English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

14 answers

Prior to the late 1990's, the last time the US had a balanced budget was in 1969. That year was the height of the Vietnam war and the height of the moon program.
We can go to the moon and ensure that everyone has health care if we spend wisely.

2006-12-12 01:20:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Definitely on going to the moon. A huge number of things we now use every day were developed in the space program. The money spent in getting to the moon yielded a huge number of new inventions and products, which have served to make everyone's life easier. Spending the money on health care mainly goes to keep the terminally dead alive as long as possible for no reason and accomplishes nothing except to drain the estates of the ill to put money in the hands of greedy nursing home providers and benefits no one.

2006-12-12 00:05:40 · answer #2 · answered by Kokopelli 7 · 1 0

Government provided healthcare is a failure and is abused by people who receive it. The U.S. spends 38% of it's budget on welfare programs of all kinds. That is about 1 trillion dollars of shear waste. Health care should be the responsiblity of people not big government. Why is this country in debt? Because the poor don't want to get jobs, health insurance, education. Let's go to the moon.

2006-12-12 04:14:17 · answer #3 · answered by Your #1 fan 6 · 0 0

They are the same. Billions of dollars go into the medical industry and billions go into space which, by the way, go hand in hand. Many medical advances are direct results of our space program. We have enough money to do both. Plus, if we handed more money to one side or the other, the extra money would not be put to good use. It would be pocketed by some big wig. We would still pay the same prices for our medical treatment and the moon would still be 5 years away no matter how much money we pump into either.

2006-12-12 00:46:15 · answer #4 · answered by ToeCancer 2 · 0 0

To the moon. Every dollar invested in the Apollo program returned three to the economy due to the necessity of invention. NASA's recent announcement to colonize the moon by 2050 is ambitious, and I look forward to seeing a lunar colony in my lifetime.

Once the moon is established, less fuel will be necessary to launch space exploration due to the lower gravity of the moon, and the Ion drive that NASA has will start to see use. Luna, then Mars, and eventually Io. I cannot wait for us to go to the stars.

2006-12-12 00:44:16 · answer #5 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 0 0

The question you should ask yourself is why can we not do both I am sure president Kennedy didn't say should we go into Vietnam or go to the moon, too many people are under the illusion that this notion can only do one thing at a time.

2006-12-12 00:55:28 · answer #6 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0 0

Thats how republicans reason: when the earth is too sick and diseased those of us that are rich can go live on the moon

2006-12-11 23:57:01 · answer #7 · answered by Enigma 6 · 0 1

Healthcare

2006-12-11 23:55:10 · answer #8 · answered by d3midway semi-retired 7 · 1 1

We can do both. This is our window to commence interplanetary travel and technology. We need to make this happen. If we wait too many decades we won't have the resources to do it.

2006-12-12 00:19:46 · answer #9 · answered by planksheer 7 · 0 0

Health care and umanitary aid. people are still dieing in Africa

2006-12-12 00:03:18 · answer #10 · answered by dr.k 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers