$100Bn to go the moon? I think not.

[kanderson]

And think that back in the day we got there for WAY less then that

Wrong. It was WAY more expensive to go the first time-- more than 24 billion dollars in 1960's money, which is over $125 billion in today's money.

[Top Gear Girl]

Originally Posted by Olds442

$100,000,000,000

Hmmmm, I could buy a small member state of the UN for that and become HRH Queen Top Gear Girl of Top Gear Land. (Seriously
, I've always wondered why Bill Gates doesn't do that, it would save a lot of Microsoft hassle with the US Gov and taxes, he's got enough money)

As for going to the Moon. Why? Like you say, it's been done. How about Mars? Or somewhere? Or there are homeless people on the streets of America? So why not give them somewhere to live?

[YF19pilot]

Originally Posted by Top Gear Girl

Hmmmm, I could buy a small member state of the UN for that and become HRH Queen Top Gear Girl of Top Gear Land. (Seriously
, I've always wondered why Bill Gates doesn't do that, it would save a lot of Microsoft hassle with the US Gov and taxes, he's got enough money)

As for going to the Moon. Why? Like you say, it's been done. How about Mars? Or somewhere? Or there are homeless people on the streets of America? So why not give them somewhere to live?

[not to be taken seriously]
Here's the logic:

We go to the moon. We build a moon base. We build a rocket on the moon that will go to mars. We send all the homeless people to mars. Now we can declare the martians to be evil, nuke them, and take over mars in the name of humanity. No more homeless people! There, all problems solved, everyone's happy.

[/not to be taken seriously]

[hokiethang]

Originally Posted by Top Gear Girl

As for going to the Moon. Why? Like you say, it's been done. How about Mars? Or somewhere? Or there are homeless people on the streets of America? So why not give them somewhere to live?

As was said earlier... going to the moon is a stepping stone to going to mars... Also, I would rather my tax money be used to improve science instead of spending my money on people who don't want to contribute. (before you go whining, I know all of them aren't lazy and not wanting to contribute, but stories of people using FEMA relief cards to buy $800 purses and lap dances makes you lose faith in humanity.)

I spend 8 1/2 hours a day at work just so the government can have 28% of my money. Let me put this another way, 2.38 hours of each day is given to the government. I would rather that 2.38 hours of my life being spent to help advance technology and science instead of supporting other people, who don't want to help themselves.

[Top Gear Girl]

Originally Posted by hokiethang

I would rather that 2.38 hours of my life being spent to help advance technology and science instead of supporting other people, who don't want to help themselves.

Fair enough, when you put it that way, I agree.

[jayjaya29]

I agree with you Hookie, one question, if they reformed the welfare system so that the money for each person would be given to services (doctors, hospitals, shelters, dentists, etc etc) instead of the people, would you feel better knowing it was spent on necessary things instead of alcohol and drugs?

[kanderson]

(Interjecting here) If the welfare system also required rehabilitation, relocation and education of the welfare recipients, not just free services, then yes. If it's just free doctors, hospitals, shelters etc, then absolutely not. The money would be better spent on NASA where most of it is paid in salaries to people with jobs.

[Olds442]

Originally Posted by kanderson

(Interjecting here) If the welfare system also required rehabilitation, relocation and education of the welfare recipients, not just free services, then yes. If it's just free doctors, hospitals, shelters etc, then absolutely not. The money would be better spent on NASA where most of it is paid in salaries to people with jobs.

The thing about the job argument is that this will benefit the people who already have jobs, no?
I mean it's not like NASA is gonna call Local Union #234 Electrical Workers and have them wire up the new shuttle, right?

[jayjaya29]

I think it should provide all the necessities a family would need while a member of the family is trying to get a job. Once that person gets a job, the amount of welfare in their name being allocated toward services would be decrease. It would work, the way it is now is just plain waste full. Its like leaving the water running without making any use of it.

[hokiethang]

Originally Posted by Olds442

The thing about the job argument is that this will benefit the people who already have jobs, no?
I mean it's not like NASA is gonna call Local Union #234 Electrical Workers and have them wire up the new shuttle, right?

No, but NASA will likely need new facilities, or upgrades to current facilities.

And back to the original question that was posted to me, yes, I would feel much less critical about the system. If services were paid for directly and restricted to only a certain amount of time, instead of letting people stay on it forever and spending the money how they want instead of how it should be spent. That's part of the problem with the FEMA solution, give people $2000 instead of paying for $2000 of services for them.

[kanderson]

The thing about the job argument is that this will benefit the people who already have jobs, no?
I mean it's not like NASA is gonna call Local Union #234 Electrical Workers and have them wire up the new shuttle, right?

It creates new jobs by the hundreds of thousands. Just like the last moon project, money is used for education -- many thousands of scholarships. Manufacturers and vendors bidding on the components have to increase their staff. More jobs mean more spending on commerce, which creates even more jobs. The result is an economic stimulus that helps everyone at all levels, which is something that neither welfare nor tax cuts can accomplish. (i.e. who cares about a tax cut if you're unemployed?)

[Dr. Woo]

Welfare is a massive failure on all levels and needs SERIOUS reform, to the tune of cutting spending by a large majority.

And $200 billion spent by the government will NOT create jobs and stimulate the economy enough to make up for such a significant amount of money. This money's coming from all of us, whether we like it or not. Criminal.

It's a lot easier to spend someone else's money than it is to spend your own.