Is funding NASA more important than increasin funding for our social programs?

Question

I was asked once, should we be so concerned about nasa, when we could be spending money on social programs. I thought about it for a while. Then i came to the conclusion nasa was far more important. I realized that by social programs, is meant as throwing it away to poor people, when in reality there have always been poor people. So therefore there is no progress made. But if we give the money to NASA, there is hope and progress and a bright future. Listen im all for charity, but i dont think people who expect the government to spoon feed them and take care of them from the cradle to the grave should slow the rest of us down. We should take care of some people, but fending for yourself is an american value we we're built upon. Everyday, dcfs wastes money on undeserving, ungrateful people. As cruel as it sounds, they should not slow Our goals down. Its time for man to take a hold of the cosmos, and we should not be stopped because some cry babbies expect a hand out, granted not all social spending is bad, it just shouldnt slow down NASA!!!

Answer 1

Not for exactly the reasons you state but I would prefer to fund NASA.

I believe that personal responsibility is very important and we should push people in that direction. So I'm in support of social programs that do that, but not in general.

The concept behind NASA is something grander than we can manage on a personal level. That is why I believe the government should fund it.

(However, the more commercial space gets, the less I'd like to see the government involved. Let entrepeneurs figure out how to make money off of space and space exploration and science will still do well.)

Answer 2

We as a species need to get off the planet soon. Planet-based existence can only take us so far before we get too crowded and start fighting over what resources are left. Overpopulation is already a bad enough problem, and throwing money at it isn't going to fix the problem. Increasing general intelligence and moving off-planet are the first couple of baby steps in the next stages of humanity's travels through this universe.

Answer 3

I think that funding NASA leads to a lot of inventions and things that can help humanity, plus we need to figure out how to travel to space in case we mess us Earth too much to live on.

The poor will always be with us.

Answer 4

hello, 1st answer this, suppose u r gr8 singer. will sing to live or live to sing? INFACT MOST SINGERS FROM JIMMY HENDRIX TO 50CENT DID THE FORMER ONE "SING TO LIVE".BUT IF MUSIC NEVER GAVE 'EM FOOD, THEY WOULD LOOK AT THOSE JOBS WHICH FEEDS THEM.MOST PEOPLE WANNA SING BECAUSE SINGERS ARE RICH.
But think about NASA.Imagine its just a giant space lab.Are u ready to fund these people to take pictures of spacedust or wanna feed ur kids who are left nothing but with dust to eat?will u let a person starve to let ur scientific research work on the money thats suppose to feed his family?

IF YES, THEN WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN U AND ADOLF HITLER WHO USED THE SAME HUMAN BODY FOR MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS, LEAVING THEM STARVING?

IF U FEED THAT PERSON, 2MORROW HE'LL DO SOMETHING GR8 FOR THE SOCIETY, HE'LL BE AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY AND HE'LL LIVE LIKE U, BUT U R HIS GOD, HE'LL REMEMBER THAT.

NOW THINK BOTH SIDES LIKE I'VE SAID AND FEEL IT !

NASA PROGRAMS ARE IMPORTANT, BUT NOT MORE THAN SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

Answer 5

Both NASA and welfare programs are a waste of money.

The idea that mankind is ever going to leave this planet is delusional. The cosmos is dying. The extinction of man is inevitable.

-Aztec276

Answer 6

If the " decider " would get his butt out of the oil war there would be enough money for both...well unless China wants their money back that we owe....

Answer 7

Send the homeless to the stars!