Len Colby Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 In the Johnson Administration, the political tide was turning. Pre-eminence in space was replaced by the social programs of the "Great Society." NASA Administrator James Webb made a valiant effort to frame the necessary spending on space exploration within those terms, telling the President that the space program is "in its totality ... truly representative of a Great Society.... It stimulates millions with new knowledge while its technologies upgrade our industries and universities.... This has almost explosive potential and in reality, the space program should be the cornerstone of your Great Society, and it can be if you increase its budget."It was, at best, a rearguard action. The London Tavistock Institute and co-thinking social control institutions had, in fact, made the takedown of the space program one of the goals of the "Great Society" hoax. By 1966, with no post-Apollo plan approved by the President, 80,000 layoffs in the space program were already under way. Soon, the real pressure on the budget became not Johnson's Great Society, but the war in Southeast Asia, which was costing $2 billion per month before he left office. With the 1969 ascension of Richard Nixon to the White House, the future of NASA and the nuclear rocket only worsened. The Federal budget crisis, due in large part to the spending for the war in Vietnam, and also to the international financial crisis, led to government-wide reductions. Despite the recommendation of the Space Task Group which Nixon had appointed, that Apollo be followed by the development of a shuttle to Earth orbit, an Earth-orbital space station, nuclear-powered spacecraft to take men to Mars, as well as a cargo ferry to the Moon, this was not deemed possible. You "forgot" to provide the source of your text. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_...ukes_space.html Your entire world view if framed by that nut and his disciples. Are you capable of independent thought? Barring independent confirmation I'll assume the claim NASA layed off 80,000 workers in the year of it's fattest budget was erroneous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 In the Johnson Administration, the political tide was turning. Pre-eminence in space was replaced by the social programs of the "Great Society." NASA Administrator James Webb made a valiant effort to frame the necessary spending on space exploration within those terms, telling the President that the space program is "in its totality ... truly representative of a Great Society.... It stimulates millions with new knowledge while its technologies upgrade our industries and universities.... This has almost explosive potential and in reality, the space program should be the cornerstone of your Great Society, and it can be if you increase its budget."It was, at best, a rearguard action. The London Tavistock Institute and co-thinking social control institutions had, in fact, made the takedown of the space program one of the goals of the "Great Society" hoax. By 1966, with no post-Apollo plan approved by the President, 80,000 layoffs in the space program were already under way. Soon, the real pressure on the budget became not Johnson's Great Society, but the war in Southeast Asia, which was costing $2 billion per month before he left office. With the 1969 ascension of Richard Nixon to the White House, the future of NASA and the nuclear rocket only worsened. The Federal budget crisis, due in large part to the spending for the war in Vietnam, and also to the international financial crisis, led to government-wide reductions. Despite the recommendation of the Space Task Group which Nixon had appointed, that Apollo be followed by the development of a shuttle to Earth orbit, an Earth-orbital space station, nuclear-powered spacecraft to take men to Mars, as well as a cargo ferry to the Moon, this was not deemed possible. You "forgot" to provide the source of your text. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_...ukes_space.html Your entire world view if framed by that nut and his disciples. Are you capable of independent thought? Barring independent confirmation I'll assume the claim NASA layed off 80,000 workers in the year of it's fattest budget was erroneous. Len, you're addicted to being wrong. It's your role in life I guess. Your "creepy" "crawling" deductive Bertrand Russell method of "sniffing" the droppings just won't yield you any truth. It's worse than being subjected to a non stop GG Allin performance. It destroys the human mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 In the Johnson Administration, the political tide was turning. Pre-eminence in space was replaced by the social programs of the "Great Society." NASA Administrator James Webb made a valiant effort to frame the necessary spending on space exploration within those terms, telling the President that the space program is "in its totality ... truly representative of a Great Society.... It stimulates millions with new knowledge while its technologies upgrade our industries and universities.... This has almost explosive potential and in reality, the space program should be the cornerstone of your Great Society, and it can be if you increase its budget."It was, at best, a rearguard action. The London Tavistock Institute and co-thinking social control institutions had, in fact, made the takedown of the space program one of the goals of the "Great Society" hoax. By 1966, with no post-Apollo plan approved by the President, 80,000 layoffs in the space program were already under way. Soon, the real pressure on the budget became not Johnson's Great Society, but the war in Southeast Asia, which was costing $2 billion per month before he left office. With the 1969 ascension of Richard Nixon to the White House, the future of NASA and the nuclear rocket only worsened. The Federal budget crisis, due in large part to the spending for the war in Vietnam, and also to the international financial crisis, led to government-wide reductions. Despite the recommendation of the Space Task Group which Nixon had appointed, that Apollo be followed by the development of a shuttle to Earth orbit, an Earth-orbital space station, nuclear-powered spacecraft to take men to Mars, as well as a cargo ferry to the Moon, this was not deemed possible. You "forgot" to provide the source of your text. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_...ukes_space.html Your entire world view if framed by that nut and his disciples. Are you capable of independent thought? Barring independent confirmation I'll assume the claim NASA layed off 80,000 workers in the year of it's fattest budget was erroneous. Len, you're addicted to being wrong. It's your role in life I guess. Your "creepy" "crawling" deductive Bertrand Russell method of "sniffing" the droppings just won't yield you any truth. It's worse than being subjected to a non stop GG Allin performance. It destroys the human mind. I’m not sure what you are talking about. Where do think I was wrong? About you copping that text from a LaRouchite? - You did. About your entire worldview being shaped by him? - Based on your posts it is. About NASA funding? Sorry but your own source show that you were wrong and that funding spiked in 1966 and was higher 1964 -, when LBJ was president than any other period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 In the Johnson Administration, the political tide was turning. Pre-eminence in space was replaced by the social programs of the "Great Society." NASA Administrator James Webb made a valiant effort to frame the necessary spending on space exploration within those terms, telling the President that the space program is "in its totality ... truly representative of a Great Society.... It stimulates millions with new knowledge while its technologies upgrade our industries and universities.... This has almost explosive potential and in reality, the space program should be the cornerstone of your Great Society, and it can be if you increase its budget."It was, at best, a rearguard action. The London Tavistock Institute and co-thinking social control institutions had, in fact, made the takedown of the space program one of the goals of the "Great Society" hoax. By 1966, with no post-Apollo plan approved by the President, 80,000 layoffs in the space program were already under way. Soon, the real pressure on the budget became not Johnson's Great Society, but the war in Southeast Asia, which was costing $2 billion per month before he left office. With the 1969 ascension of Richard Nixon to the White House, the future of NASA and the nuclear rocket only worsened. The Federal budget crisis, due in large part to the spending for the war in Vietnam, and also to the international financial crisis, led to government-wide reductions. Despite the recommendation of the Space Task Group which Nixon had appointed, that Apollo be followed by the development of a shuttle to Earth orbit, an Earth-orbital space station, nuclear-powered spacecraft to take men to Mars, as well as a cargo ferry to the Moon, this was not deemed possible. You "forgot" to provide the source of your text. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/sci_...ukes_space.html Your entire world view if framed by that nut and his disciples. Are you capable of independent thought? Barring independent confirmation I'll assume the claim NASA layed off 80,000 workers in the year of it's fattest budget was erroneous. Len, you're addicted to being wrong. It's your role in life I guess. Your "creepy" "crawling" deductive Bertrand Russell method of "sniffing" the droppings just won't yield you any truth. It's worse than being subjected to a non stop GG Allin performance. It destroys the human mind. I’m not sure what you are talking about. Where do think I was wrong? About you copping that text from a LaRouchite? - You did. About your entire worldview being shaped by him? - Based on your posts it is. About NASA funding? Sorry but your own source show that you were wrong and that funding spiked in 1966 and was higher 1964 -, when LBJ was president than any other period. Why would you argue? The funding for NASA literally collapses after Kennedy is removed from office. It's the change in policy, Auntie Bertie, that's important. Funding that hit it's highpoint while LBJ was there is of no consequence if the truth is your goal. It collapses in 1967 radically and I believe LBJ, and not JFK was President. Why dont you ask yourself "why the change in policy"? And if Kennedy's policy called for a manned Mars mission, then where is it? It's been 45 years and it's nowhere in sight. I think 1972 was the last time the USA sent men to the moon. We havent been back there since. Have fun sniffing the ground for droppings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 He [LBJ] also moved to make major budget cuts to JFK's NASA program. NASA was actually founded during the Eisenhower Administration. I doubt Johnson push to cut it budget funding went up when he was president. Though it peaked in 1966 it was still a lot higher in 1968 than it was 1963 if the information linked below is correct. In anycase it is highly unlikely the US would have made it to the moon 1969 if funding had not be raised above 1963 levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget#A...et.2C_1958-2008 NASA funding (in constant 1996 dollars) page 18. You can see that funding for space travel "spikes" upward under John F. Kennedy, then makes an equally downward spike after the assassination, under LBJ, Nixon et.al It has remained flat ever since. http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/~leuliett/presen...s/asen_2004.pdf James Webb who was Director from 1961-1968 held a September 1968 press conference where he critized congressional budget cuts to NASA http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jewebb.htm Terry – Thanks for providing documentary evidence that the data from Wikipedia is correct and not only did NASA’s budget spike under LBJ but spending was higher during every year of his presidency than during any other year. You see you need to get your glasses checked and/or improve your chart reading skills, each circle and square on the chart represent a different year. Since you got confused I annotated it for you. Despite having a highly regressive foreign policy, LBJ’s domestic policy was probably the most progressive of any president. As for NASA budget cuts that Webb complained about he seems to have blamed congress and they brought spending back to where it was in 1964. But once again thanks for your help; I couldn’t have proved you wrong without it. Kennedy had gone before congress in 1962 asking for millions of dollars to develop nuclear powered rocket boosters. You did not require nuclear powered boosters to get to the moon. What JFK was planning was travel to Mars using the moon as a launch site. I imagine you can provide a citation for that? Considering the various mishaps with space travel perhaps this was not a very good idea. A nuclear powered booster exploding in the atmosphere would make Chernobyl look like a leaky microwave over. This change in the outlook toward science and technology is one of the more glaring clues in the never ending game of "who killed JFK". They reversed JFK's space program and replaced it with the post industrial society complete with "sex, rock, drugs" counter culture. Had Kennedy not been murdered there is no question that the world would be a much different place today. But there is no doubt that JFK's killers saw his commitment to science and technology a major threat. Except that NASA funding under LBJ and Nixon was higher than under JFK You're desperate. Any fool (almost) can clearly see the change in policy from Kennedy to the LBJ. Like the policy of Vietnam and the post industrial society that replaced John Kennedy. Then you make a meaningless distinction between Congress and LBJ. The point is Dear Auntie Betrie, the USA was subjected to a "post industrial" policy after the assassination of JFK. Shutting down the space program was a major part of this policy. The Great Society was a hoax and the money that should have been directed to Kennedy's science driver program, which would have continued to create vast rates of real wealth was shut down. And it was shut down "fast" under LBJ's Presidency. It doesnt matter if the momentum under JFK carried funding into 1966, what matters is the clear change in direction. You see from the graph the empirical evidence of this change in policy. From a pro growth capital intensive science vectored policy of JFK to the entropic, post industrial, zero growth policies first introduced under LBJ and his Great Society Hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 (edited) How JFK mobilized a recovery for the US economy. Marsha Freeman http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/p...K_recovery.html Edited September 23, 2008 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Oh, okay - I misunderstood. Wiki is probably fairly accurate in this case, though. You are quite correct - NASA came from NACA. it was a logical choice, considering that NACA was the premier aeronautical research establishment in the US. They even had a rocket division... though they didn't call it that because "...it sounded too Buck Rogers..." and not like the serious research image of NACA. They called it the Pilotless Aircraft Research Division, or PARD. David,Sorry, but I don't understand. Why aren't they a reliable source? LBJ was a great supporter of the US manned space programme, but he also wanted his 'Great Society' to succeed and there was of course Vietnam. He reduced funding, but still ensured that the lunar landing programme had the money to succeed. The major portion - research and development - had already been done. Still, his (and Nixon's) cuts caused a massive change. The last three lunar landing flights were canceled. A planned lunar base was canceled. The Mars programme was pushed to "long term goals". The orbital laboratory plans were scaled down. The shuttle nearly was canceled itself; instead it needed DoD funding and had to be radically redesigned to meet DoD and budgetary requirements. simple history Evan, NASA (the creation of; my interest in this thread) did not appear out of thin air. Its predecessor, NACA, was created in 1915 (some of NACA's facilities are still in existence and used by NASA today). NASA was NOT the brilliant stroke of genius of any one president. NASA became a necessity (space race), albeit, a mother of modern invention -- the final off-shoot of NACA. So why go to Wikipedia for the who, what, when, where and why info? Why not the source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 He [LBJ] also moved to make major budget cuts to JFK's NASA program. NASA was actually founded during the Eisenhower Administration. I doubt Johnson push to cut it budget funding went up when he was president. Though it peaked in 1966 it was still a lot higher in 1968 than it was 1963 if the information linked below is correct. In anycase it is highly unlikely the US would have made it to the moon 1969 if funding had not be raised above 1963 levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget#A...et.2C_1958-2008 NASA funding (in constant 1996 dollars) page 18. You can see that funding for space travel "spikes" upward under John F. Kennedy, then makes an equally downward spike after the assassination, under LBJ, Nixon et.al It has remained flat ever since. http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/~leuliett/presen...s/asen_2004.pdf James Webb who was Director from 1961-1968 held a September 1968 press conference where he critized congressional budget cuts to NASA http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jewebb.htm Terry – Thanks for providing documentary evidence that the data from Wikipedia is correct and not only did NASA’s budget spike under LBJ but spending was higher during every year of his presidency than during any other year. You see you need to get your glasses checked and/or improve your chart reading skills, each circle and square on the chart represent a different year. Since you got confused I annotated it for you. Despite having a highly regressive foreign policy, LBJ’s domestic policy was probably the most progressive of any president. As for NASA budget cuts that Webb complained about he seems to have blamed congress and they brought spending back to where it was in 1964. But once again thanks for your help; I couldn’t have proved you wrong without it. Kennedy had gone before congress in 1962 asking for millions of dollars to develop nuclear powered rocket boosters. You did not require nuclear powered boosters to get to the moon. What JFK was planning was travel to Mars using the moon as a launch site. I imagine you can provide a citation for that? Considering the various mishaps with space travel perhaps this was not a very good idea. A nuclear powered booster exploding in the atmosphere would make Chernobyl look like a leaky microwave over. This change in the outlook toward science and technology is one of the more glaring clues in the never ending game of "who killed JFK". They reversed JFK's space program and replaced it with the post industrial society complete with "sex, rock, drugs" counter culture. Had Kennedy not been murdered there is no question that the world would be a much different place today. But there is no doubt that JFK's killers saw his commitment to science and technology a major threat. Except that NASA funding under LBJ and Nixon was higher than under JFK You're desperate. Any fool (almost) can clearly see the change in policy from Kennedy to the LBJ. Like the policy of Vietnam and the post industrial society that replaced John Kennedy. Then you make a meaningless distinction between Congress and LBJ. The point is Dear Auntie Betrie, the USA was subjected to a "post industrial" policy after the assassination of JFK. Shutting down the space program was a major part of this policy. The Great Society was a hoax and the money that should have been directed to Kennedy's science driver program, which would have continued to create vast rates of real wealth was shut down. And it was shut down "fast" under LBJ's Presidency. It doesnt matter if the momentum under JFK carried funding into 1966, what matters is the clear change in direction. You see from the graph the empirical evidence of this change in policy. From a pro growth capital intensive science vectored policy of JFK to the entropic, post industrial, zero growth policies first introduced under LBJ and his Great Society Hoax. You can call it momentum if you wish in a desprate move not tom admit error, spending continued to climb under LBJ it started to fall at the end of his administration but remain higher under him that it was when JFK was President. They managed to achieve JFK stated goal of landing a man on the moom before 1970. If you can turn up evidence of any goals that Kennedy set that weren't met don't be shy about telling us. But the truth is you simply made a mistake you initially thought spending peaked in 1963 and now that you've been shown to be wrong are making up excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 He [LBJ] also moved to make major budget cuts to JFK's NASA program. NASA was actually founded during the Eisenhower Administration. I doubt Johnson push to cut it budget funding went up when he was president. Though it peaked in 1966 it was still a lot higher in 1968 than it was 1963 if the information linked below is correct. In anycase it is highly unlikely the US would have made it to the moon 1969 if funding had not be raised above 1963 levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget#A...et.2C_1958-2008 NASA funding (in constant 1996 dollars) page 18. You can see that funding for space travel "spikes" upward under John F. Kennedy, then makes an equally downward spike after the assassination, under LBJ, Nixon et.al It has remained flat ever since. http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/~leuliett/presen...s/asen_2004.pdf James Webb who was Director from 1961-1968 held a September 1968 press conference where he critized congressional budget cuts to NASA http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jewebb.htm Terry – Thanks for providing documentary evidence that the data from Wikipedia is correct and not only did NASA’s budget spike under LBJ but spending was higher during every year of his presidency than during any other year. You see you need to get your glasses checked and/or improve your chart reading skills, each circle and square on the chart represent a different year. Since you got confused I annotated it for you. Despite having a highly regressive foreign policy, LBJ’s domestic policy was probably the most progressive of any president. As for NASA budget cuts that Webb complained about he seems to have blamed congress and they brought spending back to where it was in 1964. But once again thanks for your help; I couldn’t have proved you wrong without it. Kennedy had gone before congress in 1962 asking for millions of dollars to develop nuclear powered rocket boosters. You did not require nuclear powered boosters to get to the moon. What JFK was planning was travel to Mars using the moon as a launch site. I imagine you can provide a citation for that? Considering the various mishaps with space travel perhaps this was not a very good idea. A nuclear powered booster exploding in the atmosphere would make Chernobyl look like a leaky microwave over. This change in the outlook toward science and technology is one of the more glaring clues in the never ending game of "who killed JFK". They reversed JFK's space program and replaced it with the post industrial society complete with "sex, rock, drugs" counter culture. Had Kennedy not been murdered there is no question that the world would be a much different place today. But there is no doubt that JFK's killers saw his commitment to science and technology a major threat. Except that NASA funding under LBJ and Nixon was higher than under JFK You're desperate. Any fool (almost) can clearly see the change in policy from Kennedy to the LBJ. Like the policy of Vietnam and the post industrial society that replaced John Kennedy. Then you make a meaningless distinction between Congress and LBJ. The point is Dear Auntie Betrie, the USA was subjected to a "post industrial" policy after the assassination of JFK. Shutting down the space program was a major part of this policy. The Great Society was a hoax and the money that should have been directed to Kennedy's science driver program, which would have continued to create vast rates of real wealth was shut down. And it was shut down "fast" under LBJ's Presidency. It doesnt matter if the momentum under JFK carried funding into 1966, what matters is the clear change in direction. You see from the graph the empirical evidence of this change in policy. From a pro growth capital intensive science vectored policy of JFK to the entropic, post industrial, zero growth policies first introduced under LBJ and his Great Society Hoax. You can call it momentum if you wish in a desprate move not tom admit error, spending continued to climb under LBJ it started to fall at the end of his administration but remain higher under him that it was when JFK was President. They managed to achieve JFK stated goal of landing a man on the moom before 1970. If you can turn up evidence of any goals that Kennedy set that weren't met don't be shy about telling us. But the truth is you simply made a mistake you initially thought spending peaked in 1963 and now that you've been shown to be wrong are making up excuses. Actually Aunt Bertie my first post made mention of LBJ's Great Society and his cuts to JFK's space program. I never stated anything about the "budget" for NASA peaking in 1963 or 1964 or 1965. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 This is getting really dumb. You claimed LBJ cut "JFK's NASA program" but the fact is NASA's budget was higher for every year of LBJ's presidency than it was in any year of JFK's. NASA budget didn't fall back to 1963 levels till 1971. They had 2x (or more) more in 1965, 66 and 67 than they did in 1963 You changed your claim to say the growth of it's budget reversed when LBJ was president. That is true but there is no basis for your assumption it would have continued to grow or leveled off at a level above what it did had JFK remained in office. The former is extremely unlikely it budget doubled every year or two. By the late 60's they were well on there way to accomplishing there goal of landing in the moon before 1970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 (edited) This is getting really dumb. You claimed LBJ cut "JFK's NASA program" but the fact is NASA's budget was higher for every year of LBJ's presidency than it was in any year of JFK's. NASA budget didn't fall back to 1963 levels till 1971. They had 2x (or more) more in 1965, 66 and 67 than they did in 1963 You changed your claim to say the growth of it's budget reversed when LBJ was president. That is true but there is no basis for your assumption it would have continued to grow or leveled off at a level above what it did had JFK remained in office. The former is extremely unlikely it budget doubled every year or two. By the late 60's they were well on there way to accomplishing there goal of landing in the moon before 1970. This last post of yours is beyond belief. Clearly the thinking you display demonstrates why you dont understand the current financial /economic collapse. By limiting your argument to which year had a higher budget, 1963 versus 1964 to 1967 you come up with the wrong answer. Think this through Aunt Bertie, if they cut the budget it is not simply an accounting issue. The declining rate of investment is indicative of the shut down of the space program, which was the point of my first comment regarding LBJ. If you cut out and eliminate 80,000 jobs from NASA for example, if you cut out Research and Development, then there goes new and improved designs, less demand for steel, less demand for nuclear energy, plus all of the infrastrucure required for space exploration. Then the budget for NASA will "REFLECT" that shutdown. That's the issue not whether 1967 NASA budget was greater than 1963. That's what you're seeing when you see the sudden reversal in investment You're seeing the shutdown of JFK's space program. Who cares if 1967's budget was greater in terms of total dollars than 1963? The point to be made and understood is that a reversal in policy is underway and as a result they are dismantling the space program. Which is then "reflected" in the declining rate of investment i.e. budget. And that was my point. Using your earlier argument regarding the budget for the space program you could make the case that todays financial collapse isnt really happening. After all the Dow is still higher than it was in 1997! What you should do Len is post a graph of the growth of the Dow Jones, then find each year end value from say 1994 to the present. You can show us all how the system isnt in a state of collapse because todays close at 10,883 is actually higher than the closing value on September 24, 1997! See you can prove that cant you? Especially using "bizzaro" logic. You're nuttier than a fruit cake. PS- Why would JFK assume the political leadership for the space program if all he intended to do was send a man to the moon and return him to earth? Why would he invest all those resources? He never intended to shut down the space program. What he intended was to create a science driver program for the exploration of space, which in turn would improve the quality of life for every human being on this planet for years and years to come. Had he not been assassinated we would have had a manned Mars mission sometime during the 1980's. And the spin offs into the economy froma program like this would have guaranteed us all a much higher standard of living. Your method of thinking is atrocious. That's why you are always wrong. It's your method. It's the same mental disease Bertrand Russell spent his life spreading through out the culture. In fact there isnt much difference between Bertrand Russell and satanic punker GG Allin. They are both born of the same mother. Edited September 24, 2008 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 (edited) This is getting really dumb. You claimed LBJ cut "JFK's NASA program" but the fact is NASA's budget was higher for every year of LBJ's presidency than it was in any year of JFK's. NASA budget didn't fall back to 1963 levels till 1971. They had 2x (or more) more in 1965, 66 and 67 than they did in 1963 You changed your claim to say the growth of it's budget reversed when LBJ was president. That is true but there is no basis for your assumption it would have continued to grow or leveled off at a level above what it did had JFK remained in office. The former is extremely unlikely it budget doubled every year or two. By the late 60's they were well on there way to accomplishing there goal of landing in the moon before 1970. This last post of yours is beyond belief. Clearly the thinking you display demonstrates why you dont understand the current financial /economic collapse. By limiting your argument to which year had a higher budget, 1963 versus 1964 to 1967 you come up with the wrong answer. Think this through Aunt Bertie, if they cut the budget it is not simply an accounting issue. The declining rate of investment is indicative of the shut down of the space program, which was the point of my first comment regarding LBJ. If you cut out and eliminate 80,000 jobs from NASA for example, if you cut out Research and Development, then there goes new and improved designs, less demand for steel, less demand for nuclear energy, plus all of the infrastrucure required for space exploration. Then the budget for NASA will "REFLECT" that shutdown. That's the issue not whether 1967 NASA budget was greater than 1963. That's what you're seeing when you see the sudden reversal in investment You're seeing the shutdown of JFK's space program. Who cares if 1967's budget was greater in terms of total dollars than 1963? The point to be made and understood is that a reversal in policy is underway and as a result they are dismantling the space program. Which is then "reflected" in the declining rate of investment i.e. budget. And that was my point. Using your earlier argument regarding the budget for the space program you could make the case that todays financial collapse isnt really happening. After all the Dow is still higher than it was in 1997! What you should do Len is post a graph of the growth of the Dow Jones, then find each year end value from say 1994 to the present. You can show us all how the system isnt in a state of collapse because todays close at 10,883 is actually higher than the closing value on September 24, 1997! See you can prove that cant you? Especially using "bizzaro" logic. You're nuttier than a fruit cake. PS- Why would JFK assume the political leadership for the space program if all he intended to do was send a man to the moon and return him to earth? Why would he invest all those resources? He never intended to shut down the space program. What he intended was to create a science driver program for the exploration of space, which in turn would improve the quality of life for every human being on this planet for years and years to come. Had he not been assassinated we would have had a manned Mars mission sometime during the 1980's. And the spin offs into the economy froma program like this would have guaranteed us all a much higher standard of living. Your method of thinking is atrocious. That's why you are always wrong. It's your method. It's the same mental disease Bertrand Russell spent his life spreading through out the culture. In fact there isnt much difference between Bertrand Russell and satanic punker GG Allin. They are both born of the same mother. to quote a famous Catholic priest, who shall remain nameless: "... and how does any of THIS stack up against "ETERNITY?" Edited September 24, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 (edited) This last post of yours is beyond belief. Clearly the thinking you display demonstrates why you dont understand the current financial /economic collapse. By limiting your argument to which year had a higher budget, 1963 versus 1964 to 1967 you come up with the wrong answer. Sorry but the whole side show got started with your false claim that LBJ ”moved to make major budget cuts to JFK's NASA program”. You can insult as much as you want but that won’t change the fact that you were wrong. If you cut out and eliminate 80,000 jobs from NASA for example, if you cut out Research and Development, then there goes new and improved designs, less demand for steel, less demand for nuclear energy, plus all of the infrastrucure required for space exploration. You haven’t produced any evidence they made such a job cut, just the claim from another member of your cult that they did. If true did NASA at that point employ more of less people than when JFK was president? Since you don’t know what jobs were supposedly cut you have no idea what the effects were. A more detailed breakdown of NASA’s budget can be found in the link below. NASA was not a major steel consumer I’ve seen no evidence they used nuclear power. Normally in government budget cuts lead to job cuts not the other way round. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-...ropriations.htm Then the budget for NASA will "REFLECT" that shutdown. That's the issue not whether 1967 NASA budget was greater than 1963. That's what you're seeing when you see the sudden reversal in investment You're seeing the shutdown of JFK's space program. No the issue was your false claim LBJ cut NASA’s budget. You have yet to produce any evidence NASA’s budget would have continued doubling every year or two, this is highly unlikely. Nor have you produced any evidence it would have leveled off at a higher level if JFK remained in office. Only someone completely ignorant of NASA’s history would claim it was “shutdown” or “dismantled” by LBJ. Who cares if 1967's budget was greater in terms of total dollars than 1963? The point to be made and understood is that a reversal in policy is underway and as a result they are dismantling the space program. Which is then "reflected" in the declining rate of investment i.e. budget. And that was my point. ” Who cares if 1967's budget was greater in terms of total dollars than 1963?” Total dollars and constant dollars, the whole issue whether NASA’s budget decreased or increased under LBJ, you claimed the former but the latter was true. Using your earlier argument regarding the budget for the space program you could make the case that todays financial collapse isnt really happening. After all the Dow is still higher than it was in 1997! Using the Dow as measure of the relative strength of the economy in different decades is not analogous to comparing budgets (in constant dollars) in different years to compare budgets in those years. Your argument is a complete strawman. PS- Why would JFK assume the political leadership for the space program if all he intended to do was send a man to the moon and return him to earth? Please show where he committed the US to anything further? He spoke of going to the moon and "perhaps beyond". NASA didn’t stop once the Apollo program ended. Your ignorance is showing once again. There was/is Skylab, the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station as well as numerous unmanned missions to bodies in this solar system and beyond (Pioneer, Magellan, .Pathfinder, Voyager etc) Had he not been assassinated we would have had a manned Mars mission sometime during the 1980's. I imagine it’s safe to assume evidence in support of this claim will NOT be forthcoming. No, I won’t consider the undocumented claims of members of your cult “evidence”. Your method of thinking is atrocious. That's why you are always wrong. It's your method. It's the same mental disease Bertrand Russell spent his life spreading through out the culture. . All you seem to have to offer are insults, shifting claims and questionable logic. Your initial claim was clearly false. See if you can offer evidence in support of your myriad of new ones. Unless you can I’m done wasting my time with you. In fact there isnt much difference between Bertrand Russell and satanic punker GG Allin. They are both born of the same mother. Daniel asked: But can it really be true that Bertrand Russell and GG Allin were both born of the same mother??? Actually it’s true! This was uncovered by EIR’s crack research team. Russell’s mother it turns out wasn’t Lady Russell but rather Rosemary, a 12 year old maid knocked up by Russell’s father. Bertrand, Rosemary’s baby quite literally was a bastard. After giving birth the girl was shuttled off to the US, more specifically New Hampshire, where Rosemary gave birth to a few more bastards over the decades. In the 1920’s already past 60 she came into contact with Dr. Frank N. Stein who made her the subject of his geriatric fertility experiments. She was impregnated by Lyndon LaRouche Sr. and bore him Lyndon Jr. Three decades later well past 90 she had a brief affair with Merle Allin Sr. and bore him two sons Merle Jr. and Jesus Christ (later renamed Kevin Michael and better known as GG). Edited September 26, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 Had he not been assassinated we would have had a manned Mars mission sometime during the 1980's. Though I respect JFK enormously for his bold commitment towards the US manned space programme, I am not necessarily convinced this would be true. There are indications that his support of the space programme was purely political expediency, and he actually considered shutting it down. If we want to talk more about this, may I suggest I take the NASA related posts and put them in a new thread? Would anyone object to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 If we want to talk more about this, may I suggest I take the NASA related posts and put them in a new thread? Would anyone object to this? I'm basiclly done with the topic but if you want to move the posts, that's fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now