improvements to people’s lives.

Taxpayers compare the space program to a “black hole of astronomical proportions.” Ironically, many use the term “black hole” to describe an area of no return, but none would know of a black hole’s existence without NASA’s research. NASA’s apparent abundance of self-promoting rocket scientists reflects the naïve public making generalizations about a passionate and dedicated group of engineers. As for private enterprise, few companies have as much funding as NASA, and are unlikely to make major discoveries.

Tax dollars are a small price to pay for the gargantuan leaps that will continue to be made in the advancement of the human race.