If the US invested more in their space program, could that potentially have a revitalizing effect on the economy?

Or we could look into alternate forms of energy.

@johnpowell Not space exploration, but a good idea.

Don’ think so, it would add to the debt. But it is a noble cause. Shift money away from ridiculous bailouts to the space program, now you are getting somewhere. Even better is for all countries to coordinate a united space research approach that will benefit the earth as a whole, not just a race for US to win, but a quest for knowledge. It could be the first step to a more cohesive unified world as all humans look to the universe and are inspired to a search in an adventurous way for planetary exploration.

No, this will not work. The economy is being devastated purposely to keep the slaves in line. Good luck avoiding the hard times.

NASA has given us a multitude of technology that we now use in our everyday life. All of those things were developed/founded by government funds that were spent trying to put men into space, on the moon, etc, etc, etc.

Dumping more money into NASA would be a good idea in that respect. Also keep in mind that if that technology picks up, it could create entire new industries or otherwise revolutionize existing ones. And YES, it would help create jobs and industry. BUT, I highly doubt it would be a “big” boost in the economy, as a lot of the money is simply spent on expensive experimental parts and research, as opposed to actual factory/worker/work.

That having been said, NASA currently represents a TINY fraction of our national budget. I would LOVE to see them get a chunk of change that is otherwise being wasted on a-hole banks that we should’ve just let go under (many of whom are already back to bending us over again).

@The_Compassionate_Heretic :: My point was that I think there are better things we could be spending money on. Getting off oil, healthcare, and education are my big three things I would like us to be spending more on. NASA can wait until we get the other things sorted out.

It does not matter what “pie in the sky” ideas anyone has,

YOU CANNOT SPEND YOUR WAY TO A HEALTHY ECONOMY!

@DrBill If you look at the great depression and how it ended… you’ll see how wrong you are. (let alone the multitude of recessions that have been brought to an end by spending).

Wow… ok then. Just throwing out ideas here. I’ll chalk up this one as “unpopular”.

In general there is too much money directed at lobbyists, the likes of Goldman Sachs who really create little but algorithmic incentives to play a gambling casino called the stock market, naturally making sure they win (they are the house, supported by naive governments including Obama). Shift funds to R&D, education and small to mid-sized innovative businesses, and yes, NASA, and you will have a greater bang for the buck. The present spending course is disappointingly too Bush-like for me, in spite of all the “Yes we can” slogans that were bandied about. Too bad, but Corporate America is still running the show..Bonuses anyone?

The topic may be unpopular but it is food for thought, so I think it to be a great question.

@westy81585

The depression ended when the war started, taking workers out of the workforce and creating jobs for the unemployed, and running the country into more debt. Sense we now have President Obamination willing to spend over a TRILLION dollars more than we bring in, I can see (TIC) how our we’re on the road to recovery, yea right.

@DrBill If we’re going to bring politics into this, it bears mentioning that Bush threw out $800 billion of taxpayer money with no strings attached before Obama was even elected so let’s try to not let partisan politics create double standards.

Investing in science is always a way to revitalize the economy as well as develop technologically and improve education.

@johnpowell

Technological advances are rarely discovered by funding efforts to specifically look for them. Advances in alternative energy are unlikely to be developed by funding efforts to specifically look for them. Instead, technological advances are usually bi-products of scientific research which, at the time, seemed unrelated.

So in short, looking into alternative forms of energy is actually probably not the way to go about it.

@DrBill “The depression ended when the war started, taking workers out of the workforce and creating jobs for the unemployed, and runnning the country into more debt.”

Did you even read that before you entered it? Ignoring for a moment that we were already on our way out of the depression when WW2 started (not to mention the fact we had less debt after WW2 than any time since, and the fact WW2 was followed by the second largest economic boom in our countries history, behind the boom seen during the early-mid Clinton years).... You seem to be under the assumption that we “removed” all of the enlisted men from the work force. For the duration of the war (and a length of time before and after) those enlisted men were employees of the government. The people who took their places on the line simply took up more jobs that had been opened yes (DUH), but how is that not throwing money at the problem? Due to the massive influx of money and expenditure, the already ending depression was ended in a matter of months, and gave way to a MASSIVE economic boom (so large that we basically “funded” all of central Europe for the next decade, and paid in cash for the Korean War, and STILL came in second in all time economic booms).

The “trillions in debt” we’ll be is way off too (i’m guessing some far right wing idiot gave you that nonsense?) Realistic estimates that take the ENTIRE Obama plan into account put us going into the red about 200 million each year for the next 2–4 years, and then going into the black. Which, considering the complete mess of things Bush 2 made, is pretty damn good IMO.

Besides, less than 10% of the stimulus has even hit the market yet, and the economy is ALREADY turning around (my job and the pain in the ass commute i take to work every morning thanks to construction are both a direct result of it).

By no means do I agree with everything Obama has done or has planned. But quit being an idiot.

Our infrastructure is crumbling. At least when we did the space stuff the first time, the new superhighways and bridges were being built or had just been completed. I don’t think anyone wants a repeat of what Happened in Minnesota last year. I’d rather see money going to put people working at fixing the roads and bridges of the country.

@aprilsimnel There’s no reason we can’t do both.

@Ivan :: I wasn’t really clear. I apologize. My point was investing more in known technologies like solar and wind. With economies of scale it would be cheaper to promote those power sources if more people used them.

The amount of money spent on the Iraq war would have put a colony on Mars and we’d be arguing whether we send astronauts to Ganymede or Europa first. This space program would have inspired tens of thousands of young people to enroll in science and engineering subjects to help up to take on the challenge of climate change. We could solve the energy and resource crisis and Earth would be ready in accommodate 9 billion people by mid of the century.

The only reason the plug has not been pulled on NASA is because of the large infrastructure that NASA supports.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic

I do not hold Obama or Bush blameless, we will continue to drown in a sea of debt as long as these idiots think they can spend there way out of debt.